ACOG 4x optics and military use

[blhar15]

I am debating on which ACOG to go with, the 3x, 3.5x or 4x. I have read many threads relating to these sights with the pro's and con's to them. I am coming to the conclusion that the 3.5x, model TA11 might be the best all around sight do to its long eye relief. From reading the threads it appears that the 4x is coming in last, for many reasons.

My question is, why did the military select the 4x over the others especially considering the short eye relief?

Thanks

[Failure2Stop]

Because the wrong people made the choice, and the first examples used within the military were 4x. With a lack of reference and traditional use, the 4x seems pretty good. It is only when compared to better models do the deficiencies become apparent, especially if the user is not experienced in non-traditional use.

I do not blame Trijicon- one Trijicon guy I know well recommend pretty much everything except the Ta31F.

Note- if using a combination of ACOG and a mini red dot of some flavor, the issues are much less of an impact to the shooter.

[Submariner]

Because the wrong people made the choice, and the first examples used within the military were 4x. With a lack of reference and traditional use, the 4x seems pretty good. It is only when compared to better models do the deficiencies become apparent, especially if the user is not experienced in non-traditional use.

I do not blame Trijicon- one Trijicon guy I know well recommend pretty much everything except the Ta31F.

Note- if using a combination of ACOG and a mini red dot of some flavor, the issues are much less of an impact to the shooter.

I bought TA31F's because the Marine Corps adopted it as the ACO. I ASSuMEd that the right people made the choice. Turns out is was sorta' like buying an M590 in the 90's using the same reasoning. OT&E wasn't at its best...

Traded one for a 2-MOA ML3/LT150 and Aimpoint 3X/LT649, one of the best deals I ever made. For inside 300m, this combination works fine. The bottom fell out of the market for TA31F's as folks realized there are better choices.

The TA31F's are now mated with T-1/LT724 offset mount and are now more user friendly: T-1 0 to 200m; ACOG 100m and out. The key has been learning to cant on presentation to first use the T-1. Poor man's Short Dot with added benefit of BDC and much better battery life. YMMV.

[edwin907]

My favorite ACOG is my TA11C mounted on my Recon.
But, I like my TA31 and TA31F, the short eye relief goes quite well with the NTCH cheekweld if you don't mind being bumped in the shooting glasses/goggles every now and then. And the FOV is terrific.
BAC, although easier on the TA11 due to the increased eye relief, is still quite easy on the 31 series. Particularly if you are comfortable with the close cheekweld. We're not all snipers, sitting 3.8" back off the eyepiece of a 24X scope.

[JSantoro]

My question is, why did the military select the 4x over the others especially considering the short eye relief?

The Corps, in particular, still loves to hump the "Every Marine a Rifleman!" leg. From a functional standpoint, it's horseshit on the Infantry side, much less everybody else, but...

Around 2002, the Corps bought ACOGs as a means of adding an organic Designated Marksman capability to the Marine Rifle Squad. It worked well enough during OIF1 that we decided that we wanted to FINALLY catch up with other 1st World militaries (15 years or so late) and put an optic into general use. The thought process was, basically, that a 4x optic was ideal because it would allow the shooter to reach out and touch. What wasn't thought through was that, if you have a shitty shooter using the thing, that 4x optic is going to magnify his errors by a factor of 4, not enhance his capability by the same number. Like a campaigning politician, the Corps kept pounding the 'marksman" aspect as to why they wanted to go with the TA31 without ever really stopping to think about what they wanted to DO with it.

Regarding that, I refer to WHO they were going to give it to, HOW they were going to get those people trained up on it, WHAT standard they wanted them trained to (the optic is scaled in meters, and for some stupid reason our ranges are still done in yards, when all it would take is adding dirt to berms :rolleyes:).

I know some folks around my shop that, whenever this argument breaks out and everybody starts taking up sides and wearing colored armbands, like to talk about how the 1.5" eye relief is a reasonable PITA to deal with IOT get the 4x capability, which is supposedly good for better observational clarity when you're using the optic to walk on another shooter, a mortar section, another maneuver element, whatever. I strongly disagree, thinking that a more forgiving eye relief would enhance target observation capabilities just as much as target reduction, becaus the user wouldn't have to dance a helmet-laden dome behind the ocular to get the right field of view.

I admit that that's a fairly recent shift in my own thinking, too, since I've loved (and still love) the RCO. I just know now that there are other ways to kill durkas, and that none of those corpses are going to protest as to how they got all shot and shit. I could go on, there's lots of Monday Morning quarterbacking I could do about this, since the RCO is our bread-n-butter, but won't.

SDO is coming forward for the SAW (TA11 w/horseshoe, RMR on top, hard-stop adjusters, no tools required to zero main optic). Once the SAW gunners start using that TA11 and fall in love with it...watch what happens, or at least what outcry you may see from the Fleet. If only we can get the Gunners (school-house, Division and up) to LISTEN to the Fleet Marines....fat f**king chance.

[kwelz]

Not to hijack the thread but what are the problems with the 31F? And if you don't mind what is the difference between the 31F and 31RCO.

[JSantoro]

Nowhere near are there issues with the optic itself so much as the sheer proponderance of misinformation we run across in regard to how the operators are trained in its use.

If my feet were held to the fire, I'd call the 1.5" eye relief of the TA31 an issue, when it is really just a design feature. I shoot the thing just fine, and I know a metric buttload of others that are the same. Too close, all you're worried about is scope bite, really, but too far, you have the usual problem (I've pitched a diatribe about this before, here, only relating to the stupidity of not either going completely with the M4 for general issue OR putting an adjustable stock on the A4. Solid stock + smaller user + armor = improper eye relief & NO way to get it, yet their COC says they're just shitty shots; jerks).

Otherwise, it boils down to personal preference. Most anything else is an "I don't like the way it works/feels/looks/tastes/doesn't go with my MultiCam" category. Perfectly normal and reasonable.

As for differences between optics:
The TA31F, if I recall correctly, is the initial, civilian version, which the corps purchased Off-The-Shelf to put on the M16A2, which basically worked out okay, given that the BDC of (from the Trijicon FAQ page):

The TA01, TA11, & TA31 (.223) were designed for the 5.56mm, 20 inch barrel, 55 grain bullet, and M16/AR15 carry handle mount.

It worked well enough that the corps decided, since they were transitioning to flat-top receivers, that they wanted optics for the M4 & A4, specifically. Angels sang, staff positions were created, Fairy God-Senators were briefed, and the Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) was made a Program of Record. Official nomenclature....

AN/PVQ-31A = TA31RCOA4. BDC designed for use on a flat-top reciever mounted optic, using a 20" 1-in-7 barrel and M855 ammo.

AN/PVQ-31B = TA31RCOM4. "Taller" BDC, to account for the 14.5" barrel of the M4/M4A1, same reciever, barrel twist & ammo.

So, similar basic reticle configuration as the TA31F, only tuned differently. The RCO variants' reticle also include a horizontal mil-scale for general target observation reference and call-for-fire stuff. Total of 110 mils L to R, that can be used for vertical reference by simply turning the weapon "gangsta" while looking through the optic.

ETA: Correction: the "F" in TA31F specifically stands for "flattop," so belay my reference to carry-handle mount in regard to that particular variant. I don't know the variant suffix, if any, for the chevron-reticle variant initially purchased by our happy band of cutthroats.

[kwelz]

Gotcha! Thank you very much. I have a 31RCO and was abut worried there for a bit.