AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/30/2017 7:02:32 PM EDT
|
After a lot of back and forth, I've decided to buy a TA31, but I don't really know which model. I definitely want red though, I'm not a fan of the green.
I shoot NTCH anyway, so eye relief isn't a major concern. It will be used on an 11.5" SBR for awhile, but will most likely end up on a 14.5" when I get my M4A1 upper done. There is a possibility that it may spend some time on an M16A4 clone also, but it wouldn't be a long term deal so I don't want to buy one made for a 20" barrel. I'm leaning toward the Chevron, but I'm intrigued by the ACSS reticle, and the horseshoe. This will primarily be for target shooting from 50-200 and will be on my primary defensive rifle. What do you guys think? |
|
I think I would buy a GDI R-Com mount while they're on clearance for $39.88.
https://www.tacticalassaultgearstore.com/gdi-r-com-e-model-combat-optic-mount.html Technically Botach has them a couple dollars less but I'm not a Botach fan. I've only used Chevron reticles. Worked for me, but the ACSS does seem very well thought out. If I wasn't cloning I'd probably get the ACSS. |
|
Quoted:
I think I would buy a GDI R-Com mount while they're on clearance for $39.88. https://www.tacticalassaultgearstore.com/gdi-r-com-e-model-combat-optic-mount.html Technically Botach has them a couple dollars less but I'm not a Botach fan. I've only used Chevron reticles. Worked for me, but the ACSS does seem very well thought out. If I wasn't cloning I'd probably get the ACSS. Thanks, I may go ahead and order that mount. I want to do a mostly correct clone, but the Dead Air Sandman on the end will kind of kill that anyway. My only concern with the ACSS (and the horseshoe) is that some of the target will be covered at range. I realize this isn't exactly a precision optic, but I still don't care for that. |
|
I've never used an ACSS, but I'm a big horseshoe dot guy. I've used the chevron quite a bit and it's annoying at 200M, other than that, it's ok.
When I used a TA31H I zeroed at the 300M mark and just confirmed at all other distances. With MK262 and a 16" barrel I came out right above the dot (about an inch) at 100, right on the bottom of the dot at 200, on the tip at 300, on the hash at 400. It's like a 4X Aimpoint out to about 220M or so before you need to hold over. |
|
Quoted:
I've never used an ACSS, but I'm a big horseshoe dot guy. I've used the chevron quite a bit and it's annoying at 200M, other than that, it's ok. When I used a TA31H I zeroed at the 300M mark and just confirmed at all other distances. With MK262 and a 16" barrel I came out right above the dot (about an inch) at 100, right on the bottom of the dot at 200, on the tip at 300, on the hash at 400. It's like a 4X Aimpoint out to about 220M or so before you need to hold over. I think I would really like that, the horseshoe seems like it would be faster too, but the small chevron in the middle would allow for accurate shots. Another thing that I noticed is that the ACSS model is rated for 5.56, 308 and 5.45, that's huge for me. Are the other models rated this way as well? I can't find anything confirming that. |
|
The chevron only offers a liotle more precision at 100. The 200M aimpoint is the crotch of the chevron and is not all that great. I owned a chevron and horseshoe at the same time and the horseshoe does everything better. There is no compromise going with the horseshoe.
If the ACSS reticle is claiming to work with a bunch of loads, it just puts the bdc holds at the average poi. NightForce does it with their bdc stuff and it works ok. I used to use my TA31H with MK262 and zeroed at 300 it was great. I wouldn't shoot a TA31 on .308. |
|
Quoted:
The chevron only offers a liotle more precision at 100. The 200M aimpoint is the crotch of the chevron and is not all that great. I owned a chevron and horseshoe at the same time and the horseshoe does everything better. There is no compromise going with the horseshoe. If the ACSS reticle is claiming to work with a bunch of loads, it just puts the bdc holds at the average poi. NightForce does it with their bdc stuff and it works ok. I used to use my TA31H with MK262 and zeroed at 300 it was great. I wouldn't shoot a TA31 on .308. They claim that 5.56 and 5.45 are almost identical and 308 will be 1" high at 100 but dead on at range. I have no plans to put one on a 308 and I don't actually own a 308, but I'm always a fan of more options. |
|
I have a ta 31f and really enjoy it , I like the chevron and have a primary arms 1x6 scope for 300 blackout that has the chevron reticle . to me it looks the same as my acog except the acog dont have the extra tics for sub-sonic ammo .
you can use strelok and input your info to get the bullet drop with different velocitys My needs for an acog are being able to whack a predator out to 200 -250 yds and it works fine for that purpose . You may need to wear shooting glasses because I read a post by an optic guru who said he has seen people actually put their eye out with a 4x acog , But he was willing to sell a 1-4 elcan to the guy to avoid this . 
|
|
The complaints about the 200M aiming point on the chevron reticle are unwarranted in my opinion. We're talking about a 3 inch drop in POI. Negligible at best (considering the range) and very simple to compensate for. If you're trying to do precision shooting with an ACOG you're misusing the optic anyway. It's a "combat optic" made for "combat accuracy" in battle. Designed purely to get "hits" on human sized targets. The optics are good enough, and the is reticle precise enough however, to achieve some level of precision. Just keep in mind the form fits the function, and if you're paper punching for groups, an ACOG may not be the best choice for you.
The statements about the reticle brightness being a concern in various lighting conditions are well-founded. When shooting in to a brightly lit area from cover or darkness you'll likely not see much if any illumination of the reticle. Not really a biggie because the reticle is clearly visible without any illumination. Where you'll notice problems is shooting in to a dimly lit area from a brightly lit one. In this case the reticle will likely be too bright and "overpower" your target. There's a VERY simple fix for this. I keep a couple strips of black gaffers tape on my buttstock. When shooting from a bright area in to a darker area I simply put a small strip of gaffers tape over part of the fiber optic on the ACOG. Works like a champ! This simple "work-around" is minimally annoying compared to the enormous advantage of NEVER needing electrical power of any kind to use your optic. The ACOG scopes are incredible. But they're really not an "average guy at the range" type of optic. I'd say if you're gonna drop the coin on an ACOG, just know what you're getting. It's literally a BATTLE optic. And in that realm I'd venture to say it's an invaluable tool and worth it's weight in gold. I'd suggest buying from a reputable seller as there are fakes out there! I just posted a YouTube vid about this very topic. Happy shooting. |
|
ACOGs really suit me, as the optic really suits my eyes despite their age. I get very little phobia, and still see red very well.
That said, and after using a dizzying array of reticles, I still prefer the DONUT and CHEVRON. Some folks, even with practice, just cannot use the ACOG as a CQB sight, and others just don't have the sensitivity to red required. Strangely enough, this seems to be a male issue, as I don't think I have ever seen a female shooter with these problems. |
AR Sponsor