ACOG vs. quality conventional scope


PDA






Z-Michigan
November 2, 2009, 03:29 PM
I recently had the chance to look through and play with a 4x ACOG (not sure which exact model) for a few minutes. It seemed quite nice, but I don't see how it is $1000 nice, and I especially didn't like the short eye relief. I would like to know how an ACOG compares to a quality conventional fixed-power scope of equal magnification. Apart from the illumination of the aiming point and the compact size/shape, what do you get for the enormously higher cost? Assume the conventional scope is a good quality scope like a Leupold in the several-hundred$ range, and again, same magnification as the ACOG you're comparing it to.

If you enjoyed reading about "ACOG vs. quality conventional scope" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cosmik de Bris
November 2, 2009, 05:14 PM
I think probably one answer is that they are for military use. They must be extremely hardy in all sorts of ways, and like medical equipment you can charge the military a premium.

Cheers

Darthbauer
November 2, 2009, 05:31 PM
I dont think that conventional scopes will take being dropped 6 feet (maybe more) while on the gun and directly on the optic and still work.


I have seen many ACOG's do this and live.

Z-Michigan
November 2, 2009, 05:54 PM
I don't intentionally abuse my equipment, so I have not tried whether any of scopes will withstand a 6' drop, but I have read plenty of reviews on Midway's website about scopes that held up to such abuse (Leupold, Weaver, Burris, etc.). Aimpoints are also known for being incredibly tough and they are closer to $400 even though also using electronics.

Another question about ACOGs: why is the eye relief so short? I would think you would want at least 3-4" if not more for military purposes, but the one I looked at, and the specs I've read, are in the 1.5-2" range. Uncomfortably close when I was looking through it.

arizona98tj
November 2, 2009, 07:43 PM
[quote[but I have read plenty of reviews on Midway's website about scopes that held up to such abuse (Leupold, Weaver, Burris, etc.)[/quote]
I believe that is known as anecdotal evidence....unless Leupold or Weaver or Burris actually certifies that as part of their optic qualification process. I've no doubt there are some form of drop test specs in the military's acceptance paperwork. Paying for engineered reliability needed to pass those acceptance tests is not cheap.

The best part is that you never have to buy an ACOG. If you enlist, you may have to use one, so be careful there. ;)

And for what it is worth, the first Leupold scope I ever purchased fogged over on it's second day of use at an Appleseed shoot earlier this year. (and it wasn't even humid) And that too is anecdotal evidence. I'm happy to say that the replacement I received hasn't done that. :)

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