AR15 + ACOG Question

[Lloyd Smale]

the acogs are great scopes for hunting. Absoultely only downside i can see to them is they could use a bit more eye relief. Used as there suppose to be no MAGNIFIED sight is faster. There close to as fast up close as an aimpoint and much better when the range gets out past a 100 yards. Ive got a 3.5 power acog on my ar10 and a 4x marine model on my 762x39 ar and both have been used for hunting hogs and deer. I dont understand why someone would think there great in combat and poor in a hunting situation. Afterall what is a soldier but a hunter and his game even shoots back!

 

[Cosmoline]

Here's a related question and I hope I'm not stealing this thread, but are folks also using the 3.5 or 4x at close range with both eyes open? Ordinarily that sort of thing gives me a serious headache and double vision, but I'm thinking the ACOGs may be better suited to it. They must be, since combat can be right in your lap and they're supposed to be used with both eyes open.

 

[Zak Smith]

I always shoot rifles both eyes open. With training, the TA11 can be "almost" as fast as an Aimpoint.

 

[Justin]

I run an ACOG on my 3 Gun rifle, and have used it to engage targets from contact distance to 500+ yards.

For shots at distances of less than 25-30 yards, I use a flip-up scope cover and run the scope as an Occluded Eye Gunsight. Beyond that, I flip the scope cover open. For the close in stuff, running it as an OEG feels about on par with a red dot. With the scope cover down, it feels slower, but I'm willing to make that tradeoff to be able to make accurate hits at longer distances.

Also, I'm the only person I know who runs a flip up scope cover on my ACOG. Plenty of people run ACOGs and shoot close targets both eyes open, and do it very quickly. (Zak is one of those, and he's quite a bit faster than me.)

 

[fbernar]

I prefer eotech for close work and scope for target I really see no advantage with the ACOG other then combat.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Still not done reading all the responses as I have been busy, but I really am learning a lot here!

 

[Zak Smith]

Don't dismiss the ACOG because it doesn't look like a conventional scope and therefore the only reason to use it over a conventional scope is because it looks different and thus you can to look cool, etc.

The ACOG has a specific set of features that most conventional scopes do not have. One of the ACOG's main competitors is the S&B Short Dot, which is by no means functionally identical to a 1-4x hunting scope.

The TA11 is meant for practical engagement of targets when a 1x dot or iron sights are deficient in one way or another, but on the other hand you aren't shoot paper from the bench either. There are many engagement opportunities between those two, and, having grown up deer hunting in Wisconsin where there is very tight brush/swamp and open fields, the TA11 would be my choice for a near ideal optic for that application

Type II sights are low-power magnified optics with reticle features providing aiming points for distant targets. The Type II optic should not have external knobs to prevent loss of zero due to the knobs being bumped. They are optimized for 75 to about 400 yards. Type II optics are generally either fixed magnification in the three to four power range, or are variable power in the one to four range. The most common Type II optic is the Trijicon ACOG, in either the 4x versions (TA31, TA01) or the 3.5x version (TA11). The US Military realizes these capabilities in the Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) and Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (SDM-R).

At very close range, Type II optics are much slower to acquire a sight picture than the Type I red dots. They can be stretched to 600 to 800 yards provided the target is large and the reticle provides sufficient bullet-drop compensation (BDC) features. These optics provide good target spotting and identification. Close-range speed can be improved by the addition of a brightly illuminated reticle center, since the brain is drawn quickly to bright objects. The TA31 and TA11 ACOGs have this feature, as does the Schmidt and Bender Short Dot.

Low-power variable-magnification Type II optics improve close-range target acquisition speed at their lowest magnification setting; the closer to true 1x the better. The goal of these variable-power scopes is to provide the speed of the Type I optic, but still the target ID and distance capabilities of the Type II optics. The price for this flexibility is paid in increased purchase cost, less durability, and more weight and bulk on the carbine.

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

I whole heartedly disagree with you on this statement. When you spend 1k on an ACOG you are paying for the ruggedness and the Tritium/fiber optic reticle. Not to mention the pretty decent glass used. Name another optic that dies what an ACOG does.

ACOGs are not the best optic at really anything. They dont make a great CQB choice and they are not very good for shooting small groups at distance. But they are great as a combat optic where a firefight could change from 10 to 500 yards pretty quickly.

Just because people buy them for the "coolness factor" doesnt mean the ACOG isnt one of the best combat optics on the planet.

Alright, I can agree with that. My main view is that since none of us are likely to get into a combat situation like that, it is essentially a cool and expensive toy for us, but you are certainly right about the durability on them.

I wonder who would win...an ACOG or an AK's POSP/PSO scope...

 

[fbernar]

Ok. You guys have sold me on an ACOG. Which one should I get for hog hunting + target shooting with my AR15? I've been looking at the ACOG TA01NSN.

However, can someone explain to me the difference between the TA01NSN and other ACOGs that do 4x30 or 4x32?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't like the TA01NSN because of the illuminated color of the crosshairs (yellow-white that causes too much contrast/brightness issues) and the absolutely stupid iron sights that are terrible to use and end up just snagging on stuff. The regular TA01 with a red reticle at night will do you better, I believe. In the daytime, you have nice crosshairs as with regular scopes (either model).

The other models offer different reticles and usually full-time (day or night) illumination of the reticle, which you may or may not want. For more precise shooting, the fine crosshairs and no illumination is better (IMHO). For quicker target acquisition, the illuminated reticles are better. Your call.

I have a donut reticle on one. I would not buy it again. It works great, but I think the donut covers too much of the target for distance shooting. It is a 4 MOA donut and despite the fact that you can just barely make out stuff in the little hole if you try really hard, it is a bit of a hassle. The same would go for the triangle.

 

[oldguy870]

ACOGs are great scopes. The TA11 is my favorite. I tried the TA33. The field of view was too small for me.

Everyone will tell you ACOGs are fine for targets up close using the Bindon Aiming Concept. This is true, IF THEY ARE STATIONARY. If you are moving or your target(s) are moving, an ACOG is less than ideal.

To address this serious limitation, an offset RDS is crucial.

http://stores.homestead.com/Larueta...1withLT-724AngledQDmountCombo500-009-724.html

I use the TA11 with a T1 in an offset mount. This makes me more effective on moving coyotes up close.

In a SHTF situation, I am not clairvoyant. The bad guy could show up near or far. My rifle should also be able to handle near and far threats. I can 99.99% guaranty that a near threat will be a dynamic moving target or targets.

 

[esheato]

Interesting.

I have a donut reticle on one. I would not buy it again.

I have a donut reticle and would absolutely buy it again.

The TA11 is my favorite. I tried the TA33. The field of view was too small for me.

While I've never played with a TA11, I do have the TA33 and enjoy it thoroughly. I like the small size, it provides me a lot of peripheral vision. I shoot both eyes open unless the distance creeps past 200 or so, then I close my off eye.

Here's a great link detailing the different reticles available.

For the record, I had a TA31F (in red) and hated it. Could never put my finger on what I disliked until I bought the TA33. The TA31 had too much power (4x) and was too large. I much prefer the TA33s smaller size, reduced magnification (3x), donut vs. chevron reticle and the green color over the red. Really, it's personal preference.

 

[fbernar]

Are the TA's (fiber optic ACOG's) good for hunting? They dont really have cross hairs.

 

[Zak Smith]

They are designed for rapid engagement of practical (including moving) targets from very close to 400+ yards. Hunting would fall under this definition of practical shooting (for anything other than prairie dogs at distance). The last deer I shot was using a TA11 on my 6.8 upper. The shot was easier than most shots we have in 3-Gun matches.

 

[fbernar]

Are the triangle reticle ones good? I'm asking and I know I seem noob cuz I am, but I want to be sure if I'm spending $1000 on a fiber ACOG over the TA's with the crosshairs.

 

[Zak Smith]

The best reticle is the donut. Second best is the chevron. The triangle is to be avoided because it covers up targets in the 150-300 yard regime.

 

[Zak Smith]

More on the TA11 from http://demigodllc.com/articles/evolution-of-the-3-gun-practical-rifle/

Since I shoot in "Tactical" division, I topped the upper with a 3.5x Trijicon TA11 ACOG, which provides more eye relief and a larger exit pupil than the TA01 and TA31 models. This optic requires some training to maintain high speed on close-range engagements, but enables very fast hits on long-range practical targets out to 400 or 500 yards. The rifle is completed with a lower housing a JP Enterprises four-pound single-stage trigger, and parts to suit my preferences: a Magpul MIAD grip, trigger guard, and UBR stock.

 

[Justin]

Reticle shape is a preferential thing. The TA11 I run has one of the ancient full triangle reticles, and it works well. The only thing that is a cause for concern is that the center of the triangle is where you hold to hit a target at 200 yards, and if the target is smallish, it will be obscured by the reticle. That said, it didn't seem to cause me any trouble at the matches where I've had to shoot at clay pigeons at 200 yards.

I've also used ACOGs with the chevron and donut reticles and they work well. I prefer the triangle, but that's mostly because it's what I'm used to.

The big thing with the ACOG is to practice with it at various known distances so you can get a feel for how the reticle works, ie, top of triangle at 100, center at 200, base at 300, and stadia lines beyond that.

Also, if the specs of your gun/ammo are different from the specs the scope was designed for, you'll have to remember to compensate for the difference.

For instance, I shoot 55 grain bullets at our matches, which means that at the further distances I have to hold higher up to hit a target. In order to hit an IPSC-sized target at 400 yards, I hold the 400 yard stadia line around the "neck" of the target and the bullets impact in the center.

The ACOG system really does work, but, like anything else, you have to practice with it to become proficient.

 

[fbernar]

Decisions Decisions....

Thanks.

 

[fbernar]

Anyone used both the TA01 series and the TA3 series for hunting? What do you prefer?

 

[oldguy870]

I used my TA11F for hunting jackrabbits in the Southern California deserts 4 times over the last 6 weeks. I typically walk 5-6 miles over a period of 4 hours starting at sunrise. The ACOG worked fine for me at 150ish yards. They are pretty small targets too if you are shooting from a kneeling position with no support.

I prefer using an offset T1 for up close runners. Like I mentioned before, ACOGs can work fine on close stationary targets. Close moving targets are better shot with a RDS.

 

[TonyAngel]

The thing about the ACOGs is that they are built tough. Very tough and to me that is their number one selling point. A plus is that they offer many different models and each model offers a selection of reticles and colors. The trick is finding one that meets your needs. I know quite a few people that bought the TA01, didn't like it and sold it then deemed all ACOGs to me less than what they needed. What also makes choosing an ACOG difficult is that you can't necessarily go by the specs published by Trijicon, except those that pertain to physical characteristics.

Personally, I can say that I haven't liked any of the 4X models that I've tried. The eye relief was just too short and unforgiving. On the other hand, the 3Xs, 2Xs and 1.5Xs seemed to me to be almost the best thing since sliced bread.

In applications that I could have used a 4X ACOG, I settled on using a Nightforce 1-4X. It was just more flexible for me. I had a couple of 3Xs for a while and sold them, because the quality of the glass wasn't as good as you could get in a tube scope of comparable price. In hind sight, I'll admit that I'm wishing that I had kept one of the 3Xs. No the glass wasn't the best that I could have gotten for the price, but it was more than good enough; and as a total packge the little 3X was hard to beat. I'm still running a TA44-S on my AR carbine. The eye relief on it is so broad and forgiving that it's almost like running a red dot, but with the added benefit of a touch of magnification. Since I got the 1.5X, I don't run red dots any longer. It's fast, the reticle is crystal clear and it doesn't mess with my astigmatism.

My only advise, if you get an ACOG, is to check out as many of them as you can, before you buy, even if it means that you have to take a two hour ride to do it. I did it the hard way, buying them and then selling them if I didn't like them. My expensive trial and error procedure taught me a couple of things. The first was that everyone does the best with the same color. Most prefer red, many prefer green. I was the fastest and did the best with amber. Red didn't work well at all for me. It washed out pretty badly in low light and I'd loose the reticle when I was under a canopy of trees with indirect sunlight.

 

[fbernar]

Thanks guys! I'm specifically looking at the TA31G right now with green illumination. Reason is that as someone said the triangle reticle can cover up a big part of a target off in the distance. The TA31G has a donut reticle.

 

[Zak Smith]

I strongly recommend the TA11 series over the TA31 series for reasons already cited in this, and other, threads.

 

[TonyAngel]

I always get the TA11 and the TA31 confused. One has a good eye relief that lends itself to shooting from various positions, the other had me tearing my hair out. I'll assume that the TA11 is the one with good eye relief.

 

[esheato]

TA11 has the best eye relief.

TA11 2.4
TA31 1.5
TA33 1.9