First impressions: KAC ACC

[pointblank4445]

Wanted to bump this thread just to say thanks to NongShim for doing this write up and giving me just enough to push me into giving the SR25 a second chance and looking past my love/hate relationship with KAC and their products. I opted for the ACC in MLok and so far my only problems encountered have been with some factory mags not being in spec (currently they are with KAC). I fitted my gun with a 1.5-8x26mm S&B Short Dot. Other than getting the gun set up, I have had only 3 major outings and 400 rounds on it this past month.
Outing 1: Zeroing, 0-100y carbine work. The lightweight ACC is noticeably lighter and easier to drive off hand than the EMC I had previously.
Outing 2: 100-300y standing, barricade supported, prone sans bipod, tripod engagement of 8" and 10" steel circles.
Outing 3: 315 - 815y on 2/3 ipsc steel target engagement off of pack.

Thus far, the ACC has done everything I've asked of it and has far exceeded my expectations; however, some credit must be given to the optic as well. With so many failures and disappointments in semi-auto 308's and lightweight guns, the ACC is off to a very good start out of the gate.

[JoshNC]

Wanted to bump this thread just to say thanks to NongShim for doing this write up and giving me just enough to push me into giving the SR25 a second chance and looking past my love/hate relationship with KAC and their products. I opted for the ACC in MLok and so far my only problems encountered have been with some factory mags not being in spec (currently they are with KAC). I fitted my gun with a 1.5-8x26mm S&B Short Dot. Other than getting the gun set up, I have had only 3 major outings and 400 rounds on it this past month.
Outing 1: Zeroing, 0-100y carbine work. The lightweight ACC is noticeably lighter and easier to drive off hand than the EMC I had previously.
Outing 2: 100-300y standing, barricade supported, prone sans bipod, tripod engagement of 8" and 10" steel circles.
Outing 3: 315 - 815y on 2/3 ipsc steel target engagement off of pack.

Thus far, the ACC has done everything I've asked of it and has far exceeded my expectations; however, some credit must be given to the optic as well. With so many failures and disappointments in semi-auto 308's and lightweight guns, the ACC is off to a very good start out of the gate.

I've followed your S&B comparison on Lightfighter. What are your thoughts on the SD 1.5-8 on the ACC? Are you still in favor of the SD 1.5-8 over the SD 1-8?

[pointblank4445]

I've filled your S&B comparison on Lightfighter. What are your thoughts on the SD 1.5-8 on the ACC? Are you still in favor of the SD 1.5-8 over the SD 1-8?

The 1.5-8x26 is an excellent optic for the ACC, but that's with my bias on how I run my optics (when to hold, when to dial). I know some guys think SR25 and the Leupold CQBSS are the winning combo, but I had no love for the CQBSS and couldn't get rid of mine fast enough. And I do still prefer this optic to the 1-8CC especially for this purpose though I am warming up more to the CC. The oldschool PMII turrets on the 1.5-8 tracked flawlessly as we shot near to far the other day before cycling back to 315y and working back out again to 815y (9.5 Mil). Mind you this is with a 0 MOA mount (bonus: 34mm tube). There's nothing sexy about the optic itself and the P3 mildot but it seemed to work just fine. On my gun, the wind hold bounced between 1.8 and 2.8 Mils, and I want to say I was 8 out of 10 at 815.

I know someone who has the 1-8x Highpower; I dig the reticle but S&B really dropped the ball on some of the features to justify the 1-8x power range and exploit it for close-up work. Meanwhile, I feel the new Dual CC (which was basically what was promised to us 7+ years ago) is going to struggle with splitting the flash dot/illumination settings on one dial considering how much the illumination settings have varied on some of my models. Also, their insistence on using these thin, hollow/skeletonized reticles baffles me. No doubt the Dual CC will struggle with that for the bottom half of the magnification range. Depending on the lighting and terrain, they can be lost far too easily even on max magnification. From the looks of some of the sales/price adjustments, they may be focusing more on the CC/Dual CC line...which is fine. I hope to see them adjust some of their reticle options and maybe bring over the High Power 308 reticle to take advantage of flash dot tech.

[Jwknutson17]

The 1.5-8x26 is an excellent optic for the ACC, but that's with my bias on how I run my optics (when to hold, when to dial). I know some guys think SR25 and the Leupold CQBSS are the winning combo, but I had no love for the CQBSS and couldn't get rid of mine fast enough. And I do still prefer this optic to the 1-8CC especially for this purpose though I am warming up more to the CC. The oldschool PMII turrets on the 1.5-8 tracked flawlessly as we shot near to far the other day before cycling back to 315y and working back out again to 815y (9.5 Mil). Mind you this is with a 0 MOA mount (bonus: 34mm tube). There's nothing sexy about the optic itself and the P3 mildot but it seemed to work just fine. On my gun, the wind hold bounced between 1.8 and 2.8 Mils, and I want to say I was 8 out of 10 at 815.

I know someone who has the 1-8x Highpower; I dig the reticle but S&B really dropped the ball on some of the features to justify the 1-8x power range and exploit it for close-up work. Meanwhile, I feel the new Dual CC (which was basically what was promised to us 7+ years ago) is going to struggle with splitting the flash dot/illumination settings on one dial considering how much the illumination settings have varied on some of my models. Also, their insistence on using these thin, hollow/skeletonized reticles baffles me. No doubt the Dual CC will struggle with that for the bottom half of the magnification range. Depending on the lighting and terrain, they can be lost far too easily even on max magnification. From the looks of some of the sales/price adjustments, they may be focusing more on the CC/Dual CC line...which is fine. I hope to see them adjust some of their reticle options and maybe bring over the High Power 308 reticle to take advantage of flash dot tech.

Any reason you had no love for the CQBSS H27? Just curious as I put one on my new ACC last week. I have a higher mag optic on my APC, and went with the CQBSS H27 on this ACC. Haven't had much time behind it, but no crazy complaints yet. The 1x is much better on the MK6, but seems like its still a good optic. Just curious your thoughts. Was thinking about a S&B but went the Leupold route this time..

[pointblank4445]

Any reason you had no love for the CQBSS H27? Just curious as I put one on my new ACC last week. I have a higher mag optic on my APC, and went with the CQBSS H27 on this ACC. Haven't had much time behind it, but no crazy complaints yet. The 1x is much better on the MK6, but seems like its still a good optic. Just curious your thoughts. Was thinking about a S&B but went the Leupold route this time..

My prior dealings with Leupold Mk4's has been a mixed bag of good, bad and ugly so I was giving Leupold the benefit of the doubt and maybe even impress me. Since I have never had any love for the Horus offerings, the H27 was of no interest to me. I like some "X-Mas tree" reticles but few achieve the fair balance I would want...Horus doesn't come close in that respect. Because of this, I went TMR because of the lack of options (CMR was not available at the time) and price...it turned out to be a poor compromise. Obviously, I lost daylight brightness and I didn't care for the reticle anywhere below about 6x. I had some concerns about the mechanics on the reticles (no, not with the pinch locking ring).

In the end the S&B actually cost me LESS than had I tried to pick up a CQBSS w/ CMR reticle on the LE/Gov program. That and the S&B gives me features I'm more familiar with and the benefit of flashdot/LED tech.

[MadAngler1]

Any reason you had no love for the CQBSS H27? Just curious as I put one on my new ACC last week. I have a higher mag optic on my APC, and went with the CQBSS H27 on this ACC. Haven't had much time behind it, but no crazy complaints yet. The 1x is much better on the MK6, but seems like its still a good optic. Just curious your thoughts. Was thinking about a S&B but went the Leupold route this time..

Having trigger time behind the CQBSS and a 1.5-8x S&B at an actual range (not just the NRA convention), the Leupold has:

- a smaller eyebox
- worse light transmission
- not that great of illumination

compared to the S&B 1.5-8x. If you don't need 1x magnification, the 1.5-8x S&B is an awesome scope with incredible glass. They should make a 1-8x model on a 34 mm tube as well.

I'd also like to add that a Kahles 1-6x is pretty hard to beat as well

[Ed L.]

I just received a Schmidt & Bender 1.5-8 short dot with the CQB reticle for evaluation in a writing project. My main purpose is something that is good from CQB ranges on out.

I chose this scope because I needed something with a red dot that was daylight visible as well as a reticle that I could see easily with my less than perfect vision. The reticles on the 1-8 version were too thin for me to pick up quickly even at 8 power. Unfortunately the 1-8 power S&Bs do not have the CQB reticle available. With the dot cranked up, the 1.5-8 power is awesomely daylight bright and very usable at 1.5 power. I just wish the CQB reticle was offered in a 1-8 power or a 1.1-8 power, because at the lowest setting it would be much easier to use as a red dot with both eyes open than the 1.5 power setting of the scope that I have.

[Jwknutson17]

I just received a Schmidt & Bender 1.5-8 short dot with the CQB reticle for evaluation in a writing project. My main purpose is something that is good from CQB ranges on out.

I chose this scope because I needed something with a red dot that was daylight visible as well as a reticle that I could see easily with my less than perfect vision. The reticles on the 1-8 version were too thin for me to pick up quickly even at 8 power. Unfortunately the 1-8 power S&Bs do not have the CQB reticle available. With the dot cranked up, the 1.5-8 power is awesomely daylight bright and very usable at 1.5 power. I just wish the CQB reticle was offered in a 1-8 power or a 1.1-8 power, because at the lowest setting it would be much easier to use as a red dot with both eyes open than the 1.5 power setting of the scope that I have.

Thanks for your guys input. I'm glad I didn't go with a 1.5 from what it sounds like. The goal was to have a 1-8 on this rifle. Not a 1-6 as I have on many other rifles in all different flavors and brands. And not an optic that wasn't 1 or 1.1x. Then I would have skipped this build all together and slapped an offset RDS on my APC and been done with it. I was hoping NF came out with a 1-8 this year. But no go. My USO 8c failed to impress me, along with my SMRS 1-8.5. The new Trijicon 1-8 was another option but lack of illumination reports again steered me away. For the price I paid for my CQBSS I would have still had to come up with another $1500 additional to get into a S&B 1-8 so that never was a consideration. Also I wanted a 34mm tube. Time will tell if this is the right optic. Always something better coming out each year. That's the good thing. Thanks for the input on the S&B guys.

[pointblank4445]

I can't say I've had any issue with the 1.5x. Then again, I committed to the 1.1x a long time ago and suffered with their close range issues and think the whole "true 1x" thing is a bit overblown. Short of the "CC" setting on the 1-8x, I've yet to be impressed by a magnified optic in that respect. So take that with a grain....

[Jwknutson17]

I can't say I've had any issue with the 1.5x. Then again, I committed to the 1.1x a long time ago and suffered with their close range issues and think the whole "true 1x" thing is a bit overblown. Short of the "CC" setting on the 1-8x, I've yet to be impressed by a magnified optic in that respect. So take that with a grain....

I hear ya..

What kind of groups are you getting with your rifle? I'm impressed with your 815y hits consistently. Using BH or FGMM? Ive only been able to get to 600y so far with my APC and is a great shooter with 175 FGMM. I'm hoping my ACC is just as consistent.