Aimpoint vs. ACOG for AR-15


PDA






numaone
June 6, 2009, 09:13 PM
Hey yall,
I am trying to decide between the Aimpoint (either M3 or M4) and an Trijicon ACOG (perhaps the TA31 Doc) for an 16" Ar-15. I can't decide between the two and need your advice. The purpose would be shooting short to medium range. (0-200 yards)

Here are my Pro/Cons:
I like the Aimpoint because of the no-parallax reflex sight. Easy to use and unlimited eye relief. Probably the best CQB option. The downside is limited range. What is the longest effective range for an Aimpoint reddot? An Trijicon rep said only 75 yards, I'm not sure if he was lying or not to sell his ACOG. Along with this, I can add a 3x sight to Co-witness on a quick release mount, to get the best of both worlds. But now my optics train is getting cluttered fast!

OTOH, I can get the ACOG with 4X magnification. PROS: It's an Trijicon ACOG, need I say more? There new BAC (Bindon Aiming Concept) system allows the user to use both eyes (with some training). I was leaning towards the TA31DOC with the Red dot Doctor Sight on top. Close quarters use. What I don't like is the reticule. Specifically, I think the BDC looks too cluttered, and of course it's only calibrated for one set of conditions, (may or may not work for my set-up and ammunition). What I would love is the chevron with the doctor sight, but they don't make that.

The two setups come to about the same price (roughly).

So many options :banghead:, so what's your opinions? What do you think?

Thanks

One final Question: I was holding some 50$ knockoff aimpoints. I could tell they were cheap. They weren't even parallax free. I've never used an Aimpoint, is the difference between the real thing and the 10 times cheaper clone worth the 10x difference?

If you enjoyed reading about "Aimpoint vs. ACOG for AR-15" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
P.B.Walsh
June 6, 2009, 09:49 PM
Well, I think that a ACOG looks better, and a EoTech looks better, as you can probaly tell, I don't have ANY experience with either. :)

numaone
June 6, 2009, 09:53 PM
Well, I think that a ACOG looks better, and a EoTech looks better, as you can probaly tell, I don't have ANY experience with either.

Heh, Looks are at the bottom of the list!
I want something where I can knock shotgun shells off the top of a target stand at 25 yards, then tack-drive at 100-200.

Mags
June 6, 2009, 09:57 PM
I have an Aimpoint I love it! The question you need to ask do you want magnification? If you do go with the Acog otherwise go with an Aimpoint. I don't care much for those airsoft quality eotechs.

P.B.Walsh
June 6, 2009, 10:00 PM
Well, in that case I'd prefer the Leupold MR/T because of the more precise reticle for the shotgun shells, but on the other hand it's not one of your options.

numaone
June 6, 2009, 10:03 PM
TheRealMags
I have an Aimpoint I love it! The question you need to ask do you want magnification? If you do go with the Acog otherwise go with an Aimpoint. I don't care much for those airsoft quality eotechs

How far out do you shoot with your aimpoints?

Mags
June 6, 2009, 10:05 PM
I can shoot a torso sized steel target out to about 500 yards. I can make pretty consistent headshots out to about 2-300 yards using BUIS in conjunction with the Aimpoint.

DougW
June 6, 2009, 10:38 PM
I have one rifle set up with the TA31F Trijicon, one set up with the ML2 Aimpoint. I use the TA31F for 3 gun matches out to 300 yards. The ML2 is set up as a "patrol" carbine, figure it is good to 200 yards with my crappy eyes. I think I like the Trijicon the best though.

TechBrute
June 6, 2009, 11:05 PM
I have the Aimpoint M2, M3, ACOG TA31F, and EOTech 511. Without a doubt, get the M3 (or ML3) with the 2moa dot.

There is no real need for magnification at 0-200m ranges (unless you are compensating for poor eyesight, in which case you should look into correcting your problem, not compensating).

I can hit an 8" plate at 200m repeatedly with the M3. The M2 with the 4moa was a little hard to hit the 8" at 200m but the 2moa is a lot easier.

The Aimpoint is far superior as far as battery life to the EOTech. The controls are easier to deal with, as well.

taliv
June 6, 2009, 11:06 PM
An Trijicon rep said only 75 yards, I'm not sure if he was lying or not to sell his ACOG.

that is disappointing. but sales guys are sales guys, even in the gun industry. yeah, he was lying. hitting a 10" steel plate at 200 yrds with an aimpoint is not difficult. granted, it's not as easy as hitting it with an acog, but it's still not difficult.

go with the aimpoint

Bartholomew Roberts
June 6, 2009, 11:27 PM
Another vote for the Aimpoint... the TA31DOC isn't going to be as good at closer ranges. The 4x is slower at closer ranges and the different cheek weld to use the Docter is less than ideal. The main advantage of the magnification is better target acquisition and identification IMO.

Dan Crocker
June 6, 2009, 11:34 PM
I can consistently hit man-sized targets with my M68 out to 300 meters. But I do prefer the ACOG.

Mags
June 6, 2009, 11:37 PM
I can consistently hit man-sized targets with my M68
For those that don't know the M68 is an Aimpoint Comp 2. Looks like another vote for Aimpoint.

rbernie
June 6, 2009, 11:37 PM
I'm squarely in the Aimpoint camp, for all the reasons that TechBrute stated. I also prefer the smaller dots; they do NOT get washed out even in sunlight, but they are much easier to use at 100+ yards.

One point that bears amplification is the fact that I can turn the Aimpoint on/off strictly by feel in the dark.

briansmithwins
June 6, 2009, 11:46 PM
I've got a 2MOA Aimpoint on my rifle, wife has a TA01 4X AGOG on hers.

With the Aimpoint you can get hits on a man sized target out as far as you can see a man sized target. The ACOG lets you see and identify targets out further than you could with the naked eye. ACOG is slower at close range than the Aimpoint.

Ideally you could get both and have a rifle bearer hand you the right tool for the job at hand. BSW

numaone
June 6, 2009, 11:48 PM
Looks like another vote for Aimpoint

Ok, Aimpoints are looking good. What about adding a 3x magnifier to it. Is it worth the extra money? Does it add to the setup? Is this, in effect, the best of both worlds? How stable is the optics train?

Thanks

basicblur
June 6, 2009, 11:49 PM
Gunfighter Cast (active military discuss all things gun)
http://www.gunfightercast.com/wordpress/category/podcast/
Check out the March 23rd show-jump up to the 20-minute mark where they discuss optics-ACOG vs EOTech vs Aimpoint.

Some of their discussions are interesting (when they talk about actual operations)-some of it, not so much!

Coronach
June 7, 2009, 03:49 AM
It all depends on whether or not your use requires magnification or not. If the answer is yes, go ACOG. If not, go Aimpoint.

I'm sorry if this is overly simplistic, but you have to decide what you want to do with the gun. If you need precise shots at 100yds+, the ACOG is better. If you need speed at 100yds and under, the Aimpoint is better. No free lunch, though both will work acceptably in either situation. They just have defferent biases.

Mike

KW
June 7, 2009, 04:01 AM
I've owned both an Eotech 552 and now an ACOG TA31F. If you want to shoot real small stuff like shotgun shells, go with the ACOG. The magnification really helps for small stuff like this. Just a couple weeks ago I was out shooting some shotgun shells with my AR, and with the shade from trees and dancing shadows it was very difficult to even make them out against the dirt berm at 25 yards. Looking through the ACOG I could easily see them and hit them.

Is the EOtech/Aimpoint better for clearing a room? Sure, but is that really what you are going to be doing with your rifle? For many of us, no. You can't shoot what you can't see (which works both ways in this argument). If you need to be heads up and picking things out of your peripheral vision at close range, then you want the red dot. If you need to be able to see, identify and engage small targets then the ACOG is the way to go.

jambo545
June 7, 2009, 04:08 AM
Been there done that with the acog. in cqb they keep you jammed up pretty bad but the dot 300 hasn't ever been a problem with a rest.

Lloyd Smale
June 7, 2009, 07:15 AM
ive got 3 comp 2s and and the marine acog. I love the acog but wish it had more eye relief and could be mounted a tad bit further back on the gun. I also just bought a trigicon tr24 and it may be the best of both worlds.

Mtn395
June 7, 2009, 08:23 AM
I would get an ACOG

Maelstrom
June 7, 2009, 08:37 AM
I have an Aimpoint 2 and a 4X ACOG.


The ACOG can actually double as a red dot at close range if you keep both eyes open. My only real gripe if the ACOG reticule disappears in low light, which is exactly where the Aimpoint excels.

briansmithwins
June 7, 2009, 10:45 AM
I had a Aimpoint 3X magnifier (on the Larue flipper) behind my Aimpoint. After doing a class with the magnifier and shooting it at local matches I ditched it. Too much weight and bulk for what was supposed to be a KISS rifle. BSW

numaone
June 7, 2009, 11:00 AM
Ha, This is good. I go to sleep thinking Aimpoint Red Dot.
Then, during the night, the ACOG group comes out!

Ok, does anyone have experience with the TA31TRD with the Doctor Red Dot on top? Is this the best of both worlds, an ACOG with a Red Dot on top?

psyopspec
June 7, 2009, 01:15 PM
For the uses you described in your OP, Aimpoint. No question, no doubt. If you're going to be unloading that much money on a piece of equipment, it may as well be the piece that's best-suited to the uses you require.

Is this the best of both worlds, an ACOG with a Red Dot on top?

You're shooting out to 200 yards, not performing brain surgery. There is no "best of both worlds." The ACOG can do it. The Aimpoint, at that range, can do it better.

basicblur
June 7, 2009, 01:54 PM
While I haven't followed this thread that closely, why is an EOTech with flip to side magnifier not on your short list?

I've got a couple of ARs-one with the EOTech 557/4x Multiplier and one with TAO1 ACOG (http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=139&back_row=4&categoryID=3). Couldn't tell ya which one I like better, but since most of my shooting is done on the range/100 yards and out, I really like the ACOG (has the red crosshair reticle).

RockyMtnTactical
June 7, 2009, 02:15 PM
I have used both quite a bit. For me, I think I like the Aimpoint better. Mostly because the most likely engagement ranges are going to be < 25 yards. For ranges past 25 yards, the ACOG wins easily.

benzy2
June 7, 2009, 02:25 PM
Its all what you want. For my shooting the magnification is what I'm looking for. I'm not shooting at man sized targets at 200 yards though. For that I don't think a red dot would be a hindrance at all. It all depends what you are shooting at. I'm not sure if the magnifier behind the aimpoint would be better or not though. It certainly gives more flexibility.

psyopspec
June 7, 2009, 02:48 PM
For ranges past 25 yards, the ACOG wins easily.

I don't know that it's quite that simple. I've seen brand new Soldiers who may have qualified once or twice with an M16A2 pick up an Aimpoint, and in the course of a day zero it and have no problem smacking targets at 300m. These are people with less than 200 total rounds downrange in their entire life on every weapon they've every fired. So no, the ACOG doesn't "win easily" past 25m.

numaone
June 7, 2009, 05:44 PM
For the ACOGS:

The TA31F(4x) has a 1.5" eye relief and the TA11F(3.5X) has 2.4" eye relief. Anyone encounter a problem with the TA31F having too short of an eye relief? The TA11 has a slightly larger objective 35mm vs 32mm, any real difference between the two?

Thanks

Texas Bob
June 7, 2009, 06:02 PM
Have you considered an Aimpoint Micro using a LaRue QD mount along with an Aimpoint 3X on a LaRue QD twist mount. This is what I use, and it gives me several "options" in one set up.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 7, 2009, 09:22 PM
OK, I've used the Aimpoint, the Eotech and several versions of the ACOG (including the TA31DOC, which is basically identical to the TA31TRD).

I use my optics as general purpose, meaning I use them for everything from 6" plates at 300yds to NRA targets at 600yds, to firing multiple shots on multiple targets while moving at under 15yds.

My primary optic is the TA11. I use that because when I bought it, the TA11F was not widely available; but the chevron is probably a bit handier than the donut.

The benefits of the TA11 is that it has a longer eye relief and a larger exit pupil than the TA31 - this makes it easier to get good hits during dynamic shooting close in and use some non-traditional positions; but the TA11 is still slower than the Aimpoint or Eotech (up to a second slower for me on a 6-shot string of shooting while moving).

The Aimpoint really shines when it comes to shooting while moving or reflexive shooting at close, moving targets and is tough to beat for that purpose. At under 30-50yds, it will run with the TA11 and beat it consistently.

If you plan to shoot 3-gun (or home-defense, LE, or most practical shooting scenarios), then the Aimpoint will generally do better because most of those scenarios will be under 100yds and what little they give up in precision at those distances, they will make up for speed.

The one exception is when we do a "jungle run" with poppers spread out amongst the brush and trees. Even spray-painted whites, the poppers can be tough to see with the naked eye. The ACOG's magnification will let you tell the popper from a light colored tree trunk in those conditions.

Now at first the TRD sounds like the best of both worlds; but in actual practice, the cheek weld for the dot sight is way higher than the cheek weld for the ACOG. Which means if you have any kind of muscle memory built up on using a good cheek weld (and you had better have if you plan to be good with irons or any magnified sight), you end up using the magnified view under stress anyway because your cheek weld gives you the ACOG first and then you go "O yeah, I have to raise my head."

Any of the sights you are talking about is capable of doing anything from 0-300m. They just have different areas where they excel.

One thing I don't have much time with is red dot/magnifier combos, so I can't comment much on those. The few I've seen haven't impressed me in terms of glass and clarity. I also am not crazy about magnifying a 4MOA dot; but they do serve the main purpose of a magnified optic (target ID and acquisition).

Personally, if I was doing it all over again today and picking a new optic, I'd probably be looking at a variable scope. At 1x, they are almost as fast as the red dots. At 4x, they can do what the ACOGs can optically; but they aren't quite as rugged.

If I needed ACOG-ruggedness, I would probably look at the TA33 - less than half the size of the TA11; but 90% of the performance. The TA31 is a great optic; but for my purposes it sacrifices more capability at the ranges where most of my shooting happens for longer range ability.

Otherwise, for a general purpose rifle, some flavor of Aimpoint is hard to beat - especially if movement (yours or the targets) is part of the equation.

Zak Smith has an excellent article on this and I think that article and some other good reads on the subject can be found in the "Rifle Forum Reading Library"

RockyMtnTactical
June 7, 2009, 11:46 PM
I don't know that it's quite that simple. I've seen brand new Soldiers who may have qualified once or twice with an M16A2 pick up an Aimpoint, and in the course of a day zero it and have no problem smacking targets at 300m. These are people with less than 200 total rounds downrange in their entire life on every weapon they've every fired. So no, the ACOG doesn't "win easily" past 25m.

Not sure why you are arguing about this. I never said that the Aimpoint was useless past 25 yards. I simply said that the ACOG's are better. Yes, it is fairly simple.

wickedsprint
June 8, 2009, 03:25 AM
I simply said that the ACOG's are better. Yes, it is fairly simple.

No, it's definitely NOT that simple. There are certain situations where each optic shines..so to speak. It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

The fact you are using 25M as a benchmark distance to signify an advantage between optics is silly. Heck the M9 pistol range goes out to 25M.

RockyMtnTactical
June 8, 2009, 12:43 PM
No, it's definitely NOT that simple. There are certain situations where each optic shines..so to speak. It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

The fact you are using 25M as a benchmark distance to signify an advantage between optics is silly. Heck the M9 pistol range goes out to 25M.

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

I never said that there was a huge difference at 25 yards. I was speaking generally, and I still stand by my claim.

Look, both optics are excellent. I prefer a red dot for most applications, but the ACOG is an excellent optic. At 25 yards, there may not be a huge difference. the difference starts to grow as you get past that range though and that is what I was saying in the first place.

That is not to say that someone with an Aimpoint cannot shoot good groups at 200 yards. I never said that. However, I am positive that with all things being equal, you can shoot a better group with an ACOG at greater distances.

Darthbauer
June 8, 2009, 12:55 PM
Ok, does anyone have experience with the TA31TRD with the Doctor Red Dot on top? Is this the best of both worlds, an ACOG with a Red Dot on top?


That is what I have on my AR and I love it. The red dot on top is great for 75 yards and under and then the ACOG is great beyond that. If you don't like the crosshair's then you can always buy a different ACOG and get the mount to put the Red dot on the ACOG and buy it all separately.

MTMilitiaman
June 8, 2009, 01:58 PM
The Aimpoint only has a 2 MOA dot. That means the dot is about softball-sized at 200 yards and maybe bowling ball sized at 300 yards. I've shot targets at 300 yards with a Kobra reflex sight on my AK and with an Aimpoint on a friend's Bushmaster Modular Carbine. Neither presented much in the way of difficulty. With the Aimpoint, I'd say you can engage out to as far as you can distinguish a target. If your rifle is set up like the military rifles, it will be zeroed at 300 yards, which means you won't even have to worry about compensating for drop until after that range. The Aimpoint is durable, reliable, easy to use, with excellent battery life. The main limitations are those presented by your eye in terms of identifying targets under less than ideal conditions.

This is where the ACOG comes in. The ACOG is an excellent battle sight. While not quite as fast as the Aimpoint, it can be very fast with practice. And the models with the reflex sights attached to them present an interesting option as well. The ACOG doesn't require batteries. The dual-illumination systems is the cat's meow. The optic is so durable, I never saw a Marine break one. The 4x magnification comes in handy when you have to shoot at extended distances, obviously, but also under much closer distances where the target may be moving around back in a room behind a window and/or only exposing small parts of his body to fire. Or when you have targets among civilians, ect. The RCO gives you these capabilities, which is why it has been called the greatest increase in firepower available to the Marine since the inception of the Garand. The ACOG will help you get on target faster and more accurately at every range beyond arm's reach. And the BDC system really isn't cluttered or complicated. Once properly zeroed, the upside-down Christmas tree part of the reticule is used to estimate range and compensate for bullet drop of the M855 62 gr ball round. The operator simply places the stadia line the fits across the shoulders of the target on the target and fires. In practice, it couldn't be more simple, intuitive, or easy to use, and it is effective. Hitting pop-up Ivans from 600+ yards takes remarkably little practice.

So while the Aimpoint will probably be effective out to at least 300 yards, I would recommend you get the ACOG, unless the vast majority of your shooting is going to be within 50 yards.

wickedsprint
June 8, 2009, 03:41 PM
I am positive that with all things being equal, you can shoot a better group with an ACOG at greater distances.

Against non moving targets within a convenient narrow range of angle, probably.

psyopspec
June 8, 2009, 03:49 PM
Rocky, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm jis sayin' per the OP that 200 yds and below is where the Aimpoint can shine. And it'll do as well as the man behind it to 300 and beyond. No one's saying that either optic can't perform the task at hand - I just think the Aimpoint will do it faster at closer distances; that's been my experience from training with both, seeing shooters from novice to seasoned use both, and talking to guys that have used each to actually kill people overseas. May I ask why it is you think the ACOG will "win easily" over the Aimpoint at 35 meters? 50? 100?

I personally think that the ACOG is the better overall optic, and what I would want on my rifle and the rifles of my guys. I'm pushing to get a handful for us right now before we take off to Iraqistan this fall. However, the OP didn't ask what we liked better - he wanted to know which would be a better tool for hitting targets w/i 200 yards.

CoRoMo
June 8, 2009, 03:50 PM
This was handily wrapped up a couple dozen posts ago.

RockyMtnTactical
June 8, 2009, 05:05 PM
I just think the Aimpoint will do it faster at closer distances

So we agree then.

psyopspec
June 8, 2009, 05:37 PM
<200m, Heck yes we agree. Want a beer?

wickedsprint
June 10, 2009, 03:30 AM
I think I would really like a 16A4 with an Acog. Saw some of those over here, I bet that would be pretty handy for distance shooting.

C-grunt
June 10, 2009, 05:31 AM
It is very much wickedsprint. Thats how my DMR was set up in 05. It had a match barrel and trigger as well. It was very accurate and my range was easily extended to 600 meters.

For the ranges the OP was saying I would use the ACOG. Only because I like them a lot. The Aimpoint will easily shoot good groups at 200 or less, but I think the ACOG will shoot smaller groups because of the magnification.

Pick whichever one you like better. The Aimpoint will get you on target faster at close range and the ACOG will give you more accuracy at longer ranges.

natescout
June 10, 2009, 03:20 PM
Aimpoint , no problems with mine yet, not a fan of th eotech

BWB
June 10, 2009, 05:46 PM
Surprised that in all of this I haven't seen mention of the fact that the Eotech dot is 1 moa. The smallest Aimpoint is 2 moa as far as I know.
In the comparison of ACOG and any dot sight (this is really an apples and oranges false comparison), if your objective is precision shooting out to 200 meters or so you will be much better served by that 1 moa dot. If your rifle will shoot, sight it so the bullets fall under that 1" dot at 100m and you will have a lethal combination to 200 and beyond.
If you need very high resolution and better really poor light performance, you need a scope, ACOG or somebody else's.
As for the anti-Eotech sentiments that seem to be around, check what's most often on the rails of those who take these things to work and have a choice.

Mags
June 10, 2009, 06:03 PM
As for the anti-Eotech sentiments that seem to be around, check what's most often on the rails of those who take these things to work and have a choice.
The armorer at work has his choice of eotech, acog, and Aimpoint. Guess which one is on his rifle? The Aimpoint.

C-grunt
June 10, 2009, 08:14 PM
In 05 the M68 held up a lot better than the Eotechs. Plus the batteries last much much longer and you can turn it on and off just by feel. I think the Eotech is popular because its cheaper. Its a good red dot for sure, but I think the Aimpoint is more robust.

TechBrute
June 10, 2009, 09:32 PM
As for the anti-Eotech sentiments that seem to be around, check what's most often on the rails of those who take these things to work and have a choice.
Surely you jest...

The Aimpoint M2 is designated as the military M68. Does the EOTech even have a military designation?

http://www.swatmag.com/desktop/images/SAW-2.jpg
http://www.swatmag.com/desktop/images/croatia.jpg
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/USMC03_photos/Pat%20Rogers%20May%202008/IMG_0388.jpg
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/USMC03_photos/Pat%20Rogers%20May%202008/IMG_0565.jpg
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/USMC03_photos/Pat%20Rogers%20May%202008/IMG_0570.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/M4-M203.jpg/784px-M4-M203.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/aimpoint/4_CompM2-US-Army.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o1/charliegrs1/3701016663722864.jpg

Rubber_Duck
June 10, 2009, 09:51 PM
Does the EOTech even have a military designation?

Does a NATO Stock Number count?

It's pointless to argue that optic A is better than optic B just because the US military uses it, since they use the Aimpoint, AND the EOTech, AND the ACOG.

http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/09/43827.jpg

http://www.m203grip.com/M203grip-Iraq-2007.jpg

P.B.Walsh
June 10, 2009, 09:52 PM
So, go with Aimpoint, according to SWAT mag.

benzy2
June 10, 2009, 10:54 PM
I wasn't overly impressed with my Eotech. The battery life is what killed it for me. That and I like the dot alone better but thats personal. Just not my cup of tea compared to the aimpoint.

P.B.Walsh
June 10, 2009, 11:34 PM
I wish the Aimpoint had the EoTech retical, and was etched, then I'd be almost perfect IMHO. :)

TechBrute
June 10, 2009, 11:39 PM
I wish the Aimpoint had the EoTech retical, and was etched, then I'd be almost perfect IMHO.Etching would defeat the purpose of the EOTech and Aimpoint. An etched reticle is stationary in the tube and is affected by parallax.

P.B.Walsh
June 10, 2009, 11:41 PM
Oh, I didn't know that, thanks for the knowledge.

TechBrute
June 10, 2009, 11:45 PM
Yeah, the whole thing with these sights is that the "reticle" is projected up on the lens so that its reflection is superimposed on the target in a similar manner to a heads-up-display. This allows the reticle to stay in the same position relative to the target even if you move your head side to side. A typical reticle (wire or etched) would lose position relative to the target if you move your head side to side.

10-Ring
June 11, 2009, 12:44 AM
For me, the ACOG hands down -- almost -- they're just cost prohibitive right now. I went EOTech for the smaller dot ;)

Benelli Shooter
June 11, 2009, 12:54 AM
Aimpoint hands down. Get a 3X magnifier on a Larue mount. You are covered near and far.

wickedsprint
June 11, 2009, 01:30 AM
Military uses everything. The last group of SEALs I saw all had Eotechs. There are a lot of different versions of Eotechs, some crappy..some really nice.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 11, 2009, 01:08 PM
The Eotech is the SU-231 in military parlance. You can check out the procurement stuff at the Gun Zone's 5.56x45 section and see all the times that model number pops up for recall, purchase cancellations, bad battery terminals, etc.

Personally, I've never had a problem with the Eotech; but looking at those notices does not give you a sense of confidence in it.

Onmilo
June 11, 2009, 01:21 PM
ACOG TA01NSN for distance, Trijicon Red Dot on a piggyback mount for close in shooting.
Problem solved.
http://www.fototime.com/B556E6282DC7A27/standard.jpg
Of course you can also choose the M68 Aimpoint with a seperate 3X magnifier assembly now too.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 11, 2009, 04:31 PM
Definitely ACOG. The Aimpoint is a SHORT-range weapon sight, and you're wanting an all-purpose sight (you said out to 200 yards).

Aimpoint hands down. Get a 3X magnifier on a Larue mount. You are covered near and far.

Unless you do that, in which case, Aimpoint/3x is more versatile.

Lloyd Smale
June 11, 2009, 04:39 PM
yes i have. I had to drill new holes in the mount to get it back futher. Another inch of eye relief and id say it was the best sight ive ever used. My buddys ta11 does have more eye relief. The TA31F(4x) has a 1.5" eye relief and the TA11F(3.5X) has 2.4" eye relief. Anyone encounter a problem with the TA31F having too short of an eye relief? The TA11 has a slightly larger objective 35mm vs 32mm, any real difference between the two?

Al Thompson
June 11, 2009, 09:07 PM
Aimpoint. I'm not sure why anyone would call it short range, works fine to 300m. Obviously, it you are looking at hunting or something that may require the smallest possible groups, an optical device would work better. In fact, I'd rather have a regular scope on the AR for precision shooting than an ACOG. IMHO, you can get three 3x9 VX II (or two 2.5x8 VXIIIs) Leupolds for one ACOG.

numaone
June 11, 2009, 09:57 PM
Unless you do that, in which case, Aimpoint/3x is more versatile

OP here, Oh, I've thought loads about that combo... but I'm just not sure if I like the optics train. This is a hard decision. Just like the ACOG with reddot piggy-backed on it... so many options. How is one man to decide what he needs?

I need to make a Pro/Con sheet. At the least, it'll delay me spending alot of $$ while making it even more tough to decide when I have over 15 pro/cons for each. Atleast with the 3x, they are in the same price range... that makes is a little simpler :scrutiny:

I think I actually need to shoot with each setup to make the best choice. But I don't have any friends with either (except you guys, of course).

Al Thompson
June 11, 2009, 10:11 PM
CMMG flat top, mid length upper, 550.00. Weaver base and rings, 30.00, Burris 2.5 scope, 175.00....... $ 755 and still cheaper than a ACOG. :)

Get both, decide and sell the loser. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Aimpoint vs. ACOG for AR-15" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!