ACOG vs EoTech vs Aimpoint


PDA






Franco
September 14, 2010, 08:55 AM
I've been trying to get a scope for my FNAR and looked at all three of these. I like the ACOG best if coupled with an RMR for close range shooting but absolutely noone has them in stock (specifically the TA11E or TA11C that I want) and seem to be backordered forever. Therefore I am relooking at EoTech and Aimpoint. I like EoTech because of the reticle (circle with dot in the center) but the Aimpoint batter life and design are more appealing to me. This is my defensive weapon to be used in the event of economic collapse, etc so I don't want to rely on batteries (hence my original attraction to the ACOG) but given their unavailability, any preferences on the EoTech vs Aimpoint?

Let me know if this has already been covered under another topic/link so I don't waste everyone's time. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "ACOG vs EoTech vs Aimpoint" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
September 14, 2010, 09:00 AM
I'm not a fan of the RMR idea when you can run it on an offset mount and keep your cheek weld much better.

OTOH, a EoTech with a flip off magnifier is a good setup as would be an Aimpoint with the same. US mil uses both so I don't think you could go wrong either way.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 14, 2010, 10:24 AM
1. Based on your statements and the optics you are comparing, I get the feeling that what you really need is some good, quality formal instruction. Taking one of those courses will give you skills you will have with you the rest of your life as well as giving you the experience you need to sort out which optic is best for you.

2. Having said that, battery-phobia is not really an issue with Aimpoints. The Comp M4 has an 80,000 battery life. Even if you assume that between less than ideal use conditions and cheap batteries, you only get half of that number, that is still 4 years on a single AA battery. If you are planning for the kind of economic collapse where AA batteries are no longer commonly available after 4 years, then Aimpoint, ACOG or Eotech is WAY down the list of priorities in planning.

You should give Zak Smith's essay on Carbine Optics (http://demigodllc.com/articles/fighting-carbine-optics-short-guide/) a read if you haven't already.

pikid89
September 14, 2010, 10:27 AM
learn irons like there all you got

Z-Michigan
September 14, 2010, 11:02 AM
I'm 99% sure we had this exact discussion within the last year or so, do a search.

You're asking about two different types of optics with different uses. Further, they are all quite expensive and require a lot of practice to use well. I would agree with the recommendation of formal instruction before spending lots of money on a fancy optic. (Incidentally I currently own an ACOG and an EOTech and have owned an Aimpoint in the past; but do not read that as endorsing one over the others for your uses.)

Kwanger
September 14, 2010, 12:44 PM
I've been trying to get a scope for my FNAR and looked at all three of these. I like the ACOG best if coupled with an RMR for close range shooting but absolutely noone has them in stock (specifically the TA11E or TA11C that I want) and seem to be backordered forever. Therefore I am relooking at EoTech and Aimpoint. I like EoTech because of the reticle (circle with dot in the center) but the Aimpoint batter life and design are more appealing to me. This is my defensive weapon to be used in the event of economic collapse, etc so I don't want to rely on batteries (hence my original attraction to the ACOG) but given their unavailability, any preferences on the EoTech vs Aimpoint?

Let me know if this has already been covered under another topic/link so I don't waste everyone's time. Thanks.
Sounds like you want the magnification of an ACOG, but also with the ability for close up work?

In that case, I'll throw another option out there for you - instead of limiting yourself to the three scopes you mentioned, why not try a good variable 1-4x instead? Such as the Trijicon TR24, for instance.

Vyacheslav
September 14, 2010, 12:51 PM
FNARs dont have irons

essayons21
September 14, 2010, 01:10 PM
With a few hours of training, a 4x ACOG is just as fast at close quarters as Aimpoints/Eotechs. Without any sort of secondary optic.

The advantage of the non-magnified red-dot comes when shooting in extremely low light, crappy conditions, and awkward firing positions.

briansmithwins
September 14, 2010, 01:18 PM
With a few hours of training, a 4x ACOG is just as fast at close quarters as Aimpoints/Eotechs.

For some people. Other people's brains can't handle switching between eyes like a ACOG demands.

Best for the OP to try for himself and see what he finds works better. Except for the Eotech: Between the short battery life, batteries draining when turned OFF, and random failures while shooting the Eotechs just aren't up to snuff. BSW

essayons21
September 14, 2010, 01:25 PM
I'm one of those people: cross-dominant with a left eye preference and I shoot right handed. You use the same technique with an ACOG as shooting both eyes open with a non-magnified optic... either open and close one eye or if that doesn't work shut your dominant eye. Not ideal, but just as quick.

TonyAngel
September 14, 2010, 01:30 PM
I've been down the same road you're on. I've been using Aimpoints for going on 20 years or so. I still had the first one that I bought, until a couple of years ago when the gun that it was on was stolen. The Aimpoint is a rock solid piece of equipment that handles abuse as well as any extruded aluminum tube can. It's really idiot proof too. No buttons to press or adjust. Just twist the switch and it's going. With the latest generation Aimpoints, you don't even need to turn them off. I don't think that I ever turned any of my M3 and later Aimpoints off. I got away from Aimpoints due to failing eye sight, but I still have a butt load of batteries left. I bought a dozen of them with my first M3 and never had to replace the battery.

I really like the reticle in the Eotech. My son loves them. So much so, that I kept buying them, even after they kept breaking. I went through five of them. For what it's worth, they were all N cell and AA models. Maybe the other models are better.

As for running a magnifier, all I can say is that they suck. They are expensive for what they are. They are heavy. They have really short eye relief. The optical quality doesn't come close to being what it should be for the price that you pay.

I wound up going middle of the road. I'm running a 1.5X ACOG TA44S-10. It's a tiny little scope. It has that little bit of extra magnification that made a world of difference for me. The eye relief is really forgiving, to the point of almost being like running a red dot. It isn't picky at all about cheek weld. It also has a reticle similar to that of the Eotech, although it looks at lot cleaner, since it's an etched reticle rather than projected. I don't think that the ACOG in it's mount weighs 8 oz.

If you buy an ACOG, be sure to take a look through the one that you're interested in and take note of the eye relief. Some ACOGs have really short eye relief that makes shooting from awkward positions almost impossible, or at the least, uncomfortable. I hate my 4X. If you want something that will work well up close, but also allow you to shoot out a bit farther, I'd suggest either the TA44S-10 or any one of the TA33 models. The TA33 allow the use of BAC and is a 3X. I'd take the TA33 over a red dot/magnifier combo any day. Since I rarely shoot my carbine with any sort of precision accuracy in mind, the TA44 serves me well. It outperforms the red dots by a wide margin for me. As for as reticle color goes, most prefer green. I like the amber. I want to emphasize trying out an ACOG before you buy. You can't just go by what's published as specs on their website. Those specs are based on what the numbers should be based on the design of the particular scope that you're looking at. It isn't unusual for the scope to behave differently in use and differ from what the published specs say it should be, especially in terms of eye relief. For example, Trijicon list the eye relief on the 1.5X as being 2.5", but it really doesn't tell you that the scope is actually useable as long as you eye is at least 1" from the ocular lens. Anything beyond that and you can see through the scope. With this model 2.5" is just the ideal position. With some of the 4X ACOGs that I've used, the stated eye relief is sometimes a bit off and they are picky about cheek weld.

There was a suggestion of a variable scope. Variables are nice, but won't be nearly as fast as a red dot or one of the smaller ACOGs, because you'll still have to deal with the more finicky eye relief of a traditional tube scope. In any case, considering the options that you've mentioned, that puts you in the price range of some pretty good variables. You can get into a Nightforce 1-4X for around $1200. Personally, as much as I wanted to need a 1-4X scope (I think they look cool), I didn't find much use for it. For me, it was either a PITA dealing with the bulky scope and the eye relief at 1X or 2X (for close up) or it just wasn't enough magnification at 4X when I wanted to really reach out.

Decide what you want the rifle to do. Don't try to build a Jack of all trades rifle. If you do, you're going to find yourself wishing that you had something else most of the time. If you build it for either close up or far out, you'll only wish you had something different half of the time. It's why I have two ARs. I have both halves covered.

Shipwreck
September 14, 2010, 01:43 PM
I have tried to use red dot sights with the single dot - but after using the EOtech, I just cannot do it. I like the EOtech reticle. For me, it is much easier and faster to use.

I switched from a 511 model to the new XPS2-0 model. I like that the battery life is 2x what it was on the N battery 511. Plus, with the 123 battery being in sideways, it eliminates any battery issues that some people claimed to have on the older designs. I don't think I've seen any specific complaints about the new XPS line, other than people lumping them in with the other models and claiming that they just don't like eotechs.

I have tons of 123 battery powered flashlight, plus my Eotech. So, I keep 25-30 batteries in that size on hand at all times anyway.

amprecon
September 14, 2010, 02:10 PM
I've tried a magnified red dot and it didn't work for me, with both eyes open my eyes just couldn't lock on and I was seeing double unless I closed my other eye which defeated the purpose.
I prefer the Aimpoints over the EoTechs, I like the single dot, the circle-in-dot was too busy for me. I also like the rotary knob over the push button setup and the battery life of the Aimpoint is a non-issue.
I looked at ACOGs, but as I have trouble keeping both eyes open whilst using them I quickly decided against them, not to mention the high price tags.
Since using my red dot quite a bit lately I've found I can pretty much hit whatever I can see with it.
I was pretty much convinced and fully prepared to go out and buy the Aimpoint magnifier to make the AR more versatile, but decided that if I feel the need for magnification I'll grab the scoped rifle.

kwelz
September 14, 2010, 02:12 PM
An even better option is an Trijicon Accupoint.
It gives you the 1X like an Aimpoint or Eotech for CQB use and can be cranked up to 4X like the ACOG. It is battery less like the ACOG as well and cost less.

The TR24 also has better eye relief.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 14, 2010, 02:14 PM
With a few hours of training, a 4x ACOG is just as fast at close quarters as Aimpoints/Eotechs. Without any sort of secondary optic.

I don't know about that. I've got years with the TA11 ACOG -which even has the advantage of long eye relief and a big exit pupil; but even stationary at 15yds, I am still faster with a red dot - tenths of a second faster over 6 shots to be sure; but faster.

The advantage of the non-magnified red-dot comes when shooting in extremely low light, crappy conditions, and awkward firing positions.

Yes, once you start shooting in these types of environments, the red dot has a lot of advantages. I'd also add "shooting while moving" to that list and "shooting from your weakside."

shoen1200
September 14, 2010, 03:26 PM
I ran with irons for a while and was surprised how well they worked at distance.
I got the bug and bought an Eotech 512 on a larue mount for 1/3 co-witness and really liked it.
It was amazing fun for keeping a can or plastic jug dancing on a hill untill the ammo was gone.
Untill I discovered that I was more much more accurate with the iron sight at any distance over 40yrds.
Turns out I have a wicked astigmatism(sp?) and my eye distorted the Eotech reticle.
Pissed me off that I spent so much money and was much less precise when shooting at anything but close distance.
I tried a 1-4x Leupold shotgun scope a friend loned me and did not care for it.
I tried an Aimpoint M4s and did as well as I could with irons.
The Aimpoint is one dot - not like the Eotech that projects many small dots.
I liked the reticle on the Eotech better but shoot the Aimpoint better.
I am now used to the Aimpoint sigle dot and no longer seem to miss the Eotech reticle.
The only gripe I have is its pretty heavy - maybe more than the Eotech was.
I was too chicken to spend the money on the Aimpoint Micro without being able to try it first but still wonder if it would have been as fast as an M4 and been a better lighter choice.

essayons21
September 14, 2010, 06:09 PM
I don't know about that. I've got years with the TA11 ACOG -which even has the advantage of long eye relief and a big exit pupil; but even stationary at 15yds, I am still faster with a red dot - tenths of a second faster over 6 shots to be sure; but faster.


I was fortunate enough to attend a range day with some representatives of Trijicon put on for about a dozen instructors at the NG Marksmanship Training Unit (I am not one). A few hours of instruction and every single person was shooting faster split times with the ACOG than with the M68. They had to show a few guys the shot timers to convince them. More accurately too. Your results may vary, but I was converted.

That being said, when choosing between an M68 and an ACOG on my last deployment, I chose the M68 for the reasons given earlier. Hanging sideways out of a turret during a sandstorm at night was a much more common occurrence than clearing rooms or taking precision shots.

Zerodefect
September 14, 2010, 07:10 PM
The ACOG is the wrong choice for Pittsburg PA terrain. 1x is they way to go out there IME, allthough an SPR would be handy if the world decides to end, it's unlikely.

ACOG's and Scopes have there place in the defensive role, I just don't see that role as likely to happen as a speedy rush into action CQB situation. Best to get a more realistic scope for defense.

Scope type sights are tough to use in improvised positions, and a good reddot can reach out plenty far.

The Aimpoints are the way to go. The little T1's are nice with the large adjustment wheel on the side. I prefere the 2moa dots. I allways break Eotech's, or kill the batteries, etc.

You'll need a Larue quick release lever mount. Get's foggy quick over there.

alfack
September 14, 2010, 07:30 PM
I went with the ACOG TA33. I really love the optics on it. If I had to do it over again, I might go with the Accupoint, though. I like to shoot for groups once in a while and none of the combat type sights I have tried are too tight past 100 yards. I think the ultimate would be an Accupoint with the 50mm objective and a detachable mount so I could use it on my hunting rifle, too. I also like the Aimpoint I have.

strambo
September 14, 2010, 10:10 PM
I don't worry about batteries in a crisis w/ my Aimpoint. With the one in it and the 2 stored in the stock...I have 15 years of constant on use. Probably indefinite (until the batteries lose charge from extreme age) if I started turning it off for long periods of time when it wasn't in use patrolling or whatever.

Zak Smith
September 14, 2010, 11:36 PM
http://demigodllc.com/photo/PRM-2006.11/icon/D100_5378_img.jpg
article | Fighting Carbine Optics http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://demigodllc.com/articles/fighting-carbine-optics-for-the-ar-15)

If you want an ACOG, the TA11 is the one to get.

I would not recommend getting something other than a 1x red dot sight such as the Aimpoint T1/M3/M4 on a fighting or general-purpose carbine unless you have a specific need for it.

Oceans
September 14, 2010, 11:52 PM
I have to cast my vote for the aimpoint M4, in my opinion that is the superior optic for most probable rifle encounters. The military has done study after study indicating that beyond 200 meters in combat situations, hits just don't come all that often period, and 200 meters, and in is where most probable contact will occur. The Aimpoint is FAST, real fast. With that red dot sighted in at a 200 yard zero, if you have any trigger control at all, you will get the hit. The Aimpoint is light, and it is rugged. The battery is not an issue. An Army spokesman in Iraq stated that the Aimpoint on the M-16/4 has done more for fast accurate, combat rifle craft than anything since the introduction of the M1 Garand.

Franco
September 15, 2010, 06:52 AM
Thanks all. Very helpful. I'm leaning toward the Aimpoint M3 or M4 but wanted the flip to side (swivel) mounted 3x to go with it to assist on longer shots. Unfortunately, according to LaRue mounting systems, if you want the swivel mounted 3x, then the mount you need for the scope will cause you to remove the entire cheek piece from the FNAR to use it. Maybe there's an alternative I don't know of -- just heard good things about LaRue mounts. However, from what I'm hearing, the 3x may not be such a necessary or useful piece anyway.

One of my big attractions to the ACOG is the reticle (red chevron or donut) as I have not been a historical fan of red dots (tried them on high powered pellet guns and on a 44mag scope). I could get used to them with practice but.... I agree that battery life should not be the paramount issue, it was just one of the issues in the mix.

TonyAngel actually makes the best point. I didn't realize it but, yes, I am trying to build a rifle for multiple purposes, hence part of my attraction to a magnified scope with alternate CQB sighting. Good advice. This leans me even more to a no-mag red dot or maybe the 1.5x ACOG for my FNAR and, if I have to shoot extreme distances, I have plenty of deer rifles (7mm-08, 243, etc) w/ 3.5-10x Leupolds and Zeiss scopes on them.

As for iron sights, I would love to do that but FNARs don't have them. (confirming Vyacheslav's note above).

Thanks again for your helpful information.

Zerodefect
September 15, 2010, 09:17 AM
The Aimpoint M3 or ML3 (non-night vision coating) come in a 2moa dot/blob version. It can reach out alot further than most give it credit for.

The green 1.5x ACOGs are awesome sights, but for home defense 1x redot is still the plce to start. The ACOG is a bit more speciallized, and acts like a scope even in th 1.5x variety, you have to allighn your head properly. Tough to do when bullets are zinging towards you.

Besides an M3 will allways find a home. Whether you sell it, or put it on another rifle. it's the safest choice. Th larue cantilever mount is a nice touch, pushing the sight out further for quicker ac.

essayons21
September 15, 2010, 02:13 PM
One option that I see largely ignored in the Aimpoint vs EoTech debate is the Trijicon Reflex.

http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/parts_new.cfm?categoryID=8

I have used Aimpoints extensively, Eotechs enough to know I am not a fan, and a Trijicon RXO1 basically fell into my lap and I have become a fan. No batteries, always on, automatically adjusts to ambient lighting, and super rugged. The main downside is the amber reticle, which some people don't like. IMHO it is better for precision, not as good for bad conditions.

-v-
September 15, 2010, 11:49 PM
One reason to choose a prismatic sight or 1-4x scope is if you have an astigmatism.

1 in 3 people suffer from an astigmatism!

For people with an astigmatism, the nice reticles of an EOTech and an Aimpoint turn into amorphous blobs that vary in size dependent on lighting. I do see a 4 MOA dot in the noon sun, but as the light fades, that dot begins to morph, stretch and distort, as my pupils dilate to compensate for the lower light.

The end result is that these optics are useless to me for anything over 50 yards because their reticle size and point of aim shifts by multiple MOA based on the time of day. Thats why a 1-4x scope or a 1.01x prismatic reflex sight is the best option for me, because etched reticles are not affected by astigmatisms. This is true for 1 in 3 people, statistically.

Zak Smith
September 16, 2010, 12:02 AM
I have astigmatism to a level such that contacts that could correct it to a halfway decent level only became available in the last few years. I still use glasses for most everything including shooting, but use the contacts for moto.

Anyway, I haven't had any problem using a variety of sight systems, ACOGs, Aimpoints, EOTechs, etc.

Z-Michigan
September 16, 2010, 12:24 AM
For people with an astigmatism, the nice reticles of an EOTech and an Aimpoint turn into amorphous blobs that vary in size dependent on lighting. I do see a 4 MOA dot in the noon sun, but as the light fades, that dot begins to morph, stretch and distort, as my pupils dilate to compensate for the lower light.

That's my exact experience with red dot sights - but NOT my experience with the EOTech, which is always as sharp as it gets* regardless of lighting. (The EOTech reticle is made up of about 100 dots of roughly 1/3 MOA each, and if you have good eyesight you can see them individually in dimmer lighting; but it's completely different from the amoeba effect I get with an RDS in dim lighting.)

Anyway, I seem to have an astigmatism since even Aimpoint's an amoeba to me in dim light. I still find them usable in brighter light, but don't like them much for this reason. I stumbled across a 1.5x ACOG and find it just about heavenly for dim light shooting. I would still consider an RDS for action shooting (2 gun/3gun) or if I were supposed to be hanging out of a HMMWV strafing insurgents, which so far is not part of my job or lifestyle.

Zerodefect
September 16, 2010, 10:13 AM
The Aimpoint dots are a blob. Not a dot. Everyone with an Aimpoint is panicking and making appointments with their eye doctors right about now! LOLz.

The ML3 2moa is a nice little "squid of death" at higher settings, for longer ranges I dial it down until it becomes a "jellybean of death".

Bartholomew Roberts
September 16, 2010, 11:12 AM
1 in 3 people suffer from an astigmatism!

1 in 3 people may suffer from astigmatism; but as the comments below yours show, it doesn't mean 1 in 3 people cannot use an Aimpoint or Eotech. If that was the case, the Army would surely have problems since they have hundreds of thousands of sights.

On the Trijicon Reflex, the problem is that, like the ACOGs, it is powered by tritium and ambient light. If you are shooting from an area of low ambient light (from inside a house to outside, from a covered firing line to a brightly lit target, inside a dark room with a weaponlight pointed at the target), then the tritium cannot generate enough light to provide good contrast with the brighter lit target and there isn't enough ambient light for the fiber optic to pick up.

On the ACOG/Accupoint this is rarely* an issue because you have an etched reticle and the reticle just turns black against the brighter lit target, giving you acceptable contrast. The Reflex has no etched reticle. With the Reflex, your reticle will lose contrast and can even disappear entirely.

*The same issue occasionally happens with the ACOG if the ambient light is just bright enough to match the lighting of the target - it usually happens with very fine amber reticles (think TA01NSN at dawn/dusk against a brown cardboard silhouette target). However, it is much more rare because it has to be bright enough to obscure the etched reticle but not brighter than the background lighting.

essayons21
September 16, 2010, 03:02 PM
On the Trijicon Reflex, the problem is that, like the ACOGs, it is powered by tritium and ambient light. If you are shooting from an area of low ambient light (from inside a house to outside, from a covered firing line to a brightly lit target, inside a dark room with a weaponlight pointed at the target), then the tritium cannot generate enough light to provide good contrast with the brighter lit target and there isn't enough ambient light for the fiber optic to pick up.

http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=136

The model I use, the RX01NSN, comes standard with this.

The tritium in Trijicon (say that five times fast) is plenty bright enough to show up on a bright day, and the newer generation devices can last 12-14 hours with no ambient light before dimming. If you are in the dark for longer than that, simply duct tape a mini glow stick to the tritium window.

You are absolutely correct about the contrast issue, especially when shooting at night with a mounted weaponlight. This problem was solved with the polarizing filtered linked to above, something that was demanded by DoD.

On my HD shotgun I went from fiberoptic bead to ghost rings to a CompM4 to the Trijicon Reflex. I by far prefer the Reflex sight picture when looking down a dark hallway lit by a flashlight.

As discussed above, different strokes for different folks. Regardless of what some expert has written, some devices simply won't work for some people, while devices which common wisdom hold "inferior" often will.

Zak Smith
September 16, 2010, 03:15 PM
and the newer generation devices can last 12-14 hours with no ambient light before dimming
Tritium does not "recharge" in daylight. The light it emits comes from radioactive decay.

essayons21
September 16, 2010, 03:27 PM
Tritium does not "recharge" in daylight. The light it emits comes from radioactive decay.

Tritium doesn't emit light. The radiation it emits activates phosphor, usually a zinc sulfide mixture which glows. Light, via fiber-optics, also activates the phosphor, and modern phosphors will glow for 12-14 hours without ambient light before dimming.

The tritium is there so you don't have to leave the scope out in the sunlight for 30mins to fully excite the phosphors.

I didn't think the chemistry was pertinent to the discussion, so I refer to all the magic that happens inside a tritium/phosphor/fiber-optic scope as "tritium."

Bartholomew Roberts
September 16, 2010, 03:32 PM
The model I use, the RX01NSN, comes standard with this.

The issue I've run into when using the RX01NSN is the polarizing filter works by making the screen of the RX01NSN darker so that the reticle has better contrast. Given that the contrast problem only occurs when you are in a darkened area, I didn't care for it since now the sight was too dark to see through without the brightly lit portion - which isn't a huge deal since you can use the sight even with the polarizing filter opaque; but it changes the point of impact since you are now using the BAC technique.

Just not a fan of the Reflex at all. Love my TA11 though. Eyesight can be very quirky from one person to the next, what works well for one user may not work at all for another (red/green colorblind for example).

The tritium in Trijicon (say that five times fast) is plenty bright enough to show up on a bright day

You know, I've got a couple of Trijicon sights and none of them are bright enough to illuminate the reticle on a bright day (or even slightly cloudy day) just using the tritium. All of them need the ambient light from the fiber optics to work. I've never seen a Trijicon sight that was powered by tritium only be bright enough to use in even dawn/dusk conditions.

and the newer generation devices can last 12-14 hours with no ambient light before dimming.

Did you mean 12-14 years? Because that would be about the half-life of tritium - meaning that a sight powered solely by tritium would be about half as bright in 12 years. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about above. ETA: Never mind, I see you typed a response to this question while I was typing.

And since we are chatting, there is another statement you made earlier that confused me...

I was fortunate enough to attend a range day with some representatives of Trijicon put on for about a dozen instructors at the NG Marksmanship Training Unit (I am not one). A few hours of instruction and every single person was shooting faster split times with the ACOG than with the M68.

Typically, when I say "split time" I am using that phrase to describe the time from one shot to the next shot. Most commonly, I would compare my split times when doing hammers to my split times firing two aimed shots in rapid succession. So when I hear "split times" I think of a person firing two rapid shots at a target at short range.

In that scenario, I don't see how the sight would make a difference since I am usually just using one sight picture anyway and relying on good position and execution of the fundamentals to put the rest of the rounds on target.

Did I misunderstand how you meant that? Could you describe the actual drill you performed with the M68 and ACOG?

essayons21
September 16, 2010, 03:58 PM
I just took my shotgun with the reflex on it, which has been sitting in a dark closet, with the cover on the site (woops), for at least a month. I took the cover off, took the polarizing filter off, and pointed it out at the bright beautiful day outside and had no problem seeing the dot on a super bright sky from a dark room. Don't really know how to get anymore contrast than that. Maybe its just an issue of eyesight.

As for the drills, I don't remember everything, but it was all standing from the low ready. Times were measured from facing the target, buzzer, shoot. Then facing away from target, turn, shoot. Then same thing with 2 targets, then 3. Then shooting around obstacles, still standing, at unknown number of targets. Times were from buzzer to first shot on target, then last shot on target for multiples. Range was 50m and closer. No pairs, no move and shoot, no positions, nothing fancy. Basically the first block of instruction in Army CRM.

The big surprise was that once you were familiar with the ACOG (TA31), you can acquire the target and get rounds on target just as fast or faster than with the M68. Not sure why, my theory is that it was easier for me to focus on the target and be more confident in my shot with the magnified optic.

Zak Smith
September 16, 2010, 04:04 PM
Between my own tests with a timer and running 3Gun shooters, that is the opposite of the experience I've had with an Aimpoint vs. a TA31/11 and target to target transition times. In my experience the Aimpoint is always quicker in transitions between close-range targets.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 16, 2010, 04:58 PM
I took the cover off, took the polarizing filter off, and pointed it out at the bright beautiful day outside and had no problem seeing the dot on a super bright sky from a dark room. Don't really know how to get anymore contrast than that.

Use electrical or duct tape to cover the fiber optics on the front of the sight, that should give you a good idea of what kind of illumination you'll get from tritium alone (or what the reticle will look like if something obscures the fiber optics).

As for the ACOG, don't know what to say. Like Zak, that is typically the opposite from what I've experienced in my own shooting (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193965) and watching others shoot and I've owned a TA11 ACOG since about 2002. I like it a great deal; but speed up close is not one of its stronger points in my own personal use.

Just sticking to stationary shooting at static targets scenarios, one issue I have had is that the magnification at closer ranges can lead to target overswing (especially when working left to right rather than right to left).

Z-Michigan
September 16, 2010, 06:11 PM
The big surprise was that once you were familiar with the ACOG (TA31), you can acquire the target and get rounds on target just as fast or faster than with the M68.

In my experience the Aimpoint is always quicker in transitions between close-range targets.

At the moment, I do best in shooting competitions with iron sights, rather than optics. This does NOT prove that iron sights are superior; it only shows that at the current moment, my skill set works best with them. With more practice on a RDS, I would probably find it to be fastest at close range, like most people do.

I think a lot of the decision boils down to whether you want to try what works best for most people and practice til it works with you, or get what you currently think works best for you and just stick with it. Those may be two different options. Which one is right depends on your goals and your time and willingness to train.

Franco
September 26, 2010, 07:08 AM
Thanks all for the advice. I ended up purchasing an Aimpoint CompM4 and love it. Very quick target acquisition at close range and shooting 3" groups at 100yds. The unit is very solidly constructed and simple to operate. Apparently has 80,000 hours of runtime so battery life isn't an issue. Thanks again for your collective input. I find this site to be a very trusted source for my shooting/reloading questions.

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