Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/20/2003 3:16:44 AM EDT
I'm looking for either a TA39R-2 (compact, 3X red triangle - first choice)

or a TA40R-2 (compact, 2X red triangle - second choice)

...to mount on my flat-top carbine.

Has anyone used either of these? what do you think? Any suggestions on the best dealer for said scopes?


Thanks!
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:16:15 PM EDT
I use the 2x amber triangle. The red is a better choice than amber, but it seems they are harder to find for some reason. Presonally, I think you will be happy with either one. Some people do have eye relief issues with the 3x though. IMO, the Compact ACOG's are some of the best optics you can put on an AR. As far as price goes, there are a lot of dealers out there with good prices, it's all about finding one who has it in stock. Good luck.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 7:11:52 PM EDT
By eye relief issues on the 3X, do you mean too short or too long? I'm torn at this point between the TA31 (price is more than I really want to spend) The TA01 (I don't really need BAC I suppose) The 2 or 3 X red triangle compact (a good general compromise between fast and precise) and the TA11 or 11B (better eye relief, but takes up more real estate)
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 5:54:31 AM EDT
Why is red better than amber? Because red is not as bright as amber or that it has lower resolution than amber?
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 6:14:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: Why is red better than amber? Because red is not as bright as amber or that it has lower resolution than amber?
View Quote
It shows up better on a wider range of colors, backgrounds, and lighting situations.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 6:15:43 AM EDT
I would suggest that it is possibly because amber is closer to the appearance of natural sunlight, so it washes out when shooting outdoors during the daytime. The three primary colors of light are Blue, Green and Red, as opposed to the standard primary colors of...paint, which are Blue, Yellow and Red. In light terms, yellow is a combination of blue light and green light. So with reflections from a blue sky and green landscape, half of the color making up the reticle is found in your target area. Red, on the other hand, is a distinct and separate wavelength. THat is just my theory, it may be total B.S.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 6:24:04 AM EDT
Yeah, that is probably right. I just posted on the practical reasons and not the science behind it. You are probably right. Red is a color not found often in nature.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 6:48:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Artifex: I would suggest that it is possibly because amber is closer to the appearance of natural sunlight, so it washes out when shooting outdoors during the daytime. The three primary colors of light are Blue, Green and Red, as opposed to the standard primary colors of...paint, which are Blue, Yellow and Red. In light terms, yellow is a combination of blue light and green light. So with reflections from a blue sky and green landscape, half of the color making up the reticle is found in your target area. Red, on the other hand, is a distinct and separate wavelength. THat is just my theory, it may be total B.S.
View Quote
Actually... Yellow is made up of red and green, not blue and green. RyGcBm... Red, yellow, Green, cyan, Blue, magenta adding in all 3 primaries produces white... so if "blue sky and green plants" would actually mix somehow, it'd produce cyan. In order for yellow to appear, you'd need to have red as well... then if the colors once again decided to mix, it'd be white. But... they don't mix, so all's well. As far as why they work/don't work better... I have no clue. But I LOVE my Ta31F, and wouldn't give up my red chevron for anything.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 7:23:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2003 7:28:18 AM EDT by Artifex]
I stand corrected. Green and red do indeed form yellow in the spectrum. [img]http://www.artifex.ws/images/cie.gif[/img] So theoretically, an amber reticle would stand out better over a blue background (sky or night sky) but still be "represented" by greenery in the background. So an amber dot might be good on anti-airgraft guns, eh? Red does seem to stand out better, probably having to do with theory #2: Contrast.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 9:51:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: Why is red better than amber? Because red is not as bright as amber or that it has lower resolution than amber?
View Quote
Just my opinion, but the red does seem brighter at times, does not wash out as easily, and stands out better against certain targets. On paper, the amber sounds good, but after trying both, I'd go with red. Steve.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 10:00:18 AM EDT
I don't know why none of these sight manufacturers has invented a molti-chromatic sight. They could use a high-intensity white LED as a source, then have a color wheel inside connected to an adjustment knob. The shooter could adjust the intensity level of the light as well as the contrast color that works best for the target. And why the hell hasn't anyone made a pressure switch for the pistol grip that turns the scope on and off? I know wires aren't cool, but in a world with Bluetooth and WiFi technology, you'd think that it wouldn't be too difficult to design a transmitter inside of the grip that could send a simple toggle-switch signal 6-inches away to the scope...
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 1:07:08 PM EDT
I'm currently experimenting with the 2X Amber triangle. I chose this scope in the hopes the 2X magnification and the fine tip of the triagle will allow fine aiming at medium range, while the triangle with allow fast shooting at close range, like a 2X dot sight.....
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 2:47:53 PM EDT
Well, I made the leap... Picked up a TA-31 red doughnut reticle ACOG at ADCO tonight... Pics coming soon
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 3:31:18 PM EDT
The TA-31 is the best ACOG as long as the eye relief and exit pupil work out for you. The head placement isn't very forgiving. I sold my TA-31 to get a TA-11 for the extra head movement but it sure is allot bigger.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 4:52:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2003 4:53:13 PM EDT by green18]
Originally Posted By Artifex: Well, I made the leap... Picked up a TA-31 red doughnut reticle ACOG at ADCO tonight... Pics coming soon
View Quote
Good choice:[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=19733[/img]
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 6:14:52 PM EDT
In my experience the red reticles by Trijicon are brighter. This has nothing to do with back ground color. With any or no background color the red is brighter all the time. Perhaps it has to do with the colored part of the fiber optic tube not transmitting as much light on the Amber version. I am not sure. Also I have begun to believe there is lot to lot variation in the fiber optic portion leading me to believe Trijicon either has poor QC on that issue or that there was a change in how they are made or something else... Im not sure. Sorry for my rambling. I guess what I mean to say is Amber is not as bright but its NOT becasue of back ground colors. It is something else entirely but I am unsure of what that is.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 7:46:53 PM EDT
Which color is brighter seems to be the cause for much debate. When I look at both side by side, I always seem to favor the red as brightest. Paul has seen both as well and sees the amber as brighter. Trijicon will tell you in no uncertain terms that the amber is brighter. Everyone I know who has seen both preffers the red? I have given up debating which is brighter and come to the conclusion that which is brighter depends on who is looking. The color science posted earlier is very interesting! Past that, I agree that no matter what, the red contrasts better, in nearly every single environment I can think of. Better contrast leads to quicker and more confident acquisition. Just another opinion...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:10:01 PM EDT
I prefer red as well. I have never been a fan of yellow/amber reticles.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:16:23 PM EDT
Perhaps amber works better for those with some degree of color blindness? I'm not color blind myself so I don't know, but the thought occurred to me that for a color blind individual, the red reticle might disappear against a green background.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:30:37 PM EDT
Amber does seem to wash out under typical city street lights worse than red does. I have both and was compairing them tonight. Red definately shows up better when looking at something illuminated by a street light...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:51:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dorsai: Perhaps amber works better for those with some degree of color blindness? I'm not color blind myself so I don't know, but the thought occurred to me that for a color blind individual, the red reticle might disappear against a green background.
View Quote
A guy who shoots with us is color blind and I recall him saying the very same thing. So I think you are probably right.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:44:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 5:46:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By new-arguy:
Originally Posted By Dorsai: Perhaps amber works better for those with some degree of color blindness? I'm not color blind myself so I don't know, but the thought occurred to me that for a color blind individual, the red reticle might disappear against a green background.
View Quote
A guy who shoots with us is color blind and I recall him saying the very same thing. So I think you are probably right.
View Quote
That would be me. I'm mildly colorblind, so the amber is drastically brighter. Actually, the amber shows up and a near neon yellow to me, much brighter than any red dot I've ever looked through. I'm red/green colorblind. Somone that is blue/green colorblind may have a different story to tell. Given the high percentage of men that are colorblind, I'm suprised that I'm the first to comment on it. Tell ya something else I'd like to see in the color department, while we're discussing reticle colors. I'd like to see Neil's surefire blue filter washout experiment with the amber triangle.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:43:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChuckJaxFL: I'd like to see Neil's surefire blue filter washout experiment with the amber triangle.
View Quote
I've tried it before, it works very well. I just can't imagine how he photographed it. I'd try, but I don't have a digital camera, or the patients. Steve.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 6:33:56 AM EDT
I used to have the 3x amber crosshair. It never washed out. Not when aiming straight into a light, not when aiming off into the dunes, not ever. Sometimes the recticle would turn black, but it never washed out. I have had scopes with both red and amber recticles. The difference I think is this: it is easier to see the recticle with red, but easier to see the target with amber. There is something about red that makes it stand out, but it also tends to lessen your ability to see whatever is around it.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 6:40:12 AM EDT
As a corollary to the above, I think red is better at short ranges and amber is superior for longer distances.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 7:28:42 AM EDT
I have both the TA31A (4x, red triangle) and the TA50R-2 (Compact, 3x, red triangle). The TA31 is great; I have nothing bad to say about it so far. It's mounted on my flattop, and eye relief is fine. The eyepiece does overhang my ARMS #40 BUIS, so I'd have to yank the ACOG to flip it up. The TA50 (carry handle mount) is on my 20" A2. Using the standard carry handle hole, it's too far forward for good eye relief. If you want the full field of view, you have to literally take a lip-weld on the charging handle; however, the scope's still useable if you move your head back a bit. I fixed this by drilling a second hole in the carry handle about 1" back from the existing one. Personally I would prefer a bit more optic than the compact ACOGs for a flattop, but one would certainly do the job. I do like the red triangle: the red is easier to see than the amber, at least for me. The triangle is big enough to easily see, unlike the chevron, and has the benefit of giving you a finer aimpoint unlike the dot. I defintely don't like the donut, those seem to obscure too much of the target for my taste.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 11:08:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ken_mays: The TA50 (carry handle mount) is on my 20" A2. Using the standard carry handle hole, it's too far forward for good eye relief. If you want the full field of view, you have to literally take a lip-weld on the charging handle; however, the scope's still useable if you move your head back a bit. I fixed this by drilling a second hole in the carry handle about 1" back from the existing one.
View Quote
Or shorten the length of pull of the stock. If the A1 stock is too long then use the RRA LE stock with a 1" spacer.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 12:39:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By ken_mays: The TA50 (carry handle mount) is on my 20" A2. Using the standard carry handle hole, it's too far forward for good eye relief. If you want the full field of view, you have to literally take a lip-weld on the charging handle; however, the scope's still useable if you move your head back a bit. I fixed this by drilling a second hole in the carry handle about 1" back from the existing one.
View Quote
Or shorten the length of pull of the stock. If the A1 stock is too long then use the RRA LE stock with a 1" spacer.
View Quote
This won't change the fact that your face has to be touching the rear of the carry handle before you can see the full FOV for the scope.
Top Top