ACOG needs to revise it's mounting method and mount directly to flat-tops

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ACOG needs to revise it's mounting method and mount directly to flat-tops

Posted: 4/15/2017 1:53:37 AM EDT

Amazingly, I haven't seen this discussed. I've had mostly TA11s and they are all made - still - to mount on the carry handle. Now you know full well these days nobody uses carry handles. The flattops outnumber carry handles seems like 100:1. Because you have just a handful of scopes that mount to CH. Whereas anything mounts to the flattop receiver. The CH was obsolete 10 years ago.

So not only do you have to buy a third party mount like Larue's but a mount attached to the ACOG is an extra part, extra cost and raises the height above the bore. I've had an ACOG on a 308 MBR and could not get a cheek-weld until I got a stock with the cheek-piece. It's a nice middle of the road optic with some dumb configuration choices.

The stock Trijicon mount TA51 is also insufficient, no QD feature but mainly you still have to deal with the height increase. Larue LT100 solves the QD problem but not the height problem. It just runs a bit too high where you may not get a consistent cheek-weld. I mounted something else instead of TA11 and it's so much nicer. This is IME (In my experience).

Trijicon needs to get with the times, it's 2017, not 1987. They can continue to make the existing models for CH fans but they also need to offer models that mount to flattops without that carry handle BS. Reduce the weight, the bulk and the cost. Maybe even have a mount that's built into the scope with the QD capability. As a thought.

Posted: 4/15/2017 2:09:52 AM EDT

[#1]

They would literally just be replacing one very robust way to attach things to a mounting plate with another, probably equally bulky robust way to mount things. Or lock you into one very specific mount that the offends the larue/bobro/whatever fans. I could see maybe some weight reduction, but not sure how much you could trim after it has to meet whatever reliability metrics they currently test to. That dovetail channel I imagine is way stronger when looking at lateral impacts than just a couple of bolts. I've never noticed that they would clear BUIS with a lower mount. Always seems like a tight fit as it is.

Posted: 4/15/2017 2:18:06 AM EDT

[#2]

The CH has lost its relevancy... so has the mounting option. Unless you are a die hard fan of iron sights in the good olde A2 variant built into the CH, in which case, why do you need an ACOG?

Scopes that don't have to accommodate the CH *are* lower. Even 1/2" is significant. Not to mention the weight savings. Two ounce is two ounces or whatever.

Either way, Trijicon has to make some adjustments. Right now, it's more complicated than it needs to be.

They have come out with battery-powered ACOGs, which is kind of amazing. I could have never guessed.

Posted: 4/15/2017 8:09:47 AM EDT

[#3]

I do not agree.

Posted: 4/15/2017 8:47:10 AM EDT

[#4]

I have never had a problem with an Acogs height over bore. With the CH yes but with an aftermarket mount then are the same height as other optics you'd mount on an AR.

Posted: 4/15/2017 9:15:07 AM EDT

[#5]

The TA51 is bulky and heavy but still QD enough for me.

As for the CH thing.. There are millions of fixed CH around the world..probably more that flat tops.

From a marketing and financial point of view it makes a lot of sense to allow the Acog to be mounted in 2 different ways using one type of forging for the mfg process..

Also if they would start making a scope with intagral flat top mount people will start crying because they can use third party mounts

Posted: 4/15/2017 10:09:15 AM EDT

[#6]

The ACOG is one of the few and best scopes that can easily mount to an older CH making the A2 still viable. Mounting any other scope to an A2 is a ridiculous pain. I only have one A2 rifle but I like knowing that I can mount an excellent scope (ACOG) to it very easily.

I do agree with the OP that the OEM ACOG mount is too heavy and a little dated. But it's so much fun arguing about which is better Larue, GCI, Bobro etc...

Posted: 4/15/2017 10:12:07 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

So not only do you have to buy a third party mount like Larue's but a mount attached to the ACOG is an extra part, extra cost and raises the height above the bore. I've had an ACOG on a 308 MBR and could not get a cheek-weld until I got a stock with the cheek-piece. It's a nice middle of the road optic with some dumb configuration choices.

View Quote

What .308 MBR? I'll bet it wasn't a .308 AR.

As far as changing to a new mounting system, there are a lot of options that fit the ACOG. Enough that it can be a chore to decide on which one to use. Why change that?

While it would be nice if Trijicon came out with a new, lower system so an ACOG could be mounted lower on an FAL or M1A, the vast majority of rifles sold these days, even .308s, are ARs, so the company would be spending a lot of money on a very small market segment.

I seem to recall that the lower power ACOGs (1.5x and 2x) used to include models that they called "low ring mounts" and they used a proprietary mount available in different heights. I think they were discontinued a long time ago because few people were buying them.

Posted: 4/15/2017 11:30:02 AM EDT

[#8]

the flattop with picattiny rail is archaic we need something new

Posted: 4/15/2017 11:37:59 AM EDT

[#9]

Send your complaint to Trijicon.

I'm sure they never thought of that and will get right on your recommendation.

Posted: 4/15/2017 2:22:31 PM EDT

[#10]

Man, ACOG in Larue mount is the perfect height for me (TA33 and TA44).

Posted: 4/15/2017 3:56:53 PM EDT

[#11]

Run a ta31 on my LMT MWS lt100 mount and no issues with the sopmod stock.

Posted: 4/15/2017 5:02:12 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Trijicon needs to get with the times, it's 2017, not 1987.

View Quote

NO.

I do not agree and think you are wrong.

And the reason you haven't seen any threads or posts on this topic is probably because YOU are the only one with this viewpoint.

Posted: 4/15/2017 7:41:44 PM EDT

[#13]

never an issue with the ta51 mount whats all the facination with qd mounts

Posted: 4/15/2017 8:30:15 PM EDT

[#14]

Say whatever you want but this is perfection!

Posted: 4/15/2017 9:55:56 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
never an issue with the ta51 mount whats all the facination with qd mounts

View Quote

This, the qd mounts may be more aesthetically pleasing, but i've always thought of the ACOG as a set it and forget it kinda optic.

Posted: 4/16/2017 12:04:10 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
So not only do you have to buy a third party mount like Larue's but a mount attached to the ACOG is an extra part, extra cost and raises the height above the bore. I've had an ACOG on a 308 MBR and could not get a cheek-weld until I got a stock with the cheek-piece.

View Quote

So let me get this straight. You are you using the incorrect scope height of an ACOG with an aftermarket mount as evidence that Trijicon should change their design to one that prevents you from using an aftermarket mount and completely eliminate any options for scope height? I know this was posted late on a Friday night but just how many drinks did you have before posting this?

Posted: 4/16/2017 10:44:08 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Say whatever you want but this is perfection!

http://i874.photobucket.com/albums/ab302/sniper907/_2237132.jpg

View Quote

Edwin,

I am going to have to agree, TA11 in a Larue mount is as good as it gets.

77

Posted: 4/16/2017 11:27:31 AM EDT

[#18]

Something tells me Trijicon is happy with the way their scopes mount.

Posted: 4/16/2017 11:33:11 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

Edwin,u

I am going to have to agree, TA11 in a Larue mount is as good as it gets, for can ACOG set up...

77

View Quote

Posted: 4/16/2017 11:33:50 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
I do not agree.

View Quote

this. The mount is perfect and it's not any higher then a normal full co witness red dot. So I don't see why it's so high for you. The way all the mounts lock in a U shape makes it externally robust

Posted: 4/16/2017 11:51:00 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
this. The mount is perfect and it's not any higher then a normal full co witness red dot. So I don't see why it's so high for you. The way all the mounts lock in a U shape makes it externally robust

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I do not agree.

this. The mount is perfect and it's not any higher then a normal full co witness red dot. So I don't see why it's so high for you. The way all the mounts lock in a U shape makes it externally robust

Yep.

I have had the old TA50 in factory mount, TA31f in a Bobro and now I have a TA11e in a LaRue and they have all been perfect height for the optic and rifle.

Posted: 4/16/2017 12:15:23 PM EDT

[#22]

The ta51,& Larue flattop mounts work very well as long as the mounting screws are locktite secured and properly tightened.

I see no reason to rebuild the ACOG to direct mount.

Posted: 4/16/2017 1:12:50 PM EDT

[#23]

The acog is one of the best combat Optic ever made, see no need to change it. And the thumb screw mount? If you put it back in the same rail slot and put 65" lbs on the screws it will be damn close to zero if you can tell any change at all.

Posted: 4/17/2017 7:05:37 AM EDT

[#24]

Trijicon needs to make an upper receiver with the acog forged right in there one piece

Posted: 4/17/2017 7:18:50 AM EDT

[#25]

Why fix what's not broken just because you don't like how it is.

Posted: 4/17/2017 9:28:35 AM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
Man, ACOG in Larue mount is the perfect height for me (TA33 and TA44).

View Quote

I find the Larue mount too low, but thats the nice thing about the way ACOGs mount , different people make mounts at 4 or more heights for the mini-ACOGs so you can pick your favorite.

Posted: 4/17/2017 10:05:54 AM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:
Trijicon needs to make an upper receiver with the acog forged right in there one piece

View Quote

Posted: 4/17/2017 11:01:44 AM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Trijicon needs to make an upper receiver with the acog forged right in there one piece

View Quote

Now that's some forward thinking! This man deserves a promotion.

The height over bore is only 1/8" higher than irons. Most absolute co-witness optics are the same height as the ACOG.

Posted: 4/17/2017 11:06:05 AM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
Trijicon needs to make an upper receiver with the acog forged right in there one piece

View Quote

This got kinda close:

Posted: 4/17/2017 1:19:36 PM EDT

[#30]

Yep, I was thinking JP milled the uppers for a lower direct mount of ACOGS.

Posted: 4/17/2017 2:24:19 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

This got kinda close:

https://www.jprifles.com/photos/CTR_ACOG.jpg

View Quote

Don't be a pussy weld that bitch on there and sell it to OP for $2200 an upper.

Posted: 4/17/2017 3:00:18 PM EDT

[#32]

Still some A2's in use, even in our own military. And some others. Heck, some A1's probably still in use somewhere. Maybe not the US military but I remember seeing a pic of an Air Force guy with an M16 at that Airport (Baghdad I think).

Anyways... I see your point, but may be a bit premature.

Posted: 4/17/2017 3:49:21 PM EDT

[#33]

ya, acog's sit a little high for me too but i learned to adapt.

Posted: 4/18/2017 9:41:10 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
Still some A2's in use, even in our own military. And some others. Heck, some A1's probably still in use somewhere. Maybe not the US military but I remember seeing a pic of an Air Force guy with an M16 at that Airport (Baghdad I think).

Anyways... I see your point, but may be a bit premature.

View Quote

Israel still has a lot of A1 rifles kicking around in active use.