AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/10/2010 8:49:47 AM EDT
| What are the main differences and advantages between these two? I know the ACOG is more rugged. I am looking for a good low light scope with an illuminated reticle that I can use for quick target acquisition / HD and hunting. Also considering the Burris XTR and Millet DMS but I am leaning towards trijicon because I want some really nice glass. Thanks. |
| i was in the same boat, and went with an acog ta33 for the reticle options which includes bdc.... accupoint has variable magnification and fiber/brightness adjustment, 1x is nice for close up- i got a scope cap for my acog to use bac close up and it works nicely |
|
The chief difference is that the Accupoint offers a variable power solution, while the ACOG offers a BDC. For 99.99999% of users, that's the major difference.
Durability, quality, etc are virtually the same for most users (but for those insistent on arguing minor design aspects, yes, the ACOG has a edge in durability). Between the two, I'd go for the ACOG, as the reticle offerings for the Accupoint are very limited and offer no holdovers/compensations for longer shots. |
|
Any of those scopes you mentioned are great, except the Millett. Don't make the mistake of putting it in the same catagory as the others.
Another scope you might consider, which is very popular in 3gun circles, is the Meopta K Dot 1-4x. It has superb optics (I'm told the glass is made by Zeiss). |
|
Serious question. Given the ballistics of the .223 round, and the fact that a 50 yard combat zero requires no holdover out to 200 yards, is a BDC really necessary in an optic? How often does anyone NOT in the military shoot at targets at 300 or 400 yards with this cartridge? In short, is the ACOG the ultimate 'tacticool' accessory? Or do those of you who have it really use it to its full potential? |
I have an NSN that has a BDC out to 600 meters. Do I have the opportunity to shoot at 600 meters very often (if ever)? No. I wish I did, but it's just very unlikely that it will happen very frequently. I do like the idea that I "can" do it (and do get to shoot 200-300 occasionally). Does that make it the ultimate "tacticool" accessory for me? Maybe so. But I've had the opportunity to handle a rifle with an Accupoint mounted, and while I think it's a terrific optic, I like the ACOG better for its smaller size, simplicity and the BDC (whether I really need it or not).
|
|
Quoted: I have an NSN that has a BDC out to 600 meters. Do I have the opportunity to shoot at 600 meters very often (if ever)? No. I wish I did, but it's just very unlikely that it will happen very frequently. I do like the idea that I "can" do it (and do get to shoot 200-300 occasionally). Does that make it the ultimate "tacticool" accessory for me? Maybe so. But I've had the opportunity to handle a rifle with an Accupoint mounted, and while I think it's a terrific optic, I like the ACOG better for its smaller size, simplicity and the BDC (whether I really need it or not). Trust me, I know about tacticool disease... To wit. I bought a $500 scan tool for my truck. I can tune every parameter of the ECM and TCM. What have I used it for? Crank relearn after a tune, which I could have paid a sympathetic techie $80 to do. But now I have a tool that can do things. Like tell me when my loose gas cap is throwing a code that's turning my "Check Engine" light on...  I asked about the ACOG because I'm considering one as well. Thing is, I like the 1.5-4.5x scope I have (no BDC on that, although it does have tactical turrets with a resettable zero.) I'm trying to convince myself to stick with what works (or get a true 1-4x scope to replace the scope I have.) |
|
Quoted:
Serious question. Given the ballistics of the .223 round, and the fact that a 50 yard combat zero requires no holdover out to 200 yards, is a BDC really necessary in an optic? How often does anyone NOT in the military shoot at targets at 300 or 400 yards with this cartridge? In short, is the ACOG the ultimate 'tacticool' accessory? Or do those of you who have it really use it to its full potential? It isn't so much about what's necessary as it is having options. I'm pre-ordered for Vortex's new 1-4 PST variable as it appears to have just about every feature I want in an optic for a 16" AR15. Leupold has a new 1.1-8 variable coming out soon. That looks pretty damn nice too. ACOG's are incredible optics. So are the Accupoints. It's real easy to get analysis paralysis when thinking about optics. You're better off assessing your percieved shooting venues and pick something that best fits your needs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have an NSN that has a BDC out to 600 meters. Do I have the opportunity to shoot at 600 meters very often (if ever)? No. I wish I did, but it's just very unlikely that it will happen very frequently. I do like the idea that I "can" do it (and do get to shoot 200-300 occasionally). Does that make it the ultimate "tacticool" accessory for me? Maybe so. But I've had the opportunity to handle a rifle with an Accupoint mounted, and while I think it's a terrific optic, I like the ACOG better for its smaller size, simplicity and the BDC (whether I really need it or not). Trust me, I know about tacticool disease... To wit. I bought a $500 scan tool for my truck. I can tune every parameter of the ECM and TCM. What have I used it for? Crank relearn after a tune, which I could have paid a sympathetic techie $80 to do. But now I have a tool that can do things. Like tell me when my loose gas cap is throwing a code that's turning my "Check Engine" light on...
I asked about the ACOG because I'm considering one as well. Thing is, I like the 1.5-4.5x scope I have (no BDC on that, although it does have tactical turrets with a resettable zero.) I'm trying to convince myself to stick with what works (or get a true 1-4x scope to replace the scope I have.) It's not so much a matter of getting an ACOG for the sake of an "I could shoot to 300yds if I wanted to" argument. It's simply a matter of not having holdover markings or a BDC. Without those, ANY shot past your long-range zero is purely guesswork, whether your zero is 200yds, 300yds, or otherwise. Again, it's not because you're trying to shoot past "X" distance - it's so that you can be effective past whatever normal zero you might use. The dual advantage to the ACOG is not only does it offer a BDC for holdover, but the BDC also allows for ranging values simultaneously. In answer to your question, it's traditionally the Squad-Designated Marksmen (SDM's), squad leaders, or equivalent that get issued ACOGs. Some units issue everyone an ACOG, but most typically assign ACOGs to either the marksmen or individuals in charge of calling long-range shots and ranging. The rest are typically issued Aimpoints (and previously EOTechs). |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have an NSN that has a BDC out to 600 meters. Do I have the opportunity to shoot at 600 meters very often (if ever)? No. I wish I did, but it's just very unlikely that it will happen very frequently. I do like the idea that I "can" do it (and do get to shoot 200-300 occasionally). Does that make it the ultimate "tacticool" accessory for me? Maybe so. But I've had the opportunity to handle a rifle with an Accupoint mounted, and while I think it's a terrific optic, I like the ACOG better for its smaller size, simplicity and the BDC (whether I really need it or not). Trust me, I know about tacticool disease... To wit. I bought a $500 scan tool for my truck. I can tune every parameter of the ECM and TCM. What have I used it for? Crank relearn after a tune, which I could have paid a sympathetic techie $80 to do. But now I have a tool that can do things. Like tell me when my loose gas cap is throwing a code that's turning my "Check Engine" light on... I asked about the ACOG because I'm considering one as well. Thing is, I like the 1.5-4.5x scope I have (no BDC on that, although it does have tactical turrets with a resettable zero.) I'm trying to convince myself to stick with what works (or get a true 1-4x scope to replace the scope I have.) It's not so much a matter of getting an ACOG for the sake of an "I could shoot to 300yds if I wanted to" argument. It's simply a matter of not having holdover markings or a BDC. Without those, ANY shot past your long-range zero is purely guesswork, whether your zero is 200yds, 300yds, or otherwise. Again, it's not because you're trying to shoot past "X" distance - it's so that you can be effective past whatever normal zero you might use. The dual advantage to the ACOG is not only does it offer a BDC for holdover, but the BDC also allows for ranging values simultaneously. In answer to your question, it's traditionally the Squad-Designated Marksmen (SDM's), squad leaders, or equivalent that get issued ACOGs. Some units issue everyone an ACOG, but most typically assign ACOGs to either the marksmen or individuals in charge of calling long-range shots and ranging. The rest are typically issued Aimpoints (and previously EOTechs). OK, but if my scope has tactical turrets with a resettable zero, can't I just dial in the holdover (and windage,) given that I know the ballistics of the round I'm shooting? Granted, it's not as efficient as a BDC reticle, but won't it work just as well? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I'm just questioning why a BDC unless you are engaging targets at long range (beyond 200 yards) and need rapid ranging and holdover. If my rifle is on a bench, and I'm working the 500 yard targets, I'll hve plenty of time to dial in the turrets. Also not saying anything negative about those non-military users who have an ACOG. Still trying to talk myself out of one more than anything...  |
|
Quoted:
OK, but if my scope has tactical turrets with a resettable zero, can't I just dial in the holdover (and windage,) given that I know the ballistics of the round I'm shooting? Granted, it's not as efficient as a BDC reticle, but won't it work just as well? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I'm just questioning why a BDC unless you are engaging targets at long range (beyond 200 yards) and need rapid ranging and holdover. If my rifle is on a bench, and I'm working the 500 yard targets, I'll hve plenty of time to dial in the turrets. Also not saying anything negative about those non-military users who have an ACOG. Still trying to talk myself out of one more than anything...
If your scope has target turrets (I think that's what you mean by tactical), then you could. It would be much slower, but you could. The big killjoy for typical 1-4x and similar scopes is the lack of a ranging feature. Unless you can range with your scope, your holdovers and dope numbers are useless unless you know the distance to the target beforehand. The ACOG's reticle is different from a field-tactical/target reticle because its lines ("stadia") are calibrated for bullet drop, hence the name Bullet Drop Compensator (BDC). You elevate the sight picture until the width of the stadia match the width of the target's shoulders (adjust the perspective for non-human targets) and pull the trigger - it's that easy. No calculations, no turret adjustments - just raise, aim, fire. In addition, the numbers next to the stadia let you know the target's distance. It's a combat optic meant to be able to engage a target at any distance out to 600-800yds without dialing in a dope or having holdover. What type of scope are you running now? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: OK, but if my scope has tactical turrets with a resettable zero, can't I just dial in the holdover (and windage,) given that I know the ballistics of the round I'm shooting? Granted, it's not as efficient as a BDC reticle, but won't it work just as well? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I'm just questioning why a BDC unless you are engaging targets at long range (beyond 200 yards) and need rapid ranging and holdover. If my rifle is on a bench, and I'm working the 500 yard targets, I'll hve plenty of time to dial in the turrets. Also not saying anything negative about those non-military users who have an ACOG. Still trying to talk myself out of one more than anything... If your scope has target turrets (I think that's what you mean by tactical), then you could. It would be much slower, but you could. The big killjoy for typical 1-4x and similar scopes is the lack of a ranging feature. Unless you can range with your scope, your holdovers and dope numbers are useless unless you know the distance to the target beforehand. The ACOG's reticle is different from a field-tactical/target reticle because its lines ("stadia") are calibrated for bullet drop, hence the name Bullet Drop Compensator (BDC). You elevate the sight picture until the width of the stadia match the width of the target's shoulders (adjust the perspective for non-human targets) and pull the trigger - it's that easy. No calculations, no turret adjustments - just raise, aim, fire. In addition, the numbers next to the stadia let you know the target's distance. It's a combat optic meant to be able to engage a target at any distance out to 600-800yds without dialing in a dope or having holdover. What type of scope are you running now? Thanks - yeah, it's 'target turret.'  That's a pretty good explanation of how the stadia lines in an ACOG work. I can see how that would be great to have in a long-range combat situation. My optic is a Weaver Classic Extreme 1.5-4X. I also bought one of the 2.5-10X models for my Grendel. I couldn't pass them up at $285 for Natchez when they closed them out. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK, but if my scope has tactical turrets with a resettable zero, can't I just dial in the holdover (and windage,) given that I know the ballistics of the round I'm shooting? Granted, it's not as efficient as a BDC reticle, but won't it work just as well? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I'm just questioning why a BDC unless you are engaging targets at long range (beyond 200 yards) and need rapid ranging and holdover. If my rifle is on a bench, and I'm working the 500 yard targets, I'll hve plenty of time to dial in the turrets. Also not saying anything negative about those non-military users who have an ACOG. Still trying to talk myself out of one more than anything...
If your scope has target turrets (I think that's what you mean by tactical), then you could. It would be much slower, but you could. The big killjoy for typical 1-4x and similar scopes is the lack of a ranging feature. Unless you can range with your scope, your holdovers and dope numbers are useless unless you know the distance to the target beforehand. The ACOG's reticle is different from a field-tactical/target reticle because its lines ("stadia") are calibrated for bullet drop, hence the name Bullet Drop Compensator (BDC). You elevate the sight picture until the width of the stadia match the width of the target's shoulders (adjust the perspective for non-human targets) and pull the trigger - it's that easy. No calculations, no turret adjustments - just raise, aim, fire. In addition, the numbers next to the stadia let you know the target's distance. It's a combat optic meant to be able to engage a target at any distance out to 600-800yds without dialing in a dope or having holdover. What type of scope are you running now? Thanks - yeah, it's 'target turret.'
That's a pretty good explanation of how the stadia lines in an ACOG work. I can see how that would be great to have in a long-range combat situation. My optic is a Weaver Classic Extreme 1.5-4X. I also bought one of the 2.5-10X models for my Grendel. I couldn't pass them up at $285 for Natchez when they closed them out. Ah, ok. Speaking generically, that's a close-quarters optic with magnification. I looked over the reticle offerings and I assume you have either the German crosshair or the Dual-X reticle? If that's the case, then upgrading to an ACOG or a 1-4x scope with a ranging reticle would allow you to calculate the distance to the target without having to know the distance ahead of time. For example: you see a prarie-dog prostrate on the ground. Roughly, you know the target is 10-12" in width (laying down). With the ACOG, you simply elevate the stadia until they closely match the target and you now know your distance and also have a holdover. Other reticles, such as Mil-Dot or similar allow you to calculate the distance based on how large the target is in relation to the reticle, where you'd dial in your dope. If you plan on shooting 300 or more, I'd definitely plan on upgrading. If your shooting is less than 300yds, you'll be well-served with what you have now. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That's a pretty good explanation of how the stadia lines in an ACOG work. I can see how that would be great to have in a long-range combat situation. My optic is a Weaver Classic Extreme 1.5-4X. I also bought one of the 2.5-10X models for my Grendel. I couldn't pass them up at $285 for Natchez when they closed them out. Ah, ok. Speaking generically, that's a close-quarters optic with magnification. I looked over the reticle offerings and I assume you have either the German crosshair or the Dual-X reticle? If that's the case, then upgrading to an ACOG or a 1-4x scope with a ranging reticle would allow you to calculate the distance to the target without having to know the distance ahead of time. For example: you see a prarie-dog prostrate on the ground. Roughly, you know the target is 10-12" in width (laying down). With the ACOG, you simply elevate the stadia until they closely match the target and you now know your distance and also have a holdover. Other reticles, such as Mil-Dot or similar allow you to calculate the distance based on how large the target is in relation to the reticle, where you'd dial in your dope. If you plan on shooting 300 or more, I'd definitely plan on upgrading. If your shooting is less than 300yds, you'll be well-served with what you have now. Thanks for the education.
|
|
Quoted:
Serious question. Given the ballistics of the .223 round, and the fact that a 50 yard combat zero requires no holdover out to 200 yards, is a BDC really necessary in an optic? How often does anyone NOT in the military shoot at targets at 300 or 400 yards with this cartridge? In short, is the ACOG the ultimate 'tacticool' accessory? Or do those of you who have it really use it to its full potential? Firstly, I've put maybe 200 rounds through my rifle with a TA31 on top. All at the same range, at either 100 or 200 yards, shooting a variety of ammunition (55grn Wolf FMJ, Prvi M855 and 69grn HP, and LC M193 that I can recall) and I can tell a difference using the 200m point of aim with varying weights of projectiles. Anyway, no, I don't use the ACOG to it's fullest potential. However, if you need to make multiple shots at varying ranges, it is an intuitive tool to use. |
|
Quoted:
I'm pre-ordered for Vortex's new 1-4 PST variable as it appears to have just about every feature I want in an optic for a 16" AR15. Leupold has a new 1.1-8 variable coming out soon. That looks pretty damn nice too. Hokie - where can I get some more info on these 2 scopes, specifically the Leupold? ETA - I found the thread on the Leupold CQBSS. Not exactly what I was looking for but better actually. So much better that I doubt it will be in my price range  What and see I guess?
|
AR Sponsor