User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 7:22:03 AM EDT
[#1]
The main question is, how old is it?
The tritium inside burns out, slowly. So it makes a difference if it's 1 year old or 10. What color reticle? Green is the easiest to see the longest, red is the dimmest and gets even dimmer with age. There is nothing good about not having to replace the batteries, because when the tritium is dead, your scope is essentially worthless as a night-time device (and turns into a 'regular' scope). Trijicon wants 560 to replace the burned out reticle. Plus weeks, if not months, of downtime. Picture all that during TSHTF. I would rather have Aimpoint where you replace just one 1xAA battery. Stick a Lithium in it and will be good for 5 years. So that's 5 bucks over 10 years. Compare and contrast with ACOG. I've had several, won't be buying them anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 8:40:10 AM EDT
[#2]
I'd add one more downside of this or any other scope that uses fiber optic to illuminate the reticle, you can't adjst the brightness for all conditions.
I used a 1.5x ACOG at a rifle class a few years ago. Wrked great during the day. Then we had an evening session, where we needed to use a weapon light to see the targets. Suddenly my scope's illumination was gone. Yes, I still had the black reticle, but it's not as fast or convenient as a red one. A less severe case will happen when you shoot from under cover out into a brightly lit area. With a battery powered optic you can adjust the brightness to match the target's illumination level; with a fiber optic one you can't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 8:51:24 AM EDT
[#3]
As a patch and a work-around you can tape a glowing stick to where the fiber element is but it's not an elegant solution, especially on an expensive optic like ACOG.
An ACOG is not that great optically, it's a $300 optic with tritium in it that pushes it above $1,000 retail. In OP's case, I would only get it if it wasn't too old and I got a steal on it. Like $400 maybe. Maybe the trit burned out and the owner is trying to dump it. I wouldn't get a red one for any price, just too dim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 10:14:07 AM EDT
[#4]
I had one with the amber triangle reticle. I really liked it a lot. As a day scope, it's hard to beat. The glass is nice and clear and the fiber optic is plenty to light the reticle. At night though, not so much if that tritium is older or dimming.
I eventually sold it and I'm still looking for the right optic for me. I really don't care for red dot optics. I'll most likely by the green doughnut version new instead of buying a used one this time around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 10:43:04 AM EDT
[#5]
I like the "crosshair" TA11 version for the added precision but it's not at all what the OP was asking.
ACOG is OK but does have its limitations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 10:45:48 AM EDT
[#6]
I want to know what 300 scope has the same quality glass as an ACOG?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:02:02 AM EDT
[#7]
I have the amber triangle TA45-2 1.5x and like it. I need just a bit of magnification, but more importantly I find that the light gathering quality is a distinct advantage over a red dot. On a red dot, the amount of light that enters your eye is the same as with a naked eye, limited by the size of your pupil opening. With a magnified optic, you get more light funneled to your eye, especially with a larger objective lens. Granted, the objective on a mini ACOG is not that large compared to most traditional scopes, but it's there. The view is brighter, crisper, and clearer than with a red dot, and that is also true at night. I have the 24 mm objective model and would prefer that over the 16 mm ones.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:07:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Here's my Amber triangle at 50 yards on a sunless, misty day
 Here's the reticle subtensions. Each black sharpie-ed bar on the target is 2 inches thick. I read the triangle as 4 inches top to bottom at 50 yards, so 8 inches at 100.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:49:18 AM EDT
[#9]
Green circle dot on mine it is fast in the daytime but at night for me nothing beats the 2MOA Aimpoint dot.
Eventually I will sell mine and go back to the TA-11 with crosshairs...just because its more in line with where I shoot and what I shoot at these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:35:49 PM EDT
[#10]
I had one a long time ago. I think it was a TA26 (Amber dot). I didn't care for the 1.5x. It wasn't enough power to be a benefit over 1x but was just enough to be slower. The small size was nice. The 3x mini might be worth it but not the 1.5x in my opinion.
I did also have an issue with the illumination. Trijicon either repaired or replaced (I don't remember at this point) but it didn't help my confidence in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:50:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a patch and a work-around you can tape a glowing stick to where the fiber element is but it's not an elegant solution, especially on an expensive optic like ACOG. An ACOG is not that great optically, it's a $300 optic with tritium in it that pushes it above $1,000 retail. In OP's case, I would only get it if it wasn't too old and I got a steal on it. Like $400 maybe. Maybe the trit burned out and the owner is trying to dump it. I wouldn't get a red one for any price, just too dim. Have you even ever used an ACOG? Optically they are excellent, great glass. Not just my opinion, this is well known. The tritium will glow well past the half life, my original TA01 was still glowing well after around 18 years. I had the tritium replace at Trijicon a few years ago for around $200-250 and turn around was not bad that I remember. If you wait until after SHTF to get things in order then your doing it wrong. ACOGs are a popular choice for a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 12:57:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want to know what 300 scope has the same quality glass as an ACOG? Burris. Leopold. You name it. I can tell you ACOG does not have the same picture quality as an Alpha brand like Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica (binoculars) or Schmidt & Bender. It is a mediocre optic that's just ok and their whole selling point is tritium and that you never change batteries. Which is a questionable asset. When it burns out, it becomes a conventional optic. Buy one keeping in mind it is only good for 10-15 years. Kind of overpriced I used to be a fan but now would only buy one at a huge discount. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 1:15:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you even ever used an ACOG? Optically they are excellent, great glass. Not just my opinion, this is well known. The tritium will glow well past the half life, my original TA01 was still glowing well after around 18 years. I had the tritium replace at Trijicon a few years ago for around $200-250 and turn around was not bad that I remember. If you wait until after SHTF to get things in order then your doing it wrong. ACOGs are a popular choice for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a patch and a work-around you can tape a glowing stick to where the fiber element is but it's not an elegant solution, especially on an expensive optic like ACOG. An ACOG is not that great optically, it's a $300 optic with tritium in it that pushes it above $1,000 retail. In OP's case, I would only get it if it wasn't too old and I got a steal on it. Like $400 maybe. Maybe the trit burned out and the owner is trying to dump it. I wouldn't get a red one for any price, just too dim. Have you even ever used an ACOG? Optically they are excellent, great glass. Not just my opinion, this is well known. The tritium will glow well past the half life, my original TA01 was still glowing well after around 18 years. I had the tritium replace at Trijicon a few years ago for around $200-250 and turn around was not bad that I remember. If you wait until after SHTF to get things in order then your doing it wrong. ACOGs are a popular choice for a reason. Yeah, several TA11. green horseshoe and the J variant. It is the only model I find acceptable. The point is, get one at a great price. Not even close to retail. It does what it does within its envelope. Nice optic 0-400. Beyond that, a better reticle, more power, maybe illuminated red dot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:54:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Unbeatable for those with bad vision and astigmatisim in my opinion. Have one that was my go to optic until I had LASIK, now I have transitioned to all Aimpoints.
The one thing that is always misunderstood by those that have not used them is how absolutely massive the eye box and usable eye relief is. I can't think of a shooting position with a red dot that would not work with the 1.5x ACOG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2015 11:57:21 PM EDT
[#15]
I have the 1.5 mini on my duty rifle. It's.. ok. I don't think I'd purchase one myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 1:38:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I have a chance to buy one of these used with a mount for 600 bucks. It'd go on a spikes tactical middy that's my go to/shtf rifle thats currently just has an mbus real sight and metal front sight post. I'm liking the idea of no batteries and still able to use it both eyes open. Does anyone have any experience? Is the price right? Thanks. I have owned the red, and green one. Both sucked at nigh behind a WML, although the green one was pretty usable. During the day in bright green foliage, it turned worthless again. Just buy an Aimpoint. They are longer-lasting, and don't have wash out issues. Eyebox and optical clarity was excellent. Just rather useless optic for a dynamic situation, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 7:59:44 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have the amber triangle TA45-2 1.5x and like it. I need just a bit of magnification, but more importantly I find that the light gathering quality is a distinct advantage over a red dot. The increased light gathering capability is a good point. I kind of overlooked it. In general, I found out that with optics you want the largest objective available with the lowest power available, for best picture quality. The lower the power, the bigger the exit pupil size meaning you have much more room where you look at it. With high-powered optics, you have to look at the exactly the right spot. With no power at all, like in RDS, you can look at it at any angle and still get precision. A low-powered ACOG is a good compromise between exit pupil size and a light gathering abilities. The Advantages Of A Large Exit Pupil shooting times article Back to OP, I would probably offer 500 for the device. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 8:30:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unbeatable for those with bad vision and astigmatisim in my opinion. Have one that was my go to optic until I had LASIK, now I have transitioned to all Aimpoints. The one thing that is always misunderstood by those that have not used them is how absolutely massive the eye box and usable eye relief is. I can't think of a shooting position with a red dot that would not work with the 1.5x ACOG. Agreed. My wife has astigmatism and it's her favorite optic. I haven't had an issue with low light as some say but I have the triangle reticle, not the crosshair FWIW. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 10:20:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Astigmatism is a good point. I tried Eotech, it was terrible for me personally, Eotech is not astigmatism-compatible. With Aimpoint better but ACOG is the optic for you if you have astigmatism.
Any ACOG at all is light years ahead of iron sights. Just make the sure tritium is not burned out, buy it at night when you can test it. Green > amber > red. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 11:39:42 AM EDT
[#20]
I agree with MRW's post above.
It is a nice clear clean crisp optic. For daylight I like it better than my Aimpoint red dots. Night time is OK until the tritium goes dim. Here is a mini ACOG on a lightweight build. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 12:02:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Someone mentioned irons. I don't think anyone would say irons aren't a solid SHTF choice...but an ACOG with the tritium burned out isn't? No tritium ACOG still beats irons any way you look at it. Full daytime performance of the optic and at night it gathers a lot more light than a peep sight and you might get lucky with some external light source for the fiber.
I do agree an Aimpoint is better all-around and that is my first choice. If the world ends and you have a spare battery, the Aimpoint can work out to the shelf life of the spare, about 10 years in. Realistically, you'll get 5+ years out of it, then go irons. I agree with offering $500 and mentioning the tritium clock is ticking. It is a solid little scope for $500 tritium or not. Or, save $100-$200 and get an Aimpoint PRO, same $ gets you an H1 or real close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 2:19:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Burris. Leopold. You name it. I can tell you ACOG does not have the same picture quality as an Alpha brand like Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica (binoculars) or Schmidt & Bender. It is a mediocre optic that's just ok and their whole selling point is tritium and that you never change batteries. Which is a questionable asset. When it burns out, it becomes a conventional optic. Buy one keeping in mind it is only good for 10-15 years. Kind of overpriced I used to be a fan but now would only buy one at a huge discount. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want to know what 300 scope has the same quality glass as an ACOG? Burris. Leopold. You name it. I can tell you ACOG does not have the same picture quality as an Alpha brand like Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica (binoculars) or Schmidt & Bender. It is a mediocre optic that's just ok and their whole selling point is tritium and that you never change batteries. Which is a questionable asset. When it burns out, it becomes a conventional optic. Buy one keeping in mind it is only good for 10-15 years. Kind of overpriced I used to be a fan but now would only buy one at a huge discount. Let's agree to disagree. The ACOGs that I have used, TA31s, have had exceptional glass. Lower end Leopold don't hold a candle to them. I think it is way better than the VX-R patrol. Never played with Burris optics. In fact I believe the glass is equal to my MK6. Eyes are different and maybe the 1.5 uses a different grade of glass. Also with this burning out of tritium, it takes a long time, half life of what 10 years? Most of you here don't keep anything that long or have built a different rifle. Another thing to remember is there are no electronics to go wrong in a an ACOG. It's a great rifle sight, not perfect for everyone but it may be for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 2:39:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with MRW's post above. It is a nice clear clean crisp optic. For daylight I like it better than my Aimpoint red dots. Night time is OK until the tritium goes dim. Here is a mini ACOG on a lightweight build. I like it a lot |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 6:01:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's agree to disagree. The ACOGs that I have used, TA31s, have had exceptional glass. Lower end Leopold don't hold a candle to them. I think it is way better than the VX-R patrol. Never played with Burris optics. In fact I believe the glass is equal to my MK6. Eyes are different and maybe the 1.5 uses a different grade of glass. Also with this burning out of tritium, it takes a long time, half life of what 10 years? Most of you here don't keep anything that long or have built a different rifle. Another thing to remember is there are no electronics to go wrong in a an ACOG. It's a great rifle sight, not perfect for everyone but it may be for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I want to know what 300 scope has the same quality glass as an ACOG? Burris. Leopold. You name it. I can tell you ACOG does not have the same picture quality as an Alpha brand like Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica (binoculars) or Schmidt & Bender. It is a mediocre optic that's just ok and their whole selling point is tritium and that you never change batteries. Which is a questionable asset. When it burns out, it becomes a conventional optic. Buy one keeping in mind it is only good for 10-15 years. Kind of overpriced I used to be a fan but now would only buy one at a huge discount. Let's agree to disagree. The ACOGs that I have used, TA31s, have had exceptional glass. Lower end Leopold don't hold a candle to them. I think it is way better than the VX-R patrol. Never played with Burris optics. In fact I believe the glass is equal to my MK6. Eyes are different and maybe the 1.5 uses a different grade of glass. Also with this burning out of tritium, it takes a long time, half life of what 10 years? Most of you here don't keep anything that long or have built a different rifle. Another thing to remember is there are no electronics to go wrong in a an ACOG. It's a great rifle sight, not perfect for everyone but it may be for you. Half life of 10 years means in 10 years it will be 1/2 as bright as it is the day it was made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 6:21:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Half life of 10 years means in 10 years it will be 1/2 as bright as it is the day it was made. Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years. I've got tritium night sights on pistols that are close to 20 years old and they are still easily visible and usable at night. I've got a 3x mini Acog with a crosshair that is around 15 years old and I can still see the glow at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 7:38:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Burris. Leopold. You name it. I can tell you ACOG does not have the same picture quality as an Alpha brand like Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica (binoculars) or Schmidt & Bender. It is a mediocre optic that's just ok and their whole selling point is tritium and that you never change batteries. Which is a questionable asset. When it burns out, it becomes a conventional optic. Buy one keeping in mind it is only good for 10-15 years. Kind of overpriced I used to be a fan but now would only buy one at a huge discount. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want to know what 300 scope has the same quality glass as an ACOG? Burris. Leopold. You name it. I can tell you ACOG does not have the same picture quality as an Alpha brand like Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica (binoculars) or Schmidt & Bender. It is a mediocre optic that's just ok and their whole selling point is tritium and that you never change batteries. Which is a questionable asset. When it burns out, it becomes a conventional optic. Buy one keeping in mind it is only good for 10-15 years. Kind of overpriced I used to be a fan but now would only buy one at a huge discount. You're kidding right?!? No low end (under $600ish) Leupold has glass as good as an ACOG and a $300 Burris sure as hell doesn't compare |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 8:01:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years. I've got tritium night sights on pistols that are close to 20 years old and they are still easily visible and usable at night. I've got a 3x mini Acog with a crosshair that is around 15 years old and I can still see the glow at night. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Half life of 10 years means in 10 years it will be 1/2 as bright as it is the day it was made. Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years. I've got tritium night sights on pistols that are close to 20 years old and they are still easily visible and usable at night. I've got a 3x mini Acog with a crosshair that is around 15 years old and I can still see the glow at night. I have a very early TA-01 ACOG. It has a low three digit serial number. I got it used in the mid 1990s. The tritium still glows although not as bright as when I first got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2015 9:48:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years. I've got tritium night sights on pistols that are close to 20 years old and they are still easily visible and usable at night. I've got a 3x mini Acog with a crosshair that is around 15 years old and I can still see the glow at night. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Half life of 10 years means in 10 years it will be 1/2 as bright as it is the day it was made. Tritium has a half life of 12.5 years. I've got tritium night sights on pistols that are close to 20 years old and they are still easily visible and usable at night. I've got a 3x mini Acog with a crosshair that is around 15 years old and I can still see the glow at night. Right. Wasn't sure about the actual HL, but I knew it wouldnt be completely dead in 10 yrs. Heck there are some papers out there showing that LEDs light producing ability craters after a certain # of hrs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2015 12:57:31 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you even ever used an ACOG? Optically they are excellent, great glass. Not just my opinion, this is well known. The tritium will glow well past the half life, my original TA01 was still glowing well after around 18 years. I had the tritium replace at Trijicon a few years ago for around $200-250 and turn around was not bad that I remember. If you wait until after SHTF to get things in order then your doing it wrong. ACOGs are a popular choice for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a patch and a work-around you can tape a glowing stick to where the fiber element is but it's not an elegant solution, especially on an expensive optic like ACOG. An ACOG is not that great optically, it's a $300 optic with tritium in it that pushes it above $1,000 retail. In OP's case, I would only get it if it wasn't too old and I got a steal on it. Like $400 maybe. Maybe the trit burned out and the owner is trying to dump it. I wouldn't get a red one for any price, just too dim. Have you even ever used an ACOG? Optically they are excellent, great glass. Not just my opinion, this is well known. The tritium will glow well past the half life, my original TA01 was still glowing well after around 18 years. I had the tritium replace at Trijicon a few years ago for around $200-250 and turn around was not bad that I remember. If you wait until after SHTF to get things in order then your doing it wrong. ACOGs are a popular choice for a reason. You lost ALL creditability with me "ad_nauseam" with the statement above. It is so incredibly wrong that it requires any thinking person to disregard anything you've written in this thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2015 7:02:27 AM EDT
[#30]
It seems reasonable to me, and yet you offer no counterpoint...
OP, I've tried Aimpoints, low power variable scopes, and irons. The 1.5x ACOG is the best for me so far. I'm 43 and have moderately poor eyesight. I use the optic in 3-gun matches where we shoot out to about 250 yards on small steel targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2015 7:48:49 AM EDT
[#31]
Which part? There is a whole thread about using mini Chem lights on ACOG due to burned out tritium or just when shooting from indoors to a bright and sunny situation, do they all have no credibility either? That's where I heard that idea.
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=652432 Regarding PQ, ACOG is solidly middle of the road, it's just ok. Better than walmart grade optics like Burris but not an Alpha brand. Pick up a sub-2000 Swarovski or Zeiss or Leica and compare / contrast. They are better, admittedly not by much, to get 5% more light to come in, you have to double the price. All these coatings on lenses are expensive and alpha brands pour major R&D into it, I am sure eventually trijicon will adapt the same coatings for max brightness and clarity. I have had two TA11s fail. Bad seals. Bought on the same day, so must have been a bad batch of seals. Fogged up inside. And the red donut was a dumb idea. Red is the least visible color and fades out way before green. It was barely visible when new and just got worse in the 10 years I have had it. Called trijicon and asked about replacing the reticle with a new one, was quoted 560. Per scope. That was in 2014. As one data point. That's just icing on the cake. You might as well get a new optic in that range. I tried several ACOGs until I decided I like the TA11J the most, the green cross hair model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2015 10:50:19 PM EDT
[#32]
I tried the mini chemlight idea. It works pretty good.
bought them from here Amazon They are almost a blue color, and last brightly for a few hours, still glowing overnight. my bag was a mix of two different kinds, almost the same color, but one more blue than another. In trying them both, it didn't make any difference. I cut a section of innertube to fit the ACOG  and slid the light in the fiber optic channel from the backside. It laid to the side of the fiber optic stick. If i slid it in from the front, the glow was able to be seen from the front of the weapon.  Installed  and a terrible picture through the tube. My neighborhood is pretty well lit up, and just with the tritium the scope is almost too dim to use. in pitch black i bet it would be fine. but the glowstick was just right for nightime neighborhood use. I'll try it in the daytime from the dark garage soon.  I shot this rifle today at a match, targets at 250 yards and difficult to see. I have to say again that the optical quality of good glass with a light-gathering objective is much better than what I would get with an unmagnified red dot, including at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 12:37:59 AM EDT
[#33]
When it comes to the mini ACOGS, I prefer the TA33. It is not much bigger than the 1.5x16 but is 2x's the power. The FOV is smaller, but eye relief is longer and head shots at 200 yards are easy with cheap ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 12:47:12 AM EDT
[#34]
I got focus issues with CQB with the 3x, had to stick to 1.5x
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 5:38:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Acogs have quality glass. Can you get better glass for $1k? Yes, for 2k, duh, but for its purposes it is excellent.
What you get with an acog is big eyebox, simple, BDC options, lightweight, rugged. Especially for older eyes. Low power variable have kind of taken over in this area but they are heavier and aren't as simple. The world of optics are a world of compromises. If you don't have great eyes (even if you do) and do a lot of mixed shooting, the acog is great. You can reach out a little and do pretty good up close. If you mostly plink and don't do target shooting for groups, for shtf and cqb the red dot is king, and super light. Variable scopes are a good compromise of all of the above but with added weight and complexity. I prefer the additional focus adjustment and lower power. And trust me I've had my fair share of experience with the acog. I haven't shot the 1.5 but if it has any sort of BDC that sounds like a great option on a short light rifle. I dunno if I'd pay 600 though. The choice is yours. BTW you can put tape over the fiber optic if you want a dimmer reticle in bright light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 11:43:18 AM EDT
[#36]
Did anyone notice the new 3x24 on their website which bridges the gap between a full size 4x and the 1.5x pico cogs?
It has a wider field of view than the TA33 series but less so than the 4x series and shares the 4x series eye relief specs of 1.4 inches. Curious if anyone has seen it or had hands on yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 12:13:05 PM EDT
[#37]
oh good, they're bringing back the TA-50. I like the new reticles with the BDC, but 700 yards is a bit too far with such a low magnification, I think.
3x is too much for me to use as a single near and far-range optic. Not so good for near work. I would love to see a 1.5x or a 2x24 with a triangle reticle and ballistic drops out to 500 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 12:48:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did anyone notice the new 3x24 on their website which bridges the gap between a full size 4x and the 1.5x pico cogs? New? The only one I see on the site is the TA50 and that's been around forever. I've been using an amber cross hair version for over 10 years. Compared to the TA31 the difference in field of view for distance shooting feels huge. But for closer in shooting I find that the more narrow tube blocks less of the view through my weak eye so the BAC thing works better for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2015 2:45:19 PM EDT
[#39]
My favorite ACOG is TA11J, green crosshair.
Green horseshoe is second best IMO. I wish they made a 2MOA green dot. You get both a great field of view and fantastic eye relief. The downsize is the weight and the bulk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2015 7:13:53 PM EDT
[#40]
One of the instructors at Gunsite is a big fan of the 1.5x ACOG with the crosshair. He let me shoot his gun (standing supported at 200 yards at a popper) and I did like it. Hits were not that hard to make, and the 1.5x magnification did not throw my eyes off. I've previously shot ACOGs with the chevron and other options but I have to say I prefer the crosshair - it is more precise at long range and still quick to align at short range. I also prefer the 1.5x over the higher 3x-4x magnifications which throw me off for close quarters work.
I did like it, though I only shot it under moderate daylight. Illumination can be an issue in certain situations. I've heard of some people having to put tape over the optics to control the daytime illumination in bright light and also some feel the illumination is poor in low light (not dark) conditions. Your price is good assuming its not a very old model (I think the tritium is good for about 10 years). With all of that being said, if I had $600 to dump on an optic for a combat carbine I would buy a Aimpoint H-1 in 2 MOA. The Aimpoint is virtually indestructable (see Larry Vicker's Daniel Defense video), has a 5-8 year battery life (I leave mine on all the time), has fully adjustable dot for all lighting conditions and is just fine for long range shooting with a 223. At Gunsite I hit small steel poppers at 200-300 yards easily with the red dot, and honestly that's about all you can reasonably get from a 223/5.56 round from a combat gun. We also did some shooting from 400 yards with the red dot and hits were still achievable about half the time. Many of the other name brands (cough...cough...EOTech) had trouble at Gunsite. The Aimpoints ran rock solid - no issues. Buy a good mount though - a good optic on a lousy mount is trouble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 1:15:14 PM EDT
[#41]
I have a TA44 red reticle on my Daniel Defense M4 and love it there. All this talk about using it in the dark? Duh, that is what NVG and infrared lasers are for!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:17:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the instructors at Gunsite is a big fan of the 1.5x ACOG with the crosshair. He let me shoot his gun (standing supported at 200 yards at a popper) and I did like it. Hits were not that hard to make, and the 1.5x magnification did not throw my eyes off. I've previously shot ACOGs with the chevron and other options but I have to say I prefer the crosshair - it is more precise at long range and still quick to align at short range. I also prefer the 1.5x over the higher 3x-4x magnifications which throw me off for close quarters work. I did like it, though I only shot it under moderate daylight. Illumination can be an issue in certain situations. I've heard of some people having to put tape over the optics to control the daytime illumination in bright light and also some feel the illumination is poor in low light (not dark) conditions. Your price is good assuming its not a very old model (I think the tritium is good for about 10 years). With all of that being said, if I had $600 to dump on an optic for a combat carbine I would buy a Aimpoint H-1 in 2 MOA. The Aimpoint is virtually indestructable (see Larry Vicker's Daniel Defense video), has a 5-8 year battery life (I leave mine on all the time), has fully adjustable dot for all lighting conditions and is just fine for long range shooting with a 223. At Gunsite I hit small steel poppers at 200-300 yards easily with the red dot, and honestly that's about all you can reasonably get from a 223/5.56 round from a combat gun. We also did some shooting from 400 yards with the red dot and hits were still achievable about half the time. Many of the other name brands (cough...cough...EOTech) had trouble at Gunsite. The Aimpoints ran rock solid - no issues. Buy a good mount though - a good optic on a lousy mount is trouble. I agree with the above, except a better transition from ACOG to Aimpoint is to the full size M4 model. It weights about the same and has a larger 30mm objective that gathers more light, making the image brighter. M4 is tougher than micro. Runtime is closer to that of ACOG (joke) put in an AA and you never have to worry about it for the next 5 years, just choose lithium. IMO the only reason for micro is a shotgun, it rhymes really well with a Benelli M4 or a Versa Max. And has just the right height. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2015 11:51:42 PM EDT
[#43]
A traditional red dot scope does not "gather light" in the same sense that a lensatic or prismatic optic does, regardless of how big the aperture is. It just has a bigger window to look through
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:04:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A traditional red dot scope does not "gather light" in the same sense that a lensatic or prismatic optic does, regardless of how big the aperture is. It just has a bigger window to look through I had the luxury of putting T1 and M4 side by side, looking through both simultaneously. The M4 image is obviously brighter. Run that test if you have doubts. The rest was run in near darkness so I am not sure it's relevant to day time or dusk conditions. Now I am not entirely sure if that's due to the larger 30mm objective vs 20mm or due to new lense coatings or whatnot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 4:51:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Just grabbed a TA47 for $599 on clearance at Midway. Gotta see how it works out. Great eye relief and I don't think 2x will slow me down too much since I was able to use BAC somewhat well with the 4x.
|
|
|
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.
