Am I missing something? Is ACOG my only choice here?

[Amicus]

Your modern cell phone does a damn good job of taking pics

99% of the time you would be right. My actual digital camera has gone missing, and my phone has been described as "ultra-budget". The best thing about the camera on my phone that one reviewer could cough up was that it 'is by no means unusable.' It's pretty bad. I bought it for one reason only, and the camera was not included in the calculation.

The phone camera is miserable at best, and almost unusable in low light situations. I'm working on it.

Just for fun, here's another quote from the same review:

'Photos turn out even worse in low light, though if there's at least some light available, and you can keep the camera still for a second, you can often come away with a picture that isn't a complete disaster. The absence of any HDR processing or indeed any processing at all really shows, but we don't want you to think the camera is a complete write-off – it's just like stepping back a few years.'

Yeah, it's bad. But, like I said, I'm working on it.

[Amicus]

I have both. I don't care what the specifications say on Trijicon's website. The TA50 absolutely has more eye relief than the TA31. Mrgunsngear addresses this in his video on the TA50.
https://youtu.be/pjGHTHZeVOw?t=645

That said, I've found that eye relief isn't a big deal when using these scopes if you're just consistent with how you hold your head. A good cheek riser goes a long way towards getting you in the right spot up/down, left/right and also helps with how far forward your head goes relative to your shoulder.

Bret:

Without getting into the details, yet, I tend to agree with you. After several false starts I finally got the two versions of rifles I wanted to test, with a TA31 on one and a TA50 on the other. The TA50 is mounted further forward than the TA31. Also, in certain shooting positions, the TA31 has an annoying habit of clicking into my glasses while the TA50 does not.

Right now I have pages and pages of handwritten notes, lots of loose bits of paper with specifications written all over the place, and about four phones worth of bad pics that have to be redone. This thing has turned into a monster, but I'll edit it down into something (hopefully) interesting to you all.

[Amicus]

Hi guys. I'm back. My photo woes continue. Of the 27 images I took to redo all this, nine were not recognized by my computer as JPG files, two were of 1/3rd of my dog and the inside of my pocket, and the rest were ... not great. I have background problems and decided to take the photos outside to maximize available light. That said, here are the carbines I am using for this evaluation.

Carbine 1 -- Ranger







Upper parts list: Faxon Streamline carbon fiber handguard (13"); Wilson Combat Ranger barrel (16", intermediate gas, 0.604 diameter in front of journal); Geissele gas block; BCM QD cup adapter; Phantom flash hider; American Defense regular height reverse cantilever ACOG mount (with titanium lock); TA31 ACOG (crosshair); Aimpoint T2 RDS; Arisaka offset mount; WMD semi-auto BCG; BCM GFH Mod 4 charging handle; Streamlight TLR-8A (500 lumen light with vis laser).

Lower: standard Colt lower with Geissele SSA trigger; VLTOR receiver extension system; KNS nonrotating pins (don't ask); B5 enhanced SOPMOD buttstock.

Notes:

You may notice that there is a section of Magpul type 1 M-lok cover on the handguard top rear slot. (There are more on Carbine 2 - Gunner as well.) While the lack of a top rail on the handguard in favor of additional slots does reduce weight, the gas tube comes uncomfortably close to the open slot at that location. Yes, I have touched the tube and burned myself. I should wear gloves more often.

Unless you have an exotic buttstock, almost all normal lowers weigh within an ounce or two of 2.5 lbs.

The standard height AD "reverse cantilever" mount (AD-B3-C) works well for the ACOG and the compact ACOG, but it will only take a very low rear sight beneath it. The Magpul Pro will work. Additional weight for a Magpul Pro, an Arisaka 3-slot low profile M-lok rail, and a standard Troy flip up front sight is 3.75 oz.

With the carbon fiber handguard and the light-ish barrel, the total weight (without sling or magazine) is 7.578 lbs (sorry about the dirty display). The center of gravity is a bit more to the rear, but it is not exactly in bullpup territory. This setup is about one pound lighter than a light-ish LPVO setup (Kahles K16i, Scalarworks LEAP mount, BCM M-lok 13" handguard).

[Bret]

The standard height AD "reverse cantilever" mount works well for the ACOG and the compact ACOG, but it will only take a very low rear sight beneath it.

In my opinion, the benefit of backup sights is not worth the cost of having the ACOG sit up higher. I just put my TA31's as far back as possible and it seems to be in the right place for a decent cheek weld.

[Amicus]

Carbine 2 - Gunner







Upper parts list: ALG V. 1 handguard (12"); Faxon Gunner barrel (16", midlength gas, 0.503" diameter); Faxon gas block; Battlecomp compensator; American Defense tall height reverse cantilever mount; TA50 compact ACOG (3x); RMR RDS; Arisaka offset mount; Rainier Arms BCG; Streamlight TLR-8A (500 lumen light with vis laser); Magpul MBUS (gen 2); BCM GFH Mod 5 charging handle

Lower: standard Colt lower with Geissele SSA trigger; BCM/VLTOR receiver extension system; KNS pins; B5 enhanced SOPMOD buttstock.

Notes:

I built this upper about five years ago as an alternative for weight-sensitive people in my intro class. I don't know if ALG makes these handguards anymore, but at the time they were one of the lighter non-carbon fiber handguards available. I am including this because of its similarity to the "What Would Stoner Do" configuration with the Faxon pencil barrel. In some ways the WWSD project is similar to my own interest in this, so it seemed like a good fit.

The tall ADM mount is just useable in this configuration. It places the center of the sight about 0.1" higher than that of the standard ACOG because the mounting platform for the compact ACOG is shorter than that of the standard. The tall mount with the standard ACOG is just too high for my liking, but you may have a different view.

The strip of rescue tape on the M-lok cover holds the cover in place. The gas tube is so close to the M-lok slot that it would otherwise fall out on its own.

[Amicus]

For those still following this, I am in "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans" mode. I will continue to necropost this 'till I'm done. (Or possibly start another thread.)

[markm]

This site has been a little slow lately...

The only thing that troubles me with the gun above it that Faxon barrel. Man, we had a really bad one, and those trolls wouldn't make good on it.

That ADM COG mount is interesting.

[Amicus]

This site has been a little slow lately...

The only thing that troubles me with the gun above it that Faxon barrel. Man, we had a really bad one, and those trolls wouldn't make good on it.

That ADM COG mount is interesting.

Markm:

Now that I am no longer hobbling about with a cane, I can get back to work on this (after I have cleaned up some other delinquent stuff). As I have written before, I would stick with the standard height (not the tall) to mount an ACOG. If you need a BUIS, use a Magpul Pro or similarly shortish rear sight.

My experience with the Faxon Gunner barrels is limited to a sample size of one. After 15 rounds they are almost too hot to touch, and sometimes I can almost feel the groups open up. But ...

First I should explain something. On every build, I shoot six groups of five shots each, using LC XM193 at 100 yards. I don't pause for barrel cooling. I know about the limitations with this cartridge, but (a) it is held to some kind of standard, and (b) it is available enough so that every barrel is checked for accuracy with the same cartridge, so it is always an apples to apples comparison, and (c) in any bad news scenario, I will probably be using that cartridge.

My records for the Faxon Gunner test were, measuring extreme spread in centimeters (easier to work with for averaging): 11.7 9.8 7.9 9.0 10.0 and 7.1.

Average ES for all groups was 9.25 cm, or 3.64".

I am pretty ruthless when it comes to barrels using this test. Any "standard weight" (i.e., govt profile carbine gas or heavier) chrome-lined barrel going over an average of 3" extreme spread using this method winds up on the shelf, retired permanently. I may, depending on my mood, the build purpose, and any number of other reasons, allow a lightweight barrel to remain in use if the average is less than 4". Thus, at least with this sample, the Faxon Gunner passes my muster. I can't see myself running out to buy a bunch of them though.

I have yet to give the Ranger barrel this workout, so things are kinda stuck in my way of doing things. I can't say "look at the success of this build and the accessories" if the barrel ain't worth it. My previous experience with Wilson Combat SS barrels has been excellent though. So, I have good expectations.