Opinions on AR optics

[Eightball]

Refresh my memory.....OEG=what, again? All these letters, numbers, acronyms, and model types for optics are starting to make my head spin.

And for those curious about which type of ACOG I was referring to in the OP--dual-illuminated red chevron. Dunno about magnification. Hope that explains my original price quote for it.

 

[Coronach]

OEG - Occluded Eye Gunsight.

Basically, you put a cover on the front to the ACOG. This will result in your left eye seeing the target and your right eye looking into a dark tube with a glowing dot/chevron/donut/whatever. The net result is the glowing reticle will appear superimposed on the target when your brain converts the input from both eyes to binocular vision.

The above assumes you're right handed. If you're not, just reverse it.

Mike

 

[Darthbauer]

OEG - Occluded Eye Gunsight.

Basically, you put a cover on the front to the ACOG. This will result in your left eye seeing the target and your right eye looking into a dark tube with a glowing dot/chevron/donut/whatever. The net result is the glowing reticle will appear superimposed on the target when your brain converts the input from both eyes to binocular vision.

I have tried this and I didnt like it as much as just going to the red dot.

 

[Eightball]

OEG - Occluded Eye Gunsight.

Basically, you put a cover on the front to the ACOG. This will result in your left eye seeing the target and your right eye looking into a dark tube with a glowing dot/chevron/donut/whatever. The net result is the glowing reticle will appear superimposed on the target when your brain converts the input from both eyes to binocular vision.

Wouldn't that defeat the point of buying an ACOG to begin with, other than the "it never needs batteries" bit?

 

[theken206]

ive been VERY happy with my ta-11 ACOG on my DPMS AP4 myself.

 

[Browning]

Maybe I could ask a question

Zak Smith : Here's the short version

article | Fighting Optics - A Short Guide
http://demigodllc.com/articles/fighting-carbine-optics-short-guide/

The longer version was in the 4 Feb Shotgun News and discussed some other scopes and had more detail.

Since we have you here I wonder if I might ask you what do you think of the I.O.R M2 4X CQB Reticle .223 Rem Scope for intermediate distances (of say 50 yards out to 400 or 500 yards) for an AR? Have you seen them or used them at all?

It's This One/ The IOR M2 4X CQB Reticle Scope
http://www.swfa.com/pc-10171-292-ior-4x24-tactical-30mm-rifle-scope.aspx

I realize that a fixed low power scope would have some limitations up close if the distance was less then 50 yards (the same way that a 4X ACOG would), but how does it compare to the ACOG in your opinion?

 

[Zak Smith]

Wouldn't that defeat the point of buying an ACOG to begin with, other than the "it never needs batteries" bit?

That's not what you DO, that's what OEG "means." The OEG effect is when something in front of your dominant eye is superimposed on your field of vision even though you don't see "through" the thing in front of your dominant eye. The original Armson OEG was truely occluded.

The OEG "effect" in the ACOG means that you can "see" at 1X and the bright dot is superimposed on your field of view, however, if you "look through" the ACOG, you'll be seeing the magnified version through your dominant eye only. It takes some mental/visual practice to be able to take advantage of the OEG effect on the ACOGs. The whole concept is the "BAC" or Bindon Aiming Concept.

If I might ask what do you think of the I.O.R M2 4X .223 Rem Scope for intermediate distances of say 50 yards out to 400 or 500 yards?

This one/ the IOR M2 4X
http://www.swfa.com/pc-10171-292-ior...fle-scope.aspx

I realize that a fixed power scope would have some limitations up close at less

* reticle too busy for speed
* reticle illumination backwards (deal breaker) and probably much too dim to enable the "OEG" effect in daylight
* should not have exposed knobs
* eye relief marginally too long for optimal mounting on AR15

I have no data on this scope for durability. I have seen several IOR scopes fail on bolt rifles and that was enough of a clue for me.

 

[Coronach]

Oh, interesting. So, you do not need to actually occlude the ACOG to achieve the OEG effect? I was under the impression that you did, at least in order to use it rapidly. However, you state that the ACOG still has a speed deficit at CQB ranges (compared to the red dots). Is this because using the ACOG as an OEG requires a bit more 'concentration' to achieve the sight picture?

Wouldn't that defeat the point of buying an ACOG to begin with, other than the "it never needs batteries" bit?

At CQB distances magnification is more of a drawback than an asset. At longer ranges, of course, the reverse is true.

Mike

 

[Zak Smith]

So, you do not need to actually occlude the ACOG to achieve the OEG effect? I was under the impression that you did. However, you state that the ACOG still has a speed deficit at CQB ranges (compared to the red dots). Is this because using the ACOG as an OEG requires a bit more 'concentration' to achieve the sight picture?

Correct, you do not need to occlude it. If you can mentally "focus" on looking "around" the optic instead of "through it", the donut/chevron will be superimposed on your field of view. This is easier on a TA11 vs. a TA31 because the TA11 takes of less of your field of view. By adjusting what you are mentally/visually focussing on you can choose to "look through" or "look around" the ACOG. This does not work or not work well on the TA01. The key point to making this effect work - and it is not specific to Trijicon - is a very bright reticle center. This is why the "dim in daylight" illumination on other optics does not cut it for the OEG effect.

Using this still is slower than a dedicated 1x dot at close range because of the increased visual/mental/focus complexity of the OEG effect.

hope this helps
-z

 

[Coronach]

Yep. I got it now.

Query: if you were to place a flip-off cover on the front of the ACOG, would that speed things up in CQB? In theory you could flip the cover on for CQB work if you had time (or use the BAC if you didn't), and flip it off if you had to take a longer shot.

Of course, I have no idea how practical that would be in real-world use, but it seems do-able.

Mike

 

[Zak Smith]

I believe Progressive Machine sells a device to do that, and I have done the same in testing using some duct tape. It is still more visually complex than a 1x dot, but it's less confusing than have a small circle of magnified view there.

 

[Darthbauer]

Yep. I got it now.

Query: if you were to place a flip-off cover on the front of the ACOG, would that speed things up in CQB? In theory you could flip the cover on for CQB work if you had time (or use the BAC if you didn't), and flip it off if you had to take a longer shot.

Of course, I have no idea how practical that would be in real-world use, but it seems do-able.

Mike

Its like if your shooting with just one eye open looking down the scope, just open your other eye. Works better with the chevron ACOG's, mine is crosshairs.

 

[ccd]

If you are interested in a moderate cost scope the 1-4x leupold turkey scope is acceptable.

 

[Browning]

Zak Smith : * reticle too busy for speed
* reticle illumination backwards (deal breaker) and probably much too dim to enable the "OEG" effect in daylight
* should not have exposed knobs
* eye relief marginally too long for optimal mounting on AR15

I have no data on this scope for durability. I have seen several IOR scopes fail on bolt rifles and that was enough of a clue for me.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any intermediate 3.5 to 4X scope besides the ACOG that you would actually recommend to use on an AR (preferably one that isn't $800 to 1000, that's more than I paid for the AR)?

 

[Zak Smith]

There are a lot of scopes out there that work well for regular shooting, but when held up to the critical eye of objectively-scored practical shooting have flaws. Keep this in mind in my critiques-- I am looking for a specific set of features to enable the fastest hits from ten to 400-500 yards.

But in that feature-range, the Trijicon TR21 AccuPoint is a good choice; it's the "poor man's Short Dot."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One thing to keep in mind when using any sight as an OEG is that the point of impact will change due to the different sight geometry (your angle of view to the target is now through your left eye; but the dot is still set up for your dominant eye).

This is why it is useful mostly close-in where the shift is less important and also why nobody used the original OEG much outside of CQB-style shooting.

 

[Eightball]

So, what would be harder---shooting things at ranges of 100~300 yards with an EOTech (with or without magnifier), or shooting things at closer range with any degree of speed with an ACOG?

 

[BorisDaBastid]

My 2 pfennings:

Up until this past year, I have been a die-hard fan of *not* having anything battery powered on my M4. I have honestly zeroed the M68 (aimpoint) that the BN required me to have on my rifle, then taken it off, put on my carry handle sight and zeroed that for range and eventual combat use. While I was in Iraq last time, I kept my 68 on my weapon, but used my B/U sight for shooting, mainly because batteries where hard to come by.

In the middle of last year, my Company got enough EOtechs for even us lowly Bradley crewmembers to get a few. After some wheeling a dealing with the platoon armorer, I secured myself one for my M4. I have it zeroed to the point that I can easily have 5 shots covered by a dime on the 25mm zero target. I just recently had no problem dropping 350 meter targets on our Known Distance range here on Baumholder. I still can't qual expert though... damn 10 shots from a kneeling stance kill me every time.

As far as something that offers both a bit of zoom and quick, close up shooting, my friend has something he purchaced that works all sorts of nifty. He's got the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T 1-3x14mm scope. I've played around with it and have been quite impressed on both CQ ranges and KD ranges. It gives you one less mag than the ACOG, but with a twist of the barrel gives you 1X so you're not looking at the threads on a >25m target's shirt. It also costs around 400 bucks less than the ACOG, which I think is nifty. Now if I could only convince my wife to let me drop 800 bones on something for work...

 

[MassMark]

Though only used on a static range, I'm curious about the new Millet DMS. It seemed to have all the things I was looking for in a well-priced package. Reports from the ISH have been mostly decent, (some early fogging issues) and I'm wondering if anyone has any practical experience with this optic. With S-B ShortDots in the 2k range, I'm wondering if the Millet can pass muster in the $200.00 range. Indications are "yes" and my time with one was certainly impressive, but limited...

 

[HorseSoldier]

As far as something that offers both a bit of zoom and quick, close up shooting, my friend has something he purchaced that works all sorts of nifty. He's got the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T 1-3x14mm scope. I've played around with it and have been quite impressed on both CQ ranges and KD ranges. It gives you one less mag than the ACOG, but with a twist of the barrel gives you 1X so you're not looking at the threads on a >25m target's shirt. It also costs around 400 bucks less than the ACOG, which I think is nifty. Now if I could only convince my wife to let me drop 800 bones on something for work...

For variable magnification options, there's also the Horus Talon 1-4x24mm that's quite a nice piece of kit, though a bit outside the OP's $1000 price range ($900 delivered for the scope, but they you have to get a mount for it -- the LaRue SPR mount I have for mine brings total price tag up to about $1100).

The Horus reticle in the Talon puts a lot more tools at the shooter's disposal than the CQ/T or ACOG delivers, but you have to be proficient with their use for it to matter (i.e. bullet drop with the Talon is via a mils grid "Christmas Tree" which is a lot more flexible for different loads as well as windage than the ACOG . . . but if you're shooting M855 all the time the ACOG reticle doesn't require you to remember "I hold X mils at Y meters" etc.). The Talon reticle also features lateral lead lines for engaging moving targets from walking to moving vehicle speeds, though, which I definitely like (and would like to see on future incarnations of the ACOG -- I'd thought the USMC's version added this but apparently not really).

 

[Zak Smith]

So, what would be harder---shooting things at ranges of 100~300 yards with an EOTech (with or without magnifier), or shooting things at closer range with any degree of speed with an ACOG?

It's a matter of degree, and it depends on target size and the visual contrast between the target and the background, and to what extent to have to "ID" the target. If you're shooting high contrast targets that are man-sized (IPSC target, full-size popper, or 40x19" Military targets), then a 1x dot will be fine provided you know your holds from 300 on out. However, when the targets get smaller, it gets a lot harder. A 10" plate at 400 yards is 2.5 MOA "large" --- not testing the accuracy of the AR much; however, this is a very hard target with a 1x dot because: 1, it's hard to see, and 2, you have to use "Kentucky" hold-over. With a magnified scope, it's much, much easier to hit. Likewise for target ID/location, you can simply see distant targets much better with a magnified optic than without. For example if you're shooting medium sized steel targets, a tan plate against a tan grassy background will be very hard to see and put a sight picture one, compared to a nicely painted black bullseye against a white background.

For comparisons of speed, I recommend getting out a shot timer and doing one's own experiments. It's the best way to get real data for what works better for you at your current level of skill.