Is an ACOG worth it?

[Mainsail]

I love mine.

If you can shop AAFES, they sell the basic 4x model for $1149 no tax or shipping. There are often 15% and occasionally 20% off coupon codes which take it to $977 or $920 respectively.

Trijicon ACOG® 4x32 Riflescope w/ Dual Illuminated Red Chevron BAC Flattop Reticle

 

[K&E Arms]

Rra says it shoots 1.5 moan, I shoot. .75 and I am not a great shooter

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Mitchell Gard]

Honestly, if you want some extremely accurate, durable, and low cost sights get some nice irons and learn how to use them well. If your eyes permit they're some of the best sights out there in my eyes

 

[Justin]

Knowing how to use iron sights is a great skill, and one that everyone should have, but all other things being equal, a scoped rifle will be faster and easier to hit targets with.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Is an ACOG worth it?

I think that for the purposes for which most folks would use it, no.

I have to say that this opinion would really apply to a tremendous amount of the gun gear out there.

With that said, few people complain that the quality is too good or that the scope is too tough. Nobody complains about a scope that keeps its zero after being dropped on it.

When they sart getting a lot of use they no longer hold they're zero after a small amount of rough use.

That certainly runs counter to my experience

I own two. One has been mounted on everything from a .22 to a .45-70, but mostly .223/5.56. I probably have somewhere near 15K rounds fired on guns where the scope was mounted. Never once has it lost zero and it has been zero'd numerous times when switched between platforms.

My only complaint is that on both ACOGs, I never seem to have the exact ammo or shooting conditions for the drop reticles.

 

[BellyUpFish]

I have an RX30. While not an ACOG, it's awesome. I love it.

 

[Mitchell Gard]

Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

 

[zstephens13]

How about the angle, is the LAR-8 accurate enough to get the full benefit of the ACOG?

It is much more accurate than you or I.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

Only a moron or somebody given a free piece of expensive equipment would intentionally do what you suggest. However, my 10 year old ACOG has had all that happen to it over the years.

As noted previously, yours appears to be about the only dissenting opinion along those lines and we have several posters who have carried them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry, but your challenge rings hollow.

 

[C-grunt]

Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

My ACOG that was on my DMR went through worse. I fell over a few walls and even had a river bank ledge give way causing me to roll down a 20 foot embankment into the Tigris. It sat in a Humvee turret, the back of a Bradley and went through 3 direct hit IEDs. Mine never lost its zero.

 

[GBExpat]

Is an ACOG worth it?

I think that for the purposes for which most folks would use it, no.

I have to say that this opinion would really apply to a tremendous amount of the gun gear out there.

Ab-so-lute-ly.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I've beat holy hell out ACOGs both in the Army and since retiring and found REAL ACOGs to be outstanding in their durability with one design exception.

The ones with the emergency iron sights cast into the housing have a front post on the extreme forward of the front hood. This is exactly where the impact will be if a leaned or otherwise dropped rifle (or carbine) strikes the ground. On the un-sighted version I've had no issues but with the sighted style, the impact is transferred from post to hood to objective lens in short order cracking the outer portion of the top of the lense though the sight is still functional, the tubes integrity is compromised.

Also, be very wary of "too good to be true" prices as they're a sure sign of some very well done import knock-offs. You'll usually know them by weak if not non existent reticle illumination and the resounding guffaws from Trijicon should you try to exercise the warranty.

A few years back there were more than a couple of national level dealers selling both real and fake at various times so... caveat emptor!

Seems like my fiber optic tubes are developing separations between the portions of the element in the tube above the scope but I can't see a diminishing effect on the reticle yet.

 

[zstephens13]

Well, I think what I have decided is that I will get an ACOG... eventually. Put aside $100 every now and then and I'll end up getting one. Unless some has a TA11J-308 then need to get rid of and are willing to cut me a deal.

 

[Biggs19]

I just traded in an ACOG TA31DOC. It was crystal clear and bright, and just an amazing piece of kit. If you need the magnification I couldn't think of anything I'd rather have.

I didn't need the magnification, and it proved to be slower for me in close engagements. There are guys out there who are super fast with them, but they'll admit that it took a lot of work to get to that point.

The top-mounted Docter optic was nice, but the height over bore was a bit of a challenge. The only way to run that thing consistently (without breaking cheek weld) was to roll the gun to the left, thereby putting the DOC reticle in front of the left eye.

I ended up trading it in for an Aimpoint T1, LaRue QD mount, new BCM charging handle, Troy rail and Geissele trigger. If anything, that should be a tribute to the quality of the ACOG that it held its very high value so well.

 

[Justin]

Double naught spy, I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

You know, sometimes it's like I make posts, but they're just completely invisible to those who choose to respond to the thread.

 

[Pete D.]

I challenge you to carry out and start smacking it against trees and rocks, running/jumping, knocking against walls etc. and see how well it holds a bzo after a couple of weeks.

Is there a scope that will hold zero if treated like that?
C-Grunt's reply was an excellent response to the "challenge".
Pete

 

[Boanerges57]

The biggest question no one seems to have raised is whether you want/need the magnification. If you do then the acog is a very sturdy piece of equipment for the job. If you do not then I think you might find an aimpoint very easy to get along with.

 

[suvivor2012]

I do own a Acog scope and would say I would not use any other type of scope! It is pricey but it is well worth it. My wife was against the purchase at first, after she tested it for herself she now wants one for her carbine.

 

[steven58]

As far as the housing goes It wouldn't surprise me if an ACOG could stand up to more abuse than a set of A-2 irons.

 

[chagasrod]

Worth every penny!

 

[TonyAngel]

I don't think that anyone can dispute the toughness of an ACOG. My opinion differs from most in that many describe the glass as being great. I find the glass to be just OK. More than good enough to do the job, but not as good as I'd expect in a scope that carries the price tag of an ACOG.

Of course, glass quality isn't the reason why a person buys and ACOG. You get it because you need something tough and won't let you down in adverse conditions. Like I said, the quality of the glass is more than good enough.

The only question that remains is whether you actually NEED an ACOG. I only suggest that you reassess your needs and be sure that an ACOG is going to allow you to do what you'll need or want to do with the rifle.

I really don't like the 4X ACOGs. The eye relief is just to finicky for me. I really like the 3Xs (TA33, I believe), but the 3X (and 4X for that matter) just wasn't enough magnification for me.

I tend to shoot at targets that are about 1 to 2 MOA in size and I needed more magnification. I ultimately wound up selling my 3X ACOG to get a Nightforce 2.5-10X scope. I like that a lot better for the intended use; although I still run a little 1.5X ACOG on my AR carbine. I don't think I'll ever to go back to red dots.

 

[squidshady]

I realize this is an old thread, but I had to say that the above post is spot on in its entirety. From the quality of the glass to the eye relief issue, you sir know exactly what it is like to be an ACOG owner

For the record and for the same reasons as you I split the difference and went with the 3.5x35 on my 308 carbine. The scope like the rifle is in my opinion the best of both worlds.

 

[Ro1911]

yes they are nice if you have the money, but I'd rather have an aimpoint much more useful in real gunfights in my opinion. I've owned both and and an eotech, the aimpoint was by far my favorite.

 

[squidshady]

I weaned myself off an Aimpoint that I had been using when I switched to the ACOG. I simply put it on an 11 o'clock offset rail until I got fully accustomed to shooting the ACOG with both eyes open. Once that happened though I found the ACOG to be superior for both CQB and long range as it does it all with less than a glance. Everybody views the sights differently though so others may have more issues adjusting to the ACOG, but I love being able to maintain a wide FOV with both eyes open or simply closing one eye to focus on a 300+ target which I found very difficult with the Aimpoint T1 as it covered most of the target area at those ranges at least with the 4moa anyway. 500yds with the aimpoint was all, but impossible unless shear luck was on my side.

There is always somebody that pops up and claims they can hit this or that at 300, 400 yards etc with the Aimpoints, but I have never ran into anyone that does it consistently... Between the lack of BDC and the reticle oversizing the target it is just too difficult for me to make those shots period.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Had an RCO on my A4. The ACOG was one of my favorite pieces of issued gear, and was one of the only pieces of gear that seemed to be completely Marine-proof. Once a boot left his rifle by the porta-potty when we were out on an FX. A young NCO found it and promptly disassembled the rifle, including taking the RCO off of it, and buried it all in the California desert as a valuable lesson to the boot Marine, who spent the next two hours looking for his rifle, piece by piece. Finally it was getting to be our turn to head out to do some night fire with our PEQ-2s and he still hadn't found the RCO. The 1st Sgt found out and was pissed, not only at the boot Marine, but at the young Cpl too. An entire platoon ended up shoulder to shoulder on their hands and knees combing the countryside for that RCO until we found it. Being buried in the sand for several hours didn't seem to affect the optic any more than being banged around in an APC or anything else we did to it. I never saw an RCO get broke or even lose zero.

The RCO is the 4x version of the ACOG the Marines put on pretty much every rifle in their inventory. One Commandent or another called it the greatest increase in the effectiveness of a Marine since the adoption of the M1 Garand.

It is an excellent optic for medium range, but once you get under 100 yards or so, I think you'll find that a red dot is faster and easier to use, esp on the move or from awkward positions. The RCO on our issue guns had a very short eye relief, which cause the ocular lens to nail you in the eye brow when firing from awkward positions, which happened alot since the M16 doesn't have a collapsable stock. If most of what you're doing is at bad breath distance, their are better choices.