Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by chieftain, Oct 11, 2007.
Looks like everyone is climbing on the ACOG band wagon.
The army is buying AimPoints too. The M68 CCO is an AimPoint, and it looks like the CompM4 is the next iteration for the Army.
I wanna ACOG, but not for the $1400 I see them selling for. Nice they are doing the optics, though.
I'm surpirsed that it took them this long. My vintage Colt AR-15 H-BAR wears an ACOG!
The aimpoints are nice. There were a few guys who had Acog's, but they were personally owned and okayed by our commander to use. The Acog's were nice as well.
It would be one of the few good ideas the army has had lately to adopt Acog's in my opinion.
I have one question, though.
Why the hell do they cost so much money?
I'll hazard a guess, and say its all about quality control.
You can slap stuff together like they do in China, and still maybe get a really good optic. Problem is, with the slapped-together stuff, a much larger percentage of the ouput is crap. But, when the crap is spread out among thousands of disconnected and non-affiliated individuals, the chances of even the crap specimens coming back is relatively low. Compare that to the military where the whole lot goes back (and the manufacturer gets USGI-contract body-slammed) if any significant percentage of the output is unsat.
You want me to make the most oustanding product, and double/triple check everything, its gonna cost ya.
The ACOG has more features than I need on any one optic, for the type of shooting I do. Further, I have "executive discretion" in procurement. So, I don't have to wait for a whole tree of monkeys to stroke each other before I make a move on something that improves my gear.
Not to disagree, but I've consulted in the firearms industry, and I have a very good idea what it costs to manufacture stuff like this. The prices are high because their sales are primarily government and have no real competition. Plus there is a large mark up.
It's always nice having a government contract where no one looks are price too closely. Surefire flashlights that cost $650 with a manufacuring cost of less than 10% of that, sights with a 1000% markup and radios with a 5000% markup.
It's good to be a government contractor.
Then again, in a free market, a fair price is what the market will bear.
for most of the fighting that we do i prefer the eotech, over the acog. i have an acog on my weapon and they are nice, but the eotec fits the bill for the enviornment that we are operating in. the army did just buy a bunch of the aimpoint magnifiers recently. i haven't seen any out during this deployment though but i sure i will before i leave.
there is a story from the civil war,where one contractor asks another what he should ask for his goods,and the other guy says"as much as you can ask and keep a straight face". some things never change.
just to get it straight myself
EOTech - holographic red-dot, don't necessarily need indexing for the aiming point
Trijicon ACOG - true telescopic scope, higher magnification, fiber optic or tritium reticle, needs indexing for aiming point
Aimpoint - somewhere in between the two? Optical, but no magnification, battery-powered dot
Who was buying Sure Fires at $650? My unit just bought a bunch and we payed a heck of a lot less than that! And it was through GSA.
ACOG -- Trijicon 4x power scope (actually the name is applied by Trijicon to optics frolm 3x to 5.5x power). The original "NSN" model does not have a fiber optic channel, but many of the more recent models do. NSN also had a ghost ring and tritium post back up iron sight built into the housing, more recent models do not (there may be some exception to that). Can be fitted with a small red dot sight like the J-Point or Docter sight piggy-backed where the BUIS ghost ring is normally mounted.
EOTech and AimPoint -- Both zero parallax, zero magnification red dot sights. Operating principles are a bit different between the two, but basic role is the same. Both sights now have the option of attachable magnifying optics (not sure if the EOTech add on magnifying optic has made it to the market yet).
I think I read somewhere that you can toss an ACOG out of a airplane, pick it up later and it'll still be good as new (somehow). I'm not sure if that's true, but those things are very, very tough and a great optic to have. I agree though, at $1500 I'm left wondering how many times they the most expensive component of someone's set up...I mean, if you look around you can get a nice, used AR for $500 or so; that being said, I'd still get one if I had the funds
I'm presently at the WPW matches in Camp Robinson, AR... The Armed Forces Skill at Arms Meeing is also going on at this time. A few of my team members have ACOG's on their M16A4's.
Personally, there have been a few disappointments I've seen in the ACOG. First, the optic is not really appropriate for close range shooting... whatever the article may say. It has a 3.5-4x magnification and when you are doing snap-fire drills on a target 25 meters or less away, the sight picture is very wobbly and slow to aquire. Also, the ACOG lacks distinct windage click adjustments and there are no windage tick marks by which to make a kentucky windage estimation. Finally, the optic doesn't always hold zero when it is mounted and dismounted from the rifle.
For a dedicated SDM rifle, the ACOG isn't a bad idea. However, for a general purpose optic, there are issues to be resolved.
I shoot mine with two eyes open, and don't find it to be significantly slower with practice than my EOTech. Does take some getting used to, to make it work, however.
I'd consider windage click adjustments an unneeded features for a combat long gun optic. The standard NSN reticle's hashmarks are sized for estimating range and can be used for quick and dirty windage estimation but, again, making a wind call with a service rifle/carbine optic in combat is a pretty marginal scenario -- COM will still get you a hit out past 300 meters with zero adjustment for windage (Kentucky or otherwise) with M855 in a 10mph cross wind. Favoring right or left should work out to 600 for those very occasional times it's needed past 300 (even with an ACOG).
Had to throw in that unless have changed severly recently, there are new ACOG models in the $6xx range. I got a TA01 (4x ACOG with crosshair and tritium for night) for under $700 new.
BTW, I have an Eotech but would rather have an Aimpoint based solely on the choice of reticle. Wish the Eotech had a 2moa dot only option.
There's nothing quite like an ACOG. They are my personal favorite optic on an AR15.
I used to think that they were overpriced until I used one and found it to be extremely useful.
Umm, the Army had ACOG's (TA31F) at least 2 years ago.
Hmmm, I've owned an ACOG (TA11 3.5x35) since 2002 and haven't really seen some of the problems you mentioned - of course the TA11 has longer eye relief and a bigger exit pupil too.
Over six shots fired while moving and scored IDPA style, I am approximately one second slower overall compared to an Eotech. It wouldn't be my first choice for the strictly under 25m world; but by 25m the difference is almost too small to measure. Bigger issues are the relatively limited field of view (there is a blocked out zone even with two eyes open) and the need to maintain good cheek weld during movement to avoid wandering point of impact.
I've shot the ACOG out to 600yds and haven't had a problem with kentucky windage. Worst case scenario, I pull the trigger and spot the hit on the berm and then use the 4MOA dot to approximate the necessary windage. However 99% of the time, I am shooting at less than 300yds and windage isn't really an issue.
Assuming you are using the TA51 mount, tighten the mount on the rifle and zero the ACOG. Make witness marks across the TA51 knob so you can tighten to the same tension next time you remove/replace the mount. This won't get you and exact return to zero but it will get you close enough for popping silhouettes at 300yds.
If you need an exact return to zero, then you need the Larue ACOG mount.
somehow == floatplane docked in shallow water
anything mechanical can break. if you're in the mood to dispute the obvious, take your "unbreakable" device and loan it to a Marine.
the TA31F-RCO I have on my favorite AR is what it is. I can shoot steel at 400-600 yrds all day long (I do just about every Sunday). It is painfully slow shooting 3-7 yrds. in both of the practical rifle matches i've shot, my short range scores are teh suq, and I own the long range stage. (sadly, there are 6 of the former and only one of the latter, so I'm not exactly competitive yet.)
I just built a new AR specifically for competition and I put the aimpoint micro T1 on it. Haven't shot it yet, but have slung it around the house a lot the past month. It's noticeably quicker.
ACOG's and the Aimpoint (M68) have been in the system for years and years. The aimpoints but we hate the ACOG's in bright areas, like the desert. Thats why the new SOPMOD block has deleted the Trujicon reflex sight and ACOG 4X and replaced them with the EOTech 553.
This press release is waaaay behind the times. The Marines announced this over a year ago and MARCORSYSCOM has since anounced that they too are going to buy a bunch of 553's.
The 553's are the cats a$$ and EVREYONE wants one. If the team does not get enough of them in the fielding the new guys get stuck with the M68. But I dont know a guy in 3 line companies of 1/19 that still uses either of the Trujicons that they issued us with the SOPMOD block 1 kit (other than those "it lasts 10 years" guys, and they have about 2 years to go before they have to DX them LOL! And those guys are about to be retired anyway).
Save your money, get an EOTech and a bunch of batteries. You wont ever look back.
I was referring to the weapon light for the M16/M4. I worked with a company that was looking at building a similar system with a few novel features and figured they could sell a nearly identical product for a bit over $100 wholesale. Legal action was threatened, so the project folded.
A brief response... windage click adjustments are a desireable feature because they allow you to make a precise adjustment based on windage estimation and then return to your previous zero. I'm going to disagree with you on the windage estimation bit. A squad designated marksman could easily be required to make a 600 meter shot with a service rifle equipped with optics. Wind is certainly a factor and being able to make a quick estimate on windage hold off with tick-marks is a desireable feature as well. It is SO easy to simply add a few tick marks... and yet Trijicon apparently decided it would be too much. Every shooter on the line with an ACOG I spoke to wished there were such a feature. We were battling 5-10 mph crosswinds at 500-600 meters. In combat, you dont get sighters...
As for the close range comments... whatever. The aimpoint and iron sight shooters CRUSHED the ACOG shooters on snap targets. 1 second is a LONG time at that distance.
The TA01NSN has several important differences compared to the TA31RCO. The TA01 doesn't have the fiber optic illumination, it has the tree corsshair instead of the chevron. It also has that funky amber color that washes out around dusk and dawn (particularly in areas where the background is the same color as the reticle). The TA31RCO is much handier overall (though the reticle can get bright in direct sunlight with the fiber optic boost - so a bit of innertube or tape to tone it down is nice).
As to the 553 replacing the Aimpoint/Reflex/ACOG in the SOPMOD block, the last NDIA presentation I saw (page 18) suggested that for Block I the 553 would replace the Aimpoint/Reflex for the ECOS (Enhanced Combat Optical Sight) role in the Army. The Navy would continue using the M68 as the ECOS-N and both services would continue to use either the Elcan Specter DR or the TA31DOC ACOG for the DOS (Day Optical Scope) role until Block II. After Block II, it looks like they propose to replace both the 553 and the TA31DOC with the Elcan Specter DR (SU-230PVS).
Of course, that chart changes every time I see it, so I may be behind the times on what the latest plans are.
How much time do the ACOG shooters have with the sight and are they shooting both eyes open? If so, what is the size of the target and the parameters of the course? We shoot at 15m on IDPA targets moving and stationary and the ACOG shooters almost always beat the iron sight shooters (though they do lose pretty consistently to the reflex sight guys with the difference going up as you add movement)
Agreed; but that is one second over six shots - so about 0.15 sec. per shot slower.
Separate names with a comma.