AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/25/2012 5:11:54 AM EDT
|
What are the arguments in favor of the ACOG?
The variables have: Better choice of reticles More versatility at the high end AND low end Illuminated reticles Adequate durability Bullet drop indicators Why would someone choose the ACOG? P.S. I am not trying to slam the ACOG. I am just trying to find out if there is still any reason to buy one. |
|
Quoted: What are the arguments in favor of the ACOG? The variables have: Better choice of reticles More versatility at the high end AND low end Illuminated reticles Adequate durability Both have bullet drop indicators Why would someone choose the ACOG? ACOGS can be more compact (eg TA33), and have outstanding durability. That said, I really like my TR24 Accupoint.
|
|
Both systems still have their pros and cons
Variable Pros: -Variable magnification -Reticle choices ACOG Pros: -Aprroximately half the size/weight -More Durability -No dependence on battery life/electronic failure With the addition of 1-6x and 1-8x optics, variables have taken another step forward in becoming the jack of all trades optic, but we can't pretend they perform as well in every scenario as optics that were designed for specific roles. An Aimpoint is still faster, and an ACOG with its durability, bright battery free illumination, and small size/weight makes it a very effective battle optic. |
|
I went out and checked out some of the popular variable scopes. I now know why the ACOG will not go away for a while.
Most variables are heavy Variables are large The reticles are not that bright. Without illumination many variables have hard to see reticles The battery issue is more important than I first thought (without batteries hard to see reticle) There still is some magnification at 1X, so you still have to use slower Bindon aiming to a lesser extent. Changing magnification can be slow without a switch lever You have to look through a long tube |
| i would count the weight of a variable scope as good weight that i will take any day to have a variables from 1x-4,6,7,8.as for with or without battery and brightness i wouldn't know since i haven't seen any reticles and used any high end variable scopes in person. so it might not be bright enough for you but it could be for me, i have seen an acog in person and they look great with enough brightness in day time but a fixed 4x is a big downside in my book..i currently run a burris 2-7 right now, if i had the money i would consider a leaupold mark 6 |
| All my guns have Aimpoints right now. I have shot ACOGs in the past. I agree that a fixed 3x or 3.5x is not ideal. That is why I really, really wanted to like the variable 1-4,6,8 type scope. However, when I look through them in person, I am very underwhelmed. Like I said, I agree the ACOGs have limitations. However, the variables have their own set of non-trivial limitations that are pretty significant. |
| just wondering why didn't you like the variables??i like aimpoints as well cause they are super light and fast but i need magnification ..i guess im not good enough to make 300 yard center mass/head shots with a 4moa dot like some people claim to be i wish i was though.lol if we train and want it bad enough i feel like we humans can achieve anything though with enough time .i personally dont have enough time to be that good with a red dot at distance or be good with and acog in cqb so the variable scope was my best option.your mileage may very |
|
In my opinion, the number one priority of any fighting optic should be close distance. Up close is where the fight is the most dynamic and where you are most at risk. Therefore, I was most interested in seeing how well the variables look on 1x. The ones I looked at all had some magnification at 1x. This was enough to cause the same type of disorientation and slowness of speed I did not like about the ACOG up close. Admittedly, the variables had it to a lesser degree. But, they still had it. And, since the battery life on all of the variables is so poor, I was surprised to see how easy it was to lose the reticle on dark colored objects without illumination. I did not get a chance to use any of these scopes in the bright sunlight. However, I doubt they would perform well. The illumination was pretty week.
I could live with the extra weight and the size. I just don't think they are "there yet" in their ability to solve the short range problem. |
| BAC takes practice if you were not trained to do so early in your shooting career but it is possible. I am just starting to be aware that I use it under stress after a year of practicing maybe 10 min a week. If you use BAC with red dots the transition should be even easier. I would say I saw the most improvement in the last few weeks after getting an Aimpoint. |
|
I can't say enough great things about the TA33 for all the juicy mojo referenced above. Still, once I acknowledged the simple truth that my middle aged butt no longer and likely will never travers more than a mile or two with a firearm - the weight issue somewhat dissipates, as does the need for screamin' bright daytime illumination on a magnified optic. In those cases I have this cool little thing called a RDS that really delivers.
For me, I'm psyched about the 1-6X scopes, although for an AR15 I also feel that 4X is plenty magnification to shoot a 223 at anything worth shooting a 223 at. In most cases I find that 18-22oz collective weight (scope/mount) to add some balance to the carbine or rifle. Goes double when you add a 16oz suppressor to the muzzle. In the end, the ACOG is lighter, simple to use, and arguably more durable. One could safely speculate that's why they're so popluar overseas. Let's not overthink the debate. If one wants Aimpoint brightness in a variable - you need a short dot, swaro, etc. Or, if bullet drop compensation or ranging isn't all that important - the TR24. |
AR Sponsor