Posted: 5/23/2008 9:33:55 AM EDT
|
What competitions are centered around the use of ACOGs? Probably wrong forum, but I need a quick answer. If there official type, that is even better. THX |
You see a lot of people using ACOGs, but a lot of them are doing it simply because they think it's "tactical" and "cool". Same kind of people are running Aimpoints in 3 gun. Great optic, but better suited for combat than three gun. Fixed 3X and 4X magnification is not ideal for three gun. Most people running serious, dedicated 3 gun rifles are mounting 1.1-4X, 1.5-5X, or 2-8X scopes. Leupold, Trijicon, Meopta, and Schmidt and Bender are all popular. |
It's easy to tell the tactical wannabes who want to look cool-- they shoot the TA31 because "it's what the military uses." All of us who know better shoot the TA11. It's not hard to find top-placing shooters using it. I placed 6th in Tac-Scope at the RM3G Nationals last year using one on my MSTN gun, for example. There are few low power variable scopes which have the proper features for both very fast engagements at close range and the 400-500 yard shots you'll see at big 3Gun matches. The Short Dot is one, and I have some trigger time on it. It's over twice the cost of the TA11 and the close-range speed improvement I'd gain after shooting the TA11 for five years is minimal.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo. Yeah, not serious at all.  |
Hey Zak! Have you shot the TA33? |
OK, found it. I have a TA33, but I have never shot a TA11. I bought the TA33 because it seemes like it can do most of what the the TA11 does but with less weight and less price. |
I didn't have the numbers, but that is exactly what the difference is as far as I can tell. The TA11 is clearly the better overall optic, but I the TA33 seems to do all that I need it to do. |
|
Zak, I notice your ACOG is taped up to reduce light to make the reticle liveable for the longer range stages, what happened to the perfect optic? That big fuzzy dot covering that 10'' plate at 400 yards? Hmm, never seen that happen with a variable  So does Trijicon include that target tape in the box, or is than an extra accessory to get the scope to work decently for long range shooting? Please explain why 4X magnification is better than 1.5X at close range, and why 4X is better than 5X at long range? All the top pros run variable magnification scopes. Taran Butler, who's pretty much the indisputed king of tactical class, runs a variable. Here's a link to his picture page Link Jack Boyd runs a variable. Michael Voiyt runs a variable. Trijicon, Leupold, and more offer great variable scopes for 3 gun, with great reticles for 3 gun. And remember, most serious shooters employ a secondary sighting system (for tactical class, JP's short range iron sight) on the handguard for the lightning fast, up close shooting. Open shooters run a second dot sight, either on the handguard, or buddied to their main optic. So the main optic doesn't really even come into play under 15 yards. |
Please quote where I said it was "perfect." And it's not "tape" anyway. My thesis is simply that the TA11 is a popular 3-Gun scope, used by well-placing shooters, because it's a good optic -- not because people want to "look cool."
You should know that for "long range" shooting you're under the bright red donut and into the black BDC anyway.
After a flurry of interest when the JP SRTS first came out, I haven't seen very many of those setups at big matches like the RM3G nationals, DPMS, etc. There are a number of low-power variable scopes that have some of the features one wants for close-range speed and long range effectiveness. The Short Dot meets just about all of them. The TR21's reticle can be a problem. The 1.5-5 MR/T has external knobs which are a liability (I witnessed a team Leupold shooter tank a rifle stage because his windage knob was bumped off zero) and its reticle center is not daylight-bright. -z |
Having to use tape (or whatever you're using, I see shooters using tape) to make your optic work is freakin' horrible. I've seen guys quit halfway through a long range stage because their tape fell off, and now their reticle is ten times bigger than the target. Just not acceptable for a "good" optic for 3 gun. It's fine for a combat optic, where you're shooting at bigger things, but not for 3 gun. Please explain how a 4X optic is better than a 1.5X for close up. Please explain how a 3X or 4X is better than a 5X for long range. Variable magnification helps the shooter better adjust their weapon to the stage. Never had the dials on my Leupold Mk4 move during a match. In three gun, I don't really see how that is likely at all, it's not like you're carrying the rifle on a sling or anything. It either starts in your hands or starts staged on a table, a barrel, or the ground. If the scope dial is off, it probably started the stage that way. Mine has never moved, in practice or in a match; including transport to and from the range. Never had a problem with the SPR reticle in day light either. I don't use the illumination, Leupold's idea of illumination seems to be geared towards night time, not day. Then again, I'm young with fresh eyes; I know some older shooters have a hard time with the thinner reticle, but I like it. Also, Taran Butler runs a JP short range sight. I see lots of other shooters running them, as well as running one myself. I really like it, and will use it out to 25 yards (although that is rare, I generally only use it on targets 15 and under) with great results, and further with decent results if I was forced to (although I would switch to the scope for that) |
nice gun! |
Guys having to quit because their "tape" fell off -- it's laughable. I don't know if that speaks more to your gross exaggeration (like "ten times bigger")or the shooters' gross incompetence and/or "losing mindset". The fact is that the super bright red donut appears just slightly larger when fully bright, on the order of maybe 5-10%. The difference in apparent size is much less than the difference in apparent size of an Aimpoint on its two brightest settings. I find it most useful to turn down the brightness or even go full black when the targets have been painted orange (which is not often at big matches), or when I need to shoot very small targets within 250 yards (again, not common because match directors and stage designers usually make target engagements "possible" for the Limited/Tac-Iron shooters).
I guess you want to pick a fight? People can't just "let go" when someone else posts facts which don't agree with their conceptions of how things should be. A lot of great 3Gunners shoot the TA11 because it is a good optic, not because they are tactical wannabes. That's my thesis in this thread. All one has to do to verify is to go to any major 3Gun match at start counting optics. I've already said that, "There are a number of low-power variable scopes that have some of the features one wants for close-range speed and long range effectiveness." -- which means, to spell it out, that a variable power scope has the potential to be better than the TA11 provided it realizes the right feature set and usability. In fact, I also said that a Short Dot would probably be faster for me than my TA11, but considering the time I have on the TA11 and over twice the cost, the payoff probably would not be worth it for me (at least without some Short Dot design tweaks). How can a 3.5x optic be better than a 1.5x for close up? Here are some ways it could happen: * 1.5x fails to provide a reticle which is very fast to acquire (corollary: shooter can use "BAC" technique on the 3.5x) * 1.5x has reticle which is not visible on mixed-contrast targets (e.g. black reticle washes out) * 1.5x has wrong eye relief or small exit pupil which slows acquisition time, esp. on the move * 1.5x fails repeatability/zero due to external knobs There are some ways a variable could be worse than a fixed 3.5x TA11. These potential problems are actually the opposite of a list of desired features, and like I said, some of the low-power variable scopes do a good job realizing this role, and some of them do not.
I guess actual events don't count if you can't imagine it happening. Alternatively, it is expensive to have to learn every lesson first-hand. |
I'm not "picking a fight", I just wanted to hear your opinion on it. Obviously you're pretty experienced with 3 gun, as am I, and I just wanted to see your opinion. Obviously if there was one "best optic" or "best rifle", the rifle racks at 3 gun matches would all look identical. Different strokes for different folks. |
ACOG love: ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo.  ............... Larger version of above photo. Oh wait, are those all from 3Gun/Multigun matches??!! |
I didn't say the "only", I said " a lot". There are those like yourself who have very valid and well researched why they personally use an ACOG, and there are those who slap it on their rifle because of it's military reputation. I'd venture to guess that very few shooters, regardless of what scope they're running, really fully understand why they think that scope is best for them. Thus, a lot of them are simply running it because it's "cool", and ACOG's are definitely "cooler" (does not mean better for 3 gun) than a variable. For the record, I would consider running an ACOG if I shot Open class, and thus would have a short range red dot sight for the up close stuff. But when I'm limitted to one scope, I like the flexibility of the variable. |
And a lot less $$$. I'm not saying that the TA33 is a better optic than the TA11. That would be silly. But for the money savngs and the weight savings, I think it is worth a look. |