ACOG's and reticle dimming

[GTF425]

I just took these two pics to show how much I have mine taped, and how easily distinguishable the chevron is with minimal ambient lighting indoors.




It's a non-issue. Once again, the fiber optic illuminates the reticle in daytime, and the tritium is only for low/no-light. But, in the kind of lighting conditions you'd still be using a riflescope, the fiber optic can gather enough ambient lighting to do the job until you either A) transition to night vision/lasers or B) realize it's too dark to use an optic and wished you'd bought night vision and a laser.

If the possibility of tritium dying is keeping you from buying an ACOG, don't worry about it. They're incredibly tough, reliable, and easy to use. The 3.5x35 models have a more generous eye relief as opposed to the 4x32s which are something like 1.5", something to consider if anyone's seriously looking at purchasing an ACOG.

[Doc Safari]

The 3.5x35 models have a more generous eye relief as opposed to the 4x32s which are something like 1.5", something to consider if anyone's seriously looking at purchasing an ACOG.

Yes, there's a really good write-up with pics showing the various eye relief distances here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=654467

Looks like the TA33 and TA11 have the best eye relief, in that order.

Good to know that green is the optimal color for maximum service life in the reticle.

[jc000]

It will still be usable at half brightness. It will be more than bright enough at dusk, which is likely the lowest light you will be able to shoot in, unless you are lucky enough to own a CNVD such as a PVS-24. I realize you could use something like a PVS-14, but most people don't own any form of NODs.

If an ACOG is what you want, don't hesitate. They are fantastic quality and bright enough. If you are worried, get one of the new battery powered models.

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but do you find that individuals are using ACOGs as their sole optic, or is the use of a small j-point sight or iron sights pretty much a given for most ACOG users? Thinking for 4x magnification. Is 4x alone serviceable as an all-around option or do you really need something else for close-up shooting?

[steyrman13]

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but do you find that individuals are using ACOGs as their sole optic, or is the use of a small j-point sight or iron sights pretty much a given for most ACOG users? Thinking for 4x magnification. Is 4x alone serviceable as an all-around option or do you really need something else for close-up shooting?

They work fine as standalone. They were designed around the BAC Binding aiming concept. if you use a solid cover on the front it helps but it is similar to using a red dot at 50 yards and less

[GTF425]

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but do you find that individuals are using ACOGs as their sole optic, or is the use of a small j-point sight or iron sights pretty much a given for most ACOG users? Thinking for 4x magnification. Is 4x alone serviceable as an all-around option or do you really need something else for close-up shooting?

I'm stuck using the TA51 mount, so all of our ACOG users have it as a stand-alone.

Within CQB distance, depending on lighting, I can use the vis laser on my PEQ-15 or just reflexive fire using the BAC. It's a training issue, and while the combination of the short eye relief and 4x magnification have a steep learning curve over a 1x, the advantage of magnification becomes apparent when having to ID threats. The issue with BAC is that it requires equal vision in both eyes to work well.

With as many low-power variable power optics as there are on the market today, you could go that route and not have to worry about it. But, if you go ACOG, it's just a matter of training. I can make hits almost as fast (if not just as...) the Aimpoint guys within 7m. The awkward distance for ACOGs is 7-20m in my experience, and that will come with range time. I'm sure the models with longer eye relief and different reticles can accommodate this style of shooting easier than the TA31RCO's chevron.

Reasons I like the ACOG:
Relatively low weight
Durability
Simplicity

Cons:
Fixed magnification
Short eye relief (4x models)
Cost

[jc000]

Appreciate the replies. I had done some searches and it seemed that most people online seemed to use some sort of alternate "CQB" site in conjunction with the Acog, but it seemed that most military users did not. Thanks for the clarification.

[Caeser25]

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but do you find that individuals are using ACOGs as their sole optic, or is the use of a small j-point sight or iron sights pretty much a given for most ACOG users? Thinking for 4x magnification. Is 4x alone serviceable as an all-around option or do you really need something else for close-up shooting?

The TA33 is easiest due its size, low power and huge eye box. But it obviously can be accomplished with the 4x and 3.5x.

[soldier_twiggy]

They work fine as standalone. They were designed around the BAC Binding aiming concept. if you use a solid cover on the front it helps but it is similar to using a red dot at 50 yards and less

^^^This right here^^^ is the reason I'd run an Acog on all my AR's if I could afford it. But, it is how my 5.56 carbine is setup and it's super intuitive and quite accurate and gives the user "the best of both worlds" in one platform with the same cheek weld.

essayons

[Tango4N]

I might add (as I have thought about it) in even of EMP an Aimpoint or other battery illuminated sight will not work anymore. The ACOG will. Having said that I currently have an Aimpoint PRO but am looking at ACOGs.

[Rayrevolver]

I might add (as I have thought about it) in even of EMP an Aimpoint or other battery illuminated sight will not work anymore. The ACOG will. Having said that I currently have an Aimpoint PRO but am looking at ACOGs.

You could you keep your prized electronics and a spare Aimpoint in an old microwave so EMP is not an issue.