AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/14/2015 11:28:45 AM EDT
| What is the difference between these two? Aimpoints website isn't helpful at all |
|
Quoted:
Pretty sure it's battery life, mount and NV. ACO is 10k hours of battery, basic mount, no caps and no NV. Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the difference between these two? Aimpoints website isn't helpful at all Pretty sure it's battery life, mount and NV. ACO is 10k hours of battery, basic mount, no caps and no NV. Caps aren't that big of a deal, NV either for that matter since I can't afford the $4k for the NVG/shroud/etc. Might go ACO then if that's all there really is to it |
|
I have owned both. The thing I was most disappointed on with the ACO was the mount. it is much shittier than the QRP2 mount the PRO comes with. It has no QD capability, and it doesn't even have a slotted head on the nut, so pretty much the only way to install/remove it is with a wrench. No caps -- which if you figure up the cost of Aimpoint caps, it pretty much makes up for the price difference between PRO and ACO. I guess if this is a rifle you never take outside you might not care, or if you only take it out on good weather days... but nothing renders a red dot useless quicker than wet lenses. Also the ACO has "low light" settings instead of the "NV" settings on the PRO. Not a big deal for me either, as if I ever weapon-mount NV its going to be in front of the dot, not behind, and if I am going head mount, I use an IR laser to sight. The ACO has a shorter stated battery life than the PRO. Not sure if they're actually using a different circuit in it (my guess would be no). Anyway, Aimpoint's stated battery life is usually somewhat understated. Tube and lenses appear to be identical to the PRO. ACO also has no captured turret and battery caps like the PRO.
Anyway, my conclusion is that the ACO isn't worth the slight difference in price (which isn't much, especially when the PRO can frequently be found for around $360 on sale). I sold my ACO without ever even shooting with it, and bought another PRO. |
|
Quoted:
Caps aren't that big of a deal, NV either for that matter since I can't afford the $4k for the NVG/shroud/etc. Might go ACO then if that's all there really is to it Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the difference between these two? Aimpoints website isn't helpful at all Pretty sure it's battery life, mount and NV. ACO is 10k hours of battery, basic mount, no caps and no NV. Caps aren't that big of a deal, NV either for that matter since I can't afford the $4k for the NVG/shroud/etc. Might go ACO then if that's all there really is to it It's not a huge difference but I'd honestly keep an eye on the EE. There's always PROs popping up with ADM or larue mounts for $350 range. |
|
Quoted:
What is the difference between these two? Aimpoints website isn't helpful at all The difference is, you are getting ripped in the ass if you buy an ACO. No lens covers, shitty mount, no NVG settings, and 1 year battery life (it would be different if it used a common battery, but it uses the same battery as the PRO). If it was more like $250 it would make more sense. |
| As others have said the price difference being so slight there is no reason to fo with te ACO over the PRO. I think the MAP pricing is $424 for the PRO and $390 ish for the ACO? I believe the ACO isn't supposed to come with a mount as well and most mounts (cheap ones PA and Vortex and such) are around $20 or more. I would rather go with the PRO with a decent QRP2 and 2 extra years of battery, and the caps. |
AR Sponsor