Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 6/8/2003 4:00:13 PM EST
Looking at pics of the reticles it would seem that the triangle of the 31A would obscur the sight picture. In fact, a comparison of the two leads me to believe that the triangle reticle is supposed to be centered over the target. Seems that this would lead to some loss of accuracy.
Anyone out there with experience with the TA-31A or both?
How do those of you with the TA-31A like it?
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 6:46:50 PM EST
I dont have a TA31A, but a good friend has one on his rifle. I myself am not a huge fan of the Triangle for the reason you mentioned. I much preffer the donut because I find it is a brighter and bolder reticle, with 5 aiming points. None of these aiming points are particularly fine or prescise, but they get the job done with better than acceptable accuracy in my experience and opinion. In case you might be wondering which 5 aiming points the donut has, they are the top line of the top of the donut, the bottom of the top line of the donut, the center hole of the donut, the top of the bottom line of the donut, and the bottom line of the bottom of the donut. You could stretch this out a little and go so far as saying it has 7 aiming points and include the top and bottom lines of the donut itself. for the record, the line of the donut itself is 1moa thick and the center donut is 2moa. In contrast, the triangle has two aiming points, the top of the triangle and the bottom. I will not argue that the tip of the triangle is a more precise aiming point that the donut. It is, no doubt about it. But the bottom of the triangle is a very poor aiming point in my opinion. Not to mention there is no middle ground and the solid reticle will cover up your portions of the target. Whats more, between say 150 and 300 yards, your point of impact is probably going to be somewhere in that great unknown area under the triangle. So in general, I find the donut to be the more useful reticle of the two. In fact, I find it the most generally useful of all three choices. Some folks might think that because the triangle is a solid reticle, it will be brighter and faster to use than the donut. I dont think that it is in my experience. Yes, the triangle is solid, and yes it is 4moa just like the donut. However, only the base of the triangle is 4moa, it tapers up smaller and smaller to the tip which is quite fine. All this means is that overall, the donut is actually the larger and in my opinion, brighter and more bold reticle in actual size and view. But, because it is hollow, it does not cover nearly as much of the target. OK, having said *ALL* of that, I will readily testify that while the donut is my favorite reticle choice for the above and other reasons, I will take a triangle too. While it is not my personal first choice, it is still a beast of a general purpose optic and does many, many jobs very very well. Again, its almost like trying to pick which particular vintage of Opus One Cabernet you are going to have. All of them are premiere choices and you wont be disapointed with any.
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 9:00:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 9:08:02 PM EST
Thanks for the info. I have been trying to decide which TA31 to get.
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 9:45:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2003 9:52:10 PM EST by NYPatriot]
New-arguy, allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment. Presumably, one would be using an ACOG to engage man sized targets & the aiming point would be center of mass. Since all TA31s & TA11s are created equal past 300 meters, reticle choice really only matters up to that distance. At it's widest point (the base), the triangle reticle will cover 4", 8", & 12" at 100, 200, & 300 meters, respectively. Also, as you have mentioned, the triangle tapers up smaller and smaller to the tip which is quite fine, thus revealing a view of the target on both sides of the reticle. It seems to me that the triangle works as intended within the 300 meter range for which it was designed. It never covers more than the width of a human torso (300 meters) and in the 100-200 meter range, it is still small enough to pick [i]where[/i] on the torso you want to hit. Now granted, you can't see the target through the reticle (like with the donut), but you can see much of it off to either side of the tapered triangle. It does not seem that the target would be obscured in any meaningful way. Arguy, you're the resident AGOG expert here at Arfcom, and I'm just a guy who is trying to decide which ACOG to buy, so I respect your opinion. If my thinking is flawed, please explain why, because I am getting really sick & tired of trying to choose a reticle for my future TA11. Donut vs. Triangle... I'm going out of my frickin mind over this decision!!! [banghead]
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 9:50:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: Donut vs. Triangle... I'm going out of my frickin mind over this decision!!! [banghead]
View Quote
Same here.
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 9:55:50 PM EST
I hear you LotBoy...$900 is a lot of money to spend without being sure that you are making the right choice!
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 10:03:06 PM EST
I have the ARMS #19acog and ARMS #40 ready and waiting for when I do make the purchase.
Link Posted: 6/8/2003 10:21:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2003 10:23:26 PM EST by new-arguy]
Im no expert, door kicker or soldier of any kind. Please always keep that in mind. I do however try to be realistic. I also participate in rifle competitons that try to incorporate very challenging and somewhat realistic scenarios into the courses. We use man sized targets, and aim center mass. But what does man sized mean? What is center mass really? Even if the target itself is man sized, the targets available "shootable" area is rarely ever man sized. Usually you'll get a head or a part of a head with a shoulder, half a torso... Center mass of a partial target becomes MUCH smaller very quickly. Even when you have the full target, your good "hit" zone is not man sized. It's about the size of a paper plate. Turn it somewhat sideways and it is far smaller. Cover the whole target with a over sized shirt, put most of it behind a wall, or a no-shoot target, and what and where you need to be shooting becomes more and more obscure. Center mass of a man sized target becomes smaller and smaller. I realize this comparison is somewhat competition oriented, and at close ranges, the trianlge wont make a difference, but I believe that it is also "somewhat" realistic. Put it this way. In my expeirnece, the donut is faster to use and offers better than average accuracy with more aiming points for a more detailed view of targets at greater ranges. For my needs, the marginal improvement in your ease to acheive accuracy with the apex of the trianlge does not appeal to me enough to want to sacrifice speed or detail. I honestly dont feel like I could acheive noticable or appreciable degree of accuracy with the trianlge over the donut. These are reasons I decided to go with the donut. I never could find a good reason to go with the Triangle. What is its benefit really? After all this, I really must stress how much I dont want to make it seem like I am doging the triangle. Im not. I have tried it, I like it. It works! I just like the donut more.
Top Top