Is the TA11 ok to use with a fixed FSB?  I want to try one out, but don't know how distracting the FSB will be in the field of view.  I use an Eotech on a rifle with a fixed FSB and it doesn't bother me at all.  

have you had the chance to use any TA33R-8.  I have heard good things about them but would like your thoughts.

Good reading by the way.

thanks

Thanks for posting the article, and letting us benefit from your knowledge.  I just bought an EOTech for my AR, and can't wait to use it!

Hmm...

Hi,
The disadvantages pointed out for the Elcam Dr. I believe although valid are quite unlikely.  Gunk within the mechanism (highly unlikely)  Any situation that would cause that kind of turmoil to this heavy tank like optic would probably jam your weapon.  Arms mounts?  I like the fact that you can take them off and on and the zero still remains.  We have had no problems with the arms mounts.    Nothing is perfect but the ELCAN DR.  comes pretty close.  I have a Trijicon with DOC red dot mount.  For sight acquisition the ELCAN gives a better visual and is more accomodating.  Just my humble opinion...
If there is a better sight out there...do tell.  Less is better.

Zak is right on the DR.  I would never trust the zero on that optic with the function of the lever as it is... any kind of debris - snow/ice/dirt, or just wiggling the little lever radically changes the windage zero of the optic.  Complete no-go IMO.

Great article, very informative thread. I've been trying to decide what scope to buy for shooting up to 300 yards and now I know what style to look at.

 Hey Zak I understand you do some 3 gun shootin' and I was wondering what your thoughts were on mounting some CQ sites at a 45 degree angle and canting the rifle to engage close targets. I've seen alot of 3 gun guys with this set up using various 1x optics and even some irons. I personally like this better than lifting your head to use the piggy back mini red dots on top of the scope.

Quoted: Quoted:  Hey Zak I understand you do some 3 gun shootin' and I was wondering what your thoughts were on mounting some CQ sites at a 45 degree angle and canting the rifle to engage close targets. I've seen alot of 3 gun guys with this set up using various 1x optics and even some irons. I personally like this better than lifting your head to use the piggy back mini red dots on top of the scope. It's definitely the hot setup for "Open" division.  I shoot "Tactical" (aka Modified) division, so I'm stuck with only one optic.  Here's a photo of my setup when I shot "Trooper": demigodllc.com/photo/CAV17/smaller/A100_0496_img.jpg ............... Larger version of above photo. In competition, where we can more or less control the environment and are not encumbered by body armor, helmets, etc, mounting it at 45* (the 1:30'o'clock position for RH shooters) is best.   I've been told that the piggy-back method works better when donning military gear.

Wow Zak, you nailed that photo...nice.  And again, excellent thread.

Zak,
Nice setup. I wear body armor at work with level4 plates and a chest pouch loaded with mags and I don't really have a problem canting the weapon. I also read on another forum about some SWAT team that was running 45 degree sites as backup to there main optics and seamed to like it alot. But I am sure if the guys downrange like the piggy back method better than they probably have done more extensive testing than me. Plus they use different vests, helmets etc..
 Just a thought, would irons be legal for tactical division? I have seen some setups using the JP 45 degree mount for the rear site and a front site mounted on the forend at the 1:30 position. Do irons count as "optics"?

zak

Like many people on this board, I have been reading yours and other peoples posts about optic selection and other topics and have always found your posts to be very informative. I have been using the TA31F for several years and last year I bought a TA11 after reading your reasons and opinion of the optic.
I was intrigued however, I couldnt understand why you didnt use the TA11F or or TA31F with its more "precise" aiming point.
Then I got my TA11!
The first time I shot it I knew I liked it better with the longer eye relief, it was way more comfortable even though I have always been a nose to charging handle guy from my Army Training, that has become increasingly difficult with all the Body Armor we where today. Still it is doable with the 31 series but the TA11 series makes it easier in that, I dont have to "force" myself into position while whereing BA and a MICH Helmet.
Ok now the reticle. After shooting the TA11 and TA31F side by side for over 6 months, I have now sold both my TA31F's and have elected to go TA11 donut of death on all my rifles.
MY REASONING,
IN MOST high stress situations (I am talking combat) and even in many situations at the range or in carbine courses speed is the key like you have said through out these posts. My eye picks up the circle faster for sure.
In addition, most people who say they want  a more precise aiming point are rarely going to hold less than 2MOA anyway (would you agree?) I mean lets face it if I am having a good day and bench shooting I can easily hold less than 1 MOA with a chevron and good ammo and little too no wind, blah blah blah, but in run and gun stuff it just doesnt hold that tight. If you can, good for you, but In most cases If I am hitting an 8" plate at 400 yards with a Donut and so is the next guy with a Chevron ret. Who cares right?
All I am saying is that I had several misconceptions about using optics over the last several years, and I have seen the Light and see how fast the Donut of death is and it is definatly NOT less of an optic than one with a Chevron or triangle. What it boils down to is what do YOU (as the shooter) use best. The last time I was down range, I took my TA31F and had one issued, In Sept. I will be taking Both my TA11s IN LARUE MOUNTS of course! because I know I wont be issued one
Thanks for your advise and keep up the articles brother.
chuck

Quoted: eaglecp      I found your comments on the chevron vs the donut very interesting. At the shot show in the LE area Trijicon had a version of the RCO ACOG with a horseshoe reticle very similar to the horeshoe in my CRS. The rep I talked with said the Marines had requested the horseshoe reticle for testing. The rep said the horseshoe reticle was not in production but they were showing it to get feed back. Did anyone else see the horseshoe reticle in the ACOG?    Ed  GRSC INC

I haven't but I would buy it.  My main gripe with the donut is the lower half of it, particularly on bright days or shooting into shaded areas from lighted areas.  
That also begs my other wish related to the opposite situation: a "tripower" acog where the reticle could be set at a minimum brightness on battery that would allow for better acquisition of dark targets in lit areas when shooting from dark areas (such as a black shirt lit up with a white light from inside the doorway of a dark room).  Here the dimly lit fiber optic is many times too dim to pic up quickly.  
I guess, since I'm making an ACOG wishlist, Trijicon might as well throw some variable 1-3.5/4 power in there too :).


In the mean time, the simplest addition would be a basic snap-on, sliding cover for the fiber optic tube to allow manual/left-hand off dimming on bright days.  I know the bright glow does not reduce accuracy, but I do perceive a temporary reticle burn in effect on my retina when looking at the excessively bright donut.  (Try it and then look away, and I bet you see the reticle for a few.)


Ed, where can we find your CRS or the next scope that will incorporate your reticle?

(BTW: Swarovski made a special 10x42 scope for the M82 Barrett.  That weapon is a "sniper" rifle (granted, primarily anti-material originally), so I imagine they are not entirely against making stuff that will be for hunting bipeds.)

First of all, I mostly just enjoy reading these posts, but I want to chime in on the ACOG TA-33R-8.  I think it is a fantastic sight, but misunderstood by many who may not make use of its atvantages.  I understand the debates between field of view and eye relief that present themselves when comparisons are made between the TA-31's, the TA-11's, and the TA-33's.  I own the TA-11 and TA-33, and had the older TA-01; all have had plenty of use.  The benefit I see in the TA-33 is it's LIGHT WEIGHT.  With mount (either factory or LaRue) its still lighter than an Aimpoint/EOTECH and does not rely on batteries.  For it's weight, it provides some magnification in outdoor low light settings which can make a difference in spotting a threat concealed in vegetation or the like, without having too much size/magnificatoin to impede a close shot.  It also has enough magnification to make reliable hits at reasonable ranges.  For folks who have to carry their rifle all day (not a bad thing) the weight and size savings makes a difference, even to conditioned guys.  Without insulting anyones sight of choice, its much easier to lug the TA-33 than most sight set ups mounted on rifles these days which provide an illuminated reticle and magnification (ie- magnifiers in addition to sight).  Mostly I'm pitching this sight to law enforcement personnel who pack rifles a lot and don't get in prolonged city to city shootouts on a regular basis.  The TA-33 is a sight worth trying for anyone who is tempted to buy/use it.      

Zak - Thank you for sharing your professional insights.  This information is invaluable to a non-LE or military person like myself who is trying to decide between various optics for my current AR project.  My LMT build would fall into your Type I category for range and HD use.  I'm leaning toward the Aimpoint ML3 versus an EOTech 512 (I have used both), but would be interested to hear if you have any feedback on the Micro T-1.  

Also, what is the greater liability in your eyes - the narrower field of view when using a flip-to-side magnifier with the Aimpoint or EOTech or the slower sight picture of the ACOGs at CQB distances?  Which optics solution would you choose for quick transition between Type 1 and Type II targets (excluding the S&B Short Dot)?

Final question: Do you feel iron sights are necessary on a rifle when relying on an optics?

Quoted: That also begs my other wish related to the opposite situation: a "tripower" acog where the reticle could be set at a minimum brightness on battery that would allow for better acquisition of dark targets in lit areas when shooting from dark areas (such as a black shirt lit up with a white light from inside the doorway of a dark room).

So long as you are not worried about being visible on NODS this should be possible with an aftermarket piece.  Just need an LED placed on top of the fiber optic and a rheostat control to set the brightness.

I remember somebody making a little bracket that would hold a mini-Cyalume light stick over the fiber to provide additioanl light to the reticle.

ARMS mounts eventually become loose, especially if the optic is used on multiple uppers. At that point there is no way to fix it besides replacing the "pad." BTDT. I think you'll notice a trend over the last 5 years--- those people who CAN switch to LaRue mounts DO.

With regard to the Spectre DR, Elcan got all the feedback they needed to make this a bar-none killer optic at SHOT 2006, ironically from a stream of top 3-Gunners who told the rep basically the same thing, over and over again: fix the reticle (the TA01 reticle is unnecessarily cluttered); at least allow the option of non-ARMS mounts; also concerns have been voiced about both external elevation/windage adjustments AND the lever mechanism. The zero of the reticle depends on the level being bottomed out and in the detent. For a simple test, get sighted in with the lever to the rear (if I remember correctly) and have your buddy wiggle the lever-- the reticle moves a massive amount. Firstly, I don't want anything external to be able to shift my zero; secondly if the lever cannot "bottom out" because of debris, your zero is shifted possibly by a massive amount.

are u refering to the ecos model,  if not what are your thoughts on the ta31 ecos?

Nice work Zak-

Have you tested the Meopta k-dot?  Seems to be a highly recommended optic for 3-gun tactical division.  Thoughts?  Thanks -- take care.
-br  

Spoke with the S&B US rep the other day asking about the ZenithFlash/Short-Dot (2nd focal plane) scopes and available reticles.  

From the conversation I drew two important pieces of info:

1. Prices will be going up on S&B scopes in the near future due to the deficiency in currency exchange.

2. S&B is currently building Zenith 1.1-4x24 Short-Dot/Flash-Dot with mil dot reticles.  This is said to take the place of the CQB reticle (FD #2, #7 and #9, are the other alternatives for CQB--I prefer the 9).  Retrofit of this reticle into existing Short/Flash Dots is estimated to be in the 300-400 bone range.  

What is that covering your ACOG?

What is that covering your ACOG?

Great info Zak,,you answered a lot of my questons . No need to ask now.

Quoted: Serbspaniard, Not sure why a straight mildot + flash dot would be better than a regular mil-hash flash-dot reticle. -z

Objectively, it isn't.
Subjectively it is.  I prefer the dots because the rest of my mil reticles are dots, not hashes--commonality/familiarity/repetition for MY eyes.  In addition, for me the dots are quicker to acquire/use than the hashes (maybe due to the bolder presence, but probably merely because I am accustomed to dots).  Obvious trade-off being the thicker dot covering distant target versus thinner hash not.  I'm sure there is a market for both, which is why they both exist.

In any case, my prior statement was not meant to say the standard Mildot is better than the CQB hashes; my statement was in the setting of my understanding is that the CQB reticle will be phased out/not used with the 2nd focal plane scopes and, therefore, the mildot + flashdot is the only option on that table as it is being set.

The fact is the CQB works exceptionally well as is and will continue to for many years whether in new or old S&B scopes.  Clearly the CQB could continue in the 2nd plane Zenith scope.  Any phasing out of this reticle is likely due to misunderstandings between the perspectives of the German manufacturer (1st focal plane--the reticle should be able to be used in all magnifications) vs. American market/user (2nd focal plan--dots and reticles should not (be perceived to) grow with magnification).  

In an ideal world I would have a Zenith Short/Flash Dot (2nd focal plane) with a GRSC inverted center horsehoe with mil dots going south and lateral on a fine crosshair all encircled in a heavier 50-70 moa ring, with the ring and horseshoe lit in red, and a fainter illumination on the mildot crosshair.  (A GRSC/EOTech Short-Dot, if you will.)

As for the present, a Zenith FD#9 will have to do...at least for me.

Zak would like to hear your thoughts about these scopes based on the provided data.



Specifications
Model MK-7 Omega
Magnification 1-6 x 28
Object Diameter 28 MM
Ocular Diameter 32 MM
Tube Diameter 35MM
Overall Length 7.9 inches
Overall Weight 20 oz.
Finish Matte Black
Exit Pupil Diameter 16MM@1x 7mm@6x
Field of View 105.8" @ 100 yds.  
Click Value 1/2 MOA
Internal Adjustment 67 MOA of Wind age/Elevation
Diopter Adjustment -3.2 to 3.2
Eye Relief 4.5@1x 3.5@6
Retical Flat-Tire
Lens Coating BroadBand Coated
Water Proof Yes
Fog Proof Yes
Shock Proof Yes

Ellis Optics engineers developed height efficiency broad band AR coatings that gather a full color spectrum of day light and high resolution at twilight. The MK-7 deliver up to 90.6 of total light transmission


FFP  front focal plane allows range finding reticals to work at all power setting

MAIN TUBE 35mm one piece 6061 T6 aircraft grade aluminum hermetically seal and nitrogen purged

INTERNAL ADJUSTMENT 67 MOA of wind age and 67 MOA of elevation

ILLUMINATED RETICLE is fully illuminated with ten graduated settings for low light shooting and compatible with night vision.  Including 5 Green setting for daytime use, and 5 Red night settings.

PRECISION ADJUSTMENT 1/2 audible adjustment for long range precision shooting

Reticle Flat-Tire retical designed for CQB use and midrange precision adjustment


Specifications
Model MK-7 DM
Magnification 2-12 x 32
Object Diameter 32 MM
Ocular Diameter 32 MM
Tube Diameter 35MM
Overall Length 10 inches
Overall Weight 22 oz.
Finish Matte Black
Exit Pupil Diameter 15.5MM@2x 4MM@12
Field of View 75@100 yds 15@12x
Click Value 1/4 MOA
Internal Adjustment 67 MOA of Wind age/Elevation
Diopter Adjustment -4.5 to + 4.5
Eye Relief 4.5@2x 3.5@12x
Adjustable Range of Parellex 30 meters- infinaty
Diopter Adjustment -4.5 to + 4.5
Retical Mil-Bar
Lens Coating BroadBand Coated
Water Proof Yes
Fog Proof Yes
Shock Proof Yes

Same reticle and other features as above.  Im sure its not got the greatest battery life and requires a SPR-E type cantilevered mount and I dont even know of a 35mm mount yet but they appear interesting none the less.

Zak, thanks for a truly informative article. Its refreshing to get honest info and straight comparisons, not just from you but from all the fellas that's contributed to this thread. Thanks guys.

Quoted: +1 GOOD READ For a M4 I think Aimpoint/Eotech is the only way to go But thats me I will never shoot past 300 M any hoot

yes that is only you..

Zak,

Would you recommend a 2 moa dot or a 4 moa dot Aimpoint?

And is the CompM4 worth the extra money (over the CompM3)?

I have a 16" HBAR carbine shooting 55 gr Lake City ammo because I figure whatever problems I have will be inside 200 yrds.  So I'm thinking about going with the magifier + dot (with the mount that lets the magnifer be kept to the side) because I think I can learn to hold over at distance more easily than I can learn to shoot fast up close with a scope.

FNG here,

Can anyone give me an evaluation or comparison of what the sight picture difference is between a "holographic" device (e.g. Eotech) and a laser dot sight. I've read several pieces regarding the holograph sight and how it supposedly gives the user a wider field of vision by placing a holograph of the reticle for the user's eyes "out" on the target.

I've got laser dot sights that show the red dot in the "tube" and cannot seem to determine if that's all the Eotech configuration is doing.

Thanks for any feedback.

Zak,

I read a comment by a trooper somewhere saying that he could shoot out to 400 yrds with no problem with the 2 moa aimpoint dot.  Does this match your experience?

And I've been interested in the T-1 Micro.  Why would you prefer it?  Is it available with a 2 moa dot?

Quoted: At the Johnson 3-Gun match, I was talking to some folks about the Burris XTR1-4.  When one surveys the field of low power variable magnification scopes, there are so many scopes that get close but don't quite hit the target niche.  They do this by: (1)  having ineffective and overcomplicated reticle design for the (basically) two modes the scope will be run in; (2) wrong or insufficient illumination (incl short battery life); (3) eye relief exceeds what an AR can accommodate easily (the SPR-E is about the only choice); (4) poor choices in knob setup.

Which of these issues affects the Burris?

Quoted: As I've said, it depends on target size and contrast.  A full-size IPSC target black against a white background is easy to engage at that distance.    On the other hand, a brown and black 12" target in tree and shadow may be simply impossible to see. The T1 is smaller and is less obtrusive to my overall field of view.

Yup.

I've tried using an eotech at local 3-gun matches with targets out to 350 yards. When I can see them, I can hit them. The problem is that once the white paint on theose steel targets starts turning grey they are pretty damn hard to find against the desert background even using a low power variable, with the Eotech most of my time is spent find the damn targets, not shooting at them.

Zak,

Does the T1 work well with the aimpoint magnifier, and would the magifier do much to solve the contrast-at-a-distance problems?

As I wrote above, in Florida we don't have a lot of long distance situations.  It's more like Vietnam than like the Western US (where I would probably prefer a .30 cal).

I've pretty well decided that if I ever use my AR for self-defense, it will be at distances of less than 200 yrds.  So I have a carbine, use 55 gr bullets that fragment well, and want my primary optics to be type I.  But I would like to have some long-distance capability and am thinking of a 2 moa aimpoint with a magnifier that can be rotated down.  I have an HBAR, and I'm thinking of carrying a special magazine with some 62 grain cartridges for getting way out there.

Think this will work?  

What would your personal preference be and why, if you don't mind?

I have plenty of handguns.  I'm thinking about when TSHTF scenarios.

Say, Israel decides to attack Iran (quite plausable, perhaps even probable).  The Straits of Hormuz get shut down.  Forty percent of the world's oil supply is stopped.  There is an ensuing world-wide depression and widespread hunger.  Our minorities do the same thing here all over the country that they did after Katrina.  We have gangs wandering the streets with AK's.  I want more than a handgun or a shotgun.

I'm getting long in the tooth, and I expect to hand my stuff down to my daughter.  I want something that will continue to be useful for a long time.