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

[Hank6046]

I am going to have to put this aside. Just now I am thinking about the time 15 years ago when I stood at arms length from PJ O'Rourke. We both had our backs to the bar, sipping wine after a Cato Institute meet-and-greet, and I never said a word to him.

That's not an opportunity I will have again.

Good for you. I always liked that guy. "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." He was way too smart for his own good.

[PappyM3]

I'm really looking forward to the reticle update.
As it is, I don't mind the MRAD reticle too much, since I'm rarely shooting at anything super small at 75-150, and past that I'm using the descending stadia for aiming anyway. The ring is a little tighter than I would prefer (I get what you're saying about target coverage), but it's still way better than the reticles in the COGs (except for the crosshair models). If I was in charge of NF I'd change some stuff with the reticle, but the updated reticle looks like it will give me what I really care about, and my current one will probably stay on my 11.5 gun.

What’s the reticle update for the NX8?

[Amicus]

Dang I just bought a TA-33. I love it so far. But this thing looks interesting.

What don't you like about the TA-33?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

MikhailBarracuda91:

You asked, so I will tell you. Some of my complaints may be due to my eyesight, but some are not. Since I have owned a Chevron in red, a Horseshoe-Dot in green, and a Crosshair in amber, I have some experience with the sight.

1. Crappy field of view: It's less than 20 feet at 100 yards. Looking down a toilet paper tube would give you more area for observation. To put it in weird real world terms: An old fat guy could waddle from outside the edge of the scope's field of view to the center of the reticle in 0.75 seconds, or less (think of the 21 feet in 1.5 seconds "rule"). I have found this narrow view a bit distracting.

2. "But, it has longer eye relief than a TA31, so you can use both eyes open and see around the scope!": Not in my experience. I have the amber crosshair model mounted as far back as it can go on a Bobro high mount, and the buttstock set at position 3 (measured from the fully closed position) on an A5 receiver extension (i.e., buffer tube). This is not particularly far back, although it is not quite NTCH shooting style. The point is, the scope is more "in my face" than I would prefer. In contrast, I run all my TA11J scopes as far forward as they can go without bridging to the handguard, and that at position 4 (i.e., the buttstock even further back). This might just be my problem.

3. The Horseshoe reticle: Personally, the reticle is fine for me, but on mine (and on an acquaintance' version of the same scope), I had a particular problem: I had what is known as "scope shadow" on the left side unless I moved my eye slightly to the right of the center line. At least, that was my experience with the two Horseshoe-Dots. This made the "sweet spot" for looking through the glass very narrow, and awkward to achieve. I have thought about sending this one back, but I have a feeling it is me. All the same, it makes the scope almost unusable.

4. Tiny Stuff: I thought I was used to small ACOG reticles, but these appear even smaller to me that on some of the other scopes. Finding that Chevron was a chore, and that is why I would prefer the Horseshoe-Dot, or, even better, the Crosshair. (Note: I wound up swapping the Chevron for a TA45 (1.5X) Triangle with a Texas cop who had bought the wrong sight; he was supposed to be the long range backup for his warrant team, and he needed something than ranged better. He even bought me a nice yellow Pelican case to put it in, because he had lost the black original. I kind of felt sorry for the guy. He said he had to buy his own scope with his own money, he bought the wrong one, and he didn't know what to do. I checked the scope and it was real. I just think he was an honest guy who didn't know what he was doing when he bought it.)

5. "Well, if all else fails, you can throw it on a carry handle instead of a crappy little TA50": Nope. Try it sometime. It's the only ACOG I know of where the scope bell will block the iron sights in that configuration. I'd rather use a TA11 or a TA45 for that.

OK, you asked, I answered. I realize that I might come off as a bit of a crybaby here, but this model has always given me fits because I want it to work for me, but it wont.

[MikhailBarracuda91]

MikhailBarracuda91:

You asked, so I will tell you. Some of my complaints may be due to my eyesight, but some are not. Since I have owned a Chevron in red, a Horseshoe-Dot in green, and a Crosshair in amber, I have some experience with the sight.

1. Crappy field of view: It's less than 20 feet at 100 yards. Looking down a toilet paper tube would give you more area for observation. To put it in weird real world terms: An old fat guy could waddle from outside the edge of the scope's field of view to the center of the reticle in 0.75 seconds, or less (think of the 21 feet in 1.5 seconds "rule"). I have found this narrow view a bit distracting.

2. "But, it has longer eye relief than a TA31, so you can use both eyes open and see around the scope!": Not in my experience. I have the amber crosshair model mounted as far back as it can go on a Bobro high mount, and the buttstock set at position 3 (measured from the fully closed position) on an A5 receiver extension (i.e., buffer tube). This is not particularly far back, although it is not quite NTCH shooting style. The point is, the scope is more "in my face" than I would prefer. In contrast, I run all my TA11J scopes as far forward as they can go without bridging to the handguard, and that at position 4 (i.e., the buttstock even further back). This might just be my problem.

3. The Horseshoe reticle: Personally, the reticle is fine for me, but on mine (and on an acquaintance' version of the same scope), I had a particular problem: I had what is known as "scope shadow" on the left side unless I moved my eye slightly to the right of the center line. At least, that was my experience with the two Horseshoe-Dots. This made the "sweet spot" for looking through the glass very narrow, and awkward to achieve. I have thought about sending this one back, but I have a feeling it is me. All the same, it makes the scope almost unusable.

4. Tiny Stuff: I thought I was used to small ACOG reticles, but these appear even smaller to me that on some of the other scopes. Finding that Chevron was a chore, and that is why I would prefer the Horseshoe-Dot, or, even better, the Crosshair. (Note: I wound up swapping the Chevron for a TA45 (1.5X) Triangle with a Texas cop who had bought the wrong sight; he was supposed to be the long range backup for his warrant team, and he needed something than ranged better. He even bought me a nice yellow Pelican case to put it in, because he had lost the black original. I kind of felt sorry for the guy. He said he had to buy his own scope with his own money, he bought the wrong one, and he didn't know what to do. I checked the scope and it was real. I just think he was an honest guy who didn't know what he was doing when he bought it.)

5. "Well, if all else fails, you can throw it on a carry handle instead of a crappy little TA50": Nope. Try it sometime. It's the only ACOG I know of where the scope bell will block the iron sights in that configuration. I'd rather use a TA11 or a TA45 for that.

OK, you asked, I answered. I realize that I might come off as a bit of a crybaby here, but this model has always given me fits because I want it to work for me, but it wont.

Lol well at least you can say you tried! It might just not work for you. I opted for the green horseshoe dot.

The green circle and dot are clearly visible, but it's somewhat of a chore to read the BAC (not that you really have to).

I actually thought I was going to hate the small POV, but to my eyes it's only an upgrade over the T2 I had on it. Plus both eyes open works great with the TA-33

I also have a TA-31f with the red Chevron. And that thing is amazing. I love how clear the BAC is. It just kinda stinks that you have to shoot NTCH.

The reason I got the TA-33 is because it's about 10oz with the Bobro mount, and now my BCM 16" is a much better mid range rifle. I don't feel that I've given up anything in QC.

And the one thing I don't hear people mention about ACOG's is how great they look when you turn on your weapon light. I mean wow, it must be the glass quality.

I think it'd be pretty hard for me to go back to a red dot now

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Amicus]

Once I get the parts put together for this concept carbine, I will post pics and a weight. I am waiting for my son to get free so I can show him how to put an upper together and let him do the assembly himself. Perhaps this weekend.

I am also waiting on delivery of the mount for the TA50 because ... (wait for it) ... it's TITANIUM. If it has "TITAN" in the name, it has to be good, right? Maybe it can clean my office?

[Amicus]

A quick note on progress. My son and I slapped this together last weekend. With 3x compact ACOG scope, offset RMR, light and vis laser the weight is about 7.2 lbs. It appears to be NODs-friendly, which was part of the point. Balance point is a bit more to the rear than with most "M4geries"; about exactly at the midpoint of the mag well. I am relatively pleased with this attempt because these were all parts sitting on my shelves or in a box awaiting a project; I am not going to use titanium or other lightweight parts until I have a final "regular" part configuration.

Appears to run well in testing, but a few things have to be worked out. The bad pics I took have to be reformatted for this website; any BUIS needs to have the attachment screws shortened or changed up in some way; I got hit with a large bill six weeks early and buying a 4x ACOG is off the table for the moment (I do have some 4X stuff on the shelf, but I haven't assessed which to use). Also, I am digging out from a snowstorm and I hear something weird is going on in the East.

Enough for excuses. I will revisit this shortly.

[MikhailBarracuda91]

A quick note on progress. My son and I slapped this together last weekend. With 3x compact ACOG scope, offset RMR, light and vis laser the weight is about 7.2 lbs. It appears to be NODs-friendly, which was part of the point. Balance point is a bit more to the rear than with most "M4geries"; about exactly at the midpoint of the mag well. I am relatively pleased with this attempt because these were all parts sitting on my shelves or in a box awaiting a project; I am not going to use titanium or other lightweight parts until I have a final "regular" part configuration.

Appears to run well in testing, but a few things have to be worked out. The bad pics I took have to be reformatted for this website; any BUIS needs to have the attachment screws shortened or changed up in some way; I got hit with a large bill six weeks early and buying a 4x ACOG is off the table for the moment (I do have some 4X stuff on the shelf, but I haven't assessed which to use). Also, I am digging out from a snowstorm and I hear something weird is going on in the East.

Enough for excuses. I will revisit this shortly.

3x compact ACOG? So are you back to using the TA-33? LOL

I actually sighted in my TA-33 with 77gr Razor core. And I found that I can hold the dot at 300, 200, and 100. It only deviates about 2 inches

Then if I switch to 55 grain, the BDC actually works as intended.

This is the 5.56 TA-33 with horseshoe dot

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Amicus]

3x compact ACOG? So are you back to using the TA-33? LOL

I actually sighted in my TA-33 with 77gr Razor core. And I found that I can hold the dot at 300, 200, and 100. It only deviates about 2 inches

Then if I switch to 55 grain, the BDC actually works as intended.

This is the 5.56 TA-33 with horseshoe dot

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Nope. Still using the TA-50, that much maligned compact 3x. I have indicated above that my experience with the TA-33 Horseshoe Dot has not worked well. To be fair, I will try it with another of my scopes on the shelf, the TA-33 Crosshair. For some reason I do not get the scope shadow problem with that version. (Note: If I could explain why I have a problem with one and not the other, I would. It is a mystery that I still haven't solved.)

I have a number of 4x scopes available, an old Leupold VX-2 and a Leupold AR (1.5x-4x) that I will try out. I do not have a weight limit in mind for this project, but the object was always to make the thing lightweight with fairly common parts. The magnified optic is supposed to take the place of a LPVO (as the higher magnification aiming device), and the RDS is supposed to take the place of the lower end of a LPVO, while being useful with NODs. By doing so I hope to essentially replace the LPVO with equally good or better optics, while shaving off a considerable amount of rifle weight. At least, that's the idea.

[1168]

3x compact ACOG? So are you back to using the TA-33? LOL

I actually sighted in my TA-33 with 77gr Razor core. And I found that I can hold the dot at 300, 200, and 100. It only deviates about 2 inches

Then if I switch to 55 grain, the BDC actually works as intended.

This is the 5.56 TA-33 with horseshoe dot

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Have you tried adjusting zero further out?

[Pikey]

A quick note on progress. My son and I slapped this together last weekend. With 3x compact ACOG scope, offset RMR, light and vis laser the weight is about 7.2 lbs. It appears to be NODs-friendly, which was part of the point. Balance point is a bit more to the rear than with most "M4geries"; about exactly at the midpoint of the mag well. I am relatively pleased with this attempt because these were all parts sitting on my shelves or in a box awaiting a project; I am not going to use titanium or other lightweight parts until I have a final "regular" part configuration.

Appears to run well in testing, but a few things have to be worked out. The bad pics I took have to be reformatted for this website; any BUIS needs to have the attachment screws shortened or changed up in some way; I got hit with a large bill six weeks early and buying a 4x ACOG is off the table for the moment (I do have some 4X stuff on the shelf, but I haven't assessed which to use). Also, I am digging out from a snowstorm and I hear something weird is going on in the East.

Enough for excuses. I will revisit this shortly.

When you get a chance to check out a TA31 you will probably like it. I find the eye box to be forgiving, and eye relief is not as bad as everyone makes out. 1.5” is ideal but I can still get a usable sight picture as far back as 3”. The field of view gets smaller but it’s usable.

I have an ECOS that weighs 16 ounces, including mount rmr etc. The rmr works well with nods, and unconventional positions. I prefer the crosshairs on a fiber optic ACOG because they don’t wash out, and for me my eye is drawn to the center. Overall not a bad setup light weight, simple to use, durable and made in America.

Why use a visible laser instead of an ir laser? Something like a steiner tor-mini is expensive and light weight.