Can anyone recommend me an ACOG TA-01?

[dodging230grainers]

Browsing for an ACOG to stick on my Bushmaster M4gery, I came across this one, the TA01 model, Trijicon's most basic model it seems:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/trijicon-4x32-acog-advanced-combat-optical-gunsight-ta01.html

at $300 cheaper than the next step up (TA-31, red chevron), can anyone point out game breaking differences between this model and the more expensive ACOG's? Any personal users here?

3 main questions:

1. How different is the TA-01's crosshair reticle compared to the chevron/donut in actual usage at various ranges? What is used as a rangefinder?

2. Since this model only mounts to the carrying handle, will cheek weld be a problem? Will I even need a proper cheek weld, considering it's an AR (light recoil)?

3. Sort of a take on question #1, wouldn't the TA-01's more precise crosshair reticle make it easier to make precision shots at 100, 200, and 300 yards? On the more expensive ACOGs, all you have is a giant donut or triangle to stick onto the target, and it is supposed to suffice up to 300 yards. The individual 100, 200, and 300 yard lines on the crosshair reticle seem more precise....of course this is probably a disadvantage for close range work.

thanks!

 

[dodging230grainers]

Hmm.....another big issue...so given my weapon is an M4, will I need a specific model of ACOG? If not, which ACOG models will work with a 14.5" M4, flattop mount, shooting M193 ammunition? Or at least which model seems to work the best?

 

[Drue]

The cross hairs on the TA-01 are more precise aiming points than the chevron, donut and triangle but the shapes are faster for closer targets and the 31s do have stadia marks for the longer ranges. The shapes provide for use of the Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC) in which the shooter has both eyes open and is looking at the target, one eye through the scope. When the red shape covers the target it is time to shoot. In other words, the shapes function as a sort of red dot sight.

The width of the horizontal cross hairs roughly subtends the average human torso at the marked range so as to function as a range finder.

The ACOGs that use the TA-01 body which include the TA-31, are actually all made to be mounted on the carry handle and have a hole through which the iron sights can be used. This does put the scope up pretty high meaning it is hard to get a good cheek weld which definitely aids precise shooting. This is why the flat top is becoming so predominant. All of these ACOGs can be attached to a flat top adapter and mounted on a flat top rifle. Some come with an adapter and some don't.

As far as I know, the bullet drop compensator (BDC) in all of the ACOGs is set up for the M855 ball ammo 'cuz that's the current issue. There is a table somewhere on AR-15.com that I can't find right now, that shows the variation between 855 and other ammo including M193 at the various ranges using the ACOG's BDC. It is close enough for government work. The ACOG is a combat sight, not a target, varmint or benchrest sight.

Most ACOGs seem to have BDCs set up for the 14.5" M4 barrel (16" is close enough) but some are set up for the 20". The product descriptions should provide this information.

I have a TA-01NSN on my Franken-M4gery and it works for me.

Drue

 

[Shung]

I am using a TA-01NSN on a M4 (14.5" barrel) and it works fine over 300m !!!

I have tried the TA-31 .. it's true that the sighting is faster with the chevron, but the TA-01 is much more easy and precise.

 

[dodging230grainers]

The TA-01NSN looks like the best option, especially for under 1 grand.

How do the built-in rear ghost ring and front sight work out as backup sights?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I actually prefer the TA01 to the TA01NSN because of the red reticle. I find you can get some washout of the amber reticle in the TA01NSN around dawn and dusk.

Basically, it gets dark enough that the slight amber illumination of the tritium is just enough to blend in with the background lighting.

I wouldn't want to rely on the backup sights; but they work OK at short distances.

If money is an issue, I would look at the compact ACOGs (the 3x30 TA33 especially).

Also check out the crosshair version of the Trijicon Accupoint - not as tough as the ACOG; but a 1-4x variable tritium/fiber optic illuminated scope that uses no batteries and costs $779 (with a Larue mount included!). This looks like the poor(er) man's Short Dot.

 

[dodging230grainers]

Bartholomew,

I like very much the idea of the less expensive 3x30 TA-33.

But, will it work with a 14.5" M4 tube?

Or will I need to get the ACOG models designated for the M4, such as the TA01NSN?

 

[Jeff White]

I have an original TAO1 Sn 818. I bought it direct from Trijicon in 1989. Nineteen years and I have yet to replace the red tritium. It's not as bright as it was, but still glows bright enough to use.

Jeff

 

[Onmilo]

I don't experience the washout affect with my TA01NSN ACOG, but I don't use night vision either.
The amber tritium reticle coloring was chosen for the TA01NSN version because red reticles would washout when used in conjunction with generation3, or earlier, image intensifying tubes.(night vision scopes), especially under lighting conditions experienced at dusk and dawn and in the nighttime lighting conditions of many urban environments, the amber reticle stays visible when intensifier washout occurs.

The Army and Navy/Marines have now chosen red reticles for the curent crop of ACOGs because they will not now washout when used in conjunction with the Gen4 and Gen5 image intensifying tubes which automatically correct for variable lighting.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But, will it work with a 14.5" M4 tube?

It will work just fine for most practical uses. You may have to adjust your use of the BDC slightly (For example: 200 mark is actually 225yds using your load and mount); but it will be close.

Or will I need to get the ACOG models designated for the M4, such as the TA01NSN?

For the BDC to match perfectly, you need the same altitude, temperature, barometric pressure, height over bore, muzzle velocity, and ammunition used for the BDC. So even with a TA31RCOM4 designed for 62gr and a 14.5" barrel, you can still see rounds not follow the BDC.

However, it is easy enough to figure out how to make ANY BDC reticle work with your ammo, climate, height over bore, etc. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the BDC. I would worry more about which reticle best suits your needs.

How big is your target? What range does most of your shooting happen at? What light conditions? Those are all more important than the BDC.

 

[dodging230grainers]

Yeah, I suppose there are too many variables to replicate exactly. I think the TA-33 is just the ticket....

Now for the hard question:

Amber or Red?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You need to get your eyes behind both and try it out as eyes are as different as people and yours may like one while mine like the other (see Onmilo's comments for example).

Amber works really well for people who are partially or totally red color-blind. I personally don't care for amber reticles because the spinning hunk of dirt we live on is illuminated with amber light and I find that amber blends into the background lighting too often for my tastes (imagine using a red reticle in a red-lit darkroom).

However, it just may be that my eyes don't like the amber reticles. I can see the Trijicon amber about 98% of the time. On the Leupold CQT, I lose the orange-ish reticle a lot against brown or tan backgrounds when the illumination is on.

 

[dodging230grainers]

I'm leaning towards red.

As far as mounting the darn thing, is it satisfactory to simply use the factory TA60 mount and slap it on top of my flattop A3?

I see tons of people using a LaRue mount. Is this necessary? I'd love to use the factory mount if possible, save me the money for some ammo...

 

[Shung]

my TA60 mount works well, and I dont loose the zeroing in mouting unmountig it..

If was to buy a Larue, if would be, mostly, because it looks better

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I actually prefer the TA01 to the TA01NSN because of the red reticle. I find you can get some washout of the amber reticle in the TA01NSN around dawn and dusk.

I too have a TA01 and agree with BR on this.

It will work just fine for most practical uses. You may have to adjust your use of the BDC slightly (For example: 200 mark is actually 225yds using your load and mount); but it will be close.

Right, and so the difference in POA and POI may be about 2", but will be approximately spot on with the military's 62 gr. ammo...which is what the drop reticle was calculated for, as I recall, to go with the 14.5" barrel.

 

[Onmilo]

I own a TA01NSN amber reticle scope.
My opinion,,,,,
If you are planning on getting 3rd generation or earlier night vision, go with the Amber reticle.


If you aren't planning on using the scope in conjunction with night vision equiptment then choose the red for the reasons stated.

If you are swimming in money or have a rich and generous uncle named Sam and can afford Generation 4 or 5 night vision equiptment, then by all means go ahead and choose the red reticle of your choice.

 

[dodging230grainers]

hmm...

While looking at Compact ACOG's, I came across the TA50-4, Trijicon's 3x24 model with an amber crosshair:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/trijicon-2x20-acog-with-m16-base-amber-dot-reticle-and-bac-ta50-6.html

Again, I prefer the precision of a crosshair over a chevron, but am I sacrificing too much by giving up the TA33's bullet drop compensator system for a scope almost the same size without one?

Any ACOG crosshair reticle-sans-BDC opinions?

 

[Onmilo]

Go here;
http://www.trijicon.com
Every ACOG is listed along with detailed descriptions of the available reticles.

 

[dodging230grainers]

Do the compact ACOGs work well when mounted to the carrying handle? I realize it won't hold zero after dismounting, but I'm willing to live with that.

Secondly, will I be able to still use the iron sights with a modern compact ACOG mounted to the handle?

Anyone with a compact ACOG on an M4 wanna chime in?

thanks

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Do the compact ACOGs work well when mounted to the carrying handle? I realize it won't hold zero after dismounting, but I'm willing to live with that.

Yes, they work quite well IMO.

Secondly, will I be able to still use the iron sights with a modern compact ACOG mounted to the handle?

Yes, there is a tunnel underneath the ACOG where you can immediately go to irons without removing the ACOG or flipping anything.

Personally, I think the compact ACOGs and carry handle mounting go together like peanut butter and jelly. It is a nice combo.

The BDC reticles are nice; but they really only come into play past 300m. The various non-BDC reticles can be made to work out to 300m with a little practice.

 

[dodging230grainers]

Thanks BR.

Not sure if you've had any personal experience with it, but the 3x24 crosshair reticle (TA-50 series) looks like my best option. For $850, I want some precision, so the dot/triangle doesn't really appeal to me.

Any big disadvantages you can think of with this particular set-up? Does the crosshair reticle function well on an ACOG, just as it does on a regular crosshair reticle scope?

Obvious advantages to me are:

-Carrying handle mounted, so I can use irons for <100 or >400, or if the ACOG fails (unlikely of course.)

-Best balance of precision and speed for 100 to 400 yard shooting.

Given I'm looking for the best balance of precision and speed from 100-400 yards that can be carrying handle mounted, can anyone recommend anything better?

At least on paper,the 3x24 Crosshair Reticle TA-50 looks the best.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I haven't played with a TA50 in awhile. If you are certain you want to go with the carry handle route and plan to use that awhile, then I think that would be a good fit for your needs.

On the other hand, if you think you might flattop your AR later, that Trijicon w/crosshair and Larue mount for $799 sounds like a really good general purpose rig.