View Full Version : Am I missing something? Is ACOG my only choice here?
First off, the answer to my inquiry does not include the TA33. I don't get along with those, and I have owned three. I have had it with them.
I am putting together a lightish utility/HD carbine. 16" Wilson Combat Ranger barrel, Faxon Streamline Carbon Fiber HG. I am not going "Project Featherweight"; I just want to get the weight down and have as much versatility as I can squeeze out of the accessories. I am not sure if I want to go the magnifier route. Right now I am testing an Aimpoint/Unity, 3XMag-1 magnifier setup on a Noveske 14.5" barrel, and there is no weight savings there. It weighs more than a TA11 with a decent aftermarket mount.
I am thinking I might put on a fixed power scope as the main optic, an offset RDS (T-2, MRO, or RMR) for closer range and passive NODs, and perhaps a Streamlight TLR-8 (light and vis laser) for identification at night, pointing, aiming with NODs, whatever. With all that aiming hardware I hardly feel like I need BUIS, but I'll probably put a set on anyway. Total weight for this package (not including BUIS) might be as low as 16 oz.
It is the fixed optic I get hung up on. My default is usually an ACOG. I have a bunch, mostly TA11Js, but also TA44s, TA45s, a couple of TA33s that I have no use for, and a TA50. But, I have no real experience with the famous TA31.
At first I thought I would put a TA50 on the build. It's 3X and has even crappier eye relief (1.4", at least on paper) than the TA31. The eye box is pretty tight, but usable. I have shot the VTAC Barrier on the clock against a bunch of guys running RDS and usually done pretty well, usually in the top three. It is not that I am all that good; the simple cross reticle (it's an older model TA50 with just a crosshair like the old LAPD model) with a 50 yard zero is pretty much point and click out to about 240 yards. When I am done, people always want to look at the sight, and then they see the eye relief and run for the hills.
I am trying to figure out if the TA31 is worth putting on this rifle. It's 4X instead of 3X, has that wide field of view, and might have slightly better eye relief and eye box. The weight penalty would be just shy of 4 oz. Does anyone out there have experience with the TA50 and TA31 to give a comparison as to which has better actual eye relief and eye box?
And, does anyone want to suggest a lightweight fixed power scope, 3X to 6X, and not a TA33, that might serve this purpose? I would like it to be as rugged as an ACOG, but that's just crazy.
I can't use a AGOG due to crappy eyes, the PA SLX 3 power is really good for the money but made in China, the GLX 2 power also is very good and made in the Philippines with I believe Japanese glass. If the China thing doesn't bother you the 3 power is under $300 and comes with a mount but uses the ACOG mount also.
4
I always get lost on the ACOG models that everyone seems to know by heart. I wonder where the TA01NSN falls in your rankings? I just bought one. It's a great price and has the no nonsense crosshair reticle for m4.
Failure2Stop
02-17-22, 08:35
The Nightforce NX8 1-8 is 17oz, and you can get 30mm 1.5" height mounts in the 4oz range.
Total weight 21oz.
Significant performance gain in every aspect over an ACOG.
Very easy to attach an RDS to the scope tube/mount, 12:00 on the forward ring is my preferred placement for use with NODs.
First off, the answer to my inquiry does not include the TA33. I don't get along with those, and I have owned three. I have had it with them.
I am putting together a lightish utility/HD carbine. 16" Wilson Combat Ranger barrel, Faxon Streamline Carbon Fiber HG. I am not going "Project Featherweight"; I just want to get the weight down and have as much versatility as I can squeeze out of the accessories. I am not sure if I want to go the magnifier route. Right now I am testing an Aimpoint/Unity, 3XMag-1 magnifier setup on a Noveske 14.5" barrel, and there is no weight savings there. It weighs more than a TA11 with a decent aftermarket mount.
I am thinking I might put on a fixed power scope as the main optic, an offset RDS (T-2, MRO, or RMR) for closer range and passive NODs, and perhaps a Streamlight TLR-8 (light and vis laser) for identification at night, pointing, aiming with NODs, whatever. With all that aiming hardware I hardly feel like I need BUIS, but I'll probably put a set on anyway. Total weight for this package (not including BUIS) might be as low as 16 oz.
It is the fixed optic I get hung up on. My default is usually an ACOG. I have a bunch, mostly TA11Js, but also TA44s, TA45s, a couple of TA33s that I have no use for, and a TA50. But, I have no real experience with the famous TA31.
At first I thought I would put a TA50 on the build. It's 3X and has even crappier eye relief (1.4", at least on paper) than the TA31. The eye box is pretty tight, but usable. I have shot the VTAC Barrier on the clock against a bunch of guys running RDS and usually done pretty well, usually in the top three. It is not that I am all that good; the simple cross reticle (it's an older model TA50 with just a crosshair like the old LAPD model) with a 50 yard zero is pretty much point and click out to about 240 yards. When I am done, people always want to look at the sight, and then they see the eye relief and run for the hills.
I am trying to figure out if the TA31 is worth putting on this rifle. It's 4X instead of 3X, has that wide field of view, and might have slightly better eye relief and eye box. The weight penalty would be just shy of 4 oz. Does anyone out there have experience with the TA50 and TA31 to give a comparison as to which has better actual eye relief and eye box?
And, does anyone want to suggest a lightweight fixed power scope, 3X to 6X, and not a TA33, that might serve this purpose? I would like it to be as rugged as an ACOG, but that's just crazy.
I always get lost on the ACOG models that everyone seems to know by heart. I wonder where the TA01NSN falls in your rankings? I just bought one. It's a great price and has the no nonsense crosshair reticle for m4.
TA31 and TA01 NSN 4x have the same short eye relief (1.5”). Big difference is the fiber optic illumination, which the 01 did not have, a new-ish reticle, and lack of built-in BUIS. TA50 and TA33 are also very short.
TA11 has more eye relief and is 3.5x. If I was buying an ACOG today, it would be a 3.5x model. There’s a LED 3.5x model, as well. Any more magnification within that line and you either get short eye relief (but great FOV), or a heavy pig meant for a belt-fed gun. Going down in magnification, the 1.5x models have more going for them than the other <3.5x ones.
The Nightforce NX8 1-8 is 17oz, and you can get 30mm 1.5" height mounts in the 4oz range.
Total weight 21oz.
Significant performance gain in every aspect over an ACOG.
Very easy to attach an RDS to the scope tube/mount, 12:00 on the forward ring is my preferred placement for use with NODs.
That's the only LBGTO I'd consider. Pappabear runs his on his Tan KAC SR-15 dealy. The only gripe is the massive reticle (too thick) which occludes my view on full magnification.
I can't use a AGOG due to crappy eyes, the PA SLX 3 power is really good for the money but made in China, the GLX 2 power also is very good and made in the Philippines with I believe Japanese glass. If the China thing doesn't bother you the 3 power is under $300 and comes with a mount but uses the ACOG mount also.
4
mack7.32:
I realize I have 1st World Problems when it comes to this stuff. Out of the plethora of choices, I just have to want something from the niche that isn't quite perfect for my tastes.
As for PA: I think that Marshall Lerner has done really fantastic things with that company. I bought a little "Aimpoint Clone" from him when he got his second shipment from Chicomland and was advertising on TOS. The first one had some problems, and Marshall replaced it. I put it on a variety of rifles with nary a hiccup. That is, until I put it on a Remington 870 and that shotgun killed the little clone after three shots. Believe me, I got my money's worth out of that purchase. The development of the ACSS reticles and the branching out into friendlier, but higher priced, regimes (e.g., Philippines, Japan) was a good idea too.
I have two concerns with using PA products for this build:
1. While I don't plan on punishing this rifle, I do want a high level of reliability and QC. I am not sure that PA fits the bill. I am not saying they don't have that, I am just saying I don't feel assured that they do.
2. Looking at their offerings, most of the PA scopes don't have the weight profile I am looking for.
Good suggestion though. I am going to have to look at PA again. But, I have developed a real aversion to buying things from Chicomland. I recently bought a Holosun because I wanted to see what the fuss was about. The sight is OK, but I hate the idea that I gave some money to those jokers.
Failure2Stop
02-17-22, 11:16
That's the only LBGTO I'd consider. Pappabear runs his on his Tan KAC SR-15 dealy. The only gripe is the massive reticle (too thick) which occludes my view on full magnification.
I'm really looking forward to the reticle update.
As it is, I don't mind the MRAD reticle too much, since I'm rarely shooting at anything super small at 75-150, and past that I'm using the descending stadia for aiming anyway. The ring is a little tighter than I would prefer (I get what you're saying about target coverage), but it's still way better than the reticles in the COGs (except for the crosshair models). If I was in charge of NF I'd change some stuff with the reticle, but the updated reticle looks like it will give me what I really care about, and my current one will probably stay on my 11.5 gun.
We can definitely get out farther more reliably with the NF compared to the COGs due to both additional magnification and dial up capability. But at about 750, you almost want some wind so the target is a hold off in one of the gaps in the reticle.
If you don't want a LPVO, and are looking for a lightweight fixed 3x, Primary Arms is about to release their new SLX 3x Micro Prism sight, and i've heard a lot of good things from early testers. Should be released within a few days i believe. That looks like it's going to be an awesome lightweight fixed 3x with etched reticle, that doesn't take up much rail space. Might be worth considering
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-2021-announcement
Yikes! Failure2stop and markm are here. Now it's a party.
I really appreciate all the responses from you guys because it helps me to clarify my thinking, both in my reading your notes and in my replies.
Sorry to bore you, but here is how I got to this point.
Once, I believed that any "serious" carbine should have: an optic, BUIS, a light, and a sling. I called rails "trash collectors" because they seemed to encourage people to add on every little do-dad they could. You've seen rifles like this: SWAT/Warrant teams with everything under the sun mounted, and that was before NODs became more available.
I ran into one guy (nice guy), who was doing some testing and sighting in with M4s (the real deal, fun switch, non-transferrable dealer sample). Here's the list of mounted accessories: NF ATACR 1-8X in a Badger Ordnance mount, MAWL, PEQ-15, SureFire Scout with tape switch, BUIS, and an Aimpoint T-2 in an offset mount. I am pretty sure the lasers were not the civilian versions. That's a lot of sighting options. It is also a lot of weight.
I am also weight averse, due to congenital problems with my left shoulder and hip. I think about what I can support, a lot.
Finally, I can get to the point. Nothing here is particularly insightful or profound. When the newer 1-6x, 8x, 10x LPVOs came along, Some of the selling points were:
1. You can use them at low power like a red dot! [Well, maybe. People have shown that LPVOs can function as fast at red dots when you are standing and shooting at IPSC targets. Now try doing that in non-optimum positions, with NODs.]
2. With a First Focal Plane, the reticle is consistent through the range of magnification! [Yes, but like most people I am shooting a LPVO at minimum or maximum magnification; I don't stop at 4.5X to admire the view. In fact, the usable reticle for a FFP scope is often very different depending on magnification. And, at that point, it's almost like using two different scopes. See where I am going here?]
3. The power ring has a throw lever for smooth and easy transitions! [One fixed power and one red dot: no need for a lever, but you have to cant the rifle a bit for close shots with the RDS, and you don't have to take one hand off the rifle to make adjustments.]
I know that some of the better LPVOs are now down around 17 oz., without mount. I now have three of them: NX8, Kahles K16i, and Leupold Mark 6 (now discontinued). My testing with those got stalled and I haven't really figured out what they are good for in my world. Put them on Scalarworks LEAP mounts and you have a package that runs about 24 oz. I tried the Aero Precision lightweight mounts, but there was a problem: I think that as the mount flexed during shooting, it would gradually rotate the scope in the rings. I am not sure of that, but it's a hypothesis.
So, I guess I can get a fixed optic and NODs-friendly RDS setup for a considerable weight advantage. About eight to 12 oz. less than a lightweight LPVO. But to get that, I have to live with a 3X or 4X scope, with crappy eye relief.
The conundrum continues.
I am afraid to ask markm what "LBGTO" stands for.
gunnerblue
02-17-22, 13:34
[QUOTE=Failure2Stop;3012828]I'm really looking forward to the reticle update.
Hello, any details on the new reticle? Perhaps similar to the ATACR 1-8's new reticle with the enlarged center ring? Thanks
I am afraid to ask markm what "LBGTO" stands for.
The LVPO acronym is annoying to me as overuse of "first responder". I just gayed it up to match its gayness.
If you don't want a LPVO, and are looking for a lightweight fixed 3x, Primary Arms is about to release their new SLX 3x Micro Prism sight, and i've heard a lot of good things from early testers. Should be released within a few days i believe. That looks like it's going to be an awesome lightweight fixed 3x with etched reticle, that doesn't take up much rail space. Might be worth considering
I'd raise you the new EOtech mini 3x or the Vortex, I hear good things from both.
@Amicus, anyway you go there is going to be shortfalls, I tend to try and run a little bit of everything on all my AR's because each has its own mission set, nothing is perfect
The LVPO acronym is annoying to me as overuse of "first responder". I just gayed it up to match its gayness.
I kind of suspected that was the meaning.
I'd raise you the new EOtech mini 3x or the Vortex, I hear good things from both.
@Amicus, anyway you go there is going to be shortfalls, I tend to try and run a little bit of everything on all my AR's because each has its own mission set, nothing is perfect
Well, you're right, of course. I have probably spent too much time obsessing about whether an extra four ounces was worth another power of magnification (3X to 4X).
I am going to have to put this aside. Just now I am thinking about the time 15 years ago when I stood at arms length from PJ O'Rourke. We both had our backs to the bar, sipping wine after a Cato Institute meet-and-greet, and I never said a word to him.
That's not an opportunity I will have again.
The LVPO acronym is annoying to me as overuse of "first responder". I just gayed it up to match its gayness.
You're killing me! I feel the same way. :laugh:
If you don't want a LPVO, and are looking for a lightweight fixed 3x, Primary Arms is about to release their new SLX 3x Micro Prism sight, and i've heard a lot of good things from early testers. Should be released within a few days i believe. That looks like it's going to be an awesome lightweight fixed 3x with etched reticle, that doesn't take up much rail space. Might be worth considering
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-2021-announcement
B Cart:
Thanks for the heads up on the 3X Microprism scope. Unfortunately, the announcement only has specs for the 1X (unless I missed it somewhere). I am going to assume that it will have some increased weight and a published eye relief at some point in the future, and I will keep an eye out.
ETA: Sorry, it's mentioned in the 2021 Catalog.
MikhailBarracuda91
02-17-22, 21:15
B Cart:
Thanks for the heads up on the 3X Microprism scope. Unfortunately, the announcement only has specs for the 1X (unless I missed it somewhere). I am going to assume that it will have some increased weight and a published eye relief at some point in the future, and I will keep an eye out.
ETA: Sorry, it's mentioned in the 2021 Catalog.Dang I just bought a TA-33. I love it so far. But this thing looks interesting.
What don't you like about the TA-33?
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
I am going to have to put this aside. Just now I am thinking about the time 15 years ago when I stood at arms length from PJ O'Rourke. We both had our backs to the bar, sipping wine after a Cato Institute meet-and-greet, and I never said a word to him.
That's not an opportunity I will have again.
Good for you. I always liked that guy. "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." He was way too smart for his own good.
I'm really looking forward to the reticle update.
As it is, I don't mind the MRAD reticle too much, since I'm rarely shooting at anything super small at 75-150, and past that I'm using the descending stadia for aiming anyway. The ring is a little tighter than I would prefer (I get what you're saying about target coverage), but it's still way better than the reticles in the COGs (except for the crosshair models). If I was in charge of NF I'd change some stuff with the reticle, but the updated reticle looks like it will give me what I really care about, and my current one will probably stay on my 11.5 gun.
What’s the reticle update for the NX8?
Dang I just bought a TA-33. I love it so far. But this thing looks interesting.
What don't you like about the TA-33?
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
MikhailBarracuda91:
You asked, so I will tell you. Some of my complaints may be due to my eyesight, but some are not. Since I have owned a Chevron in red, a Horseshoe-Dot in green, and a Crosshair in amber, I have some experience with the sight.
1. Crappy field of view: It's less than 20 feet at 100 yards. Looking down a toilet paper tube would give you more area for observation. To put it in weird real world terms: An old fat guy could waddle from outside the edge of the scope's field of view to the center of the reticle in 0.75 seconds, or less (think of the 21 feet in 1.5 seconds "rule"). I have found this narrow view a bit distracting.
2. "But, it has longer eye relief than a TA31, so you can use both eyes open and see around the scope!": Not in my experience. I have the amber crosshair model mounted as far back as it can go on a Bobro high mount, and the buttstock set at position 3 (measured from the fully closed position) on an A5 receiver extension (i.e., buffer tube). This is not particularly far back, although it is not quite NTCH shooting style. The point is, the scope is more "in my face" than I would prefer. In contrast, I run all my TA11J scopes as far forward as they can go without bridging to the handguard, and that at position 4 (i.e., the buttstock even further back). This might just be my problem.
3. The Horseshoe reticle: Personally, the reticle is fine for me, but on mine (and on an acquaintance' version of the same scope), I had a particular problem: I had what is known as "scope shadow" on the left side unless I moved my eye slightly to the right of the center line. At least, that was my experience with the two Horseshoe-Dots. This made the "sweet spot" for looking through the glass very narrow, and awkward to achieve. I have thought about sending this one back, but I have a feeling it is me. All the same, it makes the scope almost unusable.
4. Tiny Stuff: I thought I was used to small ACOG reticles, but these appear even smaller to me that on some of the other scopes. Finding that Chevron was a chore, and that is why I would prefer the Horseshoe-Dot, or, even better, the Crosshair. (Note: I wound up swapping the Chevron for a TA45 (1.5X) Triangle with a Texas cop who had bought the wrong sight; he was supposed to be the long range backup for his warrant team, and he needed something than ranged better. He even bought me a nice yellow Pelican case to put it in, because he had lost the black original. I kind of felt sorry for the guy. He said he had to buy his own scope with his own money, he bought the wrong one, and he didn't know what to do. I checked the scope and it was real. I just think he was an honest guy who didn't know what he was doing when he bought it.)
5. "Well, if all else fails, you can throw it on a carry handle instead of a crappy little TA50": Nope. Try it sometime. It's the only ACOG I know of where the scope bell will block the iron sights in that configuration. I'd rather use a TA11 or a TA45 for that.
OK, you asked, I answered. I realize that I might come off as a bit of a crybaby here, but this model has always given me fits because I want it to work for me, but it wont.
MikhailBarracuda91
02-18-22, 13:01
MikhailBarracuda91:
You asked, so I will tell you. Some of my complaints may be due to my eyesight, but some are not. Since I have owned a Chevron in red, a Horseshoe-Dot in green, and a Crosshair in amber, I have some experience with the sight.
1. Crappy field of view: It's less than 20 feet at 100 yards. Looking down a toilet paper tube would give you more area for observation. To put it in weird real world terms: An old fat guy could waddle from outside the edge of the scope's field of view to the center of the reticle in 0.75 seconds, or less (think of the 21 feet in 1.5 seconds "rule"). I have found this narrow view a bit distracting.
2. "But, it has longer eye relief than a TA31, so you can use both eyes open and see around the scope!": Not in my experience. I have the amber crosshair model mounted as far back as it can go on a Bobro high mount, and the buttstock set at position 3 (measured from the fully closed position) on an A5 receiver extension (i.e., buffer tube). This is not particularly far back, although it is not quite NTCH shooting style. The point is, the scope is more "in my face" than I would prefer. In contrast, I run all my TA11J scopes as far forward as they can go without bridging to the handguard, and that at position 4 (i.e., the buttstock even further back). This might just be my problem.
3. The Horseshoe reticle: Personally, the reticle is fine for me, but on mine (and on an acquaintance' version of the same scope), I had a particular problem: I had what is known as "scope shadow" on the left side unless I moved my eye slightly to the right of the center line. At least, that was my experience with the two Horseshoe-Dots. This made the "sweet spot" for looking through the glass very narrow, and awkward to achieve. I have thought about sending this one back, but I have a feeling it is me. All the same, it makes the scope almost unusable.
4. Tiny Stuff: I thought I was used to small ACOG reticles, but these appear even smaller to me that on some of the other scopes. Finding that Chevron was a chore, and that is why I would prefer the Horseshoe-Dot, or, even better, the Crosshair. (Note: I wound up swapping the Chevron for a TA45 (1.5X) Triangle with a Texas cop who had bought the wrong sight; he was supposed to be the long range backup for his warrant team, and he needed something than ranged better. He even bought me a nice yellow Pelican case to put it in, because he had lost the black original. I kind of felt sorry for the guy. He said he had to buy his own scope with his own money, he bought the wrong one, and he didn't know what to do. I checked the scope and it was real. I just think he was an honest guy who didn't know what he was doing when he bought it.)
5. "Well, if all else fails, you can throw it on a carry handle instead of a crappy little TA50": Nope. Try it sometime. It's the only ACOG I know of where the scope bell will block the iron sights in that configuration. I'd rather use a TA11 or a TA45 for that.
OK, you asked, I answered. I realize that I might come off as a bit of a crybaby here, but this model has always given me fits because I want it to work for me, but it wont.Lol well at least you can say you tried! It might just not work for you. I opted for the green horseshoe dot.
The green circle and dot are clearly visible, but it's somewhat of a chore to read the BAC (not that you really have to).
I actually thought I was going to hate the small POV, but to my eyes it's only an upgrade over the T2 I had on it. Plus both eyes open works great with the TA-33
I also have a TA-31f with the red Chevron. And that thing is amazing. I love how clear the BAC is. It just kinda stinks that you have to shoot NTCH.
The reason I got the TA-33 is because it's about 10oz with the Bobro mount, and now my BCM 16" is a much better mid range rifle. I don't feel that I've given up anything in QC.
And the one thing I don't hear people mention about ACOG's is how great they look when you turn on your weapon light. I mean wow, it must be the glass quality.
I think it'd be pretty hard for me to go back to a red dot now
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Once I get the parts put together for this concept carbine, I will post pics and a weight. I am waiting for my son to get free so I can show him how to put an upper together and let him do the assembly himself. Perhaps this weekend.
I am also waiting on delivery of the mount for the TA50 because ... (wait for it) ... it's TITANIUM. If it has "TITAN" in the name, it has to be good, right? Maybe it can clean my office?
A quick note on progress. My son and I slapped this together last weekend. With 3x compact ACOG scope, offset RMR, light and vis laser the weight is about 7.2 lbs. It appears to be NODs-friendly, which was part of the point. Balance point is a bit more to the rear than with most "M4geries"; about exactly at the midpoint of the mag well. I am relatively pleased with this attempt because these were all parts sitting on my shelves or in a box awaiting a project; I am not going to use titanium or other lightweight parts until I have a final "regular" part configuration.
Appears to run well in testing, but a few things have to be worked out. The bad pics I took have to be reformatted for this website; any BUIS needs to have the attachment screws shortened or changed up in some way; I got hit with a large bill six weeks early and buying a 4x ACOG is off the table for the moment (I do have some 4X stuff on the shelf, but I haven't assessed which to use). Also, I am digging out from a snowstorm and I hear something weird is going on in the East.
Enough for excuses. I will revisit this shortly.
MikhailBarracuda91
02-25-22, 15:41
A quick note on progress. My son and I slapped this together last weekend. With 3x compact ACOG scope, offset RMR, light and vis laser the weight is about 7.2 lbs. It appears to be NODs-friendly, which was part of the point. Balance point is a bit more to the rear than with most "M4geries"; about exactly at the midpoint of the mag well. I am relatively pleased with this attempt because these were all parts sitting on my shelves or in a box awaiting a project; I am not going to use titanium or other lightweight parts until I have a final "regular" part configuration.
Appears to run well in testing, but a few things have to be worked out. The bad pics I took have to be reformatted for this website; any BUIS needs to have the attachment screws shortened or changed up in some way; I got hit with a large bill six weeks early and buying a 4x ACOG is off the table for the moment (I do have some 4X stuff on the shelf, but I haven't assessed which to use). Also, I am digging out from a snowstorm and I hear something weird is going on in the East.
Enough for excuses. I will revisit this shortly.3x compact ACOG? So are you back to using the TA-33? LOL
I actually sighted in my TA-33 with 77gr Razor core. And I found that I can hold the dot at 300, 200, and 100. It only deviates about 2 inches
Then if I switch to 55 grain, the BDC actually works as intended.
This is the 5.56 TA-33 with horseshoe dot
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
3x compact ACOG? So are you back to using the TA-33? LOL
I actually sighted in my TA-33 with 77gr Razor core. And I found that I can hold the dot at 300, 200, and 100. It only deviates about 2 inches
Then if I switch to 55 grain, the BDC actually works as intended.
This is the 5.56 TA-33 with horseshoe dot
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Nope. Still using the TA-50, that much maligned compact 3x. I have indicated above that my experience with the TA-33 Horseshoe Dot has not worked well. To be fair, I will try it with another of my scopes on the shelf, the TA-33 Crosshair. For some reason I do not get the scope shadow problem with that version. (Note: If I could explain why I have a problem with one and not the other, I would. It is a mystery that I still haven't solved.)
I have a number of 4x scopes available, an old Leupold VX-2 and a Leupold AR (1.5x-4x) that I will try out. I do not have a weight limit in mind for this project, but the object was always to make the thing lightweight with fairly common parts. The magnified optic is supposed to take the place of a LPVO (as the higher magnification aiming device), and the RDS is supposed to take the place of the lower end of a LPVO, while being useful with NODs. By doing so I hope to essentially replace the LPVO with equally good or better optics, while shaving off a considerable amount of rifle weight. At least, that's the idea.
3x compact ACOG? So are you back to using the TA-33? LOL
I actually sighted in my TA-33 with 77gr Razor core. And I found that I can hold the dot at 300, 200, and 100. It only deviates about 2 inches
Then if I switch to 55 grain, the BDC actually works as intended.
This is the 5.56 TA-33 with horseshoe dot
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Have you tried adjusting zero further out?
A quick note on progress. My son and I slapped this together last weekend. With 3x compact ACOG scope, offset RMR, light and vis laser the weight is about 7.2 lbs. It appears to be NODs-friendly, which was part of the point. Balance point is a bit more to the rear than with most "M4geries"; about exactly at the midpoint of the mag well. I am relatively pleased with this attempt because these were all parts sitting on my shelves or in a box awaiting a project; I am not going to use titanium or other lightweight parts until I have a final "regular" part configuration.
Appears to run well in testing, but a few things have to be worked out. The bad pics I took have to be reformatted for this website; any BUIS needs to have the attachment screws shortened or changed up in some way; I got hit with a large bill six weeks early and buying a 4x ACOG is off the table for the moment (I do have some 4X stuff on the shelf, but I haven't assessed which to use). Also, I am digging out from a snowstorm and I hear something weird is going on in the East.
Enough for excuses. I will revisit this shortly.
When you get a chance to check out a TA31 you will probably like it. I find the eye box to be forgiving, and eye relief is not as bad as everyone makes out. 1.5” is ideal but I can still get a usable sight picture as far back as 3”. The field of view gets smaller but it’s usable.
I have an ECOS that weighs 16 ounces, including mount rmr etc. The rmr works well with nods, and unconventional positions. I prefer the crosshairs on a fiber optic ACOG because they don’t wash out, and for me my eye is drawn to the center. Overall not a bad setup light weight, simple to use, durable and made in America.
Why use a visible laser instead of an ir laser? Something like a steiner tor-mini is expensive and light weight.
Pikey:
Thanks for keeping me honest. I've been fooling around with so many different items that I became distracted away from this project. Now that the snow is going away I have better access to ranges where I can do drills, but that will still take some time.
Mr. Dremel and I got together and we modified a screw to fit on the handguard. The long (intermediate size) gas system put the gas block directly under where the front sight should sit, and I just hate not having BUIS, so now that is done.
I also discovered the InRange project "What Would Stoner Do", and found that there was considerable overlap between my project and theirs. It is not the same concept, however, and I am not going for the "featherweight" pencil barrel that they espouse. But, just to make me even more confused, I found an older upper I put together with a Faxon GUNNER (16") barrel and an ALG handguard. According to my notes, that whole setup, with compact ACOG and Vltor A5 system, weighed in at 6.99 lbs. In some ways it was the same concept that I am working on now, but I built it for the women in my classes who complained about how heavy the 7.5-ish lbs. carbines were. ("Here, this is the lightest one I got. You'll be happy. Just don't touch the barrel.") I am trying to figure out how to run a comparison with the new build, but I am going to put a TA33-Crosshair on the Faxon/ALG setup just to satisfy ... well, somebody.
As for crosshairs and TA31s, I agree wholeheartedly. I have a bunch of TA11J crosshairs on my shelf, only because they were replaced by LPVOs. I like the big reticle that leads your eye to the center. One of my biggest complaints about the chevron reticles is trying to find it in a hurry. I may buy a TA31 crosshair in the next month or so. My bills are going to be painful, and a bit more pain might not be noticed.
Finally, I got used to using lasers from using NODs, and now I put some kind of laser (vis/IR or just vis) on most carbines. It's nice to have the option, but I don't swear by them when the sun is up. Also, the Streamlight TLR-8 series is a cheap and easy way to add a vis laser and light with a minimal weight and space footprint. I do have a Tor-Mini on the shelf. I rapidly became frustrated with it because it lacks a rear-facing power on indicator. I was constantly thinking: "Now, did I turn it off, or just change the power setting?" So, being too lazy to pull out the PVS-14, or 15, or whatever, I'd just take the battery out. And that battery cap is a bit of a PIA because I couldn't get the threads to properly engage. Someday I'll find a place for it, or maybe even buy another. It's not a bad little item, but I wish it had that indicator.
Like I said, thanks for keeping me honest.
Finally, I got used to using lasers from using NODs, and now I put some kind of laser (vis/IR or just vis) on most carbines. It's nice to have the option, but I don't swear by them when the sun is up. Also, the Streamlight TLR-8 series is a cheap and easy way to add a vis laser and light with a minimal weight and space footprint.
I used to use a switch that fired my LA5 when I activated my white light, and the other button just fired the laser. So when I’d get to the breach, I’d crank my LA5 to vis high so I’d have a second dot if my Eotech shit the bed, since I was activating my white light for any potential shot indoors, anyway.
So you’re not completely crazy, although I don’t sweat having that much instantaneous murphy dots anymore and use a narrow beam white light instead.
Pikey:
Thanks for keeping me honest. I've been fooling around with so many different items that I became distracted away from this project. Now that the snow is going away I have better access to ranges where I can do drills, but that will still take some time.
Mr. Dremel and I got together and we modified a screw to fit on the handguard. The long (intermediate size) gas system put the gas block directly under where the front sight should sit, and I just hate not having BUIS, so now that is done.
I also discovered the InRange project "What Would Stoner Do", and found that there was considerable overlap between my project and theirs. It is not the same concept, however, and I am not going for the "featherweight" pencil barrel that they espouse. But, just to make me even more confused, I found an older upper I put together with a Faxon GUNNER (16") barrel and an ALG handguard. According to my notes, that whole setup, with compact ACOG and Vltor A5 system, weighed in at 6.99 lbs. In some ways it was the same concept that I am working on now, but I built it for the women in my classes who complained about how heavy the 7.5-ish lbs. carbines were. ("Here, this is the lightest one I got. You'll be happy. Just don't touch the barrel.") I am trying to figure out how to run a comparison with the new build, but I am going to put a TA33-Crosshair on the Faxon/ALG setup just to satisfy ... well, somebody.
As for crosshairs and TA31s, I agree wholeheartedly. I have a bunch of TA11J crosshairs on my shelf, only because they were replaced by LPVOs. I like the big reticle that leads your eye to the center. One of my biggest complaints about the chevron reticles is trying to find it in a hurry. I may buy a TA31 crosshair in the next month or so. My bills are going to be painful, and a bit more pain might not be noticed.
Finally, I got used to using lasers from using NODs, and now I put some kind of laser (vis/IR or just vis) on most carbines. It's nice to have the option, but I don't swear by them when the sun is up. Also, the Streamlight TLR-8 series is a cheap and easy way to add a vis laser and light with a minimal weight and space footprint. I do have a Tor-Mini on the shelf. I rapidly became frustrated with it because it lacks a rear-facing power on indicator. I was constantly thinking: "Now, did I turn it off, or just change the power setting?" So, being too lazy to pull out the PVS-14, or 15, or whatever, I'd just take the battery out. And that battery cap is a bit of a PIA because I couldn't get the threads to properly engage. Someday I'll find a place for it, or maybe even buy another. It's not a bad little item, but I wish it had that indicator.
Like I said, thanks for keeping me honest.
The Tor-Mini has an auto off. I think that it’s 5 minutes.
The Tor-Mini has an auto off. I think that it’s 5 minutes.
Pikey:
You're absolutely right. There is a 5 minute turn off mode: 'If the TOR Mini IR laser is left on, it will shut off automatically after 5 minutes to conserve battery power.' [User Guide, p. 9] Presumably, this means 5 minutes after a pad has been touched. But, the manual also refers to an "auto on" feature depending upon the orientation of the sight (and if you have turned on the "auto on" feature). [User Guide, p. 11]
Similarly, but perhaps not identically, the "auto on" feature will "disable" if the TOR 'goes untouched' for 10 minutes. [User Guide, p. 12] Now, presumably this really means touching the pads. Is there a difference between 'left on' and 'goes untouched'?
I can play with this later and perhaps come up with an answer, but I thought I would ask: What does 'left on' mean in terms of how the TOR internal circuitry determines this? Is it touching the pad, changing sight orientation, both? How does the TOR system detect that it has been 'left on' for the purposes of the turn off mode?
Just thought I would ask, and, thanks for the correction.
I don’t know. That’s a good question. It’s not as simple as I had thought.
I just got my first ACOG, a TA 11, 3.5 with green chevron. Wow, I like this thing! My other optic is an Aimpoint Comp M4 w/SIG Juliet 4X magnifier. There is nothing wrong with the Aimpoint/SIG set up, I used it very successfully in the desert brutality match out past 400yrds. But the glass clarity makes one forget it has less magnification than the 4X, not much less, but still a little less. I haven't used it in a 2 gun match yet but I will ASAP !
The only problem that I have with a red dot/ magnifier setup is the magnifier that I have. The Vortex micro 3x, the eye box is not great and the low light performance is under whelming. Other magnifier’s might work better. With that said where I work now the security forces are using micro rds with a Vortex micro magnifier, so definitely a useful combination.
The only problem that I have with a red dot/ magnifier setup is the magnifier that I have. The Vortex micro 3x, the eye box is not great and the low light performance is under whelming. Other magnifier’s might work better. With that said where I work now the security forces are using micro rds with a Vortex micro magnifier, so definitely a useful combination.
I can't tell you right now what the eye relief of the SIG 4X is, I've never looked it up. But when I first got it I did have some trouble finding that sweet spot. Since I had little to compare it with I thought the clarity and low light performance was just the way it was and since I could turn up the dot I didn't think much about it. But the clarity and brightness of the Trijicon just sets the bar higher, it more than makes up for the .5X less magnification. I have read that the Eotech series of magnifiers are the best for brightness.
Note on progress:
I guess I am going to go with the 4x ACOG (TA31). The TA31 and TA01 series are so close that I just decided to go with the light collecting fiber. This came in over the weekend and I am trying to find time to put together a couple of "concept" carbines. At some point I will have to address why this is different from, and perhaps preferable to: (1) Boss-mounted red dots, and (2) the InRange/Brownells "What Would Stoner Do?" project. Watching those WWSD videos has taken up a lot of time, and, since I have great respect for the InRange guys, I want to get my facts and options in order before getting into this.
Right now I have to find a free photo hosting service. I haven't used one since Photobucket went all subscription on us. Pics and weights are important to this story, and I will need to go beyond the M4C limit, I guess.
Finally, I just want to say that I do not, and never have, work for any firearms-related manufacturer, distributor, whatever. All the parts are bought on my own dime, and I am putting this together to suggest improvements to firearms design, accessory choices, and personal firearms use.
Exiledviking
03-23-22, 12:38
I've been happy with Imgur.com for photos.
The LVPO acronym is annoying to me as overuse of "first responder". I just gayed it up to match its gayness.
That is fantastic.
I've been happy with Imgur.com for photos.
Thanks. I'll look into that.
Now, if it were only this easy finding a decent camera.
Pikey:
The TA31 is more forgiving than I thought. It should work for this project.
Son of Commander Paisley came by this weekend and we fooled around a bit with the standard mounts. With a BUIS rear mount installed, it is still a NTCH-shooting setup, which he could live with but I found annoying. I am going to change that with a AD-B3-C-Ti mount.
Be aware that these so-called "reverse cantilever" mounts (which I don't think have been around very long) come in regular and tall sizes. The tall will accommodate under it a MBUS polymer rear sight, while the regular version will only fit a Magpul Pro rear sight. Just a warning. I am using both in this project, so, for anyone watching, there is a difference.
Pikey:
The TA31 is more forgiving than I thought. It should work for this project.
Son of Commander Paisley came by this weekend and we fooled around a bit with the standard mounts. With a BUIS rear mount installed, it is still a NTCH-shooting setup, which he could live with but I found annoying. I am going to change that with a AD-B3-C-Ti mount.
Be aware that these so-called "reverse cantilever" mounts (which I don't think have been around very long) come in regular and tall sizes. The tall will accommodate under it a MBUS polymer rear sight, while the regular version will only fit a Magpul Pro rear sight. Just a warning. I am using both in this project, so, for anyone watching, there is a difference.
Good to hear that it will work. I’ve always used the mounts that came with the ACOGs. I have a led acog with the TA51 mount that I could probably shave a few once’s if I changed it. It’s on an A4 upper without irons and mounted back further that keeps my nose off the charging handle. I might have to check out a reverse cantilever mount.
Pikey:
Unless you have a really long, thin face, get the regular mount. The high mount did not work for me with the TA31. Also, take the warning that the regular mount will only accept a Magpul Pro mount under it seriously. It was the only one in my inventory that I could get to fit. The AD high reverse cantilever will accept a Magpul MBUS (plastic) under it, so I expect it will accommodate most rear sights, possibly excepting the GG&G or the Brownells HK-style drum sight.
Pikey:
Unless you have a really long, thin face, get the regular mount. The high mount did not work for me with the TA31. Also, take the warning that the regular mount will only accept a Magpul Pro mount under it seriously. It was the only one in my inventory that I could get to fit. The AD high reverse cantilever will accept a Magpul MBUS (plastic) under it, so I expect it will accommodate most rear sights, possibly excepting the GG&G or the Brownells HK-style drum sight.
I am trying to figure out if the TA31 is worth putting on this rifle. It's 4X instead of 3X, has that wide field of view, and might have slightly better eye relief and eye box. The weight penalty would be just shy of 4 oz. Does anyone out there have experience with the TA50 and TA31 to give a comparison as to which has better actual eye relief and eye box?
I have both. I don't care what the specifications say on Trijicon's website. The TA50 absolutely has more eye relief than the TA31. Mrgunsngear addresses this in his video on the TA50.
https://youtu.be/pjGHTHZeVOw?t=645
That said, I've found that eye relief isn't a big deal when using these scopes if you're just consistent with how you hold your head. A good cheek riser goes a long way towards getting you in the right spot up/down, left/right and also helps with how far forward your head goes relative to your shoulder.
That said, I've found that eye relief isn't a big deal when using these scopes if you're just consistent with how you hold your head.
That's what I'm saying. I've shot a handful of COGs and never thought a thing about eye relief. I just adjust the stock if I'm crowded or reaching.
Sorry for the delay. I am trying to finalize my thoughts on the topics I wanted to bring up, and am struggling with a really crappy camera.
In the meantime, here is a pic of my living room, taken through a PVS14 type, of a cheap vis laser in action. A test.
http://i.imgur.com/OOSkAjS.jpg (https://imgur.com/OOSkAjS)
Thanks. I'll look into that.
Now, if it were only this easy finding a decent camera.
Your modern cell phone does a damn good job of taking pics
Your modern cell phone does a damn good job of taking pics
99% of the time you would be right. My actual digital camera has gone missing, and my phone has been described as "ultra-budget". The best thing about the camera on my phone that one reviewer could cough up was that it 'is by no means unusable.' It's pretty bad. I bought it for one reason only, and the camera was not included in the calculation.
The phone camera is miserable at best, and almost unusable in low light situations. I'm working on it.
Just for fun, here's another quote from the same review:
'Photos turn out even worse in low light, though if there's at least some light available, and you can keep the camera still for a second, you can often come away with a picture that isn't a complete disaster. The absence of any HDR processing or indeed any processing at all really shows, but we don't want you to think the camera is a complete write-off – it's just like stepping back a few years.'
Yeah, it's bad. But, like I said, I'm working on it.
I have both. I don't care what the specifications say on Trijicon's website. The TA50 absolutely has more eye relief than the TA31. Mrgunsngear addresses this in his video on the TA50.
https://youtu.be/pjGHTHZeVOw?t=645
That said, I've found that eye relief isn't a big deal when using these scopes if you're just consistent with how you hold your head. A good cheek riser goes a long way towards getting you in the right spot up/down, left/right and also helps with how far forward your head goes relative to your shoulder.
Bret:
Without getting into the details, yet, I tend to agree with you. After several false starts I finally got the two versions of rifles I wanted to test, with a TA31 on one and a TA50 on the other. The TA50 is mounted further forward than the TA31. Also, in certain shooting positions, the TA31 has an annoying habit of clicking into my glasses while the TA50 does not.
Right now I have pages and pages of handwritten notes, lots of loose bits of paper with specifications written all over the place, and about four phones worth of bad pics that have to be redone. This thing has turned into a monster, but I'll edit it down into something (hopefully) interesting to you all.
Hi guys. I'm back. My photo woes continue. Of the 27 images I took to redo all this, nine were not recognized by my computer as JPG files, two were of 1/3rd of my dog and the inside of my pocket, and the rest were ... not great. I have background problems and decided to take the photos outside to maximize available light. That said, here are the carbines I am using for this evaluation.
Carbine 1 -- Ranger
https://i.imgur.com/AKGZUGS.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4EqSeT5.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8xbhKK4.jpg
Upper parts list: Faxon Streamline carbon fiber handguard (13"); Wilson Combat Ranger barrel (16", intermediate gas, 0.604 diameter in front of journal); Geissele gas block; BCM QD cup adapter; Phantom flash hider; American Defense regular height reverse cantilever ACOG mount (with titanium lock); TA31 ACOG (crosshair); Aimpoint T2 RDS; Arisaka offset mount; WMD semi-auto BCG; BCM GFH Mod 4 charging handle; Streamlight TLR-8A (500 lumen light with vis laser).
Lower: standard Colt lower with Geissele SSA trigger; VLTOR receiver extension system; KNS nonrotating pins (don't ask); B5 enhanced SOPMOD buttstock.
Notes:
You may notice that there is a section of Magpul type 1 M-lok cover on the handguard top rear slot. (There are more on Carbine 2 - Gunner as well.) While the lack of a top rail on the handguard in favor of additional slots does reduce weight, the gas tube comes uncomfortably close to the open slot at that location. Yes, I have touched the tube and burned myself. I should wear gloves more often.
Unless you have an exotic buttstock, almost all normal lowers weigh within an ounce or two of 2.5 lbs.
The standard height AD "reverse cantilever" mount (AD-B3-C) works well for the ACOG and the compact ACOG, but it will only take a very low rear sight beneath it. The Magpul Pro will work. Additional weight for a Magpul Pro, an Arisaka 3-slot low profile M-lok rail, and a standard Troy flip up front sight is 3.75 oz.
With the carbon fiber handguard and the light-ish barrel, the total weight (without sling or magazine) is 7.578 lbs (sorry about the dirty display). The center of gravity is a bit more to the rear, but it is not exactly in bullpup territory. This setup is about one pound lighter than a light-ish LPVO setup (Kahles K16i, Scalarworks LEAP mount, BCM M-lok 13" handguard).
The standard height AD "reverse cantilever" mount works well for the ACOG and the compact ACOG, but it will only take a very low rear sight beneath it.
In my opinion, the benefit of backup sights is not worth the cost of having the ACOG sit up higher. I just put my TA31's as far back as possible and it seems to be in the right place for a decent cheek weld.
Carbine 2 - Gunner
https://i.imgur.com/zwPAoHT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rWH4YVN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8o7wwVO.jpg
Upper parts list: ALG V. 1 handguard (12"); Faxon Gunner barrel (16", midlength gas, 0.503" diameter); Faxon gas block; Battlecomp compensator; American Defense tall height reverse cantilever mount; TA50 compact ACOG (3x); RMR RDS; Arisaka offset mount; Rainier Arms BCG; Streamlight TLR-8A (500 lumen light with vis laser); Magpul MBUS (gen 2); BCM GFH Mod 5 charging handle
Lower: standard Colt lower with Geissele SSA trigger; BCM/VLTOR receiver extension system; KNS pins; B5 enhanced SOPMOD buttstock.
Notes:
I built this upper about five years ago as an alternative for weight-sensitive people in my intro class. I don't know if ALG makes these handguards anymore, but at the time they were one of the lighter non-carbon fiber handguards available. I am including this because of its similarity to the "What Would Stoner Do" configuration with the Faxon pencil barrel. In some ways the WWSD project is similar to my own interest in this, so it seemed like a good fit.
The tall ADM mount is just useable in this configuration. It places the center of the sight about 0.1" higher than that of the standard ACOG because the mounting platform for the compact ACOG is shorter than that of the standard. The tall mount with the standard ACOG is just too high for my liking, but you may have a different view.
The strip of rescue tape on the M-lok cover holds the cover in place. The gas tube is so close to the M-lok slot that it would otherwise fall out on its own.
For those still following this, I am in "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans" mode. I will continue to necropost this 'till I'm done. (Or possibly start another thread.)
This site has been a little slow lately...
The only thing that troubles me with the gun above it that Faxon barrel. Man, we had a really bad one, and those trolls wouldn't make good on it.
That ADM COG mount is interesting.
This site has been a little slow lately...
The only thing that troubles me with the gun above it that Faxon barrel. Man, we had a really bad one, and those trolls wouldn't make good on it.
That ADM COG mount is interesting.
Markm:
Now that I am no longer hobbling about with a cane, I can get back to work on this (after I have cleaned up some other delinquent stuff). As I have written before, I would stick with the standard height (not the tall) to mount an ACOG. If you need a BUIS, use a Magpul Pro or similarly shortish rear sight.
My experience with the Faxon Gunner barrels is limited to a sample size of one. After 15 rounds they are almost too hot to touch, and sometimes I can almost feel the groups open up. But ...
First I should explain something. On every build, I shoot six groups of five shots each, using LC XM193 at 100 yards. I don't pause for barrel cooling. I know about the limitations with this cartridge, but (a) it is held to some kind of standard, and (b) it is available enough so that every barrel is checked for accuracy with the same cartridge, so it is always an apples to apples comparison, and (c) in any bad news scenario, I will probably be using that cartridge.
My records for the Faxon Gunner test were, measuring extreme spread in centimeters (easier to work with for averaging): 11.7 9.8 7.9 9.0 10.0 and 7.1.
Average ES for all groups was 9.25 cm, or 3.64".
I am pretty ruthless when it comes to barrels using this test. Any "standard weight" (i.e., govt profile carbine gas or heavier) chrome-lined barrel going over an average of 3" extreme spread using this method winds up on the shelf, retired permanently. I may, depending on my mood, the build purpose, and any number of other reasons, allow a lightweight barrel to remain in use if the average is less than 4". Thus, at least with this sample, the Faxon Gunner passes my muster. I can't see myself running out to buy a bunch of them though.
I have yet to give the Ranger barrel this workout, so things are kinda stuck in my way of doing things. I can't say "look at the success of this build and the accessories" if the barrel ain't worth it. My previous experience with Wilson Combat SS barrels has been excellent though. So, I have good expectations.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.