AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WOW! (BAC) (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/20/2009 10:22:53 PM EDT
|
I read a lot of threads on the ACOG's BAC and this and that and aimpoints and on and on. Well, I closed the flip-cover on the RCOA4 sitting on my desk awaiting payment from a member here, and walked around the room. It looked like the chevron was just floating there. Kindof like the HUG on a corvette. Wow. Maybe I am a wierd person, but this BAC is awesome and I feel that I would be as fast with this as an Aimpoint any day. THe learning curve for the BAC took only as long as it took to snap the front cover shut. Cover open, my eyes would need to be trained not to see the magnified view, ect. Closed, you just look around the ACOG with your non-dominant eye while your dominant eye super-imposes a reticle over the target. Sickness. I love ACOGs!
Another thing...FOV within 100m doesn't matter I guess. If you are within 100m of the target, 1X should be good enough. Close the front cover, have unlimited (except by the physiology of your eyes) FOV, and have a reticle floating there for you. Does this not work, or am I pipe-dreaming? |
|
In addition there's a POI shift when using BAC. Try setting up the ACOG. place the reticle on a fixed object and look through the scope using the scope's magnification. Now close the front cover and see where the reticle is now pointing. The point of aim should shift.
|
|
Quoted:
In addition there's a POI shift when using BAC. Try setting up the ACOG. place the reticle on a fixed object and look through the scope using the scope's magnification. Now close the front cover and see where the reticle is now pointing. The point of aim should shift. INdeed it is so :( 3" shift at about 14' diagonally right and down. |
| its just as fast as any red dot sight.. at close ranges like that it is pretty much just always point shooting anyway.. at close ranges (0 - 20 yards) I am just as fast with my ACOG as I am with my Trijicon Reflex 30.. I must say it did take some time for me, I did not catch on as fast as you did but once I did it was pretty cool.. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. That's your opinion, to many others it is just as fast. None of those "many others" include people who kick down doors for a living. As I am fond of saying, when my platoon did the MEU(SOC) qual course, there were ~25 ACOGs, 3 EOTechs, and 1 Aimpoint. The top 3 scorers were all using red dots. I was #2 with an EOTech. The 3rd EOTech was #7 or so. He couldn't shoot well with anything. And trust me, we knew what BAC was. This is not a coincidence. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. That's your opinion, to many others it is just as fast. None of those "many others" include people who kick down doors for a living. As I am fond of saying, when my platoon did the MEU(SOC) qual course, there were ~25 ACOGs, 3 EOTechs, and 1 Aimpoint. The top 3 scorers were all using red dots. I was #2 with an EOTech. The 3rd EOTech was #7 or so. He couldn't shoot well with anything. And trust me, we knew what BAC was. This is not a coincidence. Actually many do, I understand you may not like the ACOG but there are many who are very proficient with it. I get a kick out of how many here think just because they are faster with a certian optic that so is everyone else. Oh, and I am sure that your qual course had NOTHING to do with shooter skill and EVERYTHING to do with the optics being used. I'm not going to tell you that ACOG's are the best option for everyone, hell even I run Aimpoints on some of my rifles. But blanket statements about one optic being better/faster than another mean absolutely nothing in the real world. |
|
Quoted:
Actually many do, I understand you may not like the ACOG but there are many who are very proficient with it. I get a kick out of how many here think just because they are faster with a certian optic that so is everyone else. Oh, and I am sure that your qual course had NOTHING to do with shooter skill and EVERYTHING to do with the optics being used. I'm not going to tell you that ACOG's are the best option for everyone, hell even I run Aimpoints on some of my rifles. But blanket statements about one optic being better/faster than another mean absolutely nothing in the real world. It seems to me that all he was saying is that one TYPE of optic is faster than another, i.e. red dots are faster than magnified optics. Nor is he, I think, saying that ACOGs are not any good for such things or are slow, just that red dots are faster. Now for the love of pete will someone put a green chevron on the Tri-Power already. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. That's your opinion, to many others it is just as fast. None of those "many others" include people who kick down doors for a living. As I am fond of saying, when my platoon did the MEU(SOC) qual course, there were ~25 ACOGs, 3 EOTechs, and 1 Aimpoint. The top 3 scorers were all using red dots. I was #2 with an EOTech. The 3rd EOTech was #7 or so. He couldn't shoot well with anything. And trust me, we knew what BAC was. This is not a coincidence. Actually many do, I understand you may not like the ACOG but there are many who are very proficient with it. I get a kick out of how many here think just because they are faster with a certian optic that so is everyone else. Oh, and I am sure that your qual course had NOTHING to do with shooter skill and EVERYTHING to do with the optics being used. I'm not going to tell you that ACOG's are the best option for everyone, hell even I run Aimpoints on some of my rifles. But blanket statements about one optic being better/faster than another mean absolutely nothing in the real world. So my experiences from the "real world" mean nothing, eh? I was actually brand new and had just completed the same training that everyone else in the platoon received over the previous weeks - and the ACOGs were not faster - again this is no coincidence. And show me where I said that I don't like ACOGs. |
|
Quoted:
Why does the chevron shift? Does it have anything to do with the prism being at a 45* angle? That is the angle at which it shifted, 45* anglw down and right, 3-4" at 14-ish feet. it shifts because your brain super-imposes the image of the chevron (which is being SEEN by your RIGHT eye) over the image being seen by your LEFT eye. Your right eye is in line with the barrel and therefore the path of the bullet. Your left eye is not and you are aiming with your left eye. Its off by about 3" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the chevron shift? Does it have anything to do with the prism being at a 45* angle? That is the angle at which it shifted, 45* anglw down and right, 3-4" at 14-ish feet. it shifts because your brain super-imposes the image of the chevron (which is being SEEN by your RIGHT eye) over the image being seen by your LEFT eye. Your right eye is in line with the barrel and therefore the path of the bullet. Your left eye is not and you are aiming with your left eye. Its off by about 3" Apparently this is magnified at distance. About 3-5' off at 80-100 yards or so peeking out my window. I would use this method across the room COM only. I feel that the Aimpoint is superior in this aspect, having used both types of optics, but I would not at all be upset by having to use an ACOG here. I think it a quiet admission by Trijicon to this fact that they offer the Dr type sights on their ACOG's. If it were not a benefit for the customer, I doubt they would do it. Trijicon seems wonderfully free of "gimmicky crap" so I must conclude that their is a reason they have the DR sights. All that being said, I like ACOG's and will buy an ACOG and not am Aimpoint for my new build. |
|
Quoted:
I read a lot of threads on the ACOG's BAC and this and that and aimpoints and on and on. Well, I closed the flip-cover on the RCOA4 sitting on my desk awaiting payment from a member here, and walked around the room. It looked like the chevron was just floating there. Kindof like the HUG on a corvette. Wow. Maybe I am a wierd person, but this BAC is awesome and I feel that I would be as fast with this as an Aimpoint any day. THe learning curve for the BAC took only as long as it took to snap the front cover shut. Technically speaking, by using the ACOG with the flip-cover closed, you were employing it as an "occluded eye gunsight,” which is not quite the same thing as using the Bindon Aiming Concept. Aimpoint sights (which have no magnification) can also be used as occluded eye gunsights by flipping the front cover closed. Some of our troops in Iraq use the Aimpoint in this fashion when going from the bright outdoors into dimly lit buildings so that they don’t have to stop to adjust the intensity level of the red dot. Naturally, the Trijicon Armson OEG is the original take on the concept and it too is a non-magnified optic. The Bindon Aiming Concept comes into play when using the magnified ACOG (without the flip cover) while moving the weapon/sight to find or track a target. Most of our "seeing" is done with our brain, not our eyes. When the brain (of most people) is presented with conflicting visual input from the left and right eyes, it selects the visual tract that provides the most clear/detailed image to “focus” on. This is a naturally occurring phenomenon of human binocular vision. When the weapon/sight is moving, the image of the target and background presented to your dominant eye is blurred due to the magnification of the ACOG. At this point the brain selects the visual tract coming from your non-dominant eye to focus on because it is clear and sharp. Because the reticle is in focus at all times, the brain “includes it” along with the view coming from your non-dominant eye. When the weapon/sight stops moving, the magnified image presented to your dominant eye is no longer blurred and is now more detailed than the non-magnified image seen by your non-dominant eye. So, at this point, the brain selects the visual tract from your dominant eye to focus on. With the Bindon Aiming Concept, the brain does require a split second to process the conflicting visual input from your left and right eyes, choose the visual tract to focus on and then “zoom in” so to speak, on the selected tract. When using the ACOG as an occluded eye gunsight, there is no transition time involved, though of course there is no benefit of magnification and a large portion of your field of view from your dominant eye is blocked. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. That's your opinion, to many others it is just as fast. None of those "many others" include people who kick down doors for a living. As I am fond of saying, when my platoon did the MEU(SOC) qual course, there were ~25 ACOGs, 3 EOTechs, and 1 Aimpoint. The top 3 scorers were all using red dots. I was #2 with an EOTech. The 3rd EOTech was #7 or so. He couldn't shoot well with anything. And trust me, we knew what BAC was. This is not a coincidence. Actually many do, I understand you may not like the ACOG but there are many who are very proficient with it. I get a kick out of how many here think just because they are faster with a certian optic that so is everyone else. Oh, and I am sure that your qual course had NOTHING to do with shooter skill and EVERYTHING to do with the optics being used. I'm not going to tell you that ACOG's are the best option for everyone, hell even I run Aimpoints on some of my rifles. But blanket statements about one optic being better/faster than another mean absolutely nothing in the real world. So my experiences from the "real world" mean nothing, eh? I was actually brand new and had just completed the same training that everyone else in the platoon received over the previous weeks - and the ACOGs were not faster - again this is no coincidence. And show me where I said that I don't like ACOGs. Wow, you're a little touchy aren't ya  I'm not attacking you or even arguing with you. I don't doubt the Aimpoint is faster for you.
I never said anything about your experience not meaning anything, I don't know you. You made a blanket statement that Aimpoints are faster and I said that just because your experience tells you one thing doesn't mean that is the case for everyone else. You may be faster with an Aimpoint and thats great, I can show you guys that are faster with an ACOG. There is no perfect optic, you may think there is for you but thats not the case for everyone. Everyone has their favorite optic and the koolaid is strong amongst those groups. |
|
Quoted:
I never said anything about your experience not meaning anything, I don't know you. You made a blanket statement that Aimpoints are faster and I said that just because your experience tells you one thing doesn't mean that is the case for everyone else. You may be faster with an Aimpoint and thats great, I can show you guys that are faster with an ACOG. There is no perfect optic, you may think there is for you but thats not the case for everyone. Everyone has their favorite optic and the koolaid is strong amongst those groups. So where did I say that I didn't like ACOGs? And where did I say that the Aimpoint (or EOTech) is perfect? Should it also be disclosed to other readers that you work for Trijicon and therefore might be slightly biased? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said anything about your experience not meaning anything, I don't know you. You made a blanket statement that Aimpoints are faster and I said that just because your experience tells you one thing doesn't mean that is the case for everyone else. You may be faster with an Aimpoint and thats great, I can show you guys that are faster with an ACOG. There is no perfect optic, you may think there is for you but thats not the case for everyone. Everyone has their favorite optic and the koolaid is strong amongst those groups. So where did I say that I didn't like ACOGs? And where did I say that the Aimpoint (or EOTech) is perfect? Should it also be disclosed to other readers that you work for Trijicon and therefore might be slightly biased? Nice try bud, most here know who I work for and it's in my little title box to the left. I am much less biased than most on this site, maybe you missed the part where I said I own and use Aimpoints. I also, own Nightforce, Leupold and Docter Optics. My whole point (to this pointless little discussion) is that there is no perfect optic for anyone. I shoot as much with my Aimpoints as my ACOG's. My scores are nearly identical with either optic. I never said the ACOG was easy to shoot fast, it takes practice. You were the first to jump in and say that Aimpoints and Eotechs are better/faster even though the OP never asked for a comparison. Normally there is an agenda attached to that type of response/comment. I'll move along as you are not going to change your POV and that is fine. My whole reason for even posting in this thread was because the OP discovered something about the ACOG he didn't know and some jumped on him for it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said anything about your experience not meaning anything, I don't know you. You made a blanket statement that Aimpoints are faster and I said that just because your experience tells you one thing doesn't mean that is the case for everyone else. You may be faster with an Aimpoint and thats great, I can show you guys that are faster with an ACOG. There is no perfect optic, you may think there is for you but thats not the case for everyone. Everyone has their favorite optic and the koolaid is strong amongst those groups. So where did I say that I didn't like ACOGs? And where did I say that the Aimpoint (or EOTech) is perfect? Should it also be disclosed to other readers that you work for Trijicon and therefore might be slightly biased? Nice try bud, most here know who I work for and it's in my little title box to the left. I am much less biased than most on this site, maybe you missed the part where I said I own and use Aimpoints. I also, own Nightforce, Leupold and Docter Optics. My whole point (to this pointless little discussion) is that there is no perfect optic for anyone. I shoot as much with my Aimpoints as my ACOG's. My scores are nearly identical with either optic. I never said the ACOG was easy to shoot fast, it takes practice. You were the first to jump in and say that Aimpoints and Eotechs are better/faster even though the OP never asked for a comparison. Normally there is an agenda attached to that type of response/comment. I'll move along as you are not going to change your POV and that is fine. My whole reason for even posting in this thread was because the OP discovered something about the ACOG he didn't know and some jumped on him for it. Well, I'd just like to point out that I never said I didn't like ACOGs, and I never said that Aimpoints or EOTechs were perfect, and if you want to try to change my point of view, claiming I'm some sort of "Church of Aimpoint" radical anti-ACOG extremist (when I certainly am not and recommend the TA33 on these boards pretty often) is not the way to do so. I also don't think I "jumped" on the OP. And it probably wasn't clear to most who you worked for (after all, I'd seen your avatar and tagline before and you had to tell me), so I thought I'd clear that up. Frankly I don't know how you could extrapolate that I don't like ACOGs given that the first words I typed were "it's good." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said anything about your experience not meaning anything, I don't know you. You made a blanket statement that Aimpoints are faster and I said that just because your experience tells you one thing doesn't mean that is the case for everyone else. You may be faster with an Aimpoint and thats great, I can show you guys that are faster with an ACOG. There is no perfect optic, you may think there is for you but thats not the case for everyone. Everyone has their favorite optic and the koolaid is strong amongst those groups. So where did I say that I didn't like ACOGs? And where did I say that the Aimpoint (or EOTech) is perfect? Should it also be disclosed to other readers that you work for Trijicon and therefore might be slightly biased? Nice try bud, most here know who I work for and it's in my little title box to the left. I am much less biased than most on this site, maybe you missed the part where I said I own and use Aimpoints. I also, own Nightforce, Leupold and Docter Optics. My whole point (to this pointless little discussion) is that there is no perfect optic for anyone. I shoot as much with my Aimpoints as my ACOG's. My scores are nearly identical with either optic. I never said the ACOG was easy to shoot fast, it takes practice. You were the first to jump in and say that Aimpoints and Eotechs are better/faster even though the OP never asked for a comparison. Normally there is an agenda attached to that type of response/comment. I'll move along as you are not going to change your POV and that is fine. My whole reason for even posting in this thread was because the OP discovered something about the ACOG he didn't know and some jumped on him for it. Well, I'd just like to point out that I never said I didn't like ACOGs, and I never said that Aimpoints or EOTechs were perfect, and if you want to try to change my point of view, claiming I'm some sort of "Church of Aimpoint" radical anti-ACOG extremist (when I certainly am not and recommend the TA33 on these boards pretty often) is not the way to do so. Might want to try Decaf
|
|
Quoted:
Might want to try Decaf Now you're just trying to get under my skin. I simply don't understand your comments or where you are coming from. Well, I know where you're coming from. So I guess I understand your comments. But I still don't have time for the bullshit. If I'd said that ACOGs were crap, fine. But I didn't, and I wholeheartedly recommend them pretty often, and you have to have seen some of my posts to that effect on this forum. Just because I don't think they're as fast close up or indoors as an EOTech/Aimpoint does not mean that I don't like them or think that any other optic is perfect. I have a Swarovski spotting scope, not an Aimpoint 3X. I have a Zeiss riflescope, not an EOTech, on my hunting rifle. Every optic has its place. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. Don't mean to jump in the middle of your argument, but when you make a comment like that... it IS your personal opinion. My friends ACOG was just as fast for me as my other friends Aimpoint. (First time trying an optic) I've been shooting irons forever and personally between those and an Eotech I just tried... I like the ACOG the most... the BAC makes sense and was my favorite (again its personal opinion). Eotech came second and aimpoint third on my list. I just think the cool pointers on the ACOG and the Eotech are nicer then a simple Aimpoint... then again sometimes simple is better... personal opinion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Might want to try Decaf Now you're just trying to get under my skin. I simply don't understand your comments or where you are coming from. Well, I know where you're coming from. So I guess I understand your comments. But I still don't have time for the bullshit. If I'd said that ACOGs were crap, fine. But I didn't, and I wholeheartedly recommend them pretty often, and you have to have seen some of my posts to that effect on this forum. Just because I don't think they're as fast close up or indoors as an EOTech/Aimpoint does not mean that I don't like them or think that any other optic is perfect. I have a Swarovski spotting scope, not an Aimpoint 3X. I have a Zeiss riflescope, not an EOTech, on my hunting rifle. Every optic has its place. Funny thing is, I'm really not. You are getting all fired up over nothing. I made a comment about you not liking ACOG's for speed drills and you have managed to bring that up in EVERY post you have made since then. Maybe my assumption (based on your comment at the top of this page) was wrong but dude relax. For the last time (and then I am done), you made the definitive comment that using an ACOG with the objective covered wasn't as fast as an Eotech or Aimpoint. You made that based on your OPINION but stated it like it was a FACT. It isn't a fact, it's an opinion. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding where I am coming from. If that is bullshit to you, that's your problem not mine. ETA - and just for the record, tell me why being an engineer for Trijicon makes me biased in this discussion. I don't remember ever saying that the ACOG was superior to any other optics. I don't believe I have ever stated anything close to that in any thread I have posted in. I'm not stupid, I know there are other optics that are excellent alternatives. I don't need to sell anyone on the benefits, we are backordered on them for a reason. I like to make sure the facts are all on the table, that is all. I'm friends with a lot of guys in the industry, we all run eachothers gear. It does us no good to talk bad about others in our field. Rant off. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Might want to try Decaf Now you're just trying to get under my skin. I simply don't understand your comments or where you are coming from. Well, I know where you're coming from. So I guess I understand your comments. But I still don't have time for the bullshit. If I'd said that ACOGs were crap, fine. But I didn't, and I wholeheartedly recommend them pretty often, and you have to have seen some of my posts to that effect on this forum. Just because I don't think they're as fast close up or indoors as an EOTech/Aimpoint does not mean that I don't like them or think that any other optic is perfect. I have a Swarovski spotting scope, not an Aimpoint 3X. I have a Zeiss riflescope, not an EOTech, on my hunting rifle. Every optic has its place. Funny thing is, I'm really not. You are getting all fired up over nothing. I made a comment about you not liking ACOG's for speed drills and you have managed to bring that up in EVERY post you have made since then. Maybe my assumption (based on your comment at the top of this page) was wrong but dude relax. For the last time (and then I am done), you made the definitive comment that using an ACOG with the objective covered wasn't as fast as an Eotech or Aimpoint. You made that based on your OPINION but stated it like it was a FACT. It isn't a fact, it's an opinion. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding where I am coming from. If that is bullshit to you, that's your problem not mine. ETA - and just for the record, tell me why being an engineer for Trijicon makes me biased in this discussion. I don't remember ever saying that the ACOG was superior to any other optics. I don't believe I have ever stated anything close to that in any thread I have posted in. I'm not stupid, I know there are other optics that are excellent alternatives. I don't need to sell anyone on the benefits, we are backordered on them for a reason. I like to make sure the facts are all on the table, that is all. I'm friends with a lot of guys in the industry, we all run eachothers gear. It does us no good to talk bad about others in our field. Rant off. I worked for Ford, and still think the LSX based engines are way better than anything Ford has right now. I do not feel that this makes you biased more than your personal preference does. Plenty of people dislike the product/place they work. In fact, an employee telling me their company is good, impresses me! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. Don't mean to jump in the middle of your argument, but when you make a comment like that... it IS your personal opinion. My friends ACOG was just as fast for me as my other friends Aimpoint. (First time trying an optic) I've been shooting irons forever and personally between those and an Eotech I just tried... I like the ACOG the most... the BAC makes sense and was my favorite (again its personal opinion). Eotech came second and aimpoint third on my list. I just think the cool pointers on the ACOG and the Eotech are nicer then a simple Aimpoint... then again sometimes simple is better... personal opinion. Yes, of course it is opinion. I offered my opinion based on my personal experiences with each optic. It is up to the reader to determine whose opinion carries the most weight, and whose opinion may not be entirely unbiased. If I offer the actual scores from a qualification, showing a definite bias towards (or away from) a certain piece of gear on a scale larger than 1 person with 1 rifle and 1 or 2 optics, and you choose to discount this opinion, that's entirely your choice, I am not here to force anything down anyone's throat. My opinion is that: - By the numbers, the shooters with EOTechs and Aimpoints outshot those with ACOGs in a very rigorous military qualification course (that is shot at "CQB" distances, sometimes while moving, and the shortcomings of any optic become quickly apparent while shooting on the move). There were some exceptionally skilled shooters that I outshot simply because I had an optic better suited for that particular task. This experience has been reinforced with observations over the years. I have yet to see anything to indicate that ACOGs are as good as quality red dot/holographic sights at extreme close range shooting. I will leave the filtering of other opinions up to the reader, but I don't want people spending $1000 on an ACOG thinking it's great for home defense at 3m. This is my only reason for spending a lot of time on ARFCOM and not having abandoned it for M4C or other forums, I received a lot of help here when I was trying to pick rifle parts after I got out of the military, and now I try to help other new people. I personally don't care what anyone buys, as long as they were not misled into thinking that they were buying something that would serve their purposes well when in fact it does not. bullitt5172, let me ask you this; if you have a rifle for home defense, what optic does it have? And I'm getting fired up over someone who works for a company that sells an optic twisting my words and making it sound as if I'm dissing their product for no reason. If you can't see where bias could be inferred from that, I cannot help you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. Don't mean to jump in the middle of your argument, but when you make a comment like that... it IS your personal opinion. My friends ACOG was just as fast for me as my other friends Aimpoint. (First time trying an optic) I've been shooting irons forever and personally between those and an Eotech I just tried... I like the ACOG the most... the BAC makes sense and was my favorite (again its personal opinion). Eotech came second and aimpoint third on my list. I just think the cool pointers on the ACOG and the Eotech are nicer then a simple Aimpoint... then again sometimes simple is better... personal opinion. Yes, of course it is opinion. I offered my opinion based on my personal experiences with each optic. It is up to the reader to determine whose opinion carries the most weight, and whose opinion may not be entirely unbiased. If I offer the actual scores from a qualification, showing a definite bias towards (or away from) a certain piece of gear on a scale larger than 1 person with 1 rifle and 1 or 2 optics, and you choose to discount this opinion, that's entirely your choice, I am not here to force anything down anyone's throat. My opinion is that: - By the numbers, the shooters with EOTechs and Aimpoints outshot those with ACOGs in a very rigorous military qualification course (that is shot at "CQB" distances, sometimes while moving, and the shortcomings of any optic become quickly apparent while shooting on the move). There were some exceptionally skilled shooters that I outshot simply because I had an optic better suited for that particular task. This experience has been reinforced with observations over the years. I have yet to see anything to indicate that ACOGs are as good as quality red dot/holographic sights at extreme close range shooting. I will leave the filtering of other opinions up to the reader, but I don't want people spending $1000 on an ACOG thinking it's great for home defense at 3m. This is my only reason for spending a lot of time on ARFCOM and not having abandoned it for M4C or other forums, I received a lot of help here when I was trying to pick rifle parts after I got out of the military, and now I try to help other new people. I personally don't care what anyone buys, as long as they were not misled into thinking that they were buying something that would serve their purposes well when in fact it does not. bullitt5172, let me ask you this; if you have a rifle for home defense, what optic does it have? And I'm getting fired up over someone who works for a company that sells an optic twisting my words and making it sound as if I'm dissing their product for no reason. If you can't see where bias could be inferred from that, I cannot help you. I have not read every word of every post, but the gist that I have gotten (as unbiased as I can be) is this: You think the ACOG is not as fast as the AImpoint up-close. Bullit said that for a trained person, it is. You stated again that in "the real world", it is not. Bullit again stated that if you train right, it is. Now it is going back and forth with Bullit saying you are calling opinion fact, and whatnot and you are saying Bullit has discounted your "real world" experience. I really think the difference you 2 are arguing over is moot. The end-user and their individual strengths and weaknesses will have more impact on which is more effective than either of you can predict from behind a computer screen. No, "Moderator" is not on my sig-line, just trying to throw some valium into this thing. |
|
Quoted:
I have not read every word of every post, but the gist that I have gotten (as unbiased as I can be) is this: You think the ACOG is not as fast as the AImpoint up-close. Bullit said that for a trained person, it is. You stated again that in "the real world", it is not. Bullit again stated that if you train right, it is. Now it is going back and forth with Bullit saying you are calling opinion fact, and whatnot and you are saying Bullit has discounted your "real world" experience. I really think the difference you 2 are arguing over is moot. The end-user and their individual strengths and weaknesses will have more impact on which is more effective than either of you can predict from behind a computer screen. Not in my experience, as I assure you that my platoon was very well trained, having just fired many thousands of rounds each in a very rigorous training program, and yet the RDS still outperformed the magnified optics. Bullitt has not yet put anything forward to substantiate his claims. I have done so to the best of my ability. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have not read every word of every post, but the gist that I have gotten (as unbiased as I can be) is this: You think the ACOG is not as fast as the AImpoint up-close. Bullit said that for a trained person, it is. You stated again that in "the real world", it is not. Bullit again stated that if you train right, it is. Now it is going back and forth with Bullit saying you are calling opinion fact, and whatnot and you are saying Bullit has discounted your "real world" experience. I really think the difference you 2 are arguing over is moot. The end-user and their individual strengths and weaknesses will have more impact on which is more effective than either of you can predict from behind a computer screen. Not in my experience, as I assure you that my platoon was very well trained, having just fired many thousands of rounds each in a very rigorous training program, and yet the RDS still outperformed the magnified optics. Bullitt has not yet put anything forward to substantiate his claims. I have done so to the best of my ability. Plenty of 3-gunners prefer the ACOG to the Aimpoint. They do a lot of up-close, medium, and transition shooting. It doesn't seem to handicap them one bit. You and Bullit plainly disagree, however, I think both of you are being honest about your experiences. I would not say one of you has had "more important" experiences than the other, so I think it is a matter of training, opinion, and preference. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have not read every word of every post, but the gist that I have gotten (as unbiased as I can be) is this: You think the ACOG is not as fast as the AImpoint up-close. Bullit said that for a trained person, it is. You stated again that in "the real world", it is not. Bullit again stated that if you train right, it is. Now it is going back and forth with Bullit saying you are calling opinion fact, and whatnot and you are saying Bullit has discounted your "real world" experience. I really think the difference you 2 are arguing over is moot. The end-user and their individual strengths and weaknesses will have more impact on which is more effective than either of you can predict from behind a computer screen. Not in my experience, as I assure you that my platoon was very well trained, having just fired many thousands of rounds each in a very rigorous training program, and yet the RDS still outperformed the magnified optics. Bullitt has not yet put anything forward to substantiate his claims. I have done so to the best of my ability. Plenty of 3-gunners prefer the ACOG to the Aimpoint. They do a lot of up-close, medium, and transition shooting. It doesn't seem to handicap them one bit. You and Bullit plainly disagree, however, I think both of you are being honest about your experiences. I would not say one of you has had "more important" experiences than the other, so I think it is a matter of training, opinion, and preference. +1 on this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have not read every word of every post, but the gist that I have gotten (as unbiased as I can be) is this: You think the ACOG is not as fast as the AImpoint up-close. Bullit said that for a trained person, it is. You stated again that in "the real world", it is not. Bullit again stated that if you train right, it is. Now it is going back and forth with Bullit saying you are calling opinion fact, and whatnot and you are saying Bullit has discounted your "real world" experience. I really think the difference you 2 are arguing over is moot. The end-user and their individual strengths and weaknesses will have more impact on which is more effective than either of you can predict from behind a computer screen. Not in my experience, as I assure you that my platoon was very well trained, having just fired many thousands of rounds each in a very rigorous training program, and yet the RDS still outperformed the magnified optics. Bullitt has not yet put anything forward to substantiate his claims. I have done so to the best of my ability. Plenty of 3-gunners prefer the ACOG to the Aimpoint. They do a lot of up-close, medium, and transition shooting. It doesn't seem to handicap them one bit. You and Bullit plainly disagree, however, I think both of you are being honest about your experiences. I would not say one of you has had "more important" experiences than the other, so I think it is a matter of training, opinion, and preference. For true 3 gun, I'd probably use an ACOG too. They're engaging targets out to 200m (and beyond in some cases) and there is no question that the ACOG is faster and more accurate (for me) at those ranges. "It doesn't seem to handicap them" does not match up well with the rankings I've seen (for the zillionth time) when we're talking about the MEU(SOC) qual course, which you are welcome to Google. Then again, 3 gun and that qual course are not exactly the same thing. However, one of the biggest complaints about the ACOG I heard from a large number of very experienced people, and I shared this opinion, was we had to use it to clear houses (in Fallujah in my case). It was not ideal for those conditions. Great for target identification at longer ranges? Yes, of course. I always had one on me to use as a spotting scope. |
|
87GN is absolutely dead-on with his statements regarding ACOGs.
Unfortunately, the ACOG is considered to be a Holy Grail-type optic by many of the members here, so it is a protected entity and will always be vigorously defended. Interestingly, many of the folks that "discover" and love the BAC don't even fully understand the concept. Instead, they are running around in OEG mode and are quick to make proclamations about the sheer superiority of ACOGs. As for the 3-gun argument, much of the shooting takes place on a sunny day at known targets in a choreographed manner. Is it possible their requirements may be slightly different? bullit has done an excellent job of protecting his company here and on M4C, and I don't hold it against him. He needs to do what he needs to do. But, picking a fight with a dude that clearly understands the limitations of the product is simply not cool. |
| Glad you like yours and are fast with it. I like variable 1-3 or 4x scopes and I am fast with them. Different strokes for different folks. It really only matters that you get a quality, durable, dependable sight you are good with and practice with it. Acogs are certainly quality, durable and dependable gun sights. |
|
Quoted:
With the Bindon Aiming Concept, the brain does require a split second to process the conflicting visual input from your left and right eyes, choose the visual tract to focus on and then “zoom in” so to speak, on the selected tract. When using the ACOG as an occluded eye gunsight, there is no transition time involved, though of course there is no benefit of magnification and a large portion of your field of view from your dominant eye is blocked. I almost hate to change the subject here, but... 
My experience with BAC has been that the time it takes the brain to switch between the unmagnified eye and the magnified eye is directly related to the magnification of the scope (at least, for me). The greater the magnification, the more the delay. With a variable scope set at or below 1.5x, I don't experience any perceivable issue; by 2x, I do. I'm sure that for others, that point might be different. And it varies with the scope itself, apparently because of how much FOV the scope offers and the quality of the glass. For straight COM hits, by someone that practices a lot, this is probably a moot issue. Or not. For me, up close, the less magnification the better. |
|
Quoted:
87GN is absolutely dead-on with his statements regarding ACOGs. Unfortunately, the ACOG is considered to be a Holy Grail-type optic by many of the members here, so it is a protected entity and will always be vigorously defended. Interestingly, many of the folks that "discover" and love the BAC don't even fully understand the concept. Instead, they are running around in OEG mode and are quick to make proclamations about the sheer superiority of ACOGs. As for the 3-gun argument, much of the shooting takes place on a sunny day at known targets in a choreographed manner. Is it possible their requirements may be slightly different? bullit has done an excellent job of protecting his company here and on M4C, and I don't hold it against him. He needs to do what he needs to do. But, picking a fight with a dude that clearly understands the limitations of the product is simply not cool. Clearly me working for a company makes any comment I make about that company "defending" them. I don't, I didn't in this thread and I won't in the future. I make comments based on facts, based on conversations with those fighting overseas, based on conversations with those high-ups in the .mil that make the decisions and based on what I see when I'm out training. We did get a request from Crane to add the Docter to the top of the ACOG because they didn't feel the ACOG was fast enough and didn't want to train their guys to use it. The Army and Marines don't feel they need the Docter and didn't add it. I never once picked a fight, bad-mouthed another optics company or anyone in this thread. 95% of the comments I make on this board and any other one I participate in are made answering questions. I have no agenda and never bad mouth anyone/any other product. I don't believe that I have ever stated the ACOG is the Holy Grail, others might and that may be true to some. I've never stated the ACOG is faster than an Aimpoint. There are more than enough people on this board willing to argue which is better, I don't need to. But I will say this, I simply cannot believe that some here who will not even entertain the idea that there are some individuals who can shoot equally well with an ACOG inside 25yds as they can with an Aimpoint. That is ALL I said in this entire thread. This website is amazing sometimes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its just as fast as any red dot sight.. Sorry, no. That's your opinion, to many others it is just as fast. None of those "many others" include people who kick down doors for a living. As I am fond of saying, when my platoon did the MEU(SOC) qual course, there were ~25 ACOGs, 3 EOTechs, and 1 Aimpoint. The top 3 scorers were all using red dots. I was #2 with an EOTech. The 3rd EOTech was #7 or so. He couldn't shoot well with anything. And trust me, we knew what BAC was. This is not a coincidence. Im as quick with my TA33 as I am with my Aimpoints. I think alot of the problems with the Marines is eye relief mixed with fixed stock. I cleared alot of rooms in Iraq with the TA31, and it was a pain in the ass till I put a collapsable stock on my A4, then it was good to go. |
|
Quoted:
Im as quick with my TA33 as I am with my Aimpoints. I think alot of the problems with the Marines is eye relief mixed with fixed stock. I cleared alot of rooms in Iraq with the TA31, and it was a pain in the ass till I put a collapsable stock on my A4, then it was good to go. We all had M4s (in my platoon)... There's a fix coming down the pipe for that anyway... I really like TA33s, and I'll talk them up to anyone who'll listen, but I could still not get used to using it indoors. |
|
Quoted:
Clearly me working for a company makes any comment I make about that company "defending" them. I don't, I didn't in this thread and I won't in the future. I make comments based on facts, based on conversations with those fighting overseas, based on conversations with those high-ups in the .mil that make the decisions and based on what I see when I'm out training. We did get a request from Crane to add the Docter to the top of the ACOG because they didn't feel the ACOG was fast enough and didn't want to train their guys to use it. The Army and Marines don't feel they need the Docter and didn't add it. I never once picked a fight, bad-mouthed another optics company or anyone in this thread. 95% of the comments I make on this board and any other one I participate in are made answering questions. I have no agenda and never bad mouth anyone/any other product. I don't believe that I have ever stated the ACOG is the Holy Grail, others might and that may be true to some. I've never stated the ACOG is faster than an Aimpoint. There are more than enough people on this board willing to argue which is better, I don't need to. But I will say this, I simply cannot believe that some here who will not even entertain the idea that there are some individuals who can shoot equally well with an ACOG inside 25yds as they can with an Aimpoint. That is ALL I said in this entire thread. This website is amazing sometimes. Amazing that someone who will go to extreme lengths to "assume" things I never said doesn't think he's defending the company he works for. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clearly me working for a company makes any comment I make about that company "defending" them. I don't, I didn't in this thread and I won't in the future. I make comments based on facts, based on conversations with those fighting overseas, based on conversations with those high-ups in the .mil that make the decisions and based on what I see when I'm out training. We did get a request from Crane to add the Docter to the top of the ACOG because they didn't feel the ACOG was fast enough and didn't want to train their guys to use it. The Army and Marines don't feel they need the Docter and didn't add it. I never once picked a fight, bad-mouthed another optics company or anyone in this thread. 95% of the comments I make on this board and any other one I participate in are made answering questions. I have no agenda and never bad mouth anyone/any other product. I don't believe that I have ever stated the ACOG is the Holy Grail, others might and that may be true to some. I've never stated the ACOG is faster than an Aimpoint. There are more than enough people on this board willing to argue which is better, I don't need to. But I will say this, I simply cannot believe that some here who will not even entertain the idea that there are some individuals who can shoot equally well with an ACOG inside 25yds as they can with an Aimpoint. That is ALL I said in this entire thread. This website is amazing sometimes. Amazing that someone who will go to extreme lengths to "assume" things I never said doesn't think he's defending the company he works for. You clearly want to attack me more than actually comprehend what I am writing. I'll stop responding as it's just bumping this post to top again and again. I say one thing, you totally ignore it and focus on something else. Have a good one 87, as Rusted Ace has stated there are "others" who do understand where I am coming from. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clearly me working for a company makes any comment I make about that company "defending" them. I don't, I didn't in this thread and I won't in the future. I make comments based on facts, based on conversations with those fighting overseas, based on conversations with those high-ups in the .mil that make the decisions and based on what I see when I'm out training. We did get a request from Crane to add the Docter to the top of the ACOG because they didn't feel the ACOG was fast enough and didn't want to train their guys to use it. The Army and Marines don't feel they need the Docter and didn't add it. I never once picked a fight, bad-mouthed another optics company or anyone in this thread. 95% of the comments I make on this board and any other one I participate in are made answering questions. I have no agenda and never bad mouth anyone/any other product. I don't believe that I have ever stated the ACOG is the Holy Grail, others might and that may be true to some. I've never stated the ACOG is faster than an Aimpoint. There are more than enough people on this board willing to argue which is better, I don't need to. But I will say this, I simply cannot believe that some here who will not even entertain the idea that there are some individuals who can shoot equally well with an ACOG inside 25yds as they can with an Aimpoint. That is ALL I said in this entire thread. This website is amazing sometimes. Amazing that someone who will go to extreme lengths to "assume" things I never said doesn't think he's defending the company he works for. You clearly want to attack me more than actually comprehend what I am writing. I'll stop responding as it's just bumping this post to top again and again. I say one thing, you totally ignore it and focus on something else. Have a good one 87, as Rusted Ace has stated there are "others" who do understand where I am coming from. I'm not attacking you. You pulled a lot of stuff out of thin air, and managed to ignore what I said in order to construct your "argument". Now who's being sensitive? Oh, and where did RustedAce say that the TA31 (which is the optic we were issued) was as fast as RDS inside 25? |
|
Quoted:
My 2 cents on the issue.... CQB is all about COM. That said, BAC delivers. This of course assumes one actually practices the effort. Exactly. You can get quicker MOA shots on target with an Aimpoint, but at room-sized distances you should be able to hit COM instinctively with almost any optic or gun. That's straight fact. That being said, I've got my TA31DOC sitting on the rifle that is closest to me, the EoTech is sitting on a middy upper in the safe. Personal preference, but BAC and the DOC optic work perfectly for me from 0 to 500 yds. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clearly me working for a company makes any comment I make about that company "defending" them. I don't, I didn't in this thread and I won't in the future. I make comments based on facts, based on conversations with those fighting overseas, based on conversations with those high-ups in the .mil that make the decisions and based on what I see when I'm out training. We did get a request from Crane to add the Docter to the top of the ACOG because they didn't feel the ACOG was fast enough and didn't want to train their guys to use it. The Army and Marines don't feel they need the Docter and didn't add it. I never once picked a fight, bad-mouthed another optics company or anyone in this thread. 95% of the comments I make on this board and any other one I participate in are made answering questions. I have no agenda and never bad mouth anyone/any other product. I don't believe that I have ever stated the ACOG is the Holy Grail, others might and that may be true to some. I've never stated the ACOG is faster than an Aimpoint. There are more than enough people on this board willing to argue which is better, I don't need to. But I will say this, I simply cannot believe that some here who will not even entertain the idea that there are some individuals who can shoot equally well with an ACOG inside 25yds as they can with an Aimpoint. That is ALL I said in this entire thread. This website is amazing sometimes. Amazing that someone who will go to extreme lengths to "assume" things I never said doesn't think he's defending the company he works for. You clearly want to attack me more than actually comprehend what I am writing. I'll stop responding as it's just bumping this post to top again and again. I say one thing, you totally ignore it and focus on something else. Have a good one 87, as Rusted Ace has stated there are "others" who do understand where I am coming from. I'm not attacking you. You pulled a lot of stuff out of thin air, and managed to ignore what I said in order to construct your "argument". Now who's being sensitive? Oh, and where did RustedAce say that the TA31 (which is the optic we were issued) was as fast as RDS inside 25? Go back and read his post
I think alot of the problems with the Marines is eye relief mixed with fixed stock. I cleared alot of rooms in Iraq with the TA31, and it was a pain in the ass till I put a collapsable stock on my A4, then it was good to go. |
|
Quoted:
Go back and read his post
I think alot of the problems with the Marines is eye relief mixed with fixed stock. I cleared alot of rooms in Iraq with the TA31, and it was a pain in the ass till I put a collapsable stock on my A4, then it was good to go. Quoted:
Im as quick with my TA33 as I am with my Aimpoints. Why, then, did he feel the need to qualify his first sentence by excluding the TA31? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Go back and read his post
I think alot of the problems with the Marines is eye relief mixed with fixed stock. I cleared alot of rooms in Iraq with the TA31, and it was a pain in the ass till I put a collapsable stock on my A4, then it was good to go. Quoted:
Im as quick with my TA33 as I am with my Aimpoints. Why, then, did he feel the need to qualify his first sentence by excluding the TA31? EDIT: Talked with 87 and we are gonna move on, no harm no foul. 
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WOW! (BAC) (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor