AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/23/2007 9:03:22 AM EDT
| I plan to get a 4x ACOG soon, maybe in TA31F flavor. But I have a question about eye relief . I have never had an optical scope, so I do not have much reference. 1.5'' of eye relief seems like plenty, but then again no reference. I see alot of posts that complain about the eye relief on the 4x models. Anyone around here happy with theirs? |
That is a damn fine optic. I used to have the poor man's 1" PR non-illum version of that scope. I like having 4" of eye relief and the extra magnification. |
i would imagine that they are designed with short eye relief so that you can have a consistant cheek weld.. without having to mount a traditional scope so far forward on the rifle. |
I believe the small eye relief is due the length of the scope and its focal length. With an overall length of 5.8'' and 4x magnification, but I could be wrong, I did not like Physics II. |
|
Because the military teaches nose to charging handle shooting position, for iron sights. Using that position, then mounting an optic with 4" of eye relief will make problems on the rail, especially if night vision will be mounted too. Using nose-charging handle, a short relief scope will make better use of the rail space. |
|
I have a mini-ACOG and an ACOG-NSN. I don't think short eye relief is a problem. My mini-ACOG is out on long term loan, and the person that has it likes it. Also I have found each of them to be fairly forgiving as far as being able to use the scope if you are a little closer, or further back than the rated eye relief. I used a 4X20 Colt scope. To get a good view through that, you had to EXACTLY position your eye straight behind it, at the exact right distance. A little off, and the scope was unusable. |
|
The eye relief is a non-issue. The AR's length of pull is what it is and that's what dictates the scopes position. That said, I have multiple TA-11's and TA01NSN's. Both have their pluses and minuses. For all around the TA11 is great. The TA01 is what I carry at work. The 0.9" difference in eye relief is basically zero. It's not any more/less difficult to get a nice tube of light or pick up the optic. I do use an ocluded lens at times on the TA-11 for close shots. It just makes everything easier at short distances. I also just don't like the TA31F. The Chevron reticle, while nice for some, is useless for me...both in real world and in competition. Rich |
The short eye relief, in part, is what allows the ACOGs to have such a large field of view. Eye relief vs. fov is a tradeoff. |
|
This is why a multi-position carbine stock is so great, I use mine at the 2nd position (1st position being completely retracted), the eye relief also kind of forces you to place your head in roughly the same spot every time, consistency is a good thing. I had a TA11. My first ACOG is a TA01NSN but I wanted BAC, however back in 2003 TA31s were hard to come by so I had to settle for a TA11. I must be one of the few that ditched it for a TA31. TA11 is bigger and longer, has a narrower FOV. 4X32 ACOGs' short eye relief can be compensated by a LOP adjustable stock, and I love the wide FOV. TA11 is an old design, if I'm not mistaken it was the first BAC model Trijicon made. While 4X32 ACOGs are seeing continued development and improvement (the addition of a mini red dot, backup irons, improved mount in the form of ARMS 19LD, new reticles), Trijicon has also developed another 3X model, TA11 has stayed pretty much the same, I guess you can say that the TA11 is perfect as it was designed and needs no improvement, or maybe Trijicon sees no point in further development for an old model 
|
AR Sponsor