Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/16/2005 10:05:27 AM EDT
Well folks...after much mental masturbation and indecision of how best to outfit my BM A2M4 Patromans Carbine it seems I've pretty much decided the best way to go is a carry-handle mounted A.C.O.G.

I was considering a carry-handle mounted aimpoint with the qd arms mount but decided that...batterys suck and a little magnification with my aging peepers would be nice...besides..I like the fact that day or night?...the acog is always "On & Ready"....that's cool...and those features alone are in and of themselves almost worth the price of admission.

Now my only two questions/decisions are...

1. I'm intrigued by the smaller size and weight of the "Compact A.C.O.G.'s"....I also feel that their smaller size might be better suited to my smallish A2M4...the slightly lower price tag attracts me as well...annnd???....I'm liking that I can order one in 2X magnification...but it also only has a 24mm objective lens...so it leaves me guessing if it'll be bright enough in low-light and I guess my real question is...performance wise?....is there any reason anyone knows of why I SHOULDN'T go with the compact acog vs the full size acog?

and...

2. Paying MSRP prices on these things is insane...do we have any board supporting vendors here that offer up killer prices on acogs?

T.I.A. Bill.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:24:15 AM EDT
Good question,, I have the same question. I've narrowed it down to a red dot and the acog,, I likewise need the magx3 for these old eyes. red dot is only 2x. and I need to know if I need risers to clear the iron sight tower on the front of the 6920. thanks for any help
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:35:51 AM EDT
Yep...me too...but I just did some research and comparisons between the compact and full size and just decided to go "FULL SIZE" as...the fov for the compacts (even at their lesser magnification) is like 25'...where even the full size TA31 4X gives you a whopping 36' fov..and...the compact models weigh about 6-7ozs while the full size are only about 9-11oz...not a real big weight saving imho.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:37:19 AM EDT
Compact ACOG's work great. I have the 3x24 version and it works well in low light or at night. The only issues I've come accross. is a washout when using a very bright weapon light - at close range (about 10'-15') - and with specific colors (cardboard brown).

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:48:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 10:51:26 AM EDT by CJan_NH]
I love mini ACOGs, particularly on the carry handle. Oddly enough I like the mini on the handle better than direct flattop mounting.

My TA47-2:


Kisara's TA50 on same rifle:


TA47-2 directly mounted ot flattop:

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:55:08 AM EDT
I've played with one of the mini acogs. I didn't care for them much, only thing that I liked about them was the price.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:56:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
I love mini ACOGs, particularly on the carry handle. Oddly enough I like the mini on the handle better than direct flattop mounting.

My TA47-2:
home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/6920_Right.JPG

Kisara's TA50 on same rifle:
home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/6920_TA50R2.JPG

TA47-2 directly mounted ot flattop:
home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/M4_3.JPG



Hmmm...they do LOOK like a sweet match on a carbine...very nice....but tell me...have you had a chance to compare how quick to the eye/target they are vs the full size?.

Thanks, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 10:57:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:07:49 AM EDT
where do you find the green fiber optic acogs???
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:19:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By graywolf:
where do you find the green fiber optic acogs???


It only looks green because I haven't taken enough photography lessons from Stickman

It's actually an amber reticled TA47-2.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:21:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
I love mini ACOGs, particularly on the carry handle. Oddly enough I like the mini on the handle better than direct flattop mounting.

My TA47-2:
home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/6920_Right.JPG

Kisara's TA50 on same rifle:
home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/6920_TA50R2.JPG

TA47-2 directly mounted ot flattop:
home.comcast.net/~cjan99999/M4_3.JPG



Hmmm...they do LOOK like a sweet match on a carbine...very nice....but tell me...have you had a chance to compare how quick to the eye/target they are vs the full size?.

Thanks, Bill.


Bill, I'm still a relative newb on the ACOG scene, so I'm reluctant to sound authoritative on the subject. That being said, both fullsize and minis are pretty durned fast-though I'm slightly faster with the mini.

Lee or Forest would be better able to answer your question with data-rather than my subjective observation
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:23:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 11:26:04 AM EDT by graywolf]
.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:25:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:

Originally Posted By graywolf:
where do you find the green fiber optic acogs???


It only looks green because I haven't taken enough photography lessons from Stickman

It's actually an amber reticled TA47-2.

bummer,, stickman rocks tho
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 12:06:05 PM EDT
I've been debating the very same thing, here is my take on it so far...


If you compare a compact ACOG vs. say an Aimpoint...as "systems" they aren't that much different price wise. With the Aimpoint you'll pay around $375 for the ML2, then you'll probably want to go with a quality mount, like a Larue. That will set you back $120 or more (haven't checked lately). Then you need a back up iron sight,..a flip up is ideal, but not mandatory. Will cost $100 at least. You get no magnification unless you get the 2x Aimpoint which is more money than the standard ones.

The Compact ACOG can be bought on Ebay new for mid to high $600 range. If not, dealers have them for $800. The ACOG needs NO batteries, and NO on/off switch. So it deploys faster. You need no back up iron nothing, since you use the existing rifle sights through the see through ACOG mount. So, you won't have to buy that, or have to flip it up in the event of an optics failure. Basically, you buy it and mount it and you are set.


The ACOG gets you a little bit of magnification, either 1.5, 2, 2.5, or 3. Any of these can be used BAC style for up close work. Yet you have a little more magnification to reach out and touch someone. 1.5 or 2x shouldn't be that difficult to use with both eyes open. I've never seen a 4x ACOG, but looking through regular scopes at 4x makes me feel like 2 eye operation would be difficult. BAC or not. This probably varies by person to person. I personally would go for the 1.5 or 2x since that will make for easier close up optic.


Now, you could mount an Aimpoint via carry handle, but I'd be worried about the mounting solution for that.


Only negative is that you will be up high on the rifle. Not close to the bore. So your trajectory will be a little more of a rainbow depending on what range you set that at. This may or may not be moot. A lot of personal preferences will come into play on that issue.


Some full size ACOGs IIRC are around 15oz. That is nearly a pound on your rifle. The Compacts are something like 6oz depending on model. Aimpoint is 8.5oz without the mount. Just going by memory here. Different tube sizes are different weights.


With the ACOG you get 3 choices of reticle and 2 choices of color. Reddots are just red dots.


The no magnification Aimpoint is easiest to use both eyes open and up close, really fast is its strong point, but the ACOG fits better as an all purpose type optic.


If I wanted an most purpose, lightweight as possible, short to medium range rig...I'd get the compact ACOG on a 16". If I wanted a dedicated up to 50 yards high speed short range gun, Aimpoint is ideal. If you want a true all range, all purpose rifle, I'd put a fullsize ACOG on a 20" rifle and call it good.



I don't plan on using 223 out to 400-500 yards, so bullet drop compensation is not a feature I need. I guess it comes down to what you think your "mission" will be. 556 shoots so flat, out to 200 yards there is no need for any bullet drop reticle in my opinion. I don't think I'll need a rifle for more than 200 yards. So it call comes down to what you plan on using it for, or what kinds of scenarios you think you might encounter.


I guess the best solution is the ARFCOM solution to every problem - BUY ONE OF EVERYTHING.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 12:43:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 1:37:56 PM EDT
I have run a TA44R-4 for a few years. It is my favorite of the entire line. I think the compact ACOGs are underutilized, and underappreciated. Plenty of light gets through the optic, the smaller objective is not an issue. I have never had a washout issue, but I also would never use an amber reticle. the red fiber optic pics up so much light on sunny days, that I have taped about 70% of it so that the reticle is about equally bright outside midday, as it is inside in total darkness.

Obviously, I could use whatever optic I want, but I have found this to be the best one for me.

damian@adcofirearms.com
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 1:56:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:
Well folks...after much mental masturbation and indecision of how best to outfit my BM A2M4 Patromans Carbine it seems I've pretty much decided the best way to go is a carry-handle mounted A.C.O.G.

I was considering a carry-handle mounted aimpoint with the qd arms mount but decided that...batterys suck and a little magnification with my aging peepers would be nice...besides..I like the fact that day or night?...the acog is always "On & Ready"....that's cool...and those features alone are in and of themselves almost worth the price of admission.

Now my only two questions/decisions are...

1. I'm intrigued by the smaller size and weight of the "Compact A.C.O.G.'s"....I also feel that their smaller size might be better suited to my smallish A2M4...the slightly lower price tag attracts me as well...annnd???....I'm liking that I can order one in 2X magnification...but it also only has a 24mm objective lens...so it leaves me guessing if it'll be bright enough in low-light and I guess my real question is...performance wise?....is there any reason anyone knows of why I SHOULDN'T go with the compact acog vs the full size acog?
it should be fine. the full size would have more to offer imo but then there's the weight issue.
and...

2. Paying MSRP prices on these things is insane...do we have any board supporting vendors here that offer up killer prices on acogs?

look for them in the equipment exchange.

there is csgunworks and gandrtactical along with the others


T.I.A. Bill.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:33:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 7:34:23 PM EDT by V]
This TA47-6 is on my AR10. I've since moved it to an Ar15 on the Ch, but my point is: Compacts on A2's rock. For me the height above bore is a benefit, as I dont' have to 'hunker down' to look through it and have better peripheral vision with both eyes open.

+1 on compact being under-appreciated. I've have the 3X, and 2x20 is my fav, with decent eye relief, even on the Ar10. Super combo. I only moved her back to my Ar15 since I bought a TA11 for the 308.


Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:34:42 AM EDT
Chalk me up as another fan of the TA47-2 on the carry handle... For all around shooting 200 yards and in, it is my favorite setup.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 7:59:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 11:35:32 AM EDT
Mike,

Do you have issues with the fron sight post showing up in the sight picture of the 1.5 acog?

JR1572
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:13:42 PM EDT
Just wanted to thank everyone here for their feedback, thoughts, opinions and experience and while the compacts wre definantly a strong runner up (especially in the "Price Advantage Dept.") ?...I prefered the slightly larger glass and retical options of the full size acogs and ultimately went with the TA11...$899 delivered...and very happy with my selection.



Thanks again, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 4:57:00 PM EDT
how well do the ACOGs (well any scope) hold zero when mounted on a carry handle. It just seems like a rather insufficient mount.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 6:20:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:
Well folks...after much mental masturbation and indecision of how best to outfit my BM A2M4 Patromans Carbine it seems I've pretty much decided the best way to go is a carry-handle mounted A.C.O.G.

I was considering a carry-handle mounted aimpoint with the qd arms mount but decided that...batterys suck and a little magnification with my aging peepers would be nice...besides..I like the fact that day or night?...the acog is always "On & Ready"....that's cool...and those features alone are in and of themselves almost worth the price of admission.

Now my only two questions/decisions are...

1. I'm intrigued by the smaller size and weight of the "Compact A.C.O.G.'s"....I also feel that their smaller size might be better suited to my smallish A2M4...the slightly lower price tag attracts me as well...annnd???....I'm liking that I can order one in 2X magnification...but it also only has a 24mm objective lens...so it leaves me guessing if it'll be bright enough in low-light and I guess my real question is...performance wise?....is there any reason anyone knows of why I SHOULDN'T go with the compact acog vs the full size acog?

and...

2. Paying MSRP prices on these things is insane...do we have any board supporting vendors here that offer up killer prices on acogs?

T.I.A. Bill.



The 2X compact ACOG has a MASSIVE objective lens for its magnification. Why would you ever think a 12mm exit pupil would be lacking?
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 6:21:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Optik45:
how well do the ACOGs (well any scope) hold zero when mounted on a carry handle. It just seems like a rather insufficient mount.



Your supposition is way off.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:15:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By Optik45:
how well do the ACOGs (well any scope) hold zero when mounted on a carry handle. It just seems like a rather insufficient mount.



Your supposition is way off.



+1 and Rodger That....now I can't sepak for "Any Scope" but i can share my 1st hand ownership and experience with both Colts Original 4X Scope that was specifically designed to be mounted in the carry-handle of A1/A2 uppers and I made extensive use of the colt 4X in tactical rifle competitions and...it was fantastic...the chisey looking QD spring steel clamp gave everyone (including myself) suspicion but..the damn thing registered in my old NM Colt Hbar like a tool & die makers V-Block...and even in "On/Off/Back On" excersizes if it wasn't dead nuts zero on the 1st shot?....it was by the 2nd and at the very worst...the 3rd...and that's only if I DIDN'T rap the stock on the butt end a couple times to re-seat it...cause as long as I did that?...i'd be dead nuts on the 1st shot everytime...but that scope is long gone along with my old colt A2 NM Hbar...and I gotta tell ya..the base of this acog fit much tighter than the old colt 4X did...matter of fact?...I had to line it up perfectly square and even then I had to give it a few gentle raps with the palm of my hand to get it to seat...kinda like "A Very Light Press Fit"...hell...i'd probably stay in place for a few shots even if I didn't put the screw in "Kinda Tight"....and I like that...absolutely zero movement...like the caryy handle and the scope are all one integral unit...and extremely solid...the carry handle would get crushed before the acog ever lost zero....and I'm a 47 year old former marine and machinist.

L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:34:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2005 8:36:13 PM EDT by FUZ1ON]

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:
Well folks...after much mental masturbation and indecision of how best to outfit my BM A2M4 Patromans Carbine it seems I've pretty much decided the best way to go is a carry-handle mounted A.C.O.G.

I was considering a carry-handle mounted aimpoint with the qd arms mount but decided that...batterys suck and a little magnification with my aging peepers would be nice...besides..I like the fact that day or night?...the acog is always "On & Ready"....that's cool...and those features alone are in and of themselves almost worth the price of admission.

Now my only two questions/decisions are...

1. I'm intrigued by the smaller size and weight of the "Compact A.C.O.G.'s"....I also feel that their smaller size might be better suited to my smallish A2M4...the slightly lower price tag attracts me as well...annnd???....I'm liking that I can order one in 2X magnification...but it also only has a 24mm objective lens...so it leaves me guessing if it'll be bright enough in low-light and I guess my real question is...performance wise?....is there any reason anyone knows of why I SHOULDN'T go with the compact acog vs the full size acog?

and...

2. Paying MSRP prices on these things is insane...do we have any board supporting vendors here that offer up killer prices on acogs?

T.I.A. Bill.



The 2X compact ACOG has a MASSIVE objective lens for its magnification. Why would you ever think a 12mm exit pupil would be lacking?



First off...I never suggested any of the "exit pupils" were "lacking"...and just to Note: Both the 2x20 acog (TA47R-4) and the 3.5X35 (TA11) acog both share the exact same size exit pupil...which is 10mm's and not 12 as you suggest...however...the TA11 does sport more (3.5X) magnification annnnnd....a slightly longer eye relief.

2ndly...The primary reason I went full size over compact was "Retical Selection/Options"...as I by far prefered the red-dot'ish like doughnut WITH some metered out hash marks of the TA11 over the offerings of the compact retical selections....and imho?...especially with the BAC system?...I couldn't see where the extra 1.5X magnification of the 3.5X was gonna hurt anything either...it's quick as a blink...even in CQ....and while I'm not certain?...I would imagine that the size of the compacts "Ocular Lens" is a tad smaller than the full size acog as well...and with my aging eyes?...these days "BIGGER" truely is "better". LOL!!!

Personal preference and...preferences may and often times do...vary.

L8R, Bill.

Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:35:56 PM EDT
what is the eye relief on these compact acogs?
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:38:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blueinterceptor:
what is the eye relief on these compact acogs?



Plenty on the 1.5 and 2x, but its a bit short on the 3x.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:43:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blueinterceptor:
what is the eye relief on these compact acogs?



It depends and varys on what power/magnification compact you select...they have...

1.5X16

1.5X24

2X20

and...

3X24

Models to select from...and they all have differing "Eye Relief"...best bet?...just click on the trijicon ad on top of any arfcom page here and check out the difs yourself....by clicknig on the model/line scope at the bottom of trijicons home page.

L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 10:22:20 PM EDT
Good info here. I'm pretty nearly convinced I need one of these myself.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 11:02:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By blueinterceptor:
what is the eye relief on these compact acogs?



Plenty on the 1.5 and 2x, but its a bit short on the 3x.



And along with a (imho)

1. A superior choice in reticles and

2. The desire to have a tad more than 2X magnification for my hundreds upon hundreds of dollars?.....

3. It's the red words above that drove me upwards out of the compacts and into the full sized TA11 ACOG.

as...I'd of been kicking my own @$$ for years had I settled for a $700 compact when the $899 TA11 was what I truely wanted....and nothing sux worse than spending good money after bad...especially whe you're spending it over your own personal drool. And $700 is one hell of a lot of ca$h to spend and still be left...drooling...over the $899 reticle options, magnification and eye relief you really wanted but...didn't get....that's a HUGE ouchy...LOL!!!

I'd go "compact" on an MP5/8 or UZI or "Entry" type/length barreled rifles...like under 14.5's...hell...that's the type of firearms trijicon themself recomend the compacts for....but for 14.5 and above?...I'd hafta recomend going full size....especially with the B.A.C. system which pretty much voids/rules out any "You Have Too Much Magnification To Be Proficient At CQB" claims as the TA11 w/ BAC is damn fast...especially with "Two Eyes Open" annnd despite it's 3.5X magnification....even at ultra close ranges.

Intereting Note: When I was discussing the 1.5 compact acog with my scope guy he said...

"Bill?....WTF?.....you gonna drop $700 for what?...1.5X?....and get exactly .5 magnification?...why not just go with a damn red-dot?...they're way cheaper!!!"

and that's when I explained that I wanted the "Always On/No Batteries Required" features....and then I hadta explain that as I went up in magnification with the compacts?.....the "Eye Relief" gets substancially reduced...his response?...

"Whatever man...but that's one hell of a lot of denario for just 1.5 or 2x magnification."

and in the end...his words made sense and...I hadta agree...and even my CQB arguement didn't carry any weight as once your looking through a two eyes open BAC equipped scope of any magnification the acogs offer?....any FOV concerns/debates/rebuttles immediately fly out the closest window...as with BAC?...FOV basically becomes a NON-ISSUE...hell...you're shooting with TWO EYES OPEN!!! and...Loving It!!! LOL!

L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:56:19 AM EDT
tag
Top Top