Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/27/2003 6:17:26 AM EDT
I recently bought an EO Tech 552 for my AR and I think I should've bought a TA-31 or TA-11.

I've been using a 552 on my HK-94 for about 8-9 months now and I really like it. So far, I've only been shooting my HK-94 on the indoor 25m range. I use my AR for shooting outside (up to 100 yds.) and, obviously, without magnification, the target is a bit harder to see with the 552. I guess I bought the 552 because it is the best (IMHO) CQB optic out there and I've been happy with it on my HK-94.

As I've been purchasing rifles over the past year, I've been defining roles for each one. My HK-94 is my short range (50m or less) rifle since it fires the 9mm cartridge which isn't the greatest round for long range (100 yds.) shooting. My AR is my intermediate rifle ( out to 300 yds.) and, lastly, my Remington 700 LTR in .308 is my long range range rifle (with it's Leupold Vari-X II 3.5x10x40, out to 600 yds.).

Now, I won't debate that the EO Tech is a great CQB sight. But after reading all the posts about the ACOGs (the TA-11 and TA-31 in particular), I think I would be better off with an optic with some magnification. I've read up on the whole BAC thing and it seems that either the TA-11 or TA-31 would be a good compromise between a medium range optic and a CQB optic.

So, I'm aware of the eye relief differences between the TA-11 and TA-31. My questions to any and all TA-11/31 users are as follows:

- How do you like the optic for CQB?

- My AR is a flat-top with a 16" barrel so are the TA-11 and TA-31 the "right" ones for my rifle? I know I want the donut reticle. I don't like the idea of a triangle or chevron reticle.

Any advice would be sincerely appreciated.

TIA
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 6:33:42 AM EDT
I don't like magnified scopes for close range, the BAC feature allows the ACOGs thus equipped to do a better job at it but it's still not as quick as optics designed for CQB. For one thing, the shooter's eyes have to be positioned just right to use BAC, the lit reticle isn't omnipresent. Having said that, I like magnified scopes much better than non-magnified, it allows me to identify targets farther down range, having BAC is great but there are shortcomings, there's no free lunch. I like my TA11, longer eye relief, though it's longer and heavier, again no free lunch here [:)]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 8:35:36 AM EDT
1. The TA11 and TA31 are general purpose optics. They can be used for CQB without losing much edge; but the Aimpoint and Eotech are still better in that role IMO. The ACOGs also have a steeper learning curve to use BAC effectively - not a huge curve, just more than the Aimpoint and EOtech. 2. Check out the thread entitled the Big ACOG BDC Chart. It discusses how to match the ACOGs bullet drop to different rifles. The donut reticles are the first values discussed.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 8:57:04 AM EDT
I own two optics for my M4. One is an Aimpoint in a GG&G cantilever mount and the other is a TA-31 in an Arms 19S with an Arms 40 back up sight. It might become a Knights 600m sight just because I like them. For me this is the best of both worlds. the Aimpoint for anything really out to 75 yards and the ACOG for anything further and in a pinch either will work for the other distances just not really well. I have made 200 meter shots with the Aimpoint and I have made 7 yard shots with the ACOG. Some might say a US optics SN-4 would do both and it would but I got great deals on both the Aimpoint and the ACOG so for the money I spent I still could not buy the US Optics. So which is best you have to decide what your shooting is going to require. IPSC_GUY sends P.S. going to shoot my first three gun match since getting home from the middle east. It Ought to be interesting
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:24:15 AM EDT
The SN4 also weighs as much as the TA31 and ML2 put together. Not the best choice IMHO. I do wish Trijicon would come out with a longer eye relief 1-3 or 1-4X Variable power optic that came in under a pound. It would be the Ultimate, Ultimate!
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:56:53 AM EDT
Matt B, the TA 31 (and I think the TA 11) are zeroed for a 20 inch barrel, so you would take that into account when adjusting for your 16 inch barrel, which isn't really that hard.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 4:21:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 4:24:40 PM EDT by inkaybee]
I don't know if you guys get tired of hearing this, but here goes. I run a Docter optics red dot on top of a TA01nsn. This gives me a true CQB optic and a 600 meter scope (yes I shot at 600 meters just this morning). I have had very good luck with this set up.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:14:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: I do wish Trijicon would come out with a longer eye relief 1-3 or 1-4X Variable power optic that came in under a pound. It would be the Ultimate, Ultimate!
View Quote
Have you seen the 1.25-4x24 AccuPoint. It sound like what you asked for. Steve.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:57:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By texcalibur: Matt B, the TA 31 (and I think the TA 11) are zeroed for a 20 inch barrel, so you would take that into account when adjusting for your 16 inch barrel, which isn't really that hard.
View Quote
I hear ya. I read through the ACOG BDC thread tacked at the top of this forum.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 8:59:53 AM EDT
No I meant something in the ACOG line not the regular scope line.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:32:05 PM EDT
Matt, I have a TA11C on my FAL and I love it. Initially I was concerned that the TA11C was calibrated for a handle mount and would throw off the bullet drop compensation too much on a flat top with short barrel. No problem. I ran a ballistics program on the specs of the TA11C (3.5" sight height, 168 gr, 2500fps, .447 bc) and of my 16" barrel with NATO surplus .308 (2.5" sight height, 147 gr, 2600fps, .398 bc) both zeroed at 200 yards. Between 100 yards and 700 yards there was no more than half an inch difference in bullet paths. At 900 yards less than 6 inches and a little over 11 inches difference at 1000 yards. Errors in range estimation and differences in various surplus ammo will have a much larger effect than the flat top vs handle mount. OK, just reread your post. I had assumed this was going on a .308 but since you just said AR I guess you meant a .223 and not an AR10. If so please ignore much of the above - but the donut is a very easy to use reticle at many ranges. Lloyd
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 12:29:35 PM EDT
Matt, I use a Compact ACOG with BAC (the TA50-2 to be precise). It works fairly well with CQB (as testing in a course I took last month). While you do lose some speed compared with the non-magnified optic - there were times when I was just as competative (once I got more used to the BAC system). When mounted on the AR's carry handle at really close distances (7-10 yards) you have to remember the hold-over for head shots - but for everything else it works fine. Its big advantage was when you needed those shots at longer range - or in low light. The magnified optics do much better in low light - I was able to keep hitting the steel plates at longer range than my fellow shooters (with Aimpoint & EO Tech).
Top Top