User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/6/2003 5:23:56 AM EDT
[#1]
Much better with the resize Duffy! Now that is what a TA11 reticle looks like.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 1:40:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Hi forest.In the photo of the tao.(not nsn)you said "note lack of back" how can you tell.thanx for your time,if you have it.Sean
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 3:44:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Two more pics
 ELCAN:  TA11, ELCAN, TA01NSN size comparison: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2003 9:27:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Note various field of views/magnification on a typical residential suburb. Photos taken from exact same location at same target. Dusk was approximately 1900hrs, night was 2000hrs. Also note reticle wash-out caused by dark backgrounds, even on some dusk photos.
  The Russian scope was VERY hard to photograph through without getting glare spots:  This image is a 6x, but the photo was slightly enlarged to make it the same width as the others. Note the date stamp in the corner to get an idea of FOV.  Dusk *vs* Night: I tried to make the pics approximately the same size for a comparison. Note the importance of a REAL illuminated ret for night urban use. The TA01-NSN is virtually useless for this type of environment, even though its center glows via tritium. Sure the pictures aren't as bright and clear as being there in person, but even with the naked eye the NSN's yellow is almost invisible.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2003 7:02:51 AM EDT
[#5]
Nice pics!
I don't think it's a fair comparison between a battery powered lit reticle and a tritium one. Isn't TA01NSN's reticle NV compatible? The TA01NSN is only center lit, that combined with its fine cross hair does make it harder to pick up at night (it's hard to pick it up during the day!) I tried to take a pic through the scope at night, it's too dark and the camera doesn't see anything, especially the tiny fine amber cross hair of the NSN. If you have a digital SLR camera with a big lens and can manually control the exposure time and f stop it's possible to accurately record it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2003 6:02:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Kisara,
Keep your damn optics off of my Avalanche!!!!!! Just kidding, its not mine. :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2003 9:57:11 PM EDT
[#7]
This time I aimed at the 2nd floor bedroom of the 2 story white house in the upper left corner of the previous photos. It is about 200m further, around the next street. It is a good example of a bright contrasting background, which really makes the finer-lined rets stand out.
Here's an EO, which was more red in person than what the camera captured:  The NSN's rangefinder really showed up well against the white house:  The Springfield's bold lines were easy to see on the street photo, but the rangefinder was hard to see. Here against the house, the rangefinder struts its stuff:  The Dragunov showed up great in all conditions, day or night. Its ret glows white at night, but was impossible for the camera to pick up:  Here's another Russian PSO-1, with a T-3 that glows red at night. It too was brilliant in all conditions, but was camera shy at night: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2003 9:58:00 PM EDT
[#8]
kisara,
super great pics. what about some aimpoints:-> thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2003 10:18:01 PM EDT
[#9]
... This absolutely the best thread I've read in some time on the site!
Quoted: Nice pics! ... Isn't TA01NSN's reticle NV compatible? ... No, mine completely floods the image if using my AN/PVS-7B. ... Give me a little time, and I will contribute by taking some photos through my TA01NSN during differing available ambient light. ... Great going guys! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2003 12:51:29 AM EDT
[#10]
ok,
here's my attempt at a night view through the TA01NSN reticle. my images are password protected because of bandwidth problems from hotlinkers, so the username and password are both 'mm'. sorry for the inconvenience. if someone would like to download the pic and stick it on a image server and hotlink to it for this thread, please do so :-) [url]http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/img/ta01nsn.jpg[/url] thanks! MM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2003 7:21:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Nice MM!! Even with my new digital camera I can't take pics like that, all I see is...actually I don't see anything, the LCD is just black [XX(]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2003 8:28:21 AM EDT
[#12]
hey duffy,
thanks! i didn't see anything either on my LCD screen - i found that what you see on the LCD screen is sometimes different from the pic taken. i lined the camera up by eyeballing the camera lens and the scope and started snapping and previewing, adjusting the alignment of the camera and playing with the aperture and exposure compensation until i got something decent. took about 10 tries :-) cheers MM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2003 8:54:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Hey nice pics!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2003 1:47:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Outstanding, excellent photos!!! I tried to take a photo of the NSN at night with its center yellow ret, hopefully someone with a standard TA01 can take one of their full red ret for comparison since they are almost the same pattern. CAMERA QUESTION: How did you guys get the ret AND the background focused clearly? I can focus on the ret, but then the background is blurry. And vice/versa. What settings did you use, what's the secret to taking good photos like yours? wide aperature, set your fstop to as big as it will get |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 9:08:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Can I play too???
Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T Scope... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 9:22:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Which would you preffer?
 CQ/T seems like a fine scope, until you compare it to a TA31. If you preffer, the CQ/T, well, to each their own. But these pics really make the point. Well, one of many actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2003 9:50:33 PM EDT
[#17]
New-arguy, I don't prefer the CQ/T. In fact, I think Leupold dropped the ball when they designed the CQ/T.
I borrowed the pic from HKpro.com |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2003 9:13:35 AM EDT
[#18]
I got a chance to see a T31 in person for the first time. One thing that your pics do not show is that the entire reticle in the ACOG is very, very small. Your pic makes it look huge, but when looking though the scope, I could just barely discern the hole in the donut. I was very (unpleasantly) surprised. While I could not take it afield for actualy testing (I was in a gunshop that I have never been in before), I cannot believe that I could even use the tiny, tiny spaces between lines. Is this a common complaint or does another scope have a 'bigger' view of it, or what? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2003 1:50:51 PM EDT
[#19]
I must say excellent pics from all (especially FRO!).
I will be interested in comparing the view from the TA-50 with the TA-60 mount instead of the TA-19 mount for the compact ACOG. The TA60 mount is a bit shorter and sits taller to get the Compact ACOG over the front sight. If it goes well I'll convert my carbine to flattop so I'll be able to change optics easier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2003 1:56:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Markbo, the farther whatever you are pointing at is away, the bigger the reticle seems to be. At 400m, its damn big, and the lines are clearly distinguishable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2003 8:04:22 PM EDT
[#21]
My guess is that Markbro was holding the ACOG too far away from his eye. These pics look very much like what the reticles look to me. Clear crisp images that are easily used and recognized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2003 7:49:37 AM EDT
[#22]
Jack - of course that makes sense. And I don't know about that new ARguy. It was mounted on an A3 and I shouldered it and positioned my head. In your pic, the image of the reticle seems to take up a large percentage of the field of view - say 40% vertically.
When I looked through it (and my eye relief was just fine) it appeared to only take up about 10% of the verticle field of view. I could only just barely even make out the number 6-it was so small, where in your pics it is large and clear. I guess I will just have to see some more of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2003 9:46:58 AM EDT
[#23]
Were you looking at the reticle or looking at the target? There is some optical trick at work with the ACOGs; but if I look at the target with both eyes open, the reticle is just as crisp as can be and I can read the even smaller numbers on the TA11 BDC with no problem. A TA31 looks huge.
However, if I try to look directly at the reticle - the numbers will blur and appear really tiny. The reticle itself can even fuzz out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2003 2:06:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Newbie question but can you see the irons through that TA-50 on the flat-top?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2003 8:04:52 PM EDT
[#25]
If you can, it will be a very faint blur. It wont be anything near well enough to use them if thats what you are thinking.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2003 8:10:00 PM EDT
[#26]
I will second Neil's comments on the ACOG picture. Markbo I would advise you to check the sight out again - and bring someone familiar with there usage...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2003 12:56:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Well I definitely will check them out again, but I don't think I am getting my point across.
When looking through the sight - correctly.. the right eye relief, enough visible light, light background... the scale of the reticle is different than your pictures. In your pics, it appears as if the reticle takes up half of the filed of view as measured vertically. When I was looking through the scope, it appeared as though the reticle took up 10% of the field of view. See what I mean? Anyway... I'll go back and check several of them out again. And to be honest, bring someone that is familiar with their usage? How much of an expert does it take to look through a scope? sheesh... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2003 1:07:53 PM EDT
[#28]
I went back and looked at the pics again and THIS is what I am talking about. This reticle looks very small - like 10%(?) of the total field of view. This is what it looked like to me - the hole in the donut is barely visible and I could barely make out the number 6. Is this how it looks to everyone else when they are looking through their scope? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2003 9:35:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Mark, we understand what you are saying and thats why we are confused. My TA31, and the reticle in every TA31 I have ever seen/used looks very much like this when I have have the propper eye relief;
 Everything is clear and defined. The reticle is not huge, but it by no means is as small as the picture you are saying is what you see. I dont know? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2003 9:54:39 PM EDT
[#30]
You had BOTH EYES OPEN? Were you looking at a target with a realistic distance (i.e. looking out the window at something across the street, as opposed to the wall behind the counter 4 feet away...) ???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2003 1:01:23 PM EDT
[#31]
I had both eyes open looking 20 yards across the inside of a gun shop - like I said before.
I just wanted to confirm that I was making myself clear as to exactly what I was seeing since what you guys said was just SO different from what I was seeing... it just didn't make any sense. I will go back and do as suggested though... look outside at a distant target (might be able to look 100yards) with both eyes open with the proper eye relief. I will recheck the TA31 and I will see if they have any other ACOG's to check out. Thanks for the clarification |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2003 4:19:02 AM EDT
[#32]
I have no experience with the ACOG scopes, but after reading throug this topic I really want one for my SIG 551.
How does the TA11 and TA31 donut reticle compare in size to the donut in the standard Steyr AUG A1 scope(which I have some experience with)? I find the the AUG donut reticle too large/undefined to be used with any success at small targets out to 250-300 yards in IPSC type shooting. Would the ACOG donut-reticle scope be "better" suited for such work? jerv |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2003 6:03:35 AM EDT
[#33]
I am also shopping for an ACOG to use on a M16 and have an AUG myself (only semi) ... so will be very interested in the follow up postings.
The TA31 should have a six to twelve times smaller aiming point (now what that actual indicates with the eye putting objects in the center of a circle ... is another discussion). This assumes you have the Aug scope with the circle that covers 6ft at 300 meter (plus possible the center dot)and in comparision the TA31 "donut" will cover about 1 ft at 300 meters (4 MOA at 300 meters*) and the "donut" hole will cover 6 inches (2 MOA at 300 meters*) (*some one can do the exact MOA math later) Other option to consider it the TA31a with the "triangle". Take a look at the Trijicon information at: www.trijicon.com/ Regards John P.S. Anyone near Indiana (I do not make it into the north west corner much anymore) that some time this summer I could talk into letting me see a mounted ACOG TA31 or TA31a (still wondering how flat top vs carry handel works for my lenght neck), I would be glad to buy a nice steak dinner and / or bring a case of XM193 to go shooting with .... (possible an outing to KCR in would work as is a public range and I have my 5320.20 ...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2003 9:49:28 AM EDT
[#34]
Keep in mind that because the reticle is a ranging reticle, the TA11 reticle is slightly smaller than the TA31 reticle because it has 0.5x less magnification.
Duffy's TA11 picture is a pretty close approximation of what you'll see; but the donut shouldn't be blurry and the number 6 should be sharp, although a bit small. Try concentrating on the target and ignoring the scope to see if you get a different view. If not, then the ACOG may not be the best option for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 3:17:44 PM EDT
[#35]
There, happy?
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 4:14:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Was wondering can you see the center "donut hole" by eye to aim with at this range?
Fast check of distance indicates the road is one to one and quarter miles away (4 MOA is little larger than the nominal 6 foot height of a 4x4). Thanks John |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 5:04:17 PM EDT
[#37]
You're amazing JT [;)] At that range you'd use the ladder/crosshair reticle to aim.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 5:45:03 PM EDT
[#38]
OK, I have my TA31 zeroed, top of donut at 100m, center of donut 200m, bottom donut 300m and so on.....What is done at distances less than 100m? In a real life senerio (or at range) will I have to place the donut at there feet just to hit center mass or is there another trick in using the TA31 for CQB, distances less than 100m?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2003 5:55:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Other way around, at closr ranges you will be hitting low. What I do is to float the donut about an inch over where it is I want to hit. This is for speed. And for speed it works great. If you need a precise shot at close ranges, I'll use the bottom of the ranginf reticle. Best trick is, just like with iron or any other optic, go out and shoot at a variety of ranges. Take a mental note of where it is hitting at what ranges and commit it to memory.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2003 5:39:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Pretty much what new_arguy said... it will also depend on where you have the TA31 mounted and what your ammo combo is.
Assuming a flattop mount and M193, you'll be 1" low at 50 (hold over one donut hole - 2MOA), 2" low at 15 and (hold over about 13 MOA - roughly between the 3-4 hashmark) about 2.5" low at 7. (more towards 4). Alternatively, if you are using photographic targets you can hold on the hairline at 7yds and below and you'll get perfect placement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2003 6:39:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: about 2.5" low at 7. (more towards 4). Maximum hold-over (occuring at the shorter ranges) would be the offset distance between the barrel centerline and the optics centerline. Do you agree ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2003 4:55:21 AM EDT
[#42]
Maximum hold-over (occuring at the shorter ranges) would be the offset distance between the barrel centerline and the optics centerline. Do you agree? Yes - your maximum hold-over is going to basically be your height over bore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2003 5:55:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Great pix all - great reference material, I agree they should be tacked.
Thank you. [banana] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2003 7:18:22 AM EDT
[#44]
WOW
Awesome pics! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2003 6:28:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Anyone have a TA31F (chevron reticle) that they could post?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2003 8:51:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Could someone post a picture looking through a standard scope on an upper with a regular sight post?
Thanks a million |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2003 9:58:55 AM EDT
[#47]
I must say GREAT PICTURES. If a person could only have one of these scopes to last him for the rest of his life, an all purpose scope, which would be the one to purchase? Thanks again guys for the pics, and your help (which you are about to give, I hope). I will purchase an ACOG on the answers given here, Ken. I'm being yelled at by my other half at the moment. She just went through this long explantion about something or another and I don't know what she was even talking about. I will be back later, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2003 6:52:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: If a person could only have one of these scopes to last him for the rest of his life... Remember that these ACOGS are dependent on Tritium. Tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years, which means that in that time the lamp will be half as bright as it originally was. So, anything with Tritium will not last a life-time without being serviced to refresh the Tritium. This is one of the advantages of a batteried-powered optic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2003 5:31:20 AM EDT
[#49]
Remember that these ACOGS are dependent on Tritium. Tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years, which means that in that time the lamp will be half as bright as it originally was. ACOGs are partially dependent on tritium. All of the BAC ACOGs also use fiber optics to gather ambient light to illuminate the reticle. So in 12.5 years, the amount of active tritium gas will be half what it was at production; but the only time you will see tritium decay affect brightness by half is in conditions of near total darkness where the ACOG is relying 100% on tritium for illumination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2003 5:45:07 AM EDT
[#50]
Depending on how much you shoot you can go through alot of batteries in 12.5 years.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
