Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/18/2005 2:50:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 2:53:24 PM EDT by 53vortec]
Here's the deal:

I've got an AR10A4 Carbine to use as my main go-to/SHTF/HD/zombie weapon. I have a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 scope with the Z-plex reticle on it right now, but I'm hearing the siren song of the TA11E ACOG. I've only messed with the ACOGs a little bit, but I've got to consider that I've already got a 3.5X scope on it right now.

What do y'all think?


Thanks,
53Vortec
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:56:56 PM EDT
personally i would keep the ziess to keep the range on the ar10 but thr ta11 is nice
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 5:28:41 PM EDT
Maybe a 1-4x would be more useful?

Simon
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:45:57 PM EDT
Zeiss= paid 4
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:17:08 PM EDT
Well, it looks like th ACOG has pulled into the lead. Anybody care to offer a reason why I should go that route?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 5:55:29 AM EDT
WEll, my vote went to the ACOG because when the zombies break through your FPF you can still use it as a CQB site (BAC). The Zeiss 3.5x10 would be out of luck trying to kill the undead inside of 20m.
Always remember HEAD SHOTS on the undead. Just like in the movies.

KILO OUT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:17:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 19-kilo:
WEll, my vote went to the ACOG because when the zombies break through your FPF you can still use it as a CQB site (BAC). The Zeiss 3.5x10 would be out of luck trying to kill the undead inside of 20m.
Always remember HEAD SHOTS on the undead. Just like in the movies.

KILO OUT



True, although I do have QD rings and iron sights for the rifle.

I'll admit, part of my issue is spending money on an optic that costs as much as another gun (or 1/2 an LRB). I thought I'd read that the BAC didn't work too well at 10-40 yards? I've only fiddle-fucked with ACOGs on base, never shot one on a range.

Anyone else?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 8:53:14 AM EDT
53V - same sorta issue going on in this locale.....

Moving (scratch that) running away from an ACOG now....

I have had several ACOGs, and still have one on an M4geee

The AR10 in question is to be set up to do anything - 18" tube, collapsable, yada, yada

I am looking toward 1 - 4x and good glass, long battery life, ranging, front focal .....


I can not afford a short dot.

Toe tapping until the NF is available and someone writes a review......

Loopy 1.5 - 5 seems reasonable but the glass on Loopy has never wowed me, and way too many QC issues as of late to throw $730 at it on a gamble

Horus - great concept but too many reports of loosing zero - (I knwo Hakko is no longer making them)

USO - crappy battery life, duribility is suspect, and goofy .625 adjustment values to the turrets; but great glass

I saw an advertisment in Precision Shooting (I thought?) for an Xotic low power - but their site does not mention it


If you haven't already - read Grant's review of 1- 4 optics.


Good luck

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 3:17:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Face_N_The_Crowd:
53V - same sorta issue going on in this locale.....

Moving (scratch that) running away from an ACOG now....

I have had several ACOGs, and still have one on an M4geee

The AR10 in question is to be set up to do anything - 18" tube, collapsable, yada, yada

<snip>

If you haven't already - read Grant's review of 1- 4 optics.


Good luck




Thanks for the info. What's causing you to run from the ACOGs?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:29:10 AM EDT
I don't know why you would switch from a really good variable on a .308 to a fixed power optic. Seems like you are thinking of taking a step backward. If you need low power, you've got it with the Zeiss. If you want more magnification, you have it with the Zeiss. If you need longer eye relief, you have it with the Zeiss. If you plan on doing CQB with your AR-10, then the ACOG is still not ideal. Stick with what you have.

my $0.02.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:26:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 53vortec:


Thanks for the info. What's causing you to run from the ACOGs?



Don't get me wrong I think they are great but I think they are a compromise - not really fast for in close, not really precise for far away. They do everything fairly well but aren't great at any one thing.

I have been using one form or another on a 5.56 for 3 gun for 3 yrs. I have on many ocassions used a donut out to 650 - so I am fairly familiar with what they can and can not do.

In low light, no light, fog - the trit can be overwhelming for a precise shot at a distance - an adj lit ret would be better.

Ranging doesn't work / work well with most models in low light, no light, fog - in fact most mods don't have trit beyond 300 yrd stadia and again it can be overpowering.

Coin slot adj turrets

Forced 100 yrd zero

No butler creeks - sounds like a small bitch (and it is) none the less it is not so much when you're stomping through the snow, rain, and mud and go to pull up only to have water and mud on the rear obj.


And most of all - given the options that are out there or that are headed our way soon - for about the same price point, an ACOG is yesterday's option - there is a better way.

YMMV

Good luck

Really looking forward to hearing about the new NF.......

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:08:01 PM EDT
I have a TA11 ACOG and I like it a lot; but the Zeiss is probably better for that rifle in that it lets you make better use of the extra range on the AR10.

The ACOG is a more general purpose sight and does a lot of things well; but doesn't excel in any one area. A variable scope with an illuminated reticle is more versatile than the ACOG in a lot of scenarios and has some advantages as well.
Top Top