View Full Version : ACOG 4X Discussion
Failure2Stop
07-24-08, 11:19
Discussions on the ACOG keep popping up, and though they have been discussed at length numerous times, apparently the time is ripe for another go-around.
Since I started this I will go though my impressions of the TA-31F (http://www.trijicon-inc.com/User/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=145&back_row=4&categoryID=3) type (4X, chevron reticle, BDC to 800m, fibre-optic daylight illumination, tritium night illumination), the ACOG type I have by far the most experience with, and am a certified Trijicon Instructor for.
I find the TA-31F types to be very effective 50 to 300 meter combat optics.
-The ballistic drop compensator built into the reticle, while not perfect, is sufficient to allow a shooter to place accurate fire on an enemy position past 300 meters.
-The optic is durable and rugged.
-The generous exit pupil allows a shooter to effectively engage a target with less than perfect alignment.
-With sufficient ambient light the illuminated chevron is quickly picked up, allowing rapid engagement of close-range targets by a properly trained individual.
-The 1/3 MOA adjustments of the optic permit rapid but relatively precise adjustment of zero.
-The 2.75" LOS over bore with the TA-51 mount permits the shooter to have proper stock weld.
-The tritium illumination provides sufficient illumination to dark-adapted eyes to engage obvious targets.
-4X magnification greatly helps in target identification and discrimination.
Things I find sub-optimal-
-The reticle, when fully illuminated, blooms, causing precise zeroing to be difficult unless the recommended practice of covering the fibre-optic is observed during zeroing.
-The BDC is an educated guess only. It is virtually impossible to manufacture a set reticle pattern that will precisely indicate POA/POI at long range with changing environment, weather, and ammo lot. I do not fault Trijicon, but rather popular opinion and mis-stated "fact" regarding the accuracy of the BDC.
-The ranging ability of the stadia is based off of the average shoulder width of a human. It is a rare adversary indeed that will permit full exposure of the upper torso during a shooting solution at ranges that the BDC is employable or relevant.
-The 1.5" eye relief requires that the shooter rapidly present the weapon/optic to a very specific place in relation to the eye. With body armor and an aggressive stance this is not easy and requires numerous iterations to gain proficiency. It also interferes with a BUIS if a fixed stock is used, as the general optimal placement of optic will be a far to the rear on the top rail as possible.
-The magnification at close range is detrimental to surgical speed shooting. At 5 meters the FOV is less than 24", making it very easy to misplace initial shots. Additionally, shooters tend to be "sucked into" the optic, attempting to overly clean-up the shot or shots, as the magnification enhances perception of reticle movement, especially while shooting on the move. It also hampers multiple target engagement, as the small FOV will generally cause the shooter to lose sight of other close-range threats while engaging, forcing the shooter to drop the optic out of the sight line, identify and acquire the next threat, represent, and engage the next threat. This becomes time loss, and loss of time is a bad thing.
-The BAC, while applicable with sufficient light, does not pan out in transitional lighting, especially when indoors with non-dark adjusted vision in poor lighting, and especially when a mounted white-light is used. This becomes especially apparent when shooting at a dark target that is not stationary while expecting or needing correct shot-placement.
-The Dr/TRD equipped ACOGs provide a solution to the close-range issues, but they exhibit large LOS over bore differences as well as durability concerns. They require a "chin weld", and dedicated training to become habitual.
-The TA51 is prone to snagging and loosening, though the loosening is primarily a concern if not properly tightened initially. The design of the ACOG prohibits use of a BUIS unless the optic is removed. The TA51 does not readily permit removal without a simple tool of some kind.
-Employing the ACOG with the PVS-14 requires that the optic be moved from the zeroing position to open space behind the optic for mounting of the NOD. This will cause an unknown degree of zero-shift to the individual. While NOD equipped personnel should employ IR aiming devices during periods of darkness, incorrect application of NODs in conjunction with the TA-31F is still common.
-While tough, the ACOGs are not invincible. There are numerous (though not overwhelming) instances of failure of the lens-retaining adhesive and elevation/deflection adjustment parts.
There are fixes to some issues-
-Aftermarket mounts are available that are less snag-prone and exhibit outstanding retention and return to zero.
-An Aimpoint T-1 can be offset mounted, permitting good CQB performance with a minimal change to standard employment.
-There are other ACOGs in the lower magnification realm that are much more generous in eye-relief, and more efficient in close-range environments.
A lot of people fall in love with the ACOGs when just using them to shoot at stationary IPSC targets in daylight. It does that great. In fact, I am seriously considering getting one (the JP reticled ACOG (http://www.jprifles.com/1.6.2.php)) for use on a 3-gun rifle in conjunction with a T-1. However, 3-gun is not combat, and IPSC targets look and act nothing like hostile, lethal threats.
-F2S
Excellent post! You nicely summed up the ACOG. While it is a superb optic, it isn't perfect.
A couple of points with your review. Most if not all ACOG's are unusable with a PVS-14 due to the tritium being way too bright, blooming the NOD. In general, magnified optics are paired with a UNS (PVS22) or the equivelant. These NODs are placed on the rail in front of the magnified optic. I have not seen many PVS-14's employed effectively behind a magnified optic in a tactical situation and have never seen them employed with an ACOG specifically.
As for the offset mounting solutions, I agree wholeheartedly about the "chin welds" with the dot atop the ACOG. When shooting on a two-way range, I want my head down as far as possible so as not to provide an extra few inches of target for the other guy. To me, the top-mounted Jpoints and Dr. sights are a poor solution at best and dangerous one at worst. Unfortunately most offset mounts just about make you shoot the rifle sideways as seen in the J-Point video and just about impossible to use prone. There are new mounts coming such as TNVC's MURLM offset mount that will combine a light if needed as well. This system only requires a 5 deg or less cant and shooting prone or on the move is incredibly effective for real defense scenarios as well. I think the 3-Gun guys will love it as well.
I have had the pleasure to T&E a MURLM and am extremely pleased with the design. It solves the problems that we are talking about and does not require any new shooting positions. The 5 degree cant is so minimal that I was actually able to just shift my eye over, while maintaining my cheek weld, to pick up the dot. I've spent a lot of time talking to Victor at TNVC about the design and theories behind it and am convinced that this is the solution we have been waiting for. The MURLM should be hitting the market in September or October and I am already on the waiting list!
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/MURLMSHOOT.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/TNV0708_058.jpg
If you're shooting a TA33 3x mini ACOG, using a flip up objective cap in the closed position turns the optic into an OEG (both eyes open), which is pretty fast as long as you can see the reticle. Of course, since no ambient light is being viewed throught the optic itself, the reticle is much easier to see in transitional lighting than would be the case if the flip up cap were open and the shooter were actually looking at the target through the optic.
The eye relief is much more generous on the TA33, allowing some variability in cheekweld while still providing a usable sight picture as well as a wider range of mounting positions on the receiver. The TA33 is also lighter than full sized ACOGs.
The downsides of the TA33 include 3x magnification (vs 4x for the TA31 series) and a smaller FOV.
Failure2Stop
07-25-08, 02:12
clasky-
I have never used the PVS-14 in conjunction with an ACOG. I used the PEQ-2 or PVS-17. The AGOC/PVS-14 has always been viewed (by those I interact with) as sub-optimal, with reports of varying degrees of bloom.
caporider-
The TA-31F series can be employed as an OEG as well by taping over the objective lens. I use this as a training tool to teach people to use the ACOG with two eyes open, which helps to prevent the shooter from getting sucked into the optic. However, this is not a realistic solution to a close-range problem and eye-dominance/focus issues become shot placement issues in my experience.
I also think that the TA-33 models are a better solution for most than the 31 series, though my experience with the 33 is not of sufficient duration to make recommendations.
Battl3fr0nt
07-29-08, 00:10
I really dont find it hard to get a good cheak weld, I have been using my TA31F for a long time now tho.. I was able to get a good cheak weld every time after about half an hour with it and after using it for a few days at the ranges maby 2-3 hours you will get it right every time.. the ACOG is not perfect but damn near it.. After trying out the TA11,TA33 and a few TA31's I went with the TA31F I found it to be best for me.. I found it is much faster then the conventional scope type optic, you dont get black out and you cant lose the crosshairs unlike scopes.. I had mixed feelings about my ACOG when I was first using it but once you get past the learning curve you fall in love with it.. It is one of the best optics for 20m+ shooting and for alot of people it is the best optic.. It is not for everyone.. but there really is no other optic like it.. so it is hard to find somthing as good.. the short dot is also a good optic but still not as fast at any range.. after using my acog for a while now I can say it is the best optic for me.. but I always say check it out for yourself befor you buy it.. as with any optic.. if it fits your style of shooting (pretty much anything 20m+) I find it is a very good optic if your not a bench shooter.. if you are just a bench shooter then the accupoint will be fine cuz you will not need the speed of the ACOG but if you do then it is prolly right for you.. and it does what it says it will do very well and is the best combat optic you can get.. and as you know it has been compat tested.. I would not trade my ACOG for any other optic.. I will be getting the ACOG compact 1.5x rather then a Aimpoint for my next build.. I cant wait for that
This video says alot.. http://www.jprifles.com/v/v_d.php?v=optics .. the JP ACOG is nice but I like the Chevron alot better for 100-300yds rather then the nsn
its about time someone makes an ACOG discussion :cool:
Failure,
I saw some Marines last year where I was at previously that had ACOG's mounted behind their PVS-14's. I was like WTF? When I looked through it, it seemed to be Ok, but I would be concerned with the tritium burning into the PVS-14. I am also convinced that they only reason they did is because they had no alternative sighting system made available to them and were probably more concerned with the results and not what would happen to the gear.
clasky-
I have never used the PVS-14 in conjunction with an ACOG. I used the PEQ-2 or PVS-17. The AGOC/PVS-14 has always been viewed (by those I interact with) as sub-optimal, with reports of varying degrees of bloom.
caporider-
The TA-31F series can be employed as an OEG as well by taping over the objective lens. I use this as a training tool to teach people to use the ACOG with two eyes open, which helps to prevent the shooter from getting sucked into the optic. However, this is not a realistic solution to a close-range problem and eye-dominance/focus issues become shot placement issues in my experience.
I also think that the TA-33 models are a better solution for most than the 31 series, though my experience with the 33 is not of sufficient duration to make recommendations.
Battl3fr0nt
07-29-08, 06:17
Im thinking about the JP tactical ff tube on my next AR rather then the DD lite rail now.. Its cheap, nice and clean looking.. Im now also thinking about getting a 20" barrel rather then another 16" and going for really clean looking rifle.. mine is now, I dont like to have crap I will not use.. but just MI front/rear BUIS and an ACOG on top of the upper and a LMT lower, ERGO SureGrip.. that should do..
Failure2Stop
07-29-08, 06:39
I really dont find it hard to get a good cheak weld, I have been using my TA31F for a long time now tho.. I was able to get a good cheak weld every time after about half an hour with it and after using it for a few days at the ranges maby 2-3 hours you will get it right every time..
The TA-31 series in a TA51 mount on a flat-top AR is fine for stock weld. The issue is with the carry-handle mounts or a top-mounted MRD.
the short dot is also a good optic but still not as fast at any range..
The SD is far faster at close range (at 1X) and much less sensitive to illumination issues inside an enclosure. It also allows for precise drop adjustment at longer ranges. It is also 2X the cost of the TA-31, so the cost:benefit may not be sufficient for hobbyists to justify a purchase.
after using my acog for a while now I can say it is the best optic for me..
Fair enough. If it does what you want, at the distances you want, in the circumstances you want, at a price you can stomach- that's great.
Failure2Stop
07-29-08, 06:47
I saw some Marines last year where I was at previously that had ACOG's mounted behind their PVS-14's. I was like WTF?
Trijicon specifically instructs NOT to mount the AGOG behind the 14. The image seen through the 14 is not the same as the actual image going into the 14. This will cause POI shift, somewhere between significant and drastic.
The only device suitable to be placed in front of the optic is the UNS. It was very common to see the 14 in front of the ACOGs when they were first introduced simply due to the lack of training/knowledge. It may be accurate enough to engage a 25m(-) threat, but the series of issues before that point is failure-ridden anyway.
The best solution (IMO) is to keep the 14 on your head (non-dominant side) so you can see what's going on and engage with an IR laser, keeping your dominant side open in case of a change in illumination, which allows unimpeded access to the sighting system with the dominant side.
Battl3fr0nt
07-29-08, 07:10
The TA-31 series in a TA51 mount on a flat-top AR is fine for stock weld. The issue is with the carry-handle mounts or a top-mounted MRD.
The SD is far faster at close range (at 1X) and much less sensitive to illumination issues inside an enclosure. It also allows for precise drop adjustment at longer ranges. It is also 2X the cost of the TA-31, so the cost:benefit may not be sufficient for hobbyists to justify a purchase.
Fair enough. If it does what you want, at the distances you want, in the circumstances you want, at a price you can stomach- that's great.
I didnt mean at 1.5X in CQB.. Im sure the Short dot would be faster 4xvs1.5x but im talking 50m+ It is faster in sense that you dont have to worry about a good weld.. still does not mean I will not get a short dot for use at the range for bench shooting they are good optics just nothing like the ACOG for longer ranges and speed. I was also looking into this other optic the specterDR but I have never used it so I cant really say if I like it or not.. but rather then a short dot I think I would go with another ACOG. the compact 1.5x for CQB.. I have bad eyes.. really bad eyes so the .5x would help me alot for tagets even at 50m.. as for the MRD on top of the ACOG I think it is a good idea and it would work well in CQB.. but I would prolly never use it..
Failure2Stop
07-29-08, 07:30
RE- MRD with ACOGs
Would like to hear from those that are using an offset MRD mount, especially if you have experience with the top mounted MRDs.
Claskey- if you have more info, please feel free to share :)
Battl3fr0nt
07-29-08, 22:41
I really dont think offset would be any better.. I mean you really are not going to use the MRD much at all.. and if you do you will not care about the weld.. I think a green laser would be nice for CQB. It seems they are getting better and better..
RE- MRD with ACOGs
Would like to hear from those that are using an offset MRD mount, especially if you have experience with the top mounted MRDs.
Claskey- if you have more info, please feel free to share :)
In training, we were always taught to keep our head, specifically our eyes, as close to the bore as possible. Not only does this help in natural pointing of the weapon, but it also presents a lower profile on a two-way range. Believe me, when downrange, you want to be as small as possible.
As I previously stated, the ACOG is a superb optic for intermediate to long range threat engagement. When taking effective fire from 100-500 meters away, it is nice to be able to reach out and get your hits. But gunfights usually end up in foot chases. Bad guys know they cannot survive a knock-down, drag-out fight and therefore take shots at you and then take off; usually into the twisting mazes of buildings in whatever 3rd world shithole you happen to be in. The dwellings are often tightly packed with small, walled-in yards, and tiny rooms with narrow hallways. All of the sudden, you find yourself in a CQB situation where the threat can be mere feet away.
Anyone who has ever been shot at it in a CQB gunfight will tell you that the difference between rounds striking you and missing you is measured in centimeters. CQB is one of the most dangerous situations because the likelyhood of taking a round is exponentially higher. For this reason, I want to have the smallest profile possible. I also do not want to be engaging my target with a 4x optic. It just isn't practical.
Now, this has been addressed in several ways by Trijicon and several after-market manufacturers. The first, most obvious solution was to take a mini RDS and place it on top of the ACOG. I have several issues with this. The first is that it is just too tall. The propper shooting position when running an AR is nose to charging handle and tight cheek weld. But, this monstrous configuration has me trying to get a chin-weld. Since I've already established my position on keeping my head down, It's obvious that solution does not fit me. I can honestly say that it doesn't suit a lot of others either. This takes me to my second point- height of the optic. The mini RDS is small, but can still provide a stellar snag point. The less height for my accessories, the better. A piggy-backed RDS is just begging to be caught as you enter or exit a vehicle or go through a door or window. This brings us to the type of RDS. Trijicon has seen fit to mount Dr Optic-type sights to their ACOGs. I've never been a fan of the Dr. or J-point. They are fragile and exposed and I have always had problems picking up the dots. But, it seems to me that piggy-backing one of these things ontop of an ACOG is putting it in the most vulnerable position.
Aimpoint solved this problem with the micro T1. we are familiar with it, and I like it for all the same reasons you do. However, it is a bit too big to mount ontop of an ACOG. This is why I like offset mounts. However, these are not perfect either. I don't like the idea of going into a fight, having to keep my weapon canted at 45 degrees. This is a short term solution. I can shoot like that, but I don't want to have to do it because it is un-natural. The weapon is not designed for this. While more practical than mounting the RDS ontop of the ACOG, this configuration is still problematic.
I want my gear to work for me; not the other way around. Enter the TNVC MURLM. What do I like about this unit over the other offset mounts? Well, it's as close to having an RDS inline with an ACOG as we are going to get. When I first talked to Victor at TNVC about this mount, he said that I wasn't going to believe my eyes. I would only have to cant the weapon 5 degrees to pick up the dot, leaving my shoulder and cheek weld, practically, unchanged. I was excited to check out the T&E model he sent me and was awed by how it lived up to his claims. In fact, the MURLM surpassed them. I was actually able to pick up the dot by simply shifting my eye. I didn't even have to cant the weapon! TNVC has hit a home run with this thing. It is clear that a lot of research went into this thing.
It is more inline with the center of the rifle, leaving less mass hanging in the breeze. The optic arms hug the rail closely, bringing the whole package into the rifle. When you are already used to working with lights and lasers on your weapon, this thing seems like nothing. Actually, the MURLM places the T1 so close to the center of the rifle, that it causes you to have to mount your ATPIAL/PEQ2/DBAL at the 9 o'clock position, otherwise the laser/pointer beams will be blocked. This is the only drawback I have come across. However, it's an easy workaround. You can still mount an OTAL or CVL on top.
The light mount is tits. It's so simple and effective that I'm amazed nobody else has thought of it. But, that is a discussion for another thread.
The bottom line is that I believe the MURLM will revolutionize the way RDS' are run with ACOGs and similar magnified optics. It is, by far, the most natural transition I've used.
Failure2Stop
07-30-08, 05:59
clasky-
The pictures I have seen of the MURLM seem to indicate that the mount is a long arm that supports the T-1. I find that interesting since you are concerned about snag-hazards (as am I). Obviously a picture is not the equivalent of the actual item, but would you mind expounding on the relative "height" of the MURM?
I have a more than "academic" interest :). The rapid change from mid-range to CQB, back to midrange, without the opportunity to adjust/fiddle with one's weapon is not irrelevant to me.
ETA- I can't see your pics due to the network filter. Will check on another network before posting again on this item.
Battl3fr0nt
07-30-08, 08:42
after looking at a few pics of the MURLM it seems it would be the best anser if you want the ACOG and a red dot. and like you said, you dont have to change the weld of the rifle would be best. I have no reason to have a red dot on my rifle long with the ACOG but the MURLM would be a good idea for any SWAT or Military.. or anyone that wants both.. are the T-1's as good as the full sized aimpoints? any drawbacks? I mean if you where just going to mount it as your main optic? I know it would be the best thing to go along side the ACOG due to it being able to take almost as much abuse as the ACOG.
Failure2stop:
Even though you cannot see pics right now, here are few more for when you can. The MURLM pics you are describing are probably based off the mockup that was used for "proof of concept" trials. It featured a long dog-legged arm that would have presented a snag hazard as you said.
The actual production units based off the prototype in the pics is much slimmer. Everything has been brougt in closer to the rail. The T1 is in a position that keeps it from sticking out any further than most of the issue lasers. Obviously, anything you place on a rail is going to present a snag hazard to some degree. But, just like weight trade-offs, you have to ask yourself if the benefit is worth it. IR lasers, white lights, and 203's add weight to my weapon, but the ability to point and shoot while wearing NODs, blind a badguy, and drop a 40mm egg into an enemy position, respectively, far outweigh the disadvantage.
The same holds true with the MURLM. I think that this is the best solution for instantly transitioning from range to CQB roles. The next evolution would have to come in the form of an automatic variable optic that auto-adjusts to your target's distance.
Battl3front:
You're right in that the MURLM has a great future for SWAT and Military use. But, it also has a role in civilan 3-gun competitions. Can you imagine a faster transition?
As for the T1 itself, it's a badass optic. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the standard issue RDS in the next everal years. It's already seeing heavy use as a primary optic for several SOCOM units. When coupled with a Larue mount, it's hard to beat. The only drawback is that, by nature, it has a smaller field of view than the full size unit. But, this translates into a benefit in that it allows you to have a less-cluttered sight picture while scanning. It is as good they say and tough as nails.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/TNV0708_224.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/TNV0708_196.jpg
Failure2Stop
07-30-08, 10:20
Obviously, anything you place on a rail is going to present a snag hazard to some degree. But, just like weight trade-offs, you have to ask yourself if the benefit is worth it. IR lasers, white lights, and 203's add weight to my weapon, but the ability to point and shoot while wearing NODs, blind a badguy, and drop a 40mm egg into an enemy position, respectively, far outweigh the disadvantage.
Absolutely agree. If it doesn't protrude more than a PEQ-2 it's absolutely fine.
Have you tried the DD offset to compare it to the MURLM?
Absolutely agree. If it doesn't protrude more than a PEQ-2 it's absolutely fine.
Have you tried the DD offset to compare it to the MURLM?
Yes,
The DD offset places the T1 at 45 degrees. It's a better solution than the piggyback, but it still forces you to run the gun at 45 degrees, which I don't like. I am ok with having to make a shot with my weapon canted at an odd angle if my cover or situation requires it. But, the DD offset forces me to have to adapt my entire shooting position for the duration of the drama in order to employ the optic.
I'd much rather my gear work for me than vise versa. Sure, you can train with anything enough for it to be muscle memory, but why allow your gear to add challenges? 2-way ranges are challenging enough without having to adapt my technique.
I'm not trying to bash DD. I some of their gear and like it a lot. I just think the MURLM is a better solution.
Failure2Stop
07-30-08, 11:40
Allright-
Can see pics now.
Liking the concept.
Thanks for posting the pics clasky.
I have a thought about the mount (nothing negative) that I am going to speak to Victor about.
What does the MURLM + T-1 weigh? My T-1 + LT low mount + DD offset rail mount combo weighs 5.9oz all-up. That's amazing. With the TA33 + LT mount, I have 15oz of optics and mounts on my carbine, vs 28oz for a Short Dot + LT mount.
To me, saving 13oz is a big deal.
ETA: I completely agree that the MURLM looks to position the T-1 perfectly and will transition all my carbines to this mount as soon as it is available. I do wish Victor would make a version without the light mount, though...
What does the MURLM + T-1 weigh? My T-1 + LT low mount + DD offset rail mount combo weighs 5.9oz all-up. That's amazing. With the TA33 + LT mount, I have 15oz of optics and mounts on my carbine, vs 28oz for a Short Dot + LT mount.
To me, saving 13oz is a big deal.
ETA: I completely agree that the MURLM looks to position the T-1 perfectly and will transition all my carbines to this mount as soon as it is available. I do wish Victor would make a version without the light mount, though...
Good question. I don't have access to a scale, but it isn't bad. Keep in mind, though; a short dot is just about the heaviest optic (for what it is) that you can run.
I just saw this on another forum:
MURLM weights
MURLM = 3.4oz
Aimpoint T-1 = 3.2oz
Surefire G2 = 4.1oz
Light mount = ~2oz?
Total = ~12oz
I just saw this on another forum:
MURLM weights
MURLM = 3.4oz
Aimpoint T-1 = 3.2oz
Surefire G2 = 4.1oz
Light mount = ~2oz?
Total = ~12oz
Cool.
So the TA33+LT mount and the T-1+MURLM setup (with a single scope cap for the TA33) weighs in at exactly 16oz.
The closest I could get to this with similar capabilities would be the Trijicon AccuPoint 1.1-4x in a LT mount at 19.5oz. 4X on the top side, but no BDC, no redundancy, no true 1x, etc. The Meopta Meostar with LT mount comes in at 25oz, a TA31F/T-1 combo would be about 21 oz, a TA11/T-1 combo about 25.5oz, etc.
Out of all those numbers, 16oz still works best for me. ;)
Battl3fr0nt
07-30-08, 22:02
In the pics it looks like you can take off the bottom light mount. I really think this is going to help the sales of ACOGs and T-1's.. So much people love the ACOG but they also want a red dot for CQB.. I know alot of people that dont mind the MRD on the ACOG but for the people that do this will be a very good thing.. I mean the ACOG alone is one of the best setups you can have but with the MURLM you can have the best of both worlds..
In the pics it looks like you can take off the bottom light mount. I really think this is going to help the sales of ACOGs and T-1's.. So much people love the ACOG but they also want a red dot for CQB.. I know alot of people that dont mind the MRD on the ACOG but for the people that do this will be a very good thing.. I mean the ACOG alone is one of the best setups you can have but with the MURLM you can have the best of both worlds..
You are correct. The light is completely removable with one hand. The light mount snaps into the MURLM via a dovetail slot on the bottom. A spring-loaded snap-fit secures the light ring in place. Pushing down on the tab that protrudes from the front of the unit will release the light mount and allow it to be pulled forward and out.
The cool thing about this is that it allows you to use the light as a simple, tertiary light and allows the MURLM to be used as a simple optics platform. If needed, the light can be quickly reattached with one hand. The dovetail slot allows for blind-indexing in the dark.
Another thing to note: The MURLM is ambi and can be mounted on the left side of the weapon for you south paws out there. Another reason to do this would be if you are deploying with respirators. Masks make everything suck. When using a mask, the weapon must be rotated about 45 degrees in order to pick up the dot in the MURLM on the right side. However, it is much easier to pick up the dot through a mask if you mount it on the left side. I heard about some other guys trying this and decided to give it a go myself. Worked like a charm. Just another fun fact.
Here's some more MURLM picks to better show off what the unit looks like. You can get a good idea as to how the QD light ring works.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/MURLMBareT1LightRightSide.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/MURLMBareLeftSide.jpg
A lot of people fall in love with the ACOGs when just using them to shoot at stationary IPSC targets in daylight. It does that great. In fact, I am seriously considering getting one (the JP reticled ACOG (http://www.jprifles.com/1.6.2.php)) for use on a 3-gun rifle in conjunction with a T-1. However, 3-gun is not combat, and IPSC targets look and act nothing like hostile, lethal threats.
-F2S
Your absolutely right the ACOG does the above GRANDLY ! ! ! but all of the suboptimal things you mention are factors as well. Plus here are a couple of my own.
The Fiber optic, it gathers too much light. I have mine about 2/3rds of the way taped up when I actually use my scope. Another thing that most civilians have never experienced. If there is anything over the top of you like camouflage netting, the netting, blowing in the lightest of breezes will cause shadows to flutter and the reticule brightness will vary in intensity badly. To a point of making it difficult to aim.
As for the ACOG's use with Night Vision Equipment, I actually sent my TA 31 back to Trijicon to have the Tritium element removed. Even with that out running a PVS-14 behind is still not the greatest image quality due to the light loss from the 24mm objective. In very dark environments the reticule can be very hard to see necessitating the use of a supplemental light source. I have rigged up a TINY LED for this. Still not optimal at ALL. ALAS for the best use with Night Vision, (as mentioned earlier) is one of the front mounted (read HORRIBLY expensive) scopes like a BNS or an UNS SR. Preferably the UNS SR for it's lighter weight.
On the subject of mounting small red dots, That has been solved long ago. The Yankee Hill Machine angle mounts are VERY light weight, and Not expensive at all. They may not be super sexy, tacticool but they work GRANDLY. This in my opinion, positions the Red dot in a handy spot that requires little if any canting of the weapon. You can see the dot easily while keeping the weapon upright by simply rolling your head over a little. It is more comfortable to do a slight cant and a slight head roll though.
I have tried the Daniels Defense mount (which is NOT a 45 degree angle) and it sets the optic too far out from the rail and it requires quite a bit more canting to pick up the dot. My guess is they built it for a tube optic like the Aimpoint rather than a MRD. In addition mounting your red dot back closer to your primary optic rather than out front on the forearm reduces the snag potential. The MURLM looks to be, begging to hang up on a door frame at the worst possible time.
I have put thousands of rounds into IPSC silhouettes at close range with the YHM set up and of everything I have tried, it works the best. With the dot that much lower and closer to the center of the bore you run less of a chance of missing a close precise shot i.e. hit just the A zone in the head, the B zone is a no shoot kinda crap.
These pics show the set up.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/IPSC_GUY/ACOGwithRedDot001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/IPSC_GUY/ACOGwithRedDot002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/IPSC_GUY/ACOGwithRedDot003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/IPSC_GUY/ACOGwithRedDot004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/IPSC_GUY/ACOGwithRedDot005.jpg
So in closing I REALLY want the ACOG to do it all but it doesn't. A 1 to 4 version with a bit more eye relief and the ability to manually vary the reticule brightness would be the Holy Grail of combat optics.
IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA
http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member3941.png (http://militarysignatures.com)
Your absolutely right the ACOG does the above GRANDLY ! ! ! but all of the suboptimal things you mention are factors as well. Plus here are a couple of my own.
The Fiber optic, it gathers too much light. I have mine about 2/3rds of the way taped up when I actually use my scope. Another thing that most civilians have never experienced. If there is anything over the top of you like camouflage netting, the netting, blowing in the lightest of breezes will cause shadows to flutter and the reticule brightness will vary in intensity badly. To a point of making it difficult to aim.
As for the ACOG's use with Night Vision Equipment, I actually sent my TA 31 back to Trijicon to have the Tritium element removed. Even with that out running a PVS-14 behind is still not the greatest image quality due to the light loss from the 24mm objective. In very dark environments the reticule can be very hard to see necessitating the use of a supplemental light source. I have rigged up a TINY LED for this. Still not optimal at ALL. ALAS for the best use with Night Vision, (as mentioned earlier) is one of the front mounted (read HORRIBLY expensive) scopes like a BNS or an UNS SR. Preferably the UNS SR for it's lighter weight.
On the subject of mounting small red dots, That has been solved long ago. The Yankee Hill Machine angle mounts are VERY light weight, and Not expensive at all. They may not be super sexy, tacticool but they work GRANDLY. This in my opinion, positions the Red dot in a handy spot that requires little if any canting of the weapon. You can see the dot easily while keeping the weapon upright by simply rolling your head over a little. It is more comfortable to do a slight cant and a slight head roll though.
I have tried the Daniels Defense mount (which is NOT a 45 degree angle) and it sets the optic too far out from the rail and it requires quite a bit more canting to pick up the dot. My guess is they built it for a tube optic like the Aimpoint rather than a MRD. In addition mounting your red dot back closer to your primary optic rather than out front on the forearm reduces the snag potential. The MURLM looks to be, begging to hang up on a door frame at the worst possible time.
I have put thousands of rounds into IPSC silhouettes at close range with the YHM set up and of everything I have tried, it works the best. With the dot that much lower and closer to the center of the bore you run less of a chance of missing a close precise shot i.e. hit just the A zone in the head, the B zone is a no shoot kinda crap.
<SNIP>
So in closing I REALLY want the ACOG to do it all but it doesn't. A 1 to 4 version with a bit more eye relief and the ability to manually vary the reticule brightness would be the Holy Grail of combat optics.
IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA
http://militarysignatures.com/signatures/member3941.png (http://militarysignatures.com)
Actually no Pete, the guys over at Ft. Bragg and MANY other places do not find ANYTHING the MURLM is "hanging up on." It does not stick out any further than a Viking Tactics Light mount. In fact all the 9xx series of SF lights actually stick out further than the MURLM. Hope this helps.
While I haven't gone through any windows with the T&E version of the MURLM that Vic sent me, I gotta say that it is pretty low profile and doesn't stick out any further than any of the light mounts I own.
As for the placement, I think that it is pretty optimal. The further forward the red dot is placed, the quicker/easier it is to pick up with your eyes. But, I suppose if you do not want to use it as a light mount, you could disconnect the light and place the optic mount anywhere you want.
But, if you are looking for a variable 1-4x optic with a longer eye relief, I would like to introduce you to the S&B Short Dot.
Battl3fr0nt
09-02-08, 23:07
I would say Accupoint.. But still nothing beats the ACOG in speed,FOV and how much it can take... and just how sexy it is.. on the inside and outside ;)
I would say Accupoint.. But still nothing beats the ACOG in speed,FOV and how much it can take... and just how sexy it is.. on the inside and outside ;)
The Accupoint is a nice optic for certain, but I would say it is more suited to hunting and range work than tactical applications.
Variable power optics are really nice, but pricey for what they are. I love the Short Dot, but in end, it is still only 4x max. On top of that, is like having a brick mounted on top of your rifle. It is one of the heaviest tactical optics out there. The other down side is that you cannot vary the magnification instantly or without taking your eyes off target.
To change the power on the Short Dot, you have to manually twist the dial which requires you to take your sights off the threat. This can be challenging if you are engaged in a running gunfight. I believe that this is where the MURLM shines. I am focusing on the MURLM because I believe it is the best offset MRD mount (soon to be) available. I've played around with the DD and YHM mounts and, while they are good, I think the MURLM has found the sweet spot in its angle. It just, plain works with the least amount of movement and effort on the shooter's part.
It's extremely fast in transitioning and allows the warfighter to engage targets at range and immediately go to CQB if he/she has to enter a structure; all while maintaining the cheek weld and keeping the weapon's sights on target.
I think that variable power optics have their place, such as overwatch, but in a dynamic and fluid combat situation, such as today's low intensity conflicts, I think they are too slow.
I've played around with the DD and YHM mounts and, while they are good, I think the MURLM has found the sweet spot in its angle.
So you have tried the YHM angle mount? Could ya shoot some pics side by side of the YHM mount and the MURLM? By the way what is this thing going to cost?
IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA
So you have tried the YHM angle mount? Could ya shoot some pics side by side of the YHM mount and the MURLM? By the way what is this thing going to cost?
IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA
I have tried the YHM on a demo gun at the Shot Show, but I do not own one to photograph. The YHM does work, but it requires a much more severe cant. As for price, I can't say because I don't think TNVC has told us yet.
I have tried the YHM on a demo gun at the Shot Show, but I do not own one to photograph. The YHM does work, but it requires a much more severe cant. As for price, I can't say because I don't think TNVC has told us yet.
MSRP $189, listed here: http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=304&Itemid=1
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.