User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:21:49 PM EDT
[#1]
I just ordered the 1.5x16 S mini-Acog for a red dot style optic with a little magnification.
I wanted it for the 50-150y range. I'll post a review once I run it through some drills |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:23:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look it up. Larue has them with a combo mount. Not cheap, but people say it's the best glass they've ever seen, great FOV, durable...simply the very best there is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Any reason why I shouldn't buy one to replace my Eotech? Price is no big deal I'm capable of saving... so other than that? Fixed magnification If price is no big deal why not a Kahles 1x-6x? I have honestly never heard of them. That's reason #1 I know I'm blaming my own ignorance but it does make a difference... Look it up. Larue has them with a combo mount. Not cheap, but people say it's the best glass they've ever seen, great FOV, durable...simply the very best there is. I'll do some research when I get home. So many possibilities...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:24:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baloney. Yes the eye relief is short, but not that short. The 31 weighs 2.2 oz more than the 33. The FOV is worth it, for me, especially for a rifle with low recoil (like an AR). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the only thing that would make me pause is the eye relief. Hence the recommendation for the TA33. FOV on the TA33 sucks. Larger FOV > longer eye relief. http://www.firearmreviews.net/pictures/guns/trijicon/distance.gif Eye relief on the TA31 sucks. Longer eye relief > Larger FOV See how stupid that is when you state an opinion as fact? A ton of people prefer the TA33, a ton of people prefer the TA11, a ton of people prefer the TA31. It's a trade-off. A TA33 barely weighs more than an Aimpoint T1, but it has 3x magnification. A TA31 requires your eyelashes to be brushing up against the optic to be able to see through it. I know which one I prefer. Baloney. Yes the eye relief is short, but not that short. The 31 weighs 2.2 oz more than the 33. The FOV is worth it, for me, especially for a rifle with low recoil (like an AR). I agree, I heard all about this eye relief but now that I have one it's really not that bad. I really don't have an issue. I could see if you are one of those dudes who has the stock fully extended could have some issues but I'm sure they could have that issue with most optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:31:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, I heard all about this eye relief but now that I have one it's really not that bad. I really don't have an issue. I could see if you are one of those dudes who has the stock fully extended could have some issues but I'm sure they could have that issue with most optics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Baloney. Yes the eye relief is short, but not that short. The 31 weighs 2.2 oz more than the 33. The FOV is worth it, for me, especially for a rifle with low recoil (like an AR). I agree, I heard all about this eye relief but now that I have one it's really not that bad. I really don't have an issue. I could see if you are one of those dudes who has the stock fully extended could have some issues but I'm sure they could have that issue with most optics. I've used the TA33, TA11, and TA31. I don't shoot NTCH, I'm not doing some high-speed ninja shit with my head down like a teutonic operator. I shoot with my stock two positions out from fully collapsed, with my head in an upright, comfortable position. The TA31 was unbearable for me, and I'm so glad I tried one before I bought, or I would've made a pretty expensive mistake. The TA11 is great, but huge. The TA33 is perfect for me because of the size, weight, magnification, and super forgiving eye relief. It's just much more user friendly than the TA31. The FOV is a total non-issue. I'm looking at the target and the stuff immediately around it. If I was scanning for jihadists from a rooftop in Baghdad, I might want the TA31. But I'm not. I'm just shooting stuff. The TA31 and TA33 are very different, and I highly recommend people try them out before they buy. Neither one is "better" than the other, but they're suited to very different shooting styles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:39:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You get what you pay for, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Buy with confidence. An ACOG is way better than an EoTech. You get what you pay for, right? I love mine. It's as good as you think it is |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:41:48 PM EDT
[#7]
TA33 all day long even though the 31's ain't bad either.
   |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:45:37 PM EDT
[#8]
I like that the Larue mount is lower than the stock mount myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 7:56:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've used the TA33, TA11, and TA31. I don't shoot NTCH, I'm not doing some high-speed ninja shit with my head down like a teutonic operator. I shoot with my stock two positions out from fully collapsed, with my head in an upright, comfortable position. The TA31 was unbearable for me, and I'm so glad I tried one before I bought, or I would've made a pretty expensive mistake. The TA11 is great, but huge. The TA33 is perfect for me because of the size, weight, magnification, and super forgiving eye relief. It's just much more user friendly than the TA31. The FOV is a total non-issue. I'm looking at the target and the stuff immediately around it. If I was scanning for jihadists from a rooftop in Baghdad, I might want the TA31. But I'm not. I'm just shooting stuff. The TA31 and TA33 are very different, and I highly recommend people try them out before they buy. Neither one is "better" than the other, but they're suited to very different shooting styles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Baloney. Yes the eye relief is short, but not that short. The 31 weighs 2.2 oz more than the 33. The FOV is worth it, for me, especially for a rifle with low recoil (like an AR). I agree, I heard all about this eye relief but now that I have one it's really not that bad. I really don't have an issue. I could see if you are one of those dudes who has the stock fully extended could have some issues but I'm sure they could have that issue with most optics. I've used the TA33, TA11, and TA31. I don't shoot NTCH, I'm not doing some high-speed ninja shit with my head down like a teutonic operator. I shoot with my stock two positions out from fully collapsed, with my head in an upright, comfortable position. The TA31 was unbearable for me, and I'm so glad I tried one before I bought, or I would've made a pretty expensive mistake. The TA11 is great, but huge. The TA33 is perfect for me because of the size, weight, magnification, and super forgiving eye relief. It's just much more user friendly than the TA31. The FOV is a total non-issue. I'm looking at the target and the stuff immediately around it. If I was scanning for jihadists from a rooftop in Baghdad, I might want the TA31. But I'm not. I'm just shooting stuff. The TA31 and TA33 are very different, and I highly recommend people try them out before they buy. Neither one is "better" than the other, but they're suited to very different shooting styles. That is the key with a ta31, NTCH, or close to it. You can still back off a little bit and it is still usable, but you won't get the full FOV. That would negate the biggest benefit the scope offers. That is really good advice to actually see each model, or try one out, before you buy it. ETA: Of all the high $$ crap I have bought over the years, the ta-31 is one of few that I have had ZERO buyers remorse over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:03:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TA33 all day long even though the 31's ain't bad either. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3333/3453847456_a8a92cae09_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4051/4643307750_540880e8af_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4022/4643308336_da30c3d8bb_b.jpg With that low larue mount how bad is the ghosting of the front sight? I have a post front sight that I like and I think I'll be keeping it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:03:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought one of the best parts of the Elcan was that it was a true 1x? Instead of a sliding lens the Elcan actually has multiple lenses... right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: No. The 1X on the Elcan still suffers from the same issue as normal 1-4 optics namely that its still not a true 1X. Its damn close but not perfect, piggy backing a mini red dot on them is just a popular as it is on ACOG's. I thought one of the best parts of the Elcan was that it was a true 1x? Instead of a sliding lens the Elcan actually has multiple lenses... right? It's got flipping mirrors, but unfortunately it doesn't give a true 1.000000X w/ infinite eye relief. There's still some distortion and a fixed eye relief @ 1.nX. We got an ARFCOMmer to post pics of his in some thread, wondering if the BUIS were usable through the optic. Even w/ the rear BUIS mounted in front of the optic, it was so blurry that close it wasn't usable. Does that matter? Maybe not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:04:54 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's got flipping mirrors, but unfortunately it doesn't give a true 1.000000X w/ infinite eye relief. There's still some distortion and a fixed eye relief @ 1.nX. We got an ARFCOMmer to post pics of his in some thread, wondering if the BUIS were usable through the optic. Even w/ the rear BUIS mounted in front of the optic, it was so blurry that close it wasn't usable. Does that matter? Maybe not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No. The 1X on the Elcan still suffers from the same issue as normal 1-4 optics namely that its still not a true 1X. Its damn close but not perfect, piggy backing a mini red dot on them is just a popular as it is on ACOG's. I thought one of the best parts of the Elcan was that it was a true 1x? Instead of a sliding lens the Elcan actually has multiple lenses... right? It's got flipping mirrors, but unfortunately it doesn't give a true 1.000000X w/ infinite eye relief. There's still some distortion and a fixed eye relief @ 1.nX. We got an ARFCOMmer to post pics of his in some thread, wondering if the BUIS were usable through the optic. Even w/ the rear BUIS mounted in front of the optic, it was so blurry that close it wasn't usable. Does that matter? Maybe not. Ahh. I see. Well its definitely an option. Really the only downside seems to be the weight. Can anyone else think of a downside to the Elcan? (Excluding cost) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:12:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With that low larue mount how bad is the ghosting of the front sight? I have a post front sight that I like and I think I'll be keeping it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: TA33 all day long even though the 31's ain't bad either. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3333/3453847456_a8a92cae09_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4051/4643307750_540880e8af_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4022/4643308336_da30c3d8bb_b.jpg With that low larue mount how bad is the ghosting of the front sight? I have a post front sight that I like and I think I'll be keeping it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:15:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the TA33 for 5.56mm rifles, TA11 for 308 rifles. http://i.imgur.com/AXC2qh2.jpg previously owned a TA01 and TA31. Wow, not sure if that rifle is bad ass enough, well done! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:17:56 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You honestly don't notice it at all. Sure if you look for it, you may see a tiny bit of blur, but I've never had a problem with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: TA33 all day long even though the 31's ain't bad either. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3333/3453847456_a8a92cae09_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4051/4643307750_540880e8af_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4022/4643308336_da30c3d8bb_b.jpg With that low larue mount how bad is the ghosting of the front sight? I have a post front sight that I like and I think I'll be keeping it. Perfect. As long as it's not something I will always think about I'm ok. I'm sure lighting and target distance have at least some bearing, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:18:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahh. I see. Well its definitely an option. Really the only downside seems to be the weight. Can anyone else think of a downside to the Elcan? (Excluding cost) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: No. The 1X on the Elcan still suffers from the same issue as normal 1-4 optics namely that its still not a true 1X. Its damn close but not perfect, piggy backing a mini red dot on them is just a popular as it is on ACOG's. I thought one of the best parts of the Elcan was that it was a true 1x? Instead of a sliding lens the Elcan actually has multiple lenses... right? It's got flipping mirrors, but unfortunately it doesn't give a true 1.000000X w/ infinite eye relief. There's still some distortion and a fixed eye relief @ 1.nX. We got an ARFCOMmer to post pics of his in some thread, wondering if the BUIS were usable through the optic. Even w/ the rear BUIS mounted in front of the optic, it was so blurry that close it wasn't usable. Does that matter? Maybe not. Ahh. I see. Well its definitely an option. Really the only downside seems to be the weight. Can anyone else think of a downside to the Elcan? (Excluding cost) There were reports of the mount not holding zero, but I haven't heard that in a long time. I have no firsthand experience with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:19:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perfect. As long as it's not something I will always think about I'm ok. I'm sure lighting and target distance have at least some bearing, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TA33 all day long even though the 31's ain't bad either. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3333/3453847456_a8a92cae09_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4051/4643307750_540880e8af_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4022/4643308336_da30c3d8bb_b.jpg With that low larue mount how bad is the ghosting of the front sight? I have a post front sight that I like and I think I'll be keeping it. Perfect. As long as it's not something I will always think about I'm ok. I'm sure lighting and target distance have at least some bearing, right? It's most noticeable when you're finger fucking it in the house looking at a wall 10 feet away, because your eyes try to focus on the wall and not the reticle. At any realistic use distance it's practically unnoticeable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:22:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's most noticeable when you're finger fucking it in the house looking at a wall 10 feet away, because your eyes try to focus on the wall and not the reticle. At any realistic use distance it's practically unnoticeable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: TA33 all day long even though the 31's ain't bad either. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3333/3453847456_a8a92cae09_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4051/4643307750_540880e8af_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4022/4643308336_da30c3d8bb_b.jpg With that low larue mount how bad is the ghosting of the front sight? I have a post front sight that I like and I think I'll be keeping it. Perfect. As long as it's not something I will always think about I'm ok. I'm sure lighting and target distance have at least some bearing, right? It's most noticeable when you're finger fucking it in the house looking at a wall 10 feet away, because your eyes try to focus on the wall and not the reticle. At any realistic use distance it's practically unnoticeable. hahaha this is exactly what I was talking about... just didn't want to admit that I do that waaaaayyyy too often. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:38:30 PM EDT
[#19]
TA33
I have 3 now. Love them |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:42:10 PM EDT
[#20]
The Marine Corps RCO served me well in combat and I may owe my life to it. I served on both sides of the infantry's transition from iron sights to the RCO and the superiority cannot be overstated with the 4x magnification, illuminated reticle for low light, and it's incredible robustness. In my private life I switched to the horseshoe reticle over the cheveron as it is a little quicker at short distances. Shooting with both eyes open on 4x is adequate at across the room distances...
HOWEVER, In my private life since I came home I have gotten heavily competitive in 2-Gun competition. (fuck shotguns) I cannot state how much faster an unmagnified red dot is over the 4x magnification of an 4x ACOG at across the room distances. If you shoot enough, you can't help but notice the huge difference in speed, particularly when transitioning from target to target. The solution, a piggy backed Trijicon RMR on top of your 4x ACOG. The nice thing about the piggy backed ACOG is it lowers the entire rifle and really opens up your peripheral vision. Unlike a 45 degree "offset" sight which will still have the scope covering up the entire left side of your periphery. I tried the 1-6x variable sights... It sucks to constantly take a hand off of the rifle to change the magnification. It is far quicker to slightly change the position of the rifle by half an inch and drive on. In an urban gunfight, you may have to go from a 5m shot to a 150m shot immediately. I don't want to take a hand off the weapon to change magnification, and this is where the ACOG/RMR combination shines... Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:53:26 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were reports of the mount not holding zero, but I haven't heard that in a long time. I have no firsthand experience with them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: No. The 1X on the Elcan still suffers from the same issue as normal 1-4 optics namely that its still not a true 1X. Its damn close but not perfect, piggy backing a mini red dot on them is just a popular as it is on ACOG's. I thought one of the best parts of the Elcan was that it was a true 1x? Instead of a sliding lens the Elcan actually has multiple lenses... right? It's got flipping mirrors, but unfortunately it doesn't give a true 1.000000X w/ infinite eye relief. There's still some distortion and a fixed eye relief @ 1.nX. We got an ARFCOMmer to post pics of his in some thread, wondering if the BUIS were usable through the optic. Even w/ the rear BUIS mounted in front of the optic, it was so blurry that close it wasn't usable. Does that matter? Maybe not. Ahh. I see. Well its definitely an option. Really the only downside seems to be the weight. Can anyone else think of a downside to the Elcan? (Excluding cost) There were reports of the mount not holding zero, but I haven't heard that in a long time. I have no firsthand experience with them. Downside of Elcan Specter DR 1: Heavy, the 1.5-6X is heavier than my TA648!!! 2: External adjustment, can get stuff into the adjustments and lock the adjustment up. That should not be that much of an issue, since it have ranging reticles. 3: The 1X Is not true 1X, as compared to the electronic dot 4: Flip lens, sometimes you might forget which magnification are you set on, especially in a 2 way range |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:07:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahh. I see. Well its definitely an option. Really the only downside seems to be the weight. Can anyone else think of a downside to the Elcan? (Excluding cost) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: No. The 1X on the Elcan still suffers from the same issue as normal 1-4 optics namely that its still not a true 1X. Its damn close but not perfect, piggy backing a mini red dot on them is just a popular as it is on ACOG's. I thought one of the best parts of the Elcan was that it was a true 1x? Instead of a sliding lens the Elcan actually has multiple lenses... right? It's got flipping mirrors, but unfortunately it doesn't give a true 1.000000X w/ infinite eye relief. There's still some distortion and a fixed eye relief @ 1.nX. We got an ARFCOMmer to post pics of his in some thread, wondering if the BUIS were usable through the optic. Even w/ the rear BUIS mounted in front of the optic, it was so blurry that close it wasn't usable. Does that matter? Maybe not. Ahh. I see. Well its definitely an option. Really the only downside seems to be the weight. Can anyone else think of a downside to the Elcan? (Excluding cost) Their mounts are supposedly really bad compared to the quality of the optic itself |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:09:39 PM EDT
[#23]
No problem with my TA31, I'd really like to try a Vortex Razor HD 1-6 for my scar, though...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:16:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Get the ACOG OP.
I hit my 40th B-Day on my first deployment in '03-04. My eyes went from "Above Average" to "Below Average" in the course of 14 months. In '10 I deployed again and took an ACOG with me (I bought it here). I was able to hit 300mtr targets standing, unsupported all day long  Fucker's are "Magic"! lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:19:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ACOGs are great until the tritium dims. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
none. Do it. ACOGs are great until the tritium dims. They are great with dead tritium. You must not have one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:37:18 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are great with dead tritium. You must not have one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
none. Do it. ACOGs are great until the tritium dims. They are great with dead tritium. You must not have one. Lol. One... I've had 5 or 6. Still have 2. There used to be a tacked ACOG thread where I wrote reviews on 4 or 5. Once the tritium dims, they are great for daylight shooting but suck for low light, especially red. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:42:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FOV on the TA33 sucks. Larger FOV > longer eye relief. http://www.firearmreviews.net/pictures/guns/trijicon/distance.gif Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: the only thing that would make me pause is the eye relief. Hence the recommendation for the TA33. FOV on the TA33 sucks. Larger FOV > longer eye relief. http://www.firearmreviews.net/pictures/guns/trijicon/distance.gif |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:43:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Sorry to derail any discussions, but what do you guys think of the TA01?
I know it is a little old school and most people prefer the "dual optic" fiber optic feature, but I think I would rather have an optic with more traditional reticle during the day that just uses the tritium to illuminate at night vs having a constant illuminated reticle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:45:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is $1200 to going rate for a TA33? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 105, of course. The LaRue mount is too low. Currently, only the factory or the Bobro high mounts put it at the correct height. Is $1200 to going rate for a TA33? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:47:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. One... I've had 5 or 6. Still have 2. There used to be a tacked ACOG thread where I wrote reviews on 4 or 5. Once the tritium dims, they are great for daylight shooting but suck for low light, especially red. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
none. Do it. ACOGs are great until the tritium dims. They are great with dead tritium. You must not have one. Lol. One... I've had 5 or 6. Still have 2. There used to be a tacked ACOG thread where I wrote reviews on 4 or 5. Once the tritium dims, they are great for daylight shooting but suck for low light, especially red. You can have the tritium replaced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:48:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I got mine on the EE for 800. Was NIB as well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 105, of course. The LaRue mount is too low. Currently, only the factory or the Bobro high mounts put it at the correct height. Is $1200 to going rate for a TA33? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:55:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Got mine for $161.40 off Amazon. NIB Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 105, of course. The LaRue mount is too low. Currently, only the factory or the Bobro high mounts put it at the correct height. Is $1200 to going rate for a TA33? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:56:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... I can't tell if you're joking, got duped with a Chicom knockoff, or one lucky motherfucker. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:01:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to derail any discussions, but what do you guys think of the TA01? I know it is a little old school and most people prefer the "dual optic" fiber optic feature, but I think I would rather have an optic with more traditional reticle during the day that just uses the tritium to illuminate at night vs having a constant illuminated reticle. I like the TA01, they are great optics. I actually prefer the crosshairs on them, especially over the chevron. That being said, I have 3x ACOGs right now, 2x TA31s and 1x TA55, and all of them have red chevrons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:02:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lucky bastard. Amazon blowout of Dec. 2014. Verified the serial number with Trijicon. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:03:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to derail any discussions, but what do you guys think of the TA01? I know it is a little old school and most people prefer the "dual optic" fiber optic feature, but I think I would rather have an optic with more traditional reticle during the day that just uses the tritium to illuminate at night vs having a constant illuminated reticle. Nothing wrong with them. You'll note the bicycle innertube on some ACOGs in this thread and elsewhere. That's to tone down or dim the fiber optic. You can go down to nothing with that. Resale sucks on the TA01 though, since most people prefer the daytime illumination. On the plus side, if that's what you really want, you can probably find a great deal on the EE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:14:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can have the tritium replaced. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
none. Do it. ACOGs are great until the tritium dims. They are great with dead tritium. You must not have one. Lol. One... I've had 5 or 6. Still have 2. There used to be a tacked ACOG thread where I wrote reviews on 4 or 5. Once the tritium dims, they are great for daylight shooting but suck for low light, especially red. You can have the tritium replaced. Yeah for half the cost of a new one. And that's IF they are still doing it. There was just a thread recently where I think the poster said they aren't doing it anymore. But I haven't contacted them recently so I can't confirm. But as of a couple years ago it's was 450 or 500 bucks for the replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:16:40 PM EDT
[#38]
I love mine. With practice, you can use it very effectively at very short ranges by keeping both eyes open and using it like a reflex sight. At medium ranges, it rocks.
ETA: I went with the TA33.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:27:07 PM EDT
[#39]
I replaced my EOTech with a TA33 and haven't looked back. The BAC and occlusion sight methods work for close targets.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the only thing that would make me pause is the eye relief. Not an issue with the '33. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:27:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TA31F-RMR. There is no better answer. I agree, but don't shoot enough to justify leaving it on  ... plus my fnx was jealous   |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:47:40 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:50:00 PM EDT
[#42]
The only negatives are lack of eye relief which can really suck depending on which model you buy- do your research. The other is the fixed magnification, for that amount of money you can get a decent variable power scope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:53:01 PM EDT
[#43]
TA33 with red horseshoe is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:54:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to derail any discussions, but what do you guys think of the TA01? I know it is a little old school and most people prefer the "dual optic" fiber optic feature, but I think I would rather have an optic with more traditional reticle during the day that just uses the tritium to illuminate at night vs having a constant illuminated reticle. Try shooting during the day with a 5+ year-old TA01. You better hope your target is big and bright and lily white, or else that pitch black reticle is going to blend right in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:56:12 PM EDT
[#45]
I wouldn't trade my 4x32 ACOG for any other optic. I have several other optics that work great as well, but my ACOG is by far the most versatile of the bunch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:59:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TA33 with red horseshoe is the way to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:01:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah, green chevron BDC all day man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: TA33 with red horseshoe is the way to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:02:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah, green chevron BDC all day man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: TA33 with red horseshoe is the way to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:09:04 PM EDT
[#49]
TA33G-H is fantastic. Also like the TA44-C I got for my AUG.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:17:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is the key with a ta31, NTCH, or close to it. You can still back off a little bit and it is still usable, but you won't get the full FOV. That would negate the biggest benefit the scope offers. That is really good advice to actually see each model, or try one out, before you buy it. ETA: Of all the high $$ crap I have bought over the years, the ta-31 is one of few that I have had ZERO buyers remorse over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Baloney. Yes the eye relief is short, but not that short. The 31 weighs 2.2 oz more than the 33. The FOV is worth it, for me, especially for a rifle with low recoil (like an AR). I agree, I heard all about this eye relief but now that I have one it's really not that bad. I really don't have an issue. I could see if you are one of those dudes who has the stock fully extended could have some issues but I'm sure they could have that issue with most optics. I've used the TA33, TA11, and TA31. I don't shoot NTCH, I'm not doing some high-speed ninja shit with my head down like a teutonic operator. I shoot with my stock two positions out from fully collapsed, with my head in an upright, comfortable position. The TA31 was unbearable for me, and I'm so glad I tried one before I bought, or I would've made a pretty expensive mistake. The TA11 is great, but huge. The TA33 is perfect for me because of the size, weight, magnification, and super forgiving eye relief. It's just much more user friendly than the TA31. The FOV is a total non-issue. I'm looking at the target and the stuff immediately around it. If I was scanning for jihadists from a rooftop in Baghdad, I might want the TA31. But I'm not. I'm just shooting stuff. The TA31 and TA33 are very different, and I highly recommend people try them out before they buy. Neither one is "better" than the other, but they're suited to very different shooting styles. That is the key with a ta31, NTCH, or close to it. You can still back off a little bit and it is still usable, but you won't get the full FOV. That would negate the biggest benefit the scope offers. That is really good advice to actually see each model, or try one out, before you buy it. ETA: Of all the high $$ crap I have bought over the years, the ta-31 is one of few that I have had ZERO buyers remorse over. I have a TA-31FG on a Bobro mount and I love it. I have a few 1-4s and still prefer the Acog. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
