View Full Version : CQB use of an ACOG
Specifically combat vets who have used it in that way. Asking this in the GD AR discussion as the ACOG was primarily developed for the AR system.
The TA31 has the BAC thing going on, and while a good long range optic, does it meet the need I ask about (as in can you hit shit reliably with it at CQB ranges)? Obviously an Aimpoint or an EOTech would be better for CQB but can the ACOG cut it?
It can work. I was never quite as good with it as a dot in CQB, especially an EoTech. Putting an RMR on top or an offset are big improvements, IMO. I think its still a viable option in 2022, but for a personal purchase its a bit expensive if CQB is a vital role.
I’ll try to remember to screw around with my VCOG on 4x a bit and get back to you.
Edit: VCOG on 4x is a poor analogue of an ACOG. They’re not really similar in CQB. I should have known that.
Not optimal. Put an rds on top. Best of both worlds, light weight, and not really that expensive.
The ACOG is more capable in CQB than many give it credit for. Training is key. If you were trying to decide what optic you'd like on your rifle, and you were looking for the best combination of useful in different roles while also being simple and durable, they're hard to beat.
Training is key.
Yeah. It sucks any time we've tried it. I mean... you can get it to work, but it's weird. I can imagine you could get good at it if it was your dedicated set up.
You have to keep both eyes open for it to be useful in CQB ranges. But it is doable.
I have wanted an ACOG for years and am in a position to afford one now. I was seriously on the edge of ordering a TA33-C this week for a light GP AR. I am convinced they are just not the best solution in this day and age.
LPVOs are heavy and bulky but there are multiple quality 1-6, 1-8, and 1-10 scopes out there with 1X RDS speed plus useful magnification at the top end.
I am sure I am missing something, but an ACOG + RDS seems like it would be ridiculously bulky/tall and require a lot of range time to adjust to. You could also buy a very nice LPVO + mount for the same money.
Andy
bamashooter
12-09-22, 08:22
Easy with a little practice. Of course point and shoot at what you consider close-in distances. Past that, just practice, practice, practice. No shooting, no nothing. If you need to, you can go Pew, Pew, Pew. To this day, weekly or so, I just pick up my 3.0 and simulate. You adapt very quickly. Low-No light takes a bit longer but no biggie. The only time I did a close target was spontaneous, no time to think. Perhaps 5 meters max. Seemed like minutes but really no more than a solid second. Gun was already shouldered and target just happened to pop up. Finger was on trigger, boom, done. Had it been one of those civilian police deals with shoot - don't shoot, it would have still been a shoot. Very startling. Anyhow, you can easily get proficient just by practicing outdoors, indoors, pick a target on tv, etc. Dry fire, no fire, live fire, etc. Simulating different lighting conditions is a must imo. But like any other shooting condition, if you can see the target then in theory you can successfully engage the target in most instances. Just takes practice to develop that visual muscle memory. A target magnified at 3x or higher at under 7-8 meters or so is not a natural look. The brain needs a little help. Practice.
Speaking of a truly pop-up target. My first armadillo kill. Had just built my house and was out front one night. I happened to detect movement along the foundation and saw it was an armadillo. Ran inside and grabbed my newish Glock 21 (.45acp). Shot it. Instantly the sob launched straight up scaring the dog poop out of me. Perhaps a tad higher than my waist, I just instinctively fired. Hit it and actually knocked it back about 2 feet. Had to laugh. I have since shot hundreds and never had one pop up like they do so in front of vehicles. Fastest double-tap I ever did.:D
LPVOs are heavy and bulky but there are multiple quality 1-6, 1-8, and 1-10 scopes out there with 1X RDS speed plus useful magnification at the top end.
I wouldn't pull my ACOG off my gun for ANY LBGQPVO. I run it out to 500 yards with relative easy every weekend. Until I get to 750, I have no need for more than the COG offers. So if you're realistic ranges are 500 and in, you're well taken care of with an ACOG.
bamashooter
12-09-22, 08:39
As a side note or FYI, I see more rumblings regarding ACOGs quality these days. Even my go to LGS has had issues with them. He even tried an alternative distributor with no change. I've never tried one but he seems to be impressed with the Steiner optics and says the P4Xi 1-4x24mm P3TR model is a decent alternative.
I wouldn't pull my ACOG off my gun for ANY LBGQPVO. I run it out to 500 yards with relative easy every weekend. Until I get to 750, I have no need for more than the COG offers. So if you're realistic ranges are 500 and in, you're well taken care of with an ACOG.
:laugh:
And I agree, I feel the same way about my ACOGs... I'm wanting to buy a third one at some point.
As a side note or FYI, I see more rumblings regarding ACOGs quality these days. Even my go to LGS has had issues with them. He even tried an alternative distributor with no change. I've never tried one but he seems to be impressed with the Steiner optics and says the P4Xi 1-4x24mm P3TR model is a decent alternative.
That's a downer. Can't recall hearing about any QC issues with ACOG's. What type issues are people seeing?
I had a ACOG as a civilian and in the Army. I was a low speed 11C who never deployed, but the magnification helped during qualification, as well as looking for Atropians.
I, however, think the Elcan is better, and never miss it now that I have a LPVO.
I had a ACOG as a civilian and in the Army. I was a low speed 11C who never deployed, but the magnification helped during qualification, as well as looking for Atropians.
I, however, think the Elcan is better, and never miss it now that I have a LPVO.
Its one of the best optics for a Chuck or Fister. Lightweight, magnified, and has rangefinding built in. Hard to beat that.
As a side note or FYI, I see more rumblings regarding ACOGs quality these days. Even my go to LGS has had issues with them.
What issues? Mine is new production, and it's just like any other.
I think we start to wander on the edges of the CQB aspects, and dedicated training comes much more into play. Both eyes open inside rooms? LOL, all day long. Now change that to 50 yard shots inside buildings or even 25, and I'm not anywhere near as fast. Thats just me, but I don't think anyone is picking an ACOG for CQB either, so I'm not too worried.
I had a ACOG as a civilian and in the Army. I was a low speed 11C who never deployed, but the magnification helped during qualification, as well as looking for Atropians.
I, however, think the Elcan is better, and never miss it now that I have a LPVO.
Rock on brother! High Angle Hell!
I think we start to wander on the edges of the CQB aspects, and dedicated training comes much more into play. Both eyes open inside rooms? LOL, all day long. Now change that to 50 yard shots inside buildings or even 25, and I'm not anywhere near as fast. Thats just me, but I don't think anyone is picking an ACOG for CQB either, so I'm not too worried.
I have the TA31 with the upside-down horseshoe and dot, not the chevron. It is the ACSS reticle from Primary Arms (basically the same but has the height BDC off to the lower right of the reticle). I think that the horseshoe with dot does a little better at attracting the eye quickly than the chevron, and it is obviously intended for CQB/quick shooting type of stuff. For close-in shooting the red is what we'd be focusing on, so both eyes open on the spur of the moment has to be doable. If I wanted to shoot the balls off a gnat at 300m I'd close one eye!
I knew I'd get valuable input from you guys, thanks!
BLUF from what I'm seeing here? It isn't optimal for CQB but certainly doable with practice, it's durable, and seems (to me anyway) to be a viable alternative to an LPVO.
*I have a Steiner 1-4x, purchased with advice from 1168 a couple years ago. I like it, but just can't warm up to the length and weight when you compare it to an ACOG. I figure if I can quickly throw it up and engage at closer ranges (with both eyes open of course) and not have to throw a lever to get 4x, then maybe the ACOG is the better choice for me (?).
I have the TA31 with the upside-down horseshoe and dot, not the chevron. It is the ACSS reticle from Primary Arms (basically the same but has the height BDC off to the lower right of the reticle). I think that the horseshoe with dot does a little better at attracting the eye quickly than the chevron, and it is obviously intended for CQB/quick shooting type of stuff. For close-in shooting the red is what we'd be focusing on, so both eyes open on the spur of the moment has to be doable. If I wanted to shoot the balls off a gnat at 300m I'd close one eye!
I knew I'd get valuable input from you guys, thanks!
BLUF from what I'm seeing here? It isn't optimal for CQB but certainly doable with practice, it's durable, and seems (to me anyway) to be a viable alternative to an LPVO.
*I have a Steiner 1-4x, purchased with advice from 1168 a couple years ago. I like it, but just can't warm up to the length and weight when you compare it to an ACOG. I figure if I can quickly throw it up and engage at closer ranges (with both eyes open of course) and not have to throw a lever to get 4x, then maybe the ACOG is the better choice for me (?).
If CQB is high on the menu, I’d choose a P4Xi over an ACOG, any day, and twice on Sunday. The P4Xi and its fiber optic dot really punches above its weight on 1x among LPVOs. I doubt its as durable as an ACOG, though.
Everyone’s eyes are different, though, and most of us aren’t in our 20s anymore. Since you have both, I’d recommend LARPing around the house in normal and dim/absent lighting and feeling it out for yourself. Having a light with a tight hotspot seems to help.
I know you know this, but make sure the diopter is adjusted well on the LPVO.
The ACOG is still viable. That might still be true in 50 years.
The third option might best fit your needs: a dot with a magnifier. Its hard to beat an EoTech or Aimpoint up close, and the Aimpoint can just stay on all the time. A 3x mag helps you take those harder or further shots when you need it. The whole setup can weigh less than a LPVO.
ACOGs are just like shotties and revolvers to me. I don’t know why the gun hipsters are all on them again. Yes, you can make it work. Yes, you can get pretty good with practice.
Aside from some serious physical disability, I can’t wrap my head around the lighter weight being a worthwhile trade off against any number of more viable, true multi-role LPVOs.
In damn near 2023, if you’re choosing gear that has significant downsides that you have to train around, you’re either doing it wrong or filling a very niche role.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
ACOGs are just like shotties and revolvers to me. I don’t know why the gun hipsters are all on them again. Yes, you can make it work. Yes, you can get pretty good with practice.
Aside from some serious physical disability, I can’t wrap my head around the lighter weight being a worthwhile trade off against any number of more viable, true multi-role LPVOs.
In damn near 2023, if you’re choosing gear that has significant downsides that you have to train around, you’re either doing it wrong or filling a very niche role.
Fair enough, that's why I asked for opinions. Points taken.
LPVO fan I take it? I am certainly behind the times!
If an LPVO could be made just a wee bit smaller and lighter, and have the durability of the ACOG, I wouldn't have this conversation. A few years down the road might tell a different tale with advancing tech and all. As far as "lighter" goes, I may be getting long in the tooth but I ain't dead yet and can easily handle the weight and bulkiness of an LPVO on an AR, but why do so if there is something more compact? Another point I throw into the calculation is durability. I don't think in years past the LPVO has been as big or popular as it is nowadays, not nearly as long as the ACOG has, so data on how "tough" it is vs the ACOG might not be reflective of the true picture. I want to like LPVOs!
You are an active duty guy so I defer to your opinion, and it will be thrown into the hopper to form mine. Thanks!
Fair enough, that's why I asked for opinions. Points taken.
LPVO fan I take it? I am certainly behind the times!
If an LPVO could be made just a wee bit smaller and lighter, and have the durability of the ACOG, I wouldn't have this conversation. A few years down the road might tell a different tale with advancing tech and all. As far as "lighter" goes, I may be getting long in the tooth but I ain't dead yet and can easily handle the weight and bulkiness of an LPVO on an AR, but why do so if there is something more compact? Another point I throw into the calculation is durability. I don't think in years past the LPVO has been as big or popular as it is nowadays, not nearly as long as the ACOG has, so data on how "tough" it is vs the ACOG might not be reflective of the true picture. I want to like LPVOs!
You are an active duty guy so I defer to your opinion, and it will be thrown into the hopper to form mine. Thanks!
You really nailed the pros of the ACOG vs LPVO - light, compact, durable.
Price is comparable to a quality LPVO + mount.
ACOG wins on simplicity; always on, no battery, no magnification adjustment, and no diopter to screw up.
LPVOs are heavy/bulky and battery life is meh. They are mechanically more complicated than an ACOG or RDS so logically they cannot be as durable.
Red Dots are less expensive, light, compact, durable, and have good battery life but they offer no magnification.
RDS magnifiers add cost, weight, and complication.
I truly understand why you asked about CQB distances with the ACOG and I appreciate the feedback you have received. I may not need 6-8X magnification for the shooting I do, but I struggle with a RDS past 100 M.
Andy
P.S. You asked about service member experience - my ETS-ed Marine 1371 son loves the ACOG, and my current Army 11B son's unit issues ACOGs and he reports no issues with CQB uses. He says their ACOGs are pretty beat and you never know what you will end up with at the range.
logically they cannot be as durable.
Everything I've heard about the VCOG seems to suggest otherwise, but I don't have any experience with it.
There is also the Elcan, but $$$ and its not as light as an ACOG or RDS + magnifier.
Andy
ACOGs are just like shotties and revolvers to me. I don’t know why the gun hipsters are all on them again.
My 2-cents is Trijicon has made a bunch and GunTubers get PAID to push $hit.
What's old is new again, for the right price.
What hasn't changed is (1) pick your firearm needs to do requirements, (2) pick weapon / optic / gear requirements to meet them and (3) train / use them.
So often people think and think and think; but the first time at the range shooting, this something 'ideal' really sucks
So often people think and think and think; but the first time at the range shooting, this something 'ideal' really sucks
That describes me and my experience with the Trijicon Accupower 1-4 to a T.
Andy
That describes me and my experience with the Trijicon Accupower 1-4 to a T.
Andy
Yeah, the Accupower 1-4 is 'ok'. I used one in a Carbine course from 0-50yds, didn't have any real issues but it's certainly not the best LPVO out there. I did take 4 hogs from 7-50 yards in 20 seconds with it however, 7 shots and all hits - so it isn't complete crap either.
ACOGs are great if you know everything down range is 'hostile'. IME solving the shoot / no-shoot ROE is by far the hardest part of the kill chain. The rest is just mechanics.
For those of you that have used both, are the military and civilian market ACOG's about equal in overall quality?
For those of you that have used both, are the military and civilian market ACOG's about equal in overall quality?
There's no distinction.
MA2_Navy_Veteran
12-10-22, 15:10
ACOGs can certainly be used for CQB... Thing is... It's usually better to switch to a pistol in a CQB/confined-space situation.
Still, If an ACOG is all that you have to work with, it can work, but you really need to train with it as a CQB-use item because the magnification, while minute, does impact it's use in CQB environments (You really need to practice targeting things with both eyes open because it takes practice putting the chevron that your right eye sees on the target that your left eye sees more clearly.) & that's pretty much it in a nutshell. The one plus side (for some) to using an ACOG rather that a dot sight for CQB is that the ACOG doesn't affect those suffering astigmatism as most red dots do (the chevron doesn't appear as a starburst/spider-web like red dot sights do to those with astigmatism.).
Just some things to think about.
That describes me and my experience with the Trijicon Accupower 1-4 to a T.
Andy
That is one of the best optics ever, especially when you figure in the price. I'm not saying there aren't better scopes on the market, but with the right reticle, they really are (were?) a great scope.
That is one of the best optics ever, especially when you figure in the price. I'm not saying there aren't better scopes on the market, but with the right reticle, they really are (were?) a great scope.
Accupoint or Accupower? My Accupower's reticle is too fine and dim to use at speed. A nice bold reticle would make a huge difference, the glass and overall quality is good. I wish I had bought the fiber optic/tritium Accupoint instead.
Andy
BoringGuy45
12-10-22, 23:14
There is also the Elcan, but $$$ and its not as light as an ACOG or RDS + magnifier.
Andy
The consensus about the Elcan seems to be that it would be a much better option if it were about $600 to $800 less and had newer mounts. I can't figure why it hasn't dropped in price despite being surpassed in popularity by LPVOs.
Elcan is Germany's standard optic now.
"MIDLAND, Ontario (Nov. 24, 2021) — Raytheon ELCAN, a Raytheon Technologies subsidiary, and LEONARDO Germany, a Leonardo SpA subsidiary, were awarded a contract for 107,929 sights to provide the main combat sight (HKV) for the German Armed Forces. Leonardo Germany is the prime contractor to the BAAINBw and will provide in-country support.
The ELCAN Specter DR 1-4x is a combined reflex and telescopic sight allowing soldiers to see close up or far away with a single sight. The sights chosen by the Bundeswehr will have a bullet-drop compensator, or BDC, etched reticle and a Picatinny/STANAG rail integrated into the housing with an ambidextrous, easy-to-use, throw lever to switch instantly between magnifications. The sights have an integrated laser filter to help keep soldiers safer on the battlefield."
https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspace.com/news/2021/11/24/raytheon-elcan-teams-with-leonardo
bamashooter
12-11-22, 09:22
What issues? Mine is new production, and it's just like any other.
Glad to hear you have a good one. Issues range from poor reticles to dim chevrons.
Glad to hear you have a good one. Issues range from poor reticles to dim chevrons.
Gotcha! I picked the TA01NSN because I don't care for the other reticles that have the light gathering thing on top or the donuts and chevron reticles.
ACOGs are just like shotties and revolvers to me. I don’t know why the gun hipsters are all on them again. Yes, you can make it work. Yes, you can get pretty good with practice.
Aside from some serious physical disability, I can’t wrap my head around the lighter weight being a worthwhile trade off against any number of more viable, true multi-role LPVOs.
In damn near 2023, if you’re choosing gear that has significant downsides that you have to train around, you’re either doing it wrong or filling a very niche role.
I'm on the opposite side of this. The LBGTQPVO is just another fad adopted, largely by goobers who don't even shoot beyond a few hundred yards. As someone who shoots long range every single weekend, I have ZERO interest in an LGBTQVO at all. It's a Shit or get off the fence optic.
Either put a real scope on the gun, or just run a Non-variable rugged ACOG.
These threads seem to pop up every time my desire for another ACOG flares up. Had a TA33, really regret selling it. Head and shoulders above the standard-issue TA31. Small FOV made it a little easier to use in enclosed spaces, honestly. Need to try a TA11 but my K16i is also a great optic, just not sure I am interested in spending the time to become as proficient with it.
I'm on the opposite side of this. The LBGTQPVO is just another fad adopted, largely by goobers who don't even shoot beyond a few hundred yards. As someone who shoots long range every single weekend, I have ZERO interest in an LGBTQVO at all. It's a Shit or get off the fence optic.
Either put a real scope on the gun, or just run a Non-variable rugged ACOG.
For shooting unknown distance targets with varying amounts of presentation within medium infantry engagement ranges and also being able to transition to indoors, LPVOs excel. There are reasons they are very common in military special operations. Its not because we casually accept extra weight.
I'm on the opposite side of this. The LBGTQPVO is just another fad adopted, largely by goobers who don't even shoot beyond a few hundred yards. As someone who shoots long range every single weekend, I have ZERO interest in an LGBTQVO at all. It's a Shit or get off the fence optic.
Either put a real scope on the gun, or just run a Non-variable rugged ACOG.
That’s kind of the point though. The LPVO is the best option for arms length to that few hundred yards range. So everything that you’re not doing, at least as far as I can tell by your post. And on AR type weapons, they’ve seen more combat use than “real scopes” have for some time. The same is true against the ACOG, at least in the SOF realm. There are still ACOGs floating around but in USASOC it’s either 1x, 1-4x Elcan, or LPVO.
All of the matches I’ve shot are no different. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen an ACOG at any of those matches. Maybe there was one 2-10 at some point. But for the AR’s typical use and engagement envelope, the LPVO makes the most sense as a general purpose so that’s what the majority of shooters use. Hard argument that it’s a fad. They may be as prevalent as pistol mounted red dots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That’s kind of the point though. The LPVO is the best option for arms length to that few hundred yards range. So everything that you’re not doing, at least as far as I can tell by your post. And on AR type weapons, they’ve seen more combat use than “real scopes” have for some time. The same is true against the ACOG, at least in the SOF realm. There are still ACOGs floating around but in USASOC it’s either 1x, 1-4x Elcan, or LPVO.
All of the matches I’ve shot are no different. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen an ACOG at any of those matches. Maybe there was one 2-10 at some point. But for the AR’s typical use and engagement envelope, the LPVO makes the most sense as a general purpose so that’s what the majority of shooters use. Hard argument that it’s a fad. They may be as prevalent as pistol mounted red dots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah, I agree. Not a fad at all. Delta started issuing them in like the late 2000s, I think, and they’ve only spread from there. They are popular among people that shoot guns for a living, and have been for over a decade. They’re here to stay.
Edit: we were using Elcans and dots on top of ACOGs and dot magnifiers well before that. So the perceived requirement existed. The products have been manufactured for that requirement, not the other way around.
Personally, if I ever were to venture into LPVO territory I'd probably go with a Specter DR. The only thing I don't like about it is the A.R.M.S. mounts, but at least the mount is integral, as any modern optic's mount should be. Runner up to that would be the VCOG. Again, because of the integral mount. But, at least with the VCOG you can choose whichever mounting system you want since it uses the same mounts as the ACOG.
The popular LPVOS that everyone seems to get the queer eye for are too traditional and use antiquated split ring mounts... It's a weak point.
Personally, if I ever were to venture into LPVO territory I'd probably go with a Specter DR. The only thing I don't like about it is the A.R.M.S. mounts, but at least the mount is integral, as any modern optic's mount should be. Runner up to that would be the VCOG. Again, because of the integral mount. But, at least with the VCOG you can choose whichever mounting system you want since it uses the same mounts as the ACOG.
The popular LPVOS that everyone seems to get the queer eye for are too traditional and use antiquated split ring mounts... It's a weak point.
It gives way more flexibility to the end user. I’d never use any of the LPVOs with an integrated mount because none of them have what I want. These aren’t as simple as an RDS.
I’ve broken a Razor 1-6 when it hit cement hard. The mount wasn’t an issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-14-22, 12:08
I've owned 3 ACOG: TA31x2 and a TA11. I've owned 3 LPVO: PA 1-6, Vortex Viper 1-4, Vortex Razor Gen 2 1-6.
Aside from carbine/red dot courses that I have taken over the last few years, my only real training with a magnified optic has been four years in the Marine Corps from 08-12 where I was issued an M16A4 with ACOG after boot camp. As a POG, I shot very little with it outside of MCT: every annual range was with an iron-sighted M16A4, so other than some ranges during a MEU work up, I only have that month of MCT to go off of.
Conversely, I have had zero training with an LPVO.
I still own one TA31, and no LPVO. The TA31, based off my little training and experience, makes alot more sense to me for 100-500 (maybe more like 100-300) distance shooting. The LPVO always felt clunky and complicated. I have no doubt that the LPVO is the more capable optic, but without the training, it was not as useful to me as my ACOG.
As far as CQB distance shooting, I think the LPVO (specifically the Razor) had the upper hand. I have an RDS mounted on top of my ACOG for 25 yds and in. I train so little with this setup though that I really don't know how capable I am with it. I am a patrol rifle guy through and through: SBR, can, RDS, sub 100 yds.
Does this help anyone in this dilemma? No, it's basically a dude saying he barely knows how to use one and doesnt know how to use the other!
https://i.imgur.com/kJi55dZ.jpg
I've owned 3 ACOG: TA31x2 and a TA11. I've owned 3 LPVO: PA 1-6, Vortex Viper 1-4, Vortex Razor Gen 2 1-6.
Aside from carbine/red dot courses that I have taken over the last few years, my only real training with a magnified optic has been four years in the Marine Corps from 08-12 where I was issued an M16A4 with ACOG after boot camp. As a POG, I shot very little with it outside of MCT: every annual range was with an iron-sighted M16A4, so other than some ranges during a MEU work up, I only have that month of MCT to go off of.
Conversely, I have had zero training with an LPVO.
I still own one TA31, and no LPVO. The TA31, based off my little training and experience, makes alot more sense to me for 100-500 (maybe more like 100-300) distance shooting. The LPVO always felt clunky and complicated. I have no doubt that the LPVO is the more capable optic, but without the training, it was not as useful to me as my ACOG.
As far as CQB distance shooting, I think the LPVO (specifically the Razor) had the upper hand. I have an RDS mounted on top of my ACOG for 25 yds and in. I train so little with this setup though that I really don't know how capable I am with it. I am a patrol rifle guy through and through: SBR, can, RDS, sub 100 yds.
Does this help anyone in this dilemma? No, it's basically a dude saying he barely knows how to use one and doesnt know how to use the other!
https://i.imgur.com/kJi55dZ.jpg
Didn’t you take an LPVO course with Fieldcraft a year or two ago? I vaguely remember talking to someone about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-14-22, 13:57
Didn’t you take an LPVO course with Fieldcraft a year or two ago? I vaguely remember talking to someone about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I did, but I used an ACOG. And the class was awful. Needed to be a 2 day course, as the entire day was spent finding everyone’s dope out to 500 and the instructor doing all the windfalls for you.
David Acosta is a great dude, but that class was not great.
I have the Scalarworks mount for my Steiner LPVO.
Scalarworks makes some damn good mounts. Also have one for my Aimpoint PRO.
I have the Scalarworks mount for my Steiner LPVO.
Scalarworks makes some damn good mounts. Also have one for my Aimpoint PRO.
I love my Scalarworks but there have been a few reports about those hinges breaking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No combat experience here, just very physically challenging two gun experience. I have an Aimpoint with magnifier and the 3.5 ACOG model with the longer eye relief. I love the ACOG but the RDS with magnifier is the most versatile. There are several greater than 3X magnifiers out there, Aimpoint, Eotech, SIG come to mind. I have an Aimpoint with a combination flip to side/twist off mount 3X and a SIG 4x. I really would like to try the Eotech 5x.
At close range the ACOG does require more training. The Aimpoint is easier and faster for me. But, if all of my rifle work was, say, 100m and out, the ACOG would be my choice. My slight astigmatism likes it better.
I don't have an LPVO so no experience there.
For what it's worth.
How many ways can people restate that the ACOG is a fantastic optic 100 to 500 m. And can be made to work in a jam up close, but is not optimal?
And also that simple LPVOs can be excellent from 5 yards to 300 plus?
In general, the military has figured out their answer and is slowly moving towards it.
But if I look at the average m4c shooter, unless it's a rifle largely dedicated to long-range stuff like markm, The most likely scenario any of us will see will be 0 to 25, and unless hunting or target shooting very unlikely to do much but CQB.
I've got an EOTech magnifier to try with both aimpoints and eotechs. I'm already very pleased with the performance of the optics, and feel like the magnifier should be able to stretch that range out some. We'll find out!
I do want to try a compact LPVO, but have not settled on one. I use 3x9s for hunting and I'm very familiar with the issues of 3x up close.
I'm a big LPVO fan, been running them for the last 4 years and i think they are the best option for giving you magnification for PID and precision at distance, while also being very useable close up. I don't think it's a coincidence or fad that many who carry a gun for a living are moving to LPVOs. But it's definitely not the only tool in the box, and they aren't perfect for everything.
I've got an EOTech magnifier to try with both aimpoints and eotechs. I'm already very pleased with the performance of the optics, and feel like the magnifier should be able to stretch that range out some. We'll find out!
I do want to try a compact LPVO, but have not settled on one. I use 3x9s for hunting and I'm very familiar with the issues of 3x up close.
I run a RDS+Magnifier combo on my truck gun, and it's very capable. I like it alot. It's doesn't give you the range or PID ability of a LPVO, but still a great option. If you're looking for a compact LPVO, the Primary Arms PLx 1-8 compact is fantastic. It's got great glass, a solid reticle, and it's a little smaller than most. I've been very impressed with mine.
I'm a big LPVO fan, been running them for the last 4 years and i think they are the best option for giving you magnification for PID and precision at distance, while also being very useable close up. I don't think it's a coincidence or fad that many who carry a gun for a living are moving to LPVOs. But it's definitely not the only tool in the box, and they aren't perfect for everything.
I run a RDS+Magnifier combo on my truck gun, and it's very capable. I like it alot. It's doesn't give you the range or PID ability of a LPVO, but still a great option. If you're looking for a compact LPVO, the Primary Arms PLx 1-8 compact is fantastic. It's got great glass, a solid reticle, and it's a little smaller than most. I've been very impressed with mine.
Agreed on all. As an LPVO fan, I’m often happily surprised when I run my Vortex micro 3x and a red dot. It’s a great option.
I sold the PLx for a Razor 1-10 but it seemed solid and is getting lots of great reviews.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I've owned 3 ACOG: TA31x2 and a TA11. I've owned 3 LPVO: PA 1-6, Vortex Viper 1-4, Vortex Razor Gen 2 1-6.
Aside from carbine/red dot courses that I have taken over the last few years, my only real training with a magnified optic has been four years in the Marine Corps from 08-12 where I was issued an M16A4 with ACOG after boot camp. As a POG, I shot very little with it outside of MCT: every annual range was with an iron-sighted M16A4, so other than some ranges during a MEU work up, I only have that month of MCT to go off of.
Conversely, I have had zero training with an LPVO.
I still own one TA31, and no LPVO. The TA31, based off my little training and experience, makes alot more sense to me for 100-500 (maybe more like 100-300) distance shooting. The LPVO always felt clunky and complicated. I have no doubt that the LPVO is the more capable optic, but without the training, it was not as useful to me as my ACOG.
As far as CQB distance shooting, I think the LPVO (specifically the Razor) had the upper hand. I have an RDS mounted on top of my ACOG for 25 yds and in. I train so little with this setup though that I really don't know how capable I am with it. I am a patrol rifle guy through and through: SBR, can, RDS, sub 100 yds.
Does this help anyone in this dilemma? No, it's basically a dude saying he barely knows how to use one and doesnt know how to use the other!
https://i.imgur.com/kJi55dZ.jpg
I'm in a broadly similar situation (went in a couple years earlier, got out the same year, but got to exercise the M16 a bit more).
I have three LPVO's, and one token TA31, the ACOG basically lives on a nostalgic M4-SOCOM profiles setup that happens to be quite accurate but is otherwise a beater gun.
The LPVOs are just better at either extreme, and not really any worse in the interim range, they're just heavy and awkward to use.
I was pretty good with the ACOG (still decent with it), I really had to push for pace on the Table II/III shoots to even get to where I was dropping shots at all (for score, never dropped one), because my brain works really well with that transition and mixing near/far focus elements from a consistent cheekweld location... but I can actually do the same thing with an LPVO and run it just as quickly in those intermediate range areas. The Leupy Mk6 is definitely the best of them, but when it comes to outright versatility the cheap Trijicon 1-4x actually parties, basically only losing out when I push beyond 200yd, but up through that distance that setup is hard to beat.
The TA31 is going to probably spend another full H3 half life on that rifle, precisely because it's really rugged and where that one lives, it's always going to be a 'better than no long gun' type deal. When I'm not blowing smoke up my own backside about my shooting ability and any utility of what I can do, the real answer is an aimpoint.
If I'm in a situation where the double stamp rig with an aimpoint isn't the right tool, I'm not really willing to give up the versatility of the LPVO.
Average shooters running an M4 w/ ACOG can do pretty solid work in a short period of time at distance (3-600). Teach reticle, zero, turn them loose on steel. Handy.
Inside, emphasis is on not getting lost in the mag or trying to shoot it like outside. Indexed shooting, alternate sighting methods, eyes open, etc.
It's about what you're trying to do, why, and who you're giving the gear to. 1x LPVO > ACOG for me, but ACOGs have a place.
ACOG is great if you know that everyone downrange is a target.
LPVO with more magnification does that a little better.
Average shooters running an M4 w/ ACOG can do pretty solid work in a short period of time at distance (3-600). Teach reticle, zero, turn them loose on steel. Handy.
Inside, emphasis is on not getting lost in the mag or trying to shoot it like outside. Indexed shooting, alternate sighting methods, eyes open, etc.
It's about what you're trying to do, why, and who you're giving the gear to. 1x LPVO > ACOG for me, but ACOGs have a place.
I asked both my sons (1 Army 11B, 1 Marine 1371) and both said they were taught indexed shooting with the ACOG for close targets. My Army son's unit uses ACOGs rather than RDS, obviously his Brigade sees an advantage with them.
You can be effective at across-the-room instinctive shooting with an AR, especially if you have a good bit of trigger time with one. I carried iron sight A1s and A2s for 20 years and could/did keep fast double taps in the center of targets during room clearing drills with one. An optic would not have been an issue then - now I am old and slow.
Andy
obviously his Brigade sees an advantage with them
That’s really not how it works. They get what DA gives them with small exceptions depending on the unit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That’s really not how it works. They get what DA gives them with small exceptions depending on the unit.
This really is how it goes down.
It's better than nothing, and 95% of the use of the thing is for generating optical positive ID at distance to determine if you want to start spraying rounds towards somebody, even my primary use for the TA31 on my M16 was to determine if something was worth hosing down with an M2 from our vehicle (spoiler alert: nope. This is good, because I barely had a clue how to drive the duece in reality). Again, for that same purpose, my personally owned Mk12 upper would have been the better thing to bring with to Helmand, because it had a variable power optic that would have extended that range
That’s really not how it works. They get what DA gives them with small exceptions depending on the unit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I honestly don't know, but apparently there is not a single US Army issue optic. DA does not operate in a vaccuum, the regiment staff and commander have significant input into what is issued because its driven by mission.
My statement was certainly over simplistic.
Andy
I honestly don't know, but apparently there is not a single US Army issue optic. DA does not operate in a vaccuum, the regiment staff and commander have significant input into what is issued because its driven by mission.
My statement was certainly over simplistic.
Andy
There is not, the Comp M4 and ACOG will be found in most formations with M2s and Eotech 512s still floating around too. These are authorized through MTOE and the BDE CDR usually won’t simply decide to outfit the entire BDE with a different optic because of all the ass pain and money that it’ll take. Plus, almost none will care enough. If they’re getting that far into details about individual outfitting, it’s likely going to be along the lines of night vision, UAS, maybe radios, etc. Their focus is still more likely to be on more effective combat power in a near peer fight, like JAVs, TOWs, Gus, etc.
Bottom line is that just because an infantry BDE or BN is using something, doesn’t mean that it works well. Those exception outside of SOF are usually T&E or maybe a more specialized section like the Scouts within an 82d line BN.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I asked both my sons (1 Army 11B, 1 Marine 1371) and both said they were taught indexed shooting with the ACOG for close targets.
What is "indexed shooting"?
This really is how it goes down.
It's better than nothing, and 95% of the use of the thing is for generating optical positive ID at distance to determine if you want to start spraying rounds towards somebody, even my primary use for the TA31 on my M16 was to determine if something was worth hosing down with an M2 from our vehicle (spoiler alert: nope. This is good, because I barely had a clue how to drive the duece in reality). Again, for that same purpose, my personally owned Mk12 upper would have been the better thing to bring with to Helmand, because it had a variable power optic that would have extended that range
So much this. I can say for sure an ACOG with a 14 pressed against it is to be credited with saving at least one life from a thermal-equipped M2’s wrath. Ar Ramadi ‘06 comes to mind.
What is "indexed shooting"?
If I understood my sons correctly, its basically instinctive shooting.
Andy
I wouldn't pull my ACOG off my gun for ANY LBGQPVO. I run it out to 500 yards with relative easy every weekend. Until I get to 750, I have no need for more than the COG offers. So if you're realistic ranges are 500 and in, you're well taken care of with an ACOG.
I gave one to my older brother (former USMC) as a present to go with the FN15 rifle he already owns, he loves it. He has LPVO options in his toolbox, but won't swap the ACOG for them, not for that rifle anyway. He's using public land/max range 700m, very happy with the results.
What is "indexed shooting"?
If I understood my sons correctly, its basically instinctive shooting.
Using trained body alignments and gross, passive reference points of body/gun. Seems like the same, but "instinctive" implies that it comes naturally and that we didn't practice it.
Some use alternative sighting methods and indexing interchangeably. Depends on where/what you learned and how they talk about it.
If I understood my sons correctly, its basically instinctive shooting.
Andy
I’m still searching the relevant publications for this technique...
When I had an ACOG we would look over the top of it and align with the FSB for across the room type CQB shooting. Kinda like just lining up the carry handle and FSB on an A2/A4. If you dont have a FSB it would probably be a good bit less accurate. But doing that I could make fast A zone (or just into the C zone) hits in the shoot houses. Past about 15 or 20 meters, or with a reduced target, I would switch over to the occluded eye method and that worked pretty well. For shorter distances Aimpoint/Eotech is still king. Using the point shooting technique I was just as fast in the shoot houses as the guys running red dots, but not as accurate.
For the first few years as a cop I had a 3x ACOG on my duty rifle. The accuracy standards were more strict and the point shooting techniques I used in the Army were a no go. So there I got A LOT of training using the occluded eye technique. On a square range shooting body shots I was just as fast. But once you threw in head shots or in the shoot house, there was definitely a noticeable difference. The big difference came in awkward/non standard shooting positions. Also it does limit your situational awareness while aiming over a red dot.
Im a big fan of the ACOG overall. It's probably my go to doomsday rifle optic for its ruggedness and simplicity. I would get a 3 or 3.5 power model though for the better eye relief.
I’m still searching the relevant publications for this technique...
Im guessing they are using the point shooting technique from my post above. I dont remember what they called it back then. Been a minute,
I've gone back to using my ACOG for Run-n-Gun (the kind of 2 gun RnG where you carry everything for 10k).
LPVO are too slow imo. I've seen it in carbine classes, I've seen it working a stage as an RO. People waste a ton of time adjusting zoom.
I do have an RMR up top but it's zeroed for my non-dominant eye. A quick tilt to my left eye and fire. No adjusting cheek weld.
This setup worked well for me until these evil match directors started using 2" Throom targets at 5 yards away.
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
I've gone back to using my ACOG for Run-n-Gun (the kind of 2 gun RnG where you carry everything for 10k).
LPVO are too slow imo. I've seen it in carbine classes, I've seen it working a stage as an RO. People waste a ton of time adjusting zoom.
I do have an RMR up top but it's zeroed for my non-dominant eye. A quick tilt to my left eye and fire. No adjusting cheek weld.
This setup worked well for me until these evil match directors started using 2" Throom targets at 5 yards away.
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Im thinking this may be the best mid range setup.
Quicker to switch 1x-4x
NVG compatible
Light weight (18oz?)
Edit: or an exps 3-4 w/g45, but I havent used on yet.
I've gone back to using my ACOG for Run-n-Gun (the kind of 2 gun RnG where you carry everything for 10k).
LPVO are too slow imo. I've seen it in carbine classes, I've seen it working a stage as an RO. People waste a ton of time adjusting zoom.
I do have an RMR up top but it's zeroed for my non-dominant eye. A quick tilt to my left eye and fire. No adjusting cheek weld.
This setup worked well for me until these evil match directors started using 2" Throom targets at 5 yards away.
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
What do you mean about people wasting time? Like they get behind the scope at 1x and then slowly dial in to a specific mag?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Lost River
12-21-22, 09:14
I'm on the opposite side of this. The LBGTQPVO is just another fad adopted, largely by goobers who don't even shoot beyond a few hundred yards. As someone who shoots long range every single weekend, I have ZERO interest in an LGBTQVO at all. It's a Shit or get off the fence optic.
Either put a real scope on the gun, or just run a Non-variable rugged ACOG.
My experience differs.
I ran an LPVO for 4 years, from 2007 forward in Iraq.
https://i.imgur.com/8ffzvARl.jpg
And found it to be far more practical than any other options, including ACOGs or RDOs. Today I have one rifle set up with a TAO1 ACOG and an RDO on top that I have used quite a bit and it works very well for everything from close distance targets to extended ranges, due to the addition of the RDO. That said, w/o the addition of the RDO, it was lacking in flexibility.
RDO rifles are essentially one trick ponies. Yes you can shoot somewhat decently and they are fast, but they lack the ability to target discriminate and observe and are simply not flexible.
If I were starting over today, I would opt for more of a low-medium power such as a 2.5-10 optic in as compact a package as possible, and put a compact rdo on a mount that worked for close range work. Most of the close shots, out to 25-30-50 yards can be handled with the compact red dot such as an RMR, then switch to the magnified optic for ranges exceeding that or for PID type situations.
My experience differs.
I ran an LPVO for 4 years, from 2007 forward in Iraq.
https://i.imgur.com/8ffzvARl.jpg
And found it to be far more practical than any other options, including ACOGs or RDOs. Today I have one rifle set up with a TAO1 ACOG and an RDO on top that I have used quite a bit and it works very well for everything from close distance targets to extended ranges, due to the addition of the RDO. That said, w/o the addition of the RDO, it was lacking in flexibility.
RDO rifles are essentially one trick ponies. Yes you can shoot somewhat decently and they are fast, but they lack the ability to target discriminate and observe and are simply not flexible.
If I were starting over today, I would opt for more of a low-medium power such as a 2.5-10 optic in as compact a package as possible, and put a compact rdo on a mount that worked for close range work. Most of the close shots, out to 25-30-50 yards can be handled with the compact red dot such as an RMR, then switch to the magnified optic for ranges exceeding that or for PID type situations.
If someoe came out with a 4-12ish power ffp tree reticle, that was under 15oz, that would be amazing to pair with a top-mounted micro. Would be they holy grail IMO but doesnt exist. Closest looks to be a leupold vx6 with limited reticle options.
We've increased zoom range and weight, we can get a 1-10 under 22oz, cutting the zoom range down should allow the weight. The other option would be a built in mount and top-optic receivers to save weight.
BufordTJustice
12-22-22, 15:22
I'm on the opposite side of this. The LBGTQPVO is just another fad adopted, largely by goobers who don't even shoot beyond a few hundred yards. As someone who shoots long range every single weekend, I have ZERO interest in an LGBTQVO at all. It's a Shit or get off the fence optic.
Either put a real scope on the gun, or just run a Non-variable rugged ACOG.
I tend to agree, Mark.
However, with a caveat. I have been gifted with 20:10 vision, so a 2moa T1/2 gets me out to 500 in decent light on a reduced IPSC steel target. For real use within 2-300, the 6x monacle in my armor carrier pocket can target ID anything that may require my attention.
I run a fAKEog (Primary Arms 5x) on my AR10 and am really pleased for that use case.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I tend to agree, Mark.
However, with a caveat. I have been gifted with 20:10 vision, so a 2moa T1/2 gets me out to 500 in decent light on a reduced IPSC steel target. For real use within 2-300, the 6x monacle in my armor carrier pocket can target ID anything that may require my attention.
I run a fAKEog (Primary Arms 5x) on my AR10 and am really pleased for that use case.
For a RDS with magnifier, you may be able to see your distant target better but you'd still need to apply "Kentucky windage" (meaning holdover) as opposed to having a ranging reticle, no? Not being argumentative, just one drawback I thought of with using a RDS, even with a magnifier, at longer distances. If you use the IBSZ (50/200) then your holdovers could be regulated from there. Knowing the dot size helps for a quick calculation but astigmatism forces me to choose "Is it this dot or that one?" :sarcastic:
My range estimating abilities suck and always have! If someone has a slick "rule of thumb" to help I'm all ears.
For a RDS with magnifier, you may be able to see your distant target better but you'd still need to apply "Kentucky windage" (meaning holdover) as opposed to having a ranging reticle, no? Not being argumentative, just one drawback I thought of with using a RDS, even with a magnifier, at longer distances. If you use the IBSZ (50/200) then your holdovers could be regulated from there. Knowing the dot size helps for a quick calculation but astigmatism forces me to choose "Is it this dot or that one?" :sarcastic:
My range estimating abilities suck and always have! If someone has a slick "rule of thumb" to help I'm all ears.
Yup. EOTech EXPS 3-2 or 3-4 helps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
BufordTJustice
12-23-22, 22:20
For a RDS with magnifier, you may be able to see your distant target better but you'd still need to apply "Kentucky windage" (meaning holdover) as opposed to having a ranging reticle, no? Not being argumentative, just one drawback I thought of with using a RDS, even with a magnifier, at longer distances. If you use the IBSZ (50/200) then your holdovers could be regulated from there. Knowing the dot size helps for a quick calculation but astigmatism forces me to choose "Is it this dot or that one?" :sarcastic:
My range estimating abilities suck and always have! If someone has a slick "rule of thumb" to help I'm all ears.
Correct, sir.
I actually use the IBSZ 50/200 on all my guns and 500 is the furthest I shoot. Dotting the "i" with the red dot sitting on top of the target's head (or partially overlapping) is the furthest I have to hold.
Agreed that anything more than that would make hits much more difficult.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What do you mean about people wasting time? Like they get behind the scope at 1x and then slowly dial in to a specific mag?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProBoth ways. If you are twiddling with magnification when on the clock, you aren't shooting. I realize it isn't combat and it's only 2 gun but some of these skills should transfer to real life situations.
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Both ways. If you are twiddling with magnification when on the clock, you aren't shooting. I realize it isn't combat and it's only 2 gun but some of these skills should transfer to real life situations.
Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
A lot of “combat” is just looking at shit. Magnification helps.
My experience differs...
RDO rifles are essentially one trick ponies. Yes you can shoot somewhat decently and they are fast, but they lack the ability to target discriminate and observe and are simply not flexible.
I really agree with this - red-dot only, that basically covers the PDW and MOUT part of the spectrum, but practically the exclusion of anything else without supplemental hardware.
The weight-indifferent answer is running an RDS offset from a variable power optic, and this frees up the low magnification constraint sufficiently that 3-4x minimums start to make sense, and you get all the upsides of going deep into double digit magnification at range.
MarkM - I'd argue that so many of my rifles are just 'exist on the fence where possible', that's why they make a lot of sense. Mediocre at everything, but the right weight and form factor that bringing along anything else is too much of a compromise, so it ends up making pretty decent sense. Since any practical application I'd wind up with my practical role is realistically rather far removed from trigger puller where possible (being able to run a radio, do medical anything, let alone actual complex intellectual tasks) practically mean that I probably have a narrower envelope of what I truly care about, but once weight is a driver of requirements on what I'm carrying with me, I'm very willing to accept compromises in performance to keep that to a minimum, because shooting at things isn't going to be my primary mission.
ACOG TA01NSN 4x32 cross-hairline w oem fixed cqb sights atop was regularly-dependably used for years in federal swat service and sniper duty, same rifle. Invaluable. Removed once was mandated to limit use solely to Aimpt and Eotch. Miss the magnification and absolutely yes, you can also use both eyes open w the 4x tube for cqb once you get used to it, which felt very natural. My recipe, get the butt set way hi and near center lined to your chest inner collarbone.
My recipe, get the butt set way hi and near center lined to your chest inner collarbone.
My recipe for this was a bit stupid, and basically involved parking my eyepro against the top of the optic. I wound up tearing my skin open and bleeding a lot a few times from it, but I could hit the same point where my brain was just casually operating with both images superimposed to the point where I could intuitively handle the vertical offsets at ranges out to 36yd or so where the reticle can usefully take over... but it is a bit head location dependent if you're also moving around at the same time.
One of those things that in retrospect owning a TA31 of my own and spending time dicking around with it actually was a pretty huge benefit
One of those things that in retrospect owning a TA31 of my own and spending time dicking around with it actually was a pretty huge benefit Wish all would just spend “more time with it [scope/device]”, too - it’s the answer. Frankly a popsicle stick bent up at the end of a barrel could serve for CQB. How on earth do I shoot skeet with a side-by-side and no sights… it’s called sighting not aiming. Both eyes open and barrels in periphery is fine at 10- 30 yds… you could even use your forend hand’s fingertip extended for room-range clearing if you even needed an aid. Good point.
Wish all would just spend “more time with it [scope/device]”, too - it’s the answer. Frankly a popsicle stick bent up at the end of a barrel could serve for CQB. How on earth do I shoot skeet with a side-by-side and no sights… it’s called sighting not aiming. Both eyes open and barrels in periphery is fine at 10- 30 yds… you could even use your forend hand’s fingertip extended for room-range clearing if you even needed an aid. Good point.
I recall talking to my uncle years ago about nighttime fighting(Marine/Vietnam) That is what they did as you know as they worked with what they had.
Wish all would just spend “more time with it [scope/device]”, too - it’s the answer.
You could do that. You could also experiment with a few different options to find one that works best for you and the spend the time with it. Unlike military, I don’t want what someone else says I have to use so the notion of just pick one and fight through to proficiency is less appealing IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Wish all would just spend “more time with it [scope/device]”, too - it’s the answer. Frankly a popsicle stick bent up at the end of a barrel could serve for CQB. How on earth do I shoot skeet with a side-by-side and no sights… it’s called sighting not aiming. Both eyes open and barrels in periphery is fine at 10- 30 yds… you could even use your forend hand’s fingertip extended for room-range clearing if you even needed an aid. Good point.
The crazy part is that you can basically perform this task, but with the right consistent cheekweld, you can then place the reticle right onto whatever detailed location you want. I had infantry platoons constantly asking me what I was doing to make everything at 10-15yd go into a fist sized hole while being pretty quick, and that really was the answer - I can be popsicle stick accurate with just indexing and let my brain transition to that slightly magnification enabled sight picture and make a snap adjustment as the trigger break load is getting applied, and it works... although stupid-good eyesight (20/8 ish) doesn't hurt for that either
The crazy part is that you can basically perform this task, but with the right consistent cheekweld, you can then place the reticle right onto whatever detailed location you want. I had infantry platoons constantly asking me what I was doing to make everything at 10-15yd go into a fist sized hole while being pretty quick, and that really was the answer - I can be popsicle stick accurate with just indexing and let my brain transition to that slightly magnification enabled sight picture and make a snap adjustment as the trigger break load is getting applied, and it works... although stupid-good eyesight (20/8 ish) doesn't hurt for that either
Yeah, if you practice enough. You’ll find that in CQB distances your reticle will already be on the target ending the acquisition/presentation phase of target engagement. And it will automatically start to fine-tune as you drive your eyes and therefore reticle during the discrimination phase.
Interesting thread. And a lot of good information.
We all want to slice the technical salami as thin as possible, but no matter how thin it’s still good-tasting salami! OP: the ACOG is fine. The peripheral of the firearm is fine for CQB distance at its very most basic. Anything that enhances your sight helps, what gets in the way hinders. And that’s a balance. Flip it (your purchased rifle accessory) if you don’t take to it. A long heavy scope is too much, less-than becomes a matter of degrees and preference. (Liability and practicality requires sights. Which is answered by whatever is approved and qual’d. Lol. By my mid-term service, the decentralization and user choice for particular accessories (though still requiring local approval) concluded and everything became much more standard - no choice.)
I think basics for handguns are that you must continually rep “front sight front sight” for your brain. Or at an even more basic level, without any sights, your (right handed) straight pointy finger alongside the frame as you draw and present will lead you.. that’s natural.
A sport shotgun is similarly about the peripheral of the front of the barrel as you mount and look at/lead your target. Or as some do, focus on their forend grip and point that hand’s finger. I find the former most natural.
Rifles shouldn’t be much different (mitigated by lack of a shot circle) - For room and hall distances, you could probably get away with nothing for sights. A mounted tube from a spent toilet paper roll is going to serve fine, as well, as a sight. However, I’ve learned any “tube” is less apt for my eyes since I’ll always tend to want to treat it like a hunting rifle and stall a moment to focus vs. a flat plane sight. I’m not sure why I have this subconscious hang up with tubes as sights but it exists for me. The Holosights at the time (& maybe still now(?)) had crap gearing parts; we favored Aimpoints. Once sniper was added to my regular assaulter and breacher duty (ps, sniper school is some of the best schooling), I saved for that special model of ACOG for its versatility-dual role. And for me that involved no compromise.
It was used on innumerable missions for every variation of application CQB and Sniper. I know the OP asked about CQB use, but I’ll defend the versatility quotient here because of that reason - versatility beyond CQB. For sniper duty, used traditional bolt sniper rifles and as well M4/ARs, both qualified the same. For the sniper role, we used M4/ARs for close-in residential missions (those being deliberate and pre-determined when bad guys are set-up in circumstance and activity) or across short parking lots. For a trial over a night operation involving a group of Haitians doing a home invasion drug rip, I was called to testify because while everyone generally observed a line of Haitian criminals file along the rear of the lit-up home with handguns in their hands, I had the ACOG which was plenty from where I lay in the backyard below a small 6” high concrete beam some 45+ yards away. And on other close(r) sniper missions, I’ve lay in bushes in medians in a parking lot for hours w my spotter and it was quite the surprise once when the water sprinklers came on! And you just can’t move….. lol
As mentioned above by others, repetition for CQB both eyes open will force you to adapt to any sight. I think Yes, ACOGs and ElCans etc will work just fine. Ideal? Maybe the flat plane of glass sight is better than a tube sight for my aforementioned tendencies w CQB. In any event, choice is good. We should all appreciate those in this industry.
It begets why the military didn’t favor this particular ACOG NSN model I listed; perhaps CQB wasn’t as hi a priority (we called it MOUT when I was an officer), or the lit up chevron was the choice preference for CQB, or was it cost? I know the Marines used a different ACOG for a time or still do.
Put a lens cover on it. Use it as an occluded eye gun sight at close range. If you have the luxury of time and distance then you can just pop the lens cap and use the magnification.
ACOGs can certainly be used for CQB... Thing is... It's usually better to switch to a pistol in a CQB/confined-space situation.
Still, If an ACOG is all that you have to work with, it can work, but you really need to train with it as a CQB-use item because the magnification, while minute, does impact it's use in CQB environments (You really need to practice targeting things with both eyes open because it takes practice putting the chevron that your right eye sees on the target that your left eye sees more clearly.) & that's pretty much it in a nutshell. The one plus side (for some) to using an ACOG rather that a dot sight for CQB is that the ACOG doesn't affect those suffering astigmatism as most red dots do (the chevron doesn't appear as a starburst/spider-web like red dot sights do to those with astigmatism.).
Just some things to think about.
Cover the front glass with a lens cap; keep both eyes open.
Phoria is a thing with many. You have to shoot it and see.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.