Any word on the VCOG?

[DreadPirateMoyer]

What do its looks have to do with anything? Have you handled one? Do you know how its durability compares to a Mk6? Do you know what its street price will be? Other than the spec sheet, do you know anything about the VCOG?

Yeesh. The thing hasn't even been released. And personally, I love the Mk6 except for 3 dealbreakers: exposed turrets, a finnicky illumination system, battery life below 500 hours. If Leupold could fix those issues, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Until then, the VCOG is my #1 pursuit right now, so I would also like to know if anyone has any news.

[Koshinn]

Yeah I really like the VCOG except for the looks. But I take things because they're functional, so that's low on the reasons on not to buy one.

I made a list of features I wanted last year. The VCOG is by far the closest to that wishlist.

[Mysteryman]

Trijicon dropped the ball on the VCOG. A Tr24 with a 1-6 or 1-8 range, tritium/fiber optic/battery illumination with a graduated reticle like the horseshoe is all most asked for. The integral mount sucks, the weight is high, and the MSRP is just stupid.

MM

[DreadPirateMoyer]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The integral mount can be a Bobro, which in my opinion is the best QD mount on the market. Making it integral saves weight compared to a standard Bobro (no rings), removes the risk of the optic ever shifting in the rings, and makes installation a million times easier (leveling, torqueing, etc.). I'd go as far as to say there's nothing NOT to like about it.

The weight issue is also way overblown. Including mounts, it's only a few ounces heavier than comparable optics, if it's heavier at all. And if 2-3 ounces on a 1.5lb optic buys something like twice as much durability, I'm all for it.

Personally, I consider tritium all but useless in anything except the darkest conditions on dark targets, so losing it means nothing. In 3-5 years, it will be useless anyway. I'm happy I don't have to pay for such a barely-usable feature. The fiber-optic would be nice, or even better, the solar panel from the SRS. Both, however, would add cost, and the fiber optic would light up when using the LED and could possibly expose you at night, so I'm not all that torn on it.

MSRP is very reasonable and comparable with other tactical optics in its range, and its price includes the mount unlike its competitors. Heck, the Leupold Mk6 is right there in MSRP and doesn't come with a mount, yet I don't see anyone claiming its price is absurd.

Dear Lord, guys, these complaints are borderline "stop liking what I don't like!" fanboy level. It's not even out yet. Personally, on paper, I think it looks great. Covered turrets, illuminated reticle, AA powered, long battery life (for a variable), rheostat power controls (rather than buttons like on USO scopes), integral Bobro mount, and most likely Trijicon's stupid-high durability. Really, I think it looks like the best variable on the market on paper. My only complaint is the damned reticle. 55gr and 75/77gr are questionable choices, and the overall design could use an update with some windage marks and other additions.

If I could have a VCOG with a Mk6 reticle, or a Mk6 with capped turrets/usable illumination/500+ hour battery life, that would be my choice. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist, so it looks like, on paper, the VCOG is the winner.

I just don't understand what everyone hates about this thing. None of these complaints surface with any other optic with almost identical features and price, yet somehow the VCOG is trash? Makes sense.

[Mysteryman]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The integral mount can be a Bobro, which in my opinion is the best QD mount on the market. Making it integral saves weight compared to a standard Bobro (no rings), removes the risk of the optic ever shifting in the rings, and makes installation a million times easier (leveling, torqueing, etc.). I'd go as far as to say there's nothing NOT to like about it.

There are countless numbers of ADM and Larue mounts in use with those dreaded rings, all without fail. If you struggle to mount your optic properly, you probably shouldn't be playing with firearms. An integral mount is great, until it fails. Perhaps some wish to mount the optic lower or higher than the fixed base height?

The weight issue is also way overblown. Including mounts, it's only a few ounces heavier than comparable optics, if it's heavier at all. And if 2-3 ounces on a 1.5lb optic buys something like twice as much durability, I'm all for it.

The VCOG is a full 10oz heavier than a TR24, and that doesn't include the battery or mount. Nothing wrong with a rugged optic, but the weight gain is substantial. What's the problem with offering the VCOG and a higher magnification Accupoint??

Personally, I consider tritium all but useless in anything except the darkest conditions on dark targets, so losing it means nothing. In 3-5 years, it will be useless anyway. I'm happy I don't have to pay for such a barely-usable feature. The fiber-optic would be nice, or even better, the solar panel from the SRS. Both, however, would add cost, and the fiber optic would light up when using the LED and could possibly expose you at night, so I'm not all that torn on it.


I've had my Tr24 for several years and a Tr21 for years before that, the tritium has yet to dim or fail, and it works quite well. The Solar panel would be a great addition I agree. The fiber optic would not light up as it has an adjustable cover.

MSRP is very reasonable and comparable with other tactical optics in its range, and its price includes the mount unlike its competitors. Heck, the Leupold Mk6 is right there in MSRP and doesn't come with a mount, yet I don't see anyone claiming its price is absurd.

The Mk6 is another over priced failure in my opinion. I wouldn't run anything from Leupold for serious work. With the MSRP of their Mk6 and others, you could comfortably walk into an S&B, Nightforce, USO or similar. Brands that make a good portion of their sales to MIL and LE customers, not the hunting crowd.

Dear Lord, guys, these complaints are borderline "stop liking what I don't like!" fanboy level. It's not even out yet. Personally, on paper, I think it looks great. Covered turrets, illuminated reticle, AA powered, long battery life (for a variable), rheostat power controls (rather than buttons like on USO scopes), integral Bobro mount, and most likely Trijicon's stupid-high durability. Really, I think it looks like the best variable on the market on paper. My only complaint is the damned reticle. 55gr and 75/77gr are questionable choices, and the overall design could use an update with some windage marks and other additions.

If I could have a VCOG with a Mk6 reticle, or a Mk6 with capped turrets/usable illumination/500+ hour battery life, that would be my choice. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist, so it looks like, on paper, the VCOG is the winner.

I just don't understand what everyone hates about this thing. None of these complaints surface with any other optic with almost identical features and price, yet somehow the VCOG is trash? Makes sense.

I think Trijicon missed the boat with regards to the user. An ultra rugged MIL directed optic like the VCOG is fine, but the competitive market, or the HD market where such "soldier proof" durability isn't necessary and a gov check isn't covering the cost has been left in the dark. As I mentioned, a 1-6/8 accupoint with a BDC reticle is what was being asked for by many. What should have been a simple advancement in design as opposed to starting from scratch.

Just my observations.

MM

[DreadPirateMoyer]

Meh, I think you're applying competition criteria to a scope that is obviously a fighting optic. It's like complaining that a 5-25x isn't good for CQC engagements, or that an Accupoint can't be dropped out of a helicopter like an Aimpoint or ACOG. They're just completely different optics with completely different purposes. When it comes to fighting optics, the VCOG looks to be on top (on paper).

If you don't mind, I'm going to skip over the hunting and/or competition-oriented complaints, because that's not what this scope is about. It was designed for a military contract and is being offered for civilian sale (and hence, which is why you don't see them offering the more competition-oriented optics you desire -- no military contract for them). As such, I'm looking at this specifically as a combat optic and with that frame of reference in mind.

With regards to the integral mount, no one said Bobro/ADM/Larue rings are bad or hard to use. The integral mount just makes mounting even easier and saves weight. Complaining about the integral mount is non-sensical was the point of my post, and it's true. It offers a ton of advantages with no disadvantages.

For weight, your TR24 with a scope mount comes out to around 21-24 ounces, and it's not ACOG-tough (which the VCOG will be, presumably). For an extra few ounces, that's a huge gain. I also think this is a non-sensical complaint with regards to the VCOG. The weight isn't crazy at all. I'm actually surprised at how light it is with how tough it probably will be.

Fiber optics do light up on ACOGs, so I don't think you can simply claim that they don't. They light up so brightly sometimes that my friends use tape to cover them during night missions. It's definitely a valid complaint on a fighting optic. As for the tritium, yours has definitely dimmed (it has a half life of about 10 years) -- you just haven't noticed it. An LED system as rugged as Trijicon's and Aimpoint's offers so much more flexibility and usability compared to tritium, so for a fighting optic, I also think this is a huge upgrade.

As far as the MK6 and VCOG's price, the brands you listed are also in that same price point. Fighting optics cost a lot of money, especially for variables. The Mk6 has proven itself so far, so to discount it just because of the brand is crazy, I think, but that's not the point anyway. The point is everyone thinks the VCOG's MSRP is some huge affront, and it's not. It's right there with almost every other hardcore fighting optic on the market, with a better battery life and most likely even more durability.

And finally, it didn't miss the boat. Like I said above, it's designed for a military contract and it's a fighting optic. In that field, it looks pretty damned good. Criticizing it for not being more suitable for competition is like criticizing a Humvee for not being able to beat a Corvette on the Nurburgring.

[Koshinn]

An integral mount is great, until it fails. Perhaps some wish to mount the optic lower or higher than the fixed base height?

How many ACOG mounts fail? I can't think of any examples, and those are in use by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. It's the same mount as the VCOG.

The VCOG is a full 10oz heavier than a TR24, and that doesn't include the battery or mount. Nothing wrong with a rugged optic, but the weight gain is substantial. What's the problem with offering the VCOG and a higher magnification Accupoint??

The VCOG weights about 27 oz total. A TR24 with a mount is about 23 oz. Not a big difference, especially since the VCOG is designed to be soldier-proof, has more magnification, and has electronics and a battery.

[PatrioticDisorder]

How many ACOG mounts fail? I can't think of any examples, and those are in use by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. It's the same mount as the VCOG.


The VCOG weights about 27 oz total. A TR24 with a mount is about 23 oz. Not a big difference, especially since the VCOG is designed to be soldier-proof, has more magnification, and has electronics and a battery.

This is why I'm holding out for the VCOG, the weight isn't bad at all despite what the errornet is telling people. I think a lot of people are failing to add the proper weight a mount gives to other scopes, VCOG mount is much smaller than other variables so the overall weight is actually a net positive for it, not a negative. I hear people complaining about price, but the VCOG should come in around the Leupy mk6 and maybe a bit better, but more rugged with a HUGE improvement in battery life vs. ANY other variable.

Even the gripe that it's not a mil/moa adjustable sight is baseless, the variable combat optic gunsight is not meant' to be a precision optic, it's meant to be simple, rugged, durable and give the shooter magnification options to make quick hits. Those who have actually been able to use it claim it is daylight bright. On paper it seems to fill it's niche almost perfectly, which is why I've been patiently holding out on buying an optic so I can get a VCOG to put on top of my SCAR 17s.

[Koshinn]

The Mk6 is another over priced failure in my opinion. I wouldn't run anything from Leupold for serious work. With the MSRP of their Mk6 and others, you could comfortably walk into an S&B, Nightforce, USO or similar. Brands that make a good portion of their sales to MIL and LE customers, not the hunting crowd.

The Mk6's only problem is illumination. If they put a firedot on it, it would've been pretty close to perfect.

Why wouldn't you run a Leupold for serious work? Leupold Mk4 optics sit on M24s, M110s, XM2010s and some variants of the EBR, while the Mk6 was chosen as the new SOCOM ECOS-O optic along with a T-1.

With 15 years of experience using Leupold optics, if they didn't perform, why would they be chosen by people who can essentially buy and use whatever the hell they want?

It seems to me that Leupold makes more money off the military than S&B, Nightforce, and USO. Probably not as much as Trijicon though.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

I personally do not like the integral mount as I simply prefer Larue QD mounts. However, I think the complaints about weight are silly as this appears to be a solid variable scope. The price is high, but such is Trijicon.