AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/17/2006 5:46:55 PM EDT
| I'm looking for an optic for 0-100 yards for close quarter use. I already have a T31 RCO 4x32 for my flat top M4 for long range use and love it. I'm looking closely at the compact ACOG 2x20 vs. an Aimpoint ML3. Any reports, concerns, advice, or alternatives. Thanks in advance. |
Please expound your wisdom on us, I've been wondering the same thing he is and I'm wondering why you say that. My eyes aren't what they used to be and it would seem to me a little magnification would be a good thing. So why do you say that, if you don't mind me askin. |
|
Well, while the standard compact ACOG was designed to be mounted on a carry handle, there is no reason but the default base to mount it on a carry handle because none of the compact ACOGs have BDC ladders. With that being said, since you already have a TA31, getting another ACOG, albeit a compact one, will allow you to train with the BAC on both rifles or train twice as much if both optics are going on the same rifle. However some people are never as fast with a BAC-equipped ACOG as they are with a red dot at close range (50 yds or less). It should also be noted that some people are highly effective within 100 yds with a TA-31 though most feel that the chevron reticule is not quite as fast within 100 yds as the donut reticule. The lower magnification of the 2X model may make using BAC at close ranges easier for you. As far as the ML3 goes, it's a great optic for the ranges you're looking to use it within and beyond. The only thing you really lose is good target identification at longer ranges. Then again, I don't know if that matters to you or not. So in the end, based upon what you have and what you're considering purchasing, any of the optics you mentioned may work for you. It all depends on you really. |
As far as the Aimpoint goes, flat top ARs didn't even exist when the Aimpoint was designed. Mounts are available for it to attach it to either the carry handle or the flat top. So while the flat top mount may be more common today, that has not always been the case. In conclusion, either optic will perform fine when mounted to either a carry handle or flat top so the platform on which either optic is mounted neither degrades or enhances the optic's performance. It's a non-issue unless you want to save money by not buying a mount. An Aimpoint with a carry handle mount will typically cost less than a compact ACOG without a mount. |
+1 mounting an aimpoint to the carry handle would increase the weight, to mount it so it co-witnessed would increase it more. the compact acog would offer more mag and not too much mag where it would impair cqb use. |
I’m doing my part to rekindle the carry handle mounted Aimpoint.  I was reluctant to go this route based off what I heard here. But after mounting an Aimpoint clone to the handle of my sons .22 AR I decided to mount an ML2 to my CAR’s carry handle. The cheek weld is not as bad as others make it out to be and I really like it.
|
|
I agree! |
|
I don't know, I keep hearing this talk about compact acog's being worthless. Someone posted that it would actually be harder to see with both eyes open with less magnification than one of the 4x acogs. How that's true is beyond me. I wish I knew someone to try them out. Of course I can't really afford one right now but at least I'd know if I want to save for it. I have a 2 x 7 leupy and I can definitely see the target better at 100 yards then my bare eyeballs and it's a heck of a lot better than the irons because you're looking at 1 plane, not 3. Same with the acog. And 2x is pretty fast at 25 yards or so, and even closer. Maybe not AS fast as a red dot but still pretty fast. Who here has a compact and do you like them is the question?????? |
|
I don't know, I keep hearing this talk about compact acog's being worthless. Someone posted that it would actually be harder to see with both eyes open with less magnification than one of the 4x acogs. How that's true is beyond me. I wish I knew someone to try them out. Of course I can't really afford one right now but at least I'd know if I want to save for it. I have a 2 x 7 leupy and I can definitely see the target better at 100 yards then my bare eyeballs and it's a heck of a lot better than the irons because you're looking at 1 plane, not 3. Same with the acog. And 2x is pretty fast at 25 yards or so, and even closer. Maybe not AS fast as a red dot but still pretty fast. Who here has a compact and do you like them is the question?????? I do. I have a Bushy M4A2 clone and use a TA 47-2 2x20 (amber triangle) mounted in the CH. I love the setup and it works well for me out to 460 yards (the farthest gong at my local range). I find the 2x magnification to be helpful, but very easily managed at even the closest distances. I have never felt my time suffered much worse than someone with a red dot. Some people flat cannot make the BAC work for them, but I am not one. Best thing to do is link up with someone who has one and shoot it to see if it works for you. All that being said, my next project is to mount a TR 21 (1.25-4x) Accupoint on a flattop Recce build I am working on. The notion of variable power for different situations appeals greatly to me. |
Depends on the corrective lenses. My astigmatism isn't bad enough to need to correct it on a daily basis in my contacts but it affects the way I see the Aimpoint dot. With my glasses, that are corrected for the astigmatism, the starburst effect is much less but still present. I can still use the Aimpoint or Eotech, but the ACOG doesn't have the problem. |
|
When I start working with 2X magnification, BAC becomes much easier to use and the "bluriness" associated with 1.25X mag goes away. I could totally see using a 2X ACOG. Being able to easily identify the target is always a good thing. |
I have read and practiced the same thing with a 2X ACOG once, I agree. Don't know the physics behind it but the 2X ACOG's do seem easier on the eyes than the 1.25X. I can't wait for a flip up front cover for my TA31. I think for <15 or less an occluded sight is the way to go. As always, YMMV. |
|
If I had no trouble seeing the target and ID'ing it to the extent I needed at the range you are considering, I would go with the Aimpoint. It doesn't require a consistent cheek weld and is faster for most people. If I was having trouble making that ID or seeing at that distance, then any type of ACOG starts to look more attractive. |
|
AR Sponsor