AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which Compact ACOG for CQB? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/12/2005 4:56:44 AM EDT
|
I know the EOTECH and M2/M3 are the BEST for CQB range. Just looking to try a compact AGOC with BAC. I plan on mounting it on 10.5" or 14.5" upper. What recticle? triangle? What power? 1.5x24? thanks |
I have a TA45-2 1.5X, amber triangle, mounted on carryhandle. Works very well with CQB drills. I would have prefered the red triangle but they are not often found. One on the EE now! |
|
I personally think the 1.5 is a waste of money. At least get the 2X (TA47R-2). C4 www.gandrtactical.com |
Absolutely! |
| Grant, Hokie, I am curious as to why you feel increased magnification and tighter eye relief would be beneficial for short-range applications. I used to have a 2x, and to me it felt a bit slower. Perhaps you guys were thinking more in terms of general purpose use? |
Because you can get a ANY dot optic (Reflex II, Aimpoint, EOTech) for less money than a compact ACOG. The 1.5 really doesn't give you ANY magnification (that you will notice) so at least get the 2X. The purpose of an ACOG (IMHO) is to give you magnification. If anyone is serious about doing ONLY CQB work then I have ZERO idea why they would ever consider ANYTHING other than the Aimpoint or EOTech. The Compact ACOG in 2 or 3 power is a great all around optic (as it works well for both CQB and mid-range shots). Most of us do a little of everything so why spend that much money only to limit your capabilities? C4 |
yes, more so general purpose. You'll find a bunch of info in the optics forum on ACOG's and such. My take on it, and YMMV, is that for CQB type applications of a magnified optic, anything over 1X is going to be blurred and you're relying on the BAC to guide your muzzle. Without getting carpal tunnel over explaining myself, I think the benefits of a 2X-4X fixed magnified scope is a better choice. But....since you are asking which Compact ACOG is best suited for CQB, I'd say, again - YMMV, the 2X would better suit you. What's to gain from a 1.5X over a 2? Reallllly? It's the BAC that'll put you on target in a CQB environment, not the magnification....so my logic says step it up. Good luck in your choice! Options options options! 
|
|
Get the model that will give you the most FOV. Your target ID and engagement speed will be much faster with a 1.5 over the 2. And yes it does give you some power. Anyone who has spent a few hours running the unit on targets knows that the 1.5 is the better unit for CQB work. The 2 is a fine unit but your FOV gets cut down to 29 feet at 100yds over the 39 feet at 100 yds with a 1.5.... Inside a building at CQB distances you can really tell that you have lost FOV. Either way good luck. |
|
Grant and Hokie, the extra money spent on a compact ACOG means you don't have batteries and finicky electronics to fail when you might need them most. 1.5X has excellent eye relief, and you can shoot it easily with both eyes open. I routinely shoot my ACOG topped 6520 against a competent friend and his Eotech. The timer says I beat him every time on recent speed/accuracy drills we did by ~0.2 seconds, sometimes a bit more. Plus, his Eotech HAS had batteries go down on him during a carbine course. Luckily for him, it was during the daylight portion or he would have been phucked. I do agree the Aimpoint/Eotech can be a better lowlight optic with a flashlight in terms of reticle intensity, but the compact ACOG reticle works well under most conditions. |
Great points SP10, and are duely noted. But it's that logic right there that justifies the fixed BUIS on a red dot as the best CQB device - ever!  In the rare occasion I go to clear a room (cause I do it so often - 'heavy sarcasm') and the battery dies and it's dark and my irons are blackened cause my flashlight is also fubar....I'll probably hold off and head to Radioshack for a new set!The BAC feature is top notch. So is Trijicon's product line! I guess you simply have to weigh your personal needs with the optic's features and make your decision. As we all know CQB is fast action and like I said earlier, your muzzle is guided by that lit reticule, not the FOV. With the BAC feature, you're supposed to look past the scope while aiming and let the target come into focus. Unless I'm doing something wrong, which won't be the first time, nor the last. I guess if you were bent on the C-ACOG and you were strictly using it for CQB drills - then sure, a 1.5 would be fine. I wouldn't mind owning one myself. But if I could only afford one C-ACOG for CQB work plus whatever else I got into....I'd go with a higher magnification for versatility's sake. Good stuff fellas, keep the dialogue coming. |
No doubt that the ACOG with a red triangle is a "good" CQB optic, but it isn't as good as an Aimpoint or EOTech. Aimpoint ML3/M3 now offer 50,000 hours of battery life. The tritium in the ACOG will most likely need recharged before you every have to buy a battery! If the batts do go down on an Aimpoint or EOTech in a CQB environment it matters not as you can just use the optic itself as the sighting tool. C4 |
+1 - Good post Grant! |
+1 That's what I have. It is fast, and still very capable of head shots at 200 yards. I have had it for 4 years, and paid $400.00 for it.  Tack |
+1 I have a TA47-2. 2X20, Amber triangle reticle. It is very fast, and still very capable of head shots at 200 yards. I have had it for 4 years, and paid $400.00 for it. I think the Amber reticle is a tad brighter than the red, at least to my eye. YMMV Tack |
$400 for a TA47-2!!!! Was it used??? C4 |
It is amazing how much they have gone up over the years. So has my salary so I guess all is fair. C4 |
|
I like the TA45 it is a 1.5x and it very fast. www.csgunworks.com [email protected] Here’s some testimonials about CS GunWorks for AR15 Board Mike at CS Gunworks is... |
|
I saw a great deal on TA01NSN's, the price was not advertised, but if you add it to your cart the price will come up. I thought it was a bogus price at first, but they honered it and they had it in stock. TA01NSN |
That price is average at best. Contact me if you want better. C4 www.gandrtactical.com |
Most people's eyes do not filter out yellow hues as well as other colors. The intensity of the yellows make it appear "brighter", even though they probably have the exact same "output". |
I'll agree to that. |
| Unless Trijicon has done something different, their reticles "wash out" to a gray tint when using as low as a 6V surefire system on room entries. You'ed be wasting your money. Sure you could eventually "find" the reticle, but you're sacraficing speed. Speed and accuracy is what you want to stop the threat. Competition is one thing or if you are behind cover and far enough away you might be able to get away with it. Even during outdoor searches at night the reticle isn't bright enough to pick up quickly or stand out against various colors the suspect is wearing. The ability to adjust the intensity settings is what you need for a working weapon. |
Can I send your post above to the guys who cleared houses in Fallujah, Mosul and Bagdhad? I'm sure they would be interested to note that their ACOG's don't work indoors when employing a light. 
|
Thats what I thought of first , but then I realized that for this individual using it only for CQB then I would go with a better scope more fit for CQB. A 2x scope would be the best IMO, with a Doughtnout or Triangle reticle. |
I guess it doesn't matter why, it matters that I can see Amber better than Red. I think if guys would try Amber versus Red...they might just become believers. Tack |
I have looked through and used EVERY ACOG made. The Amber is nice, but has issues that the red just doesn't have. C4 |
|
SHIVAN, I think the initial inquiry was regarding compact ACOG's. I don't doubt anyone's ability to over come adversity. They are the fortunate to have survived battle and hopefully return to a grateful nation. My reference is to my experience with compact ACOG's in entry and outdoor searches. I'm relieved others who use this particular optic are satisfied with its capabilities. Personally, I prefer an aimpoint or EO Tech because I have found that the reticle is easier and faster to find. Have you tried using the compact ACOG in low light situations with or without white light, on the move, scanning for deadly threats against various color back drops? It's tough to find that tiny rectangular reticle. I don't mean for that last statement to sound as if I'm questioning your life experience. I am no better then the next guy, but I know I'm not the only one who has experienced the reticle "washing out" and feel strongly that the compact is not an appropriate CQB optic. Although "focusing" on the front sight/reticle is always stressed, I believe in room clearing distances (15'X15') a lot of their survival skills reverts to weapon presentation time on the threat, using some portion of the weapon as an "index" that they are on target, and trigger control. At those distances, incapacitation hits can be made by people who consistently train. I'm sure if you polled service members if they preferred a 4X32 ACOG or aimpoint/EO for room clearing only, they'd pick the latter. Any feed back from 4X32 ACOG users on room entries? I'm just trying to save coltcommando from spending $950 for the optic and another $100 or so on the mount. For that kind of cash you might as well invest in a variable optic. |
|
1.5x is a waste as Grant stated. 2x was nice, but I found it harder to use the BAC. 3x gave me wood. My fav was the red crosshair, but the red triangle is cool also. My ideal ACOG (Hint Hint to all you Trijicon insiders!!!) would be a 3x Compact Acog with a red chevron. In a LaRue mount of course. |
But of course! C4 |
Should have stated that from the outset.
I'm not a door kicker, which is why I referred you to "doorkickers". Your statement NOW seems a lot more reserved and a little more tempered.
3x was too much at room clearing distances in my limited experience. I can't imagine 4x would be better. Though that's what they are using. To great effect, apparently. |
Did you find the 2X harder to use the BAC than the 3X? Even though the 3X has the shortest eye relief of all ACOGs? Just curious, not doubting your experience... |
|
Like I said before the 1.5x I really like. I is good for speed, no batters make it always on, and light. I would put the 1.5x ACOGs in the category of an Aimpoint and the EoTech. If you really want more magnification get a full-size ACOG or do what I did. Here is a TA45 1.5x with an Aimpoint 3x magnifier making it a 3.5x scope and it works very well. I have been having fun with the Aimpoint magnifier.  www.csgunworks.com [email protected] Here’s some testimonials about CS GunWorks for AR15 Board Mike at CS Gunworks is... |
That's an interesting setup Mike! C4 |
Because your eyes cause the reticle on the red-dot optics to ghost and to blur? I now have an Aimpoint and an Eotech (one of your diamond reticle ones). Both have blurry reticles. I was hoping the Eotech would be at least usable but it's not. My intention was to use the diamond tip for precision distance shots and the whole diamond for fast close up shots. Because I can't clearly see the reticle (at any brightness) this won't work for me. I'm strongly considering getting rid of both dot sights and trying an ACOG. There's a few things I don't get though. 1) Like how a 16mm scope gets a larger FOV than a 24mm scope. Is this due to the eye relief? 2) Is it better to just get the model with the ring base, or is there a reason to fork out another $125 to larue for their mount, other than the QD feature? Does the Larue put the M16 base model at a height that is more comfortable for most people? |
Is it but the fun thing is I set it up like this because of this thread but it works and works well. www.csgunworks.com [email protected] Here’s some testimonials about CS GunWorks for AR15 Board Mike at CS Gunworks is... |
You might want to have your eyes checke out if you have problems with the Aimpoint and EOTech reticles. You also might have had the power setting to high. Did you mount the optics and use them on weapons? Most people that complain about Aimpoint/EOTech reticles are just looking at them in their house. C4 |
Eye relief isn't a problem if you get the same cheek weld every time. I shoot nose to charging handle so that solves that problem. I don't know why I had a harder time using the BAC on the 2x than with the 3x but I did. |
|
I have run the Aimpoint in one competition so far, and shot it on two other occasions at the range sighting it in and breaking in the firearm it's mounted on. I have mounted the Eotech but not fired the rifle with it mounted. I have a large park across the street from my house and I have looked out the window across the park with both optics. With the Aimpoint, the ghosting goes away if I turn the brightness down enough, but then it's too dim for certain situations. With the Eotech, the ghosting remains regardless of brightness. With both optics, regardless of brightness setting, they are not as crisp and clear as the pictures I've seen posted here (as in your ad), or the pictures I've taken of the reticles myself. I do not doubt that it is my eyes. They aren't the greatest, and I have an astigmatism in one. But, buying a $700 ACOG is a cheaper solution than having $5k worth of surgery to correct the deficiencies in my eyes. My solution is not necesarily the solution for everyone, but you stated
and I was/am offering a reason why. |
If you have astigmatism or any other isues then Aimpoints and EOTech's won't work for you all that well. With the EOTech you need to go outside, turn down the power to where it is just visible, mount it on a weapon and concentrate on a target more than 25yds away. Keep both eyes open. What will happen is the jagged lines that make up the reticle wil fuse together making a solid line. So for most people (without a vision) problem, my recommendations for CQB optics are good. C4 |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which Compact ACOG for CQB? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor