User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/20/2003 6:16:15 PM EDT
[#1]
I use the 2x amber triangle. The red is a better choice than amber, but it seems they are harder to find for some reason. Presonally, I think you will be happy with either one. Some people do have eye relief issues with the 3x though. IMO, the Compact ACOG's are some of the best optics you can put on an AR. As far as price goes, there are a lot of dealers out there with good prices, it's all about finding one who has it in stock.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2003 7:11:52 PM EDT
[#2]
By eye relief issues on the 3X, do you mean too short or too long?
I'm torn at this point between the TA31 (price is more than I really want to spend) The TA01 (I don't really need BAC I suppose) The 2 or 3 X red triangle compact (a good general compromise between fast and precise) and the TA11 or 11B (better eye relief, but takes up more real estate) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 5:54:31 AM EDT
[#3]
Why is red better than amber?
Because red is not as bright as amber or that it has lower resolution than amber? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 6:14:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Why is red better than amber? Because red is not as bright as amber or that it has lower resolution than amber? It shows up better on a wider range of colors, backgrounds, and lighting situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 6:15:43 AM EDT
[#5]
I would suggest that it is possibly because amber is closer to the appearance of natural sunlight, so it washes out when shooting outdoors during the daytime. The three primary colors of light are Blue, Green and Red, as opposed to the standard primary colors of...paint, which are Blue, Yellow and Red. In light terms, yellow is a combination of blue light and green light. So with reflections from a blue sky and green landscape, half of the color making up the reticle is found in your target area.
Red, on the other hand, is a distinct and separate wavelength. THat is just my theory, it may be total B.S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 6:24:04 AM EDT
[#6]
Yeah, that is probably right. I just posted on the practical reasons and not the science behind it. You are probably right. Red is a color not found often in nature.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 6:48:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: I would suggest that it is possibly because amber is closer to the appearance of natural sunlight, so it washes out when shooting outdoors during the daytime. The three primary colors of light are Blue, Green and Red, as opposed to the standard primary colors of...paint, which are Blue, Yellow and Red. In light terms, yellow is a combination of blue light and green light. So with reflections from a blue sky and green landscape, half of the color making up the reticle is found in your target area. Red, on the other hand, is a distinct and separate wavelength. THat is just my theory, it may be total B.S. Actually... Yellow is made up of red and green, not blue and green. RyGcBm... Red, yellow, Green, cyan, Blue, magenta adding in all 3 primaries produces white... so if "blue sky and green plants" would actually mix somehow, it'd produce cyan. In order for yellow to appear, you'd need to have red as well... then if the colors once again decided to mix, it'd be white. But... they don't mix, so all's well. As far as why they work/don't work better... I have no clue. But I LOVE my Ta31F, and wouldn't give up my red chevron for anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 7:23:25 AM EDT
[#8]
I stand corrected. Green and red do indeed form yellow in the spectrum.
[img]http://www.artifex.ws/images/cie.gif[/img] So theoretically, an amber reticle would stand out better over a blue background (sky or night sky) but still be "represented" by greenery in the background. So an amber dot might be good on anti-airgraft guns, eh? Red does seem to stand out better, probably having to do with theory #2: Contrast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 9:51:51 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Why is red better than amber? Because red is not as bright as amber or that it has lower resolution than amber? Just my opinion, but the red does seem brighter at times, does not wash out as easily, and stands out better against certain targets. On paper, the amber sounds good, but after trying both, I'd go with red. Steve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 10:00:18 AM EDT
[#10]
I don't know why none of these sight manufacturers has invented a molti-chromatic sight.
They could use a high-intensity white LED as a source, then have a color wheel inside connected to an adjustment knob. The shooter could adjust the intensity level of the light as well as the contrast color that works best for the target. And why the hell hasn't anyone made a pressure switch for the pistol grip that turns the scope on and off? I know wires aren't cool, but in a world with Bluetooth and WiFi technology, you'd think that it wouldn't be too difficult to design a transmitter inside of the grip that could send a simple toggle-switch signal 6-inches away to the scope... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 1:07:08 PM EDT
[#11]
I'm currently experimenting with the 2X Amber triangle.
I chose this scope in the hopes the 2X magnification and the fine tip of the triagle will allow fine aiming at medium range, while the triangle with allow fast shooting at close range, like a 2X dot sight..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 2:47:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Well, I made the leap...
Picked up a TA-31 red doughnut reticle ACOG at ADCO tonight... Pics coming soon |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 3:31:18 PM EDT
[#13]
The TA-31 is the best ACOG as long as the eye relief and exit pupil work out for you. The head placement isn't very forgiving. I sold my TA-31 to get a TA-11 for the extra head movement but it sure is allot bigger.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 4:52:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Well, I made the leap... Picked up a TA-31 red doughnut reticle ACOG at ADCO tonight... Pics coming soon |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 6:14:52 PM EDT
[#15]
In my experience the red reticles by Trijicon are brighter. This has nothing to do with back ground color. With any or no background color the red is brighter all the time. Perhaps it has to do with the colored part of the fiber optic tube not transmitting as much light on the Amber version. I am not sure.
Also I have begun to believe there is lot to lot variation in the fiber optic portion leading me to believe Trijicon either has poor QC on that issue or that there was a change in how they are made or something else... Im not sure. Sorry for my rambling. I guess what I mean to say is Amber is not as bright but its NOT becasue of back ground colors. It is something else entirely but I am unsure of what that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2003 7:46:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Which color is brighter seems to be the cause for much debate. When I look at both side by side, I always seem to favor the red as brightest. Paul has seen both as well and sees the amber as brighter. Trijicon will tell you in no uncertain terms that the amber is brighter. Everyone I know who has seen both preffers the red? I have given up debating which is brighter and come to the conclusion that which is brighter depends on who is looking.
The color science posted earlier is very interesting! Past that, I agree that no matter what, the red contrasts better, in nearly every single environment I can think of. Better contrast leads to quicker and more confident acquisition. Just another opinion... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2003 4:10:01 PM EDT
[#17]
I prefer red as well. I have never been a fan of yellow/amber reticles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2003 7:16:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Perhaps amber works better for those with some degree of color blindness? I'm not color blind myself so I don't know, but the thought occurred to me that for a color blind individual, the red reticle might disappear against a green background.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2003 7:30:37 PM EDT
[#19]
Amber does seem to wash out under typical city street lights worse than red does. I have both and was compairing them tonight. Red definately shows up better when looking at something illuminated by a street light...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2003 8:51:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Perhaps amber works better for those with some degree of color blindness? I'm not color blind myself so I don't know, but the thought occurred to me that for a color blind individual, the red reticle might disappear against a green background. A guy who shoots with us is color blind and I recall him saying the very same thing. So I think you are probably right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2003 12:44:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Amber does seem to wash out under typical city street lights worse than red does. I have both and was compairing them tonight. Red definately shows up better when looking at something illuminated by a street light... Red tends to give more contrast than amber against just about anything. The amber tends to wash out in streetlights, against dried grass in fields and on most of the hills in the PRK, and in desert conditions. You might have some trouble with red reticules if you aim at Ferarris a lot, but otherwise, it's the best choice IMO. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2003 5:46:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps amber works better for those with some degree of color blindness? I'm not color blind myself so I don't know, but the thought occurred to me that for a color blind individual, the red reticle might disappear against a green background. A guy who shoots with us is color blind and I recall him saying the very same thing. So I think you are probably right. That would be me. I'm mildly colorblind, so the amber is drastically brighter. Actually, the amber shows up and a near neon yellow to me, much brighter than any red dot I've ever looked through. I'm red/green colorblind. Somone that is blue/green colorblind may have a different story to tell. Given the high percentage of men that are colorblind, I'm suprised that I'm the first to comment on it. Tell ya something else I'd like to see in the color department, while we're discussing reticle colors. I'd like to see Neil's surefire blue filter washout experiment with the amber triangle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2003 7:43:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I'd like to see Neil's surefire blue filter washout experiment with the amber triangle. I've tried it before, it works very well. I just can't imagine how he photographed it. I'd try, but I don't have a digital camera, or the patients. Steve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2003 6:33:56 AM EDT
[#24]
I used to have the 3x amber crosshair. It never washed out. Not when aiming straight into a light, not when aiming off into the dunes, not ever. Sometimes the recticle would turn black, but it never washed out.
I have had scopes with both red and amber recticles. The difference I think is this: it is easier to see the recticle with red, but easier to see the target with amber. There is something about red that makes it stand out, but it also tends to lessen your ability to see whatever is around it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2003 6:40:12 AM EDT
[#25]
As a corollary to the above, I think red is better at short ranges and amber is superior for longer distances.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 7:28:42 AM EDT
[#26]
I have both the TA31A (4x, red triangle) and the TA50R-2 (Compact, 3x, red triangle).
The TA31 is great; I have nothing bad to say about it so far. It's mounted on my flattop, and eye relief is fine. The eyepiece does overhang my ARMS #40 BUIS, so I'd have to yank the ACOG to flip it up. The TA50 (carry handle mount) is on my 20" A2. Using the standard carry handle hole, it's too far forward for good eye relief. If you want the full field of view, you have to literally take a lip-weld on the charging handle; however, the scope's still useable if you move your head back a bit. I fixed this by drilling a second hole in the carry handle about 1" back from the existing one. Personally I would prefer a bit more optic than the compact ACOGs for a flattop, but one would certainly do the job. I do like the red triangle: the red is easier to see than the amber, at least for me. The triangle is big enough to easily see, unlike the chevron, and has the benefit of giving you a finer aimpoint unlike the dot. I defintely don't like the donut, those seem to obscure too much of the target for my taste. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 11:08:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: The TA50 (carry handle mount) is on my 20" A2. Using the standard carry handle hole, it's too far forward for good eye relief. If you want the full field of view, you have to literally take a lip-weld on the charging handle; however, the scope's still useable if you move your head back a bit. I fixed this by drilling a second hole in the carry handle about 1" back from the existing one. Or shorten the length of pull of the stock. If the A1 stock is too long then use the RRA LE stock with a 1" spacer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 12:39:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: The TA50 (carry handle mount) is on my 20" A2. Using the standard carry handle hole, it's too far forward for good eye relief. If you want the full field of view, you have to literally take a lip-weld on the charging handle; however, the scope's still useable if you move your head back a bit. I fixed this by drilling a second hole in the carry handle about 1" back from the existing one. Or shorten the length of pull of the stock. If the A1 stock is too long then use the RRA LE stock with a 1" spacer. This won't change the fact that your face has to be touching the rear of the carry handle before you can see the full FOV for the scope. |
|
|
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.
