User Panel
Quoted: Also note that if it really came down to it, you can light up the reticle at night by taking a micro keychain LED and sticking it to the fiber pipe with a piece of duct tape over it. This will be SUPER bright even compared to new tritium. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: At 17 or 18 years, my original ACOGs need new tritium. It's not noticeable unless you're shooting in the dark though. Also note that if it really came down to it, you can light up the reticle at night by taking a micro keychain LED and sticking it to the fiber pipe with a piece of duct tape over it. This will be SUPER bright even compared to new tritium. Another ‘old Indian trick’ was sticking a small chem light against the FO tube. |
|
|
|
Quoted: On that note, put a piece of old bike innertube over the fiber optic to dim the brightness of the center reticle for more precision during daylight. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Another ‘old Indian trick’ was sticking a small chem light against the FO tube. On that note, put a piece of old bike innertube over the fiber optic to dim the brightness of the center reticle for more precision during daylight. They even make little covers that zip up nowadays so you can control just how much light you want. Meanwhile when I want to shoot precise I’m still in the Stone Age covering my FO tube with my support hand |
|
Quoted: I have exactly one of the original TA11 Scopefly covers, has someone started making them again? I use bike inner tube covers on my other ACOGs. I'd like a TA31F and TA55A model 'fly. https://i.imgur.com/7VOV9Yv.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: They even make little covers that zip up nowadays so you can control just how much light you want. Meanwhile when I want to shoot precise I’m still in the Stone Age covering my FO tube with my support hand I have exactly one of the original TA11 Scopefly covers, has someone started making them again? I use bike inner tube covers on my other ACOGs. I'd like a TA31F and TA55A model 'fly. https://i.imgur.com/7VOV9Yv.jpg Scopefly, that’s the one! And yeah I guess they’re not exactly new, I’ve just been using ACOGs so long they’re ‘new’ for me. Usually people just use bicycle tube though like you mention. I usually like my ACOGs as bright as possible, it’s usually only when I’m zeroing off a bench that I want it dim so I just make my own shade. |
|
Quoted: 9/11 and my adventures afterward made me an AIMPOINT and ACOG true believer. 18Z50 View Quote I’ll second that. I had an Aimpoint for my 1st 2 trips, an ACOG for #3 and #4. I like Aimpoints for anything geared for CQB(typically anything shorter than a carbine) and ACOGs for anything general purpose. I’ve never had an RMR to put on an ACOG, but I always managed fine without it over there. There is something to be said for simplicity. |
|
|
I'm still using a TA01 because:
1. It works. 2. I just had the tritium refreshed after it worked great for 12 years..now it is fine again. 3. It has never lost zero, and I have put it through really tough use... 4. Why fix it if it works? 5. It is paid for. 6. I'm familiar with the unit, and it's capabilities. 7. I like the reticle in it. 8. I trust it because it has always held zero and worked just like I expected it to. 9. By continuing to use an optic that I trust, I don't have to shop around or pay for another one. |
|
TA11 is my favoritest ACOG. In fact TA11 is all I run.
It's compact, has just the right balance of power, ER (eye relief) and FOV (field of view) It has zero parallax. I have never seen any other optic that had so little or no parallax. It has no moving parts and you can drive nails with it it seems. My fav is the "J" version with "H" a close second. TA11J-308G is calibrated perfectly for 77grainers out of a 16". A green reticle is the best reticle. Red is dim. You can get more powerful optics at the expense of worse ER and worse FOV. There is no free lunch. All in all 3.5x seems just right for a fixed power. If I could make one improvement to the TA11 and other ACOGs, I would make the front objective lense a bit more recessed as it always seems to get marks on it and has to be wiped off with a microfiber cloth. |
|
|
Quoted: Anyone piggyback an SRO yet? View Quote It would work but I don’t think it would be optimal. I’d be worried about banging up and damaging the more delicate SRO. Also, the big draw of the SRO is that it’s easier to use on a handgun that’s far from the eye and doesn’t index off the shoulder etc. Very little of the benefits the SRO has to offer will be carried over in this setup, but it will be more likely to break. |
|
Quoted: I've only ever seen them at that price point without base mounts. For a new, box-to-rifle ACOG, you're looking at 1100-1500 depending on the model. View Quote Buy on the EE or used and you can find ta31 and ta33 acogs for 700-800 all day. I got a ta33 with ADM QD mount for 700 and found a RMR for 400. Looking to get a ta31 and Rmr on my 11.5 build I’m finishing |
|
New TA44s are obtainable in the $825-$850 range + a $70 QD mount...
|
|
Regarding a comment or two I read that said LPVOs are for the Fudds, I’d wonder if new information might require you to rethink your position given that the military is moving to LPVOs: https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-rifle-optic-sig-sauer-contract
That said, I have an lpvo now that I consider switching to an ACOG every time I pick up the gun strictly based on weight. I remember back in 2008 right my brother went to Afghanistan I got to mess around with his 4x acog (not sure what model) and I really liked it. If anything this thread has done a good job making me reconsider, again, running a lpvo on my bedside/travel gun. |
|
Quoted: Regarding a comment or two I read that said LPVOs are for the Fudds, I’d wonder if new information might require you to rethink your position given that the military is moving to LPVOs: https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-rifle-optic-sig-sauer-contract View Quote I may have mentioned LPVOs being equivalent to mounting an antiquated hunting style scope to a tactical rifle. The direction that the military is going with the Sig LPVOs isn't phasing me at all... Actually, nothing firearms related that the military has adopted for the last 10 or 15 years has impressed me. However, the Trijicon VCOG was of some interest because it did away with the antiquated ring mount system and went with an integrated mount system, but in the end it's still just an LPVO (AKA a hunting scope hidden in a tacticool sounding acronym). |
|
Quoted: I may have mentioned LPVOs being equivalent to mounting an antiquated hunting style scope to a tactical rifle. The direction that the military is going with the Sig LPVOs isn't phasing me at all... Actually, nothing firearms related that the military has adopted for the last 10 or 15 years has impressed me. However, the Trijicon VCOG was of some interest because it did away with the antiquated ring mount system and went with an integrated mount system, but in the end it's still just an LPVO (AKA a hunting scope hidden in a tacticool sounding acronym). View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Regarding a comment or two I read that said LPVOs are for the Fudds, I’d wonder if new information might require you to rethink your position given that the military is moving to LPVOs: https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-rifle-optic-sig-sauer-contract I may have mentioned LPVOs being equivalent to mounting an antiquated hunting style scope to a tactical rifle. The direction that the military is going with the Sig LPVOs isn't phasing me at all... Actually, nothing firearms related that the military has adopted for the last 10 or 15 years has impressed me. However, the Trijicon VCOG was of some interest because it did away with the antiquated ring mount system and went with an integrated mount system, but in the end it's still just an LPVO (AKA a hunting scope hidden in a tacticool sounding acronym). Yeah the VCOG had a lot of interesting concepts going for it, but I just don’t think the optic itself was quite there. Trijicon has a track record of great concepts, poorly executed (see also: Tripower, SRS, etc). I’d love for them to revisit the VCOG with better glass, lighter weight, and better illumination. They did a good job of implementing a lot of features to simplify the LPVO from both the user and armorer level. |
|
Quoted: Yeah the VCOG had a lot of interesting concepts going for it, but I just don’t think the optic itself was quite there. Trijicon has a track record of great concepts, poorly executed (see also: Tripower, SRS, etc). I’d love for them to revisit the VCOG with better glass, lighter weight, and better illumination. They did a good job of implementing a lot of features to simplify the LPVO from both the user and armorer level. View Quote I agree with that. |
|
The only thing I wish they could add to the ACOG would be a diopter adjustment. Without corrective lenses, my TA31 is useless to me whereas my wife’s PA Cyclops can focus for me.
Love the ACOG, just wish it had this one feature, though I understand it’s be a completely new design to accommodate it. |
|
I've used LPVO's on and off for over 15 years and for the reasons others have stated, keep coming back to the ACOG, specifically TA11, for the same reasons. Compact, super durable, simplicity of mounting, eye relief constant and appropriate for AR-15, good eye box, not bulky. Enough precision to make hits on 2 MOA targets out to 3-400 yards, and probably 3 MOA targets out to 600-800 yards, depending on some factors.
Like 556Cliff, doy_soty, and others referred to the downsides of the LVPO, specifically, unsuitability of mounting on a modern AR platform (at least, several problems persist) and the overall size/bulk and weight. In some sense, LVPO's have not really substantially improved in these regards since the introduction of the Short Dot. For interest's sake, here's an article I wrote about 13 years ago about classification of and qualitative classification of AR optics. article | Fighting Carbine Optics For further interest, here is a concept I sent to several optics manufacturers I was friends with over a decade ago: Here's a followup of the "do it all" carbine optic concept. The backrground is this article http://demigodllc.com/articles/fighting-carbine-optics-for-the-ar-15/ specifically, the Type I (CQB), Type II (DMR), and Type III (SPR) "uses" or applications. To recap, Type I sights are non-magnified red-dot optics. They are optimized for zero to 100 yards, and are most effective within the cartridge's point-blank distance, which is about 275 yards for 5.56. On large targets such as full silhouettes, they can make hits out to about 350 yards, but from 400 yards and further, compensating for over three feet of bullet drop is problematic. Type I optics are typically reduced-parallax or parallax-free red-dot sights with no magnification. The most common Type I optics are the Aimpoint M2, M3, or M4, and the EOTech. View Quote Type II sights are low-power magnified optics with reticle features providing aiming points for distant targets. The Type II optic should not have external knobs to prevent loss of zero due to the knobs being bumped. They are optimized for 75 to about 400 yards. Type II optics are generally either fixed magnification in the three to four power range, or are variable power in the one to four range. The most common Type II optic is the Trijicon ACOG, in either the 4x versions (TA31, TA01) or the 3.5x version (TA11). The US Military realizes these capabilities in the Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) and Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (SDM-R). View Quote The Type III optic is generally a variable magnification scope with a maximum power of 9x to 12x. The reticle is typically some type of mil-dot or mil-hash, and has lines thin enough to discern a sight picture on 2 MOA targets. In order to compensate for bullet drop and wind drift at longer distances, the Type III optic usually has external knobs. At close distances, the scope magnification can be dialed down to somewhere between two and four power for faster target acquisition or tracking moving targets. View Quote The goal of the new concept is to create an optic that is good at all three applications. The features that I believe define such an optic are as follows: (1) Mid variable power range, no higher than 2.5 on the low end, and no lower than 6x on the high end. For example, 1.5-6, 2-8, 2.5-10, would all be OK. Ideal would be 1 to 8. The lower the low setting it, the faster close-range engagements will be (ie, closer to Aimpoint 1x). The higher the high setting is, the further it can be stretched, realistically, past the limits of what 5.56mm can accomplish. (2) Super-bright reticle center, like Short Dot or TA11/31 ACOG. This dramatically aids engagement speed on close and mid range targets. Note that this part of the reticle is only used for 0-250/300 yard engagements (beyond, you are below in the reticle). This reticle center should default to black if the illumination is off or the battery is dead (like TA11). No other part of the reticle should be brightly illuminated. (3) Reticle features for mid-range engagements. The optic should allow engagement of medium sized (2-4 MOA) targets as far as 400-600 yards using the reticle only. Reticle is first focal plane. The reticle lines need to be thin enough that a 10" plate can be engaged using the reticle only (in the hold-over part under the center reticle) at 400-500 yards without totally obscuring the target behind the reticle. A simple mil hash or 1/2 mil hash pattern would suffice and not be specific to any load/caliber/gun. (4) "Cap"-able or lockable knobs (or extremely bumpworthy clicks) for 500-1000 yard engagements, *if* the shooter wants to dial. Broken down by distance or type of engagement: Type I engagement, close range, very fast: scope on very low magnification setting. Reticle brightness set to maximum. THe bright reticle center is the aiming point and is good from 0 yards to the point blank range of the cartridge, say about 250 yards. Type II engagement, medium range, still relatively fast (200-500 yards): scope is dialed to 3-5x depending on shooter preference. Could be run at the lowest setting, could be run at a higher setting. The reticle features below center are used, e.g. mil hash marks, exclusively for drop compensation. The knobs are not touched. Target acquisition speed and the ability to make first/second round hits are key in this regime. First focal plane is needed because of this mid-magnification-range use of the reticle. Type III engagement, long range, limits of 5.56/308, 500-1000 yards: reticle could still be used depending on circumstance. Alternatively, knob could be used. Reticle must be fine enough to see a 10x10" square @ 1000 yards behind the reticle lines. The main reticle center will be used if the shooter dials, so there should be fine/faint windage marks going to either side (1/2 mils hashes ideal). In the knob, I would prefer to see a low profile, zero-stop and either lockable or cap-able elevation knob. The windage knob can just be low profile and cappable, since the reticle will probably be used for windage holdoff. The ideal setup has mil-based reticle features and 0.1 or 0.2 mil clicks on the knobs. MOA/MOA could be done, but it is imperative that the two systems match (no mil/moa combinations). Physical/optical characteristics- This is a scope for a carbine platform (eg. AR15/M4/AR10/SR25), affects the physical package: (1) eye relief 1.5 - 2.4", this helps it fit in the right position on a carbine receiver, instead of halfway down the receiver. Practically, this eases the mounting requirements and prevents the scope from hitting things (lasers, illuminators, etc) on the quad-rail. (2) largest exit pupil possible. Even though the human eye can only open to 5 or 6mm, the larger the exit pupil, the "easier" and faster it is to get a sight picture, especially when shooting on the move or shooting from awkward or improvised positions. This is the main reason why 3Gun shooters almost unanimously choose the TA11 ACOG (10mm) over the TA31 (8mm)-- it's faster and easier to maintain a sight picture with the larger exit pupil. (3) compact physical package. TA11 size optimal. Must be smaller/shorter than a 3.5-10x40mm Mark 4, ideally smaller/shorter than a 3-9 M/RT. If we look at existant options and how close they are: Nightforce 2.5-10: no super bright reticle center, not FFP S&B 1.5-6x: no super bright reticle center, wierd knob option Leupold 2.5-8: no super bright reticle center, not FFP Mr ----- ----- had a S&B 1.5-6x50mm made with a mil-dot reticle, but they had some weird elevation knob setup (from a hunting scope) and there was no flash dot. I think this scope concept has the potential to "do it all" on the carbine for sport, practical, and military users. View Quote |
|
I use an ACOG because as part of a whole system, they just work. No frills magnification paired with a reliable rifle, appropriate ammo, and matching barrel length is about as close to perfect as any braindead halfwit can ask for (referring to myself). They work in any condition and require as close to zero thought as necessary to point and pull the trigger and get a hit at just about any range you might be engaged in.
Not saying you need to match ammo and barrel lengths, just saying that if the whole rifle is a weapon system, then having parts that are meant to pair well together just makes life that much easier when in a bad situation. Reliable red dots do the same thing, ACOGs just add magnification. In a basic fighting rifle, I don't really need much else. I use a TA33. |
|
Quoted: I was looking to buy a TA31F for my SCAR16. Good idea? View Quote Yes. Absolutely a good idea. Hard to beat a Trijicon on a Trijicon Attached File |
|
I have two 3x acogs for shtf guns
And a vortex 3x that is pretty close for truck gun (uses battery and not as bombproof) My most used farm gun is a suppressed recce with 1-6x in it |
|
|
|
I know this has been asked 10,000 times, but do you notice the FSB in normal everyday use? I actually mounted a TA31F on my M16A4 clone and a 16” carbine today to try, and am not thrilled with either setup. I love the ACOG, even though the chevron was not always perfectly crisp with my crappy eyes. The cloudy obstruction at 6 o’clock was just enough to bug me and the other two guys who looked through it. I’m considering pulling the FSB off of a rifle just because I like the optic so much, but really don’t want to remove the FSB from my FN A4 upper.
Decisions decisions. Stupid guns! |
|
|
Quoted: I know this has been asked 10,000 times, but do you notice the FSB in normal everyday use? I actually mounted a TA31F on my M16A4 clone and a 16" carbine today to try, and am not thrilled with either setup. I love the ACOG, even though the chevron was not always perfectly crisp with my crappy eyes. The cloudy obstruction at 6 o'clock was just enough to bug me and the other two guys who looked through it. I'm considering pulling the FSB off of a rifle just because I like the optic so much, but really don't want to remove the FSB from my FN A4 upper. Decisions decisions. Stupid guns! View Quote Flip-up FSB. |
|
Quoted: I know this has been asked 10,000 times, but do you notice the FSB in normal everyday use? I actually mounted a TA31F on my M16A4 clone and a 16” carbine today to try, and am not thrilled with either setup. I love the ACOG, even though the chevron was not always perfectly crisp with my crappy eyes. The cloudy obstruction at 6 o’clock was just enough to bug me and the other two guys who looked through it. I’m considering pulling the FSB off of a rifle just because I like the optic so much, but really don’t want to remove the FSB from my FN A4 upper. Decisions decisions. Stupid guns! View Quote Especially on a 31, no, I don’t. |
|
|
|
|
@French1966
More pics? I would love to see how you set it up like that, I like the red dot placement. No aftermarket ACOG mounts allow the red dot to be mounted integrally like many of the new LPVO mounts. |
|
Quoted: @French1966 More pics? I would love to see how you set it up like that, I like the red dot placement. No aftermarket ACOG mounts allow the red dot to be mounted integrally like many of the new LPVO mounts. View Quote Separate mounts. Integral mount would be a cool idea though Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
Ah, ok. It looked like an integral mount from the original angle. That is a great setup though. After playing with LPVOs for a long time I'm leaning towards setting something up with just an ACOG and 1 o'clock dot. May not be the absolute best from a competition standpoint but for a work-type gun it seems great. Piggy backed RMR is good but the 1 o'clock is appealing to at least try, hoping the lessened mechanical offset will make it even more shootable.
|
|
You owe it to yourself to at least try it. I highly recommend the ADM 33 degree mount for this application.
I don’t think this setup is a replacement for a LPVO though. I like my NX8 too much |
|
Quoted: Love Acogs, especially the TA33. I prefer this setup over dot and magnifier: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/496867/1A7BF207-97E1-4A32-A111-007C032A5087_jpe-1735025.JPG View Quote ACOG + offset dot is the best setup money can buy. |
|
My OOW FN surplus upper M16A4 on a PSA M16A4 lower has a TA31 now.
|
|
|
I bought a DSA FAL years ago and put a 1x4 optic on it but I hated it because it weighted down an already somewhat heavy rifle. I changed it out for a TA47 (I bought here on EE) and it was almost as light as not having an optic.
|
|
As I get older and my eyesight is deteriorating I have begun replacing my reddots and holographic sights with 1.5 power ACOGs. Love them. My other rifles are a mix of ACOGs and LPVO scopes.
|
|
Quoted: I love my A4 build. The long stock and short eye relief of the 31 is a pain, but it looks so badass that I make it work. View Quote I cheated and went with an A1 stock! Litte bit shorter, and Nobody ever notices until I tell them, but they always comment how nice the rifle feels! Sidenote, TA31F weighs 14.8 oz with standard thumbscrew mount, while the FN carry handle I removed weighs 9.1oz! Never thought the carry handles were that heavy. |
|
I will tell you why that sucks compared to a TA11:
The NX8's exit pupil is 7.9mm at 1x, and 3.0mm at 8x. That puts it somewhere around 6 - 6.5mm at 3.5x. At its fixed 3.5x, the TA11 has an exit pupil of 9.9mm. This means the NX8's eye box is tiny, or to put it another way, eye position is extremely critical. Also, its eye relief is 3.75", which is 1.2" longer than the TA11, so say it's 1.2-2.2" longer than is optimal on an AR15. I looked through one today. Handed it back. |
|
Quoted: You realize you're debating how you aim a rifle chambered for a round based on a varmint hunting cartridge meant for prairie dogs and the like, right? Current LPVO's are extremely durable and bring a lot to the table. Rings are a fine way to mount them and give flexibility in mounting location and orientation that other methods do not. Further, your argument is based on "Scopes are for fudds". The Weacer Qwik-Point in 1971 was one of the very first red dots... https://pic.ebid.net/upload_big/2/2/5/uo_1499029948-26288-49.jpg In 1902, Hendsoldt launched a fixed power prismatic scope for hunting. The "Solar". https://images.zeiss.com/corporate-new/about-zeiss/history/images/technische_meilenstein/zielfern/1902.ts-1525778980248.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&fm=png&ixlib=java-1.1.11&rect=0%2C48%2C1280%2C960&w=640&s=9a28fd3240190f5770ae6ba32caf8191 There is nothing new under the sun, and all of these concepts you're talking about began as "Fudd tools". I personally do not feel that my NX8 is too bulky for what it is. It offers 200% more magnification than common ACOG's, and it offers a true 1x aiming experience as well as the fact that replacing batteries is easier than replacing tritium for the end user. https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/133731142_10100342262796011_2331271543599615500_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=2&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=O5cyTLNbTyYAX8k6M9C&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=a7ea10653c3440b7f3840a7e17c5feae&oe=600F4167 I would like the simplicity of the ACOG, but it lacks magnification, and it lacks a suitable 1x aiming experience, as I do not like the RMR's (exposed emitters, short battery life, lose zero when you replace the battery, etc.) View Quote An RMR has over four years of continuous use before a battery change. You thinks that's a "short battery life?" And there are fiber optic options, so no battery needed. Holosun has the side mounted battery which eliminates the need to remove and lose zero (if four years is too frequent for you). As for exposed emitters, Holosun and Aimpoint also have an answer for that. While I agree with most of what you said, I definetly think your RMR comments are severely flawed. |
|
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.