Gentleman,

Looking at picking up ACOG with the range marks on it.  Not sure which one yet...but...

Can you really see the hash marks...they appear to be really small and close together when looking thru one in the gunshop.

Any opinions appreciated.

Thanks, Randy

I have a TA31 and the ranging marks on it are easy to read.  (I realize the markings are not as extensive as the TA01's.)

Randy --

If you don't know the range the range lines in the sight won't help and make the sight very busy.  This is the reason I have an ELCAN mounted on my only flattop, picket fence post uses the same aiming point every time.  For targets beyond battlesight range it's easy to click the range dial.

The very nice IOR sights are a nice option too, and are half the cost of either the TA01NSN or ELCAN.  Even if you 're deploying to SW Asia I'd look at the IOR.  I'm considering one for my M14.

What ranges are you shooting?   Under 400 meters?

-- Chuck

Couple things here. First off is yes, I can see and use the range marks on the NSN sight very well. Next is it is not uncommon for someone to have trouble seeing them at first. Especially when folks try to do it for the first time, and especially if it is not mounted to a gun.

This is what I have noticed. Most importantly, keep both eyes open. If you close an eye, you may have a rough time seeing the reticle well. Next is, do not look into the scope, or focus on the reticle. This will also make it very blurry. What I tell people is to keep both eyes open and look right past the optic. Look at your target area. When you do this, the reticle comes in sharp and clear and is VERY easy to use. Granted I have good vision and my eyes arent as old as some, but its a snap for me and I love it.

Last thing is... if you are shooting at silouette type targets, or... two legged pests (what the optic was designed to be used to shoot!) the reticle will in fact help you determine the range you are shooting at. You will notice each one of the cross hairs is a different width. The 100 meter cross hair has two fat bars on either end. An average human torso will fit inside these two bars at 100 meters. The 200 meters cross hair is slightly shorter left to right. Thats because a human torso will fit inside that line at 200 meters. The 300 meter cross hair is shorter still. Thats because a human torso will fit inbetween that line at 300 meters. This is true all the way down to 600.

So, not only will the different cross hairs let you know how much you have to hold over, they will help you determine the range at which your target is to begin with. Very good and very useful design.

Gentleman,

Thanks for your comments, they do help.

I have an ELCAN and love it on a heavier 20" rifle, but I would like something lighter for my carbine (and need new toys now and then).

Also have been using a Compact ACOG TA44 with the red 12min triangle...its great as well.   Always have done the 2 eye open shooting...certainly is the best way to go on no magnification and even some minimum magnification.   I even shoot my old Colt SAA with both eyes open.

I am looking at the NSN style (4x magnification) to put on a free floated carbine.  Looking for bit longer range but certainly not over 350-400 meters at absolute max.

The staggered width of the lines to use as a rangefinder is a great idea...just in the store I was trying to decide if you could actually place a silouette across all the fine lines and determine which one fit best.

Thanks for your thoughts...additonal ones appreciated as well.

Randy

Randy, I have the same gripe.  I use the scope properly, i.e. using both eyes and all, but the hash marks and numerals are simply tiny - usuable, but small nonetheless.  I wish they were double the size.

If they were double the size it would subsequently negate the inherent & intended "ranging" ability as new-arguy so eloquently explained above.

Not really.  There are ways to accomplish it without changing the ranging aspect, such as putting extending hashmarks that do not touch the 19" hashmark representation - like this

____ __ _____

Doubling the numerals would not affect anything either, it would still (to me at least) be obvious which hash line it referenced.  Think about it...

Hmmm, good point, never thought of that.  I would still rather the current representation; I find anything further to be just too busy (I did NOT like the reticle of the NSN at all.)  YMMV

Spider,

Sorry, my response post was not that appropriate.  You were refering to the actual range hashmarks in terms of width, which of course can't be altered in itself.  Oh, here was another idea.

-----|  |-----

However, I agree with your last post.  This would just make the scope a little too busy for my tastes.  Too much of that stuff just gets in the way.  The ACOG scope ranging reticle is quite usable, using no more or less than what is necessary.  I saw a new ranging scope in Shotgun News or some other magazine which had the entire reticle covered with hashmarks and such (how can you see anything with all that in the way?) I just hope my target at 600 yards is not moving so I can line up the hashmark and see if the two legged critter is the right width.  It's not like you have to use the small marks at fast moving CQB targets up close.  Why am I even complaining, I don't even shoot over 275 yards and the bottom of my Chevron reticle ranges at 300 anyways...