AR Sponsor
Trijicon ACOG (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/9/2026 10:05:49 AM EDT
|
Good day all. Never tried a "higher end" optic before and a couple basic questions: How does it handle an A2 front sight post? Is there any blurring or distortion? How well would/does it handle longer ranges? 200--300--out to 600 yards? What do you think of the glass quality? How would/does it handle scratches? Thinkin about putting a basic TA31-H red horseshoe reticle on a Colt 6920 LEO Trade-In snagged for dirt cheap. Thanks guys. |
| The ACOG is a zombie apocalypse level reliable optic that will enable a confident shooter, the ability to repeatedly engage a man size target at up to 600 m with minimal difficulty. The quality of the construction and glass is first rate. While there are newer LPVO optics that enable a far better range of engagement capability.the AO is in simple terms bulletproof.. |
|
I used an issued ACOG on M4s for years. The front sight post is not noticeable unless you really try to focus on it. I've shot out to 500 yards with it easily. 200-300 is easy...but that's the case even with poor optics. I'm not an expert on glass so I won't comment on that part, except to say eye relief of pretty short and that might be frustrating for people who don't shoot with their nose close to the CH. It didn't bother me. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
| You need to know that most models are calibrated in meters not yards and for a specific load, such as a 62 grain bullet out of a 14.5 inch barrel on a 'flattop'. Mount it on something else and shoot some other load and the 'bullet drop' markings will not align with what you are shooting. Will be close enough that you can learn the differences. |
|
Originally Posted By paduce: Good day all. Never tried a "higher end" optic before and a couple basic questions: How does it handle an A2 front sight post? Is there any blurring or distortion? It’s not a big deal. If you look for it, you will see it, but if you look at the target/reticle it fades away. How well would/does it handle longer ranges? 200--300--out to 600 yards? Very well: 100-400yds. You will need to actually practice/train: 500yds+ What do you think of the glass quality? How would/does it handle scratches? 4x ACOG has similar usability as the PLXc 1-8 due to ACOG having a more useable eyebox and image resolution. Spec sheets don’t translate to reality. Thinkin about putting a basic TA31-H red horseshoe reticle on a Colt 6920 LEO Trade-In snagged for dirt cheap. Look up your velocity, bullet weight, and environmentals, and plug it into Chairgun app. This will help you find a reticle fit for you and your area. Thanks guys. |
|
Agree with the above posts and will add that an ACOG is a combat grade optic: glass is very good but it’s not a target scope.. adjustments used to be 1/3 now it’s 1/2 per click. The BDC will get you close enough to the target but it’s not spot on for obvious reasons.. too many variables to consider (ammo barrel length barrel twist etc) |
|
ACOG glass is in my experience better glass quality than LPVO’s at its price range. Front sight will not be a hinderance. Eye relief will be short but everyone who makes a big deal out of it hasn’t used one, or they have OCD. You can be a couple inches past the eye relief peak and still have a FOV equal to most LPVO’s. I have no idea why people assume a couple mm’s of objective shadowing is a problem but it’s not. The ACOG is one of the most parallax forgiving magnified optics ever made, and no Marine ever set down his rifle and surrendered because of a little objective shadowing. I’d actually say the ACOG has one of the longest useable eye boxes you can get. Meaning you can be far away from that peak FOV/eye relief and still have a very healthy amount of exit pupil where other optics start having issues. |
|
Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: ACOG glass is in my experience better glass quality than LPVO’s at its price range. Front sight will not be a hinderance. Eye relief will be short but everyone who makes a big deal out of it hasn’t used one, or they have OCD. You can be a couple inches past the eye relief peak and still have a FOV equal to most LPVO’s. I have no idea why people assume a couple mm’s of objective shadowing is a problem but it’s not. The ACOG is one of the most parallax forgiving magnified optics ever made, and no Marine ever set down his rifle and surrendered because of a little objective shadowing. I’d actually say the ACOG has one of the longest useable eye boxes you can get. Meaning you can be far away from that peak FOV/eye relief and still have a very healthy amount of exit pupil where other optics start having issues. Right on. I’ve seen so many guys on here say that the eye box on the TA31 is terrible, but it’s really the best of any scope I’ve ever looked through. I also have no issues at all with the eye relief. And to the OP, the TA31H has its BDC calibration set for a 14.5” barrel shooting M855. I have a TA31H-G on a 16” barrel and once you get beyond 300 meters you will start to shoot a little bit over the top of the BDC hash marks (though it’s close enough to easily compensate for). I also have a TA31F-G on a 16” barrel. That one is calibrated for a 16” barrel shooting M855, so its hash marks are right on all the way out. It’s way off if you stick it on a 20” barrel beyond 300 meters, which is what I originally tried to do. 
|
|
Thanks guys. I've put a few factory rounds through the rifle since purchasing from AIMSurplus about a year ago, some PPU 55gr FMJ 193 clones and a few handloads and the open sighted groups at 50 yards were all excellent. Off hand standing shots at small soda bottles filled with water was more fun than a humanbeing should be allowed to have. Thinking the ACOG would enhance the shootability even more. Will now shop around for price. |
|
As for the front sight post.... you might see some shadows of it if you look very carefully at home under some light angle but in terms of actual use, you'll probably never notice it. As for the ranges 300+, it really depends if you're using the same ammunition, barrel length, and atmospheric conditions as the BDC was based on. Chances are with .223/5.56, you won't notice that much difference inside of 300 yards with the bdc, but I think once you get into the 400+ ranges, the BDC becomes tricky to get right. The ACOG bdc was sort of a debate over the years because the website never published what they base their BCD off of and in some cases it is a mystery. But luckily with .223/5.56 the differences aren't THAT much and you probably won't notice the differences unless you're trying for precision. Keep in mind the ACOG was never meant to be a precision optic. It was designed to be a combat optic where you're able to score more hits on a man sized target. If you want something for precision out to 600 yards, I would look into something with a mil dot reticle. It MIGHT work with an ACOG but you're going to have to experiment and understand the hold overs of whatever ammunition you're using. Do I like them? Yes, I have the TA01NSN on my one rifle and really love it. I would recommend it but it shines as a 300m optic. Edit: I know the above makes it sound like the ACOG is terrible with the BDC, but with my TA01NSN, I found the BDC works very well. I think it really depends on HOW precise you want to be but you'll easily score hits without even thinking about it. Like if I were to say if you wanted to be someone who could shoo the pistol out of the bad guy's hand, the ACOG is probably not something you want. But if you don't care, and just want to score a hit on the bad guy (paper target) then yeah the ACOG is great. If that makes any sense on the precision level I'm talking about here. |
|
Originally Posted By paduce: Thanks guys. I've put a few factory rounds through the rifle since purchasing from AIMSurplus about a year ago, some PPU 55gr FMJ 193 clones and a few handloads and the open sighted groups at 50 yards were all excellent. Off hand standing shots at small soda bottles filled with water was more fun than a humanbeing should be allowed to have. Thinking the ACOG would enhance the shootability even more. Will now shop around for price.  For M193 in a 16” barrel you’ll want a TA01B. The “B” is important. |
|
Originally Posted By paduce: Thanks guys. I've put a few factory rounds through the rifle since purchasing from AIMSurplus about a year ago, some PPU 55gr FMJ 193 clones and a few handloads and the open sighted groups at 50 yards were all excellent. Off hand standing shots at small soda bottles filled with water was more fun than a humanbeing should be allowed to have. Thinking the ACOG would enhance the shootability even more. Will now shop around for price. PSA had a sale last week or so for 799. it's the model without a base but you can get one off GB or fleabay fairly cheap. |
|
Originally Posted By MarkHatfield: You need to know that most models are calibrated in meters not yards and for a specific load, such as a 62 grain bullet out of a 14.5 inch barrel on a 'flattop'. Mount it on something else and shoot some other load and the 'bullet drop' markings will not align with what you are shooting. Will be close enough that you can learn the differences. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
We were just getting them in the Marines right before I got out. After almost 20 years I just got 2 over the last couple years. I have both the chevron and the donut and like them both. I only shoot out to 300 regularly but the optic doesn't hold me back at all. Even at obscured dirty steel  10x12 steel plate at 200 yards |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
The ACOG can "see around" the front sight. The front sight is blocking part of the objective, but not all of it. Rays of light come off the target into all parts of the objective. Technically you aren't getting the whole picture. If it bothers you, you can mount the ACOG on a 0.5" riser. I like how that feels better anyway. The most common ACOG is the TA31. That's a medium-size 4x with a huge field-of-view but very limited eye relief. I prefer the TA11. It's bigger with 3.5x and less field-of-view but gives good eye relief. The little compact ACOGs (TA33, TA45, TA4, etc.) I am not a fan of. I like a good field-of-view. I also like the red crosshair reticle the best. The BDC of that just clicks with my brain well. The best mount is made by Geissele. It's easy to torque it down to the rail. If you stick with the standard TA51 mount with the big thumbscrews, put the thumbscrews on the right side and make sure to torque them down hard. Same with the base screws. I actually loc-tite the base screws and the entire base to the mount out of paranoia. |
|
Originally Posted By Andrewsky: The ACOG can "see around" the front sight. The front sight is blocking part of the objective, but not all of it. Rays of light come off the target into all parts of the objective. Technically you aren't getting the whole picture. If it bothers you, you can mount the ACOG on a 0.5" riser. I like how that feels better anyway. The most common ACOG is the TA31. That's a medium-size 4x with a huge field-of-view but very limited eye relief. I prefer the TA11. It's bigger with 3.5x and less field-of-view but gives good eye relief. The little compact ACOGs (TA33, TA45, TA4, etc.) I am not a fan of. I like a good field-of-view. I also like the red crosshair reticle the best. The BDC of that just clicks with my brain well. The best mount is made by Geissele. It's easy to torque it down to the rail. If you stick with the standard TA51 mount with the big thumbscrews, put the thumbscrews on the right side and make sure to torque them down hard. Same with the base screws. I actually loc-tite the base screws and the entire base to the mount out of paranoia. The screws that secure the mount to the base of the ACOG did require blue Loctite and 30 inch pounds of torque on pre 2015/2016 ACOGs. Post 2015/2016 ACOGs did away with Heli-Coil thread inserts and went to Spiral-Lock thread inserts which don't need any thread locker and the screws now get torqued to 50 inch pounds. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
262
EE: 0% (0)
SD, USA
|
The FSP isn't noticeable on a carbine length gun with a 4x ACOG, and on a rifle length FSP you can see a blurred outline but unless you decide to focus on it for some reason it's not really an impediment. I've never had an issue shooting to 500 yards on a known distance range with them, or beyond on an unknown distance range. FWIW the Marine Corps is transitioning/has transitioned from chevrons to horseshoe dot reticles. People critique the eye relief of the TA31 but I have not found it to be an issue; I never removed my rear iron sight to move it back farther on the receiver rail, and have never needed an extended mount to move it back farther. This is even with the unnecessarily long M16A4 stock. Some of the other ACOG models have better eye relief (to the point of absurdity on some of them) if it's that big of deal for you, but there are tradeoffs with FOV, eye relief, and size/weight of these optics depending on the model you choose. Many feel the 3.5x (TA11) models are the most well rounded but they are larger and heavier than the 4x models. They are very durable, most issues I've seen with them have resulted from dumbasses stripping out the adjustment mechanism. The BDC accuracy will vary based on barrel length, the specific ammo you use, and where you are; even with surplus ammo on an RCOA4 model there will be variability due to weather, elevation, etc... but it's a combat optic, not something you choose to shoot F class. |
|
Originally Posted By MarkHatfield: You need to know that most models are calibrated in meters not yards and for a specific load, such as a 62 grain bullet out of a 14.5 inch barrel on a 'flattop'. Mount it on something else and shoot some other load and the 'bullet drop' markings will not align with what you are shooting. Will be close enough that you can learn the differences. I did the math, and M193 out of a 12.75” bbl is nearly identical to M855 out of a 14.5” bbl, so the BDC is almost spot on for my particular setup (as I’m a M193 fan). |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Front sight post can be visible at the bottom but its a non issue. I've shot them out to 600 and it works, but 4x isn't alot of magnification for that distance. Acog has great Glass. It has been around for decades and the glass quality has improved. Acog made in the last 10 years has better Glass than acogs made in the 90s. Holds up extremely well to scratches. Its claim to fame is its durability, robustness, and also its light weight and simplicity. If you can accept a used one, you can find them for around 750ish used if you look around. The micro Acogs I've seen as cheap as 500 used. |
|
Unless you like running the stock fairly short, I’d recommend the TA11, the big, honking 3.5x, or the much smaller low mount TA50 3x24 in an ADM mount of your preferred height. The TA50 lets you get close to the optic for max field of view, or pull away from it and get the same experience as the TA33, the 3x30 with all the eye relief in the world, but the field of view of a straw. I can’t stand the TA31/4x32 on an AR, I can’t get the scope back far enough for my preferred LOP. It’s fantastic on an AUG, though I have clocked myself in the eyebrow at speed a couple times. The only issue with the TA11 is the size and weight, they’re in the same ballpark as a lightweight 1-4 LPVO in a mount. If your rifle is otherwise fairly trim, then it’s fine, the ~2.5 ounce penalty vs the TA31 is well worth it for usability. |
|
I’m a big fan of the horse shoe of death and the TA11. Like it was said before 600 yards on man sized targets with ball ammo is not all that challenging. The TA11 and battle rifles go together like PB&J! Attached File |
If a 147 grn 9mm at 1000 FPS is the hammer of Thor then a 165 grn. 40 at 1200 fps must a lightening bolt from Zeus!
|
Had one. Bought a new TA-31. The only Tritium was in the center cross which appears in low light. Sold it years ago - found out I'm better/quicker with a dot sight esp. at CQB distances, and my 100 yard accuracy is good enough. ACOG features that I didn't like: >its heavy >the glass is okay but you can see distortion >its too expensive. They rip off the government, and there's a law that they can't sell to the public for less than they sell to the government, so you're just enabling them by buying the stuff. >when sighting in or otherwise adjusting, the reticle sometimes will not change without firing or hitting the scope. It just doesn't seem like a $1200 sight to me. |
|
Originally Posted By 1saxman: Had one. Bought a new TA-31. The only Tritium was in the center cross which appears in low light. Sold it years ago - found out I'm better/quicker with a dot sight esp. at CQB distances, and my 100 yard accuracy is good enough. ACOG features that I didn't like: >its heavy >the glass is okay but you can see distortion >its too expensive. They rip off the government, and there's a law that they can't sell to the public for less than they sell to the government, so you're just enabling them by buying the stuff. >when sighting in or otherwise adjusting, the reticle sometimes will not change without firing or hitting the scope. It just doesn't seem like a $1200 sight to me. Its 15 oz with a mount. You consider that heavy for a magnified optic? Im surprised you only find the glass ok. You can buy a brand new acog ta31 for $800 100 yard accuracy with a red dot is moot if you're shooting a camouflaged target in the shade. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 1saxman: Had one. Bought a new TA-31. The only Tritium was in the center cross which appears in low light. Sold it years ago - found out I'm better/quicker with a dot sight esp. at CQB distances, and my 100 yard accuracy is good enough. ACOG features that I didn't like: >its heavy >the glass is okay but you can see distortion >its too expensive. They rip off the government, and there's a law that they can't sell to the public for less than they sell to the government, so you're just enabling them by buying the stuff. >when sighting in or otherwise adjusting, the reticle sometimes will not change without firing or hitting the scope. It just doesn't seem like a $1200 sight to me. Acog is lighter than every other scope I can think of. An aimpoint pro only weighs 3 Oz less. Its light weight is one of the strongest arguments for its use. The current glass is pretty dang good. German schott glass. Most optics utilizing similiar quality schott glass cost 2k or more. I have scopes with better glass, but they are more expensive than an acog. Especially a used acog. Acogs have fell out of fashion a little bit but I do believe they are still a great value when bought used. Also trijicon stands by them. Ive bought decade old acogs used and sent them in to be fixed and trijicon has always serviced them, original owner or not. |
|
Originally Posted By FoxValleyTacDriver: Acog is lighter than every other scope I can think of. An aimpoint pro only weighs 3 Oz less. Its light weight is one of the strongest arguments for its use. The current glass is pretty dang good. German schott glass. Most optics utilizing similiar quality schott glass cost 2k or more. I have scopes with better glass, but they are more expensive than an acog. Especially a used acog. Acogs have fell out of fashion a little bit but I do believe they are still a great value when bought used. Also trijicon stands by them. Ive bought decade old acogs used and sent them in to be fixed and trijicon has always serviced them, original owner or not. ACOGs have sort of fallen out of favor because they're fixed power and people want LPVOs now, but aside from maybe the TA648 they are still far lighter and more robust than LPVOs. It's already retarded seeing the same arguments about the Elcan Spectre (with built in mount) being so heavy compared to LPVOs (with no mount), calling ACOGs heavy is just 
|
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: ACOGs have sort of fallen out of favor because they're fixed power and people want LPVOs now, but aside from maybe the TA648 they are still far lighter and more robust than LPVOs. It's already retarded seeing the same arguments about the Elcan Spectre (with built in mount) being so heavy compared to LPVOs (with no mount), calling ACOGs heavy is just It has everything to do with price, as opposed to weight or any of that crap that people like to argue about when they talk about why they don't like ACOG or ELCAN. At the time when the ACOG and ELCAN came out, they were the "cheaper" solution because to have a quality LPVO at the time, you had to spend upwards of 3,000+ which was above the price of these ELCAN or ACOG at the time. In today's market, a ELCAN 2024 model costs about $3,000+ and a ACOG starts off about the 1k price range when you can get a nice LPVO for a fraction of that. I think the only time someone can really argue is if they have a 2500+ LPVO. No one wants to talk negatively about themselves. You won't catch someone saying, "I can't afford a high dollar accessory so I decided to get this and it seems okay but I really wanted an ACOG or ELCAN." Instead they would bash it saying, "But this is wayyyy better." BTW, there's nothing wrong with having a good quality LPVO but I guess if you must justify it then there is no need to. I think affordability is something everyone should talk about especially if it works well. |
|
Originally Posted By dalle0001: It has everything to do with price, as opposed to weight or any of that crap that people like to argue about when they talk about why they don't like ACOG or ELCAN. At the time when the ACOG and ELCAN came out, they were the "cheaper" solution because to have a quality LPVO at the time, you had to spend upwards of 3,000+ which was above the price of these ELCAN or ACOG at the time. In today's market, a ELCAN 2024 model costs about $3,000+ and a ACOG starts off about the 1k price range when you can get a nice LPVO for a fraction of that. I think the only time someone can really argue is if they have a 2500+ LPVO. No one wants to talk negatively about themselves. You won't catch someone saying, "I can't afford a high dollar accessory so I decided to get this and it seems okay but I really wanted an ACOG or ELCAN." Instead they would bash it saying, "But this is wayyyy better." BTW, there's nothing wrong with having a good quality LPVO but I guess if you must justify it then there is no need to. I think affordability is something everyone should talk about especially if it works well. Reason #3 why the Razor 1-6 is among the best scopes on the market. It offers so much, and asks so little. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: Reason #3 why the Razor 1-6 is among the best scopes on the market. It offers so much, and asks so little. Originally Posted By rb889: Originally Posted By dalle0001: It has everything to do with price, as opposed to weight or any of that crap that people like to argue about when they talk about why they don't like ACOG or ELCAN. At the time when the ACOG and ELCAN came out, they were the "cheaper" solution because to have a quality LPVO at the time, you had to spend upwards of 3,000+ which was above the price of these ELCAN or ACOG at the time. In today's market, a ELCAN 2024 model costs about $3,000+ and a ACOG starts off about the 1k price range when you can get a nice LPVO for a fraction of that. I think the only time someone can really argue is if they have a 2500+ LPVO. No one wants to talk negatively about themselves. You won't catch someone saying, "I can't afford a high dollar accessory so I decided to get this and it seems okay but I really wanted an ACOG or ELCAN." Instead they would bash it saying, "But this is wayyyy better." BTW, there's nothing wrong with having a good quality LPVO but I guess if you must justify it then there is no need to. I think affordability is something everyone should talk about especially if it works well. Reason #3 why the Razor 1-6 is among the best scopes on the market. It offers so much, and asks so little. Idk man, it costs double of what an acog is and weighs 6oz more before adding a mount. I only bring that up because you quote someone whose talking about affordability. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: ACOGs have sort of fallen out of favor because they're fixed power and people want LPVOs now, but aside from maybe the TA648 they are still far lighter and more robust than LPVOs. It's already retarded seeing the same arguments about the Elcan Spectre (with built in mount) being so heavy compared to LPVOs (with no mount), calling ACOGs heavy is just Which is ironic since more and more people are running dots on top of LPVO’s left at high mag these days. |
|
Originally Posted By Moondog: With regards to the FSB, the front sight "disappears" in front of most optics above 2x. My guess is it has to do with parallax/ focal point. Even at 4x you can see a slight blur for lack of a better word from the front sight. It's really not a big deal though and one of those things you don't really notice unless you're looking for it. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
263
EE: 0% (0)
SD, USA
|
Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: Which is ironic since more and more people are running dots on top of LPVO’s left at high mag these days. The 1-6 razor reticle subtensions are only accurate when set to the highest magnification with it being a sfp scope. A red dot is definitely faster than taking the scope down to 1x for short range targets. |
|
Originally Posted By Ossian: The 1-6 razor reticle subtensions are only accurate when set to the highest magnification with it being a sfp scope. A red dot is definitely faster than taking the scope down to 1x for short range targets. Which is why I find dotted MPVOs much more compelling than LPVOs. ELCAN excluded. The 1x really turns out to not be all that useful. |
|
Originally Posted By AK-12: Which is why I find dotted MPVOs much more compelling than LPVOs. ELCAN excluded. The 1x really turns out to not be all that useful. Originally Posted By AK-12: Originally Posted By Ossian: The 1-6 razor reticle subtensions are only accurate when set to the highest magnification with it being a sfp scope. A red dot is definitely faster than taking the scope down to 1x for short range targets. Which is why I find dotted MPVOs much more compelling than LPVOs. ELCAN excluded. The 1x really turns out to not be all that useful. Yep. That's why on variable optics I'm not getting LPVOs anymore. MPVOs and ACOGs with red dots going forward. |
Why is the sky blue?
What makes the green grass grow?
What makes the green grass grow?
Member
Joined:
Jul 2024
Posts:
1267
EE: 100% (1)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By 1saxman: Had one. Bought a new TA-31. The only Tritium was in the center cross which appears in low light. Sold it years ago - found out I'm better/quicker with a dot sight esp. at CQB distances, and my 100 yard accuracy is good enough. ACOG features that I didn't like: >its heavy >the glass is okay but you can see distortion >its too expensive. They rip off the government, and there's a law that they can't sell to the public for less than they sell to the government, so you're just enabling them by buying the stuff. >when sighting in or otherwise adjusting, the reticle sometimes will not change without firing or hitting the scope. It just doesn't seem like a $1200 sight to me. Literally the exact opposite of my experience, excepting the last bullet point. In the manual, it tells you to make final adjustments by dialing up, I believe. I know I read that somewhere in some TM or publication. |
|
Good evening all. Came to keep everybody updated Looked through all the posts and great discussions here. Been insane at work, so much so that I actually quit and retired a bit earlier than I'd expected, but back to topic. I checked the great deal mentioned earlier, sat on it too long hemmin-n-hawwin over the lack of picatiny mount and went poof quick. Now I'm looking over the really wide array of reticles, red vs green and magnifications. Thanks again guys. |
|
Originally Posted By paduce: Good evening all. Came to keep everybody updated Looked through all the posts and great discussions here. Been insane at work, so much so that I actually quit and retired a bit earlier than I'd expected, but back to topic. I checked the great deal mentioned earlier, sat on it too long hemmin-n-hawwin over the lack of picatiny mount and went poof quick. Now I'm looking over the really wide array of reticles, red vs green and magnifications. Thanks again guys. I’ve pretty well settled on the horseshoe dot as my favorites. Next would be chevron Crosshairs stadia obscure to much IMO Red or green is almost entirely your eyeball preference, |
|
Originally Posted By paduce: Good evening all. Came to keep everybody updated Looked through all the posts and great discussions here. Been insane at work, so much so that I actually quit and retired a bit earlier than I'd expected, but back to topic. I checked the great deal mentioned earlier, sat on it too long hemmin-n-hawwin over the lack of picatiny mount and went poof quick. Now I'm looking over the really wide array of reticles, red vs green and magnifications. Thanks again guys. Howdy, I did some research for ya. For M193 in a 16” barrel you’ll want a TA01B. The “B” is important. |
Member
Joined:
Jul 2023
Posts:
9359
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
deltathirtyfour has some excellent ACOG vids on YT Which Acog reticle ? They all work fine, but which reticle is optimal?  Trijicon ACOG Truing and Zero Process |
A socialist may indeed be academically superior.
And yet, they are most certainly emotionally retarded.
Public education is the opiate of the masses.
And yet, they are most certainly emotionally retarded.
Public education is the opiate of the masses.
Joined:
Feb 2022
Posts:
385
EE: 100% (4)
USA
Trijicon ACOG (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor