Best model of ACOG for all around use??

[Curio Bill]

What is the Best model of ACOG for all around use?? And WHY?? I have read the older "Aimpoint for room clearing" while acog is better for distance shooting" posts, but I am looking for advice on which particular acog model to get.

And are the marine/army acog models with the side BDC "hash marks" & killflash worth the extra money??

Thanks, Bill.

[Kchen986]

Novice to ACOGs here, I only have a TA-01 ECOS, but I've heard good things about the TA33. It has longer eye relief so target acquisition should be relatively easier (I practically have to smooch my AR to get proper eye relief on my TA-01).

Attach some sort of RDS in a side-mount/piggyback and you'll have a very versatile rifle.

[Razorhunter]

TA31 RCO M4. I've used almost all of them, and this is one of the newest ones, or at least this past year, it was one of the newer ones out. The Marine Corps adopted this model, and rightly so. First off, the shorter eye relief of the 4x TA31 series is NOT a problem by ANY means. It's not even an issue. The only reason people think about it, is because the TA11's, and TA33's have a little more eye relief. Trust me, they are teaching "nose to charging handle" anyhow in many units these days, and even if they weren't, you WILL HAVE PLENTY of eye relief with a TA31. I just feel like if you are NOT going with an Aimpoint, then you might as well go with a 4x optic like the TA31 series. I am EASILY able to take shots at even a mere 10 yards with the ACOGS. I use them just like Aimpoints, and so does our Military...
Marines kicked doors in all day long in Iraq with 20" M16's and TA31 ACOGs... Work great, and you can reach out and touch those TERRORISTS at 100+ yds with them, much easier too....

[Army Chief]

A compelling rebuttal, Paul. Prevailing wisdom seems to be that the ACOGs are severely handicapped for the close-in fight, but apparently that message hasn't reached the troops, as I've routinely seen them employed at "unsuitably close" distances with great effect.

Are there more optimized solutions for knife-range-range confrontations? Certainly, but that hasn't exactly kept the ACOG sidelined, and I sometimes think we're a bit too quick to be a bit too dismissive of what can be accomplished with the right 3x or 4x solution.

I'm not negating the argument in favor of 1:1, but there is tradeoff in versatility when it comes to target ID at intermediate distances, and I've yet to be convinced that the oft-touted 3x magnifiers really offer the optimal solution to the problem.

AC

[DocGKR]

After using several ACOG's over the years, I have come to prefer a 3.5x TA11 ACOG on a LaRue mount--with my face shape, especially when wearing a helmet and other gear, the extra eye relief is quite welcome.

[Failure2Stop]

More eye-relief is a good thing. If you are struggingling in any way to acquire proper eye-relief or stock weld in relation to the optic when in a conventional position you need to immediately ditch that optic or seek professional help. It's the "extra" that helps in non-standard and unconventional positions that most people never use until they start getting shot at. If you are not intimately familiar with the roll-over, SBU, and reverse prone you simply don't know what you don't know.

I am one of those military types that can use the ACOG at close range to decent effect, but they are sub-optimal in this regard. FWIW- the majority of guys that were using them at CQB distances during real fights were mostly point-shooting (to less than stellar result).

ACOGs do what they were made to do just fine- shoot dudes in open-air daylight or darkness from 50 to 300 meters. It's the transitional lighting that is the issue, and the time that the MRD really helps.

[caporider]

More eye-relief is a good thing. If you are struggingling in any way to acquire proper eye-relief or stock weld in relation to the optic when in a conventional position you need to immediately ditch that optic or seek professional help. It's the "extra" that helps in non-standard and unconventional positions that most people never use until they start getting shot at. If you are not intimately familiar with the roll-over, SBU, and reverse prone you simply don't know what you don't know.

I am one of those military types that can use the ACOG at close range to decent effect, but they are sub-optimal in this regard. FWIW- the majority of guys that were using them at CQB distances during real fights were mostly point-shooting (to less than stellar result).

ACOGs do what they were made to do just fine- shoot dudes in open-air daylight or darkness from 50 to 300 meters. It's the transitional lighting that is the issue, and the time that the MRD really helps.

All very good points. My similar thought process has resulted in this configuration for a fighting carbine. Note the TA33 + MRD combination weighs considerably less than a Short Dot or other variable optic on a LT mount.

[USMC03]

I wrote the following in a couple other threads in the past:

*****************************************************************

Like DocGKR, I prefer the TA11 due to eye relief.

Eye relief has a lot more utility than keeping the scope from hitting you on a rifle that has heavy recoil.

Eye relief aids in finding targets quicker (when engaging multiple targets at various distances), getting on target quicker (because head position is not as critical), etc.


I have owned both the TA01NSN and the TA31. I prefer the TA31 as I'm quicker with BAC. You can get a little more accuracy (depending on what type of targets you are shooting and at what distance) out of the TA01NSN due to the reticle.

The only thing I don't like about the TA01NSN and the TA31 is the short eye relief. Not a big issue if all your shooting will be done from a bench, but the short eye relief on the TA01NSN and TA31 really "expose" themselves when running and gunning an shooting from non traditional positions. Note the distance from my eye to the back of the ACOG in the following pics:


Larger version of above photo.


Larger version of above photo.



Larger version of above photo.

The barricade is so low I have cant my carbine just to be able to see the target. I would have been much slower and in a much more uncomfortalbe position if I was using a TA31 with 1.5" eye relief. Just another example of how important eye relief can be:



Due to the short eye relief on the TA01NSN and TA31, I found it hard to locate targets down range when shooting at several targets at varying distances down range. Having shot the same courses of fire with both the TA31 and TA11, I found the TA11 much quicker in locating targets down range:

(steel targets are positioned from 175 yards to 425 yards)


(same targets, closer pic)


My preference is for the TA11, as it has the same features as the TA31 with longer eye relief. The only down side to the TA11 is that it's larger than the TA01NSN and TA31. The larger size of the TA11 is not an issue on a rifle or mid-length, but they tend to dominate a M4 or SBR.




Semper Fi,
Jeff


*****************************************************************

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Took the TA01 to Afghanistan not a lot of room clearing so the stada line was all I needed. Not real fast in the CQB role but I later added the JPoint sight and that helped a lot.

Had the TA31 M4 RCO in Iraq great for CQB you just look for the red flash and press the trigger. I liked the chevron rectucal much better.

I have the 1.5 compact on my personal rifle as it is not bullet weight specfic and I dont shoot much past 200 yards and it has become my most liked sight.

[DrBaker]

All very good points. My similar thought process has resulted in this configuration for a fighting carbine. Note the TA33 + MRD combination weighs considerably less than a Short Dot or other variable optic on a LT mount.

Do you know what the overall weight is for this configuration? Also, what is the barrel length and profile?