If you are not going to shoot past 300 meters, or precise targets outside of the zero distance, it's ok.
I highly prefer a reticle that provides for precise holds past the zero distance, so the TR-24 falls short for my use.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Industry Professional/Moderator
If you are not going to shoot past 300 meters, or precise targets outside of the zero distance, it's ok.
I highly prefer a reticle that provides for precise holds past the zero distance, so the TR-24 falls short for my use.
Senior Member
I've had one for a while, a TR24G. Of all the magnified optics I've used, it is the most "Red Dot" like when in daylight. The glowing portion can be downright retina searing in full sun, so I use the sunshade quite a bit to "tune" the brightness of the triangle.
The sharp little point of the triangle makes a great aiming point for minor precision work at a given distance. But, as others have said, the lack of holdover references makes shooting and distance a challenge. It can be worked with to a point, since the triangle is a known size (4.2 MOA at 4x), meaning that if you pick an appropriate zero range, you can guestimate your holdovers within the reticle for a bit. But beyond that, it gets increasingly hard to use.
IMO, the scope shines in the very close (where it gets used more like a RDS) out to about 200-300 yards, and when you are more concerned with speed over precision.
The rifle that my TR24 used to sit on now has a Vortex PST 2.5-10x32. The TR24 is now sitting on another rifle, but it's really a place holder until get a fixed low mag optic some time next year (ACOG or Elcan Specter OS).
Bottom line, the TR24 was a good design several years ago. But too many other newer designs have come out in the last couple years that are more useful for a wider variety of shooting.
Member
I had a TAC30 for a while. The reticle was too busy for my eye so I traded it off for a PRO. I wonder if the simplicity of the TR24 reticle would give me the best of both worlds (hold over / distance work duly noted)Originally Posted by Mustang31
Senior Member
At 1x, it actually works quite well. I used to run it on a gun with MBUS front and rear, to keep the sight picture uncluttered. But it's been sitting on a 20" government lately. At first, I could not get used to the FSB being in the sight picture, but the more I've practiced the more manageable it has become.
The big thing you have to be concerned with is lighting. In daylight, it is VERY bright and easy to see. But once the lights go dim, or you're indoors, a battery powered RDS will be easier to pick up. That's not to say that it's unworkable. It's just not as fast.
Senior Member
I always thought the triangle type post on these was tantamount to spending a thousand bucks for a glorified iron sight viewed through glass.
I was looking at some of the cross-hair Trijicon variables but I'm not sure if the visual clutter will get in the way.
Someone want to critique the TA33G11?
Site Sponsor
Brig you must live in a very tropical part of Montana! Lol
RLTW
Danger Close Knows No Atheists.
Member
The reticle isn't that dull indoors but its nowhere near the same as outside. That being said, if you're using it indoors the distance to target is minimal and anything close to centre of the optic should produce hits if you're that pressed for time.At 1x, it actually works quite well. I used to run it on a gun with MBUS front and rear, to keep the sight picture uncluttered. But it's been sitting on a 20" government lately. At first, I could not get used to the FSB being in the sight picture, but the more I've practiced the more manageable it has become.
The big thing you have to be concerned with is lighting. In daylight, it is VERY bright and easy to see. But once the lights go dim, or you're indoors, a battery powered RDS will be easier to pick up. That's not to say that it's unworkable. It's just not as fast.
Iron sights require the alignment of both the sights and the target each with their own focal plane, the optic removes one focal plane making alignment much faster and with near zero error in alignment(some parallax). Not to mention the 4x zoom
MM
Industry Professional/Moderator
I'm a pretty vocal critic of the ACOG line in general, but the reticles are not cluttered.
The TA33 and TA11 are my favorites of the line, and I prefer the Crosshair and Horseshoe-Dot reticles over all of the others.
The horseshoe-dot is a decent do-all, and the crosshairs are best for precision.
If combining the COG with a piggybacked or offset dot/irons, the crosshair offers an advantage in precision when you want it, but I would recommend training to default to the dot/irons and go to magnification when you need it.
If going with one optic only, I prefer the horseshoe reticle as the center is easier to find and contrasts more clearly from the background.
Senior Member
Hah, yeah...I never updated that. The Air Force moved me to California last year.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks