I recently bought an EO Tech 552 for my AR and I think I should've bought a TA-31 or TA-11.
I've been using a 552 on my HK-94 for about 8-9 months now and I really like it. So far, I've only been shooting my HK-94 on the indoor 25m range. I use my AR for shooting outside (up to 100 yds.) and, obviously, without magnification, the target is a bit harder to see with the 552. I guess I bought the 552 because it is the best (IMHO) CQB optic out there and I've been happy with it on my HK-94.
As I've been purchasing rifles over the past year, I've been defining roles for each one. My HK-94 is my short range (50m or less) rifle since it fires the 9mm cartridge which isn't the greatest round for long range (100 yds.) shooting. My AR is my intermediate rifle ( out to 300 yds.) and, lastly, my Remington 700 LTR in .308 is my long range range rifle (with it's Leupold Vari-X II 3.5x10x40, out to 600 yds.).
Now, I won't debate that the EO Tech is a great CQB sight. But after reading all the posts about the ACOGs (the TA-11 and TA-31 in particular), I think I would be better off with an optic with some magnification. I've read up on the whole BAC thing and it seems that either the TA-11 or TA-31 would be a good compromise between a medium range optic and a CQB optic.
So, I'm aware of the eye relief differences between the TA-11 and TA-31. My questions to any and all TA-11/31 users are as follows:
- How do you like the optic for CQB?
- My AR is a flat-top with a 16" barrel so are the TA-11 and TA-31 the "right" ones for my rifle? I know I want the donut reticle. I don't like the idea of a triangle or chevron reticle.
Any advice would be sincerely appreciated.
TIA