User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 8:39:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Check out the new "Chevron" reticle that was released last year...Looks like an upside down v...
Kinda like this: ^ Very quick, but can also be a lot more presise than the donut |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 9:42:48 AM EDT
[#2]
Donut
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 12:25:53 PM EDT
[#3]
Hmmm.... Why donut and what about crosshair?
[>(]I can't decide between ACOG 4x32 and Aimpoint ML2....I think I will go with Advanced Combat Optocal Gunsight for the more complete and advanced features. But whatabout the crosshairs and does anyone care to explain the differences in using a specific reticle? [:E]Appreciate it!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 2:32:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Crosshair is not BAC on a full size ACOG. You can see through the donut making it better than the triangle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 6:58:36 PM EDT
[#5]
You might want to look at Chevron if you already have close combat optic...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 7:23:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Generally speaking,
It will be easier to be fast with the donut and triangle than the chevron. The donut is capable of excellent accuracy, but it takes a lot more concentration from the shooter due to its round design (no sharp aiming points). The chevron will be the easiest to be accurate with because of its fine aiming point, but it is the reticle which uses the least amount of illumination, so it will be a little slower to use. IMHO, if you do a lot of CQB to mid range speed shooting with a little bit of longer range accurate shooting, go with the donut. If you do a lot of longer range precision shooting with less CQB/midrange speed shooting, chevron it a good choice. YMMV... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 7:40:10 PM EDT
[#7]
[img]http://www.pencorse.freeserve.co.uk/homer10.gif[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:11:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Chevron. More precise (using tip) than doughnut, doesn't block bottom like triangle.
Doughnut is quicker, and for me, the triangle rates in between doughnut and chevron. YMMV |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2002 11:18:22 PM EDT
[#9]
I agree with New-ARGuy, the Donut is faster, and the Chervon is for distant aiming. I currently have a triangle, I think it is the comprise of the two, I can aim with the fine upper tip, and the solid triangle is bright enough to pick up fast.
I bought a very lightly used TA31 with donut, it is enroute to me. Looking forward to it and the new ARMS mount to set it up on my SIR-M. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 12:44:09 AM EDT
[#10]
The chevron ONLY works to 100 yds. At long range you will shoot into the gap blow the point or at 300+ you use the stadia lines. If all you do is punch holes in paper then I guess its more precise but its no more precise if you are wanting a combat optic as the donut will allow headshots easily to any range you will use the reticle and past that they both use the same range tics on the stadia below the reticle.
In conclusion: Donut = Combat optic Chevron = Paper puncher I wish they made a triangle with a hollow triangular center like the donut has. It would be faster and easier to pick up than the chevron but more precise than the donut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 6:15:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: What's the best reticle for the ACOG 4X? On an M4 16". Intended use is 25 to 100 yd. Why would you want an ACOG for 25 to 100 yards? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 6:28:22 AM EDT
[#12]
Mmmmmmm...donuts...
My personal preference on the full sized ACOGs has been donut, chevron, triangle, and the non-BAC TA01 crosshair (in that order). The various reasons why are already pretty well covered here. Reticle preference is pretty subjective though. It is best to try them out first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 7:26:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Thanks for all the opinions.
223rem, I should have been more specific. My ideal setup is to own both a tru CQB optic, like the Eotech which I have, or an aimpoint, and have a 4x ACOG to drop on when the situation demands it, i.e. somewhat longer ranges. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the differences in the performance of the reticles would be most pronounced in that 'transition' range, say 50 to 100 yds. Beyond 100 yds I would prefer the ACOG over the Eotech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 4:50:21 PM EDT
[#14]
In that case, I have to change my original post in line with what DevL said. If it is to be a true CQB optic, get the doughnut. I assumed that while you said just up to 100 yards, you were still going to use the optic for more than that (otherwise why 4x?). This is the reason I went with the Chevron - as DevL said, I am more concerned with paper punching than CQB, but took a compromise.
If you are truly after a real CQB, then you really shouldn't be using a magnified optic - go with a red dot type. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 7:34:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Exactly... Can't beat red-dot under 100 yards. More than 100 yards, I think accuracy should be one of the concerns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 8:01:19 PM EDT
[#16]
USMA89, I looked at that pic for a second and was wondering why in the heck you posted it. After a second it hit me and I cracked up pretty loud. Hahaha! That was great.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
