User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:10:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Are they still relevant for the civilian market with so many good options in the 1-4 and 1-6 market these days? Are they truly worth the money with the features and capabilities they possess compared to those low power variables? I mean you can get a Razor gen 2 for the price of some acogs no one will complain about how rugged they are, I know that's one selling point of the ACOG. I've always been curious to try one but so much $$$ so talk me into or out of one. Have a couple different ARs it could go on a 16" mid length and 20" rifle. Still love my TA31F and brand new TA33 Blackout ACOGs. They are considerably lighter than most LPV scopes, have excellent glass, are truly "duty grade" and are backed by an excellent company. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:14:13 PM EDT
[#2]
I love my ACOG.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:15:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Man, the TA33 is awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:15:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Buy one, and you'll be passing it on to your grandkids.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:19:43 PM EDT
[#5]
I still thoroughly enjoy my TA31F and TA33. Definitely worth the price of admission.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:25:44 PM EDT
[#6]
No doubt a lot of personal preference but what are the most popular and useful reticles? Every time I attempt to look at them I get lost in all the options.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:26:38 PM EDT
[#7]
For the toughness and lightweight as well as ease of use sure. But as for civilian use that likely won't see heavy use I think some of the 1-4x options around $5-700 are more relevant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:31:20 PM EDT
[#8]
I have tried to like them. They are very robust design. I just cannot get use to a low fixed power like that and the eye reliefs is not that great. I find a 1-4 more useful if needing something between a 10X+ and an RDS. That's just my opinion though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:49:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the toughness and lightweight as well as ease of use sure. But as for civilian use that likely won't see heavy use I think some of the 1-4x options around $5-700 are more relevant. This. I have one and don't use it very much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 7:54:59 PM EDT
[#10]
I finally had a chance to look through one the other day. Glass is incredible but I'm not a fixed power kind of guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 8:00:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have tried to like them. They are very robust design. I just cannot get use to a low fixed power like that and the eye reliefs is not that great. I find a 1-4 more useful if needing something between a 10X+ and an RDS. That's just my opinion though. I'm just the opposite. I try to appreciate the 1-4 scopes, but the Acog's clarity, quality and lightweight simplicity has ruined me for all other scopes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 8:11:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just the opposite. I try to appreciate the 1-4 scopes, but the Acog's clarity, quality and lightweight simplicity has ruined me for all other scopes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have tried to like them. They are very robust design. I just cannot get use to a low fixed power like that and the eye reliefs is not that great. I find a 1-4 more useful if needing something between a 10X+ and an RDS. That's just my opinion though. I'm just the opposite. I try to appreciate the 1-4 scopes, but the Acog's clarity, quality and lightweight simplicity has ruined me for all other scopes. How do you like it for short distances - under 50 yards? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 8:19:20 PM EDT
[#13]
I swear by them and they top the Henderson Defense list of combat durable optics
But I'm starting to drift towards the low powered variable camp for a do-all optic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 8:32:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just the opposite. I try to appreciate the 1-4 scopes, but the Acog's clarity, quality and lightweight simplicity has ruined me for all other scopes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have tried to like them. They are very robust design. I just cannot get use to a low fixed power like that and the eye reliefs is not that great. I find a 1-4 more useful if needing something between a 10X+ and an RDS. That's just my opinion though. I'm just the opposite. I try to appreciate the 1-4 scopes, but the Acog's clarity, quality and lightweight simplicity has ruined me for all other scopes. Same for me. I've owned quite a few high end LPVs (VCOG, Razor 1-6, Elcan, Mk8) and I always end up ditching them for an ACOG. Can't beat lightweight and simple, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 8:49:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man, the TA33 is awesome. This. Nothing comes close in capability for what it weighs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 9:16:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Yes. Acogs are great!
Don't hesitate to get used from the EE and save $$ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 10:28:19 PM EDT
[#17]
I have a ta31f on a 20 inch A4 with a goverment profile barrel . I love this gun and optic . I would and will buy another acog .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 10:39:08 PM EDT
[#18]
My favorite optic I have ever tried. I have the ta31fG myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2016 10:44:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Never been disappointed with the TA31. great optics. I do feel like they are a little overpriced compared to some of the new stuff that has come out but they have proven to be tough and extremely reliable.
I sold my acog because it hadn't been used for a while but will end up with another at some point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 1:07:16 AM EDT
[#20]
Hell, I still love my 01NSN
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 1:19:30 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man, the TA33 is awesome. I have 2, wouldn't have anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 1:31:57 AM EDT
[#22]
I love my TA31F and my TA11H-G.
However, if I didn't have one... I'd buy a Vortex Razor HDII 1-6x JM-1 reticle, before owning an ACOG. So much more versatile, more magnification, WAY more forgiving eye relief and massively bigger eyebox. Only downside is weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 2:20:37 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Are they still relevant for the civilian market with so many good options in the 1-4 and 1-6 market these days? Are they truly worth the money with the features and capabilities they possess compared to those low power variables? I mean you can get a Razor gen 2 for the price of some acogs no one will complain about how rugged they are, I know that's one selling point of the ACOG. I've always been curious to try one but so much $$$ so talk me into or out of one. Have a couple different ARs it could go on a 16" mid length and 20" rifle. I have owned multiple ACOG's, and sold them all. I simply found that the variable power optics were a better option for me, personally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 3:03:21 AM EDT
[#24]
I'd buy an ACOG in a heartbeat if I had the moeny to toss at it. It's far more robust and durable than any 1-6 tube scope, and costs 1/3 of an ELCAN.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 4:49:18 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd buy an ACOG in a heartbeat if I had the moeny to toss at it. It's far more robust and durable than any 1-6 tube scope, and costs 1/3 of an ELCAN. I would challenge your first. I have heard of a lot more ACOG's getting screwy than I have Nightforce 1-4 and 2.5-10's. The Nightforce can withstand more shock (per testing), be submerged deeper (per testing), and their adjustments are worlds better than the ACOG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 10:12:16 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd buy an ACOG in a heartbeat if I had the moeny to toss at it. It's far more robust and durable than any 1-6 tube scope, and costs 1/3 of an ELCAN. I would challenge your first. I have heard of a lot more ACOG's getting screwy than I have Nightforce 1-4 and 2.5-10's. The Nightforce can withstand more shock (per testing), be submerged deeper (per testing), and their adjustments are worlds better than the ACOG. I don't doubt that you've researched it extensively, but I've never seen a tube scope survive a fall off a building. I've seen an ACOG survive that (single story from the roof), survive vehicle rollovers, and explosions. I'm not a SEAL, so I won't be needing to submerge my scope. The ACOG's housing can take beatings that would fold any thin tube scope in half. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 12:00:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't doubt that you've researched it extensively, but I've never seen a tube scope survive a fall off a building. I've seen an ACOG survive that (single story from the roof), survive vehicle rollovers, and explosions. I'm not a SEAL, so I won't be needing to submerge my scope. The ACOG's housing can take beatings that would fold any thin tube scope in half. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd buy an ACOG in a heartbeat if I had the moeny to toss at it. It's far more robust and durable than any 1-6 tube scope, and costs 1/3 of an ELCAN. I would challenge your first. I have heard of a lot more ACOG's getting screwy than I have Nightforce 1-4 and 2.5-10's. The Nightforce can withstand more shock (per testing), be submerged deeper (per testing), and their adjustments are worlds better than the ACOG. I don't doubt that you've researched it extensively, but I've never seen a tube scope survive a fall off a building. I've seen an ACOG survive that (single story from the roof), survive vehicle rollovers, and explosions. I'm not a SEAL, so I won't be needing to submerge my scope. The ACOG's housing can take beatings that would fold any thin tube scope in half. The Vortex Razor is overbuilt like crazy. I would have no problem tossing one out of a moving vehicle and mounting it back on a rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 12:15:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell, I still love my 01NSN This. The BDC on the TA01NSN is close enough to M193 and Mk262. I generally don't use M193 past 300 yards, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 12:49:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same for me. I've owned quite a few high end LPVs (VCOG, Razor 1-6, Elcan, Mk8) and I always end up ditching them for an ACOG. Can't beat lightweight and simple, IMO. Yep. I prefer ACOGs to all the 1-X scopes I owned/ tried. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 12:52:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't doubt that you've researched it extensively, but I've never seen a tube scope survive a fall off a building. I've seen an ACOG survive that (single story from the roof), survive vehicle rollovers, and explosions. I'm not a SEAL, so I won't be needing to submerge my scope. The ACOG's housing can take beatings that would fold any thin tube scope in half. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd buy an ACOG in a heartbeat if I had the moeny to toss at it. It's far more robust and durable than any 1-6 tube scope, and costs 1/3 of an ELCAN. I would challenge your first. I have heard of a lot more ACOG's getting screwy than I have Nightforce 1-4 and 2.5-10's. The Nightforce can withstand more shock (per testing), be submerged deeper (per testing), and their adjustments are worlds better than the ACOG. I don't doubt that you've researched it extensively, but I've never seen a tube scope survive a fall off a building. I've seen an ACOG survive that (single story from the roof), survive vehicle rollovers, and explosions. I'm not a SEAL, so I won't be needing to submerge my scope. The ACOG's housing can take beatings that would fold any thin tube scope in half. I have read about acogs dying after falling from being leaned against a wall mounted on a rifle. Each fall is a dynamic event. It's impossible to correlate things like that. However, yes, I've heard of nightforce optics taking worse falls than off of a roof and surviving. Hell, one of the popular ads by nightforce shows one with a bullet hole through it and it still held zero and performed the job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 3:25:01 PM EDT
[#31]
I love my TA33 ACOG: no batteries, no knobs to mess with, no zoom control, no fuss.
I can even use it as a red dot within say 50 yards by just putting the chevron on the center of mass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 4:56:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Trijicon has reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's by close to 50%. The are no longer bright at night and your eyes have to be used to the darkness before you can see the crosshairs.
ACOG's do not allow the user to adjust the focus to match their vision. Tritium replacement alone is no longer an option, Trijicon insists on an entire scope rebuild costing close to $500 or more whether you need it or not. I have a 20+ year old ACOG that has seen very little use and in no way needs anything done to it other than having the tritium replaced. I paid $400.00 for it new in 1994. Getting it to work again will cost me more than the original purchase price. On the plus side Trijicon has come out with battery powered ACOG's which will eliminate the need for tritium altogether. 4X ACOG's don't come with enough eye relief IMO. The 3.5X ACOG's have close to 2.5" of eye relief which is acceptable but no where near the clearance of most high quality 1-4, 1.5-5. 1-6 0r 1-8 variable power scopes currently on the market. They have on average 3.5" to 4" of eye relief . I currently have a variety of scopes I like better than my ACOG's. They include relatively inexpensive (in comparison) Leupold illuminated VR-X Patrol scopes, Leupold illuminated VX-3 1.5-5 (discontinued), Leupold illuminated 30mm 1.5-5 SPR scopes and Leupold 2.5-8 illuminated TMR reticle scopes. I have the original Night Force 1-4 FC-2 reticle and original 2.5-10 illuminated NPR-2 reticle. The Night Force scopes are more expensive than Tijicon's ACOG's, but none of the Leupolds are. These fine scopes allow for individual focus, user preference for mounting height, cheap batteries and excellent optics. They also allow you to change magnification to suit your circumstances. ACOG scopes are quality gear and I am in no way disparaging them or their product. I own and like them. But I think you can get a better all around scope for less money and it will come with a lifetime guarantee, something Trijicon does not feature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 5:08:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love my ACOG. Ditto here ACOGS's |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 8:36:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trijicon has reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's by close to 50%. The are no longer bright at night and your eyes have to be used to the darkness before you can see the crosshairs. ACOG's do not allow the user to adjust the focus to match their vision. Tritium replacement alone is no longer an option, Trijicon insists on an entire scope rebuild costing close to $500 or more whether you need it or not. I have a 20+ year old ACOG that has seen very little use and in no way needs anything done to it other than having the tritium replaced. I paid $400.00 for it new in 1994. Getting it to work again will cost me more than the original purchase price. On the plus side Trijicon has come out with battery powered ACOG's which will eliminate the need for tritium altogether. 4X ACOG's don't come with enough eye relief IMO. The 3.5X ACOG's have close to 2.5" of eye relief which is acceptable but no where near the clearance of most high quality 1-4, 1.5-5. 1-6 0r 1-8 variable power scopes currently on the market. They have on average 3.5" to 4" of eye relief . I currently have a variety of scopes I like better than my ACOG's. They include relatively inexpensive (in comparison) Leupold illuminated VR-X Patrol scopes, Leupold illuminated VX-3 1.5-5 (discontinued), Leupold illuminated 30mm 1.5-5 SPR scopes and Leupold 2.5-8 illuminated TMR reticle scopes. I have the original Night Force 1-4 FC-2 reticle and original 2.5-10 illuminated NPR-2 reticle. The Night Force scopes are more expensive than Tijicon's ACOG's, but none of the Leupolds are. These fine scopes allow for individual focus, user preference for mounting height, cheap batteries and excellent optics. They also allow you to change magnification to suit your circumstances. ACOG scopes are quality gear and I am in no way disparaging them or their product. I own and like them. But I think you can get a better all around scope for less money and it will come with a lifetime guarantee, something Trijicon does not feature. When did they start doing this? My 2015 TA11G is very bright at night, enough so that I can see a faint green glow from the fiber optic tube in a dark room. As to OP's question: Yes, ACOGs are still worth it. They may be old, but they're not obsolete. Its not like we're talking 20 year microprocessors vs something made today. I've owned the Vortex Razor Gen2 1-6x and 1-4x NF, which are both excellent LPV's, but I still prefer the ACOG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 10:24:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trijicon has reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's by close to 50%. The are no longer bright at night and your eyes have to be used to the darkness before you can see the crosshairs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trijicon has reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's by close to 50%. The are no longer bright at night and your eyes have to be used to the darkness before you can see the crosshairs. Source? The newer ACOGs have more of their reticles illuminated then older ones. ACOG's do not allow the user to adjust the focus to match their vision. I wear glasses and yet have never felt the need to "adjust" the focus of my TA31. Tritium replacement alone is no longer an option, Trijicon insists on an entire scope rebuild costing close to $500 or more whether you need it or not. I have a 20+ year old ACOG that has seen very little use and in no way needs anything done to it other than having the tritium replaced. I paid $400.00 for it new in 1994. Getting it to work again will cost me more than the original purchase price. Actually, you ACOG probably still works just fine. It just isn't as useful at night. The Night Force scopes are more expensive than Trijicon's ACOG's, but none of the Leupolds are. These fine scopes allow for individual focus, user preference for mounting height, cheap batteries and excellent optics. They also allow you to change magnification to suit your circumstances.
ACOG scopes are quality gear and I am in no way disparaging them or their product. I own and like them. But I think you can get a better all around scope for less money and it will come with a lifetime guarantee, something Trijicon does not feature. The Trijicon ACOG is exactly what it's name promotes: an Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight. It isn't the most flexible. Or the most adjustable. Or the most precise. But it does exactly what it is supposed to do, better then anything else out there. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 10:53:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. I prefer ACOGs to all the 1-X scopes I owned/ tried. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same for me. I've owned quite a few high end LPVs (VCOG, Razor 1-6, Elcan, Mk8) and I always end up ditching them for an ACOG. Can't beat lightweight and simple, IMO. Yep. I prefer ACOGs to all the 1-X scopes I owned/ tried. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 11:00:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trijicon has reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's by close to 50%. The are no longer bright at night and your eyes have to be used to the darkness before you can see the crosshairs. Do you have a cite for that? I've got 2 TA31's that are about 5 years apart in manufacture... They're both equally bright ACOG's do not allow the user to adjust the focus to match their vision.It's a 4X scope. I have not ever used an ACOG and thought of needing to adjust the focus. Tritium replacement alone is no longer an option, Trijicon insists on an entire scope rebuild costing close to $500 or more whether you need it or not. I have a 20+ year old ACOG that has seen very little use and in no way needs anything done to it other than having the tritium replaced. I paid $400.00 for it new in 1994. Getting it to work again will cost me more than the original purchase price.I've read that before. Not sure why Trijicon does all that but its certainly a detractor. On the plus side Trijicon has come out with battery powered ACOG's which will eliminate the need for tritium altogether. 4X ACOG's don't come with enough eye relief IMO. The 3.5X ACOG's have close to 2.5" of eye relief which is acceptable but no where near the clearance of most high quality 1-4, 1.5-5. 1-6 0r 1-8 variable power scopes currently on the market. They have on average 3.5" to 4" of eye relief .Proper form with an AR15 is NTCH. No worries. I currently have a variety of scopes I like better than my ACOG's. They include relatively inexpensive (in comparison) Leupold illuminated VR-X Patrol scopes, Leupold illuminated VX-3 1.5-5 (discontinued), Leupold illuminated 30mm 1.5-5 SPR scopes and Leupold 2.5-8 illuminated TMR reticle scopes. I have the original Night Force 1-4 FC-2 reticle and original 2.5-10 illuminated NPR-2 reticle. The Night Force scopes are more expensive than Tijicon's ACOG's, but none of the Leupolds are. These fine scopes allow for individual focus, user preference for mounting height, cheap batteries and excellent optics. They also allow you to change magnification to suit your circumstances. For what you get with NF, their glass is "ok". For under 1K the ACOG optical quality is about as good as it gets in my opinion. That's the problem with judging optical quality, its often very subjective. ACOG scopes are quality gear and I am in no way disparaging them or their product. I own and like them. But I think you can get a better all around scope for less money and it will come with a lifetime guarantee, something Trijicon does not feature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 11:24:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Same for me. I've owned quite a few high end LPVs (VCOG, Razor 1-6, Elcan, Mk8) and I always end up ditching them for an ACOG. Can't beat lightweight and simple, IMO. Yep. I prefer ACOGs to all the 1-X scopes I owned/ tried. This. That. Set it, forget it, shoot things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 11:25:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Trijicon has reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's by close to 50%. The are no longer bright at night and your eyes have to be used to the darkness before you can see the crosshairs. Do you have a cite for that? I've got 2 TA31's that are about 5 years apart in manufacture... They're both equally bright ACOG's do not allow the user to adjust the focus to match their vision.It's a 4X scope. I have not ever used an ACOG and thought of needing to adjust the focus. Tritium replacement alone is no longer an option, Trijicon insists on an entire scope rebuild costing close to $500 or more whether you need it or not. I have a 20+ year old ACOG that has seen very little use and in no way needs anything done to it other than having the tritium replaced. I paid $400.00 for it new in 1994. Getting it to work again will cost me more than the original purchase price.I've read that before. Not sure why Trijicon does all that but its certainly a detractor. On the plus side Trijicon has come out with battery powered ACOG's which will eliminate the need for tritium altogether. 4X ACOG's don't come with enough eye relief IMO. The 3.5X ACOG's have close to 2.5" of eye relief which is acceptable but no where near the clearance of most high quality 1-4, 1.5-5. 1-6 0r 1-8 variable power scopes currently on the market. They have on average 3.5" to 4" of eye relief .Proper form with an AR15 is NTCH. No worries. I currently have a variety of scopes I like better than my ACOG's. They include relatively inexpensive (in comparison) Leupold illuminated VR-X Patrol scopes, Leupold illuminated VX-3 1.5-5 (discontinued), Leupold illuminated 30mm 1.5-5 SPR scopes and Leupold 2.5-8 illuminated TMR reticle scopes. I have the original Night Force 1-4 FC-2 reticle and original 2.5-10 illuminated NPR-2 reticle. The Night Force scopes are more expensive than Tijicon's ACOG's, but none of the Leupolds are. These fine scopes allow for individual focus, user preference for mounting height, cheap batteries and excellent optics. They also allow you to change magnification to suit your circumstances. For what you get with NF, their glass is "ok". For under 1K the ACOG optical quality is about as good as it gets in my opinion. That's the problem with judging optical quality, its often very subjective. ACOG scopes are quality gear and I am in no way disparaging them or their product. I own and like them. But I think you can get a better all around scope for less money and it will come with a lifetime guarantee, something Trijicon does not feature. The service department at Trijicon told me they reduced the amount of tritium in their new ACOG's, they didn't say whether this was mandated by the US government or if they did it of their own accord. She claimed it was an effort to reduce how much nuclear material was in general circulation. I find that Trijican ACOG's have some of the best glass in the industry and are more forgiving to failing eyes that most. I am 60 years old and have been wearing glasses for around 18 years because my short range vision gets worse every year. If you are not 40 to 45 years old you have no idea what I'm talking about. I have fixed stocks on many of my rifles and nose to charging handle isn't going to cut it in the standing position. ACOG glass is outstanding quality, as good as anything I have ever looked through that doesn't cost upwards of $2000. Trijicon ACOG's are some of the very best rifle sights available for an AR-15 and nobody should feel they made a mistake should they buy one. My post is intended to inform others about my personal experience and perceptions regarding the options that are currently available in the market place. Should anyone decide they want the ACOG I would strongly encourage them to go to Trijicon's website and do some thorough research before selecting the model they want. Pay careful attention to what ammo was used to create the BDC on each model and make your reticle selection based on your rifle/ammo combination that you use the most. Trijicon now has a model designed specifically 69 grain Sierra Match Kings which is my bullet of choice most of the time. JP Rifles sells a custom special order ACOG with the BDC designed as blend between 69 grain Sierra Match Kings and 77 grain Sierra Match Kings at 2000 feet above sea level @ 2750 fps. I feel this is the best ACOG for people shooting match ammo from their rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2016 11:41:54 PM EDT
[#40]
I love my TA33H-G. It's light weight, has excellent glass, good eye relief and simple to use. I had a VX-R Patrol that was also very nice (especially the motion-activated fire-dot!), but not enough to sway me from the TA33...so it was traded off.
I recently acquired a Leupold VX-III 1.5-5x with the illuminated circle dot reticle and I'm liking what I see, but time will tell if it will replace the TA33 as my favorite magnified optic...I really like Leupold LPVs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 12:16:16 AM EDT
[#41]
Love my old ACOG but also love the field of view my Nikon P-223 has.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 12:31:57 AM EDT
[#42]
If you think the ACOG has good glass, you've never looked through good glass.
The ACOG has "okay" glass. As someone else has pointed out--it's a combat sight, the glass doesn't need to be high end camera or telescope quality... and it's not. Some scopes are. I suppose some people feel "cheated" if it turns out that Trijicon has been shorting them on the tritium, but frankly, I think the tritium illumination in the ACOG is fairly worthless. Trijicon could drop the tritium entirely and sell the optic for significantly lower cost, but I guess why would they? People already buy them. ACOG is a great combat optic. One of the best things about the 4x32 ACOG is the FOV, IMHO. Pays great dividends in an environment with unknown threats and threat locations, maybe not so important on the range. I know people rave about the TA33... ::shrug:: not for me. Like looking through a drinking straw. I'd rather have a TA11 series. They're good, serviceable combat optics. I don't think they're the best, but I think they're still a lot better than a lot that's out there. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 8:38:57 AM EDT
[#43]
I love my ACOG'S, but as their cost continues to rise they become harder to justify with the better LPV's coming out. I'm with Augee on the glass. It's good glass, but not on par with some of the better glass out there. They are durable, and simple, but if Trijicon keeps raising the price, it would be crazy not to look at some of the LPV's in that price range.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 9:31:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you think the ACOG has good glass, you've never looked through good glass. I think this part of the discussion is debatable. I've always been impressed with ACOG glass at its price point. I've got a good amount of experience with Mk4, NF, and USO. For the purposes of an ACOG I think its pretty good. The ACOG has "okay" glass. As someone else has pointed out--it's a combat sight, the glass doesn't need to be high end camera or telescope quality... and it's not. Some scopes are. I suppose some people feel "cheated" if it turns out that Trijicon has been shorting them on the tritium, but frankly, I think the tritium illumination in the ACOG is fairly worthless. Trijicon could drop the tritium entirely and sell the optic for significantly lower cost, but I guess why would they? People already buy them. That's a good point, I'd happily buy a FO only TA31. ACOG is a great combat optic. One of the best things about the 4x32 ACOG is the FOV, IMHO. Pays great dividends in an environment with unknown threats and threat locations, maybe not so important on the range. In regards to movers on the range and tracking targets I agree. I use a TA31 in brush for hunting and have dropped deer on a full run. Tracking a target with the FOV is deff helpful. I know people rave about the TA33... ::shrug:: not for me. Like looking through a drinking straw. I'd rather have a TA11 series. The "straw" effect is what I don't like about them either. I'd like to try shooting a 9 hole drill with one to see how it measures up to a RDS. They're good, serviceable combat optics. I don't think they're the best, but I think they're still a lot better than a lot that's out there. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 1:27:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you think the ACOG has good glass, you've never looked through good glass. I think this part of the discussion is debatable. I've always been impressed with ACOG glass at its price point. I've got a good amount of experience with Mk4, NF, and USO. For the purposes of an ACOG I think its pretty good. The ACOG has "okay" glass. I don't disagree with you at all. The ACOG does have good glass for its price point, that is to say, with high end scopes running in the $5,000 range at times. All I was saying is that objectively, the ACOG's optical quality is not on par with what I would call good glass. It doesn't need to be, my ACOG from my first trip is sitting in front of me, and the objective lens is covered in dust, has been rained on, etc. etc. I've got/used/had optics with higher optical quality that end up exactly the same way. Great glass is hard to appreciate in a field gun, and needs to/should be meticulously taken care of. That is to say, it's largely wasted on a combat optic anyways, at least for my uses. High end precision scopes? Maybe a different bag altogether, but that's not what the ACOG is for. The ACOG has the glass it needs to have for the job that it's supposed to do. Given what I've said about the relative importance of the tritium, I see no reason I would want Trijicon to improve the optical quality on the ACOG, as it would necessarily cause the price to go up. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 2:15:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Love my ACOG - wish I'd jumped that train earlier.
I have a few regrets in my life, but buying an ACOG damned sure isn't one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 2:16:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man, the TA33 is awesome. The only one I'll buy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2016 5:32:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Ta31f is the best
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2016 6:58:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Augee, what is your favorite magnified option these days?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2016 8:01:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Had one, sold it years ago... 1x4 or 1x6 variable is the way to go....
Good , tough General issue sight for Uncle Sam that is bombproof, but there are better options. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
