ACOG vs. Aimpoint

[bradvanhorn]

I'm trying to decide whether I want to get the Trijicon TA31 (A or F) or an Aimpoint M2 (or M3). I've read lots of great comments about both, and can't seem to find anything wrong with either, so I figured I'd see what a poll comes up with. I didn't include any other choices, though I know there are other favorites out there (EOTech is getting good press).

 

[Chris Rhines]

Depends entirely on what you want to do with it. If I was usually shooting inside 100 yards, I'd much rather have the Aimpoint. If I was shooting out to 4-500 yards, I'd much rather have a Trijicon ACOG TA31A. If I wasn't sure, I'd take the ACOG and use it in OEG mode (front eyepiece cover closed) for the real close stuff.

- Chris

 

[Zak Smith]

+1 what Chris said. My favorite ACOG is the TA11.

First decide what you want to shoot, then the answer becomes clear.

 

[bradvanhorn]

First decide what you want to shoot, then the answer becomes clear.

Hmmm, well that's not exactly a clear cut proposition. My target will be Iraqi insurgents, but the problem is knowing whether it'll be inside a building, out in the desert, or a combination of both. I'm thinking ACOG though...

 

[Zak Smith]

I have no combat experience, but I have a lot of time on ACOGs and Aimpoints shooting 3Gun. So take this for what it's worth.

The Aimpoint is WAY faster under 30 yards. WAY faster. It is sufficient for head-shots (6x6") to 100 yards and full silhouettes to 300-400 yards.

The TA31 or TA11 ACOG will give you better target identification through the optic; it extends the head-shot range to approx 200-250 yards, and the silhouette range to 500-600 yards. At any distance, more precision will be possible with the ACOG vs. the Aimpoint.

Also note that you can probably "point shoot" over/around the ACOG (without looking through it) to 15 yards pretty effectively.

-z

 

[Zak Smith]

Here's a post-action report that mentions both the Aimpoint and the ACOG
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166720

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have two ACOGs, one with the donut reticle and 3.5x and the other with the crosshairs and 4.0x.

I think that both powers are too much magnification for quick target acquisition inside 50 yards. I think they would be a huge detriment to try to use inside structures such as you have in Iraq. You can get the ACOG with the see through mount for your iron sights, but you lose so much of the bigger sight picture that the iron sights are slow to be used when the ACOG is in place.

If you wanted real dual purpose, then I would go with something like the 2.0x magnification. You would still get fairly quick CQB use and better precision at a further distance than you would get with your iron sights.

FYI, the reticle type does come into play. The donut reticle is great if you just want to put a dot on something and hit it. It is hard to use it as a precision shooting reticle, however. The whole donut is 4 MOA with the interior hole 2 moa. For a head shot at 300 yards, it is hard to find the person's head or face inside that tiny hole to effect such a shot. The cross hairs work much better for longer range shooting. If you want to compromise, I would suggest going with the chevron reticle that will allow both precision aiming at distance and be quick to use close in.

ACOGs are hugely stable systems, hold their zero quite well even with abuse.

 

[NMshooter]

Considering that you will be operating as part of a team which choice would benefit the team as a whole?

My guess is the ACOG, but that is just a guess.

 

[444]

I own both a TA31F Acog and a few Aimpoints.
I have never been in combat but I think if I had to choose one of those optics as the most versitile, it would be the Aimpoint.

 

[PJ11B4VF7]

A lot depends on your duty position and how you're set up.

The M68 CCO is great out to 300 meters. I made one shot with it to 567m. However, once we started getting the ACOGs in the system I gave them to the squad leaders in my platoon and to a couple of team leaders. My justification was that they were the more experienced shooters that I had and were better able to discriminate targets at longer ranges.

The 68 is unarguably faster, especially when you're inside.

My "problem" with the TA31 was that during dusk or dawn, you know, that EENT and BMNT time, and foggy conditions the chevron would not illuminate fully since the tritium would not light it up enough and the fiber optic couldn't get enough light to transmit. YMMV.

There are other factors that come into play as well, but basically if you're issued a M68 and you know you're going to be in a built up area you'll be ok. If you're going to be operating in a more rural setting I'd think about the TA31, and if you have the money get both.

Personal opinion and experiences only.

 

[Langenator]

Brad-

If you're already in the Army/Marines, and in the Infantry, you'll almost certainly be issued an M68 CCO (Aimpoint M2) For other combat arms-armor, engineers, artillery, and for MPs, there's still a good chance that Uncle Sam will give you one. Now, if you're in a support MOS, you'll more likely not get one.

If you're in one of those support MOSs, I'd most definitely advise getting the Aimpoint. For the most part, the hajjis aren't going to be starting firefights at long range, because for the most part their weapons (AKs and RPGs) aren't effective beyond 200m, max.

Qualifiers: I'm an Army infantry officer, but I haven't had the opportunity to visit the Sandbox yet. My wife is a Civil Affairs specialist, going to Iraq in late spring. If she isn't issued one, I'll be buying an Aimpoint for her.

 

[bradvanhorn]

If you're already in the Army/Marines, and in the Infantry, you'll almost certainly be issued an M68 CCO (Aimpoint M2) For other combat arms-armor, engineers, artillery, and for MPs, there's still a good chance that Uncle Sam will give you one. Now, if you're in a support MOS, you'll more likely not get one.

Yes, I'm already in the Marine Corps (going on 17 years). The Corps has lagged behind the Army regarding issue of optics. The ACOG is slowly filtering it's way into the supply system, but in our case only about 1 in 10 will get one, and I won't be one of those lucky few. However, that's still better than my first trip to Iraq where we only had a few optics, with a ratio of closer to 1 in 20 having one. So anyway, if I want on optic (and I do), I'm going to have to purchase one of my own. I'm thinking Aimpoint right now, because if there is a miracle the Corps will give me an ACOG. If the miracle doesn't happen then I'll at least have the Aimpoint to fall back on.

 

[Langenator]

So what do you think the cause of the slowness is? Resistance to change? That whole 'cult of the marksman thing' leading to the thought that you shouldn't need more than iron sights? Or just the fact that the Navy would rather recarpet the O-club in San Diego?

My unit (1-6IN, 1st Armored Div, back then) got M68s back in 1999, and my last unit at Ft Lewis, even us staff puke officers had them.

 

[SamlautRanger]

I used a Aimpoint when I was in Kuwait and Afghanistan a couple of years ago, were ok but had trouble getting quick sight picture with red dot when sun was really bright-also it runs on batteries.

Last year I did a 6 month tour in Iraq. Used a ACOG Reflex on both my m249 SAW and M-4. Worked much better. The amber dot was easier to pick up in dark or really bright scenarios. Also, NO BATTERIES!! I can also say that my weapons got tossed around and banged up on things alot, and would then after go test fire again and the ACOG was always still right on. Very rugged. Go for about $350 at last count. Well worth the money. More simple, reliable and better visability than the Aimpoint.

 

[bradvanhorn]

So what do you think the cause of the slowness is? Resistance to change? That whole 'cult of the marksman thing' leading to the thought that you shouldn't need more than iron sights? Or just the fact that the Navy would rather recarpet the O-club in San Diego?

I really don't know why we've been so slow to adopt combat optics. Money is almost certainly a big factor; programs like the AAAV and the Osprey suck up a lot of cash that many of us would like to put to use somewhere else (course just about as many would probably fight for the opposite). Much of it is also mindset I think, or as you mentioned, "That whole 'cult of the marksman thing'..."

Resistance to change is another common theme. For example, following the liberation of Afghanistan, there was much debate about the adoption of the M4. The Corps finally declined the M4 in favor of the M16A4. In talking with one of my peers during a Quantico visit, I was distressed to learn he had heard such wonderful comments about the M4 decision as, "you can't do close order drill with an M4..." Huh?! Well that's a great reason not to adopt a new weapon. There was a lot more to the decision making process, but I think comments like that are indicative of the resistance to adopt what most of us believe is the more versatile/functional vs. the more traditional weapons systems.

I've seen some good articles about small arms/optics/ammo lately in the Marine Corps Gazette and other magazines. Years back the Corps did away with the Marine Gunner (Infantry Weapons Officer) program, but brought the program back a few years ago. It seems most of the comments I read are now coming from the Gunners, and they all seem to be pushing the use of optics (which makes good sense to me). I hope someone high up the ladder is paying attention...

My unit (1-6IN, 1st Armored Div, back then) got M68s back in 1999, and my last unit at Ft Lewis, even us staff puke officers had them.

I didn't even see an issued ACOG until 2003. Just about the same was true of night vision gear, although I remember I actually saw a set of NVG's once in the mid-90's (less my time as an aircrewman, where "goggles" were common). Heck I was just recently issued (for the first time ever) a set of PVS-7B.

 

[NMshooter]

You may want to look at weapon mounted flashlights too.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First, let me qualify my input by saying I have ZERO combat experience. I shoot quite a bit and have a lot of people I care about who are actively engaged over there. We don't always reach the same conclusions about what works.

In all the threads, here, Zak_Smith came closest to hitting on what I think is correct. The Aimpoint is very fast and under 30m and it also allows a lot of unconventional shooting positions that are extremely useful in dynamic shooting, especially where vehicles/convoy are involved.

At the same time, a lot of people unneccesarily discount the ACOG for urban use. An Aimpoint will see a dark window 50m away and allow you to fire at muzzle flashes from that window. An ACOG will see INTO the window and allow you to fire before muzzle flashes become an issue. At the ranges where most combat takes place, you will be better served with an Aimpoint than an ACOG. However, what I am hearing from Iraq suggests to me that you can better shape the battlefield with an ACOG, especially if you have intra-squad coms.

Remember, both systems are effective. An Aimpoint won't leave you helpless at longer ranges and an ACOG can work well at contact distance. However, think METT and choose the optic you think will serve you best.

 

[Langenator]

"you can't do close order drill with an M4..."

Funny...Ft Benning's been using M4s for Infantry basic training for a couple years now...haven't heard that they've had problems with drill & ceremony. Although I wouldn't really want to try buttstroking someone with that collapsible stock.

My last unit (5-20 IN, 3/2ID stryker Bde) all the SDMs in the Infantry battalions and the Cav squadron had ACOGs. Riflemen had Aimpoints(M68s). SAW and M240 gunners had something called a Machinegun Optic (MGO). Never had a chance to play with those, so I can't tell you much about them. As for NVGs, the Infantry and Cav had -14s, most of the rest had a mix of -7B/C/Ds.

 

[8830]

I had an Aimpoint on my M4 that I use for police work. I tried it but sold it in favor of a good Surefire M500 dedicated light. The light gets used alot more in close encounters and as far as I'm concerned my point shooting with open sights works just as well as the Aimpoint did. Assuming you have an A3, if I were going to Iraq or Afghanistan I would take the ACOG since it has magnification for longer ranges, a light and a good attachable rear sight for CQB.