Is the 4x ACOG dead?

[Pi3]

Back in the 80's, some of the better high power shooters would be shooting 12" groups at 600 yds with iron sights.

[opngrnd]

Back in the 80's, some of the better high power shooters would be shooting 12" groups at 600 yds with iron sights.

With rack grade rifles?

[irondude]

There may still be a place for ACOG's. I have an old TA01NSN that had dead tritium for about 5-6 years. I finally sent it back to Trijicon for new gas. I sort of fell back in like with it after that. I have it mounted to an old 6920. It is really good at dusk or lower light situations. But it fills the roll of a back up, to a backup, to a back up. I have been using LPVO's for a few years and the ACOG just does not hold a candle to one of my Kahles K16i LPVO's.

[PappyM3]

I used a personal ACOG through two infantry deployments that included engagements from 50-400m and room clearing. It’s a fantastic optic (as in still is), with durability and ease of use for range estimation and bullet drop holds that hadn’t been implemented so elegantly before. It also wasn’t that bad for the CQB distances. You could easily engage targets with both eyes open. It wasn’t quite as fast as an Aimpoint or Eotech, but it worked fine. I also never had any eye relief issues in combat, but it could be improved. All that said, there is better out there. LPVOs offer nice flexibility and also have great, easily useable reticles now for normal combat shooters. ACSS, Leupold Mk6, Nightforce ATACR, all improvements to the innovative ACOG reticles. And the LPVOs are getting more durable too. If I were about to deploy again, I’d be looking to buy the Mk6 or ATACR(I don’t care if I might get issued it. I like to keep the memories).

The ACOG is still worthwhile though, for certain roles. For the military, its simplicity, functionality, and durability make it fantastic for general use in conventional units. Though, I hope they switch to the ACSS reticle version. For civilian use, I’m not sure I see much purpose anymore. As a power-grid is destroyed and society collapses scope? Sure, get the ACSS version and enjoy the lightweight, durable functionality. But normal uses, nope. Hunters are often going to want to make windage/elevation adjustments on the fly. The ACOG isn’t repeatable enough with adjustments. It’s meant to be a set it and forget it scope. I don’t think I need to mention why there are better options for a home defense gun.

Back in the 80's, some of the better high power shooters would be shooting 12" groups at 600 yds with iron sights.

And? Until the recent optics inclusion, the “better” high power/service rifle shooters get most of their shots in the 6” X with ironsights. And with the inclusion of optics, scores are going up, across the board.

[thegreyman]

For a 5.56, I think a Trijicon with ACSS is a wonder to behold; even grandma can make some great shots at many different ranges. People buy detachable mounts and never use them. Want to clear a house, use a red dot. Want to cover the perimeter attach the Trijicon with ACSS. Aimpoint T 2 and Trijicon with ACSS are not heavy. both can be carried.
For long range, use a rifle designed for really long range, and start dialing.

[Hammered_Pair]

Red dots in general are of no use to me, with an astigmatism the dot looks like a retarded starfish.
The Chevron in the ACOG isn't much better for me so I never wasted time or money on them.
My issued guns and now personal guns wear lvpo or mostly irons.

[nick84]

I got my hands on a couple of the different prototype optics that were tested from before the ACOG was adopted as the standard issue optic for the Marine Corps. One in particular was really nice, and I ended up buying it. It was made by US Optics, it was 4x fixed with great glass. it did not have a BDC though, it was just a chevron in a circle reticle with windage and elevation knobs. I still have it somewhere, it's never used but it's kind of neat. Anyway, where I was going with this was that that particular optic was finally nixed from the acquisition because the usage of windage and elevation adjustments on the fly was deemed too complicated for most rifleman. Now this is what I was told about the decision to adopt the ACOG, but I was told second or third hand, so I'm not swearing on the bible that's how it went. However, knowing the infantry, it's pretty easy to believe.

Brings me to my point; I'm not sure anything beats the ACOG's combination of usefulness, ruggedness, and simplicity. No batteries, adjustments only made through BDC, etc. I mean yeah, they weren't great at CQB, but sufficient training in the use of the BAC made the reticle usable up close. Only thing I ever really wished about the ACOG was that they had issues the cross reticle instead of the chevron, but it got the job done for certain. Newer hotness has come along in the form of the LPVO, which seems to offer much more in the way of capability, but as capability increases so too does complexity. Everything is a trade-off.

All that being said, I don't own one personally. I do have a Leupold HAMR, which is basically the same, but never really seemed to catch on as a popular optic. I love it though. I don't beat the shit out of it like my old issued ACOGs would take, but it's plenty durable, and the eye relief is more forgiving. I'm not sure it's better than my Razor Gen 2, but they both have upsides and downsides. I'd love the get an ACOG with the ACSS reticle they have now...as soon as they aren't $1300 or whatever they are these days.

[Milspec78]

Not dead to me.i have a ta31-hg(green horseshoe dot),and primary arms 1-6,4-14 and 1x cyclops (primary arms fanboy).
I use them all for different scenarios,I do have quite a bit of fun with the acog mounted on top of a 14.5” colt at 300ish yards,it’s probably my favorite.

[prdubi]

Ta01nsn..

Love it

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RKB Armory]

The 4x ACOG is not dead, yet. The compact size and low weight are still very appealing. However, the LPVO is taking over the spot once held by the ACOG. IMHO.