ACOG on A2 carry handle?
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
SodaPop
member
double post.
SodaPop
member
There is a reason the military switched to the flat top.
You need an extra tall cheekrest to use it, and the ACOG is taller than some sights on the handle. ACOGs have built in iron backup sights ON the scope so seethroughs would be wasted effort (and make it even taller).
Get a flattop reciever.
I've shot an ACOG equipped A2 and I prefer the A4 for that.
Get a flattop reciever.
I've shot an ACOG equipped A2 and I prefer the A4 for that.Knife_Sniper
Member
If you are going to drop the cash on an acog, go ahead and buy a new $90 flat top upper receiver, and sell your old one. Also, a barrel nut wrench ($15) and receiver block ($30) and some moly grease.
A2 is not nearly as acog freindly.
A2 is not nearly as acog freindly.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
chinweld
U.S. Army Sergeant Martinez Rivera of Mexico City looks down the street through a sniper rifle's scope in the impoverished Baghdad suburb of Al Sadr City April 5, 2004, a day after clashes in the area cost the lives of seven U.S. soldiers and 28 Iraqis. REUTERS/Ali Jasim
U.S. Army Sergeant Martinez Rivera of Mexico City looks down the street through a sniper rifle's scope in the impoverished Baghdad suburb of Al Sadr City April 5, 2004, a day after clashes in the area cost the lives of seven U.S. soldiers and 28 Iraqis. REUTERS/Ali Jasim
Attachments
Snaps
Member
I've shot both, I prefer mounted ontop of the handle. It fits me better and I like the look alot better. Maybe it's just the way I hold it but it's really alot better ontop of the handle. BEsides, I really like being able to use the normal irons with it.
http://www.uws.com/TRIJICON/Trijicon_Page_ACOG_Scopes.html
This site claims the Army uses an ACOG on the m-16 A2 for some soldiers.
This site claims the Army uses an ACOG on the m-16 A2 for some soldiers.
Snaps
Member
Nothing fancy, I had bought one of the type bushmaster sells that goes over the stock, but I rarely use it. Probably 90% of the time I just shoot it as normal.
Of course I grew up learning ot shoot on deer rifles with the high (see under) scope mounts so I guess I'm just more comfortable that way. Never stopped me from qualing expert though
Next oen I buy will have an ACOG ontop. Just really a personal preferance I guess.
Of course I grew up learning ot shoot on deer rifles with the high (see under) scope mounts so I guess I'm just more comfortable that way. Never stopped me from qualing expert though
Next oen I buy will have an ACOG ontop. Just really a personal preferance I guess.
Nightcrawler
Member
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, I've run a TA11 ACOG on both a fixed A2 carry handle and on a flattop.
Unlike several here, I did not feel that the ACOG was too high on the carry handle. In fact, I thought it worked pretty well up there. The height over bore for the TA11 ACOG is only about 1" higher than the height over bore for the iron sights. The compact ACOGs sit even lower in the carry handle.
I was using an RRA Enhanced telestock at the time and didn't feel any need for a cheekrest. You will end up with more of a jaw weld than a cheek weld but since I use nose-to-charging handle as my reference point it did not effect my shooting in the least. In fact, it was easier to move and shoot with the ACOG mounted on the carry handle than it has been with it mounted on the flattop.
Another nice feature is that your iron sights are instantly available and several of the ACOGs are designed for the carry handle so there are no vertical parallax issues.
However, I ultimately went to a flattop because there were some issues with a carry handle mounted ACOG.
1) Cases, gun racks, etc. are usually a tight fit for a plain AR15. Put a scope on top of the carry handle and the rifle won't fit in many of them.
2) No reliable return to zero with a carry handle mount. Every time you remove the scope, you need to rezero the weapon
3) Difficult to clean the rifle without mucking up mounted scope unless you remove the scope, see #2.
Also I'd advise against buying the cheekrest for an AR even if you do decide you don't like the height of the ACOG. The cheekrest will make irons unusable and the money you would spend on one would probably cut the price of a new flattop upper in half (though you would still need to buy a good flattop mount).
Unlike several here, I did not feel that the ACOG was too high on the carry handle. In fact, I thought it worked pretty well up there. The height over bore for the TA11 ACOG is only about 1" higher than the height over bore for the iron sights. The compact ACOGs sit even lower in the carry handle.
I was using an RRA Enhanced telestock at the time and didn't feel any need for a cheekrest. You will end up with more of a jaw weld than a cheek weld but since I use nose-to-charging handle as my reference point it did not effect my shooting in the least. In fact, it was easier to move and shoot with the ACOG mounted on the carry handle than it has been with it mounted on the flattop.
Another nice feature is that your iron sights are instantly available and several of the ACOGs are designed for the carry handle so there are no vertical parallax issues.
However, I ultimately went to a flattop because there were some issues with a carry handle mounted ACOG.
1) Cases, gun racks, etc. are usually a tight fit for a plain AR15. Put a scope on top of the carry handle and the rifle won't fit in many of them.
2) No reliable return to zero with a carry handle mount. Every time you remove the scope, you need to rezero the weapon
3) Difficult to clean the rifle without mucking up mounted scope unless you remove the scope, see #2.
Also I'd advise against buying the cheekrest for an AR even if you do decide you don't like the height of the ACOG. The cheekrest will make irons unusable and the money you would spend on one would probably cut the price of a new flattop upper in half (though you would still need to buy a good flattop mount).
Red_SC
Member
I do nearly all my shooting with a scoped rifle, with the scope as low as possible. About a year ago I worked for a while as a security guard, carrying M-4geries with ACOGs on the carry handle. I had no problems with it being too high, even with the collapsible stock and no cheek pad. Worked fine for me. I loved that scope!
arizona98tj
Member
Now that is resurrecting an old thread.
crossrhodes
Member
Some advantages.
Yes the flat top has advantages, which doesn't need to be rehashed. But does it make it any more accurate the the A2....No I wouldn't think so. We were using scopes on the carrying handle for many years with success before anyone thought about flat tops. It's preference. If I don't have BUIS to use with a flat top, then give me an A2 so I have the versatility of both should the scope break. Just my 2 cents.
Yes the flat top has advantages, which doesn't need to be rehashed. But does it make it any more accurate the the A2....No I wouldn't think so. We were using scopes on the carrying handle for many years with success before anyone thought about flat tops. It's preference. If I don't have BUIS to use with a flat top, then give me an A2 so I have the versatility of both should the scope break. Just my 2 cents.
GunsBeerFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 335
I preferred it as well when I was deployed. You just develop a different cheek weld, you don't eliminate it entirely.
To all of us out there with fat heads or cheeks/chins etc---I put a 3-12X scope on my flattop A4 Bushmaster with a tall Armalite scope mount. I still felt I had to tilt my neck alot in order to properly see through the scope. I put a riser mount under the Armalite and bingo! Had to rezero the scope but now more comfortable scope viewing and much better accuracy out to 250 yds. Now my neck doesn't crick up on me after 100 rds. at the range. I now have an easy to use varmint gun without having to pull out the .22-250 Rem. 700. I would think that the handle mounted ACOG would fit me just right.
Jamyatunes
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 33
I can think of a lot of advantages to having the sight closer to the bore, but I suppose whichever you shoot more comfortably is the winner.
FWIW, seems like I have seen the carrying handle attachments come loose a lot. May have been operator error, but the mounting systems I'm familiar with didn't look that great. I like my ACOG where it is, on a larue QD mount on a flattop upper.
FWIW, seems like I have seen the carrying handle attachments come loose a lot. May have been operator error, but the mounting systems I'm familiar with didn't look that great. I like my ACOG where it is, on a larue QD mount on a flattop upper.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Have you considered a Trijicon Reflex II instead?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6530141&postcount=6
Unlike the ACOG, the Reflex II sits low enough to cowitness with the irons, uses the same cheek weld as irons, and is made by the same company. It's not magnified, though (1x red dot).
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6530141&postcount=6
Unlike the ACOG, the Reflex II sits low enough to cowitness with the irons, uses the same cheek weld as irons, and is made by the same company. It's not magnified, though (1x red dot).
Zerodefect
member
Aren't upper flat top recievers only $140ish???
You'll need a few tools, but I'd swap the Reciever to a flat top or get another upper, and keep ths upper as a KISS iron sight only setup.
You'll need a few tools, but I'd swap the Reciever to a flat top or get another upper, and keep ths upper as a KISS iron sight only setup.
- Status
