Is ACOG the way to go?

I've got to say, I love my ACOG TA31f. I have one on my patrol rifle and it's one of my favorite optics I've ever used.

I do have Aimpoint Micros on 2 of my other rifles, and an EOTech XPS on another, and I don't think you can go wrong with any of those options either.

I know this doesn't really add much more to the discussion. What I would do is go down to a shop that sells these different optics and look through them and see what you like.

ACOGS are great sights but limited by their fixed magnificaiton. Pesonally I think an ACOG with a mini red dot in an off set mount is an excellent option. However I prefer low power variable scopes like the Swarovski Z6i 1-6x scope.
Pat

Every time I leave the TA33 and come back to it, I get better with it, and wonder why I ever left it. The only place I'd choose something else at this point is for a dedicated, short range, home defense, type carbine.

The TA33 addresses several of the issues a0cake raises above, and if you add a flip-up front cap it addresses them even better. Cut out a bicycle inner tube and run it over the FO tube, and it addresses them better still. I have the red chevron model but would like to play with the green circle-dot before I jump ship totally over to it.

The TA33 may make an easy transition for you as it will be similar enough to what you're used to, but better in virtually every way.

I have a NSN that I like a lot. It wasn't my first choice for an optic, but after I had a half dozen others I decided to go ahead and spend the cash for one, and I'm glad that I did.

The glass is excellent.
The BDC is dead on with 62gr on a 16" and I have also found it to be dead on with 69gr out of my 18" Stealth.
No batteries.
Durable.

The eye relief is its biggest drawback. I have been running mine off the deck for steel, so that hasn't been an issue for me. They are also fairly expensive.

If you have a bunch of rifles and other optics, I don't think its a bad choice on a 100-400 yd setup.

I was in the same boat recently and walked in to a shop that sold all sorts of optics. I checked out 3 or 4 ACOGs and thought they were great for past 50 yards or so. Then I tried a few 1-4x optics and loved them. I was considering an acog with a docter on top until I looked through the 1-4x scopes. The eye relief was better than the acog, just as clear if not better, they make some with illuminated reticles too. I liked the trijicon accupoint but didn't like the lack of a ranging reticle. I've been told to look at the SWFA SS 1-4x and I've read great reviews on it.

I still love my aimpoints for close range. Probably look to change out my micro for a new 2MOA model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rob_s

Every time I leave the TA33 and come back to it, I get better with it, and wonder why I ever left it. The only place I'd choose something else at this point is for a dedicated, short range, home defense, type carbine.

The TA33 addresses several of the issues a0cake raises above, and if you add a flip-up front cap it addresses them even better. Cut out a bicycle inner tube and run it over the FO tube, and it addresses them better still. I have the red chevron model but would like to play with the green circle-dot before I jump ship totally over to it.

The TA33 may make an easy transition for you as it will be similar enough to what you're used to, but better in virtually every way.

---

The TA33 is my favorate ACOG as well.
Pat

Okay Rob, time for some of that Socratic Dialectic you're so fond of.

What does the TA33 accomplish for you that a 1-X variable does not?

And do those advantages, whatever they may be, outweigh the negative of being stuck at 3X, as well as being locked in by the BDC (I know you're not a long range shooter, so that may not matter much to you)?

Occluding the OBJ lens like you mentioned causes bad POI shift for me, so I can't use that technique. Some people seem to be unaffected by this, while others are. I don't know why.

Anyway, while the TA33 is the only ACOG that I've come close to liking, I find that its attempt at compromise results in an optic that's not really great at anything, and not good enough at most things to make the juice worth the squeeze.

It's workable at close range, but not quite as good as a variable on 1X and certainly not as good as a RDS.

At extended ranges, 3X is short of ideal.

I just don't see the TA33 as anything but mediocre at everything.

1-4 and even more so 1-6 variables, for my purposes, perform better along a wider spectrum of ranges.

I think I know you well enough to know that you have good reasons for your choices, and I'm curious to hear them. I'm not saying it's a bad choice for everybody, just that I've given the TA33 and various other ACOG'S a fair shot and they don't do it for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rob_s

Every time I leave the TA33 and come back to it, I get better with it, and wonder why I ever left it. The only place I'd choose something else at this point is for a dedicated, short range, home defense, type carbine.

The TA33 addresses several of the issues a0cake raises above, and if you add a flip-up front cap it addresses them even better. Cut out a bicycle inner tube and run it over the FO tube, and it addresses them better still. I have the red chevron model but would like to play with the green circle-dot before I jump ship totally over to it.

The TA33 may make an easy transition for you as it will be similar enough to what you're used to, but better in virtually every way.

---

I am not Rob and I prefer variable scopes like you but the TA33 does have some things going for it. The main thing being small size and weight.
Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a0cake

Okay Rob, time for some of that Socratic Dialectic you're so fond of.

What does the TA33 accomplish for you that a 1-X variable does not?

And do those advantages, whatever they may be, outweigh the negative of being stuck at 3X, as well as being locked in by the BDC (I know you're not a long range shooter, so that may not matter much to you)?

Occluding the OBJ lens like you mentioned causes bad POI shift for me, so I can't use that technique. Some people seem to be unaffected by this, while others are. I don't know why.

Anyway, while the TA33 is the only ACOG that I've come close to liking, I find that its attempt at compromise results in an optic that's not really great at anything, and not good enough at most things to make the juice worth the squeeze.

It's workable at close range, but not quite as good as a variable on 1X and certainly not as good as a RDS.

At extended ranges, 3X is short of ideal.

I just don't see the TA33 as anything but mediocre at everything.

1-4 and even more so 1-6 variables, for my purposes, perform better along a wider spectrum of ranges.

I think I know you well enough to know that you have good reasons for your choices, and I'm curious to hear them. I'm not saying it's a bad choice for everybody, just that I've given the TA33 and various other ACOG'S a fair shot and they don't do it for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a0cake

Okay Rob, time for some of that Socratic Dialectic you're so fond of.

What does the TA33 accomplish for you that a 1-X variable does not?

And do those advantages, whatever they may be, outweigh the negative of being stuck at 3X, as well as being locked in by the BDC (I know you're not a long range shooter, so that may not matter much to you)?

Occluding the OBJ lens like you mentioned causes bad POI shift for me, so I can't use that technique. Some people seem to be unaffected by this, while others are. I don't know why.

Anyway, while the TA33 is the only ACOG that I've come close to liking, I find that its attempt at compromise results in an optic that's not really great at anything, and not good enough at most things to make the juice worth the squeeze.

It's workable at close range, but not quite as good as a variable on 1X and certainly not as good as a RDS.

At extended ranges, 3X is short of ideal.

I just don't see the TA33 as anything but mediocre at everything.

1-4 and even more so 1-6 variables, for my purposes, perform better along a wider spectrum of ranges.

I think I know you well enough to know that you have good reasons for your choices, and I'm curious to hear them. I'm not saying it's a bad choice for everybody, just that I've given the TA33 and various other ACOG'S a fair shot and they don't do it for me.

---

I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are focused on having the ability to shoot at distance. In my world, that is not a requirement, and doing so could even be seen as a liability.

Using the occluded eye causes a minor shift for me as well, but not enough to matter.

I'm not going to get into the 1.x-Y debate again. All anyone does is start in with the "you don't have enough time on a $2k+ version to make an informed opinion" so we'll just stick with the fact that I DO have thousands of rounds on a sub-$1k TA33 and prefer it, and have zero interest in the cost (in terms of weight, size, cost, and speed) vs. the benefit (which doesn't exist for me). IMO the 1.x-Y scopes are for someone like yourself looking to gain some range while sacrificing speed up close, which I'm not willing to do. the TA33 offers me what I need, which is more speed up close than a 1.x-Y but better precision past 50 than a 1x RDS when I need it.

I have time on the TA33, Aimpoint T1, Swarovski Z6i, Trijicon TR24 and the Meopta and have tested them for speed at CQB range. For speed the low power variables beat the TA33 at least for me. Of course 1x beats 3x at close range is not earth shattering. A lot of it is what you get used to training with. I do know some shooters who run an ACOG well enough to stay competative in three gun. But most run a low power variable and that is a game where speed counts.
Pat