AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/9/2006 9:32:55 PM EDT
|
A buddy and I have been trying to figure this out. He has an Eotech. The Eotech is great for CQB, but we both are looking for something with some magnification. The problem is that the rifles we use are for "the job", not just for fun, which means we may face real life CQB, but also real life ranged shooting. I am thinking about going with the Eotech and the aimpoint 3x magnifier, but for that price I don't mind spending a little more for the Acog... I just can't imagine CQB within 25 yards with a 4x magnification... what are your experiences with it??? (Yes, I will have a chance to shoot another buddy's, he has the TA31F, but I may like shooting it for an hour or two then hate it after a while.) Thanks-Bill |
There are some ARFCOM members who use this in the sandbox and shoot people for real at CQB ranges. Just open both eyes, put the red/amber triangle/donut/whatever on the target and pull the trigger. It won't be precise, but plenty accurate. Go to the range and give it a try! |
It's a matter of training and getting used to using the ACOG for short distances. As previously mentioned, you can use it like a red dot sight with both eyes open, provided the ACOG has a BAC lit reticle that makes this easier, it's not accurate out to longer distances, but for CQB, it's more than adequate. Either way you still have to remember your hold overs. Aimpoint and EOTech are faster, no arguments here, but for 50yds or more, the 4X magnification and the 4x32 ACOG's wide field of view are very nice things to have   |
|
I run a TA31F on my a4 and it works fine for cqb. As stated you just use both eyes and the reticle will become just like a Eotech or Aimpoint. You also need to get used to this. It took me a couple ranges to get it down to where I felt comfortable using it. Now its a natural reaction for me. When we do cqb ranges its in live fire shoot houses. We use green ivans nailed to the wall and our target is a peice of printer paper taped to the chest. Since getting used to the acog I have no problems hitting the upper part with two consecutive shots. Depending on how your sight is zeroed you will have to aim about 4-5" high to hit where you want at very close ranges. We are trained to hit the upper torso area and I put the reticle on the throat and I get two nice holes at the upper torso with this method. One thing I like about the bac feature is that it doesnt matter where you put your cheek as long as you still see the reticle you can still use the bac feature. Its a bit more user friendly with room clearing (lots of movement) and wearing body armor (with my a4 no adj stock  ). If you decide to get the acog practice at home and you will get used to it pretty quick. Plus you'll love the added magnification.I used to run an Eotech which was awesome for cqb but limited for anthing past 100m. I like having the magnification of the acog a lot more while also having usable cqb capabilities. Although Ive never used the 3x magnifier I dont like the idea. Ive setup my rifle to be as easy and user friendly to use. I dont want to worry about fucking with shit (like switching back and forth between using the magnifier or not using it). The acog allows me to engage targets from point blank to as far as I can shoot without changing a single thing. Sometimes you might have to do this and you dont have time to fuck around with a peice of your equipment even though it is fast. Shit goes down way to fast to be worry about something like this. |
+1 on this. You want a variable scope do to double duty. I ran a TA31 ACOG and it is actually below irons for CQB use since the POA/POI dont coincide and its harder to use than irons too. Its better than point shooting but only barely. Its the worst CQB optic choice you can make IMO. You can get a Meopta Meostar with Larue SPR mount for $900 total. That is less than the ACOG and will perform far better up close at 1X and just as well at 4X under 300 yards. |
Thats great if you never wnat the reticle to actually coincide with your where the bullets are going. |
|
You need to learn to shoot prior to the BAC shift occurring. The advise I would give people I trained was shoot while weapon is still moving or the shift will occur when you stop. You can see people actually pause when their mind attempts the shift. Allot wobble drills really helped with this, you had to make sure they shot while the weapon was moving to get use to it. But no matter what you do, it will be slower than the 1x sights. |
| At CQB distance it's adequately accurate to be used in that role, it's when you're shooting out to longer distances when you don't want to use it like a red dot. Re: POA and POI not being the same, you can say that about any AR15 sights, irons included, at CQB distances you have to do your hold over. |
the guy in the white shirt on the left, what kind of mag is he using?? 40 rounder? |
If you call being off by multiple inches inside 25 yards and having to be sure to shoot before the rifle stops moving lest you have a switch at the worst possible moment "adequate" that is your call. I think its only good enoguh for center mass shots in good lighting conditions where you dont care where you hit opther than center mass. Even then you can loose the BAC effect in varying light conditions like indoors with a flash light if you dont have a lens cover. Personally I can only accept an optic that the reticle actually actually indicates where the bullet will strike, even if I have to account for holdover, rather than one where the reticle indicates the point the bullet will NEVER strike at any range when used as a CQB device. The longer ranges I think BAC is much better suited because you at least can swing to a distant target and not have to "hunt" for it through the scopes view. The military requiring the use of Dr Optics on top of TA31 style scopes for the SOPMOD optics program, to me, indicates they feel BAC is not an adequate solution for CQB either. There is another thread running on this page in which peole are discussing using the Dr Optic on top of a TA31DOC as a back up only and BAC as a primary 1X optic. I think that is the height of foolishness personally and not how the optic was envisioned being used nor is it the way it should be used IMO. Then again everyone has an oppinion and their own preferences. I just think users should be made aware of the faults of an optic they may purchase based off of reviews like this so they go in with their eyes open and dont have any shocking realisations that the optic is NOT what they thought it would be and realise they wasted money on a less ideal solution. |
|
In my limited use of the ACOG, I couldn't do the BAC thing with it. I don't know if it's that I'm cross dominant, or if I just used irons and/or eotechs/aimpoints for so many years. Or maybe I'm just a moron (very high possibility of that one). The ACOG was great for longer range stuff, but I just couldn't get the hang of it close in. The same time I tried out the ACOG, I also tried the accupoint (I think that was what it was called) and did fine with it when dialed down. |
Yeah same for me. I traded some stuff for a TA31something or another and was so happy to try it out.....just to realize I couldnt do it. I could also be in the moron category, but I just never could get the hang of it. |
|
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. BAC works really really well for me. My brain switches between the magnified view through the ACOG and the unmagnified view easily, quickly, and seamlessly, and now after a lot of use it's like I see both most of the time. There is for me minimal impact change between the magnified and unmagnified views even at longer ranges. And this holds true whether it's my 3.5, 4.0, or 5.5X ACOGs. Now, my Aimpoint M3 holds a slight speed advantage, but it's not really more precise, it's advantage is more due to the unlimited eye relief, an advantage it holds over the 1.X-4 variables also. Years ago I used to shoot a heck of a lot with a .556 Galil, and an OEG sight including low light training at short to medium distances. The only time I used a magnified optic was with my Valmet M-78 in .308, and the occasional bolt action. Maybe all that "both eyes" open shooting helped me when I got my first TA31. As my eyes have gotten older, I appreciate magnification a lot more, and at least for me, the ACOGs are a perfect match. If you're interested in an ACOG, beg, borrow, or buy one, after a max of 4 range trips and 500-750 rounds of ammo you will know if it's right or not for you. You really can't decide swinging the rifle around in your back yard, much less your den. But if it's right, you'll have the best possible combat optic available, if not, sell it on the EE and start saving for a Shortdot! |
+1 |
|
+1 on the give it a try. If it works for you (like it has for me), you'll find it to be a truly useful tool (which it better be for the price). I had both an Aimpoint and TA31 for a while to compare side-by-side. After 4-5 range trips shooting at 5-200 yards, the Aimpoint was sold without regret. The Aimpoint isn't bad at all; the ACOG just did everything I wanted it to better imho. Another perspective to consider: Rifles are (imho) intended for a lot more than CQB. CQB is certainly important especially for an AR-style weapon. But (imho again) rifles need to be quickly employable at distances out to 200-300 yards. Although this can be shot with irons (and has been for a LONG time) and with dot style sights, it's my guess that threats in the real world don't always stand out in the open on a flat surface with a great backstop. Sometimes they can hide, or just plain be hard to see. The 4x on the ACOG arguably provides a huge advantage is such situations. |
|
You sold yours too? I had an M2 and ML2, both have been sold, along with an Aimpoint 3X magnifier. It's easy to get spoiled by the ACOG. Once I got my first BAC ACOG (a TA11, wanted a TA31 but TA31 was really hard to come by in 2003), even the mighty Short Dot isn't safe (just sold it hehe). In its place, I now have a TA31DOC It's not for everyone, but those for whom BAC works well, it's priceless. |
|
Replies from another post on the same subject: A TA31 (4x ACOG with BAC) would not be my choice for using on a CQB mission. When I first got a TA31 I used it for matches and became fairly proficient with it at rifle matches, and after a short learning curve I felt comfortable using it at CQB distances. I started using the TA31 at work and after my first couple SWAT missions, I quickly figured out that a 4x fixed optic was more of a liablity than an asset. Doing CQB drills with an optic on a square range during day light is quite different from using that same optic while doing a real world entry on a house with real suspects inside that would like to do you harm in the dark using a white light while both you and the suspect are on the move. Just my personal experience, your milage may vary ********************************************************************** A 4x optic is very slow and doesn't afford the shooter a good sight picture or the ability to identify threats at CQB distances (concentrates on too small of a target area). Often times when SWAT does an entry, both you and the bad guy are moving, it's dark, and you are using a white light, flash bangs are going off, you are trying to identify theats, dogs are so shitted they are either trying to get out of the house or trying to attack officers, there are people in the house that are not involved with the criminal activity (relatives or assoicates of the bad guy) etc, etc. The Short Dot gives the end user amost the same capabilities as an Aimpoint and an ACOG in one optic. As with any new piece of gear there is a learning curve. I haven't used a shot timer, but I would guess I'm somewhere between 80% to 85% as fast with the Short Dot as I am with the Aimpoint. For me this is acceptable, because there has to be a trade off. The Aimpoint is a good CQB optic that can be used out to 300 yards + The ACOG is a great intermediate optic 50 yards out to 600+ The Short Dot is a combo of both of these, so there is going to have to be a trade off somewhere. I'm looking forward to running it through the paces at some upcoming rifle matches (CQB distances out to 450 yards) and classes. I did explore the Aimpoint magnifier. I didn't care for the field of view (reminded me of looking through a straw) and it just didn't "do it" for me. In theory the magnifier would be an excellent choice, in reality it's not. Sometimes events can be so dynamic and situations can happen so quickly that you don't have time to fish around in a pouch for a magnifier, locate it, and then put it on the gun. Or if I had the magnifier in a pouch on my SWAT vest and I rolled on a bank robbery in progress, active shooter incident, etc. and had to deploy the carbine and didn't have a chance to don my SWAT gear then I'm without the magnifier. I needed something that stayed on the gun and was easy to use. This is the reason you see so many military and law enforcement guys going over to variable powered optics. Is the Short Dot the "Be all, end all" optic? No. But it is currently the best choice for *my* needs in an optic. My shooting needs are different than the needs of a Deputy working in a rural county, a Soldier / Marine deployed to the GWOT, a competition shooter or a civilian who will be using his carbine for self defense. Access your *real* needs and get the best gear that helps you fulfill your mission statement. Take care and stay safe ********************************************************************** www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=290997&page=1 |
|
A friend and I did some comparison of irons v. TA11 ACOG v. Leupold Variable v. Eotech in close-in dynamic shooting using a shot timer to see what the differences were. I also posted the results here: archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=277043 BAC works differently for different people so it is difficult to generalize how it will work for a particular generic person. Based on this test and other runs I've done with the shot timer, the ACOG is easily much faster than irons for me (about 0.50 sec on average using a box drill with a 5 sec. par time). The Eotech is faster yet though. I like the ACOG and while I might draw the line a little closer (say 30yds), I agree with USMC03 that at inside-the-house distances, the Eotech is going to beat it. |
AR Sponsor