Quoted: Quoted: The thing I don't like about some BUISs is that they aren't adjustable for elevation, Elevation adjustments are made in the front sight post.

Hmmm...   That's strange.  The rear sight on my CCH and Carry handle seem to have this little dial with markings that cause the rear aperture to go up and down.  And I'll be damned but it sure seems like the numbers have something to do with distances from the target...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The thing I don't like about some BUISs is that they aren't adjustable for elevation, Elevation adjustments are made in the front sight post. Hmmm...   That's strange.  The rear sight on my CCH and Carry handle seem to have this little dial with markings that cause the rear aperture to go up and down.  And I'll be damned but it sure seems like the numbers have something to do with distances from the target...

He's talking about zeroing a BUIS system that does not have an elevation adjustment in the rear sight.  There are many like that, you know.

Quoted: This is all very true...but you have to understand that the name ACOG is much like NIKE....you are also paying for the name, [/qtuoe] What planet are you living on?  ACOGs have great glass, are one of the toughest optics built, and with the BAC feature you don't give up CQB performance.  What you are paying for is the durability and the performance - not a name. hence why a year or so ago some other company tried making a very similar design to the ACOG...and Trijicon flipped their lid...when they might be in danger because someone else could make thier very same product for a THIRD of the cost.. The cheap knock-off was that - a cheap knock off.  It had neither the features nor the performance of an ACOG - hardly "The very same prouct".  Unless you think those fake rolexes are just as good as the original. Trijicon got upset when the manufacture infringed on their design.  While you airsofters might not care if Trijicon gets ripped off for your benefit, the rest of us do. Take a look at the Aimpoint clone.Essentially the same thing...just as tough, reliable...etc, etc.

Damn skippy are you really that messed up in your head or are you trying to make a joke?

Quoted: Quoted: Well, first of all, as a Marine 0311, (when I was young and bulletproof) I can tell you that there is a whole pisspot full of difference between marksmanship, and tactical shooting.   Bears repeating.   Take a class with Simunitions and you will realize that shooting is only a small part of what is going on.

Or, play some paintball.  

Try to use the "iron sights" on a typical paintball gun, and you'll see situational awareness go into the toilet.  I usually just end up point shooting and walking the paint onto the target.  

Now, imagine a sight that would allow both eyes to remain open, not be sensitive to cheek weld or head placement, and not require time to align TWO sets of sights to make a hit.  (and I see the advantages everytime I practice with irons on drills after using the Eotech for a while).  

The advantages of EOTECH and Aimpoint sights are clear, especially in a CQB environment.  Of course, pros have been doing it for years without optical sights, but having the the tech available for faster and more accurate fire is a good thing, that will keep users alive.  

You cannot be a good fighter without markmanship, but marksmanship, in of itself, does not make you a good fighter.  

gotcha.  I didn't see what in_burrito was actually commenting on...

Another salient point is that A2 sights are actually, in my experience, more vulernable to zero shift than an M68.  I spent two weeks with the POI walking left.  Not cool at an away class.

I like optics, but I don't really like Aimpoints; I think the EOtech blows it way out of the water.

Quoted: I like optics, but I don't really like Aimpoints; I think the EOtech blows it way out of the water.

You are not alone in that.  Many of the world's elite units use them- but the ones I see don't hold up as well.  YMMV.

I have Eotechs and/or Agogs for all four of my AR's, but I must admit that I have more fun using
good 'ol iron sights...especially on my M16 and my M1A's

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle... This is all very true...but you have to understand that the name ACOG is much like NIKE....you are also paying for the name, and of course...the FAD....hence why a year or so ago some other company tried making a very similar design to the ACOG...and Trijicon flipped their lid...when they might be in danger because someone else could make thier very same product for a THIRD of the cost...Take a look at the Aimpoint clone. Essentially the same thing...just as tough, reliable...etc, etc....but you just flamed as a Mall Ninja airsoft wanna-be. OBTW, I have aimpoints and ACOGs...I just wish I had known about the cheaper ones...

I've known about the cheaper ones......I just can't afford to waste my money.  Your post is hilarious.  Thanks for that!

Quoted: Alot of  marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship

I suppose they also like close air support via the Nordon bomb sight versus laser and GPS guided munitions, too. how

I have one carbine with an EoTech and one with an A2 carry handle.  The EoTech speeds up my shots to be sure but past 50 yards or so I'm more accurate with irons.

I would really prefer an ACOG but there is no way I can aford it now.  Because I want something with some magnification.  I'm thinking about a low powered fixed optic for either my flattop (the Leapers fixed 6x, I''ve heard they hold up well) or a Hakko for the A2 carry handle.

Haven't decided which though.

I would love to have both, can't afford both, would rather spend my money buying more guns while the ban is lifted until Hitlary and the Dems cause the next Civil War.

While I agree that ACOGs have the reputation for durability, I'm not convinced that they are the best choice for me based upon what I believe is a single major weakness they have.  That weakness being they have an extremely short eye relief, especially in their 4x32 series.  This results in a much more difficult to use optic which both slows down one’s target acquisition as well as increasing the difficulty of engaging a moving target while keeping one's situational awareness high.

Their 4x32 series scopes (my understanding is that these are their most popular) are spec'd at having only a 1 1/2" eye relief!  That just doesn't make sense to me in a fixed 4 power optic.  Compare all of the rifle scopes on Cabela's site (both fixed and variable power scopes) and you'll see that only a couple have an eye relief of less than 3" (they have 2.9") and the rest have between 3" and 5".

Why can't ACOG make a fixed 4 power scope with a reasonable eye relief?  At double, triple, and even quadruple the price of their competition, why can't they do something that everyone else can??  What am I missing here?

I like them I just cant afford them.Got a used ARMSON no batterie self luminous sight.Its just like the son tay raid ones but improved and tougher than older generations...cost me $125...I love it I probably would have paid the $200 new.

I've got one of each... that'sall I can afford

Quoted: Quoted: as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle... What goes into making a quality optical sight is far different and far more costly than what goes into making a quality rifle. Your statement shows a high degree of ignorance about optics.  I bet you think a chink-made Tasco is swell, don't you?

and using the term chink isnt ignorant?? maybe you dont agree with him but that is very unnecessary..and to respond to the original post...schmidt and bender short dot is what resides on my bushy...its got the best of both worlds(reflex/magnified)...and it cost just as much as it would to buy both

The reason I bought my Aimpoint ML2

My eyes arent as good or should I say sharp!

Quoted: While I agree that ACOGs have the reputation for durability, I'm not convinced that they are the best choice for me based upon what I believe is a single major weakness they have.  That weakness being they have an extremely short eye relief, especially in their 4x32 series.  This results in a much more difficult to use optic which both slows down one’s target acquisition as well as increasing the difficulty of engaging a moving target while keeping one's situational awareness high. Their 4x32 series scopes (my understanding is that these are their most popular) are spec'd at having only a 1 1/2" eye relief!  That just doesn't make sense to me in a fixed 4 power optic.  Compare all of the rifle scopes on Cabela's site (both fixed and variable power scopes) and you'll see that only a couple have an eye relief of less than 3" (they have 2.9") and the rest have between 3" and 5". Why can't ACOG make a fixed 4 power scope with a reasonable eye relief?  At double, triple, and even quadruple the price of their competition, why can't they do something that everyone else can??  What am I missing here?

I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that the 4X32 ACOG was designed to be used on an AR15 right from the get go.  

Because of where the shooter's face ends up  on an AR's stock (very, very close to the charging handle), scopes with very short eye relief are necessary unless one goes to extended scope bases that move the scope fwd over a portion of the handguards.

A normal 4X hunting scope has an eye relief of 3.5 to 4.5 inches.  That means that you cannot get closer than 3.5 inches to the occular lens, or you will start losing field of view.

I'm not a fan of the ACOG, but thats because I'm not a fan of fixed power scopes. They are to limiting, not enough options.

I prefer the EoTech over the Aimpoint, but I have an Aimpoint because I got a really good deal on it here on the board.

I can shoot my irons just fine. Spent the first year with my AR using nothing but. hitting at 400 is not a problem with them.

Quoted: I have one carbine with an EoTech and one with an A2 carry handle.  The EoTech speeds up my shots to be sure but past 50 yards or so I'm more accurate with irons. I would really prefer an ACOG but there is no way I can aford it now.  Because I want something with some magnification.  I'm thinking about a low powered fixed optic for either my flattop (the Leapers fixed 6x, I''ve heard they hold up well) or a Hakko for the A2 carry handle. Haven't decided which though.

Try the Simmons 1.5-5x20 Pro Diamond.  It's meant as shotgun scope and said by hunters who've used it to be durable and waterproof.  I've got one on my carbine and like it.  Most places want $100 for it but CDNN has it for $49.  It's not illuminated, but it's very bright and clear with a good FOV and the diamond reticle makes for fast target aquisition at close range on low power.

And before anyone flames me for using a $50 scope here's my arfcom disclaimer.  I'm NOT comparing it to anything more expensive, I'm NOT betting my life on it working, I did NOT buy it because it looks like somthing more expensive and I do NOT think it's the equal of something like a S&B short dot.

There, did I forget anything?  

It replaced an Aimpoint on my carbine for two reasons, one I wanted to test something with low and variable magnifcation without having to rob a bank to buy it and second I've got astigmatism in my master eye and that makes the red dots difficult to use except at short ranges.  The low power/variable scope idea seems to work well, both eyes open on low power and pretty fast target aquisiton and crank jp the power, one eye open for long range accuracy.  I like the way the concept works so much that I'm going to start a secret stash to save for the S&B.  Although the way my life goes I'll probably never save up enough as some emergency always seems to come up forcing me to drain my stashes of money.

Quoted: Quoted: I hate them because I can't afford them. I find that's the case more often than not.  It also usually explains AK shooter's claims that their guns are better than ARs.

My Vepr K and especially my Arsenal SA M-7 are close to a decent AR in price and accuracy (for a battle rifle AR, not a match one).  

Both ARs and AKs have their strong points.  Once you have fixed the issues with the sights and safety, built the rifle with a good barrel on an RPK or milled receiver, and replaced the ComBloc furniture you have removed a good portion of the AR's advantage.  You still have a modularity adavantage, and a better  weight vs. accuracy tradeoff with the AR.

I have owned other AKs, including a Century WASR 10 and a Vector underfolder.  Reliable, but accuracy and ergos SUCKED.  

As for optics, I have used both the EOtech and ACOG.  The Eotech is fast, but not the best choice for real precise shots.  The ACOG is a great scope for moderate ranges (over 30 yds.) clear, with good FOV.

Quoted: Alot of  marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship

YEP - I think so also -Major emphasis is put on marksmanship in the CORPS -  but with todays battlefield - you need quick target acquisition in close quarters.
Thus Red dot sights are great for low light/urban environments.

Many times early on in this type of situation the warrior did not necessarily neeed persicion fire. He would just look over/down the top of the sights - they line up great - - a lot of firing was done over the top of the sights.  
Now Red dot AIMPOINT/ACOG  type sights make a huge difference.

Add in Night Vision  and we rule the night - overwhelmingly

Quoted: Alot of  marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship

Well, they are wrong. Optics are far superior to iron sights for a number of reasons. Of course, everything can break, so the ability to continue fighting with iron sights is mandatory.

lOVE THEM IRONS. bUT IF I HAD TO BUY AN OPTIX IT WOULD BE AN ACOG

I just got my first ACOG and I think they are pretty cool

/hank hill/
Damnit peggy, that boy up there (points up)ain't right
/hank hill/

Quoted: Quoted: as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle... You would if bullets were being fired both directions.....

Amen Brother.  I always wondered...Why is it that the people that make the decisions, are the ones that never actually have to do it.

I've been thinking about buying an Aimpoint just to see if they're as great as you guys say.  I love my EOThingy though!  (Hey Green0 )

BUT I did go out and get myself a real-live, honest-to-goodness Trijicon ACOG (TA01)...

And I HATED it!

Glass was amazing.  Reticle was the coolest.  Brightness and clarity were beyond reproach....  

But the eye relief...  if you can call that "relief".  I guess it's rough having a big head and no neck .  I had to re-position multiple times to get it "just right" because it wasn't the natural spot I lay my cheek on when I'm shooting.  Maybe I'd do better with a 3.5x35 or one of those BIG DADDYs like Twonami, but I sold my otherwise excellent scope and am currently giving the Trijicon TR21r a try.  I miss the ranging reticle, but I like the eye relief MUCH better!  I like the sound of that new IOR CRT with the BDC reticle too.

I will say one thing though...  Those LaRue mounts are everything you guys said they were, and then some more...  

Quoted: A nuclear airburst will make your Eotech completely useless.

Good thing I have a BUIS.
There is a reason the motto is "get both"

Quoted: Quoted: as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle... This is an American handicap.  In Europe, it is not uncommon to see 60 year old Mosin's with S&B optics.  A stock M4 with a Short Dot is a good tool from contact to maybe 600 yards- I wouldn't want to get in the way of one.

Tough for the ordinary groundpounder to afford, though.