Aimpoint with magnifier vs. ACOG

[gjj]

I have an Aimpoint Comp M3 with the Aimpoint 3X magnifier on a Larue pivot mount on my M4 Carbine.

To me, this seems superior to a setup with the ACOG. The magnifier is out of the way the dynamic short range stuff. Then, if you have a target ID problem or difficulty getting a sight picture, flip in the 3X magnifier. It is very fast.

Close range:

I know the ACOG can be used with the BAC up close. But, I think most people would agree the Aimpoint is better. I consider close range threats a bigger priority due to the speed and dynamic nature. It takes less skill from the bad guy to hit you. It is harder to find cover against a closer threat.

Long range:

They have similar magnification for target ID or getting a sight picture for things that blend in. The glass and light gathering is good on both. The only difference is the bullet drop compensator. However, my experience is that most people are very poor judges of distance, especially under stress. So, I am not completely convinced of the magnitude of the advantage.

Summary

You give up a little long range performance with the Aimpoint/3X combo. However, you have superior short range performance with the ability to set your gun in 1X red dot mode. Given that close range threats are more deadly, I don't see why the magnifier approach is not more popular.

Can someone enlighten me?

[mattjmcd]

I have a similar setup, albeit with an EOTech. It is fast and IMO more flexible, but in the end, it is heavier by a fair margin, more complex, and ends up costing about the same when you include mounts and stuff.

I like my arrangement for that rifle, but I wonder if a low-power variable Accupoint might be better still.

[gjj]

To be honest, I am wondering the same thing. That is the reason for my post. I thought I would post my opinion. I figure people would reply telling me where I am wrong (the internet is GREAT at that). Then, maybe I would rethink my original position.

So, I am not trolling. I could be completely wrong in the way I am thinking.

[PRGGodfather]

So far, the analysis on the systems appears spot on.

I run an M4S and 3x magnifier on my duty gun, and for the multiple scenarios I might use it for -- it works pretty well. It's not exactly light, but it will address a variety of scenarios with aplomb, provided I do my part. Obviously, I don't use the magnifier for close quarters applications. Versatility is this concept's strength, but the trade-off is overall weight and similar cost factor.

I put an ACOG 4x on the lightweight build I made for my wife, as most of her shooting is 50 yards and more. She likes the magnification and the reticle is easy to use -- and she likes the tight groups she can make off the bench. She won't be kicking doors anytime soon.

I know lots of folks who run ACOGs in patrol even for close quarters, and have overcome most of the issues with training -- although they also admit with both eyes open -- the distortion can be disconcerting.

At the end of the day, the versatility and flexibility has its advantages -- but we, as the users, make it work.

[IMSHAKN]

Lets try this again since the last one didn't go through.

I was debating this myself for quite a while and originally was set on the Aimpoint plus 3x magnifier. But I made myself go out and play with any optic I could get my hands on that would do as I wanted. After playing with everything and a lot of thinking, I ended up going with a TA31F ACOG. I couldn't be any happier and here's why I went with it:

-Optics are crisp and clear. While the Aimpoint was good, the ACOG is remarkably brighter, crisper, and clearer. Longer range work = no problem distinguishing targets.
-Lifetime warranty - this is huge for me when it comes to weapons and components. A company who believes in the quality of their product and who will stand behind it is a winner in my book.
-BDC. If you know an approximate size of your target, this really does make range finding easy. It is best suited for people sized targets.
-BAC. After a little practice, it becomes second nature and picking up targets close range quickly or at far is amazing. Aimpoint does win here if you are going to be kicking down doors or in home defense.
-Durability was a big deal for me as this ACOG may someday retire from range duty and take a trip to the sand box.
-No batteries. I hate batteries. They can fail. Sure, if the tritium somehow were to fail, the reticle etched in the class is still easy to see so long as you have light.
-Chevron Reticle. I love this style and find it to be very easy to use.


For me it was a no-brainer to go with an ACOG despite the price, but ultimately you need to pick what is best for YOUR situation. If I were doing mainly door kicking, I would give up the ACOG for the Aimpoint as I don't know how durable the MRD mounted on an ACOG will prove to be. If it turns out to be rock solid I won't give up this optic for anything else for what I'd like it for.

[Failure2Stop]

What do you want it to do?

I really like the Aimpoint/3X combo, but it is really only applicable just past your max point blank range unless you are very skilled and practiced in hold-over and range estimation. The primary advantage over the ACOG 3-4X optics is speed at close range and usability in poor lighting conditions/tac light use while enhancing the ability of the shooter to identify threats and target discriminate at intermediate range.

I also like some ACOGs, though for specific purposes. They are great for use in daylight from 50 meters out to 600, and employable out to 800 (generally). They are not a good solution for close range fighting. Close range shooting, acceptable. This is a reason that they are popular with 3-gunners. They do what they do very well, but if you might need to save your life with it at close range you might want to look into other/complimentary solutions.

[gjj]

Failure2stop, thanks for your comments. I see what you are saying. However, I even question the effectiveness of a BDC in real combat conditions. Distance can be tough thing to estimate. With battlefield stress, dynamic movement, and less than perfect shooting conditions on a soldier it would be interesting to see how much of a difference the performance would be between the two systems (holdover vs. BDC) at unknown long ranges (300-600 yds) in the real world.

What do you think?

[Failure2Stop]

Failure2stop, thanks for your comments. I see what you are saying. However, I even question the effectiveness of a BDC in real combat conditions. Distance can be tough thing to estimate. With battlefield stress, dynamic movement, and less than perfect shooting conditions on a soldier it would be interesting to see how much of a difference the performance would be between the two systems (holdover vs. BDC) at unknown long ranges (300-600 yds) in the real world.

What do you think?

I think that you are basically correct.
However-
having a ranging stadia does help, but it is designed to range accross fully frontal shoulders- which are generally not seen much when the target is actively trying NOT to get shot.
The place that I most appreciate it is when I have made a rough guess (within 50 meters) and can then determine a consistent aim-point from which to get "close enough". Range estimation is a critical skill, and one that is severly lacking among most shooters, and during high-stress, dynamic movement, and effective enemy fire I would be suprised if the majority of shooter would be able to conistently range targets from 300 to 600 within 100 meters with the naked eye.

Shooting distances past "hold dot on center and pull" range will require practice regardless of optic choice. It will be easier to do with a BDC than holding the dot in the air, but both are achievable.

A lot of it will have to do with zero and target size though.

[gjj]

That makes sense. The BDC would be better than the holdover approach. It would be interesting to see if either would be adequate given that there are really few "man sized" targets once the bullets start flying. Heads, arms, and other small body parts are the likely targets.

I remember reading in one of my early M16 manuals that they really considered the weapon suitable for "area fire" at distances of 500-600m. I don't know if that was due to the iron sights or if it was due to the effectiveness of the cartridge at longer distances. My thinking is that the ACOG scoped M4 is still really just an "area" fire weapon at unknown distances of 400-600m. It just does it a little better than it's iron sighted version.

I don't even want to think about the wind...

[Submariner]

What do you want it to do?

And how much can you afford to spend?

I also like some ACOGs, though for specific purposes. They are great for use in daylight from 50 meters out to 600, and employable out to 800 (generally). They are not a good solution for close range fighting. Close range shooting, acceptable. This is a reason that they are popular with 3-gunners. They do what they do very well, but if you might need to save your life with it at close range you might want to look into other/complimentary solutions.

This, perhaps? It's probably cheaper than a Short Dot.