ACOG vs EoTech vs Aimpoint

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 a read if you haven't already.

learn irons like there all you got

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.)

Franco said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

FNARs dont have irons

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.

With a few hours of training, a 4x ACOG is just as fast at close quarters as Aimpoints/Eotechs.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

article | Fighting Carbine Optics

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.

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.

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.

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.