Is an ACOG worth it?


PDA






zstephens13
January 11, 2012, 02:52 AM
I've got some electronics I'm going to liquidate and I am wondering from you guys that have some Trijicon ACOGs:

ARE THEY WORTH THE MONEY?

Things that really interest me about the ACOG

-The ability to use it in low light situations, which is about 9 months of the year in Alaska.

-The ruggedness and durability of the optic. The plan is to put this on my "go to" rifle so I don't want something that break or lose zero if it bangs on a tree or on a vehicle while getting out.

-Battery-less.

If you care, I'm thinking about getting a Trijicon TA11J-308 on my Rock River Arms LAR-8.

What do you guys junk about your ACOGs?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is an ACOG worth it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bovice
January 11, 2012, 02:57 AM
Junk and ACOG don't fit in the same sentence. There's nothing low-quality about an ACOG optic. However, for most of our purposes, you can get by just fine using something a little less pricey, like an Aimpoint. Still very rugged. It does take batteries, but the battery life is ridiculously long even with it constantly on.

zstephens13
January 11, 2012, 03:05 AM
An ACOG does not take batteries.
Fiber optics and tritium.
Do you own one?

Saakee
January 11, 2012, 03:17 AM
An ACOG does not take batteries.
Fiber optics and tritium.
Do you own one?
Actually, they do make a battery powered model: link (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/28/trijicon-4x32-battery-acog/)

zstephens13
January 11, 2012, 03:49 AM
Thank you. I was not aware of a battery powered model.
The type I am interested in hearing about is the fiber optic/tritium versions.
I know lots of you guys have them or have had experience with them.
Complaints? Praises? Thoughts?

Are they worth the money?

KNOCKDOWN
January 11, 2012, 03:54 AM
Something to consider...if I remember correctly, Tritium has a radioactive "half-life" of 25 years. Which would mean the light from the Tritium portion would only be about half as bright in 12 years, if that even matters to you. However, the brightness on the Aimpoint stays consistent throughout its 5 year battery life.

The ranging & bdc & magnification are an added bonus on the ACOG, so brightness and battery life, etc., may not be an important consideration for your purchase. ..."your mileage may vary" ;)

nyc71
January 11, 2012, 03:55 AM
I recently bought TA11H for a FAR .308 at this point I do not regret buying it. Great eye relief & it's built like a tank.

AK_Maine_iac
January 11, 2012, 03:57 AM
I too live in Alaska. When i first bought my AR10 I had to have an ACOG. After about a year i came to the conclusion, I did not need it. Sold it and got a good set of trijicon AR sights. Never been sorry i sold it. Although i do have an Aimpoint that i can slap onto the rail if needed. 99.9% of the time it is just the AR style night sights for me. Less weight to carry around, and one less thing to worry about when bouncing in a canoe or 4wheeler.

http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=LAW1180

briansmithwins
January 11, 2012, 04:11 AM
The Trijicon ACOGs are rock solid, lit w/o batteries, and have very good glass in them.

Generally speaking, the only shortcoming they typically have is short eye relief.

That said, since they are lit with radioactive tritium, the illumination is going to be 1/2 as bright as new in 12.5 years. Recharging the optic is a factory overhaul job.

With the Aimpoint I'm using, I can leave it on and replace the battery every 5 years. Sure, I'm out $5 for each battery but I also get the ability to control the amount of illumination and get a optic that's unmatched for durability and speed close up.

If you did decide to go with a Aimpoint, make sure you use lithium batteries. Alkaline tend to fail in the cold.

BSW

OneLiveRound
January 11, 2012, 04:12 AM
The ACOG is a great choice, it's rugged and damn near bulletproof. The issue I have with it has nothing to do with the quality of the product. The primary target of the ACOG is government sales and the prices reflect that. If the rifle you're running isn't going into a hard use enviroment, I reccomend the Trijicon Accupoint. If you're really digging the ACOG , go for it...there's nothing worse than buyers remorse.

I run an EOTech XPS2 w/ a G23 magnifier on my carbine because I like the flexibility , I also had a max budget of $1000, that system fit nicely into my budget.

Pete D.
January 11, 2012, 05:18 AM
I have two Trijicon sights, the RX01 reflex and the TA01 ACOG. Both are great optics. I have an Aimpoint. I have an Eotech. Also fine sights.
The ACOG is a very rugged, dependable scope; it is one of the brightest, clearest scopes that I have had the pleasure to look through.
They sure have gotten expensive, though. They were never cheap but I surely paid hundreds less than I see them going for nowadays. Not sure that I would buy one today at that rate.

Pete

marine 97-03
January 11, 2012, 05:25 AM
I use one over seas and love them

jsimmons
January 11, 2012, 06:51 AM
If you have the money, and you want one, then it's worth it.

Lloyd Smale
January 11, 2012, 07:43 AM
ive got only one. Its the 4x army model. I love it! I wish i could afford to have one on every one of my ars but being retired and on a fixed income i just cant afford it so the rest of my ars have aimpoints on them.

ROCK6
January 11, 2012, 08:13 AM
As an owner and a user, they are excellent optics. They are expensive, but the benefit is a great company and excellent service. ACOG's are like other peices of expensive equipment; if you're going to use it, you'll appreciate the quality and accept the price...if you don't use it, you'll think it's medocre and not worth the coin.

ROCK6

ultradoc
January 11, 2012, 08:49 AM
I would like to get one but the price...is pricey. I bought an EoTech a couple of years ago and don't use it much so I think the same thing would happen if I broke down and bought an ACOG.

Adam123
January 11, 2012, 08:59 AM
No.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 11, 2012, 10:32 AM
As far as the criteria you are listing as important to you, the ACOG is outstanding in all of those areas. Not only will it not shift zero on you; but with a Larue mount, you can dismount the scope and remount it between shots and still have a good group. And as to durability, it is almost literally, bomb-proof. If you search the archives here, you can see ACOGs that stopped 7.62x54R rounds or that were strapped outside of an armored vehicle when a 155mm IED went off.

The TA11 is also excellent in low-light since it has a 10mm exit pupil and excellent glass, so your eyes are always getting the maximum amount of light available. The exit pupil isn't artificially restricting that.

The fiber-optic/tritium combo on the TA11 is also great in that it automatically adjusts the illumination to ambient light. A couple of years ago I started running an Aimpoint T1 in conjunction with my ACOG and one of the things that irritated me is how often I have to adjust brightness on the T1 - not a major thing by any means, but it highlighted for me how spoiled I had gotten from the ACOG. Prior to that I only noticed the auto-illumination when the ambient light wasn't great for my targeting conditions. Running it alongside the T1 helped me realize how often the auto-illumination was just right.

As I've owned the TA11 since 2002, I'll go one and add my two cents to some of the other feedback as well...

Generally speaking, the only shortcoming they typically have is short eye relief.

This is true of the 4x32 ACOGs the military uses. It is not true of the TA11 (3x35) or the TA33 (3x30) ACOGs; both of which are fairly generous with eye relief (in fact, if you shoot nose-to-charging handle, you'll need to mount it at the front of an AR15 receiver to get enough eye relief - though probably not so far forward on the longer LAR-8 receiver).

That said, since they are lit with radioactive tritium, the illumination is going to be 1/2 as bright as new in 12.5 years. Recharging the optic is a factory overhaul job.

This is correct and last time I looked (several years ago) refurbing the tritium was a $250 job. Though since you are going with a TA11, you also have the fiber optic illumination - which actually supplies most of the light in most conditions. The only place you'll notice the dimming of the tritium is in almost absolute darkness where there is no ambient light for the fiber optic to gather. As I said earlier, I've owned my optic for 9 years (and have no idea how much older the tritium charging it might be) and even in absolute darkness, I have a usable reticle (although not much too target in absolute darkness).

And actually, that brings up one of my gripes with the ACOG, compared to Aimpoints/Eotechs, they don't play well with PVS-14s or other night vision devices. The tritium is too bright for those.

but I also get the ability to control the amount of illumination

If you decide the ACOG reticle is too bright from too much ambient light, a strip of tape or an inner tube over the fiber optic lets you adjust the brightness just like you would an Aimpoint.

Overall, I think you will be more than happy with the TA11 ACOG, given the criteria you listed as important to you. However, I would just about bet money that there is probably a more traditional scope out there that is cheaper and that would serve your needs just as well (Trijicon's Accupoint line being a good place to look for that matter). And as much as I like the ACOGs, variable magnification is nice too; but if you want an ACOG, it will certainly do well in the criteria you listed.

JustinJ
January 11, 2012, 10:36 AM
I think they're great for combat in that they are a great compromise between a red dot and a more conventional scope. For most civilian uses there really isn't a need for such a compromise. But there is also nothing wrong with wanting what professionals use on their combat weapons.

Robert
January 11, 2012, 11:45 AM
The TA11 is awesome. I do not own one but my shooting partner has one on his competition rifle that I have used a fair amount. We have used that TA11F and his JP to make good center hits on a torso sized steel plate at 600y in a good cross wind. Amazing little 3x optic. They are built like a tank and last forever. If it gets dim send it back and you have a new scope for the next 12 or 15 years. Not a bad deal if you ask me. Want to control the amount of light coming in the fiber optic? Check out the Scope Fly from 3Gun Stuff:
http://www.3gunstuff.com/?page_id=263

Looks a little goofy but it works. So sticky goop like tape. And faster to adjust.

c0nspire
January 11, 2012, 02:29 PM
I own a TA31F that I absolutely LOVE. I originally had an EOTech XPS-2 with flip-to-side magnifier (also a great setup), but the ACOG works better for my purposes.

As said above, one of the bigger issues for me with the EOTech was in transitions from light to dark (or vice-versa). The current lineup of EOTech's and Aimpoints don't "auto adjust" (although several new optics are about to hit the market that do). That's never been an issue with the ACOG however. For me the brightness of the reticle has always been perfect in any lighting due to the fiber-optic design.

I don't worry much about the tritium running dim. While it is usable, it is relatively faint in TOTAL darkness (I got mine used, so I admittedly don't know how old the tritium is). That said, I don't see myself doing much shooting in the kind of darkness where the tritium appears to be effective (and even then I'd be using a weapon light). That fiber optic tube seems to gather quite a bit of light for the reticle even in low-light conditions. Clearly it's not as good as an EOTech or Aimpoint for something like room clearing, but it CAN do the job.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how well the BAC (Bindon Aiming Concept) worked for me. Again, not better than a red-dot, but pretty good nonetheless.

As stated, the thing is a tank. It's bomb-proof and the glass is outstanding. I put mine on a LaRue QR mount and never looked back.

I'm dying to get my hands on the SRS red-dot Trijicon just announced. It looks to solve many of my issues with EOTech's and Aimpoints, and Trijicon claims it stands up to the same torture tests the ACOG does. Right now that's the only thing that I might consider besides an ACOG for a carbine.

Z-Michigan
January 11, 2012, 02:40 PM
I have one, a compact 1.5x model. I like it well. The major benefits of the ACOG are:
-tritium illumination - nothing to fail
-ruggedness. above all.
-compact size and weight for any given magnification

The major drawback is price, of course. As already noted many models have good eye relief. For your purposes the ACOG might be a good choice. I would also consider an Aimpoint, but even with long battery life, batteries can still fail, and they work differently from an ACOG anyway.

X-Rap
January 11, 2012, 03:10 PM
I got mine used so yes it was well worth it to me. If I had to pay retail I would have probably bought a MK 4 for another rifle because $1100-$1400 is steep for a low power sight when I don't "need" that kind of indestructibility. If I found another used for a good price I would have 2.

C-grunt
January 11, 2012, 03:29 PM
I used one in the Army and found it to be a great combat scope. I have a TA-31RCO on my Colt now and I still believe it to be a fantastic general purpose rifle sight.

Nullcone
January 11, 2012, 05:42 PM
KNOCKDOWN said:
Something to consider...if I remember correctly, Tritium has a radioactive "half-life" of 25 years. Which would mean the light from the Tritium portion would only be about half as bright in 12 years, if that even matters to you. However, the brightness on the Aimpoint stays consistent throughout its 5 year battery life.


Actually, Tritium has a half-life of around 12.3 years. That would make the light around half as bright in 12 years as you stated, except iirc due to the geometry of the capsule it acts like it is "overfilled" (long thin tube compared to a sphere with Tritium in it) you end up getting more like 1.5 half-lives before the emitted light dims to 1/2. Hopefully, someone with more knowledge of this can explain it better.

As for the ACOG... I've shot a few weapons with them mounted and like them, but never had the desire to drop that much on an optic. If I needed that much optical quality for something like long-range precision shooting I wouldn't hesitate, but I've been served well by Aimpoints and Holosights in the red dot arena.

mtrmn
January 11, 2012, 06:06 PM
Would really, really love to have one. Started saving for one, but emergencies arise at the most inopportune moments. I would want one for the magnification as much or more than up close work. I like the crosshair reticle with illumination and no batteries. Even if the tritium died, you could fasten a light stick to the fiber optic with duct tape if you just had to have illumination.

Aimpoints and Eotechs are out due to no magnification. I won't even consider adding a magnifier to one -- I have just mental problems with mounting an extra optic behind the primary optic when I can have both in the same unit. That's just me. I'm not bashing what works for others.

Z-Michigan
January 11, 2012, 07:02 PM
Actually, Tritium has a half-life of around 12.3 years. That would make the light around half as bright in 12 years as you stated, except iirc due to the geometry of the capsule it acts like it is "overfilled" (long thin tube compared to a sphere with Tritium in it) you end up getting more like 1.5 half-lives before the emitted light dims to 1/2. Hopefully, someone with more knowledge of this can explain it better.

My limited understanding is that you are correct. I believe that the initial tritium fill emits more radiation than the luminescent material can use, so that there will be no decline in brightness for maybe 5-10 years and then it will taper off from there. I believe Trijicon guarantees illumination for 15 years (unsure if that's from date of purchase or manufacture - make sure you get a fresh one!). Trijicon will recharge an older one, but for roughly half the cost of the optic I doubt it makes sense for many individuals to take them up on that service.

steven58
January 11, 2012, 08:37 PM
I have run a TA33 on my AR for 5 years. It's fantastic! The BDC feature is spot on and lets me hit center mass shots on full size siluettes out to 600. The auto illumination is spot on 95% of the time even down to the lowest light that you can see a target. Worst case scenario, the reticle will appear black like on a normal scope. It won't diss appear or "wash out" like some other forms of illuminated sights will under certain conditions.

I also own Aimpoint T1, and Accupoint 1-4. The T1 is unbeatable inside 200 yd for speed (as long as you don't need to adjust the illumination). The accupoints are nice but lack the BDC feature of the ACOG and are not as rugged

Another point against batteries is they don't like the cold so much.

Bottom line: IMHO an ACOG calibrated for the ammo you are using is the best general purpose scope made.

TexasPatriot.308
January 11, 2012, 11:20 PM
I'm an old grunt from the early 70s, my AR10s and M1As stay with iron sights. they worked for me 40 years ago and still do.

Mot45acp
January 11, 2012, 11:24 PM
I have a TA-33. I like it alot. But....I got it for less than $500. Couldn't say "no".

I too have a .308 AR that is in need of optics. It currently is wearing the "poor mans ACOG", a Burris 332 fixed 3 power illuminated reticle for now. What turned me on to this was the $300 price, and the ability to still have a reticle without batteries.

I don't really have the coin for another ACOG. What I am looking at is a Trijicon Accupoint 1X4 in a Larue mount. It has a dial on it to control the amount of light the fiber optic gathers. Total price is around $900 for scope and mount.

Aiko492
January 12, 2012, 12:47 AM
I shot a few models (along with aimponts and Eotechs) when I bought my 2nd AR (DD). It is pure quality, rock solid. However, in bright light, the reticle is not nearly as brigt as as the Eotech or Aimpoint. The ACOG is better for longer distance shooting IMO and the other two for CQC.

Justin
January 12, 2012, 01:44 AM
However, for most of our purposes, you can get by just fine using something a little less pricey, like an Aimpoint. Still very rugged. It does take batteries, but the battery life is ridiculously long even with it constantly on.

Comparing ACOGs to Aimpoints is a bit like comparing apples to tomatoes.

Yeah, they're both fruit, but serve in fairly divergent niches.

When shooting 3 gun, for the most part I run an ACOG TA-11. For matches where there aren't any shots beyond 200 yards, I'll opt for the Aimpoint.

I'll admit that I'm a fairly biased ACOG fanboy in the same way that I'm extremely biased in favor of AR-pattern rifles. I bought my first ACOG over five years ago, used, from another 3 Gun shooter who is active in the sport and runs his gear hard.

That scope has served me through over ten national-level 3 gun matches, plenty of local 3 gun matches, and about four years of monthly tactical rifle matches*. In that time, I've only re-zeroed it at the beginning of a new season or when switching to a new brand of ammunition.

It's put up with being dropped in dump buckets, on the ground, and one catastrophic rifle failure, and still runs as well as the day I bought it, though the tritium appears to have dimmed a bit compared to newer models.

If you do most of your shooting from the bench, or just informal plinking on a square range, the extra cost of the ACOG may not be worth the expenditure. On the other hand, if you want a scope that's bomb-proof; easy to install, sight-in and learn; and stands up to abuse, the cost of an ACOG is well worth the money.




*Info on these in the competition forum.

Double Naught Spy
January 12, 2012, 11:28 AM
As for the ACOG... I've shot a few weapons with them mounted and like them, but never had the desire to drop that much on an optic. If I needed that much optical quality for something like long-range precision shooting I wouldn't hesitate, but I've been served well by Aimpoints and Holosights in the red dot arena.

Most red dots are less than ideal for low light situations without a light source. This is because the inside of the front lens is coated with a reflective material such that the dot can be shined on it and the reflected light seen by the shooter. This means that most red dot sights are dark sights. While maybe not noticed in bright sunshine, in low light the sights will appear quite dark.

ACOGs don't have this problem and Eotech holosights don't have this problem.

BridgeTooFar
January 12, 2012, 12:18 PM
I was in the "had to have one" crowd. I got the money together and bought one "cheap" online (I only put it like that because it still wasn't cheap). I liked it a lot. Really, I did.

That said, I traded it for a pistol that was pretty close (in retail terms) to the original price of the ACOG.

I found it to be over engineered for what I needed. I'm not in combat, so I don't need 75% of what the ACOG offered in terms of reliability, ruggedness, etc. My AR now wears simple irons FWIW.

Anyway, if you really want one and can afford it, get one (as everything else until you do will simply leave you questioning it). Unless you're literally fighting "in country" with your weapon, I doubt you'll ever really need one and can get by just fine (and even do very well) with something less expensive.

X-Rap
January 12, 2012, 12:53 PM
Everybody should have some things that are alnost totaly dependable.
Rifle, pistol, knife, survival gear. Like the armor disscussion top quality equipment belongs in the continuum.

henschman
January 13, 2012, 12:59 AM
The pros: They are the highest quality glass available... I've never looked through a clearer optic. They are very durable. They have dual illumination and use no batteries. They have a great ranging/BDC reticle that makes for really quick 1st shot hits on man-sized targets at unknown distance. They work pretty well for close quarters by using the occluded eye method (what Triji calls "BAC") with both eyes open.

The cons: They are fixed power instead of variable... a lot of guys prefer something like a 1-4x scope to an ACOG. The tritium runs out of power and needs to be replaced at some point, though that only matters for night use... if there is any light, the reticle is lit by fiber optics.

I had the TA-55A and thought it was a great battle rifle optic... but it didn't mount too well on my M1A (it sat too high, as it is intended for a flat top AR), so I sold it and bought a 1-4x scope.

Bago393
January 13, 2012, 01:06 AM
I run an ACOG TA31F red chevron on an LWRC and prior to that on a Colt H- Bar on both its rock solid. If you can swing the price tag buy it, don't worry about the tritium running low after a few years neat trick I learned was if it does get a mini chemlight and some tape to the fiber optic (tape it up good for light discipline) it will be bright enough.:what:

benzy2
January 13, 2012, 02:09 AM
They are worth the money of they are what you are looking for. There really isn't a 4x scope that I would trust to handle more and be more reliable than an ACOG. The glass is good, not absolutely the best in the world but better than most scopes costing less. I had a 1.5x model I found a deal on and it was an optic I never could enjoy. I appreciated the dual illumination but don't shoot at night to justify the tritium. The field of view on the 1.5x was far too small for the magnification. The optic was small and fairly light but my soft use (on a m&p 15-22) couldn't justify keeping it. I sold it for much closer to retail and replaced it with a traditional red dot.

If the feature list fits what you are looking for there are few options that compare at any price. I found they weren't what I was looking for in the way I use my rifles. I can certainly appreciate their quality and feel that their cost is worth what you get, just make sure you want what you are buying. I do suggest you look through a few in person before buying a model if at all possible to experience the eye relief and field of view before spending that money.

K&E Arms
January 13, 2012, 02:17 AM
I've got some electronics I'm going to liquidate and I am wondering from you guys that have some Trijicon ACOGs:

ARE THEY WORTH THE MONEY?

Things that really interest me about the ACOG

-The ability to use it in low light situations, which is about 9 months of the year in Alaska.

-The ruggedness and durability of the optic. The plan is to put this on my "go to" rifle so I don't want something that break or lose zero if it bangs on a tree or on a vehicle while getting out.

-Battery-less.

If you care, I'm thinking about getting a Trijicon TA11J-308 on my Rock River Arms LAR-8.

What do you guys junk about your ACOGs?

I have the same rifle and love the mark 4 cqt I have on it. Same idea as acog just cheaper and I think a bit clearer.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

jmstevens2
January 13, 2012, 02:28 AM
How about the angle, is the LAR-8 accurate enough to get the full benefit of the ACOG?

benzy2
January 13, 2012, 02:35 AM
An acog is far from an accuracy oriented scope. The benefit is mostly in mid distance combat style shooting where speed and accuracy are a mix, as well as being bomb proof. If you want to shoot itty bitty groups then you could spend money a different way and see better results. If you want a fast mid range combat/sport optic that will work in multiple light situations without need to adjust as well as an optic that will take any and all abuse you give it then it's a great buy.

GBExpat
January 13, 2012, 08:36 AM
Is an ACOG worth it?

I think that for the purposes for which most folks would use it, no.

jmstevens2
January 13, 2012, 09:09 AM
I'm not into itty bitty groups. I am into minute of deer. or something similar.

Mitchell Gard
January 13, 2012, 09:29 AM
I've been using the ACOG on my M16a4 and my current M4 for about 3 years now and I would say I easily have at least a couple thousand hours of use out of them. When they sart getting a lot of use they no longer hold they're zero after a small amount of rough use. They're not meant to make firing adjustments so it's all based on Kentucky windage, which gets difficult at 500 meters. The BDC works well in theory but is actually a bit more complicated and not quite as accurate as advertised. As for ruggedness, I've been in the Marine Corps Infantry as a rifleman for 3 years and have only ever seen two break, although the sight adjustment screws are notorious for messing up. I'm sure if they're good enough for Afghanistan then it should be alright in Alaska, so long as its what your looking for. There are certainly other cheaper options that would probably work just about as well.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 13, 2012, 06:15 PM
When they sart getting a lot of use they no longer hold they're zero after a small amount of rough use.

That certainly runs counter to my experience and my oldest ACOG is 9 years and 3 months old now. Are you seeing problems with the actual ACOG itself being unable to hold zero or is the mount coming loose? With the TA51 mount, it is a good practice to use blue loctite on the screws and make witness marks on the knobs. Or if it is your own gear, you can just buy Larue, mount it as instructed and forget about it.

The BDC works well in theory but is actually a bit more complicated and not quite as accurate as advertised.

I've shot mine out to 600yds and haven't really noticed any problems with accuracy of the BDC, other than of course that it is modeled on a particular load and if you aren't using the same load, you won't match the BDC precisely; but generally it is good enough for making hits on e-silhouettes at that range.

gun addict
January 13, 2012, 06:21 PM
agreed with michael Gards, from the experiences ive had with my M16a4 and issued RCO i think it is a terrific optic, with extrmely clear glasses but i have seen them break on the line. Hell my sight adjustment completely screwed up and would'nt hold a zero during prequal last year.

Find yourself a used one either on here or AR15 forum, i've seen them go as low as $600

henschman
January 13, 2012, 06:23 PM
My TA55A with the .308 BDC worked great for M80 ball for hits on man-sized silhouettes out to 700 yards on my M1A. I also never had any issues with it losing its zero.

However, they don't have a whole lot of adjustment range... I had to shim the base on mine to get it to zero, since apparently my rifle's scope mount isn't perfectly straight.

Worth it? I would definitely say yes. Also, they have a really good resale market. I sold mine a year and a half after I bought it for just about a hundred less than what I paid originally.

supercalvin56
January 13, 2012, 06:35 PM
Nope, not worth it.

cor_man257
January 13, 2012, 08:17 PM
I used one while I was deployed. I think it is an extremely rugged scope. I covered the fiberoptic/tritium with a small piece of tape, because in really bright environments the sight can be too bright in the daylight.

Its tough. Really tough. I put this thing through hell. It was banged, bumped, and everything else against a metal turret. It always held its zero.

Honestly, its a really good combat optic. But it doesnt have much purpose other than that. Its not for competiton accuracy, and I dont think I would use it to hunt... animals anyway. But hunting in a warzone it would be ideal.

If your willing to drop the cash, its a great optic. Would I drop the cash having used one... No.

Mitchell Gard
January 13, 2012, 09:27 PM
I've had a few issue with the optic itself coming loose but some loctite helped with that, mine site on a rail adapter, the base model was designed for a carry handle. Many people I know and myself have had issues holding and actual adjusted zero. I can hit the Echo targets at 500 no problem but it requires a little finesse and a bit of Kentucky windage. Once you adjust your point of aim it becomes fairly consistent but it's not very often you get your first shot exactly where you want it which, IMHO, disqualifys it for hunting anything but people. If engagements took place over 300 m away, which teu seldom do, in Afghanistan I'd be a little worried about it considering they shoot back. Like I said, its a fantastic optic, and it's second to none in ruggedness but if pinpoint accuracy is a must at any substantial range, it wouldn't be really high on my list. Take what I say for accuracy with a grain I salt though because, as I said, my experience has been with gov. Issued gear which tends to be a bit old and low end. The tape on the finer strip is a really common practice to cut the brightness down a bit but I've never had an issue with it do I don't do it.

Mainsail
January 13, 2012, 10:31 PM
I love mine.

If you can shop AAFES (https://shop.aafes.com/shop/Product.aspx?dept_id=6477&PFID=I244F&gid=c04a2b7c&AskReturn=search), they sell the basic 4x model for $1149 no tax or shipping. There are often 15% and occasionally 20% off coupon codes which take it to $977 or $920 respectively.

Trijicon ACOG® 4x32 Riflescope w/ Dual Illuminated Red Chevron BAC Flattop Reticle

http://www.topohiker.com/photo_gallery/AR3.png

K&E Arms
January 14, 2012, 01:20 AM
Rra says it shoots 1.5 moan, I shoot. .75 and I am not a great shooter

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Mitchell Gard
January 14, 2012, 08:26 AM
Honestly, if you want some extremely accurate, durable, and low cost sights get some nice irons and learn how to use them well. If your eyes permit they're some of the best sights out there in my eyes

Justin
January 14, 2012, 04:02 PM
Knowing how to use iron sights is a great skill, and one that everyone should have, but all other things being equal, a scoped rifle will be faster and easier to hit targets with.

Double Naught Spy
January 14, 2012, 07:28 PM
Is an ACOG worth it?

I think that for the purposes for which most folks would use it, no.

I have to say that this opinion would really apply to a tremendous amount of the gun gear out there.

With that said, few people complain that the quality is too good or that the scope is too tough. Nobody complains about a scope that keeps its zero after being dropped on it.

When they sart getting a lot of use they no longer hold they're zero after a small amount of rough use.

That certainly runs counter to my experience

I own two. One has been mounted on everything from a .22 to a .45-70, but mostly .223/5.56. I probably have somewhere near 15K rounds fired on guns where the scope was mounted. Never once has it lost zero and it has been zero'd numerous times when switched between platforms.

My only complaint is that on both ACOGs, I never seem to have the exact ammo or shooting conditions for the drop reticles.

BellyUpFish
January 14, 2012, 08:06 PM
I have an RX30. While not an ACOG, it's awesome. I love it.

Mitchell Gard
January 14, 2012, 08:16 PM
Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

zstephens13
January 14, 2012, 10:59 PM
How about the angle, is the LAR-8 accurate enough to get the full benefit of the ACOG?
It is much more accurate than you or I.

Double Naught Spy
January 15, 2012, 10:43 AM
Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

Only a moron or somebody given a free piece of expensive equipment would intentionally do what you suggest. However, my 10 year old ACOG has had all that happen to it over the years.

As noted previously, yours appears to be about the only dissenting opinion along those lines and we have several posters who have carried them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry, but your challenge rings hollow.

C-grunt
January 15, 2012, 11:25 AM
Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.
My ACOG that was on my DMR went through worse. I fell over a few walls and even had a river bank ledge give way causing me to roll down a 20 foot embankment into the Tigris. It sat in a Humvee turret, the back of a Bradley and went through 3 direct hit IEDs. Mine never lost its zero.

GBExpat
January 16, 2012, 04:05 PM
Is an ACOG worth it?

I think that for the purposes for which most folks would use it, no.
I have to say that this opinion would really apply to a tremendous amount of the gun gear out there.
Ab-so-lute-ly. :)

ApacheCoTodd
January 16, 2012, 05:50 PM
I've beat holy hell out ACOGs both in the Army and since retiring and found REAL ACOGs to be outstanding in their durability with one design exception.

The ones with the emergency iron sights cast into the housing have a front post on the extreme forward of the front hood. This is exactly where the impact will be if a leaned or otherwise dropped rifle (or carbine) strikes the ground. On the un-sighted version I've had no issues but with the sighted style, the impact is transferred from post to hood to objective lens in short order cracking the outer portion of the top of the lense though the sight is still functional, the tubes integrity is compromised.

Also, be very wary of "too good to be true" prices as they're a sure sign of some very well done import knock-offs. You'll usually know them by weak if not non existent reticle illumination and the resounding guffaws from Trijicon should you try to exercise the warranty.

A few years back there were more than a couple of national level dealers selling both real and fake at various times so... caveat emptor!

Seems like my fiber optic tubes are developing separations between the portions of the element in the tube above the scope but I can't see a diminishing effect on the reticle yet.

zstephens13
January 16, 2012, 06:01 PM
Well, I think what I have decided is that I will get an ACOG... eventually. Put aside $100 every now and then and I'll end up getting one. Unless some has a TA11J-308 then need to get rid of and are willing to cut me a deal.

Biggs19
January 16, 2012, 06:18 PM
I just traded in an ACOG TA31DOC. It was crystal clear and bright, and just an amazing piece of kit. If you need the magnification I couldn't think of anything I'd rather have.

I didn't need the magnification, and it proved to be slower for me in close engagements. There are guys out there who are super fast with them, but they'll admit that it took a lot of work to get to that point.

The top-mounted Docter optic was nice, but the height over bore was a bit of a challenge. The only way to run that thing consistently (without breaking cheek weld) was to roll the gun to the left, thereby putting the DOC reticle in front of the left eye.

I ended up trading it in for an Aimpoint T1, LaRue QD mount, new BCM charging handle, Troy rail and Geissele trigger. If anything, that should be a tribute to the quality of the ACOG that it held its very high value so well.

Justin
January 18, 2012, 01:01 AM
Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

You know, sometimes it's like I make posts, but they're just completely invisible to those who choose to respond to the thread.

:rolleyes:

Pete D.
January 19, 2012, 08:18 AM
I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

Is there a scope that will hold zero if treated like that?
C-Grunt's reply was an excellent response to the "challenge".
Pete

Boanerges57
January 19, 2012, 08:50 AM
The biggest question no one seems to have raised is whether you want/need the magnification. If you do then the acog is a very sturdy piece of equipment for the job. If you do not then I think you might find an aimpoint very easy to get along with.

suvivor2012
January 25, 2012, 10:16 PM
I do own a Acog scope and would say I would not use any other type of scope! It is pricey but it is well worth it. My wife was against the purchase at first, after she tested it for herself she now wants one for her carbine.

steven58
January 25, 2012, 10:52 PM
As far as the housing goes It wouldn't surprise me if an ACOG could stand up to more abuse than a set of A-2 irons.

chagasrod
April 26, 2012, 01:03 AM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PJKdJWdevnY/T5eEQrgtkEI/AAAAAAAAHQ0/AbpSpX8Et0c/s640/20120424_210115.jpg

Worth every penny!

TonyAngel
April 26, 2012, 04:47 PM
I don't think that anyone can dispute the toughness of an ACOG. My opinion differs from most in that many describe the glass as being great. I find the glass to be just OK. More than good enough to do the job, but not as good as I'd expect in a scope that carries the price tag of an ACOG.

Of course, glass quality isn't the reason why a person buys and ACOG. You get it because you need something tough and won't let you down in adverse conditions. Like I said, the quality of the glass is more than good enough.

The only question that remains is whether you actually NEED an ACOG. I only suggest that you reassess your needs and be sure that an ACOG is going to allow you to do what you'll need or want to do with the rifle.

I really don't like the 4X ACOGs. The eye relief is just to finicky for me. I really like the 3Xs (TA33, I believe), but the 3X (and 4X for that matter) just wasn't enough magnification for me.

I tend to shoot at targets that are about 1 to 2 MOA in size and I needed more magnification. I ultimately wound up selling my 3X ACOG to get a Nightforce 2.5-10X scope. I like that a lot better for the intended use; although I still run a little 1.5X ACOG on my AR carbine. I don't think I'll ever to go back to red dots.

squidshady
December 27, 2012, 07:56 PM
I realize this is an old thread, but I had to say that the above post is spot on in its entirety. From the quality of the glass to the eye relief issue, you sir know exactly what it is like to be an ACOG owner :)

For the record and for the same reasons as you I split the difference and went with the 3.5x35 on my 308 carbine. The scope like the rifle is in my opinion the best of both worlds.

Ro1911
December 27, 2012, 08:55 PM
yes they are nice if you have the money, but I'd rather have an aimpoint much more useful in real gunfights in my opinion. I've owned both and and an eotech, the aimpoint was by far my favorite.

squidshady
December 27, 2012, 10:18 PM
I weaned myself off an Aimpoint that I had been using when I switched to the ACOG. I simply put it on an 11 o'clock offset rail until I got fully accustomed to shooting the ACOG with both eyes open. Once that happened though I found the ACOG to be superior for both CQB and long range as it does it all with less than a glance. Everybody views the sights differently though so others may have more issues adjusting to the ACOG, but I love being able to maintain a wide FOV with both eyes open or simply closing one eye to focus on a 300+ target which I found very difficult with the Aimpoint T1 as it covered most of the target area at those ranges at least with the 4moa anyway. 500yds with the aimpoint was all, but impossible unless shear luck was on my side.

There is always somebody that pops up and claims they can hit this or that at 300, 400 yards etc with the Aimpoints, but I have never ran into anyone that does it consistently... Between the lack of BDC and the reticle oversizing the target it is just too difficult for me to make those shots period.

MTMilitiaman
December 28, 2012, 10:56 AM
Had an RCO on my A4. The ACOG was one of my favorite pieces of issued gear, and was one of the only pieces of gear that seemed to be completely Marine-proof. Once a boot left his rifle by the porta-potty when we were out on an FX. A young NCO found it and promptly disassembled the rifle, including taking the RCO off of it, and buried it all in the California desert as a valuable lesson to the boot Marine, who spent the next two hours looking for his rifle, piece by piece. Finally it was getting to be our turn to head out to do some night fire with our PEQ-2s and he still hadn't found the RCO. The 1st Sgt found out and was pissed, not only at the boot Marine, but at the young Cpl too. An entire platoon ended up shoulder to shoulder on their hands and knees combing the countryside for that RCO until we found it. Being buried in the sand for several hours didn't seem to affect the optic any more than being banged around in an APC or anything else we did to it. I never saw an RCO get broke or even lose zero.

The RCO is the 4x version of the ACOG the Marines put on pretty much every rifle in their inventory. One Commandent or another called it the greatest increase in the effectiveness of a Marine since the adoption of the M1 Garand.

It is an excellent optic for medium range, but once you get under 100 yards or so, I think you'll find that a red dot is faster and easier to use, esp on the move or from awkward positions. The RCO on our issue guns had a very short eye relief, which cause the ocular lens to nail you in the eye brow when firing from awkward positions, which happened alot since the M16 doesn't have a collapsable stock. If most of what you're doing is at bad breath distance, their are better choices.

TIMC
December 28, 2012, 12:50 PM
I have the TA31RCO-M150CP on my M-4gery and love it. This optic was perfect for my use on this rifle. The scope has had some bumps and bangs but always holds zero. This is my truck gun when on trips. The wife thinks I'm crazy taking it along when just making short trips but you never know.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/timc/PB120453.jpg

Lloyd Smale
December 29, 2012, 07:12 AM
an idiot can break anything and like anything else an acog is a mechanical device and can fail. Point is that theres nothing on the market that will take the beating these will without failing long before an acog. Sure you can buy some bushnell or other optical sight for a 1/5 of what an acog cost. But which do you want to trust your familys life to? Which will hold up to more abuse? Which will have better low light performance? Acogs are expensive but i guess you have to decide like when buying a scope. What means more to you? A good quality scope or a piece of chrome for your harley!

Dunkelheit
December 29, 2012, 07:55 AM
I´ve got a TA31 RCO M150 on my SIG and its worth every cent.

zstephens13
January 1, 2013, 02:53 AM
After having the ACOG for sometime, I have realized that it was worth every one of the 106,000 cents.
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm292/zstephens13/photo-13_zps28741ceb.jpg

esheato
January 1, 2013, 04:39 AM
I've said it before in an ACOG thread, and I'll say it again.

I broke one (TA31F). Ocular lens chipped from the top of the housing down about a third of the way into the lens....on the inside of the optic.

Finally gave up after requesting manufacturer support and being denied and took the thing apart. Removed the chip and accompanying glass dust, wiped the lens down and put it all back together.

I take care of my gear, it was never dropped or abused, although I did buy it used in LNIB condition.

Stuff happens, even bomb proof falls apart occasionally.

Still.......I bought another. TA33 with the green horseshoe and I love it even more than the TA31F. Better eye relief, less magnification and the BAC works like a charm from 3 yards to 600. Yes, I've actually ran it to 600 too on a 66% IPSC steel target. Consistent hits were not a problem with my 16" middy.

Like others have said, I thought the glass was mediocre.

Would I buy another? Possibly.

Onmilo
January 1, 2013, 05:17 AM
Is an ACOG scope worth it?
Yes!

If you enjoyed reading about "Is an ACOG worth it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!