Educate me on ACOGs


PDA






Eightball
February 10, 2008, 03:24 AM
The inevitable ACOG/AR optic thread, hopefully with a twist.

I've been thinking about ACOGs for a while, and sure, you'll hear a lot of "it's the best thing out there, military uses it, etc etc etc" type things. For someone who is not in the military, or training for the end of the world/CQB scenarios on a regular basis, I don't hear too many "on-hand" tales from these things too often. About all I've heard is that sometimes, in daylight, the reticle becomes too bright and is almost fuzzy--not good for accurate shooting out of an accurate rifle.
Another thing is that I've heard that the element used to light up at night has a half-life of 5 years.

Pretty much, my questions (however coherent they happen to be at 2AM) is are they REALLY all they're cracked up to be, with the whole "illuminated scope, always, no batteries" thing? And, since I've only viewed them inside gun shops--how's the "real-world" light transmission through the glass? And, what happens to the tritium after X amount of time? I'm really curious about that last bit with the elemental half-life, since I've usually only heard stories relating to ACOGs from guys who haven't owned them for that long, and that makes me question if they're really worth the near $1000.

I know this aspect gets done to death, and many people will think "use the search option"--but, I would encourage anyone to search for AR specifics, 1911 specifics, AR OPTIC specifics, and enjoy wading through the thousands of posts on each topic. Plus, it's 2AM.

Anyhow, what's the general consensus on my questions?

If you enjoyed reading about "Educate me on ACOGs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fast Frank
February 10, 2008, 03:54 AM
An ACOG, like the EOTECH, is a combat sight.

While it sits on top of the rifle and lets you aim, it's not the same thing as the scope you find on a bench rest rifle.

Or a hunting rifle either, for that matter.

The scopes most folks are used to looking at have very fine cross hairs and can be adjusted in very fine increments.

Those scopes are very carefully aimed from rested positions, and if the bullet misses the aim point by a whole inch then something is wrong.

A combat scope is designed to to work quickly in a very wide variety of conditions.

Yes, you can run into "Flaring" of the reticle if it's too bright. Yes, this will make precise aiming difficult.

With the EOTECH, you can adjust this, but it requires that you stop shooting to fiddle with it.

But you have to remember that you aren't really worried about pinpoint accuracy with a combat rifle. You don't have time for that when the target is shooting at you.

All you are really interested in is hitting the target. Period.

There's no such thing as missing by an inch when your target is shooting at you. you either hit him or you don't.

These sights are a very good compromise of reliability, speed, and combat accuracy. They will help you get that hit in just about any imaginable situation, and quickly.

If you want pinpoint accuracy, go with a more conventional scope.

dscottw88
February 10, 2008, 05:35 AM
From what I have heard, An out of the box ACOG will last somewhere between 8 to 12 years. So right around 10 years. After this point, when the tritium fades, you can contact Trijicon for a replacement that will set you back some $200. Doesn't seem to be a bad price considering its battery free.

Its not going to win a match out at 1000+ yard shooting, but when aiming quickly and accurately at any distance, its definately my sight of choice. Dont quote me on the whole price and tritium life-line though, these are things I have heard from a friend who has had a couple of acogs.

kir_kenix
February 10, 2008, 06:45 AM
i have a 4x acog on my m4 here in iraq and i own a 2.5x at home. its quick, reliable, battery free. magnification is good (i would prefer a lower power on my rifle here...but its not my $$ or decision), and they are very very sturdy.

with 180 non-gun ppl using them in the company, i havnt heard of anyone breaking one (if u have never been in the military then i should pbly tell u that EVERYTHING seems to get broken).

they arnt precision rifle scopes. they are made for quick accusition in all lighting conditions w/o a battery source. before each mission i usually test fire one magazine as quickly as possible at a ammo can in the test fire pit (50 yds or so), and im pretty content with it as far as accuracy goes (i know, not exactly asonishing, but its what we have). they also double as a range estimate (the width of a human will fit within the ^ at 300 yds) and drop compensator (put bottom of ^ at center of mass w/ issue load to achieve first round hits at that range).

i think they are excellent optics. ive even been told that now that the army is switching its official weapon over to the m4, optics will be standard even at basic training (aimpoints, eotechs, acogs, etc all are pretty standard fare over here so i have no idea what will be issued at basic). its actually kind of sad that soldiers may only get 1 or 2 days shooting with iron sights before they "upgrade", but i think thats a testimate to how truly rugged and reliable the optics we have today have become.

Titan6
February 10, 2008, 06:59 AM
The above three posts pretty well sum it up. You have to do a cost benefit analysis to determine if it is right for you. I find them second to none for combat sites but that might not fit your needs, where another nice rifle, several other guns, or lots of ammo to practice with might suit you better.

Also figure ten years of useful life....
You could buy a $200 EO tech every other year for the same price and have five scopes at the end of it, assuming none of them broke.

dmftoy1
February 10, 2008, 08:01 AM
Kir_Kenix - thanks for being over there for us!

Are you Army or Marines? I thought I had read that some were using the chevron, and some using the circle reticle. I've got the chevron and I have to say that I really prefer it.

The one thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the BAC that some of the ACOG's have. I have to say that it's the one feature I like the most. It took me awhile to get used to keeping both eyes open and just trusting the transition from the unscoped eye to the scoped eye to happen automatically but once you do it's pretty cool.

Just my .02

Regards,
dave

kir_kenix
February 10, 2008, 08:48 AM
dmftoy1: im in a nebraska national guard unit over here. its cool to see how all the forces work together over here. we are a ng unit serving in a regular army batallion, navy guys do a bunch of our electronic stuff, air force runs our comms, and the marines...well they are doing what marines do.

ya i really like the chevron, but the circle is ok. being able to keep both eyes open makes the transition so much easier. the BAC keeps the reticle visable even on the brightest days (when everything is sand brown its easy to lose focus when looking thru an optic, so the red chevron is a godsend). alot of ppl would be suprised how hard it is to shoot well when we have all of this gear on.

i still have the older style IBA so w/ the side plates & wings & groin protecter + IFAC + 6 magazines on the vest+ helmet+ nods + headset (this really screws up a cheek weld) + everything else we carry, its nice to be able to rely on the acog. even w/ the butstock all the way retracted the wings and headset and everything else really make it a pain. all i have to do is bring my rifle up, keeping both eyes open, and put the chevron on whatever i want to hit and blasto, easy as pie (of course nothing is ever really this simple, but u get the idea).

i was issued both a 0 power aimpoint and the 4x acog. i really didnt like the idea of the higher magnification, but its never been a problem for me. i think if i was a cqb specialist and not a gunner i would def want something like the lower powered one i have at home. having said that, the 4x acog has worked great, and i cant imagine it being any more sturdy.

Eightball: if ur looking for a combat sight, i dont think u could go wrong w/ the acog (or eotech or aimpoing etc). it will serve u very well in this regard. if u are looking for a precision scope to punch holes on paper at 200 yards, i would look elsewhere.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 10, 2008, 09:58 AM
The half life of tritium is twelve years, which means that when powered solely by the tritium (i.e. total darkness or the TA01/TA01NSN series of ACOGs), the reticle will be half as bright after twelve years as it is when new. However, most ACOGs also have a fiber optic light gathering tube on top. This is handy in automatically adjusting the brightness of the reticle. However, it does also lead to the fuzzy/blooming problem you mention. The standard solution for this is to cut a piece of bike inner tube and use it as a sleeve to adjust the brightness by covering parts of the fiber optic tube.

Even an ACOG that is totally dead tritium wise will still have a usable reticle mos of the time from ambient light gathered from the fiber optics.

Light gathering wise, the ACOG has great glass and is an unbelievably clear optic. I run a TA11 (3x35mm) and it is top notch in this regard. Even guys with AI rifles and $2000 scopes comment on how nice the glass is. However, the ACOG is a scope and for <50yds it is slower than the reflex sights (Aimpoint, Eotech). You can use it at those distances just fine with practice and I find it much faster than irons; but even after years of training with the ACOG, I still find my reflex times being around 0.2 sec per target faster (roughly). You also do not have the issues with getting lost in the scope's field of view with the reflex sights.

On the plus side, the ACOG lets you acquire and ID targets at much better ranges if your eyesight is less than perfect.

Personally, I really like the TA11 ACOG. I would rate it as one of the best general purpose optics in existence for any rifle. If you have a specific mission of door kicking, it has some shortcomings that may make a variable a better choice; but it will still do OK in that role.

H2O MAN
February 10, 2008, 10:02 AM
They have super short eye relief.

Don't Tread On Me
February 10, 2008, 10:09 AM
Everyone that has ever fired my AR falls in love with it and the ACOG on top. They won't give it back to me to shoot at the range. I would normally get annoyed, but really I get happy because I've helped someone enjoy shooting.

Complete newbies, first time ever firing a rifle, let alone an AR-15, and within an hour they are easily hitting a silhouette at 100 yards from different positions. Maybe not long range, but for first timers it says a lot. That is a testament to the inherent quality of the design and the philosophy behind it. Now, take an experienced shooter and now they are a much, much more lethal weapon.

To me, it is the absolute ultimate optic for an AR-15 or for any similar rifle/carbine. If you understand the mindset behind it, and are a very practical person with practical ideas about use - you'll see the genius behind it. I was a skeptic at first. I thought the same or close could be done with less (money). Not true. Before I had the ACOG, I thought the price was outrageous. Now that I have experience with them, they are a total bargain.

It's only draw back is short range work. Sub-50 yards. That is true of anything with magnification. The BAC does work, but takes some getting used to. However, for a short range blaster, nothing beats good old regular iron sights. I like the XS style fast sights with tritium. Easier and faster to pick up the sight post and you never lose it against a background. Very fast. Very robust. No batteries and no nonsense. Just works, like the ACOG but for short distance.


If you want to dominate 50 yards and out - ACOG is the choice.

Don't Tread On Me
February 10, 2008, 10:17 AM
They have super short eye relief.

This isn't true.

I have a TA33, and it is listed as having 1.9 for eye relief. However, of the 5 different ones I've handled in addition to mine, I can still have a full complete view through the scope edge to edge at a distance from the ocular to where I can fit all 4 of my fingers inbetween my eyebrow and the scope. That is easily more than 1.9" ...

Same goes for the other models. Some list 1.5 (4x) but they have more than that. Perhaps Trijicon is listing the minimum eye relief before you get burry edges?

I've always wondered because in my experience none of the Trijicon eye relief numbers make any sense to me whatsoever. Is this a case of them playing it safe and not over-stating their specs? I don't know. I know that most scope manufacturers out there are, shall we say, a bit generous on the eye relief specs. Maybe that is the max eye-relief when wearing military goggles?

Someone enlighten me.

Double Naught Spy
February 10, 2008, 10:52 AM
They have super short eye relief.
This isn't true.
Yeah, that ain't right. The two I have work from about 2-4" without any problem. Pretty much if you can put the reticle on the target, you will hit the target.

Don't Tread On Me
February 10, 2008, 11:05 AM
Just measured the TA33, with a butler creek flip up cap, I still have 3.5-3.6" of eye relief and can see the entire FOV.

H2O MAN
February 10, 2008, 11:16 AM
It is true for me - YRMV :)

sinistr
February 10, 2008, 12:53 PM
the eye relief is only a problem with the .308,and that's managable.i have a 3.5 bac acog from 1998 and its still so bright that i tape up the fiberoptic during day shooting.

Navy joe
February 10, 2008, 01:15 PM
I've got a 2x with a carry handle mount, had it since 1999, no problems over 10,000 rounds, tritium is still plenty bright. I took it off once for a deep cleaning and once to sell the rifle out from under it, it was on its new home within a week. Light transmission is excellent, And I can keep 1.5" at 100 yards so it is precise enough. Reticle is the red crosshair which I like. Next project for me is to determine the width of the crosshair in MOA and the zeros of the tips. Original cost was $500 1999 dollars, I'll send it back for an upgrade if the tritium gets too weak.


As for utility I have been able to get hits when it was too dark to see the front sight assy. On a piece of green painted steel in the green woods by moonlight. :D

RockyMtnTactical
February 10, 2008, 01:26 PM
I've never had issues with seeing the reticle in the daylight. Works great!

I never planned on getting an ACOG, until I used one. After that point, I found one for a good deal and jumped on it, never regretted it. It is an exceptional optic.

Half life is 12 years, so it should be decent for a couple decades. If it loses it's brightness, you can send it in to Trijicon and they will replace the tritium for a fee.

psyopspec
February 10, 2008, 01:29 PM
i think they are excellent optics. ive even been told that now that the army is switching its official weapon over to the m4, optics will be standard even at basic training (aimpoints, eotechs, acogs, etc all are pretty standard fare over here so i have no idea what will be issued at basic). its actually kind of sad that soldiers may only get 1 or 2 days shooting with iron sights before they "upgrade", but i think thats a testimate to how truly rugged and reliable the optics we have today have become.

I'm at Fort Benning on TDY right now. I spent my weekend shooting the Fort Benning Pistol Championships (got 10th out of 65). One of the guys on my relay was a 1SG for a Basic Combat Training Co. on Sand Hill. I asked him about how Basic Rifle Marksmanship had changed since I went through a few years ago. Apparently, they're spending 4 or 5 more days on it now than they did in 2002. Most recruits right now have an M-16 with a CCO (Close Combat Optic, red dot with no magnification) mounted on top of the carry handle. Some get M-4's w/ CCO and a backup iron sight, and in the near future he said it's likely that this will become the standard issue weapon for BCT here at Benning.

Incidentally, the marksmanship portion of the school I'm going to right now was the first time I'd used a CCO on a qual range. They take some getting used to, but for Short Range Marksmanship they take a lot of the guesswork out. Have yet to try an ACOG, but like the OP I'm considering purchasing one for myself to have for plinking/war fighting.

Eightball
February 10, 2008, 01:50 PM
Hmmm......much food for thought, here. A couple more questions:

So, is there any problem with the front sight post "getting in your way" while you're shooting it at 4x? 3.5x? 2x? I have a flattop middy with a fixed front, and kind of wonder about this little bit.

Can someone point me towards some literature, or their website, or some concrete "$200 replaces your tritium" mention? And, for that matter, is there a "recommended" way of having a fiber-optic cover up?

I don't think the <50yds thing would be too much of an issue. If I was going to be shooting in an area where 50yds was about the max (say, in a hunting situation with dense brush), I'd probably just take the thing off the top and use a BUIS. Though, on that note--how easily do they return to zero once removed and remounted? And, with the "eye relief" issues....is there a specific BUIS recommended that would fit well with an ACOG on the top of the receiver?

And.....which reticle should be "the one" to consider, what are the pros and cons of each? Offhand, I know of the "doughnut of death", the chevron, illuminated main crosshairs (with BDC unilluminated), and illuminated everything with crosshairs.

And, what about the oodles of accessories I see out there for the thing? honeycombish things on the front, lens covers, extended tubes....? What the heck?

And, if the average distance that I have in which to shoot is 300yds and under, with an *occasional* (as in, maybe once a year at a shoot) 500 yard shoot, would the ACOG be "the thing", or, as someone else has mentioned, should I get a $200 EOtech and be done with it? I still find the price tag the hardest part to swallow, or there'd be no questions about what I'd buy.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 10, 2008, 03:40 PM
So, is there any problem with the front sight post "getting in your way" while you're shooting it at 4x? 3.5x? 2x? I have a flattop middy with a fixed front, and kind of wonder about this little bit.

I ran the TA11 on a flattop carbine with a fixed front sight post and had no trouble with the front sight post. It shows up as a very, very faint shadow in the lower part of the scope but most people do not notice it.

Can someone point me towards some literature, or their website, or some concrete "$200 replaces your tritium" mention?

You could call Trijicon customer service; but it is kind of a moot point since by the time you needed tritium (at least twelve years from now) the price for it will likely have changed.

And, for that matter, is there a "recommended" way of having a fiber-optic cover up?

Hop over to Zak Smith's website and check out the pictures of his TA11 ACOG. He has the inner tube rigged up nicely. I haven't gotten around to bothering with it myself since it is really only a problem on bright days. For example, I shot these groups with a TA11 donut:

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/Opstarget.jpg

Though, on that note--how easily do they return to zero once removed and remounted?

Get the Larue ACOG mount and mount it as instructed and the return to zero is about as close to perfect as you are likely to see. Even with the ARMS #19S I had pretty good return to zero though. If you use the Trijicon TA51 mount, you'll need to make witness marks to make sure you use the same torque in order to get good return to zero. That mount is more like a half MOA shift though.

And, with the "eye relief" issues....is there a specific BUIS recommended that would fit well with an ACOG on the top of the receiver?

Any of them that will fit under the ACOG should work. I used an ARMS #40 and then switched to the Troy. You can get tolerance stacking with the ACOG and ARMS #40 where occasionally they don't play well together though - it is a tight fit. The new lower profile ARMS #40L solves that problem and is arguably a better sight anyway (though still not as nice as the Troy).

And.....which reticle should be "the one" to consider, what are the pros and cons of each? Offhand, I know of the "doughnut of death", the chevron, illuminated main crosshairs (with BDC unilluminated), and illuminated everything with crosshairs.

They are all handy reticles. It is really more of a personal preference thing. I think the chevron is probably the best all around, with the red illuminated BDC crosshairs a close second. The donut is awful handy for putting metal on meat quickly; but if you need a more precise shot it can take a little more work with the donut.

And, what about the oodles of accessories I see out there for the thing? honeycombish things on the front, lens covers, extended tubes....? What the heck?

The honeycombish thing is an anti-reflection device. It will cut down the light transmission though. The lens covers are sometimes used to use the sight up close like an Occluded Eye Gunsight for speed. You get times that are like a red dot; but you get a shift in point of impact and it is only effective up close.

And, if the average distance that I have in which to shoot is 300yds and under, with an *occasional* (as in, maybe once a year at a shoot) 500 yard shoot, would the ACOG be "the thing", or, as someone else has mentioned, should I get a $200 EOtech and be done with it? I still find the price tag the hardest part to swallow, or there'd be no questions about what I'd buy. I haven't seen extended tubes.

If most of your shooting is 300yds and under AND yoo have good eyesight where you can acquire your targets well, the Eotech may be the better option. Either an ACOG or Eotech will let you nail targets with boring regularity at 300yds. I've had novices hitting silhouette sized steel their fist time out at 500yds with an ACOG, so it will do that nicely.

The big place the ACOG shines is in target acquisition and identification. When I took a recent rifle course at Tac-Pro Shooting Center, we did a practical shoot with steel poppers scattered down a trail, in brush, etc. The ACOG really dominated there because I could pick up and engage the targets better than just the guys using their unaided eyesight. For example, in this picture there are actually two poppers visible; but using your naked eye it is almost impossible to see the second one:

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/IC_JR3.jpg
(Photo couresy of Tac-Pro Shooting Center)

mgregg85
February 10, 2008, 03:45 PM
www.gunblast.com just did an article on the ACOG.

jobu07
February 10, 2008, 03:57 PM
I'll keep it short. As an Infantryman I use an M4 for a living. When I was issued my rifle, it had an ACOG on it. While the ACOG is a fine optic, I took it off in favor of a M68 Aimpoint. I preferred the no magnifcation quick handling dot, versus the the chevron with slight mag, for the type of work that we do.

taliv
February 10, 2008, 07:47 PM
i continue to be a big fan of my TA31F RCO model. However, after shooting a couple carbine classes and several tactical rifle matches, I decided to put the aimpoint micro T1 on the AR i bought last year. Since then, my short stages have improved noticeably, while my long stages went to hell.

there are tradeoffs with anything.

btw, ACOGs can and do break.
and some have shorter eye relief than others. mine is one of the 4x power ones and it has much shorter eye relief than the 3x version.
they are definitely attention-getters at the range. everyone loves them off the bench.
maybe TN and AL sun isn't as bad as iraqi sun, but I haven't experienced the fuzzy reticle issue personally.

Zak Smith
February 10, 2008, 10:01 PM
Here are some comments as to where the TA31/11 ACOGs fit in as far as capabilities and role.

http://demigodllc.com/photo/PRM-2006.11/icon/D100_5378_img.jpg
article | Fighting Optics - A Short Guide http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://demigodllc.com/articles/fighting-carbine-optics-short-guide)

(The 4 FEB 2008 issue of Shotgun News has a much expanded version of this article.)

The TA11 ACOG is an excellent choice for a Type II optic (DMR). It is very effective in trained hands making hits on 2-5 MOA targets out to about 400-500 yards (e.g. LaRue at 400).

Inside of 50-75, it'll will have a speed disadvantage to a 1x red dot such as the Aimpoint/EOTech, however, this deficiency can be abated to a considerable extent through training and combination aiming techniques.

KC&97TA
February 10, 2008, 10:41 PM
The ACOG's and RCO's are great, they are Marine Proof, rugged as they come, It's a great all around combat scope for rural combat in 4x32. They suck at CQB. The Tritium in all the ones I've had was barely visible at night, the one I own is barely visible... yes it glows in a dark closet, most of the brightness most people see is the fiber optic filter even at night collecting light. They hold zero if mounted properly, they're accurate enought to key hole 5 rounds at 36 yards, but they aren't a 1 MOA scope by any means. The sun glare can be taken care of with riggers tape or an intertube and isn't a big issue to deal with. The BDC will reliablely put shots on a man size target if you can judge the wind and experiance to 'kentucky windage' the scope.

For Marines and Soldiers, they're worth what ever we're paying for them... for civilian use, I can't believe how many I see at $1k each, it's a good scope for a truck gun or a really clumbsy person but, I'm putting a Larue on my .308 AR. Although unless I sell the RCO, the scope will most likely be handed down to my great grand children along with my great grandfathers rifle.

For what it's worth, if I wasn't a Marine, I wouldn't have bought one. Now Aimpoints on the other hand, they're Marine proof and I'm happier with my Aimpoint Comp2 than my RCO-A4, then again the Aimpoint sees more use, both in duty and pleasure.

It's your money, but I think most have them because "we" have them.

Btw: they're a pain in the butt infront of NVG's if you're going that way, the chevron is always "too bright".

Zak Smith
February 10, 2008, 10:44 PM
but they aren't a 1 MOA scope by any means.
Sure they are, if the shooter and rifle are up to it.

ny32182
February 11, 2008, 12:56 AM
My .02, as the owner of a TA31RCO A4, the exact model issued by the Marines for use on 20" rifles:

First, the clarity of the optics is amazing. I'm ever amazed by the level of detail I can see through this scope even though it is only 4x.

The tritium, I wouldn't worry about. If you are getting a model with the fiber optic collector, you aren't going to be using the tritium anyway. If you go in a pitch black room and let your eyes adjust, and then look through the scope, you can see a faint Chevron. If there is *any* ambient light at all, it is being collected and adding to the chevron's brightness. The only conceivable situation I can think of where the tritium is actually being used would be if you are shooting from a pitch black location, onto a distant, but somewhat lit target. If the whole place is black, you can't see the target anyway. Bottom line, in 99.99% of all shooting situations, you won't have the slightest clue if the tritium is alive or dead. You've got to look through the scope in a pitch black room to answer that question.

I have found that in brilliant, direct sunlight directly on the light collector, the edges of the chevron can start to get a little fuzzy from being too bright. However, I wouldn't think it enough of an issue to have an effect for the level of accuracy for which the scope was intended, and as noted, there are easy ways to fix this if it bothers you. And the chevron comes to a very fine point at the top. At 100 yards at least, I would think it childs play to shoot sub 1" groups with a capable rifle and ammo, of course.

Also of note, I find the reticle to be plenty easy to use when shooting from a shaded location into a target in direct sunlight on a very sunny day.

Overall, the nicest feature I find about the whole thing (and the optic clarity is a very, very close second) is that it really does self adjust the recticle brightness instantly for shooting in any light. With no batteries. It works, and works so well that it suddenly seems like a major PITA to have to adjust the brightness on an Aimpoint. In fact, its got me considering a Tripower for my next CCO type optic purchase.

ny32182
February 11, 2008, 01:00 AM
One more note on the eye relief; if I have a gripe about the scope, this is it. It is listed at 1.5" on mine, and I think that is just about accurate if I want to see the whole field of view. I do wish it was a little longer, and I mount the scope as far back as possible as-is. If I back off to more than 1.5", I have a clear image and the scope is still very useable; I just start to lose the outside portions of the FOV.

As mentioned, you can get versions with the eye relief listed at more than 1.5".

Bartholomew Roberts
February 11, 2008, 01:06 AM
The TA11 and TA33 are really ideal for eye relief in my mind. They are much more generous on exit pupil and eye relief and so easier to shoot in dynamic shooting where movement or snap shots are a factor.

Zak Smith
February 11, 2008, 01:10 AM
The TA11 has 2.4" eye relief and a larger exit pupil than the TA31, These two attributes together make it much easier to use on the move and from improvised shoot positions, also faster to acquire a sight picture.

Don't Tread On Me
February 11, 2008, 02:24 PM
I just measured the eye relief on a TA31RCO ..I got about 1-3/4" - 1-7/8" at the most while still getting the complete FOV..that's the width of an object I was able to put between my eyebrow and the ocular.

Still, more than the stated 1.5" ..but not as big of a difference as the TA33 that lists 1.9, but really has over 3"

I guess you just have to check them out yourself.


I have to agree with Zak, the TA11 is really the bread and butter, it's a touch over 28ft of FOV while still maintaining good eye relief and is right between a 3x and a 4x. TA33 suffers at 19' fov but has longer eye relief. The TA31's have a whopping 36.8' for a 4x which is a very large FOV. My IOR 4x had 29something feet and that was very good compared to most fixed 4x hunting scopes with 24-26ft.

Eye relief is important, since you cannot always be in the perfect nose-to-charginghandle position, say during action shooting from odd positions. The larger exit pupil and longer eye relief helps a lot in this regard.

If I knew I'd be shooting from a static position with the luxury of shouldering the weapon the way I want, the 4x ACOG's with 36' FOV would be a better choice. On the move, the 3.5 is better. Some of the mini-ACOGs have even larger exit pupil and more eye relief, but are lower magnification and iffy on the FOV. They try to bridge the gap with reddots. That's another subject in itself.

If you enjoyed reading about "Educate me on ACOGs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!