Quote Originally Posted by cop1211 View Post
I've talked to several Marine grunts who have served in Iraq, and Afghanistan and asked them about the 4x ACOG. They all said they were happy with it and didn't think it was a hinderence.

I asked them if they would rather have an Aimpoint or Eotech and they all said they would rather have the ACOG.

If they 4x ACOG has so many issues why after it being fielded for so long by the USMC-Army would they continue to buy them?

They've certainly had enough time to evaluate them in combat.

Why haven't they gone to Aimpoint-EOTECH , or a variable scope?

I've got 7 rifles and have been through more optics then I care to admit. Currently I have 6 Aimpoints and 1 ACOG TA31 RCO 150 G.

While I like the Aimpoints more for 50 and under, the ACOG doesn't present any issues at that distance.

And for anything over 75 yards I like the ACOG.

The choice of an optic is the most personal piece of gear you can purchase.

Just seems the ACOG 4x is getting slammed a little to hard.

Again your mileage my vary, and it takes more time to get proficient up close with the ACOG 4x it can be done with a little work.

Every optic has its pluses and minuses, just depends on what you want the optic to do for you and your requirements with the rifle.

Again for me and my use, if I had to grab one of my rifles it would be one with an Aimpoint, but if the only one available would be the one with the ACOG I would be fine with that.
Quote Originally Posted by cop1211 View Post
Hopefully my post didn't come across as argumentative .

Again just a question if the 4x ACOG wasn't viewed as a good optic for military use or there was wide spread dislike or wide spread call for a different optic why would they continue to purchase them ?
Why not the TA33 or TA11, a variable scope?
What was it that Rumsfeld said? You go to war with what you have, not what you want... or something along those lines. With that said, I don't recall anyone ever asking for ACOGs, or even knew what it was for that matter, after our first tour in Iraq. One day they just showed up, and we gladly accepted them. The ACOG is a great service optic and has proven its worth in combat, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people can't have a passive attitude towards it. We received them, we trained with them and we got proficient with them, just like every other piece of equipment that's been fielded throughout history. Some love it. Some hate it. Some are impartial towards it. Most GPF units either have Aimpoints or ACOGs, and some Eotechs. Select special mission units have even more options to choose from. Bottom line is we train with what we're given and become proficient at it. Most of the younger Soldiers don't have the experience or knowledge to compare their issued equipment to anything else. Some are given the choice. Some don't have a choice. Either way a metric ass ton of tax payer money got spent procuring any of the mentioned optics. And regardless of positive, neutral or negative feedback from end-users, it's not a simple matter of saying "You know, we don't really like this. We want to try something else." to get things changed. It's a slow process. The military has always been slow to change. Back in the days it took years of testing and evaluation before any new system was fielded. It was just a damn slow process. Then there was the rapid fielding initiative, which helped get things into the hands of Soldiers much quicker. Units like the Asymmetric Warfare Group made great strides in identifying capability gaps and getting material and non-material solutions out to field quickly. I remember the days of being issued an M16A2 with just plain old iron sights. The Aimpoint RDSs were a godsend, Eotechs were great for CQB and the ACOGs gave us some extra reach with added accuracy. I'm just glad to see we at least have several options currently in service!