What is your opinion?

[USAFrenegade]

What is your opinion on wich is better for an AR15, do you prefer ACOG or EOTech, and why? I'm looking at both of them by Trijicon. Is there a better brand even?

 

[Dienekes]

I opted for the Compact ACOG, 1.5X with amber triangle. It is a bolt-on to the carry handle, weighs in at about 6.6 ounces. It is good in low light, has excellent FOV and eye relief, very quick, and suffices for both very close ranges and out to 200 yards (and more if necessary) for longer work. Head position is virtually the same as for irons but the irons are available through the mount hole. Not cheap but after a year of using it it is worth every penny. It is NOT the same as the standard issue 4X ACOG and IMHO far better and more practical for the AR.

The Eotech looks very good also and I would probably have gone that route had I not learned of the compact ACOG.

 

[molonlabetn]

The nice thing about an ACOG (or any Trijicon product, for that matter) is the lack of dependance on batteries... Even comparing the Trijicon Reflex sight with the EoTech makes this fact a big plus for the Trijicon. On the other hand... you can buy 2 (or 3) Eotechs for the price of one ACOG... and the ACOG isn't as fast as the EoTech, even with the lower magnifications. If magnification is a concern, you can buy a 3X module for the Eotech and still be less expensive than an ACOG itself.

What ranges are you planning to shoot your rifle at? Less than 50yd = Get the Eotech. More than 100yd = get the ACOG (or the Eotech and 3X module). In between... it's up to your preference.

 

[USAFrenegade]

Thanks for the tips. I plan on doing alot of shooting at differant ranges. I have an EOTech on my issue M4, but i was currious abot ACOGs for my own. Is there a better company than Trijicon?

 

[Ghost Walker]

Both are good. None better than Trijicon. The EOTech is great for fast work inside 100 yards; but, then again, so is a low magnification ACOG. A magnified ACOG is best used at 150 yards and beyond.

Perhaps more pertinent questions would be; 'How long is your barrel?' and; 'What weight round are you using?' Neither sight will do you much good at night, though. If your rifle is primarily a close-in, 'entry type' weapon, the EOTech will be fine; if you want to reach out and touch someone, then, the ACOG's a better way to go; but, there's more to the equation than this.

Remember, you want to shoot a 5.56 x 45mm bullet at or above 2,700 fps in order to maximize the shock effect. If I remember correctly with M855 ammo and a 16" barrel, your maximum effective impact range against a human target is slightly less than 100 yards. So barrel length, twist, and bullet weight are important considerations when choosing the ideal sight to use.

My own personal choice? I'd select a low magnification ACOG.





You probably already know about this, but, here -

Ammo Oracle

And, then, there's this -

Comparison ACOG vs. EOTech

 

[Ala Dan]

Other than spend the extra dollars for the "high priced" EO Tech, I simply
went with the Bushnell HOLO-sight; priced at only $239. The old story goes,
that the EO Tech is shipped out of the front door; and the Bushnell comes
of the back door. How true that is, I don't know? But, I have had excellent
reuslts with the Bushnell; and see NO need to change.

 

[stevek]

Molonlabetn,
I have Eotechs on both my AR-10 and AR-15, what is the 3x module you are talking about, and where could I find them?

 

[TX1911fan]

Ala Dan, I read in a review of the Eotech that Eotech makes Bushnells holosight.

 

[molonlabetn]

Molonlabetn,
I have Eotechs on both my AR-10 and AR-15, what is the 3x module you are talking about, and where could I find them?

Steve,
EoTech recently brought these to market, but they are the 'schizznit'.

http://www.binoculars.com/products/eotech-3x-magnifier-with-flip-to-side-mount-57269.html

 

[koja48]

EoTech recently brought these to market

Spendy little buggers . . . and I have an Eotech 512 on my M4gery, and a Sightron Tac 4-16 on my A2. I considered an Acog, and while I realize the value of good optics, when the price tag for such equals that of a new gun, I can compromise a bit. For my applications, the Eotech works just fine.

 

[Rob96]

The old story goes,
that the EO Tech is shipped out of the front door; and the Bushnell comes
of the back door. How true that is, I don't know?

With the EOtech you get the roll cage and more efficient circuitry.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From the Rifle Forum Reading Library thread tacked at the top of the Forum:

Hard Data: Irons v. Variable v. Eotech v. ACOG

The place where the Eotech really shines is movement - if you have to move and shoot with a rifle, the Eotech, Aimpoint and related red dots let you shoot accurately with a sloppy or even non-existent cheekweld and that lets you either shoot better or move faster.

Without movement, the ACOG is quite fast. Close in (15yds) the ACOG was a little slower; but the emphasis is on "a little" (0.41-0.45 seconds slower than an Eotech over a total of six shots and two targets - or roughly .07 seconds per shot slower)

I would suggest the major factors are:
1. Do you need to shoot on the move?
2. How good are your eyes? Do you need the extra magnification to even see the target?

We did a "jungle run" at my Intermediate Carbine course where we engaged targets at unknown distances strung out through the woods. The ACOG dominated the red dots here because you could SEE the targets in the first place.

 

[atblis]

S&B Short Dot

http://www.vickerstactical.com/articles/shortdotarticle.pdf

Sounds neat, but at $2000....yeah.

 

[glockman19]

I paid, overpaid for the EOTech 512.65. $377. I'll get the bushnell next time. I like the ACOG, Trijacon is very expensive.

I guess it all depends on what distances you'll be shooting at. I'll be using my AR-s for CQB & out to 200 yards therefore the EOTech will do me just fine.