Fate of the ACOG

[Mr. Goodtimes]

In todays world of variable power optics is the ACOG still and advanced weapon sight or has it been surpassed in effectiveness by the variable power optics? I ask this partially out of curiosity and partly because I'm debating weather I should spend the money on one or not.

I'm debating between a TR24G and TA33 GH or hold out until the next generation of Trijicon variables which hasn't even been announced yet. Id like to hear some opinions regarding positives and negatives to both. Do you think that the ACOG will be around for much longer given the advance in variable power optics?

[nimdabew]

I will always have an ACOG sitting on top of one of my rifles. It is a jack of all trades optic.

[Gutshot John]

What remarkable advances in variable power optics have been made that weren't around 10 years ago?

I have both variable, fixed and ACOGs, I like them each for different reasons.

The TA-33 remains one of my favorite all-time optics. Light weight, quick ranging, versatile distances and clear glass, sure they aren't great at CQB, but beyond 25 yards they easily hold their own.

All will be around for the foreseeable future.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

What remarkable advances in variable power optics have been made that weren't around 10 years ago?

I have both variable, fixed and ACOGs, I like them each for different reasons.

The TA-33 remains one of my favorite all-time optics. Light weight, quick ranging, versatile distances and clear glass, sure they aren't great at CQB, but beyond 25 yards they easily hold their own.

All will be around for the foreseeable future.

Something has me really interested in the TA33 for a general use optic and you may have just helped me make up my mind, especially considering I can get an incredible deal on one.

[JSGlock34]

"The ACOG mounted on the M16 service rifle has proven to be the biggest improvement in lethality for the Marine infantryman since the introduction of the M1 Garand in WWII." --Major General J.N. Mattis

The Marines are buying ACOGs by the truckload, and they are in widespread use with the Army too. The ACOG will be with us for a long time. I'm intrigued by the ACOG model the Marines have chosen to equip the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, the Squad automatic Weapon Day Optic (SDO) (http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA11SDO-CP).

http://www.trijicon.com/images/product_additionals/TA11SDO-CP_additional_popup_4.jpg

I've owned several ACOGs, but I never hold onto them. Great optics, but most of the ranges in my area are 50 yards or less, and the ACOG's many advantages are wasted.

[Failure2Stop]

The TA11 and TA33 are the best of the ACOG line in my opinion.
The 33 is tough, light, and compact, and the horseshoe/dot significantly improves close-range work. It has much improved eye-relief over the 31 series, but isn't quite as forgiving as good 1-4s on 1x.
The 11s (what the SDO is built on) are also pretty good, but a little heavier and bulkier than the 31 or 33, though still less than the 1-4s, if that's a concern.

[Army Chief]

... you may have just helped me make up my mind, especially considering I can get an incredible deal on one.

Is this a deal that can be replicated by others, or more of a one-time thing specific to your situation?

AC

[Gutshot John]

Is this a deal that can be replicated by others, or more of a one-time thing specific to your situation?

AC

Indeed color me curious.

[Doc Safari]

The TA11 and TA33 are the best of the ACOG line in my opinion.
The 33 is tough, light, and compact, and the horseshoe/dot significantly improves close-range work. It has much improved eye-relief over the 31 series, but isn't quite as forgiving as good 1-4s on 1x.
The 11s (what the SDO is built on) are also pretty good, but a little heavier and bulkier than the 31 or 33, though still less than the 1-4s, if that's a concern.

Thank you for that. I don't have to use the orange search button now. :D

Seriously, though, I have begun considering an ACOG instead of an RDS and you gave me a couple of models to start my research with. I had looked at their website with question marks popping out of my head.

[krm375]

We will see where this goes with the army and a solicitation for a Squad Common Optic.

[Hot Sauce]

I can't see it going anywhere until something as bulletproof tough and as soldier proof comes along. It's also pretty simple to train on, which again is beneficial in terms of thinking of GIs. I interpreted the question more along those lines, but I suppose for civvies worried about SHTF the same applies.

[asianhulk]

In todays world of variable power optics is the ACOG still and advanced weapon sight or has it been surpassed in effectiveness by the variable power optics? I ask this partially out of curiosity and partly because I'm debating weather I should spend the money on one or not.

I'm debating between a TR24G and TA33 GH or hold out until the next generation of Trijicon variables which hasn't even been announced yet. Id like to hear some opinions regarding positives and negatives to both. Do you think that the ACOG will be around for much longer given the advance in variable power optics?

What is your mission? I believe the ACOG still holds very useful, with pros comes cons and so forth. So thats how I look at it, mission dictates.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Is this a deal that can be replicated by others, or more of a one-time thing specific to your situation?

AC

It's a one time thing specific to my situation. I have the opportunity to obtain one for $600.00.

[Gutshot John]

It's a one time thing specific to my situation. I have the opportunity to obtain one for $600.00.

If it's new, you'd be nucking futs not to buy that right now.

[Army Chief]

For $600, I'd already be out zeroing it.

AC

[jenrick]

Dear God, I'll paypal you $800, you can keep the change after shipping it to me :D

-Jenrick

[nimdabew]

It's a one time thing specific to my situation. I have the opportunity to obtain one for $600.00.

This is how much I paid for a 31F

[docsherm]

The TA33H-G is my go to optic. Of all of the optics I have that is the one that I am currently using in the Stan. You can not beat it for size, reliability, and versatility.

[Boss Hogg]

The TA11 and TA33 are the best of the ACOG line in my opinion.
The 33 is tough, light, and compact, and the horseshoe/dot significantly improves close-range work. It has much improved eye-relief over the 31 series, but isn't quite as forgiving as good 1-4s on 1x.
The 11s (what the SDO is built on) are also pretty good, but a little heavier and bulkier than the 31 or 33, though still less than the 1-4s, if that's a concern.

I have a TR21 Accupoint and it has fairly unforgiving eye relief. I found the TR24 that I saw at SHOT to have unacceptable distortion at 1x. Maybe they've improved it but it is a very expensive piece of glass.

I'd agree that the TA11 and TA33 are the best of the ACOGs.

[DWood]

What remarkable advances in variable power optics have been made that weren't around 10 years ago?



Not sure if it's "remarkable", and I may be wrong, but I dont believe anything like USOs dual focal plane SN4 was available 5 years ago when I bought my Short Dot. The ONLY thing I don't like about the SD is the size of the dot in low light at 4X. I think a red dot in the second focal plane and a usable reticle in the first warrants my interest. I need to see if the reticle almost disappears at 1X like it does in the SD. I'd really like to see S & B offer this option.

Not sure if it's actually available yet, but the price is right and USO is quality.

http://www.cstactical.com/US-Optics/OPTICS/Rifle-Scopes/US-Optics/USO-SN-4-1-4x-Dual-Focal-Plane.html?vmcchk=1

[Gutshot John]

Not sure if it's "remarkable", and I may be wrong, but I dont believe anything like USOs dual focal plane SN4 was available 5 years ago when I bought my Short Dot. The ONLY thing I don't like about the SD is the size of the dot in low light at 4X. I think a red dot in the second focal plane and a usable reticle in the first warrants my interest. I need to see if the reticle almost disappears at 1X like it does in the SD. I'd really like to see S & B offer this option.

Not sure if it's actually available yet, but the price is right and USO is quality.

http://www.cstactical.com/US-Optics/OPTICS/Rifle-Scopes/US-Optics/USO-SN-4-1-4x-Dual-Focal-Plane.html?vmcchk=1

I don't understand why you couldn't use the large quartered ring in the FFP as a red dot? More precisely I don't really see the virtue of FFP in a 1-4x. If you wanted a precision shot, where you can use the reticle subtends, you'd want it cranked to 4x where it would be useful.

I don't see the point of having both focal planes especially when you'd have to crank it up all the way on FFP anyways just like you would on an SFP. I can see how having an FFP would be useful if the reticle was big enough at 1x, I can see how SFP would be valid as a kind of do-all optic. I just don't view this as a game changer. The optic is simply an SFP by another fancy/cool name.

USO makes great stuff and I vastly prefer FFP in my precision scopes but this seems like a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't even appear to be illuminated.

But all told I'm sure it's a very nice scope for the cost. I definitely agree about the Short-Dot, the dot is way too small and the scope is too damn heavy and expensive for what it does.

[DWood]

At 75+ yards, the red dot is very helpful in making a precise shot in very low light. The reticle is only slightly visible in the looming darkness and the red dot at 4X is very large and bright. Eventually the reticle is gone but the target is still visible. Moving out past 100, the larger dot on 4X obscures even more of the target. A dot in the SFP that does not grow with the magnification would be useful to me.

At 4X in daylight the reticle is useful and the size of the dot isn't as big an issue. At longer distances the dot isn't necessary at all.

In the low light session of a carbine class, Randy Cain was interested in the SD as he mostly sees Aimpoints and EoTechs show up. He too was impressed with the short dot in the dark, except for the size of the dot on 4X. The large circle does nothing for a precise shot at 75-100 yards.

At close distances, the optic is on 1X so a dot in the FFP is small, like it would be in the SFP. I would rather have the dot stay small all the time.

May not be useful for anyone else, but I see a value in it.


The optic is simply an SFP by another fancy/cool name.



Not really.

[Gutshot John]

Not really.

Well unless I'm missing something at 1x the USO would would be SFP, at full magnification there is no difference it and an SFP since the reticle subtends work for both. The virtue of FFP is that the reticle works at all magnification settings (1-4x) but you're only talking about it at 1x and 4x. At the lowest setting the reticle would still be functional as a red dot, just like an SFP.

So what does it do differently?

Why not just get an SFP or an FFP?

[DWood]

The reticle is in the FFP and works like any FFP, it varies in size depending on the magnification.

The dot and circle are in the SFP and remain the same size at any magnification.

That is what appeals to me, which apparently is of no interest to you. It's all good. :smile:

This certainly is not solely SFP, which I'm guessing why USO calls it Dual Focal Plane.

[sgtjosh]

In todays world of variable power optics is the ACOG still and advanced weapon sight or has it been surpassed in effectiveness by the variable power optics? I ask this partially out of curiosity and partly because I'm debating weather I should spend the money on one or not.

I'm debating between a TR24G and TA33 GH or hold out until the next generation of Trijicon variables which hasn't even been announced yet. Id like to hear some opinions regarding positives and negatives to both. Do you think that the ACOG will be around for much longer given the advance in variable power optics?

Sometimes I wonder if we focus on what is the latest and greatest, as opposed to "What do I shoot the best?" or "What fits my needs the best?"

[Gutshot John]

The reticle is in the FFP and works like any FFP, it varies in size depending on the magnification.

The dot and circle are in the SFP and remain the same size at any magnification.

That is what appeals to me, which apparently is of no interest to you. It's all good. :smile:

This certainly is not solely SFP, which I'm guessing why USO calls it Dual Focal Plane.

No I get that it's different from either a straight SFP or FFP but how it would actually be used doesn't do that much different from an SFP.

If you're running it at 1x, you're functionally using it as an SFP, you're just using the circle/dot instead of the crosshair. If you're going to be using the circle/dot anyways why do you need an FFP at 1x?

If you're running it at 4x, you're using it as an FFP, but at 4x an SFP is functionally the same as an FFP. If they both use a fully functional crosshair reticle at 4x what's the downside to an SFP?

In short functionally it's the same as an SFP.

The main difference as I understand it is that in FFP mode the crosshair stadia would still equal a mil/moa from 2-3x, but that assumes that the reticle is large enough to be functional but then so would a straight FFP optic.

So I'm not getting what it does better than either of the other options but if you see the value, then hey it's all good. :)

[DWood]

OK, different approach to explaining why it interests me. The 1 X 4 is on my carbine that I like for 200-300 yards, yet want to be able to use at close range. With a 50 yard zero there is no need to hold over at 200 yards and at CQB you hold high to get a head shot, just like any 1X with a 50 yard zero.


My Short Dot is strictly FFP. At 1x the reticle is almost invisible, and unusable, and the scope is almost like a pure RDS which is how I use it.

At 4X, the reticle is magnified to a usable level in the FFP and can be shot in daylight without the dot. It allows much more precise shots at longer distances. Lighting the dot at 4X in daylight is fine; even though the dot is large, it is not distracting.

I don't really use anything between 1X and 4X. It's either all up or all down. At 4X in low light, the size and brightness of the dot in the FFP is distracting and covers to much of the target (again, not a problem in daylight). It would be much more usefull to have the small dot all the time, with no visible reticle at 1x and with a visable and usefull reticle at 4X, which is what USO accomplished by putting the dot and circle in the SFP while the reticle is in the FFP.

So the dual focal plane is interesting to me because the reticle is usable at 4X and the dot is small. At 1X, the reticle almost disappears and the optic is more like a pure RDS. If both were in the SFP, the reticle would not be useful at all since it is tiny and almost invisible.

[Oniak]

The TA33 is a great optic. Very lightweight. Not too expensive.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Thinking about getting an ACOG again.

[Magic_Salad0892]

"The ACOG mounted on the M16 service rifle has proven to be the biggest improvement in lethality for the Marine infantryman since the introduction of the M1 Garand in WWII." --Major General J.N. Mattis

The Marines are buying ACOGs by the truckload, and they are in widespread use with the Army too. The ACOG will be with us for a long time. I'm intrigued by the ACOG model the Marines have chosen to equip the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, the Squad automatic Weapon Day Optic (SDO) (http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA11SDO-CP).

http://www.trijicon.com/images/product_additionals/TA11SDO-CP_additional_popup_4.jpg

I've owned several ACOGs, but I never hold onto them. Great optics, but most of the ranges in my area are 50 yards or less, and the ACOG's many advantages are wasted.

If I was to get this ACOG, what range would I zero an 11.1'' gun with Mk. 262 at to make it compatible with the BDC, because this optic might beat the new Short Dot 1-8X for me.

[Crow Hunter]

If I was to get this ACOG, what range would I zero an 11.1'' gun with Mk. 262 at to make it compatible with the BDC, because this optic might beat the new Short Dot 1-8X for me.

Not trying to snipe you but, out of curiosity, what do you see yourself using your rifle for that you need an ACOG for it?

I wouldn't worry about the BDC, in my VERY limited experience it is close to useless other than as reference points. Assuming that you are going to be using it in a role against humans are you expecting the to stand still facing you long enough for you to move up and down the range tree until you figure out their range? Works great on range targets, but I tried to use the ranging function on my neighbor across the lake (off the rifle, just holding it in my hand) He was working around the house outside and the few times that he happened to be facing the right direction, he didn't hold still long enough for me to pic a stadia that matched. He was just working in the yard, if he had been actively trying to shoot me, I would think it would have been even harder. Not only that, but the reticle is MUCH smaller than it looks like in the pictures. Maybe someone who has had alot more training can get something out of it, but I couldn't.

That being said, I would imagine that you will just have to play with it and see where your bullets land at each stadia line and adjust to pick what you feel is the most useful compromise for your uses.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Not trying to snipe you but, out of curiosity, what do you see yourself using your rifle for that you need an ACOG for it?

I wouldn't worry about the BDC, in my VERY limited experience it is close to useless other than as reference points. Assuming that you are going to be using it in a role against humans are you expecting the to stand still facing you long enough for you to move up and down the range tree until you figure out their range? Works great on range targets, but I tried to use the ranging function on my neighbor across the lake (off the rifle, just holding it in my hand) He was working around the house outside and the few times that he happened to be facing the right direction, he didn't hold still long enough for me to pic a stadia that matched. He was just working in the yard, if he had been actively trying to shoot me, I would think it would have been even harder. Not only that, but the reticle is MUCH smaller than it looks like in the pictures. Maybe someone who has had alot more training can get something out of it, but I couldn't.

That being said, I would imagine that you will just have to play with it and see where your bullets land at each stadia line and adjust to pick what you feel is the most useful compromise for your uses.

The role of the optic will be 50-600m, and I had become familiar (confident in my ability) with a TA31-ECOS G in the past.

I had actually become pretty fast with the ACOG's BDC, and ranging. Especially close up, or very far away. (25m, and 500m+)

Also (call me gay) but I had my ACOG mounted to an airsoft rifle for a while, and used it to success. You'd be surprised how close airsoft rails are to M1913 spec sometimes.

[Crow Hunter]

The role of the optic will be 50-600m, and I had become familiar (confident in my ability) with a TA31-ECOS G in the past.

I had actually become pretty fast with the ACOG's BDC, and ranging. Especially close up, or very far away. (25m, and 500m+)

Also (call me gay) but I had my ACOG mounted to an airsoft rifle for a while, and used it to success. You'd be surprised how close airsoft rails are to M1913 spec sometimes.

You have more experience with them than I do. I only owned a TA33for about a month before determining it wasn't my "thing".:D

Definitely not gay. One of the reasons I chose to use a RDS is because of what I prefer on video games. ;)

I always like to see the reasons why others make their choices and compare to my limited experience.

Thanks

[Alaskapopo]

I will always have an ACOG sitting on top of one of my rifles. It is a jack of all trades optic.

ACOGS are quality optics but a low power variable is must more of a jack of all trades optic than an ACOG is.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

What remarkable advances in variable power optics have been made that weren't around 10 years ago?
I have both variable, fixed and ACOGs, I like them each for different reasons.

The TA-33 remains one of my favorite all-time optics. Light weight, quick ranging, versatile distances and clear glass, sure they aren't great at CQB, but beyond 25 yards they easily hold their own.

All will be around for the foreseeable future.

Simple good daylight illuinated reticles that give you red dot type speed, reticles with a BDS built in and low power variables with a range from 1-6,8. These new scopes are ACOG and Red dot killers frankly. Small red dots will still have a place but the place for fixed power optics like the ACOG and full size red dots like the Eotech and full size aimpoints is coming to an end.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Not trying to snipe you but, out of curiosity, what do you see yourself using your rifle for that you need an ACOG for it?

I wouldn't worry about the BDC, in my VERY limited experience it is close to useless other than as reference points. Assuming that you are going to be using it in a role against humans are you expecting the to stand still facing you long enough for you to move up and down the range tree until you figure out their range? Works great on range targets, but I tried to use the ranging function on my neighbor across the lake (off the rifle, just holding it in my hand) He was working around the house outside and the few times that he happened to be facing the right direction, he didn't hold still long enough for me to pic a stadia that matched. He was just working in the yard, if he had been actively trying to shoot me, I would think it would have been even harder. Not only that, but the reticle is MUCH smaller than it looks like in the pictures. Maybe someone who has had alot more training can get something out of it, but I couldn't.

That being said, I would imagine that you will just have to play with it and see where your bullets land at each stadia line and adjust to pick what you feel is the most useful compromise for your uses.

BDC reticles work great in real life as well from what my friends have told me coming back from Iraq and Afganistan. Many times they know the range because they have lazed the target area where the enemy is before they engage. Then just hold on the appropriot mark on the reticle and shoot.
Pat

[Gutshot John]

Simple good daylight illuinated reticles that give you red dot type speed, reticles with a BDS built in and low power variables with a range from 1-6,8.

Daylight illuminated reticles have been around a long time, nothing new there. There are some nice 1-8x scopes out there, but the only ones I'd consider as acceptable are also about 4-5x what an RDS is going to cost you.

I love how people try something on a square range, in standard shooting positions, and who've never shot in combat and claim they're as fast or whatever. I've not been in combat but having tried them in classes that relied heavily on non-traditional shooting positions (rollover prone, supine, kimchee squat etc.) shooting over/under and around barricades, they're aren't as fast as red dots, they're not as forgiving when it comes to head position etc. I've tried them, I've timed them, factor in non-standard shooting positions and you're not nearly nearly as fast in these positions. Sorry but if they're not as fast in a shooting class, that teaches non-traditional positions, they're certainly not going to become so in combat.

Everything has a cost over and above money, accuracy for speed and vice versa. That basic concept hasn't changed. A variable powered optic of 10 years ago, is still essentially the same as a variable powered optic of today.


These new scopes are ACOG and Red dot killers frankly.


Not really, see above. Factor in money, weight and durability and it's pretty much down to personal preference. Are they marginally better? Perhaps, but it's not an objective statement of fact. The above statement is at best a subjective (and rather hyperbolic) opinion.

[Alaskapopo]

Daylight illuminated reticles have been around a long time, nothing new there. There are some nice 1-8x scopes out there, but the only ones I'd consider as acceptable are also about 4-5x what an RDS is going to cost you.

I love how people try something on a square range, in standard shooting positions, and who've never shot in combat and claim they're as fast or whatever. I've not been in combat but having tried them in classes that relied heavily on non-traditional shooting positions (rollover prone, supine, kimchee squat etc.) shooting over/under and around barricades, they're aren't as fast as red dots, they're not as forgiving when it comes to head position etc. I've tried them, I've timed them, factor in non-standard shooting positions and you're not nearly nearly as fast in these positions. Sorry but if they're not as fast in a shooting class, that teaches non-traditional positions, they're certainly not going to become so in combat.

Everything has a cost over and above money, accuracy for speed and vice versa. That basic concept hasn't changed. A variable powered optic of 10 years ago, is still essentially the same as a variable powered optic of today.



Not really, see above. Factor in money, weight and durability and it's pretty much down to personal preference. Are they marginally better? Perhaps, but it's not an objective statement of fact. The above statement is at best a subjective (and rather hyperbolic) opinion.

Lots of folks who have been in combat think highly of variable power optics like the Short Dot. I also train with my gear and I am also a trainer and you can do quite well with a good low power variable. It has its weakness in akward positions but that is often over stated. I have timed myself and done multiple drills using myself and others using red dots, irons and low power variables. Like I said before the eye relief issue is often over stated. Yes its a disadvantage in situations that are likely to be a factor in about.05% of real life shootings. While the magnification you gain can he a help in over 50% of real lifeshootings. Not just for shooting but also for target identification.


Low power variables of today are not the same as those 10 years ago. We have made huge advancements in this area of glass.

[Gutshot John]

Lots of folks who have been in combat think highly of variable power optics like the Short Dot.

I didn't say people don't think highly of them. They're great optics but they serve a different role than the RDS or ACOG and as I stated they're 4-5x the cost of an Aimpoint and 2-3x the cost of an ACOG. Not to mention about 3x as heavy. Are they great optics when more precision is needed? Sure, do they everything better? Not so much...again there is a cost involved and if they did everything better than everyone would have one. Neither the ACOG or RDS is going anywhere soon...and I'd bet in another 10 years there are still going to be more of them than there are Short-Dots or Premier 1-8x.


I also train with my gear and I am also a trainer and you can do quite well with a good low power variable. It has its weakness in akward positions but that is often over stated.

How can it be overstated?


No low power variables of today are not the same as those 10 years ago. We have made huge advancements in this area of glass.

What advancements are you talking about? Quantify them. Have there been improvements? Sure. Are they RDS/ACOG killers? Not so much.

I say this fully appreciating what the low-powered variables do, I've owned and still own them. They're great optics but they don't do everything well.

[Alaskapopo]

I didn't say people don't think highly of them. They're great optics but they serve a different role than the RDS or ACOG and as I stated they're 4-5x the cost of an Aimpoint and 2-3x the cost of an ACOG. Not to mention about 3x as heavy. Are they great optics when more precision is needed? Sure, do they everything better? Not so much...again there is a cost involved and if they did everything better than everyone would have one. Neither the ACOG or RDS is going anywhere soon...and I'd bet in another 10 years there are still going to be more of them than there are Short-Dots or Premier 1-8x.



How can it be overstated?



What advancements are you talking about? Quantify them. Have there been improvements? Sure. Are they RDS/ACOG killers? Not so much.

I say this fully appreciating what the low-powered variables do, I've owned and still own them. They're great optics but they don't do everything well.

Sure like I said earlier now we have scopes that combine the following, day light visible reticle (red dot bright) with a BDC reticle with a true 1x on the bottom and magnificaiton as high as 8x on the top. There are only a handful of scopes that combine these features today and 10 years ago none did. The first scope to combine these was the Short Dot.
Link to article on Vickers site.
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/short-dot/

While in my opinion there is still a place for small RDS sights like the T1 on pure CQB guns and as back up optics. Nothing beats a quality low power variable as a do all jack of all trades optics. I have used the following optic combinations in my years as a police officer and firearms trainer. Eotech, Aimpoint M4 with 3x magnifier, TA33 ACOG with T1 Aimpoint in off set mount, TR24 and a Swarovski Z6i. While there are some positions where the variables are harder to use compared to red dots, they do everything else as well and they do distance far better. That is my opinion based on using and training with these optics.

Also as to your question regarding the over statment of shooting from akward positions. Most officer involved shootings that I am aware of with patrol rifles take place at close range from the off hand position. Some have the officer using cover and kneeling or going prone. While there are times like int he LA bank robbery where the officers had to fire under a vehicle with the rifle canted these situations are not the norm. You seem to think that you will always be in a situation where you will have to be curled up in a ball on your side shooting the rifle canted. Hell when I went through basic sniper training back in 2007 I had no problem using my Nightforce 5.5-22x from urban prone under a barricade in the training. Yes its harder to use than a red dot in these positions but its not a deal breaker and if its that important to you put a back up red dot sight on your gun in an off set mount for those type of situations.

Pat

[Crow Hunter]

BDC reticles work great in real life as well from what my friends have told me coming back from Iraq and Afganistan. Many times they know the range because they have lazed the target area where the enemy is before they engage. Then just hold on the appropriot mark on the reticle and shoot.
Pat

I agree. If you already know the range of your target, it would be great.

I was referring to the use of the tree on an unknown distance target. You are supposed to be able to place the cross bar on the shoulders of a target and when you find a width that matches, that is your range and aiming point. It sounded really good on paper. My neighbor never stood still long enough in a position that I could use the stadia on.

Maybe it works better in combat, but it didn't work for me on anti yard work duties.:D

[Alaskapopo]

I agree. If you already know the range of your target, it would be great.

I was referring to the use of the tree on an unknown distance target. You are supposed to be able to place the cross bar on the shoulders of a target and when you find a width that matches, that is your range and aiming point. It sounded really good on paper. My neighbor never stood still long enough in a position that I could use the stadia on.

Maybe it works better in combat, but it didn't work for me on anti yard work duties.:D

I agree that without a range finder using the reticle to range is not easy and its a skill that takes time. However that does not make a BDC reticle useless. I suppose it depends on your application.
Pat

[Singlestack Wonder]

Once nice feature of the latest generation Elcan Specter DR's is that the reticle includes a range estimater.

[Gutshot John]

Sure like I said earlier now we have scopes that combine the following, day light visible reticle (red dot bright) with a BDC reticle with a true 1x on the bottom and magnificaiton as high as 8x on the top. There are only a handful of scopes that combine these features today and 10 years ago none did. The first scope to combine these was the Short Dot.
Link to article on Vickers site.
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/short-dot/

There is very little difference between a true 1x and 1.25x when you're talking about tube optics. You still have to maintain proper alignment behind the optic. While I own true 1-4x, they're not nearly as quick or as forgiving as an RDS. I tried to disproove it, I really did, I wanted the hype to be true. Sadly it's not. A true 1x tube optic isn't that much faster than a 1.25x (we're talking maybe hundredths of a second and most Short Dots are 1.1x). So how much is that hundredths of a second worth? An RDS is going to be faster well in excess of that. Inside of 100 yards, an RDS beats the shit out of anything else for speed by whole seconds.

That said how much does a Short Dot cost and how do you quantify that cost compared to an Aimpoint? While the short dot is a fine optic, the marginal cost involved does not make the short dot an RDS killer. Sorry I know that breaks a lot of peoples' hearts, but it's not.

FWIW having taken a LAV class when there were short dots in existence, the man did say that recommend that everyone have an Aimpoint, he didn't say that everyone should have a Short-Dot.

1-4 or 1-8 are fine scopes but they're not RDS killers...especially given the weight/cost involved.

All in all the advances in variable magnification scopes aren't that much different than what came before. They are better but they aren't game changers.

[Alaskapopo]

There is very little difference between a true 1x and 1.25x when you're talking about tube optics. You still have to maintain proper alignment behind the optic. While I own true 1-4x, they're not nearly as quick or as forgiving as an RDS. I tried to disproove it, I really did, I wanted the hype to be true. Sadly it's not. A true 1x tube optic isn't that much faster than a 1.25x (we're talking maybe hundredths of a second and most Short Dots are 1.1x). So how much is that hundredths of a second worth? An RDS is going to be faster well in excess of that. Inside of 100 yards, an RDS beats the shit out of anything else for speed by whole seconds.

That said how much does a Short Dot cost and how do you quantify that cost compared to an Aimpoint? While the short dot is a fine optic, the marginal cost involved does not make the short dot an RDS killer. Sorry I know that breaks a lot of peoples' hearts, but it's not.

FWIW having taken a LAV class when there were short dots in existence, the man did say that recommend that everyone have an Aimpoint, he didn't say that everyone should have a Short-Dot.

1-4 or 1-8 are fine scopes but they're not RDS killers...especially given the weight/cost involved.

All in all the advances in variable magnification scopes aren't that much different than what came before. They are better but they aren't game changers.

If you add a 3x magnifier behind a Aimpoint the weight issue is moot.
Here is a simple speed drill at 7 yards. 2 shots on each target.
Same gun different scope nearly identical times. (Edge going towards the TR24 scope)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlJVVZDx68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtbL0tTirg

The new low power variables are game changers. As to cost who cares. I am talking about the best not the cheapest.

[Gutshot John]

If you add a 3x magnifier behind a Aimpoint the weight issue is moot.

Who said anything about a 3x magnifier? You don't need a 3x magnifier to shoot within 200 yards.


Here is a simple speed drill at 7 yards. 2 shots on each target.
Same gun different scope nearly identical times. (Edge going towards the TR24 scope)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlJVVZDx68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtbL0tTirg

The new low power variables are game changers. As to cost who cares. I am talking about the best not the cheapest.

Sure, upright, standard shooting position, without any stress involved...I guess the times would be fairly close. Repeat that drill with all kinds of positions, adding some amount of stress and that calculus changes a good bit. That said it doesn't seem like you're trying very hard.

Who cares about cost? Are you kidding? Tell me what an extra $2K gets you in terms of performance that equates to a game changer.

Assuming of course your definition of game changer is the same as mine.

[ARPATRIOT]

I don't think they'll ever be a "jack of all trades" that will shut the rest down.Many try,but all have pos./neg.'s in the end.

[Gutshot John]

I don't think they'll ever be a "jack of all trades" that will shut the rest down.Many try,but all have pos./neg.'s in the end.

Exactly.

[Alaskapopo]

Who said anything about a 3x magnifier? You don't need a 3x magnifier to shoot within 200 yards.



Sure, upright, standard shooting position, without any stress involved...I guess the times would be fairly close. Repeat that drill with all kinds of positions, adding some amount of stress and that calculus changes a good bit. That said it doesn't seem like you're trying very hard.

Who cares about cost? Are you kidding? Tell me what an extra $2K gets you in terms of performance that equates to a game changer.

Assuming of course your definition of game changer is the same as mine.

Actually you can and sometimes do need magnification under 300 yards. Not all threats stand out in the open big and tall. Many hide behind cover and only expose what is required to take a shot at you. There are millions of situations where magnificaiton is good under 300 yards and even under 100. As for shooting from a variety of positons from akward angles that sounds like a three gun match where low power variables dominate. It got so bad that red dots had to be thrown in a division with irons so people could compete.

As for seeming like I was not trying very hard. I am just that good. :D

[Gutshot John]

Actually you can and sometimes do need magnification under 300 yards. Not all threats stand out in the open big and tall.

Wow you think? Similarly not all threats stand still some are moving and otherwise require you to be able to quickly spot and engage a target. Different target profiles require different techniques. Every optic has its limitations, every optic has its strengths. That's all I've tried to say. The claim that one scope does everything better is goofball.

Inside of 100 yards, the RDS, at 1/4-1/5th the price and weight is still the best. Outside of 100 yards the ACOG at 1/3rd-1/4th the price and weight can do just about everything the variable power can do and if pure precision across a variety of ranges (100 yards +) is the game, I'd go with a 3-15x variable at any rate.

Sorry but that's not really a game changer. You've heard the term jack-of-all trades...master of none. It does a lot of things well, but despite your claims it doesn't do everything well.

At 4-5x the cost, it should not only shoot better, it better give me a handjob as well.


As for seeming like I was not trying very hard. I am just that good. :D

Well you've walked 10 miles out of your way to miss the point but if it helps you to believe that...hey...knock yourself out.

[Alaskapopo]

Wow you think? Similarly not all threats stand still some are moving and otherwise require you to be able to quickly spot and engage a target. Different target profiles require different techniques. Every optic has its limitations, every optic has its strengths. That's all I've tried to say. The claim that one scope does everything better is goofball.

Inside of 100 yards, the RDS, at 1/4-1/5th the price and weight is still the best. Outside of 100 yards the ACOG at 1/3rd-1/4th the price and weight can do just about everything the variable power can do and if pure precision across a variety of ranges (100 yards +) is the game, I'd go with a 3-15x variable at any rate.

Sorry but that's not really a game changer. You've heard the term jack-of-all trades...master of none. It does a lot of things well, but despite your claims it doesn't do everything well.

At 4-5x the cost, it should not only shoot better, it better give me a handjob as well.



Well you've walked 10 miles out of your way to miss the point but if it helps you to believe that...hey...knock yourself out.

No one claimed the low power variables do everything better but they do most things very well and are far more versatile than a RDS sight or an ACOG. Also we are not talking cost. If cost were the issue you would be better off with irons they do fine compared to red dots except in low light. The only weakness to a low power variable is weight and the eye relief issue when shooting from akward positions . (minor issue that training can mitigate) As for game changer I know low power variables have taken over in three gun even in open class where shooters can use mulitple optics. Most still just use a good low power variable like the Swarovski Z6i. Sorry but you're wrong on this one. Three gun is a game that has very challenging courses of fire from close range to long and red dots could not keep up with low power variables. Many of our most skilled military units also use low power variables.

As for missing the point it flew right over your head. The better you get at something the seemingly more easy it appears to others.

Pat

[Gutshot John]

No one claimed the low power variables do everything better but they do most things very well and are far more versatile than a RDS sight or an ACOG.

Actually you made the claim that it was an RDS killer. What do you think that means?

Like I said a hyperbolic, subjective option is just fine if you want to believe your own hype but that's a far cry from objective fact.


As for missing the point it flew right over your head. The better you get at something the seemingly more easy it appears to others.


LMAO you think I was impressed? You're not only still missing the point but apparently any concept of irony.

Every criteria is a form of cost, money is just one factor, weight is a cost, speed is a cost, accuracy is a cost. You don't get to just blow one off because it's inconvenient to your conclusions.

[Alaskapopo]

Actually you made the claim that it was an RDS killer. What do you think that means?

Like I said a hyperbolic, subjective option is just fine if you want to believe your own hype but that's a far cry from objective fact.



LMAO you think I was impressed? You're not only still missing the point but apparently any concept of irony.

Every criteria is a form of cost, money is just one factor, weight is a cost, speed is a cost, accuracy is a cost. You don't get to just blow one off because it's inconvenient to your conclusions.

I don't care if your impressed or not. One thing I do notice is a lack of any thing from you to prove your theory that RDS's are always faster. You said you ran some drills but you did not post the results. I not only have posted the results I have shown it on video. My statements are not vague over statements from memory but rather documented tests. These were not the only drils I have ran. I have also ran similar drills at 25 yards, 50 yards and 100 yards with multiple different optics and I have posted the results on this site in the past. So put your money where your mouth is and run some drills record them and show us your proof.

Yes I admit there are costs such as weight and the issues with akward positions. However taken as a whole the low power variable concept kills the RDS one when you are looking at a do all optic. With the leaps low power variables have taken there is little need or justificaiton to use full size red dots (micro still have a place) or ACOGS. You can think what you want but in the end of the day its just your narrow opinion. I have trained on and used all the systems in question and I am confident with my choice.
Pat

[DacoRoman]

Great debate gentlemen. I'm a bit of a simpleton and I still only have irons on my 6920, and I haven't gone beyond a self debate to deciding if I want to put an aimpoint, a TR24 or an ACOG on my rifle that fills the role of essentially a general purpose/homestead defense carbine, so I'm watching this debate carefully.

[thopkins22]

Clearly they aren't dead...but the mounting solution designed around fitting carrying handles seems like it ought to be.

I'd like to see an ACOG built from the ground up designed to attach to rails. Perhaps like the newer Aimpoints where they have flat bottoms ready to attach straight to a mount.

[Alaskapopo]

Clearly they aren't dead...but the mounting solution designed around fitting carrying handles seems like it ought to be.

I'd like to see an ACOG built from the ground up designed to attach to rails. Perhaps like the newer Aimpoints where they have flat bottoms ready to attach straight to a mount.

Larue mounts do a very good job of this. I have used them on all the ACOGS I have owned without issue.
Pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

I take it nobody knows what range to zero a 11.1'' gun with Mk. 262 using with the M249/IAR reticle...

[Alaskapopo]

I take it nobody knows what range to zero a 11.1'' gun with Mk. 262 using with the M249/IAR reticle...

Do you have a chrono? The velocity would help.
Pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

Do you have a chrono? The velocity would help.
Pat

Should have thought about that.

Shouldn't it be around.... 23-2500 fps?... I don't have a chrono, I'm just going off of what it should be on a 10.5'' and adding like 100.

[Alaskapopo]

Should have thought about that.

Shouldn't it be around.... 23-2500 fps?... I don't have a chrono, I'm just going off of what it should be on a 10.5'' and adding like 100.

Well when I was running my 14.5 inch gun with the standard reticle for a 62 grain load I ended up sighting in 2 inches high at 100 yards and I was able to ring steel to 400 yards.
Pat

[JSantoro]

Shouldn't it be around.... 23-2500 fps?... I don't have a chrono, I'm just going off of what it should be on a 10.5'' and adding like 100.

That seems about right. Make sure you're putting your sight height @ 2.755", and you should get something pretty close to right, if you're running numbers through a ballistic calculator.

Per procedure, you zero the SDO @ 100m to the top of the dot, making the bottom of the dot your 200m hold, top of the BDC is your 300m hold, etc., but that's with the specified weapons/ammo for that optic....

[Eurodriver]

That seems about right. Make sure you're putting your sight height @ 2.755", and you should get something pretty close to right, if you're running numbers through a ballistic calculator.

Per procedure, you zero the SDO @ 100m to the top of the dot, making the bottom of the dot your 200m hold, top of the BDC is your 300m hold, etc., but that's with the specified weapons/ammo for that optic....

You forgot the 36 yard quick BZO for lazy Range OICs :p

[JSantoro]

Indeed, I did NOT, Sir! :mad:

I'd LIKE to..... :D

[Gutshot John]

I don't care if your impressed or not.

Hey you made the statement that you made it look easy after I told you you had missed the point.


One thing I do notice is a lack of any thing from you to prove your theory that RDS's are always faster.

Always and never are two standards of proof to which I never subscribe or aspire. You made the claim that the low powered variables are RDS killers, sorry bud but the burden of proof is on you. I didn't make the claim, you did.

When I said you weren't "trying" that hard was that your videos don't really show a real test. If your video had shown you shooting upside down underneath a car against moving targets...well then you might have something. As it stands you were simply looking to provide evidence that comes to the conclusion you wanted it to. You didn't try to disproove your own assumption. This is the antithesis of testing.


You said you ran some drills but you did not post the results.

I don't video tape drills to post on the internet to show what a cool guy I am. I run them for my own results and finding what works for me. I'm not so arrogant to believe that what works for me works for everyone. You can either accept my word or not. I will say that your videos prove nothing other than what you wanted them to say. I did say that static, standard, shooting positions against static targets at close range, the differences between an RDS and a variable optic are negligible (the RDS will still be faster). Where the RDS kicks the snot out of low-powered variables is in a dynamic environment against dynamic targets, while you're doing something other than standing up. Even still at that range your accuracy was less than impressive. It looked as if you were gaming it.

Like I said the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims rather than on me to disprove them.

[Magic_Salad0892]

That seems about right. Make sure you're putting your sight height @ 2.755", and you should get something pretty close to right, if you're running numbers through a ballistic calculator.

Per procedure, you zero the SDO @ 100m to the top of the dot, making the bottom of the dot your 200m hold, top of the BDC is your 300m hold, etc., but that's with the specified weapons/ammo for that optic....

Santoro, and Pat. Thanks. I appreciate it.

My goal is to have the stadias capable out to 600m, but I don't know if I can get that.

Thanks anyway.

[Alaskapopo]

Hey you made the statement that you made it look easy after I told you you had missed the point.



Always and never are two standards of proof to which I never subscribe or aspire. You made the claim that the low powered variables are RDS killers, sorry bud but the burden of proof is on you. I didn't make the claim, you did.

When I said you weren't "trying" that hard was that your videos don't really show a real test. If your video had shown you shooting upside down underneath a car against moving targets...well then you might have something. As it stands you were simply looking to provide evidence that comes to the conclusion you wanted it to. You didn't try to disproove your own assumption. This is the antithesis of testing.



I don't video tape drills to post on the internet to show what a cool guy I am. I run them for my own results and finding what works for me. I'm not so arrogant to believe that what works for me works for everyone. You can either accept my word or not. I will say that your videos prove nothing other than what you wanted them to say. I did say that static, standard, shooting positions against static targets at close range, the differences between an RDS and a variable optic are negligible (the RDS will still be faster). Where the RDS kicks the snot out of low-powered variables is in a dynamic environment against dynamic targets, while you're doing something other than standing up. Even still at that range your accuracy was less than impressive. It looked as if you were gaming it.

Like I said the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims rather than on me to disprove them.

The part in red was proven wrong.

My videos were of a test of shooting ability with various optics. I have shot many more as well. I have already conceaded that shooting from an akward position like under a vehicle with the rifle canted the edge will go to the red dot. But in the majority of shooting positions the 1-4 holds it own and it has a huge edge in distance shootng or for shooting at smaller targets.

Hate to tell you but the majority of self defense shootings don't involve crunching up in urban prone. They involve shootnig off hand on the move, kneeling behind cover or shooting prone. You accuse me of dismissing weakness I don't like. You on the otherhand are ignoring several advantages the low power variables have because of one weakness. Your throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As for the video its not about arrogance its about putting my money where my mouth is. What is arrogant is to state your opinion as fact and get insulted when people don't take it as the gospel without any proof. Now you can claim all you want that RDS sights are faster in all situations and that is simply false and I know it from personal experience. There is only one situaiton where they have an edge and we have covered that.

As for gaming it in the videos. You have no concept of what gaming is apparently. There is no way to game such a simple drill. Gaming involves taking a complicated course of fie and finding the most efficient way to shoot it. Shooting 3 targets at close range is so simple there is only one way to do it. My accuracy was fine considering the speed at which I fired and what my target was. I was not trying to shoot 1 inch groups but rather hit com as fast as I could like in a real life scenario.

You have made some of your theories known in this thread but have yet to back them up with anything. Get back to me when you do.
Pat

[nimdabew]

ACOGS are quality optics but a low power variable is must more of a jack of all trades optic than an ACOG is.
Pat

True about flexibility. I would rather have the robustness of ACOGs over the flexibility in the optic since I run my ACOG occluded 50-75% of the time within 25 yards. I have trained and shot with it so I get 1 power-esq shooting while still maintaining all of the qualities and high points of an ACOG. I will agree that 1-4's are great flexible sights, I just don't know if the weight and extended profile is a good enough tradeoff for the more compact and robust nature of ACOGs.

I am not a big fan of moving parts in something that tells me where I am slinging bullets. What I did to my ACOG and EOTech, I wouldn't do to any variable unless it was 1500+ glass and then, I wouldn't want to because if it did break, I might or might not get the warranty work for it. EOTechs are cheap enough to replace without too many tears lost.

Each, 1-4's and ACOGs, have their pluses and minuses. I think the pluses of ACOGs outweigh the pluses of 1-4's that you prefer. That is why we live in America :) We each have our own choice.

As to the debate between you and the other guy about which optic is better: choose what you feel comfortable with and go shoot instead of wasting your breath and fingertips arguing over the internet. I would rather have 4 swinging dicks on my left and right that have trained and shot with irons than the same number with really cool optics and less training. Trigger time is the best training instead of arguing over the internet, but that is just my opinion.

[Gutshot John]

The part in red was proven wrong.

How is that? Your videos were static against a static target. So at best you proved that they were comparable in a static/standing shooting position against a static target.

You're rigging the test/game in order to get the results you want. Even if you didn't game it one video doesn't prove jack squat. You might shoot it better, on that day, which provides a subjective opinion but it doesn't equate to objective fact. You don't throw out positions/characteristics that are inconvenient and then simultaneously claim you've proven anything.

I can see that our standards for what constitute proof are dramatically different. Have you ever taken a statistics class?

Repeat that test 36 times (in statistics n=36 is the accepted number of data points for using z-scores and coming up with a statistically relevant sample), using various shooting positions, around various forms of cover against moving targets and you'll get closer to demonstrating something. At best you only demonstrated that it was POSSIBLE that you MIGHT be slightly faster (but of course you've only provided a statistical sample of one which is worth exactly nada). This isn't proof on any planet in our solar system.

If you're training to only be shooting from a static position against static targets, without barricades than yes, perhaps the low-powered variable optic can be as fast. For myself (and many others) I don't see that being a realistic scenario so when you say it's an "RDS killer" you're going to have to be prepared for someone to run up the BS flag.

I have RDSs, ACOGs and low-powered variables. I like them all. I'm not knocking any of them, but they each have drawbacks and limitations. Factor in other things like weight and cost you've got yourself a real WTF moment. :help:

[R0N]

If you add a 3x magnifier behind a Aimpoint the weight issue is moot.
Here is a simple speed drill at 7 yards. 2 shots on each target.
Same gun different scope nearly identical times. (Edge going towards the TR24 scope)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlJVVZDx68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtbL0tTirg

The new low power variables are game changers. As to cost who cares. I am talking about the best not the cheapest.

I don't really think it is a game changer per say. They are an example of doing multiple things alright but neither perfect.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

One problem with discussing gear is that end user is rarely defined - this is a great example.

On that note and for the average shooter - yeah, an ACOG is great. It gives them a lot of advantages, makes suitable compromises where it can, and yields on balance an outstanding do it all with 'one' optic.

That said - it all depends on the shooter.

I have had a TA31 for years. Inside of 15 yrds it IS as fast as an RDS - IF you are capable of doing it all on index and index alone. It is slower than an RDS from @ 15 - @ 100 yrds b/c of what is required of the shooter in transitioning from T to T - transitioning back and forth from visual inputs from the non optic eye while searching and then transitioning to the optic eye for the shot and then back again. Even if you are a stud with one - it is slower than an RDS.

Also the ACOG shows its limitations at a distance - 400 and beyond. There are better choices out there. Adjustable turrets favor the shooter that understands their platform, load and atmospherics. A reticle that is precise to subtend amplifies the accuracy potential as well. Each ladder on the stadia bar represents 19" or 5.28 MILs. If your shooting hold offs it isn't all that easy to fractionalize a 1/4 or 1/2 MIL hold. Now add the lack of adjustable turrets to the mix, the BDC is set for one load out of one barrel length, under one set of atmospherics - so it is close but not 100%. Therefore at a distance the shooter is often holding for both elevation and wind - holding in space and having to use the background as a reference point while looking at the stadia and trying to fractionalize it. Way harder than with some reticles and adjustable turrets.

As for the short dot - the dot is 5 MOA the dot doesn't change size regardless of the power setting. FFP is better b/c with the dot on, the clutter from the reticle goes away when powered down to 1x. If your cheek weld is grooved it is the same speed as an RDS. If it isn't grooved it will be slower and your hits will not be as clean - you need to line up in the same place every single time. At 4x if the dot is too big - power the dot down so it becomes opaque. It is the preeminent do it all in one optic. Price? Yeah,its steep. Better? For an arm's length to 1k yrd optic that you can dial, subtend and hold off with, range with, daylight capable dot, and has that level of durability? There isn't anything else out there. The knock for price is warranted, those that are unhappy beyond that aren't using it in a capacity that shows its value relative to all others out there; or simply don't have the need to value those attributes.

Like anything - what do you want to do with it?





Good luck

[DWood]

As for the short dot - the dot is 5 MOA the dot doesn't change size regardless of the power setting. FFP is better b/c with the dot on, the clutter from the reticle goes away when powered down to 1x.

The dot on my Short Dot most definitely increases in size as magnification is increased. It is very evident when shooting in low light on 4X.

[MountainRaven]

It got so bad that red dots had to be thrown in a division with irons so people could compete.

I recall from the Brian Enos forums that the inclusion of RDS's with irons was as much or more due to the fact that the irons division rarely saw more than one or two participants at anything but the largest matches. I recall also reading that the inclusion of RDS's with irons increased match participation in general.

My memory could be bad, though. And what I read may not be accurate, either.

[Crow Hunter]

Great debate gentlemen. I'm a bit of a simpleton and I still only have irons on my 6920, and I haven't gone beyond a self debate to deciding if I want to put an aimpoint, a TR24 or an ACOG on my rifle that fills the role of essentially a general purpose/homestead defense carbine, so I'm watching this debate carefully.

If you are planning on shooting at people outside of your ability to communicate effectively with them, variable or ACOG. :D

If you are planning on finding out who they are and what they want before you shoot them, RDS or irons. :D

This all changes if you are planning on everyone carrying cell phones/walkie talkies/megaphones in your SHTF plans. :p

Seriously, buy the optic that best fits what you do with your rifle 80% of the time and hopefully you will actually use it and be good enough with it to prevail over 95% of the people out there who buy a rifle and take pictures of it and then postulate on how they would use it, if they ever actually took it out of the safe.

That other 5% will get you anyway even if all they had was a rolled up newspaper.:D

[DWood]

The vast majority of the members on this and other forums will never shoot at anything other than paper or steel, although they should be prepared to fight things that go bump in the night. Sometimes we make things way more complicated than they really are.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

The dot on my Short Dot most definitely increases in size as magnification is increased. It is very evident when shooting in low light on 4X.

Then you should return it as defective. If you are unsure what it is really doing, you should use grid paper that indicates a constant size at 100 yrds and work through the power adjustments. It is visually deceiving b/c the dot is appears to be moving closer to your eye and thus getting larger and brighter. In reality it covers the same area down range at 1x and 4x.


Good luck

[Alaskapopo]

I don't really think it is a game changer per say. They are an example of doing multiple things alright but neither perfect.

Well it does long range as good as the ACOG and it does close range as good as a red dot with the exception of akward position shooting.
As for the post who was worried about moving parts. I have seen scopes go through torture tests like the Nightforce for example and keep on ticking. There is an add showing a bullet through a soldiers Nightforce scope and it still worked. So I am not worried about robustness just because its a variable scope.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

I recall from the Brian Enos forums that the inclusion of RDS's with irons was as much or more due to the fact that the irons division rarely saw more than one or two participants at anything but the largest matches. I recall also reading that the inclusion of RDS's with irons increased match participation in general.

My memory could be bad, though. And what I read may not be accurate, either.

That is true but red dots were not keeping pace with variable power scopes in Tactical division so no one used them. This allowed people to come to matches who would have otherwise stayed home because they had un competative equipment.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

How is that? Your videos were static against a static target. So at best you proved that they were comparable in a static/standing shooting position against a static target.

You're rigging the test/game in order to get the results you want. Even if you didn't game it one video doesn't prove jack squat. You might shoot it better, on that day, which provides a subjective opinion but it doesn't equate to objective fact. You don't throw out positions/characteristics that are inconvenient and then simultaneously claim you've proven anything.

I can see that our standards for what constitute proof are dramatically different. Have you ever taken a statistics class?

Repeat that test 36 times (in statistics n=36 is the accepted number of data points for using z-scores and coming up with a statistically relevant sample), using various shooting positions, around various forms of cover against moving targets and you'll get closer to demonstrating something. At best you only demonstrated that it was POSSIBLE that you MIGHT be slightly faster (but of course you've only provided a statistical sample of one which is worth exactly nada). This isn't proof on any planet in our solar system.

If you're training to only be shooting from a static position against static targets, without barricades than yes, perhaps the low-powered variable optic can be as fast. For myself (and many others) I don't see that being a realistic scenario so when you say it's an "RDS killer" you're going to have to be prepared for someone to run up the BS flag.

I have RDSs, ACOGs and low-powered variables. I like them all. I'm not knocking any of them, but they each have drawbacks and limitations. Factor in other things like weight and cost you've got yourself a real WTF moment. :help:

As for cost I want the best optic that will give me an edge and help me come home at the end of my shift. I don't care so much how much it costs now as long as I don't end up paying with my life because I went cheap.
Now for weight that is a factor but I have got my rifle down to a weight I can handle so its now a moot point. I would not run a RDS without a magnifier anyway and that would bring the weight up to a comparable level. Like I said the new breed of low power variables are sealing the fate on the ACOG and the older full size red dots. The micro red dots still have a role on light weight weapons and as a back up optic. (such as in conjunction with a low power variable to deal with those akward shots you find so daunting. I can accept that you have come to a different conclusion in your journey. Perhaps its because you did not train hard enough with a variable to become familar with them or you gave up too easily or you went cheap on the quality of the optic. Not sure not my problem. But as for me and my training and testing I have found the low power variables to be the best do all optic out there.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Then you should return it as defective. If you are unsure what it is really doing, you should use grid paper that indicates a constant size at 100 yrds and work through the power adjustments. It is visually deceiving b/c the dot is appears to be moving closer to your eye and thus getting larger and brighter. In reality it covers the same area down range at 1x and 4x.


Good luck

The dot is on the first focal plane so it appears like it is growing and shrinking but its not.
Pat

[DWood]

C'mon Pat, so that means the reticle only appears to be growing and shrinking too?

[R0N]

Well it does long range as good as the ACOG and it does close range as good as a red dot with the exception of akward position shooting.
As for the post who was worried about moving parts. I have seen scopes go through torture tests like the Nightforce for example and keep on ticking. There is an add showing a bullet through a soldiers Nightforce scope and it still worked. So I am not worried about robustness just because its a variable scope.
Pat

At least in my experiance neither as well, but is close enough for government work

I currently have 2, 1-4 sights (well 1.1-4) and standing still they are about as good as an aimpoint, moving not so much. The IOR is almost as good as the ACOG at distance, but not quite because it is not bright enough to use BAC. The Accupoint triangle lacks auto ranging and is hard to apply hold over with.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

First, technology has established that anything, be it a red dot or a reticle, in the first focal plane grows in size as magnification is increased. That is one of the characteristics of the FFP.

My own empirical data, as I sat on a target at 75 yards as night fell, dialing back and forth between 1 and 4x with a Short Dot is that the size of the dot increases with the magnification.

This is why USO is attemting to bring out a 1-4X with the dot and a large circle in the second focal plane and a reticle in the first


DWood - your not tracking.

Assuming you have a CQB reticle -

What is the value of 1 MIL at 1x? 3.6" right?

What is the value of 1 MIL at 4x? 3.6" right?

Yet at 1x there is a huge difference in the way that same 1 MIL visually appears - right?

This is why - the size of the dot is the size of the dot regardless of what power you have the optic set on.

This is the advantage of FFP optics - the relationship of the stadia remains constant regardless of the power setting.


Good luck

[Gutshot John]

As for cost I want the best optic that will give me an edge and help me come home at the end of my shift. I don't care so much how much it costs now as long as I don't end up paying with my life because I went cheap.
Now for weight that is a factor but I have got my rifle down to a weight I can handle so its now a moot point. I would not run a RDS without a magnifier anyway and that would bring the weight up to a comparable level. Like I said the new breed of low power variables are sealing the fate on the ACOG and the older full size red dots. The micro red dots still have a role on light weight weapons and as a back up optic. (such as in conjunction with a low power variable to deal with those akward shots you find so daunting. I can accept that you have come to a different conclusion in your journey. Perhaps its because you did not train hard enough with a variable to become familar with them or you gave up too easily or you went cheap on the quality of the optic. Not sure not my problem. But as for me and my training and testing I have found the low power variables to be the best do all optic out there.
Pat

All valid reasons for making the personal choice that you have. Extrapolating that to others as an objective superior choice or an RDS killer is the issue. Your statement was hyperbolic and you got called on it.

Accordingly it would be foolish to presume to speculate as to what my training level is and is not or whether I've not given enough time to one system or another. More significantly you're incorrect on all counts.

[DWood]

,,,,,

[DWood]

You (MZB) stated that the size of the dot does not change regardless of the power setting. That sir, is incorrect.

That is exactly why USO is working on a scope with a red dot in the SFP and a reticle in the FFP.

[Gutshot John]

You (MZB) stated that the size of the dot does not change regardless of the power setting. That sir, is incorrect.

That is exactly why USO is working on a scope with a red dot in the SFP and a reticle in the FFP.

I think what he's saying is that while the size of the red dot may increase relative to your perception through the eyepiece. It does not change relative to the size of the target. It covers the same amount of space.

[DWood]

I think what he's saying is that while the size of the red dot may increase relative to your perception through the eyepiece. It does not change relative to the size of the target. It covers the same amount of space.

And that is a big difference from saying the size of the dot does not change. Otherwise, SFP and FFP reticles would be the same, but they are not.

EDIT: try staying on a target with a FFP 1-4 as the sun goes down, and dial between 1 and 4 X, and tell me that the size of the dot doesn't change.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

You (MZB) stated that the size of the dot does not change regardless of the power setting. That sir, is incorrect.

That is exactly why USO is working on a scope with a red dot in the SFP and a reticle in the FFP.


It is odd - you acknowledge you have an FFP optic, and you say you know what it means - but you seem confused about what it means in practice.

Again, the size - the number of inches the dot covers does not change regardless of what power you are on. Again - if you think it does - get a piece of grid paper and mark out the paper with a heavy line every inch. Set the paper at 50 or 100 yrds. Turn the dot on. See how much it covers. Turn the power ring up slowly and you will see that the value of dot stays the same.

And just like an RDS - if the dot is too big and bright to shoot accurately (particularly at night) on 4x - turn the brightness of the dot down to where it becomes opaque.

Good luck

[nimdabew]

All measurments are for arguments sake, not true measurements of any reticule.

The scope is a 1-10x scope with both FFP and SFP.

FFP - You have a line that is 5 MOA in width. At 1 power, it is 5 MOA, and looks 5 inches across at 100 yards, measured against a ruler on the target. You then dial it up to 10 power and that same 5 MOA line grows 10x BIGGER. The ruler, you can now see on the target, still measures 5 inches across.

SFP - That same line that is 5 MOA at 1 power reads 5 inches at 1 power. Now, crank it up to 10 power, and the line stays the same size in the reticle, but now the line measures .5 MOA on the ruler. Why? The reticle doesn't change size at all, only the size of the object being magnified does.

For this reason, FFP is kinda useless for lower powered scopes (less than 10x), and only really comes in with higher powered stuff up to 22-30x. FFP does indeed look like the dot, line, or mil-strada look like they are getting bigger or smaller when dialing bigger or smaller, but they are staying the exact same size in relation to the object getting magnified. With a SFP optic, the object being magnifed is the only thing being changed while the reticle is staying the same size. Most Mil-dot low powered scopes are SFP because their top end is not that high and you will probably be doing most of your distance measuring at this power anyways.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Don't let FFP play a mind trick. Yes - the reticle / dot is growing. So what? How it looks visually is irrelevant - it is the measurement - that is the only thing that counts. It counts because it can be fractionalized and therefore - utilized.



Good luck

[Alaskapopo]

All valid reasons for making the personal choice that you have. Extrapolating that to others as an objective superior choice or an RDS killer is the issue. Your statement was hyperbolic and you got called on it.

Accordingly it would be foolish to presume to speculate as to what my training level is and is not or whether I've not given enough time to one system or another. More significantly you're incorrect on all counts.

The current low power variables are game changers. You did not call me out at all. You simply have a different opinion and I think we have debated our points well.

Basically that is what this has come down to. You saying I am wrong and me countering with evidence to the contrary. Evidence which you then minimize.

I plan on doing some more drills on video involving moving and shooting around barricades with my Aimponit R1 and my Trijicon TR24. I have them sighted in on the same rifle.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskewithTR24.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeN4withAimpoint.jpg
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

At least in my experiance neither as well, but is close enough for government work

I currently have 2, 1-4 sights (well 1.1-4) and standing still they are about as good as an aimpoint, moving not so much. The IOR is almost as good as the ACOG at distance, but not quite because it is not bright enough to use BAC. The Accupoint triangle lacks auto ranging and is hard to apply hold over with.

My Swarovski Z6i BRT is great. It has hold overs that work as good as the ACOGS have for me and the second focal plane reticle makes the dot cover 1.5 inches on 6x and 9 inches on 1x so its fast up close. The reticle is bright and easy to use even in full sun light. It truly is a game changer. My TR24 is great as well but lacks a BDC.
Pat

[R0N]

Under certain circumstances, as you show, they can do the same things. But they are like all things that do multiple things, jacks of all trade that master none.

Night vision was a "game changer" ACOGs and CCOs were a game changer from irons. This is not a game changer, there probably won't be one till the next gen sights are produced. They will not only do multiple magnifications setting, night and day capable, but will incorporate ballistic computers and LRF similar to tank primary sights.

[Alaskapopo]

Under certain circumstances, as you show, they can do the same things. But they are like all things that do multiple things, jacks of all trade that master none.

Night vision was a "game changer" ACOGs and CCOs were a game changer from irons. This is not a game changer, there probably won't be one till the next gen sights are produced. They will not only do multiple magnifications setting, night and day capable, but will incorporate ballistic computers and LRF similar to tank primary sights.

My Swarovski does everything an ACOG can do and it can do 99% of what a red dot can do. Yes its a game changer. No longer do you have to have separate optics for perimeter vs entries. You can do it with a good low power variable scope.
Pat

[R0N]

It would seen Marines equipped with RCOs have been doing both for some time without an issue or the need for separate optics. Same thing with CCO equipped Soldiers.

[Gutshot John]

The current low power variables are game changers.

The current low power variables are essentially the same as they were 10 years ago. There are more flavors of them but they essentially perform the same function. The technological advances have occurred but are mostly in the form of nice features, but any shooter worth his salt and who has spent some time learning the basic features and methods of using a scope, are still using those basic features and methods. It's not the scope that makes the difference, it's still the shooter behind the gun. I know it's hard to understand, I know it is hard questioning those dearly held assumptions, but ultimately you've got to make the effort.


Basically that is what this has come down to. You saying I am wrong and me countering with evidence to the contrary.

Except that it's not evidence. It's a nice video of you showing a gamer setup, coming to conclusions you were predisposed to come to based on the purchases you've made. Evidence not only requires you to prove your concepts multiple times, in multiple ways but once you've sufficiently gathered that evidence, you try to disprove it to be sure to eliminate the human element. This is the essence of critical thought. If you like the scope for your purposes, that's just fine. They make nice scopes and I use them. Extrapolating that by saying it's an RDS killer (i.e. a qualitatively better scope), the standard of proof goes much higher.

You've shown nothing about what makes a new scope better than an old scope let alone what a new scope does better than an RDS. Honestly you're where I was 4 years ago. I tried to believe it, I've gone out of my way to think like you did. I started with variable powered optics and started my training with them and spent years trying to make them as versatile and functional as an RDS. In the end they weren't. The RDS genuinely rules the roost inside of 100 yards and with a bit of skill and practice is functional well beyond that range. Hell I've shot RDS's out to 600 (without magnifiers) and while it's not easy, it can be done.

Gear doesn't make up for lack of skill. You go on and on about the short-dot and how "cost doesn't mean anything when your life is on the line" and yet you don't even use one? That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Instead you use the TR-24 which imo the worst low-powered variable there is. I've owned two accu-points, used them extensively, and sold them both once I realized I was handicapped compared to those using RDS. They're not even in the same league as the short-dot never mind the same ballpark.

While the short-dot is a nice optic, for the cost of a TR-24 a Vortex PST is a superior scope with superior features and better glass quality and is at least as rugged, never mind a better reticle and vastly superior turrets. The TR-21/24 are hunting optics, not tactical. In that role, it does well enough but it's not a panacea. Essentially it's a red-dot with the magnifier built in, but it's neither as rugged as an Aimpoint nor as functional. The reticle is absolute garbage. It buys you neither speed nor accuracy (it's still not faster than a red-dot in virtually all of the non-traditional shooting positions which is a requirement in a combat optic and it's as fast or faster standing up and static, it's forgiving in terms of eye position which he TR-24 isn't and despite all that the TR-24 is not as accurate as a scope with decent, trackable turrets and a functional reticle). You can't dial in any dope, use holds, range a target or do any of the other things a magnified optic should be able to do (and have been doing for 10-20 plus years) and yet you claim it's a game changer? It's absolutely goofball.

I like and use low-powered variables. They do some things very well on a carbine and are ideal on an SPR setup. They are not, however, an RDS killer. You're doing those that don't know any better a disservice by making them believe that they can compensate for their lack of knowledge with a variable powered optic. It's a bad joke and it's transparently so. This is why it's called the errornet.

[Alaskapopo]

The current low power variables are essentially the same as they were 10 years ago. There are more flavors of them but they essentially perform the same function. The technological advances have occurred but are mostly in the form of nice features, but any shooter worth his salt and who has spent some time learning the basic features and methods of using a scope, are still using those basic features and methods. It's not the scope that makes the difference, it's still the shooter behind the gun. I know it's hard to understand, I know it is hard questioning those dearly held assumptions, but ultimately you've got to make the effort.



Except that it's not evidence. It's a nice video of you showing a gamer setup, coming to conclusions you were predisposed to come to based on the purchases you've made. Evidence not only requires you to prove your concepts multiple times, in multiple ways but once you've sufficiently gathered that evidence, you try to disprove it to be sure to eliminate the human element. This is the essence of critical thought. If you like the scope for your purposes, that's just fine. They make nice scopes and I use them. Extrapolating that by saying it's an RDS killer (i.e. a qualitatively better scope), the standard of proof goes much higher.

You've shown nothing about what makes a new scope better than an old scope let alone what a new scope does better than an RDS. Honestly you're where I was 4 years ago. I tried to believe it, I've gone out of my way to think like you did. I started with variable powered optics and started my training with them and spent years trying to make them as versatile and functional as an RDS. In the end they weren't. The RDS genuinely rules the roost inside of 100 yards and with a bit of skill and practice is functional well beyond that range. Hell I've shot RDS's out to 600 (without magnifiers) and while it's not easy, it can be done.

Gear doesn't make up for lack of skill. You go on and on about the short-dot and how "cost doesn't mean anything when your life is on the line" and yet you don't even use one? That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Instead you use the TR-24 which imo the worst low-powered variable there is. I've owned two accu-points, used them extensively, and sold them both once I realized I was handicapped compared to those using RDS. They're not even in the same league as the short-dot never mind the same ballpark.

While the short-dot is a nice optic, for the cost of a TR-24 a Vortex PST is a superior scope with superior features and better glass quality and is at least as rugged, never mind a better reticle and vastly superior turrets. The TR-21/24 are hunting optics, not tactical. In that role, it does well enough but it's not a panacea. Essentially it's a red-dot with the magnifier built in, but it's neither as rugged as an Aimpoint nor as functional. The reticle is absolute garbage. It buys you neither speed nor accuracy (it's still not faster than a red-dot in virtually all of the non-traditional shooting positions which is a requirement in a combat optic and it's as fast or faster standing up and static, it's forgiving in terms of eye position which he TR-24 isn't and despite all that the TR-24 is not as accurate as a scope with decent, trackable turrets and a functional reticle). You can't dial in any dope, use holds, range a target or do any of the other things a magnified optic should be able to do (and have been doing for 10-20 plus years) and yet you claim it's a game changer? It's absolutely goofball.

I like and use low-powered variables. They do some things very well on a carbine and are ideal on an SPR setup. They are not, however, an RDS killer. You're doing those that don't know any better a disservice by making them believe that they can compensate for their lack of knowledge with a variable powered optic. It's a bad joke and it's transparently so. This is why it's called the errornet.

Just when I think you can't be more wrong you go and do it again. These videos were not made to test which optic was better. In fact the original reason was to test the speed of a pistol vs a rifle at close range. I used a variet of pistols, rifles and optics. I used 3 different shooters as well. Rifles were faster for all but one shooter. What you were accusing me of is researcher bias which was clearly not the case and the use of multiple shooters shows that. I have their videos up on my channel as well.

Its not a gamer set up. Its a simple skills test. Again its apparant your ignorant of what gaming actually is. Come to a three gun match some time and you can learn about it first hand.

Wrong on the TR24. You can dial in dope and I do it all the time. The turrents are marked in MOA and they can be re set to zero. You can also use holds by sighting in with the tip of the triangle as your 200 yard zero and use the bottom for shooting 300 yards. Have you actually seen one of these scopes in person. Talk about errornet. Your inability to properly take advantage of the TR24 does not lesson its value as a good optic. Taren Butler has used the TR24 to win many a major three gun matches. (if youwould like instruction on how to use the TR24's properly I am sure I could put something together for you)

Gear does not make the shooter yea yea yea. We all know that. However gear does given you an advantage if you have the skill to take advantage of it.

I also never told anyone (go over my posts all you want) that gear will make up for a lack of skill. :angry:

Pat

[Alaskapopo]

It would seen Marines equipped with RCOs have been doing both for some time without an issue or the need for separate optics. Same thing with CCO equipped Soldiers.

I have talked to soldiers who are very un happy using an ACOG in a house clearing enviroment. Just because someone has made a less effective tool work does not make the tool more effective. I also know plenty of soldiers un-happy with their Aimpoints in a longer range shooting situation. (the reason the Short Dot was developed in the first place)
Pat

[Gutshot John]

Just when I think you can't be more wrong you go and do it again. These videos were not made to test which optic was better. In fact the original reason was to test the speed of a pistol vs a rifle at close range. I used a variet of pistols, rifles and optics. I used 3 different shooters as well. Rifles were faster for all but one shooter. What you were accusing me of is researcher bias which was clearly not the case and the use of multiple shooters shows that. I have their videos up on my channel as well.

Reading is fundamental and you're blowing smoke.

So let me get this straight... now your story is that the videos weren't meant to prove that your optics were better than RDS, only that carbines were faster than pistols? (Can you say duh?) So what's the freaking point of showing them?

I'm somehow supposed to glean that this is actually a pistol test despite the fact that they don't show a freakin pistol and this is the first time you mentioned it? Researcher bias doesn't just exist in the test, it also exists in the interpretation of the data. Your test did nothing to demonstrate that one optic was better or faster and if you came to that conclusion it's because you selectively threw out one set of facts in favor of another.


Its not a gamer set up. Its a simple skills test. Again its apparant your ignorant of what gaming actually is. Come to a three gun match some time and you can learn about it first hand.

Again you're making presumptions which are not only foolish but dead wrong.


Wrong on the TR24. You can dial in dope and I do it all the time. The turrents are marked in MOA and they can be re set to zero.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you've deluded yourself into believing the above is true but it's simply delusion. Having dials to adjust zero isn't the same as being able to quickly and efficiently dial in dope. This is why turrets on most scopes don't have covers, and usually the turrets themselves are marked. Moreover 1/4 click adjustments such for this purpose. You're proving my point...you have no basis for coming to the conclusions you're spouting as objective fact. You don't know what you don't know.


You can also use holds by sighting in with the tip of the triangle as your 200 yard zero and use the bottom for shooting 300 yards. Have you actually seen one of these scopes in person.

MEEEEP. Incorrect that's not hold over, that's having a different hold point. If you can't actually see something you can't "hold over". That's kind of a fundamental concept. That big ****ing post in the middle of the optic obscures the target. Again another presumption that's dead wrong. Since you apparently can't read basic English I've not only seen them, I've owned them. I've shot them...extensively.


Talk about errornet. Your inability to properly take advantage of the TR24 does not lesson its value as a good optic. Taren Butler has used the TR24 to win many a major three gun matches. (if youwould like instruction on how to use the TR24's properly I am sure I could put something together for you)

Well if Taran Butler uses them shooting games, then I stand corrected. :rolleyes: Seriously that carries no weight with me.

How many of these scopes are actually in operational use?




I also never told anyone (go over my posts all you want) that gear will make up for a lack of skill. :angry:

Pat

Actually that's exactly what you've said by implication and clearly the rest of your argument is nonsense.

[Failure2Stop]

It would seen Marines equipped with RCOs have been doing both for some time without an issue or the need for separate optics. Same thing with CCO equipped Soldiers.

It is one of my biggest gripes, as it is with pretty much every above-average shooter I know that is saddled with one. We don't bitch about it openly much because we know what battles to fight and what ones are simply wasted effort.

[Alaskapopo]

Reading is fundamental and you're blowing smoke.

So let me get this straight... now your story is that the videos weren't meant to prove that your optics were better than RDS, only that carbines were faster than pistols? (Can you say duh?) So what's the freaking point of showing them?

I'm somehow supposed to glean that this is actually a pistol test despite the fact that they don't show a freakin pistol and this is the first time you mentioned it? Researcher bias doesn't just exist in the test, it also exists in the interpretation of the data. Your test did nothing to demonstrate that one optic was better or faster and if you came to that conclusion it's because you selectively threw out one set of facts in favor of another.



Again you're making presumptions which are not only foolish but dead wrong.



You simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you've deluded yourself into believing the above is true but it's simply delusion. Having dials to adjust zero isn't the same as being able to quickly and efficiently dial in dope. This is why turrets on most scopes don't have covers, and usually the turrets themselves are marked. Moreover 1/4 click adjustments such for this purpose. You're proving my point...you have no basis for coming to the conclusions you're spouting as objective fact. You don't know what you don't know.



MEEEEP. Incorrect...if you can't see something you can't "hold over". That's kind of a fundamental concept. That big ****ing post in the middle of the optic obscures the target. Again another presumption that's dead ****ing wrong. Since you apparently can't read basic english I've not only seen them, I've owned them.



Well if Taran Butler uses them, then I stand corrected. :rolleyes:

How many of these scopes are actually in operational use?



Actually that's exactly what you've said by implication and clearly the rest of your argument is nonsense.

Sir you are full on nonsense.
The point of the videos was a debate much like this one on another forum where a shooter felt pistols were faster at CQB range. I found that for most shooters until they get to A class or master level they are not. I also shot with multiple optics to see how they compared as well. My tests clearly prove your theories wrong.
Swarovski
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyAJAC1-Ufs
T1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNzl_MOdG0o
Irons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNk-hHxFJkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBqlNeoJG8
Pistol videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpx8WesBd3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Eot0DA120
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfuAvdhOxPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv1FHomh9do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFldDpyaZzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrU7NLvc8qQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmNrsFoq2c8


AK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSNdlDMpiM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3i_n7LuP0
AR10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK3b6Fif-xE
Other shooters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdXgFfFYPkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp_Tppv7u-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb1I8pYfg6o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Duy7-3Hq3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G4hmo8IWyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3iOrA4b-hY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1gZctTTZIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYJgcFKvec

You're also the one that does not know what he is talking about. I would gladly list my training against yours and my experience against yours.

On the TR24 you made a false statment that you can't dial in dope. So what if their are scope covers. They can be removed. Its real simple. Do I need to explain how? If you have own a TR24 you clearly did not take the time to learn to use it. Operator error is not the scopes fault.
You have made a lot of statements that are mearly opinion and others are down right falsehoods. You need to get some more training time with the optics you speak of before you slam them.

As for Taran Butler he is a far better shooter than you or I and nearly everyone who wears a uniform except for Daniel Horner. (AMU) To brush aside a professional shooters equipment choice is foolish especially when he can do things with a TR24 speed wise that you can possible hope to do with any RDS of your choice. You're right YOU don't know what YOU don't know. Take some time and get that corrected and don't speak for those of us that do know.
Pat

[Noodle]

Why isn't an ACOG with an RMR the best of both worlds?

[Alaskapopo]

Why isn't an ACOG with an RMR the best of both worlds?

Its actually a very good solution and I have used a similar set up with a TA33 and an T1 and later a TA31 and a R1. Compared to a variable however there are some dis advantages and some advantages of this system.
Pros
1. Fast switch between 1x and 3x (4x) just cant the rifle
2. You get the best of both worlds in that you get an ACOG with a BDC and a great red dot.
3. reduntant sights so if one goes down the other still works.

Cons
1. Canting the rifle is easy but takes some training to get used to.
2. Its is not the easiest when negotiating right hand corners (or left depending on how you have the optic mounted)
3. You are stuck with 1x or 3 (4x) with no in between. There are times when its nice to dial the scope to 2, 3,4,5 etc.

[R0N]

I have talked to soldiers who are very un happy using an ACOG in a house clearing enviroment. Just because someone has made a less effective tool work does not make the tool more effective. I also know plenty of soldiers un-happy with their Aimpoints in a longer range shooting situation. (the reason the Short Dot was developed in the first place)
Pat
I think you misunderstand what Game changing means. In effect game changing is leap ahead technology, going to optics was game changing, 1-4 not so much. Troops will conduct combat ops, the same way whether they have an RCO, CCO or a variable, there is nothing about the variable that causes them to conduct combat operations differently.

The RCO is a bit slower than a CCO insides buildings, but not all that slow once you learn how to use it. Unfortunately, very few troops actually receive much training on how to use the RCO. And when they do it is split between close, intermediate and long range shooting. In a recent study, the average Marine riflemen receive 10 hours total of shooting training per pre-deployment cycle, that was split among, KD, close, medium and far. I would argue that most shooters would not benefit from getting a 1-4 and only receiving that same amount of training.

[Alaskapopo]

I think you misunderstand what Game changing means. In effect game changing is leap ahead technology, going to optics was game changing, 1-4 not so much. Troops will conduct combat ops, the same way whether they have an RCO, CCO or a variable, there is nothing about the variable that causes them to conduct combat operations differently.

The RCO is a bit slower than a CCO insides buildings, but not all that slow once you learn how to use it. Unfortunately, very few troops actually receive much training on how to use the RCO. And when they do it is split between close, intermediate and long range shooting. In a recent study, the average Marine riflemen receive 10 hours total of shooting training per pre-deployment cycle, that was split among, KD, close, medium and far. I would argue that most shooters would not benefit from getting a 1-4 and only receiving that same amount of training.

For starters I am not limiting the discussion to 1-4 scopes. We also have 1-6 scopes and 1.1-8's coming out even some 1-10's. As for the ACOGS inside the TA31RCO is particually slow. I used one of these for a while and that is why I used an off set T1 with it. The TA33 is much better in that regard but still not as fast as a 1x variable or a red dot.

I won't argue with you on the training aspect. No matter what system you have you need to train and the RDS does have the easiest learning curve.
Pat

[R0N]

For starters I am not limiting the discussion to 1-4 scopes. We also have 1-6 scopes and 1.1-8's coming out even some 1-10's. As for the ACOGS inside the TA31RCO is particually slow. I used one of these for a while and that is why I used an off set T1 with it. The TA33 is much better in that regard but still not as fast as a 1x variable or a red dot.

I won't argue with you on the training aspect. No matter what system you have you need to train and the RDS does have the easiest learning curve.
Pat

There just not game changers, troops will do things the same way no matter what sight they are issued during day light operations.

In reality belief that they do belies a lack of operational experience.

[Alaskapopo]

There just not game changers, troops will do things the same way no matter what sight they are issued during day light operations.

In reality belief that they do belies a lack of operational experience.

They indeed are game changers and in reality the belief to the opposite shows ignorance.
Turned your words around on you. Basically what you are saying is the childish equivilant of saying I am right and if you don't agree your stupid.

You're simply expressing your opinion as am. You and Gutshot John seem to think only your training and experience count and no one else need have a different point of view. Good luck living life that way. This conversations was not about troops. I am a LEO and frankly don't concern myself with the needs of the military. I look at my own needs in my own frame work. However someone in the military thought enough of the new Leupold 1.1-8 scope to pay a mint for each copy and they can't seem to get enough.
Pat

[R0N]

No, I am saying I am combat arms officer with other 30 months times in both Iraq and Afghanistan with several dozen fire fights under my belt who has also use to teach tactics at an MOS school and shooting in the Fleet Marine Force and I currently work at service level headquarter hence know what the words "game changer" means and what it doesn't.

I also have used various sights in actual combat, and to a lesser extent training and 3 gun, and don't find that they really change the way things are done in combat hence them not being a "game changers."

[Gutshot John]

Sir you are full on nonsense.
The point of the videos was a debate much like this one on another forum where a shooter felt pistols were faster at CQB range. I found that for most shooters until they get to A class or master level they are not. I also shot with multiple optics to see how they compared as well. My tests clearly prove your theories wrong.

You're overcompensating dude and you're letting it get to you. Your tests are meaningless. But by all means enlighten us as to your methodology? What is N? What's your mean and median? Std deviation? MOE?

You can believe your own nonsense if you wish, but it's pure bluster.

You'd be seriously delusional if you think I don't have better things to do than watch your YouTube diarrhea. You're overcompensating thinking that somehow more videos means you're better.


You're also the one that does not know what he is talking about. I would gladly list my training against yours and my experience against yours.

Again your overcompensating. You want this to be a dick measuring contest and once again you're delusional if I'm going to play your kindergarten games.

Are you really that dull that you think that even if you had more training classes that it automatically makes you a better shooter? I've seen you shoot...it's on the videos you provided. I've got nothing to worry about but if you really want a solid metric to prove that come to PA and shoot against me. You pick the guns, I'll pick the course of fire.


On the TR24 you made a false statment that you can't dial in dope. So what if their are scope covers. They can be removed. Its real simple. Do I need to explain how? If you have own a TR24 you clearly did not take the time to learn to use it. Operator error is not the scopes fault.

Ugh, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. YOU'RE PROVING MY POINT. Yes they can zero, but if you really think you're going to be counting out 1/4 MOA clicks in the heat of a firefight (on anything other than a square range) you're less competent than I thought. There is comparatively little positive feedback with the clicks. You're not quickly returning to zero, I just keep turning it until I get to that point. If you think you're going to be gingerly removing and replacing caps in hot/cold weather, with someone shooting at you, you're a moron. It isn't a combat scope...it's a gamer scope and it's not operator error when NOT A SINGLE MILITARY UNIT USES IT. It simply isn't suited to the task at hand. How does that equate to an RDS killer or a "game changer".


You have made a lot of statements that are mearly opinion and others are down right falsehoods. You need to get some more training time with the optics you speak of before you slam them.

Do you seriously have trouble reading english or are you just that stupid? The above statement is disingenuous bullshit. Are you really so full of yourself that you somehow think that just because someone came to a different conclusion than you did and doesn't like the optic in which you've placed so much emotional investment that they somehow haven't trained enough on them?


As for Taran Butler he is a far better shooter than you or I and nearly everyone who wears a uniform except for Daniel Horner. (AMU)

Funny that you should mention Daniel Horner, I'm friends with his Daniel's parents and VERY CLOSE FRIENDS with the guy that taught him how to shoot when he was 13 years old...in fact he's not only one of my best friends but he's also my shooting coach. His name is D.R. Middlebrooks. My wife and I go on vacation there to shoot and take classes with him 4-5 times a year. Ouch? Did that hurt? It should dumbass.

Here they are...

http://www.tacticalshooting.com/storage/images/champions.jpg

http://www.tacticalshooting.com/learn-more


To brush aside a professional shooters equipment choice is foolish especially when he can do things with a TR24 speed wise that you can possible hope to do with any RDS of your choice. You're right YOU don't know what YOU don't know. Take some time and get that corrected and don't speak for those of us that do know.
Pat

I'm not knocking competitors at all but you're silly if you think that invoking their name gives you any kind of authority to speak on their behalf. Other competition shooters disagree with him, others who actually kill people for a living disagree with him also. More importantly what works for him may not work for another. He may be a great shooter but it doesn't mean you or anyone else has to burp his sperm.

There is no "one-size-fits-all" and that's as true for optics as anything else.

I'll choke up the rest to your inanity. Believe what you want, I'm out if someone wants to believe your idiocy that's on them.

[R0N]

They indeed are game changers and I look at my own needs in my own frame work. However someone in the military thought enough of the new Leupold 1.1-8 scope to pay a mint for each copy and they can't seem to get enough.
Pat
They are used on a soft mount, with a Eo-Tech and night sight as part of heavy weapons sight system.

The bottom line is they were bought because they could be funded with OCO funds, if they had to go through the standard testing routine they probably would not be bought.

[Alaskapopo]

You're overcompensating dude and you're letting it get to you. Your tests are meaningless. But by all means enlighten us as to your methodology? What is N? What's your mean and median? Std deviation? MOE?

You can believe your own nonsense if you wish, but it's pure bluster.

You'd be seriously delusional if you think I don't have better things to do than watch your YouTube diarrhea. You're overcompensating thinking that somehow more videos means you're better.



Again your overcompensating. You want this to be a dick measuring contest and once again you're delusional if I'm going to play your kindergarten games.

Are you really that dull that you think that even if you had more training classes that it automatically makes you a better shooter? I've seen you shoot...it's on the videos you provided. I've got nothing to worry about but if you really want a solid metric to prove that come to PA and shoot against me. You pick the guns, I'll pick the course of fire.



Ugh, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. YOU'RE PROVING MY POINT. Yes they can zero, but if you really think you're going to be counting out 1/4 MOA clicks in the heat of a firefight (on anything other than a square range) you're less competent than I thought. There is comparatively little positive feedback with the clicks. You're not quickly returning to zero, I just keep turning it until I get to that point. If you think you're going to be gingerly removing and replacing caps in hot/cold weather, with someone shooting at you, you're a moron. It isn't a combat scope...it's a gamer scope and it's not operator error when NOT A SINGLE MILITARY UNIT USES IT. It simply isn't suited to the task at hand. How does that equate to an RDS killer or a "game changer".



Do you seriously have trouble reading english or are you just that stupid? The above statement is disingenuous bullshit. Are you really so full of yourself that you somehow think that just because someone came to a different conclusion than you did and doesn't like the optic in which you've placed so much emotional investment that they somehow haven't trained enough on them?



Funny that you should mention Daniel Horner, I'm friends with his Daniel's parents and VERY CLOSE FRIENDS with the guy that taught him how to shoot when he was 13 years old...in fact he's not only one of my best friends but he's also my shooting coach. His name is D.R. Middlebrooks. My wife and I go on vacation there to shoot and take classes with him 4-5 times a year. Ouch? Did that hurt? It should dumbass.

Here they are...

http://www.tacticalshooting.com/storage/images/champions.jpg

http://www.tacticalshooting.com/learn-more



I'm not knocking competitors at all but you're silly if you think that invoking their name gives you any kind of authority to speak on their behalf. Other competition shooters disagree with him, others who actually kill people for a living disagree with him also. More importantly what works for him may not work for another. He may be a great shooter but it doesn't mean you or anyone else has to burp his sperm.

There is no "one-size-fits-all" and that's as true for optics as anything else.

I'll choke up the rest to your inanity. Believe what you want, I'm out if someone wants to believe your idiocy that's on them.

Compensating for something. That it thats the problem. It has nothing to do with your weak ass argument at all. The problem is all mine. LOL

Also with the TR24 you don't have to count 1/4 moa clicks you look at the dial where it numbers displayed this stands for MOA. Dial in to your preset 400 yard, 500 yard zero etc in MOA. Counting clicks is as stupid as you accuse me of being. Sounds like you really did not try to work with your TR24 at all before giving up on it.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Optics/TR24knobs.jpg

Also if you need to dial the TR24 in the shooter is probably more than 300 yards away meaning time is not quite as critical as if they are in your face. The TR24 does have some weakness but it still a good optic. As far as no one in the military using it who gives a flying ****. The military is far from all knowing on issuing good gear. How long have we had the Beretta M9 now? I have no emotional attachment to the TR24. Its a good scope in its price range. Their are better scopes out there like the short dot and Swarovski Z6i. The Meopta is also good. You were the one who got hung up on the TR24.

As for knowing a friend of a friend who once met Daniel Horner again I could give a crap less. Hell I don't care if you know is Godfather. Guess what optic he uses. A Swarovski Z6i BRT.

Now its obvious to me that you are unwilling to accept anyone elses point of view so debating this thing further with you makes about as much sense as arguing with a wall. Pat

[Alaskapopo]

They are used on a soft mount, with a Eo-Tech and night sight as part of heavy weapons sight system.

The bottom line is they were bought because they could be funded with OCO funds, if they had to go through the standard testing routine they probably would not be bought.

Obviously someone very high up (higher pay grade than yours) thought their was a need and they were purchased.
Pat

[JSantoro]

The Corps is buying the Mk8 for use on the HMGSS.... heavy machine guns, not DM guns or anything like them. I hope somebody will take my word for it when I say that they certainly managed to figure out a metric for "enough."

None of the variables are game-changers. They're just scopes. Metal tubes with erector lenses that move back and forth. A game-changer would be coherent light weapons; no holds, nearly-immeasurable "ToF." Hell, a totally frictionless ball-bearing, ffs....THAT'S a paradigm shift. If any variable-power optic is tagged such, one's definition of what the game is is exceedingly narrow.

Everybody remember those two Autobots in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," the ones that talked like retarded hip-hop moguls? They, too, were mildly amusing to listen to until they got annoying as hell because they were given far, far too much dialogue. It snuck up on you, until it suddenly hit: "Holy crap, WHY am I LISTENING to this garbage?" One sympathizes....

If we've gotten to the point of name-dropping and yanking photos out of the family albums and asking if it "hurts," then the only point being argued over is which cranium comes to a sharper apex.

Everybody, move back to hunker down behind your respective LODs and please snarl quietly at one another over a distance.

[Gutshot John]

As for knowing a friend of a friend who once met Daniel Horner again I could give a crap less.

Hey dude, you brought up names of people (who you don't even know) as if because you could name their names it imparted some sort of mystical wisdom onto you. If you don't like losing that game, just remember that I didn't bring them into it. If you can shoot like any of them, I'll listen to what you have to say...in the meantime...why should I give a rip?

Of course the TR-24 has it's shortcomings. That's what I've tried to say...repeatedly...Thank you for proving my point...again.

Never mind the idiotic reticle (which is the single biggest shortcoming) Why do you think serious trigger pullers use M1 or other externally adjustable turrets? Why do you think they value things like a zero-stop? Why do you think that consistency between reticle and adjustment is desirable in a scope? Why do you think Trijicon is working on a model with exposed turrets? While those are certainly improvements over the 21 adjustment. It still doesn't account for all the shortcomings or the claim that it's a "game changer" or an "rds killer".

I gave up on it because there are better 1-4x optics for the money. It's not a serious use scope. It's that simple. Through all of this you've failed to glean that I own AND USE low-powered variable scopes. That you started off expounding on the virtues of the short-dot, which you don't even own is a kind of lame.

Knock yourself out on the 24 you've established your needs and you've made your choice based on that. Good for you. You don't want an RDS? See if I care. But people here need to make up their own mind on all the available evidence and despite your claims, not everyone sees low-powered variables as the end-all be-all.

Extrapolating that choice into the claim that one optic does everything better than an RDS is the antithesis of what this website exists to do. They fill a role...so does the RDS...live and let live.

[BooneGA]

This discussion has gone downhill fast. Seems to happen rather frequently when certain parties are involved.

In fact, the Trijicon TR-21 and 24 ARE issued to .mil units and I have seen both downrange. Ill stay out of the rest of it.

Rick

[R0N]

Obviously someone very high up (higher pay grade than yours) thought their was a need and they were purchased.
Pat

Actually he was CWO5, and I do out rank him.

[R0N]

None of the variables are game-changers. They're just scopes. Metal tubes with erector lenses that move back and forth. A game-changer would be coherent light weapons; no holds, nearly-immeasurable "ToF." Hell, a totally frictionless ball-bearing, ffs....THAT'S a paradigm shift. If any variable-power optic is tagged such, one's definition of what the game is is exceedingly narrow.


Exactly, to say these are "game changers" belies a very limited operational experience base.

[Alaskapopo]

Exactly, to say these are "game changers" belies a very limited operational experience base.

I have to admit I got out of hand and acted like an ass in this thread. Frankly I have no operation experience in the military sense since I have never been in the military. I do feel that quality low power variables have a lot to offer but admitted they are not game changers from the military perspective.
Please accept my appology.
Pat

[Gutshot John]

You weren't the only one Pat, please accept mine as well. I'm also sorry if the message got muddied for anyone who might have benefitted from this thread.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

I think I'm going to hold out a little longer on a magnified optic purchase. People in the know here have rumored about a Trijicon variable that would fix all the problems with the TR21/24.

I'm personally hoping to see (shot show 2012 would be great) Trijicon release a variable 1-4 or 1-6 with either the TA33 or TA31 reticles offered. Externally adjustable turrets would be nice as well as electronic illumination as well.

When I was younger I was really into archery, I had a fiber optic bow sight. It experienced the same problems as the Trijicon ACOG and TR24 in regards to awkward lighting conditions. At the time some company (cant remember who) was making a little LED light with adjustable brightness, it also had about three hundred hours of battery life on a little watch battery.

Trijicon already has the technology in the form of the TriPower... incorporate that into the Accupoint with externally adjustable turrets, good reticles and for $1200. If Trijicon can do that, I'll buy two and tell everyone I know to do the same.

[Gutshot John]

When I was younger I was really into archery, I had a fiber optic bow sight. It experienced the same problems as the Trijicon ACOG and TR24 in regards to awkward lighting conditions. At the time some company (cant remember who) was making a little LED light with adjustable brightness, it also had about three hundred hours of battery life on a little watch battery.

I have the TruGlo model on my bow, I don't know if other companies have an equivalent.

[Alaskapopo]

You weren't the only one Pat, please accept mine as well. I'm also sorry if the message got muddied for anyone who might have benefitted from this thread.

Something did come of this I think. I do plan on running some harder tests using more un conventional positions. I would like to see what the difference is. I know one area where my scope did kill me in a match was shooting left handed. Before the 2009 Larue match I did very little left handed shooting with my long guns. (bad training choice on my part) I sucked bad on those stages in the match. It was a major ego killer. After that I started practicing left handed shooting every time I went to the range. Its still a lot harder to find the correct eye relief on my weak side.
Again sorry.
Pat

[DacoRoman]

Wow John and Pat, you two geezers really went at it.

Well my conclusion is that I'll need both an RDS and a variable scope, one on one carbine, and the other, on another :D

[militarymoron]

Wow John and Pat, you two geezers really went at it.

and kudos to you both for coming back to the table to shake hands to continue the discussion on an agreeable note.

[DacoRoman]

and kudos to you both for coming back to the table to shake hands to continue the discussion on an agreeable note.

True indeed!

[yellowfin]

If there's something coming around to replace the ACOG, I hope we can start getting them as surplus soon thereafter.

[muskie69]

In todays world of variable power optics is the ACOG still and advanced weapon sight or has it been surpassed in effectiveness by the variable power optics? I ask this partially out of curiosity and partly because I'm debating weather I should spend the money on one or not.

I'm debating between a TR24G and TA33 GH or hold out until the next generation of Trijicon variables which hasn't even been announced yet. Id like to hear some opinions regarding positives and negatives to both. Do you think that the ACOG will be around for much longer given the advance in variable power optics?

Mr. Goodtimes posted this video on Youtube. Check it out. It's awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNeYvl78u9c

[ra2bach]

in the Acog vs. RDS, I would want an Acog if shooting outdoors. I would want a RDS is in a shoothouse.

the 1-4 variable can do everything an Acog can at distance and has the advantage of emulating a RDS at short range. I would still want a RDS in a shoothouse...