Is an ACOG worth it?

[mtrmn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Worth every penny!!

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.

 

[benzy2]

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]

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]

How about the angle, is the LAR-8 accurate enough to get the full benefit of the ACOG?

 

[benzy2]

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]

Is an ACOG worth it?

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

 

[jmstevens2]

I'm not into itty bitty groups. I am into minute of deer. or something similar.

 

[Mitchell Gard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Nope, not worth it.

 

[cor_man257]

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]

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.