Trijicon TA44 1.5x ACOG With ACSS Review

[Serlo II]

I bought one and returned it. I found I couldn't see much of the reticle in home defense night lighting situations. It's much dimmer than on other ACOGS. Also, the reticle is also so small, I could barely make out the point of the chevron. Now my vision is not the greatest so your mileage may vary. I had high hopes for this unit.

[Henry Porter]

Funny that you would post this today. They had these for $899 earlier in the week, so I finally broke down and bought one. It shows to be out for delivery today. I am not planning to use it on my home defense rifle. I need reading glasses, but my far vision is still pretty good. It seems like these work for some folks but not others. I hope I like it as much as I think I am going to, but I suppose I will know for sure soon. Just in case it does not work out that way, how did the return process go?

[Bret]

Mrgunsngear, thanks for the review and link for the free mount. I bought one from Primary Arms which came with a free Midwest Industries QD Mount. I mounted the ACOG on my Bushmaster A2 upper receiver and am using the Midwest Industries QD Mount for a TA33.

[whatthepuck]

So...from what I can gather these may not be the best choice for an HD rifle.

I have a mild astigmatism, but I can use and have used RDS with a bit of bloom on the dot. I have lately been using my P4Xi’s on my rifles as i feel the etched reticle works better for me. I was thinking one of these TA44s may be the ticket for me due to its lighter weight and etched reticle. Is the tritium illumination that much of an issue at night?

I’ve always used battery powered optics but have been very intrigued by this little acog lately...

[rocketman]

My astigmatism is getting worse. Red dots are blooming worse and worse as time goes by. I'm still ok at CQB distance but anything beyond 100 yrds is dicey. I'd like to try one of these but it appears that you have to choose between a low mount model for an AK and a lower 1/3 mount model for an AR. For the price it would be nice if the same optic housing would work for both. (or am I missing something?)

[96 SS]

To get them low enough on an AK, you need to remove almost all of the mount. It’s the nature of the beast. Of course AR mounts need to be higher.

[LDB]

That's very cool looking. Does the 50/200 mean if you sight in at 50 yards you are set at 200 also?

[opngrnd]

That's very cool looking. Does the 50/200 mean if you sight in at 50 yards you are set at 200 also?

It means you will be close at 200 if you zero at 50. There are a few variables here. Many people zero at 50 then fine tune at 200. In my case, a dead on zero leaves me a little high at 200, so I adjusted to be on at 200 and called it good. Barrel length, ammo, etc all play a small role here.

[Bret]

I realize that this is an old thread, but I found a solution to what I liked least about mounting my TA44 on a carry handle. As it was, I had to hold my cheek above the stock in order to get high enough to see through the optic. I found this inexpensive cheek riser on Amazon.com. It clicked on to the factory stock and gives me a cheek rest at the perfect height.



https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1