I have been wanting a Trijicon scope for some time now, & the one thing I have to ask is, why aren't they set up with variable power? They set up many fine hunting scopes in variable power to achieve better success in varying conditions that will be found in the field. I have used, & greatly prefer variable powered scopes as opposed to a fixed. I can see all kinds of benefits from a variable as opposed to a fixed, & at the price of the Trijicons, I have a hard time wanting to spend the money without the variable option.
The only reason I can see for not making a variable model is it's just 1 more thing that could go wrong, but if they can make a hunting scope rugged enough in variable why not a Trijicon? or why not any other brand of combat scope designed around the AR family of rifles?

Search;

Probably because it is just another damned thing to go wrong. When people are trying to kill you, crap like that, which can break, is not high on the list of desireables. Enough necessary things can screw up without changing the odds for something of marginal value.

Cheers!

Because they are designed to withstand jumping out of an airplane along with the other 80lbs. of crap attached to the 19 paratrooper.

Dollars to donuts:

Ruggedness and compactness are probably the two main criteria that keep them from going variable.

Fewer moving parts.

Tyically with my zooms I find I'm at one end or the other of the zoom. Shooting humans at ranges where they can be found wearing camo in combat conditions is pretty short range work where the 3.5x to 4x good enough.

Also try to hand hold a powerful scope under stressful conditions freehand. I find that 5x is about all I want to try to hold on a human sized target at 100 yards.

Reliability. And the BAC eliminates the need for the 1x setting. The power is low enough, even on the TA55s that FOV and light gathering at longer ranges are pretty good.

What ARE the intermediate settings on variables like the 3-9x used on the SPR used for except to adjust for low light and to allow the shooter to "back up" and widen his FOV for better target acquisition, before he zoomed in for shooting? Am I wrong? Thats what I usually find myself doing with my hunting rifles.

I predict a 1-3 or 1-4 variable power ACOG in the next 18 months...

But that would go against all the reasons already given for not making a variable power combat scope DevL! I hope your right though, as it would cause me to want 1 even more than I already do. I would like to see a 1 to 9 power for those 100 to 1000 yard shots. I like turning up the power & really getting a good look at where I'm about to put a round before I send a round down range at longer distances.

At 25 yds. 4X is good enough.  
at 400 yds. 4X is good enough.

True 308 Wood, but what about 500 to a 1000 yards, or even further?  
In the Corps we shot 500 meter= 550 yards with open sights. Easy enough with open sights, but how much easier would it be at say 6 power? It's not inconceivable to shoot much farther given a scope that could bring a human sized target in close. I think a 3 to 9 power would be an excellent offering which would be very advantageous for the military purpose. But then again I'm not in charge of very much. It's just my opinion, & why I asked the question in the 1st place.[;)]

500 yds?



if you can see "it" at 500 either it is doing something really stupid or it is something big like an APC or tank.  in any event call in Arty.

Search

I think this plays in line with your question the other day regarding civilian vs military equipment.

Sometimes the civilian stuff is technically more advanced, but typically no where near as rugged.

Ed

P.S. Good luck on getting an ACOG. I finally bought a used TA-11. Fantastic scope though!

At 500y using a 4x scope gives you a sight picture similar to using irons at 125y.

Other than reading wind & bullet drop a 125y target should be easy enough.

But as 308Wood points out 500y is NOT a reasonalble distance in combat.

1000y?  We are talking an AR here not a sniper rifle with heavy match ammo.


Sure when you're shooting over a nice manicured lawn at black targets printed on beige paper.

So you get an unobstructed, high contrast, large, non moving target, that isn't shooting back.  Do you really think that reflects reality?



The problem is aquiring the target in the first place (remember they use cover & concealment as well).  Then once you see them trying to hit them as they move & use cover prestents many problems.

Latest war in Iraq - average infantry engagement was 30M (thats THREE ZERO meters), Snipers shots very rarely over 300M.  There isn't much need for the average guy to be able to hit a man sized target 600M away in combat conditions.

I personally don't believe it's unreasonable to think you could end up shooting at a human sized target at 500+ yrds given a combat area that is made up of open terrain, or if on a snoop & poop op. I am saying that I would rather have our troops be able to start killing the enemy at 500+ yrds as opposed to them being able to move closer than 400 & be able to return fire with any accuracy. The AR is able to make killing shots much farther than 500 yrds, & using a variable power scope, again in my opinion would make the possibility of doing so that much better for the average troop. And to reiterate we did shoot "paper targets at 500 meters in the Corps.
I also used to shoot crows at 250 yrds consistently with my variable power scope on top of my AR's carry handle, with no cheek weld to speak of. It is only about a 3" circle, & to do so with open sights consistently would be much more difficult for the average troop.
I also read that they were getting 600 yrd 1 shot kills in Afghanistan using AR's with the Black hills ammo 75gr MTHP rounds. With the development of such heaver bullets it is very conceivable to think long distance shooting for AR/M-16 type weapons.
I seriously doubt that the Marine Corps feels it's a waste of time to teach it's recruits to hit at 500 meters. What would make you happy? If we shot at camouflaged targets on an ungroomed range?[rolleyes] At 500 meters the enemy might not even be aware of our presence, & be at ease with walking in open areas. I don't see looking for long shots as improbable at all, but rather probable if looked for & taken advantage of.  

The only two reasons we continue with the 500m qualification course is not that it a great training tool for combat.  But rather it is a good tool to teach the fundamentals of marksmanship.  It does a much better job than combat marksmanship style course.  And probably most important is that Marines take pride in being able to shoot to that distance no matter how relevant it is in combat.

I thought the next SOPMOD Bloc upgrade in optics was a variable powered optic.  Did I just imagine this or was this not discussed a few months back?  I thought US Optics, Leupold Trijicon, etc were all going to go for the contract...

Perhaps my brain is failing me.  Anyone?

If you're supposed to be snooping, why would you risk announcing your presence and location by taking such a low percentage, long range shot?

Maybe your snooping, & run into a great target of opportunity, call it in & get the green light to take it out. I see no one has addressed the 600 meter 1 shot kills I mentioned in Afghanistan, by our troops.
Although DevL said they are already working on it, but according to most it's a waste of time to have a variable power scope for our troops. I still think it's  a really good idea. But what do I know?[;)]

Under that kind of logic, than we should issue everyone an AT-4 because someone once killed a tank with one.  You can what if any mission or weapon set for every and what you find in the next war, that the circumstances are differant and what you thought would happen doesn't.  We don't equip for the 1-1000 events but for what happend 99.9 percent of the time.