View Full Version : TA-33 vs. TA-11
I'm torn. I like the performance of the TA-11 better, but the TA-33 is far superior in the weight department.
The other ACOGs offer to little eye-relief for my taste.
I plan on getting the green w/Horseshoe reticle regardless.
My questions in specific:
-Is the limited field of view (comparatively) of the TA-33 a big disadvantage?
-Is the weight actually noticeable (will be going on a dedicated silenced 14.5" pinned carbine)?
-I will run a LaRue mount. Is the 1 locking lever on the LT105 for the TA-33 a disadvantage compared to the 2 levers on the LT100 for the TA-11?
-What am I NOT considering that I SHOULD consider?
*Primary use will be 50-300 yards, 600 yard occasional use "just for fun" on the square range. Otherwise, it will be used for HD, hogs, square-range, and maybe a carbine-class. I do not want a battery-powered optic, I DO want magnification, as I will do more shooting >100y than <100y.
is there a reason that "green" and the horseshoe reticle one or both are not the best choice?
I know Rob_s and a few others were huge TA-11 fans. Did you jump ship for the TA-33, or are you still on board with the TA-11 and why in either case?
I have a 33 and find it to be a fantastic all around optic. I have the ADM mount so I don't feel qualified to talk about your mount questions.
Something you are not considering: Maybe a 1x4 accupoint?
Chris
Doc Safari
08-26-11, 10:49
Something you are not considering: Maybe a 1x4 accupoint?
I haven't made my purchase yet, but I'm leaning in this direction also. Eye relief is one of my main concerns. I read too many complaints about ACOG eye relief, including one guy who says he actually gets his safety glasses smacked regularly. :eek:
and that guy is an idiot.
WILL NOT be a problem with the 33.
Chris
TA33.
With that said, we have a smokin deal on a TA11. ;)
C4
For your stated purposes the TA33 would be my choice and I've owned numerous ACOG's. For me the TA11 is too large. I currently own a TA44 and TA33, both green horseshoe/circle dots and have no intent of getting rid of them. On a 14.5 the TA11 and 1X4 offerings are not for me. YMMV.
Have you read this????????
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=85338
Crow Hunter
08-26-11, 21:44
I used to have a TA33GH. (That I got from Grant)
I didn't have a problem with the field of view at all. I think the smaller field of view was helpful when transitioning targets. A larger field of view would have made it more likely to "suck into the scope". (Which I did notice happening when I used to have a TR-24) Having the smaller FOV meant I could keep my eyes moving from target to target and when I wanted to see something up close, I could just blink and switch to "camera two" for the closeup. My problem was that this only worked real good in bright light, the dimmer it got, the less effective the BAC was to me, to the point that it wouldn't work at all.
Unlike others, I did have trouble with the fixed FSB in my field of view using the factory mount (which sucks by the way). I don't shoot NTCH though, if you do it might not matter to you. The closer I got to the optic the less visible it was. I don't have this problem with RDS, just magnified optics.
Since the Larue mount is about .25" shorter (1.5" optic centerline to bore) than the factory mount (1.7" or so), it will make this even more of a problem, if it bothers you. The Larue mount is worth it though, the factory mount is too high for me and I kept having to lift my head up to see through the scope from prone and I would prefer the ability to get it off the rifle with only one lever versus having to unscrew 2 relatively smooth finger nuts.
Eye relief is good enough that I had it butted against the front of my Troy BUIS but I could put my cheek almost on the back of the stock and still see through 90% of the viewing area as long as I kept my cheek on the stock.
I didn't like the low light performance and the magnification.
If you are willing to make the commitment to train around these or they aren't an issue for you. You will love it. (I wasn't)
As to the mount, I don't think that the 1 lever is a disadvantage at all. If you need to get that optic off, you need it off RIGHT NOW! One lever is way faster and the TA33 is a relatively small/lighweight optic. I base this experience of off Aimpoint M4 mounts versus the SPR mount that I had when I tried the 1x4 variable thing.
By the way, I agree with Seb5, I would MUCH rather have the TA33 and train to use it versus going the 1x4 variable route.
I don't have any experience with the TA11.
Crow Hunter
08-26-11, 21:53
Have you read this????????
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=85338
Yeah, what he said.
;)
:D
Yeah, what he said.
;)
:D
Thanks! Weapon is 14.5" noveske w/ vltor vis and troy buis.
Failure2Stop
08-27-11, 08:37
I would recommend the red horseshoe TA33 for your application.
There are some very good things about a green reticle that is illuminated by ambient light when precision is at play, but for hog work, fast acquisition and bold reticle presence will outweigh those aspecst.
I would recommend the red horseshoe TA33 for your application.
There are some very good things about a green reticle that is illuminated by ambient light when precision is at play, but for hog work, fast acquisition and bold reticle presence will outweigh those aspecst.
I was led to believe green was the be-all, end-all? Would green be the superior choice for everything BUT hog work? Can you elaborate?
Yeah, what he said.
;)
:D
Sorry, I thought you would chime in at some point. Great report. The TA-33 is on my list, next scope. GH is what I will go with.
Failure2Stop
08-27-11, 21:17
I was led to believe green was the be-all, end-all? Would green be the superior choice for everything BUT hog work? Can you elaborate?
Here's the deal with ACOGs and red vs green:
A big problem with red chevron cogs is that to get a crisp chevron you need to tape off part of the fiber optic cable. However, by limiting the amount of light getting transmitted to the reticle you suffer when lighting conditions change. Uncovered, the fiber optic provides a very obvious reticle, but one that suffers from loss of precision. The bright red reticle stands out against every background except for very bright red, which is pretty uncommon to find. The blooming causes the shooter to lose the exact zero point of the chevron, which causes loss of precision from 100 to 300 meters.
The green reticles allow more light to be used with less blooming, however, green is a natural color, and though the human eye can differentiate more shades of green than any other color, it still isn't as obvious as an illuminated red.
Going to a horseshoe dot alleviates the zeroing issue since you are zeroing to the center of a dot instead of a point, therefore blooming is not as much of an impact. A red reticle will stand out better in all environments, especially one that is predominantly green, such as found when hunting hogs.
If I were in the market for another ACOG it would be a TA11, no question.
While yes, the TA33 is smaller and lighter, I think much of the love for the TA33 comes from the fact it's a few hundred dollars less.
If I were in the market for another ACOG it would be a TA11, no question.
While yes, the TA33 is smaller and lighter, I think much of the love for the TA33 comes from the fact it's a few hundred dollars less.
You feel the 10' extra fov justifies the 1/2# weight increase? Weight is my big issue. The can is already adding a full pound.
You feel the 10' extra fov justifies the 1/2# weight increase? Weight is my big issue. The can is already adding a full pound.
That and the extra eye relief. I've never much liked TA33's though.
That and the extra eye relief. I've never much liked TA33's though.
Most of the TA33's I see are mounted half way toward the front of the receiver. I'm not a NTCH guy. Also, the eye-relief on the TA-33 is generally accepted as being much longer than spec from Trijicon. The eye-relief and money issues are a wash with me. The FOV and weight issues are not.
Can anyone else comment on the weight issues? The TA-11 would come in at around 17oz with a LaRue 4XDOS. The TA-33 with LT105 would come in at around 9oz.
Yes, this is at the center of gravity, but wouldn't a full 1/2 pound be noticeable, or not so much because of where it is?
Keep in mind I am already planning on running an SPR/M4 and an LMT SOPMOD to balance the weapon. I am starting to get weight-conscious at this point.
So far:
Noveske 14.5" VIS w/SB= 7.25#
SPR/M4=18oz
VFG and light= another 10 oz or so.
Loaded PMAG=1#?
So...9.9-10.1# loaded WITHOUT the optic or considering the weight of the SOPMOD vs. VLTOR...oinkoink. You can see why I am scared to add more.
Not sure how the SOPMOD vs. VLTOR stock comes in, so I will consider it a wash.
I have a Ta11H-G on a LMT 16". For me the weight is not a factor - after the first few mags to me that is just how heavy the rifle is. Same as when I put an X300 on my 226, yes it is lighter without, but more useful with.
The up sides are how well it works in low light, even with a ARD on it. The biggest point at least for me is that with the horizontal part of the reticle there is a dot 5 mil to ether side of the horseshoe that when combined with post below the horseshoe work to draw my eye to the center when the horseshoe would otherwise seem to fade due to low light to the fiber optic. When this happens I only seem to lose the horseshoe for only a fraction of a second. No a real amount of time seems to be lost - just trying to say that by the time I realize that horseshoe seems kind of dim the rest of the reticle has brought/kept my eye on it anyways.
Hope this makes sense, and not just a ramble. And I am not trying to take anything away from the TA33 at all.
Edit - Pic to show that you can also use a LaRue RCO mount if you want a single lever on the TA11.
And on green vs red - to me the green is almost neon and shows up very well against everything except maybe a green traffic light.
Also, the eye-relief on the TA-33 is generally accepted as being much longer than spec from Trijicon.
This is true for the entire product line. Trijicon seems to run the numbers lower than what they functionally are. This is a good idea on their part (and the opposite of many others in the industry)
Failure2Stop
08-29-11, 18:33
This is true for the entire product line. Trijicon seems to run the numbers lower than what they functionally are.
Except for the TA31 line.
Except for the TA31 line.
The eye relief certainly isn't ideal on the TA31. I'm a NTCH shooter so it's viable but assuredly not utopian.
If the Marine Corps didn't teach NTCH before they adopted ACOGs I'd swear they did it because of the TA31's :laugh:
g-men10455
12-28-11, 03:03
Tagged for reference.
That's not necessary.
Upper-right side of the thread header, there's a drop-down marked "Thread Tools."
Click it, click "Subscribe." Does the same thing as posting.....but without the pesky necroposting that adds nothing to the topic.
Well since it has been resurrected I guess I will post my findings.
I acquired a TA33-8A recently and needed to sight it in and make sure it was GTG. I took it to an indoor range as it was the most convenient and I was just doing a sight in and T&E. After sighting it in (it has the Trijicon mount by the way) I did some both eye open dobble tap stuff. I was very pleased at how the BAC worked with this model. I tried it with a few TA31's but it never really worked like this one. Be it the redical color or the FOV or the eye relief I don't know. While looking through the ACOG with both eyes open all I could see was the redical. My hole field of view was magnified and as I scanned the back stop of the range it was like looking through binoculars. Very cool. I spent a brief amount of time with a TA47-2A (2x20) and I would say hands down I like the 33 more. Will I keep it? We'll see as I am really liking the red dot's and most of my shooting is sub 100 yards but as far as ACOG's go I like the proformance of the 33 best. YMMV.
I prefer the TA33 the best for trying to keep track of your surroundings. You don't have to look around your optic. On a square range it's not a big deal, but you get the idea. I shoot ntch and it's mounted in about the middle of my upper receiver.
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k572/Chris_Kotaska/Picture0542.jpg
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k572/Chris_Kotaska/IMAG0465.jpg
This is partly why I choose the TA33. As you can see coming from the Aimpoint compM4 to my ACOG the size is similar and the so is the weight. Weight was somewhat important to me, as I didn't want to add to it by adding a magnifier to the Aimpoint set up and I wanted magnification.
I find with the ACOG, as I'm getting used to it, I have speed in target acquisition. It's pretty fast. I liked the TA11 well enough, but size, weight, and price all came to mind. It really didn't give me that much more in application to warrant the increase in those areas.
I choose the green chevron. The chevron because I was most used to that reticle and green because to me, I could see it the best. Red in bright light looks like a star burst. I have a hard time with focusing on it. Amber doesn't work in some backgrounds, so it wasn't a consideration.
I also liked the TA33 4 clicks to an inch at 100 more so than the 3 clicks to an inch of that of the TA11. Easier for me to remember and slightly finer adjustments.
As you can see I just have stock mounts. I must say the Aimpoint mount was nice. I did like that. When it was tight it wouldn't tighten any more, it just ratcheted. The Trijicon used Colt style knobs to tighten it down. Nothing fancy, but it works. I'd like a through lever set up, but I'm afraid I wouldn't like it. Reason being is they sit lower and I already have a slight shadow from the front sight. As stated Larue puts it 1/4" lower. So there would be a shadow pretty close to my aiming point. I like ADM mounts even more, but I guess they are slightly lower yet than the Larue. Not going to work for me. So I guess it will stay as is for a while. Right now my fat head is comfortable as is. That is about all I got.
The eye relief certainly isn't ideal on the TA31. I'm a NTCH shooter so it's viable but assuredly not utopian.
If the Marine Corps didn't teach NTCH before they adopted ACOGs I'd swear they did it because of the TA31's :laugh:
If the relief on the TA31 is such an issue, why doesnt the Marine Corps switch to thed TA11, or TA33?
And why would they select the TA31 in the first place?
When they first started going for them, in the 02-03 time-frame, the intent was to push 2 per squad so that there was an organic, kinda-sorta designated marksman capability, so the 4x magnification was probably weighed more heavily than the eye relief.
The overall success was enough that it later became a program of record as the RCO.
The TA11 is now a program of record optic, in the form of the SDO.
Failure2Stop
01-03-12, 19:48
If the relief on the TA31 is such an issue, why doesnt the Marine Corps switch to thed TA11, or TA33?
Ain't that simple.
And why would they select the TA31 in the first place?
I could breathe fire about this for days.
The Archangel
01-03-12, 20:24
If the relief on the TA31 is such an issue, why doesnt the Marine Corps switch to thed TA11, or TA33?
And why would they select the TA31 in the first place?
The (conventional) military chose the M9 and Burst, but that doesn't mean it's the best choice.
So if you shoot ntch it's still a big issue? I was thinking about picking up a rcoM4.
Concensus says the TA33 would be a better choice?
So if you shoot ntch it's still a big issue? I was thinking about picking up a rcoM4.
Concensus says the TA33 would be a better choice?
With the TA31 I get smacked in the shooting glasses every few rounds rapid fire and I am not recoil sensitive at all. I run ntch and with the TA33 not even close to an issue. The bullet drop comp is 600 yard instead of the 800 with the TA31-ROCM4 but most would not engage past 600 yards with a 5.56 round anyway.. YMMV.
Failure2Stop
01-05-12, 00:11
So if you shoot ntch it's still a big issue? I was thinking about picking up a rcoM4.
Concensus says the TA33 would be a better choice?
The ONLY reason I would ever recommend owning an RCOM4(or A4) is if you are issued one and desire to clone your work gun for training opportunities that you can't bring your work gun to.
The TA33 is a better choice if you are insistent on owning an AGOC. Otherwise, there are better ways to spend your money in my experience and opinion.
ad_infinitum
01-09-12, 21:13
TA11 offers more eye relief in case you use it on a 308, say TA11C. Every bit helps and even then it's marginal. TA11C works well with 16" barrel and 69+ grain.
Another really cool choice is TA11J-308.
I think the red donut is great for CQB but not so good for precision at 300m. At 400m the crosshairs kick in and then the 3.5x power is not really sufficient. Long range shooting with ACOG is kind of an after-thought. It kind of does everything but nothing all that well. It's the best optic from 50-200m but that's about it (and maybe that's plenty).
In a similar price range, I would look at other alternatives. For example S&B with a flash-dot. Admittedly it's not in the same price range. Or one of the 1-4 scopes by Swarovski.
Tritium burns out and it's difficult / expensive to replace. Easier to have a much brighter illuminated reticle where you can DIY battery swap once a year instead of having extensive downtime letting Trijicon do it.
lifebreath
01-10-12, 12:15
I love acogs (except for QCB).
1. I have a TA11 with green cross hairs and a TA31 with green horseshoe. I love the TA11, especially with the cross hair reticle. I don't have experience with the TA33. The eye relief, FOV, 3.5X mag and brightness of the TA11 are perfect. Weight and size are the only downside, but is not as noticeable as you might think since it is roughly centered.
2. Green vs. red horseshoe: I had a TA31 red horseshoe, and sent it for service at which point I had them swap out for a green horseshoe. I wish I had the red horseshoe back. I like the green triangle on my TR24, so I thought I'd like the green horseshoe. However, the red seemed to be better against a variety of backgrounds and seemed more refined to my eye. Having said that, I prefer the green cross hair to the red. So, if you can look through various reticles, it would probably be helpful.
3. Horseshoe vs. other: I always thought the horseshoe would be the best. However, after having owned and shot using both the horseshoe and illuminated cross hairs, the cross hairs are far superior in every department (imho). The horse shoe and the chevron seem to "float in space" too much to quickly draw the eye and easily aquire the target. I find that the thick bars on this reticle draw my eye quickly to the center, while the illuminated center locks it on target. Even when the illuminated portion gets washed out, the bars quickly center the optic on target. It also seems to be faster up close than other ACOG reticles, due to the thick bars.
Here's a comparison of the two reticles.
http://www.lincolndiagnostics.com/public/doug/guns/TA31H-reticle_crop.jpg
http://www.lincolndiagnostics.com/public/doug/guns/TA33-reticle_crop.jpg
ad_infinitum
01-19-12, 13:10
That TA11J-308G reticle looks very impressive, I never liked the donut that much for precision at 200-300m.
How thick is the illuminated part of the reticle in terms of MOA? 1/4? Or even smaller.
TacMedic556
01-21-12, 21:34
tagged for reference. Wish there was a 3x35 Trijicon with a 20+ Moa circle with a 1.75 MOA dot. Really like the 33, but the 11 has better light gathering from talking to other owners and reading reviews. Like that objective lens size on the 11, but really like the 3 power on the 33.
Just a quick question but can you tell much of a difference between the .5x of the two? I have a TA11H-G and am with you on how well it picks up light even with a killflash on it. I think that field of view makes a larger impact on how 'fast' a scope feels, at least to me.
What I would really like to see is a new body for the 3x type, not just the 2x20 TA44 extended. Might get some more out of it. That and would also like to see the TA31 given better eye relief at the cost of reduced magnification as I find the TA31 sized about perfect.
That and a built in adjustable cover for the fiber optic like on the AccuPoint line.
The more I shoot other optics, the more I really like my TA33. I had put it down for a good long while mucking around with other things, but recently picked it back up because it was on an upper I needed to use on a T&E lower.
Mine's the red chevron, and I'd like to try the green donut and the green chevron, but the red is getting it done for me and the point gives me a little more (perceived?) precision and I'd hate to ditch it and buy another one only to find I missed the one I had.
I'm no CQB guy, never stormed a house or anything, but using the front lens cover trick makes it very workable. I can run the 2x2x2 in <2.5 seconds and the 1-5 in <6 seconds with it.
Failure2Stop
01-22-12, 10:00
rob, have you tried any of the current crop of 1-4s, or even the old-skool cool ShortDot?
Im a big fan of TA-11 with Red Chevron. Weight does not bother me.
Its a bunch of good stuff. Its like thumbing through a Playboy going, I like the one on page, 9. The others aint shit. Yeah right.
Pretty much preference. There are definitely Pros and Cons, but with training, any would be a HUGE advantage over irons and could be enjoyed.
3X35 ACOG, 4X30 ACOG, AImpoint M4, H1.....Good stuff. We get away from them for a while, come back to them and say, Oh yea, I like this.
By the way, TA-11 is the real deal :D
Its like thumbing through a Playboy going, I like the one on page, 9. The others aint shit. Yeah right.
That might be about the shortest, most profoundly accurate metaphor for the entire firearm optics industry.....
Well done! :D
ad_infinitum
01-22-12, 16:14
3.5x is a great all-round power, not too much or too little. Great from 100-300m.
As for weight or size, what weight? TA11 weights very little and is pretty compact.
I put an order in back in december for a TA33R crosshair model, difficult to beat the TA33 for weight and performance. But after I saw a Leupold 1-6x Leupold VX6 with the illuminated swarovski style circle plex reticle, I canceled another order I had for a TA44SR10.
Trijicon needs to stop worrying about the crossbow market get some new dogs in the show.
ad_infinitum
01-22-12, 21:18
I had a TA11C on a 7.62 and was never entirely satisfied with the red donut for accuracy. At 400m+, was never fully satisfied with 3.5x, a little lacking.
Although having gotten a TA11J-308-G, that's exactly what I needed, wish they had them available a decade ago. It's my favorite configuration, especially on a 7.62. The crosshair is almost as fast as a donut and green, which is more of a bright neon shade than green is much more visible than red. The crosshair is so fine and leads to accuracy, versus using the bottom of the donut, which is never precise. This becomes especially obvious at 200-300m ranges.
But now on the 7.62, going to a 1.5-6x42 S&B or Zeiss, with a flashdot. 2-8x42 is another interesting option, but they have it available in the Conquest line only. More flexibility and not that much more expensive.
rob, have you tried any of the current crop of 1-4s, or even the old-skool cool ShortDot?
Just put round #1k through a Leupold VX-R Patrol 1.25-4x yesterday. So far I still prefer my TA33.
Failure2Stop
01-23-12, 12:31
Just put round #1k through a Leupold VX-R Patrol 1.25-4x yesterday. So far I still prefer my TA33.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread or make any kind of implication about your use, just wanted to establish the frame of reference.
FWIW- I am not a fan of anything over 1.1 at the low end. It makes the bioccular picture "bubbly" to me, and I pretty much prefer to just ignore the support side eye completely and jump up in magnification if that's what happens to my vision with no increase of usable perception. Further, I find that reticle choice is crucial to satisfactory use of the low powered variables, even more so than with the ACOGs, and look at how much disagreement on reticle shape and reticle color there is among users.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.