Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:45:25 AM EDT
Of course I am sure everything is up to interpretation and needs. There are some really good deals out though on the ACOG's right now and I am thinking real serious about one: TA01. For an overall optic this seems like a really good one. I know there are others out there with faster reticles? Just a noob when it comes to ACOG, so i am looking for some opinions. Thanks
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 10:56:04 AM EDT
if you get it for a good price then its a great optic if thats what you are looking for.



trijicon has a banner up above, search through there for different reticles and specs, search the equipment exchange here for great prices either through dealers or other members.


there is also a search function under trijicon's banner in which you can search previous threads similar to yours discussing the same things you are wondering about.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 3:20:54 PM EDT
I guess to be more accurate I was looking for people that own the TA01. How do you feel about the reticle pattern, are you satisfied with it. Can you deploy it in multiple enviroments? Is it the kind of sight you feel comfortable with in say close to medium ranges or is it more of a long distance sight? Reason I ask is I am looking for the best of both worlds. All of my current sights are either Aimpoints, Eotech or Leupold scopes. Is the ACOG like other scopes in that your head has to be right in the sweet spot to see anything, make the shot, etc? Since I have never had one in my hands I can't make this assumption.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 8:16:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By edblevi:
I guess to be more accurate I was looking for people that own the TA01. How do you feel about the reticle pattern, are you satisfied with it. Can you deploy it in multiple enviroments? Is it the kind of sight you feel comfortable with in say close to medium ranges or is it more of a long distance sight? Reason I ask is I am looking for the best of both worlds. All of my current sights are either Aimpoints, Eotech or Leupold scopes. Is the ACOG like other scopes in that your head has to be right in the sweet spot to see anything, make the shot, etc? Since I have never had one in my hands I can't make this assumption.




Tag for info.

I'm in the same boat.

I don't know a ton about optics but want something solid, that works well.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 8:17:55 PM EDT
TA01 is the worst of the ACOGs for use at close range. It has no BAC capability and the irons on top are a joke. It is a medium to long range optic for an M4 or M16. It really is a mediaum range specific optic though. If you are stuck on ACOG look at the BAC versions.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 9:04:16 PM EDT
I owned a TA01 and thought it was the tits. The reticle is not made to be quick- it's just crosshairs and they illuminate only when it's dark outside.

TA11s are what you would want for more speed. They have the fiber optic on top that will illuminate the reticle during the day.

The TA11F has the chevron reticle which is a good size for picking up quickly for a fast shot but small enough for precision. The donuts are supposedly nice, but I think they are a little strange. There is also a triangle but there's a little bit more to obstruct your target with.

All of the aforementioned have a ranging reticle.

I had gotten my TA01 used for $650ish and I loved it. Sold it to fund a nicer upper.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 9:09:29 PM EDT
I have a TA-11 it is the BEST optic I have ever owned and I have owned alot including some high end names. I wish I could get the an ACOG with variable power like 4-15 x40 for a hunting rifle. The Donut Reticle is the tits for everything but the most precise of shots. I cant quite squeeze out the full accuracy potential of the rifle with this reticle at 100 yards but close with a standard reticle I can shoot 3/4 in groups at 100 with the Donut I shoot 1-1/2 groups of course the problem gets worse at distance but shooting coke bottles at 250 yards is no problem that is good enough for 90% of all shooting scenarios and it is very very fast on target.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 10:21:40 PM EDT
Okay so that TA-11 has the BAC. Okay that makes more since now. Are there any of the compacts that do as well? The TA-11 just looks so big....all though I plan on putting it onto a 20" upper so it should not look outa place. Thanks for the help!
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 10:59:48 PM EDT
Any one of the ACOGs with the fiber optic light gatherer on top is BAC compatible. You do understand what BAC is, right? I think you might be thinking of a BDC which is different.

BAC is the Bindon Aiming Concept where you keep both eyes open so your weak eye can see a much larger area while your strong eye keeps the reticle right out in front of you on your target, sorta. The larger and brighter reticles make it easy for your strong eye to superimpose the reticle into the large field of view you get when your weak eye is open as well. You will instinctively be able to close your weak eye and concentrate with your strong eye and at the same time your strong eye will be able to focus on the target through the scope at 4x.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:38:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 4:38:49 AM EDT by GreyGhost]
I have the TAO1 on a 20" upper and love it.It is great for medium-long range.It is definately not for close range though.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 1:00:08 PM EDT
Every ACOG but the TA01 and TA01NSN have BAC. The TA31 series has BAC and is the same housing and glass as the TA01.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 1:13:43 PM EDT
Is there a best for a M16A2?
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 1:22:40 PM EDT

Is the ACOG like other scopes in that your head has to be right in the sweet spot to see anything, make the shot, etc?

The ACOG is like any other scope in that you have to have your eye in the right position to see the image. Some power/magnification combinations are more forgiving than others, but it's not like a dot sight where you can just hang your eye anywhere behind it.

IMHO there's not much use for the TA01. Without BAC it's just another expensive scope. The BAC is what makes the ACOG. Full-size (TA11/TA31) have BDC ladders and a choice of donut, triangle, or chevron. Chevron has a nice distinct point for long range and doesn't cover up the target when holding over. Donut is most like a dot sight at close range. Triangle is a compromise with bolder filled shape, but with the point. Compact ACOGs don't have the BDC ladder and have a choice of dot, triangle, or crosshairs. Crosshairs would be more precise, but not so visible for BAC. Dot would be most like a dot, and triangle the compromise.



Is there a best for a M16A2?

I'd suggest one of the Compact models, as they sit lower over the rear sight than the full-size ones. For the flat-tops the TA31 seems to be the most popular, though the TA11 has some fans because of the longer eye relief.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 3:53:48 PM EDT
My TA01 was definitely not a fast BAC-able scope, but I found that I could keep both eyes open to scan downrange and my eyes would automatically adjust correctly and very quickly when I found my target. I might be left eye dominant though... (I'm right handed)
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:27:58 PM EDT
Just to make sure I have the BAC concept right, this does not mean your head can be anywhere it pleases like on the aimpoint/eotech and others, right? Now the concept or use is still bascially the same (both eyes open, with the targeting image in one eye) however we are dealing with magnification so your head needs to be at a constant behind the sight.

But with the BAC you can have target acquisition and either shoot if you have it then or close the weak eye for a more precise shot if needed. Correct?

Looks like the Chevron in the TA31 is the best ticket, however Mike_L makes the comment of eye relief for the TA11. What is the eye relief for both scopes?

Thanks to everyone for their comments!
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:51:57 AM EDT
The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about the BAC - for me.

I can run an EOTech just fine, but I have a problem with my eyes where they diverge slightly. Not diverged, just a little. Nobody can tell but me. My brain then has a hard time reconciling two slightly divergent images, and I get big headaches as a result. I have prisms in my glasses to correct it.

I'm now considering a non-BAC ACOG as a result. Now, I have never used any of these optics other than an EOTech and Aimpoint so if anyone else has this problem but it doesn't affect their use of an ACOG, please chime in.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:19:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 6:28:02 AM EDT by ARer]
I am also in a similar situation. I have my heart set on an ACOG and have it narrowed down to a Compact ACOG. Either the 1.5x16 or the 2x20 for close range to about 200 yds..

How MUCH better is the 1.5x16 than the 2x20 for rapid close range target acquisition?
Is it because of its Lower magnification or wider FOV?

edblevi, Maybe you may also want to consider a Compact ACOG..


Thanks..
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:29:16 AM EDT
don't be disinterested in the higher-end ACOGs just because you can use the BAC. You definitely don't have to. You can close your weak eye and look through a magnified image with your strong eye. It will work EXACTLY like any other scope. The BAC becomes available (not mandatory) simply because you have the large bright reticle to use for BAC if you want to.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:56:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JosephR:
don't be disinterested in the higher-end ACOGs just because you can use the BAC. You definitely don't have to. You can close your weak eye and look through a magnified image with your strong eye. It will work EXACTLY like any other scope. The BAC becomes available (not mandatory) simply because you have the large bright reticle to use for BAC if you want to.



How good is the big chevron at, say, 300-400 yards?

Wish that big reticle thread was still available.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:56:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By edblevi:
Just to make sure I have the BAC concept right, this does not mean your head can be anywhere it pleases like on the aimpoint/eotech and others, right?


ACOG is like any other magnified scope--you have to have your eye in the right place behind it to see through it. That has nothing to do with BAC.


But with the BAC you can have target acquisition and either shoot if you have it then or close the weak eye for a more precise shot if needed. Correct?

Theoretically you don't even need to close the weak eye. Basically your brain is laying the reticle from your right eye over the "worldview" from your left eye and ignoring the blurred worldview in the scope. This lets you put the "dot" on the target for a quick shot. The catch is, since the reticle is from your right eye and the target is from your left eye and they're a few inches apart there's some offset between the POA and the real POI.

When you settle on the target and the magnfied view stops blurring from the quick motion, then your brain should swtich to concentrating on the magnified view through the scope with the reticle overlaid and mostly ignoring the left eye's worldview. Leaving the left eye open lets you keep awareness of what's going on around you. If you're left-eye dominant that might make it less easy for your brain to switch automatically and require closing it slightly. Trijicon has a BAC demo on their web site that shows the concept pretty well.

You can use the BAC concept with any scope, but the illuminated reticle makes it much easier. A black crosshair gets lost against the non-magnified view pretty easily. I've tried this at home with my regular scope and I find that if I put the crosshairs on a "target" like a light switch at the end of the hall with the unmagnified view then switch to the magnified view I'm off by 1-2" or so. That might vary with how your individual brain handles the image combination.


Looks like the Chevron in the TA31 is the best ticket, however Mike_L makes the comment of eye relief for the TA11. What is the eye relief for both scopes?

Trijicon's web site lists 2.4" for the TA11 and 1.5" for the TA31. Some people have trouble mounting the TA31 far enough back with certain BUIS combinations. Obviously a lot of people don't too. The Marines' RCO is a version of the TA31.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:03:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
How good is the big chevron at, say, 300-400 yards?


IIRC the chevron is supposed to be about 19" wide at the bottom at 300yds. Same width as a human torso. Same for the cross part of the BDC ladder--the bar is as wide as the torso at that range.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:09:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_L:

Originally Posted By macman37:
How good is the big chevron at, say, 300-400 yards?


IIRC the chevron is supposed to be about 19" wide at the bottom at 300yds. Same width as a human torso. Same for the cross part of the BDC ladder--the bar is as wide as the torso at that range.



Hmmm

Maybe that one is in play again. I like the idea of the BAC, maybe there's a way I can make it work.

Hopefully a local store has some in stock I can take a gander through when I'm in the market (hopefully June-July of this year).

Thanks for the reply.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:14:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ARer:
How MUCH better is the 1.5x16 than the 2x20 for rapid close range target acquisition?


For really close range you're using the BAC and not really seeing the magnified image, so I don't think it matters. Personally, I don't think I'd give up the unlimited eye position and lack of POI offset of the Aimpoint/EOTech for just 1.5x, and maybe not even for 2x.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:59:53 AM EDT
To me the 1.5X is worse for close in shooting. It is more difficult to ignore the less magnifed image and use BAC instead... the more magnification the better for me.

Keep in mind that BAC is only an occluded gunsight with a POA/POI that dont quite coincide as the reticel is sighted in for the dominant eye. Its nowhere near as precise in that mode (BAC/1X)as a true 1X optic like an Ampoint or 1-4X variable optic.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:25:15 PM EDT
Why not make a 1x with BDC so it isn't eye dominant?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:17:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 3:06:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about the BAC - for me.

I can run an EOTech just fine, but I have a problem with my eyes where they diverge slightly. Not diverged, just a little. Nobody can tell but me. My brain then has a hard time reconciling two slightly divergent images, and I get big headaches as a result. I have prisms in my glasses to correct it.

I'm now considering a non-BAC ACOG as a result. Now, I have never used any of these optics other than an EOTech and Aimpoint so if anyone else has this problem but it doesn't affect their use of an ACOG, please chime in.



Even if you cant employ the BAC technology properly ( as I cant have the same problem as you) the bac feature is great because it gives you a lighted recticle without the need for batteries
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 4:14:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MTNmyMag:

Originally Posted By macman37:
The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about the BAC - for me.

I can run an EOTech just fine, but I have a problem with my eyes where they diverge slightly. Not diverged, just a little. Nobody can tell but me. My brain then has a hard time reconciling two slightly divergent images, and I get big headaches as a result. I have prisms in my glasses to correct it.

I'm now considering a non-BAC ACOG as a result. Now, I have never used any of these optics other than an EOTech and Aimpoint so if anyone else has this problem but it doesn't affect their use of an ACOG, please chime in.



Even if you cant employ the BAC technology properly ( as I cant have the same problem as you) the bac feature is great because it gives you a lighted recticle without the need for batteries



The non-BAC ACOGs gives you a lighted reticle (w/o batteries) as well. The difference is, the BAC models are lit in both no\low light as well as bright light situations. The non-BAC models are only lit in no\low light situations.

I agree with macman. I'm 99% sure that tha BAC will not work with my eyes and I can't see any reason to spend an extra ~$200 on a feature I can't (and don't really need to) use. I'd rather save the money and if I later decide I need the ability to work fast\close in, then I'd use the money I saved towards a Dr Optic sight and mount.

My $.02
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 5:54:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MTNmyMag:

Originally Posted By macman37:
The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about the BAC - for me.

I can run an EOTech just fine, but I have a problem with my eyes where they diverge slightly. Not diverged, just a little. Nobody can tell but me. My brain then has a hard time reconciling two slightly divergent images, and I get big headaches as a result. I have prisms in my glasses to correct it.

I'm now considering a non-BAC ACOG as a result. Now, I have never used any of these optics other than an EOTech and Aimpoint so if anyone else has this problem but it doesn't affect their use of an ACOG, please chime in.



Even if you cant employ the BAC technology properly ( as I cant have the same problem as you) the bac feature is great because it gives you a lighted recticle without the need for batteries



...And it can be used as a non-BAC scope with a quick reticle - especially the chevron model.

So now I've "narrowed" my scope options down to, oh, several ACOG models, the Leupold MR/T, and a couple others...
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 7:30:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2006 7:31:22 PM EDT by kavik]
I just finished a carbine course and shot at the top of the class with a 2x compact triangle acog on a carry handle, great groups and 100% on the test. Had other people shooting aimpoint, 4x acog, 1x4 scopes, etc. A lot is the shooter, but that compact really worked well for me, shot out to 300m. I wasn't using bac, just the old fashioned close one eye technique -
Top Top