So I'm trying to decide on an optic to throw on a general purpose AR build - 14.5in 1:7 for 0-300yds, used for a hog, ranch, home defense, and course rifle. It's a SOPMOD Block 1 style rifle, but not an exactly clone.

Budget is $1100 max - for the optic + mount - but cheaper is better. I'm mainly concerned about two points - durability and low light usage.
Weight goal is <24oz with mount. Again, lighter is better, but I realize that lightweight + durable often don't walk hand in hand. BDC reticle is not a requirement, nor is true 1x.

Looking at the following (by weight):

1. Leupold Mark AR Mod 1 // 1.5-4x // 9.6oz // $450
2. Leupold VX-R Patrol // 1.25-4x // 11.5oz // $600
3. Trijicon AccuPoint // 1-4x // 14.4oz // $935
4. Primary Arms ACSS // 1-6x // 15.5oz // $290
5. Trijicon AccuPower // 1-4x // 16.2oz // $765
6. Steiner P4Xi // 1-4x // 17.3oz // $580
7. EOTech EXPS2-2 + G33 // 1/3x // 22.4oz // $1,019
8. Aimpoint PRO + LT755 // 1/3x // 23.9oz // $854

For the scopes, I'm currently looking to mount them with one of the following (again, by weight):

1. GG&G Accucam QD FLT // 6.8oz // $190
2. LaRue QD SPR // 7.1oz // $210
3. ADM Scout Mount // 7.1oz // $150
4. Bobro Extended // 7.5oz // $230
   

What I'm wondering is which setup would be the most durable, and which setup would perform the best in low light? I can find and run the numbers for weight and cost or figure out the bullet drops for the reticles, but there's not really any place I've found of people that torture test optics like they do rifles or comparative information on low-light performance, other than a objective scale from "pretty alright" to "really good."

Another question in specific to the Trijicon models - Is illumination the only difference? The Accupower offers MOA, MIL, and BDC reticle – which one is “best?”

There's a used Meopta K dot 1-4 on the EE with a mount for $900.

I would buy that and not look back. Great glass, I believe it fits your weight requirements, reticle is true 1x and daylight bright.

Outside of that, if you're set on buying new, I'd go for the Leupold VXR or the steiner.

Is the K-Dot the same as the ZD? I'd been looking at that one, but dropped it for being 19.4oz and $1,100, which would put me over budget and weight with a mount.

I'm not opposed to buying used (possible exception on the accupoint, due to tritium having a shelf life). But neither am I buying right now, and by the point that I am buying, I would be amazed if that scope was still available.

Curious, because I'm still learning about optics, what is it about the VXR or Steiner that puts them ahead of the others? Anything in specific to put one of those ahead of the other?

Pick up a TA33 or TA31 and call it a day.  Super lightweight, nearly bombproof, great glass, good in low light, etc.

Since you don't require a true 1x, these two best fit all your criteria.

For starters, I can't stand the red dot/mag combo. I think their magnified performance is less than stellar for the weight and awkwardness of a flip to side mount.

I'm not big on the trijicon accupoint due to washout issues that come from a fiber/tritium illumination system, although the glass is quite good. Similar reasons with the accupower, the reticle isn't daylight bright and the the run time is less than stellar.

I actually owned the illuminated Mark AR for a while and thought it was a great little variable. I just assume the vxr is that much better for not a whole lot more cash.

As far as the Steiner goes, I've owned a Steiner military 1-4 and a Steiner t5xi 1-5 and both have been excellent scopes. I like Steiner glass, reticle, and illumination.

From my experience I haven't seen another optic that beats the P4Xi glass quality in the $500 price range.  Durability is still in question with it being a newer optic but I haven't seen many negative reviews.  I would also consider a Leupold VX6 1-6.  Very lightweight and great glass.  I just purchased the new VX6 1-6 HD and will give a review on that once I have it in hand and some range time with it, but that's a little out of your price range at this time.

Wait for these to come back in stock and save some coin.

https://dsgarms.com/kt-stn5202-ad-recon-30

The VX-R Patrol has very good glass at its price point, and the Firedot SPR reticle at the distances you will shoot is superb.

But, frankly, for true low light shooting you need a larger objective than the scopes you've listed.  20mm to 24mm objectives are not very good in low light.  Good glass helps, but you really need a bigger objective.  Consider going with a 3-9x40mm scope and some type of offset micro red dot or mini reflex sight for close in shooting.  The combo, if done carefully can be lighter than some of the scopes you are considering.

Mysterious unintended double post.  Deleted.

Whatever you do don't get an ADM mount, get a Larue SPR-S. I have a K-Dot which is the older Meopta with a built in sunshade. Its in a SPR-S. Used it for many years as a patrol optic, pig hunting optic, target optic, etc. Its pretty good glass, but not worth more than $700 for optic and mount combined as a used item. The reticle is fairly useless without power and it has no BDC like the ZD has. If someone offered me $900 for it tomorrow I'd sell it in a heartbeat. At $700 I'm content to hold on to it. The Steiner may be a better buy, honestly.

The best illumination system currently is the new Leupold, IMO. Its motion activation is great, but hard to adjust with one button control.

Outside of the lack of ultra fine adjustability on the adm there's absolutely nothing wrong with them and I say that as a guy who also uses larue mounts.

The fanboy shit gets old

Agree.  I have both Larue and ADM mounts.  While I tend to like the Larue a little more, it is subjective, to be honest.  Both are well-constructed from top quality material, are extremely durable and rugged, weigh about the same, hold zero and return to zero faithfully and accurately, and adjust easily and fit my rails well.  They adjust differently, is all.  I've not found my ADM mounts to lack sufficient adjustability (a claim made by some), nor have my Larue mounts scratched the anodizing on the side of the rail (a claim also made by some).  Both are superb.  Plenty of clamping force when properly adjusted the first time.

I do agree with DevL about how good is Leupold's daylight bright (if needed) motion-activated .3mil (about 1MOA) Firedot illumination system.  It is the best I've used and has incredible battery life.  I leave it on 24/7 and the battery life is years because of the motion sensor.  It shuts off if motionless for five minutes and returns to its last setting when picked back up.  

While I wish it had a rotary knob with for intensity, the button works well for me as I tend to set  brightness toward the middle range and rarely move it unless using it in very low light.  Once you use it a bit,  changing  brightness is pretty simple and easy.

I'd be interested in one of those, but so far most every one I can find is notably over budget. I can get a TA33, but that would still be $1200 and change. Am I just looking in the wrong places?

Also, true 1x isn't necessary, but how well does a 3/4x do for quick close in shooting?

So it sounds like the Steiner or VX-R are looking like they're the way to go, and of the two I'm leaning towards the VX-R for weight. But just how noticeable is that extra 6oz in actual usage and handling? Ounces are pounds pounds are pain and all that, but it's not a super lightweight focused build or anything, I just want to keep weight down when it's not necessary.

I suppose I'll be that one weird guy and say I actually rather like the button adjustment. Or, more, I don't have any issue with it, since set it and forget it is likely what I'll be doing anyways. I can't see many situations where I'd need to adjust brightness rapidly anyways.

So I see a lot of comparisons between the larue and adm, and then people just stating the Bobro is amazing, but how does the GG&G stack up against any of them, and is the Bobro worth the money? I can't find much comparing either of these to the two industry standards.

Lanbo's Armory has quite a few of the TA33 models and when you add them to the cart, they drop down to right around $1,000 even.  I personally have only ever bought ACOGs "used" from the EE on this site (I've owned 6 different models).  You can usually find them in great condition between $700-$900 depending on model.

As for using them at close range, google BAC (Bindon Aiming Concept).  It works rather well.

ETA:  TA31s appear to be $1075 at Lanbo's.

Lanbo's Armory

Just type TA31 or TA33 into the search box.

If durability, light transmission, and weight are your primary concerns, you should be looking for a good fixed power scope.  I think a quality 2.5x scope would fit the bill nicely.

ETA-  After a couple decades shooting 3-gun I've learned that anything too close to be engaged with 2.5 to 3x magnification is close enough to not require sights of any kind.

It's looking like I can actually get a huge discount on them through work, so Trijicon may actually be a quite viable option.

How much of an issue is the limited eye relief? I see some people complaining about it because it makes shooting in awkward positions difficult, but I don't have much experience, and I'm not sure how common that actually is.

Would the TA33/31 as recommended above be a good option from your experience? For running courses (carbine courses/maybe some 2-gun competitions), how important is forgiving eye relief?

If you're concerned about eye relief, then the TA33 would probably be a better choice for you.  It has plenty of eye relief.

As for shooting from awkward positions, the eyebox is going to be your biggest hinderance (even with a low power variable).  The TA33 is very forgiving in this respect.  It's one of the more forgiving magnified optics I've used, actually (and I've got experience with quite a few LPVs).

Is awkward position shooting something to be concerned about? I don't plan on being competitive, just taking courses and such to learn and get better. I like the 4x of the TA31, and if we're being honest it looks better, but I'd rather get what's going to work best than what looks nice, I just don't know if awkward positions are a real issue, or just something that people bring up in discussion more than reality.

It's doable with a magnified optic, but your best bet if that's your main concern is an RDS.

FWIW, I use a TA33 on my "go-to" rifle and it's never been an issue (then again I don't do a whole lot of shooting from awkward positions).

Awkward positions really isn't a concern, just spouting back for verification what the internet's been giving me. I can't much picture a time outside of courses when I'd need to fire from such an awkward position that I couldn't get a proper head position.

I didn't even know until today that I could get such a big discount on the Trijicon, but knowing that it looks like I can get one in my budget with an ADM QD mount, then it seems like it hits and exceeds both weight and durability better than anything else I'd looked at so far. Heck, it even fits in being a clone-inspired build. I'd counted them out before based purely on price.

Thank y'all so much for the help, the amount of knowledge and relative speed with which y'all can get to an exact answer is almost scary.

The lever has slop the Larue does not and I have had to repair defective springs on an officers rifle I was trying to qualify that would not allow the lever to lock and it is just of a poorer quality vs the Larue overall. I have also had a lever that would either not close or not keep the mount from shifting from one position to another. It is my personal experience with ADM levers that led me to stop recommending them as a more budget friendly alternative to a Larue to just recommending people stay away if they can afford Larue because its not worth the risk. If you cant afford Larue, get ADM, but don't think for a moment ADM is of the same quality as Larue. Just look at the machining on both.

There is no "fan boy shit" going on here. I have had a Larue lever lock break. Its the only failure I have ever seen on a Larue and it happened to my lock. Still a better system than ADM in every single way.

The worst QD system ever IMO is the one on the Burris PEPR scope mounts. I literally requested it be banned department wide. It is remarkably similar to ADM but with poorer engineering and quality control. I own one... it cannot get tight enough to not allow the mount to shift in one position and on the next it wont close. Plus it tends to not catch firmly during mounting and the lever locks don't work if you pull on them hard. Optic cant hold a zero in the mount, etc. It is garbage with a nice made in China sticker on it to alert you that you should not have bought it in the first place.

TA31 has great FOV but horrible eye relief. It will contact your shooting glasses during recoil which I find slightly annoying. The TA33 has a tiny FOV, which I find even more annoying. I prefer the TA11, which offers a decent FOV and great eye relief. It has FOV and magnification between the TA31 and TA33. Be sure you try on a rifle before you buy.

That said, I think the BAC of a Trijicon fixed scope is not a viable short range optic choice and prefer either a dedicated offset mini red dot or a true 1X capable variable. People are concerned with the parallax shift of red dots in other threads while the shift in the BAC of a Trijicon is just going to dwarf the amount of shift and variability of the reticle to POI compared tot he worst red dot sights.

As always... get an optic mount that sits at the proper height of 1.42" to 1.44" so you can index your eye height off the stock. Failure to do this results in increasing parallax issues. The irons are at that height for a reason, which is human anatomy requires your sight to be at that height to get a consistent sight picture and to aid in reproducible accuracy.

The first course I took with Kyle Lamb around 2011 or so, it was all Aimpoint and Eotech. 20 something rifles, all 1X RDS split between the two. Now, half a decade later, and it's almost a 50/50 split with LPV's. It's interesting to see the evolution of things. Most of the attendees were FBI/Local and state police/USASOC former and current.

I think the real key is for the end-user to use what they feel warm and fuzzy about (with the exception of PEPR mounts. Those just suck). If you hand someone gear that they hate/do not trust, it is worse than handing them shittier gear that they DO trust and like.

LaRue has military contracts.
ARMS has military contracts.
ADM has military contracts.
GDI has military contracts.
The same mount interface MI is now using has military contracts.

Some of these contracts are a total joke regarding selection process. Who cares? They exist. That makes people feel good.

If you want the optic to NOT MOVE (nearly as much), then use Badger, Nightforce, Geissele, or similar. Because when you use QD mounts, they move. That's just how they do. This may or may not annoy you. You may or may not care.

I have used LaRue,Bobro,Scalarworks, and MI mounts. The worst POI shift I got was within thermal drift tolerances. They all "work just fine" on that note.

Ultimately though, I was faced with "Why am I running a QD mount?"

Do I really expect to whip the optic off while taking cover behind my sofa, or will I just roll the run to the side and sight down the long rail and continue filling the home invader in?
Do I really intend to go to the range lugging all my gear with me...and leave behind a 1/2" end-wrench to remove/replace the hard-mount I'm using?
If I go hunting, could I not slip a short 1/2" end-wrench into my pocket in case of freezing rain or some other happenstance that ruins my ability to use the optic?

I find the QD optic mount to mostly be an exercise in mental masturbation. It usually goes like "if I'm pinned down behind such and such, and my optic suddenly dies, and I have to remove it..."  and would wager that for 99.9999% of these fantasy-having end-users, that isn't even remotely likely. At all. And if it was, maybe drawing your duty pistol or flipping up off-set irons would be a faster and smarter plan.

So, long story short, I dumped QD solutions a long time ago. They offered zero real-world advantage, no-matter what the brand, and several real-world disadvantages, varying with severity depending on the brand.

The Eotech at 0:39, and the Eotech at 1:53, and again at 3:28 do a very good job of demonstrating what happens when you have too little force or contact area holding the optic to the rifle. With 12-1400 lb of clamping force from a "hard mount with a 1/2" nut", that's much less in evidence. While slow-motion testing has been done with various QD mounts, you will note that it is very conspicuously absent from disclosure, and most is the property of companies like FN, etc. With things like "Lubegate 2015", it should come as no surprise why this might be. Further, I wonder how many of these people who "Can't get their Eotech to hold zero" have optics flopping around on their carbines due to the attachment method of the Eotechs and relatively low torque employed on that bolt. It's not like they can SEE the sights flopping around as below with the naked un-aided eye, and when they grab hold of it, it FEELS solid...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuQayLVbiSU

While I prefer, ever so slightly, Larue, it is purely aesthetically, not due to function.  It either mount moves, it was simply not adjusted correctly.  The ADM lever is designed to lift slightly before the latch button releases the lock.  It's just different than the sliding bars on the Larue.  This is subjective and not functional.  Springs can fail.  So can the springs in your rifle.  Larue's cam can wear and screws can loosen.  Nothing is perfect.  It's ok to have preferences.  I do, too.

QC on both is excellent.  The ADM finish is "velvet" while Larue is smoother.  This is a microfinish grade choice and has nothing to do with machining tolerances.  If a user can't get tension adjusted properly, any mount will move, even 1/ 2" nut fixed mounts.  That is on the user.

Purely subjectively, I like Larue when double levers are needed.  I just like the way they look.  I like ADM where single levers are appropriate, especially their red dot mounts.  Neither is  better, just different.  Buy either with confidence.

I agree that there have been QC issues with the PEPR reported here as difficulty getting reliable return to zero.

Bobro has an engineering or design issue reported in detail here, demonstrating with multiple examples a tendency to shitf fore and aft in the rail slot when locked down.

I believe Bill Geissele has also stated that the Bobro places the highest clamping load on the rail of any QD optic. He didn't come right out and SAY that mind you, but that's my interpretation of what he DID say. He obviously would never make a statement like that, but when he says something along the lines of "the strongest QD mount clamping force is something like XXX pounds, which over time relaxes to XXX pounds", you kindof think of something that just might be spring-loaded...

My main reason for wanting a QD mount was mud while hog hunting. Would you believe the thought of carrying a wrench/screwdriver out hunting for my optic never actually occurred to me? You see and hear about something all the time and start to forget there's other perfectly viable options I suppose. I'm not concerned about a minor shift - the gun isn't going to even be free floated, it needs to put rounds on target not rounds on top of each other. But money + weight saved running a regular mount is definitely worth it.

Then also consider some quality scope caps. I prefer John Aadland's caps.

Bigger objective lens doesn't necessarily mean brighter image.

One of my pet peeves is scope/optic companies not posting % light transmission in their scope specs.  Some companies do, many do not.

Probably my best two low light scopes are a couple of Bushnell scopes.  One is very old, I bought it almost 40 years ago.  Many people say M1A's/M14's are hard on scopes.  That 4X12 Bushnell has been on my M1A for almost that whole time.  Never any issues with it.

I took it to an RBC (Rifleman's Boot Camp) at Ramseur, NC in 2006.  We did some night shooting.  Without the scope I could see there were targets across the "creek" past the 25 meter target line but that was all.  Just squares out in the grass near the woods.  Through the scope I could see the black circles of the target and I could see the target company logo/name/address info printed in the lower right corner.

People were amazed at what you could see through that scope.  We took it to the full distance range and (after making sure it was empty and there was no ammo around for it, one guy walked down the road on the right side of the range and walked around between the 200 and 300 yd. target lines.  We could see him easily.  It was dark.  This was with the scope on 4X.

Last year I bought a newer Bushnell with a 50MM objective lens.  It's on my 18" AR15.  I can step out on the porch of my house and look across the yard, the road, the field on the other side of the road and see the dark of the tree line against the night sky.  I can raise that scope to my eye and see the fence posts across the road and even the electric wires that keep the horses from leaving the fields.  I can see the horses standing around in the field.  I can see the tree trunks of the trees on the other side of the field.  One night I watched a (momma) fox and two smaller ones walk slowly along the tree line out in the field looking for mice/nesting birds to eat.

I have no experience with any other scopes except for one big old Simmons that I wasted my money on.  50MM lens and a 2X10 and it's pitiful in low light on 2X.  I've also bought one newer Bushnell 4X12 with a 40mm objective lens that is worthless in low light.  That's why I said it's not just the size of the lens that affects what you can see.

I know what works for me (found another old Bushnell 4X12 just like my old one on ebay last year and bought it for my son's rifle) but I can't give you any advice about the high dollar scopes in your OP.

I've found that the Warne QD rings work for me.  Turn the extended knobs loose, remove the scope and shoot the irons.  Put the rings back in the exact same slots on the rail, tighten the extended nuts to the same angle as before and the shot (at 100 yds) is within an inch of the others (before you took the scope off).

Good luck in your search.

I'm assuming that 4x12 means 4-12x(whatever the objective lens size is)  If not, a 12mm objective would have incredibly poor low light performance - only a 3mm exit pupil at 4x.

Many factors influence low light performance.  Assuming equal and good lens transmission, magnification and objective lens diameter are the dominant factors.  

Objective lens diameter divided by magnification is scope exit pupil. That is the diameter of the beam available to strike your retina and activate its light sensors, the rods and cones.  The human eye pupil in low light might open to as much as 6mm and more typically about 5mm.  If the scope's exit pupil is less than that, only some of your retina's sensors are activated.  Many receive no light.  The image dims and tends to become brownish and loses contrast.

That's why many scopes noticably brighten in low light if you dial back magnification.

Lens quality matters.  Of the more than two dozen scopes I have, the brightest in low light is probably an Austrian Kahles 2-7x36 Helia CL.  The glass is about as good as is humanly possible to make. And at 7x it has a 5.1mm exit pupil which does not degrade image quality or brightness.  A 12x scope with equal quality glass to Kahles would need a 60mm objective to be as bright.

All things equal, exit pupil is the determining factor for light transmission.

All things aren't equal, though. Coatings, light management, and number of lens surfaces light encounters matters a LOT.

I personally find my MK6 a bit dimmer than I would have hoped at night when I move past 2.5-3X. This is due to Leupold's decision to use a 20mm objective lens. I don't agree with this decision, but the Leupold is also one of the toughest scopes on the planet, and that may well play a role in it.

This is why I also advocate a good light. I personally use 5-600 lumen SF Scout type lights, and now with econo-versions being made by Streamlight, the same luminescence can be had for $100-ish. The durability isn't the same, nor is the quality, but the hogs won't care, and cheap is cheap.

If you want good optical performance at night, I'd recommend looking to Europe for your glass. Barring that, I'd use exit pupil to compare scopes across same-price spectrums. For example, a friend of mine has a Strike Eagle 1-6. I have a Leupold MK6. We were shooting near dusk, and comparing resolution of the woods at 150+ yards between the two scopes. His scope had a 4mm exit pupil at 6X. Mine, 3.3mm. Only about 83% as much "area" for light to travel through. They seemed very nearly equally "bright" to me. My extra $1500 in optics barely made up for less than 1mm in exit pupil...

Check out the Eotech Vudu 1-6

Whatch a video on it and check out the reticle design

When I say ADM finish is poor I don't mean the coating, I appologize. I meant to say it looks like a stone age implement. That rounded section looks like a poorly cast piece with chunks missing. Like Fred Flintstone would use it LOL.

As for Larue not holding... I have never had it shift and it always returns to zero. Then again my bolt gun has fixed steel rings. My AR is not accurate enough to notice tiny shifts from removal of a Larue mount.

As for QD... it's needed if you run a scope and don't want offset irons. If you take a round to the optic, fall in mud, break the optic badly, etc. You still are better off with a rifle with irons than a pistol. First chance you get after pistol transition, you rip off the optic and go to irons and you don't want to need a tool to do it. On a bolt gun I don't run buis because I only shoot 3-4 MOA with irons in real world scenarios. It makes the bolt gun pointless.

You would be supprised how many cops have dead/useless optics on qualify day. There is always at least one. That's why BUIS are mandatory. Because we live in the real world, not a fantasy perfect land where we carry all necessary tools on us daily.

Exit pupil has zero effect on light transmission until your pupil is larger than the exit pupil of the scope, then it is the largest factor.

Glass clarity, number of lenses, and coatings determine transmission percentage. Those determine brightness 100% till the exit pupil and your pupil are the same size.

A fully dilated pupil (not considering pharmacological causes) is 5-9mm when night adapted. This range was from various sources I could fine. This means that every LPV that I am aware of in the 6x and higher top-end qualifies for exit pupil being the #1 issue on the higher magnification settings. That said, it is my informal opinion that <1mm can be made up for in glass/coatings/design. Much over that, and it's just physics.

I'll definitely look into those. Where I hunt I can either spend the entire time in open fields, or I can spend it all crawling through brush and up and down creek banks, or both. Scope caps should probably be a given necessity.

Do you know fi there's any that work with a TA31 without the ARD? Or is that just a requirement to run caps on it?

If you should go with the Leupold VX-R, by chance, Leupold makes metal fold flat caps that securely screw into threads in the objective and eyepiece ends.  

These Alumina caps are very durable and just flat look great.  Here is what they look like on my larger VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm.

I own (or have owned) a lot of what's in your initial list.  Lots of comments and side tracks above so I'll focus in on the title "Durable and low light".

Say what you will about 3x and 4x ACOG's and how awesome the market now is with all these awesome new fangled true 1x variables (I have a couple myself and they have some great uses) but you seem to focused on having a 3xish power range and with durable and low light, and the eye relief you've mentioned a lot, the "old" ACOGs still have a lot going for them.

I've floated through half a dozen optics on my SCAR17 (for example).  I keep coming back to the 3.5 ACOG with a .308 BDC.  It's crystal clear glass and works better than some 7x because the resolution is so good. At night it gathers so much light, it's easier to scan my fields with the ACOG than the naked eye.  Seriously.  Now it's not some sort of night vision or anything but it does slightly improve the light at dusk or with a decent moon.  Given the importance of durability and light, I'd have to say that'd be the ticket.  

As an aside the Aimpoint PRO I'd take over any of the other listed red dots personally.  Light transmission is decent and it's built like a tank.  Plus on sale you can score them for $375 delivered if you aren't in a hurry.

Edit: you mention ranch use, I have used my SCAR17 3.5x ACOG setup for yotes here on the hacienda in a grab and go howling in the middle of the night (under 1/2 moonlight or better).

I'm a believer in optimizing for the most dangerous scenario and making due with the rest.  You mention HD, Aimpoint PRO or micro without a doubt.  It will also serve the other roles out to 300m a lot better than irons.

Or, you could get a PRO, then add an upper and 1-4 or 1-6 optic later for hogs and longer range stuff.

In your experience, is the reduced field of view in the 3 or 3.5x ACOG a issue? Right now I'm leaning towards the TA31RCO-M4CP or a TA50-C-400223, but was largely tending towards the TA31 for the extra 1x and 11.2ft FOV @100yds. The TA11 just seemed way too large and heavy compared to either the TA33 or TA31 for something that's just in the middle of both. TA50 seemed to offer the same as the TA33 but with better FOV and less weight, which is why I'm tending towards it on the 3x side.

Between those, since your usage seems to be similar to mine and your knowledge well exceeding mine, which would you recommend?

I've owned a TA11 and a RCO (TA31, optically), and the TA11 is a much easier optic to live with. As mentioned, a TA31 will pop your shooting glasses under recoil. TA11 has "normal" eye relief.

Alright, I'll lean towards the 3/3.5x options then.

I still can't quite figure out the TA11 though - it offers 0.5x more magnification than the TA33/TA50, all at 2x the weight, 2-3in longer, and only 2.3ft more view than the TA50. Excuse my newbness, I gotta be missing something, because the TA11 looks like a pretty bad scope from just the numbers - especially at a higher price point. What am I missing that the TA11 offers to make it so popular? The FOV blows the TA33 out of the water, but doesn't offer much against the TA50. Currently I'm strongly tending towards the TA50, but I want to make sure I'm not missing some huge bonus that the TA11 offers.

The TA11 is the compromise ACOG. It falls  in between the TA33 and the TA31 for magnification, FOV, eye relief at the expense of the extra weight. I believe it comes out to around a pound though ?

Why no Vortex on the list?

Because their options that are, afaik, on par with most the others on the list (Razor HD Gen II, Viper PST Gen II) is over weight, budget, or both.

Primary Arms is on there and not lower level vortex as a bit of a "will cheap scopes do this well enough?" Which if it was a yes, then I definitely would have looked to the strike eagle and such as well, but judging by the 0 recommendations towards that, I'm taking the logical/obvious guess that, as expected, the cheaper optics are not on par with the higher end optics.

Yeah, it's 14oz without mount, which isn't bad for a scope, but compared to the others (TA31 is around 10, 33/50 are around 8/6) it's a fair bit more. Not just the weight, but the sheer sizable bulk of it in comparison is a bit off-putting for me. One of the advantages of the ACOGs, from my view, is their small size compared to variable options. If an ACOG is near the size and weight of a variable, then I might as well look to one of those for the ease of use/versatility over a fixed magnification.

Right now it's looking like I'll either go with the TA50 or the TA31. The small FOV kills the TA33 for me, and I'm not sure yet if the eye relief is a deal breaker with the TA31. If it is, I'll step to the TA50, and if it's not, then that's probably the one I'll go with for the +1x and notably larger FOV.

Look at the Steiner M332. It's a 3x prism with BDC reticle and daylight bright illumination. It offers German made Schott glass and weighs about a pound with integrated QD mount. It has better FOV than a TA33 and better eye relief than the TA31. It comes in between the PA prism scopes and ACOGs, at $550ish. 

Now come on guys, there is absolutely nothing BIG about this scope.
As a matter of fact, it's just about the perfect size for a carry handle.
Durability, well no worries there, and low light is great.

I recently dropped about 7 oz by switching scopes and mounts on a build that weighs about 7lbs without optics. The difference is significant, especially for balance.