When you say Compact ACOG, I guess you mean the TA-33. Trijicon says that it's calibrated for .223 and it comes with a flattop mount. I'm not really sure what they mean when they say it's calibrated for .223, though. I have one on a Colt 6920 and zero at 50 yards is also zero at 100 yards using M193. That's mounted on the flattop.
I've thought about trying it on my 6520 (permanent carry handle), but I may never do that. I'd tried a 4x30 scope on the 6520 and never did feel that I had a good chin weld (goatee + collapsible stock = ouch!). Any future sighting device on that carry handle will likely be some sort of red dot.
September 20, 2007, 09:46 PM
I have a TA-11 (full size) on my S&W and another TA-11 on my 6920. Both are mounted on the carry handle and they work just fine for me.
September 20, 2007, 09:57 PM
I had a TAO-1 on the carry handle of my Colt HBAR for years. The TAO-1 was designed for carry handle mounting, no flattops back then. I worked fine.
Don't Tread On Me
September 20, 2007, 10:00 PM
Compact ACOG's are primarily meant for carry handle mounting. They do sit low on the carry handle, so cheek weld shouldn't be an issue. Then again, for me, all collapsible stocks have a cheek weld issue.
You can purchase a picatinny mount for any Compact ACOG. The TA33-8 comes with one by default. The TA33-8 is the only compact ACOG with a chevron reticle and a BDC that goes out to 600m. It is calibrated for M855 out of an M4. So that would be the 62gr nato bullet out of a 14.5" barrel at about 2910fps depending on barrel, ammo lot, and atmospheric conditions.
A 16" barrel would be close enough. Certain heavy loads (68, 69, 75, 77gr) can be made to match the BDC of this ACOG with a slightly adjusted zero at 100 yards. It will definitely be close enough for "business" and absolutely within the accuracy capability of the platform.
Compacts are mostly geared toward being a good mix between speed and range. The lighted reticle and low magnification makes it easier to hit with, yet it does have some magnification and a reticle (better than irons) for engaging further out. It is not ideal for any kind of close-quarters work, but neither is ANY magnified optic out there. It makes short range (non close quarters) engagement much easier and allows for improved performance at medium range. They are very small and very light. So they do not burden your rifle with clutter and weight. That is a good thing, since it is suppose to be a carbine, not a 12lb behemoth. They also give you night time capability without switches or batteries or electronics. That vastly improves reliability and robustness. That makes it more dependable. Even in bright daylight at high noon, the lit reticle becomes super-bright, more so than any electronic reddot that I've ever seen (aimpoint or eotech) and makes it extremely easy to see the reticle vs. any background and to do so quickly upon cheekweld. This makes it faster.
Of all the reticles, I'd avoid the dot. Triangle at least gives you the point to use for a little more precision. Crosshair is nice. Best of all is the Chevron in my view, but it is a 3x. Don't know if you'd want a lower magnification model. They also vary in magnification, FOV and eye relief. This can be a concern depending on intended use.
September 20, 2007, 10:40 PM
The only 2 ARs I've ever owned were 20" A2s and when I sold the first I passed the 2x ACOG on to the next. I've had it mounted for 6 years, no problems, the red crosshair still bright. I have gotten good hits lowlight when I couldn't even see the front sight assembly. Cheek weld has never been a problem, my biggest problem has been vacillating on my zero, I keep bouncing around between a 25/~300 yard zero and a 100/~220 yard zero. The scope is rugged, keeps it's zero and is way faster than iron.
My biggest learning moment came when I put an Anti-reflection device on it. Seems part of the ARD was occluding a little of the upper circle of my iron sight picture, didn't notice until my hits were a foot off at 25 meters, it took a little head scratching to find the culprit. I flip the ARD partially up as a matter of course now if switching to iron.
September 20, 2007, 10:54 PM
I have a Compact 1.5X 24 amber triangle (TA45-2, as I recall) on an A1 type carry handle, Bushmaster M4gery. I find no problem at all with cheek weld, head placement, or line of sight. The mount has a tunnel in it so the irons can be used if necessary. Eye relief is generous and forgiving, and with the field of view it is very, very fast at close ranges--at least on my timer. I can see why people don't care for the 4X standard ACOGs in close but this is a different breed of cat.
I run a 50/200 yard zero with M193 ball which will work out to 300.
It's a helluva lot better setup than the one I had in 1966, I can tell you that.
September 21, 2007, 05:16 AM
i had the 4x32 acog mounted on my carry handle here for some time. i would take a picture of it, but we all just got issued m4's. the only problem anybody had was that there was not enough eye relief for some of the shorter people (fixed stock A2's) in full body armor. otherwise they worked great.
September 21, 2007, 11:22 AM
I tried it with my compact ACOG on a carry handle for about a week or two a few years ago. It was too high for my liking, I went back to the LaRue mount on the flat top.
September 21, 2007, 11:58 AM
It is fairly high but I like it for myself. I had one on my A2 out in the sand box and with all that armor and what not its easier to get good eye relief and sight picture.
If you enjoyed reading about "Compact ACOG on AR-15 A2 carry handle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!