Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/10/2005 6:35:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 6:42:38 AM EDT by Optik45]
So I got my TA31F a couple days ago from ebay (Wolf Businesses, Inc ebay store) Got a good price and love the scope. But does anyone else feel as if the scope cannot be mounted far enough back to get the proper eye relief (mounted on flattop)? I can collapse my stock but then I feel to scrunched up for a comfortable shooting position. Anyone know any mounts that might sit the scope back a little bit more?

Btw the glass/plastic tube that protects the fiber optics appears to have like little stress cracks all the way along the top, like it was bent too much. Hard to describe without a pic. But is that normal? There also seems to be a lot of glue residue around the glass inside the aluminum tube and on top where the fiber is mounted
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 6:47:15 AM EDT
I ended up mounting mine back at the second from the last aft rail. It does need to be back a bit. When you shoot, you'll learn to keep the old eye back a bit from the scope as well as adopt a firm grip on the rifle as it will punch back with the distance that is required from eye to scope. Mine hasd the same "cracks" from mew in box. I don't think that they are from stress.
Regards,
flap
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 7:27:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Optik45:
So I got my TA31F a couple days ago from ebay (Wolf Businesses, Inc ebay store) Got a good price and love the scope. But does anyone else feel as if the scope cannot be mounted far enough back to get the proper eye relief (mounted on flattop)? I can collapse my stock but then I feel to scrunched up for a comfortable shooting position. Anyone know any mounts that might sit the scope back a little bit more?

The short eye relief of the TA-31 series works best with a nose-to-charging handle head position. The physical attributes of the shooter, their stock and their clothing will make achieving this position more or less difficult. It does take some getting used to. BTW, what mount are you using. I have my TA31 mounted with an ARM #19S and I have a Troy BUIS underneath it. I have no problem positioning my eye behind the glass comfortablely.


Btw the glass/plastic tube that protects the fiber optics appears to have like little stress cracks all the way along the top, like it was bent too much. Hard to describe without a pic. But is that normal? There also seems to be a lot of glue residue around the glass inside the aluminum tube and on top where the fiber is mounted
The cracking of the Lexan tube that holds the fiber optic is completely normal and will not affect the function of the optic. As to whether or not the glue residue you describe is normal or not, I have not heard of this before. Seeing a pic of it might help.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:41:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 10:49:23 AM EDT by OutdoorBrothers]
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:50:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt_B:

Originally Posted By Optik45:
There also seems to be a lot of glue residue around the glass inside the aluminum tube and on top where the fiber is mounted

The cracking of the Lexan tube that holds the fiber optic is completely normal and will not affect the function of the optic. As to whether or not the glue residue you describe is normal or not, I have not heard of this before. Seeing a pic of it might help.



I've seen four new in the box TA31Fs and all of them had some of the cracks and glue residue you speak of and I was disappointed with the quality of the assembly. The cracks may be unavoidable but the sloppy glue job seems to be just that -- sloppy work. Having said that -- the functionality of the optics is flawless and I bought one of the four and it has performed very well.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:57:49 AM EDT
i mount my ta13f forward exposing only one rail spot and shoot nose to charging handle.

i feel that its plenty of eye relief though.



the cracks are normal, all of mine have it and the glue residue is gel coming out of the tube which isnt as normal but it happens one of mine did it for awhile but has stopped.

i will note that all of mine did not have any of these "problems" till way after i bought them
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:56:20 AM EDT
Gel? What type of gel would that be?

I dont think mine is leaking any gel. Its a very thin layer of substance on the inside of the aluminum housing where the aluminum meets the front optic.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:18:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Optik45:
Gel? What type of gel would that be?

I dont think mine is leaking any gel. Its a very thin layer of substance on the inside of the aluminum housing where the aluminum meets the front optic.



hum... can you take a pic of it? most people describe goo leaking from their acogs.. but its mainly around the fiber optic area... the liquid is used to lift the fiber optic in the air a little ... to keep it in the center of the tube...

as for eye relief, are you shooting nose to charging handle? all u.s. military as far as i know are taught to stick the tip of your nose to the charging handle... this helps with having a consistant cheek weld....

if you want to be able to just place your head on your stock... a ta11 has more of the eye relief that your looking for... but i would seriously train with nose to charging handle... after you train enough... you'll think its weird not to go to the charging handle... when i first picked up my m16 in the army it felt weird to do nose to charging handle... but mainly because of the stock being so flip'n long... the a1 length is much better ... or shorter yet... thats why i like magpul stocks and such...
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 1:42:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 1:49:08 PM EDT by Optik45]
Heres some pics of what im talking about

Just go to this webpage

Glue?


http://www.cardomain.com/ride/723967/3
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 1:48:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 1:54:16 PM EDT by Optik45]
There are two shots of the excess glue and a poor shot of the "Cracky" Fiber.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:54:18 PM EDT
I referred to that cracking as "Spider-webbing" in a post a while back and got many replies from long time ACOG owners who claim it is normal, as long as it isnt oozing material

Mine .....



Link to Spider-webbing thread - from archives

not sure if all can access the archive link

Link Posted: 8/11/2005 4:23:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:
I referred to that cracking as "Spider-webbing" in a post a while back and got many replies from long time ACOG owners who claim it is normal, as long as it isnt oozing material

Mine .....

img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/redfisher19/ACOG377x503.jpg

Link to Spider-webbing thread - from archives

not sure if all can access the archive link






one of mine was oozing for a short while but stopped, do not notice any change in illumination or performance
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 1:17:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 1:20:00 PM EDT by Kisara]
At first I thought someone with greasy hands touched my weapon when I wasn't looking. It was like a thin layer of Vaseline, something gooey that would smear and leave fingerprints on everything after you touched it.

It took me awhile to trace it to this area of the scope. This gel kept accumulating near the end of the tube. I was touching it without knowing it, then the grease was all over. I wiped it up clean with a Q-tip, but after another course of fire it was there again, at the end the tube. In this photo, only a little bit of goo is visible. Before I wiped it, it was dripping all over the back in a 1inch area.

Trijicon fixed it with no problems, describing the work as, "Repaired cosmetic issue."
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 1:23:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kisara:
At first I thought someone with greasy hands touched my weapon when I wasn't looking. It was like a thin layer of Vaseline, something gooey that would smear and leave fingerprints on everything after you touched it.

It took me awhile to trace it to this area of the scope. This gel kept accumulating near the end of the tube. I was touching it without knowing it, then the grease was all over. I wiped it up clean with a Q-tip, but after another course of fire it was there again, at the end the tube. In this photo, only a little bit of goo is visible. Before I wiped it, it was dripping all over the back in a 1inch area.
tinyurl.com/9btkd
Trijicon fixed it with no problems, describing the work as, "Repaired cosmetic issue."




mine had a light layer on the surrounding area just to make it look wet but other than that it did not goo out.


Link Posted: 8/12/2005 4:14:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 4:15:54 PM EDT by HogSniper]
I have a TA01NSN & it has same eye relief as the other TA models. 1.5" I believe is what is listed in specs. Works perfect mounted all the way to rear on last rail, but that leaves no room for a BUIS. I almost wish I had tried one of the 3.5x35 models which have much better eye relief. Only draw back to that is they are about 3" longer. I just didn't want the longer scope for my m4gery. Are the BAC models a little more forgiving with eye position? Sorry to get off topic a little. Mine is perfet as far as cosmetics go, but I don't have the fiber optic tube.

If a BAC model would help, I'd sell this one & buy one asap.

HS

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:10:28 PM EDT

HogSniper, I don't think there is any eye relief difference, as I think they are the same scope except for the reticle and the addition of BAC. The BAC version puts you on a different plane of existence and is significantly easier and faster because of the reticle, but eye relief is the same. The upgrade is worth it to me. It’s money well spent.

I have a LaRue mount and a Troy rear sight and have no issues. Maybe the LaRue mount allows the ACOG to sit further back so the mount can be place further forward.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:52:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 11:59:43 PM EDT by luckypunk]

Originally Posted By HogSniper:
I have a TA01NSN & it has same eye relief as the other TA models. 1.5" I believe is what is listed in specs. Works perfect mounted all the way to rear on last rail, but that leaves no room for a BUIS. I almost wish I had tried one of the 3.5x35 models which have much better eye relief. Only draw back to that is they are about 3" longer. I just didn't want the longer scope for my m4gery. Are the BAC models a little more forgiving with eye position? Sorry to get off topic a little. Mine is perfet as far as cosmetics go, but I don't have the fiber optic tube.

If a BAC model would help, I'd sell this one & buy one asap.

HS




No rule saying that you cannot mount BUIS in front of teh optic
I like my TA31F all the way back too.
This Elcan looks to have a A1 sight mounted forward

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:23:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
HogSniper, I don't think there is any eye relief difference, as I think they are the same scope except for the reticle and the addition of BAC.



Wrong.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:31:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Josh-L:

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
HogSniper, I don't think there is any eye relief difference, as I think they are the same scope except for the reticle and the addition of BAC.



Wrong.



Alright Josh, enlighten me. I have both scopes and don't see where I am wrong.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:48:05 AM EDT
With BAC you can see the reticle from arms length. not much field of veiw, but it simulates a reddot
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 10:28:22 AM EDT




No rule saying that you cannot mount BUIS in front of teh optic
I like my TA31F all the way back too.
This Elcan looks to have a A1 sight mounted forward




Well, you know I never thought of that. One has to remove the scope to use the buis anyway. I need to try one of the BAC models out first chance I get. If I like it, then I may take the plunge. I sure like the looks of the TA31F chevron reticle.

thanks,
HS
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:02:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:

Originally Posted By Josh-L:

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
HogSniper, I don't think there is any eye relief difference, as I think they are the same scope except for the reticle and the addition of BAC.



Wrong.



Alright Josh, enlighten me. I have both scopes and don't see where I am wrong. hr


Straight from Trijicon's website...

TA11 (the 3.5x model)
Specifications:

Magnification: 3.5X
Eye Relief: 2.4in
Exit Pupil: 10mm
Field of View: 5.5 degrees
Length: 203mm (8.0 in)
Weight: 397g (14 oz)
Field of View: 9.63m at 100m (28.9 ft at 100 yds)
Adjustment: 15 Seconds of Angle per click
Reticle: 4 MOA Outside Diameter /
Tritium Activity: 100 milliCuries in one source

TAO1/nsn (the 4x model)
Specifications:

Magnification: 4X
Eye Relief: 1.5 in
Exit Pupil: 8 mm
Field of View: 7.0 degrees
Length: 5.8 in
Weight: 9.9 oz
Field of View: 36.8 ft at 100 yds
Adjustment: 3 clicks per inch at 100 yds.
Tritium Activity: 100 milliCuries in one source
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:19:45 PM EDT

I wasn't comparing it with the TA11. I was comparing the TA01(NSN) with a similar 1.5" eye relief model with BAC. With BAC without BAC. Sorry for any confusion.
Top Top