odysseus
Member
Wondering if anyone has them and their experiences. I am thinking of purchasing the new tr22 for an m14. There doesn't seem to be too much talk of them on forums, but what I have seen is those that have them love them.
Trijicon Accupoint scopes...
- Thread starter odysseus
- Start date
- Status
odysseus
Member
Bumping 'cause I am still interested...
Do not currently own one, but I have some experience.
I like the illuminated reticle, and without batteries is an additional plus, but...
The quality of the glass leaves something to be desired.
If you get a chance, look through a Leupold, especially a VX-3, and consider it instead.
I like the illuminated reticle, and without batteries is an additional plus, but...
The quality of the glass leaves something to be desired.
If you get a chance, look through a Leupold, especially a VX-3, and consider it instead.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I think they are vastly underrated. They use the same technology that powers the ACOG; but a much better thought out application of it (better fiber optic design and sliding cover design to protect and manually adjust brightness of fiber). They are variable instead of fixed power. They cost a lot less than the ACOG.
About the only thing they give up is the bombproof construction and some individual units have glass that is worse (and some have glass that is better for that matter).
About the only thing they give up is the bombproof construction and some individual units have glass that is worse (and some have glass that is better for that matter).
odysseus
Member
Thanks... seems like an interesting "scout" choice I haven't heard too many post about.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, one downside to the Accupoints is their "scout" eye relief. You will either need to get accustomed to having your head back down the stock to use it on an AR15 or you'll need an expensive Mark Larue EER mount to move it forward enough to use it with more traditional AR eye relief.
ETA: On an M14, not so much an issue
ETA: On an M14, not so much an issue
Zak Smith
Member
Couple other issues:
Reticle is awkward for hold over, with those two wide posts under the main reticle aim point.
No windage references, no holdover references.
Reticle is awkward for hold over, with those two wide posts under the main reticle aim point.
No windage references, no holdover references.
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Holy crap those are expensive, just looked on ebay for trijicon. Expensive!
What about those $15 red-dots they sell at wal-mart beside the .177 pellets? lol
What about those $15 red-dots they sell at wal-mart beside the .177 pellets? lol
cliffy109
Member
I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "scout" eye relief? The Accupoint is listed at 3.4" to 4.8". While that's a nice departure from the ACOG 1.5", its not even close to being a scout scope which requires a good 9" of eye relief to be useful.
odysseus
Member
With that qualifier, what would you recommend? I am open to this. What I want for the m14 is an illuminated magnified solution. It's not for +600 meters either. Good eye relief is a requirement, but I won't be mounting too far foward.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Much of my shooting is done with ARs using a nose-to-charging-handle (NTCH) cheek weld. With a 4" eye relief scope, you pretty much have to mount the scope forward of the action (scout-style) to be able to use it NTCH and even then it is iffy whether it can be done.
cliffy109
Member
I never have understood the nose to charging handle method. I'm sure there is a good reason for it, but it escapes me. I'm of the Scout rifle school of thought where you use both eyes open for a full field of view and have a 2.5x magnified spot in your dominant eye, about 9" from your face.
Even on my FAL, I prefer the longer eye relief and consider 4.5" to be an absolute minimum. You can't mount a true scout scope on the FAL so I looked long and hard for something that would allow for mounting far enough from my eye to allow for similar sighting. The Leupold 2.5x and the 1.5-5X both do the trick. The Trijicon would also suffice in the lower power settings and would have the advantage of the lighted triangle. I would think this would work nicely on an M14 and would even double as a CQB optic.
Even on my FAL, I prefer the longer eye relief and consider 4.5" to be an absolute minimum. You can't mount a true scout scope on the FAL so I looked long and hard for something that would allow for mounting far enough from my eye to allow for similar sighting. The Leupold 2.5x and the 1.5-5X both do the trick. The Trijicon would also suffice in the lower power settings and would have the advantage of the lighted triangle. I would think this would work nicely on an M14 and would even double as a CQB optic.
I realize that this is a bump on an old thread.........
Is there any new information out there regarding the accupoints?
Based on Trijicon's reputation, I am assuming that the lighted reticles are excellent and that they are super tough and reliable.
What about glass quality? Does anyone know how well their glass compares to Burris/Bushnell/Nikon?
Is there any new information out there regarding the accupoints?
Based on Trijicon's reputation, I am assuming that the lighted reticles are excellent and that they are super tough and reliable.
What about glass quality? Does anyone know how well their glass compares to Burris/Bushnell/Nikon?
Interesting.....here is how the prices of a 3-9x40 from those brands compare.....
Elite 4200 $300
Monarch $400
VX3 $500
Accupoint $675
The only illuminated scope on the list is the Accupoint. So assuming that the glass quality is all very similar and depending on which scope you compare it to, the price premium for the illuminated reticle is between $375 and $175.
Although some of the scopes may be tougher and more durable than others. That is a key ingredient of the comparason that is missing.
Elite 4200 $300
Monarch $400
VX3 $500
Accupoint $675
The only illuminated scope on the list is the Accupoint. So assuming that the glass quality is all very similar and depending on which scope you compare it to, the price premium for the illuminated reticle is between $375 and $175.
Although some of the scopes may be tougher and more durable than others. That is a key ingredient of the comparason that is missing.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Tritium has a half-life of 12 years - meaning, in total darkness, 12 years from now the reticle will be half as bright. In practical use, it isn't much of an issue since tge fiber optic gathering ambient light provides most of the illumination.
Reticles have improved as well with the new dot/crosshair reticle I still have not been able to play with.
Reticles have improved as well with the new dot/crosshair reticle I still have not been able to play with.
Maverick223
Member
Not worth it IMO...not that it is a bad scope I just think it is overpriced for its features.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
A few things of my own non-scientific observations from limited experience.
1. Agree that that are underrated, and a fantastic scope. They have incredible glass quality on the ones I've seen, on a par with ACOGs, which is to say, very very good. Dunno why someone said optical left something to be desired.
2. No, not scout eye relief, but YES, good long eye relief, which is exactly what you want, and exactly why they cost more and are well worth the money if you can swing it (the higher optical quality, the FO illum. reticle, and the superior eye relief). So you're getting in essence an ACOG with magnification, and with better eye relief for less money - what's not to like (right, except they're not bomb proof like an ACOG). Now, the above holds true EXCEPT the eye relief is quite poor, like on many ACOGs, with the 1-4x24 with the 30mm tube. The 1.25-4x24 with 1" tube is excellent eye relief; not so with the 1.0-4x24 with 30mm tube. The extra eye relief is worth paying for with some setups. As mentioned, it can be an actual hindrance on some setups and with some shooting styles, but 85% of the time, it's nothing but a plus, even if it requires a bit of mounting ingenuity and cost in some circumstances. On big recoilers, you obviously want such eye relief. If you're puttin it on an AR, and use nose-to-charging-handle, then you're gonna want the 1.0-4.0x24 with 30mm tube.
3. Tritium, schmitium. Forget that it's even there. If it dies, it dies. The scope works without it. It's lighted through the use of fiber optics, which work well, and work in nearly any lighting condition. The tritium would only help when it's too dark to shoot anyway, IMO.
4. Zack did note some downsides with respect to awkwardness/inability to utilize a holdover with the post reticle, and lack of BDC / holdover markings. BUT, they offer a a choice of reticles now, I do believe, and if you special order one, you may be able to get whatever you want in there.
1. Agree that that are underrated, and a fantastic scope. They have incredible glass quality on the ones I've seen, on a par with ACOGs, which is to say, very very good. Dunno why someone said optical left something to be desired.
2. No, not scout eye relief, but YES, good long eye relief, which is exactly what you want, and exactly why they cost more and are well worth the money if you can swing it (the higher optical quality, the FO illum. reticle, and the superior eye relief). So you're getting in essence an ACOG with magnification, and with better eye relief for less money - what's not to like (right, except they're not bomb proof like an ACOG). Now, the above holds true EXCEPT the eye relief is quite poor, like on many ACOGs, with the 1-4x24 with the 30mm tube. The 1.25-4x24 with 1" tube is excellent eye relief; not so with the 1.0-4x24 with 30mm tube. The extra eye relief is worth paying for with some setups. As mentioned, it can be an actual hindrance on some setups and with some shooting styles, but 85% of the time, it's nothing but a plus, even if it requires a bit of mounting ingenuity and cost in some circumstances. On big recoilers, you obviously want such eye relief. If you're puttin it on an AR, and use nose-to-charging-handle, then you're gonna want the 1.0-4.0x24 with 30mm tube.
3. Tritium, schmitium. Forget that it's even there. If it dies, it dies. The scope works without it. It's lighted through the use of fiber optics, which work well, and work in nearly any lighting condition. The tritium would only help when it's too dark to shoot anyway, IMO.
4. Zack did note some downsides with respect to awkwardness/inability to utilize a holdover with the post reticle, and lack of BDC / holdover markings. BUT, they offer a a choice of reticles now, I do believe, and if you special order one, you may be able to get whatever you want in there.
I have to admit that I am (on paper) liking them more and more.
Regarding the reticles, they are much more attractive now that they offer mil-dot and plex reticles that have an illuminated center dot. That makes them a much more versatile scope than the versions with the chevron on the post.
Also, regarding the half life of the tritium, some one mentioned (it might have been Zak) that you can simply tape a small, low power LED over the fiberoptic sensor when you want added low light illumination. Or you can have the tritium switched out $150 by Trijicon.
Regarding the reticles, they are much more attractive now that they offer mil-dot and plex reticles that have an illuminated center dot. That makes them a much more versatile scope than the versions with the chevron on the post.
Also, regarding the half life of the tritium, some one mentioned (it might have been Zak) that you can simply tape a small, low power LED over the fiberoptic sensor when you want added low light illumination. Or you can have the tritium switched out $150 by Trijicon.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I've replaced night sights on pistols that were not 12 years old that were quite a bit dimmer than the new ones that replaced them. The difference is pretty dramatic when your used to full, or near full brightness. With the scopes, I have to wonder if the tube is even smaller than the pistol sights. I know on my old Armsons OEG's, the dot was small and you had to be in complete darkness with your eyes adjusted to see the dot. Forget about going light to dark and back. I know its been awhile there, and things have changed, but I still wonder.
I've seen them in the daylight, and the new fiber optics are very nice, and would probably work well, even with lower light. My concern is always that transition from light to dark and back though. The LED idea is an interesting one. Maybe they will pick up on it. I doubt I'd bother with Trijicons refurbish.
If you search around on the web, you can find them at a better price than most quote. I almost bought one a little while back, a 1.5x4, which is what I want, for around $450.
Uncle Mike
Member
Don't even compare the Accupoint to an ACOG... The ACOG is a specific built device, hence the different eye reliefs and reticles. These were not made for the couch commandos but specific military units with specific applications. The public is reaping the benefit from endless hours of research and development.
There are numerous models of the ACOG that are not offered to the public, and if they were, I would bet very few people would even consider using them, as these units are greatly 'mission specific'.
The Accupoint is a good enough optic, the glass isn't bad... people seem to think price reflects quality nowadays... hehehe... not!
True the dual post reticle of the TR22 isn't the high speed mil dot super duper sniper tool you might want IF you were pressured into making first round, extended range hits on valuable political targets but....
But....for the average high powered rifle round... what the %$#* does one NEED all those fancy windage and holdover hash marks for anyway...?
Have we lost our ability to DOPE holdoff and holdover... or do we HAVE to have hash marks to aim with.
If you need to holdover 9", and into 5" of wind... my goodness, at what range would you NOT be able to estimate this on the body of an animal...???
The Accupoint 'post and Triangle' reticle was primarily made for FAST acquisition on moving game, or for 'jump' shots.
BTW... the triangle can be used to hold over and holdoff, to a degree...and can even be used for ranging.
Darn good scope...chocked full of usable features.
There are numerous models of the ACOG that are not offered to the public, and if they were, I would bet very few people would even consider using them, as these units are greatly 'mission specific'.
The Accupoint is a good enough optic, the glass isn't bad... people seem to think price reflects quality nowadays... hehehe... not!
True the dual post reticle of the TR22 isn't the high speed mil dot super duper sniper tool you might want IF you were pressured into making first round, extended range hits on valuable political targets but....
But....for the average high powered rifle round... what the %$#* does one NEED all those fancy windage and holdover hash marks for anyway...?
Have we lost our ability to DOPE holdoff and holdover... or do we HAVE to have hash marks to aim with.
If you need to holdover 9", and into 5" of wind... my goodness, at what range would you NOT be able to estimate this on the body of an animal...???
The Accupoint 'post and Triangle' reticle was primarily made for FAST acquisition on moving game, or for 'jump' shots.
BTW... the triangle can be used to hold over and holdoff, to a degree...and can even be used for ranging.
Darn good scope...chocked full of usable features.
One other plus, Trijicon has excellent customer service. My 13 year old ACOG (which I purchased used) needed a recharge. Trijicon did it in two weeks no charge accept shipping. I also had them install tritium dots in adjustable 1911 sight, and they did a very professional job, again for a nominal fee (about the cost of a rear sight). I met the owner once and deer hunted with him, they are obsessive about quality. With Trijicon you get what you paid for.
Zak Smith
Member
This thread probably should not have been resurrected. It was originally about mounting on an M14. The more common application is on the AR-15 and using answers for one platform on another may be confusing.
It is wrong to talk about eye relief as "poor". Eye relief needs to be matched to the weapon and the eye position of the shooter. On an AR-15, eye relief for NTCH shooters is best around 1.5-2". The TA11 ACOG at 2.4" is just a little longer than this but it still works when fully forward on the receiver. At 3" or even 4.5" of eye relief, more extreme mounting solutions are required on an AR-15 platform.
Uncle Mike,
Which models are these?
In any case, the TR21/22 and the ACOGs are Type II/DMR style scopes; not precision long-range scopes (Type III/SPR or practical long-range). Thus, they are the wrong choice for first-round long-range hits.
It is wrong to talk about eye relief as "poor". Eye relief needs to be matched to the weapon and the eye position of the shooter. On an AR-15, eye relief for NTCH shooters is best around 1.5-2". The TA11 ACOG at 2.4" is just a little longer than this but it still works when fully forward on the receiver. At 3" or even 4.5" of eye relief, more extreme mounting solutions are required on an AR-15 platform.
Uncle Mike,
Which models are these?
The Tactical division shooter who placed #2 at the Rocky Mtn 3Gun World Championships earlier this month used a TR21 with the dual-post/triangle reticle. The average rifle shot was problably about 300 with the longest 590.
In any case, the TR21/22 and the ACOGs are Type II/DMR style scopes; not precision long-range scopes (Type III/SPR or practical long-range). Thus, they are the wrong choice for first-round long-range hits.
Reticle features that demarcate fixed angles are useful for holdover and windage because the target size is not always known accurately. In addition, hold "Kentucky windage" in space is notoriously inaccurate compared to using a reticle feature.
Uncle Mike
Member
At SHOT we hung out with the Trijicon guys for a bit, we leafed through a loose leaf binder full of different models of, as the guys said, was mission specific models... some unusual looking ladders if you will and sized reticles.
Right you are... but in the real world of setting in your treestand deer hunting, the use thereof of reticle ticks, or hashes are seldom used.
Hunters firing at great ranges would more than likely have time to dope and adjust, using the reticle... but most deer hunting gives you but a few seconds to acquire, adjust and send... and at the common ranges the majority of deer hunting shots are taken, 'kentucky windage' fits the bill fine.
KW is faster than reticle fiddlein'... that was what I was insinuating, and for the record, the use of EVERY aid to aiming one has at his or her disposal is a must have in the world of high accuracy shooting.
I wonder how our forefathers ever put game in the pot with that horrendously inaccurate Kentucky windage...lol
- Status