AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/31/2005 10:40:00 AM EDT
|
I've finally got some cash saved up for my first optic, and I've been going back and forth on this question. I want to mount it on my carry handle, since I happen to like a high cheek weld. The only optic I have experience with on an AR, however, is a carry-handle-mounted TA11. I'd appreciate some feedback from those with more experience. I want to keep the purchase under $600, and an Aimpoint - depending on the model - with an ARMS #16 would be slightly less than a compact ACOG (I'm considering the TA44, 45, and maybe 47). Applications are home defense, range shooting, and possibly competitions or tactical rifle courses in the future. And if they'll let me bring it on my C-130 dets (not bloody likely). I am assuming that the Aimpoint's advantages are that it is quicker at close range, less expensive to purchase, and more forgiving of eye position, while the compact ACOG requires no batteries, needs no additional mount, and would allow more precision/greater effective range. Of course if anyone would like to offer suggestions outside the box, feel free. |
| Considering everything else you said, I would get the Comp ACOG to mount on the carry handle. The cheek weld will be higher, but not high. The Aimpoint on top of the carry handle will be noticably higher than that. A 2x TA47 Comp ACOG will give you descent magnification and forgiving eye relief. The truth is you cant go wrong with either, but I preffer the Comp ACOG on top of the carry handle. |
|
Yes, it seems like mounting a compact ACOG on the carry handle is pretty popular around here. I hadn't thought that the Aimpoint up there would require an even higher cheek weld - I guess its boresight sits a bit higher than the compact ACOG? I had noticed that most people who put the Aimpoint on a flattop use a spacer or cantilever mount to raise it up a bit, and since I like a higher cheek weld than the average guy, I figured I might actually like it on top of the carry handle. But maybe not, if it's noticeably higher than a compact ACOG. As for the type of compact ACOG, I suppose I can try to resurrect that other thread about them. Thanks for your advice. |
| Oh, and something else I forgot. My wife is red color blind (reds appear as shades of gray to her), but I'd like her to be able to use whatever optic I get. Would amber be more visible to her eyes, or would the illumination of a red reticle make it visible enough? I hadn't even thought about that very much. |
|
Rather than bring the older thread to the top, we might as well continue the discussion here. The topic was "Which Compact ACOG for CQB" and I recall a heated debate over the 1.5x versus 2x models. 3x is out for me as there's no way I can use such a short eye relief with my stock weld. So here's how I have narrowed the choices down: TA44: 1.5x16, 2.4" eye relief, 7.4 degree FOV TA45: 1.5x24, 3.6" eye relief, 4.9 degree FOV TA47: 2x20, 2.1" eye relief, 5.6 degree FOV Each apparently has a different advantage over the others (in magnification, eye relief, and field of view). The reticle is another question. It would seem that the amber is a better choice in case my wife uses the scope, but as for the shape I'm not sure. Again I think there are three important factors in choosing the reticle: 1) visibility in conjunction with white light usage at close quarters (resistance to washing out), 2) speed of acquisition, and 3) precision for longer range shots. I'm guessing that none of the reticles is best at all three, but I'd like to hear what you think of the three types with those three factors in mind. In other words, is there one type that seems to be the best compromise functionally, or does it simply come down to which style you like the best? |
|
Well, I just got back from the local gun store to see if they had any in stock I could try out. All they had was a TA11F for $1100, but of course I had a look through it anyway. I had forgotten how amazing these optics are (it's been three years since the one time I used an ACOG). Even looking out into the bright parking lot from the inside of the store, with both eyes open and scanning the optic around quickly, the reticle was crisp and bright. I don't recall having issues with the eye relief of my friend's TA11 on his carry handle. However, the TA11 comes much closer to your eye than the TA47 when both are mounted on the carry handle. I wonder if I may need to go for the longest relief version (TA45). Maybe I can just adapt my stock weld to whatever optic I get, but I sure wish I could try one before buying. I'm kinda leaning towards the TA47-2; thanks for the help so far. |
AR Sponsor