TA11 vs. TA33G-H for a coyote gun

[El Mac]

El Mac, can I ask you a few questions about your switch from the TA31 to the TA33?

1. Is the FOV a limitation for you?
2. Do you have any type of mini red dot sight on your gun for CQB?
3. Would you rather have the larger TA11?

If you are too busy to answer, I understand.

P.S. My goal is to hunt coyotes with the very best equiped gun I can build that will also fill the role of SHTF / personal defense gun.

Answers to your questions:
1) Not at all. You won't notice the 8' of difference at 100 yards.
2) No mini-RDS when the ACOG is on. If I know I'm going into a CQB deal, I'll switch out and run an EOT with RRA dominator mount. If not, I stick with the ACOG as I'm much more apt to engage at 100-300 yards. At night, doesn't matter much as you are using PEQ IR and NODs.
3) I prefer the TA-11 for this main reason - the eye relief is much better than the TA-31. It makes it much easier to aquire targets, and faster. Plus it actually makes the Bindon aiming concept easier to perform. The downside is an extra 4 ounces, not a big deal. I'll take that tradeoff.

Try out the horseshoe dot reticle (the "H" model). Its fast and with the ability to be quite accurate. Similar to the donut, but improved.

[Biggy]

You may also want to consider the Trijicon TR24 1-4X scopes . I would definately look through one before making your decision.

[gjj]

Thanks a lot El Mac. Just one last question. When you go with only ACOG and no RDS, do you ever worry that the combat situation will change unexpected to something more CQB and you will be handicapped? I am a worst case scenario type of guy. Would you use a dual optic configuration (ACOG + T1 on Larue mount) if it were available?

[Ak44]

Since you are going to have an offset T1 I would get the ACOG that has the better magnification. Weight won't matter after you get use to it....

[El Mac]

Thanks a lot El Mac. Just one last question. When you go with only ACOG and no RDS, do you ever worry that the combat situation will change unexpected to something more CQB and you will be handicapped? I am a worst case scenario type of guy. Would you use a dual optic configuration (ACOG + T1 on Larue mount) if it were available?

No, as I've already stated the TA-11H works well using the Bindon aiming concept IF you have practiced with it. It works better than the TA-31 in that regard (IMO) because it has better eye relief and you don't have to "crawl into the scope" to use it. I also run a Performance Machine flip cover on the front and can just close the cover and use it much like a regular RDS. Its all in how you train and what you get used to.

As for your OP, I don't have any experience with a TA-33 and so can't really comment on that piece.

[Gutshot John]

The TA-33 has very generous eye relief. Certainly longer than the specs indicate though I'd bet the 11 has even more.

While I've had to "crawl into" scopes before, I've never had that problem with the 33.

[Failure2Stop]

Could you expound a bit on the issue of lighting and how it factors in to the equation?

I had understood that magnified optics in MOUT allowed the shooter to peek into shadows that would otherwise be obscured by differential lighting, but I get the impression you're talking about something else.

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

If you are in a dark area and shooting into a lit area the reticle will be in much less contrast to the target, especially if the target is dark and you are using a red reticle or if the target is light and you are using an amber reticle. This loss of reticle is in direct proportion to the darkness of the shooter's area compared to the "litness" of the threat. The extremes of this are when in a dark room using a tac-light, as the proximity will make it very difficult to use a two-eyes open technique as the reticle will be subdued and sight picture will be difficult to obtain rapidly. Another loss of reticle was mostly relevant to the amber reticles, was when shooting from deep within a room into bright daylight if the target and ground were sandy/light.

When you go with only ACOG and no RDS, do you ever worry that the combat situation will change unexpected to something more CQB and you will be handicapped? I am a worst case scenario type of guy. Would you use a dual optic configuration (ACOG + T1 on Larue mount) if it were available?

I am not El Mac, but I've been to the big dance a few times .

Proximity to threat change is a very big deal and is responsble for poor weapon effect, blue-on-blue, poor threat discrimination, substandard marksmanship and general loss of chi. The magnified acogs are sub-optimal for enclosure clearing or use in disproportionate lighting. The T1 is a much better option. However, having the T1 mounted at an angle takes away a lot of the nonconventional position application of the optic, forcing you to use something else. FWIW- there are a lot of very high speed guys using T1s with 3X magnifiers to excellent effect even in places where frequent contact is made at 300 to 600 meters. I think that the T1 is much more difficult to use past 300 compared to most ACOGs, but with training and determination it is effective without having to train two optics.

Now, that being said- the ACOG + T1 is a great combo. My points earlier were that you will most likely not need the T1 for whackin' yotes if you choose the right COG. How you spend your money is up to you, but unless you subject the combo to real application training, simply shooting with them is not going to gain you much.

[El Mac]

Where the ACOG blows away a stand alone RDS is in a strong hold position during daylight hours in particular if you find yourself under ROE that absolutely requires PID of your target. If PID is of no particular concern, that an RDS is probably ok unless you just prefer being accurate. I've not had any particular issues with the ACOG reticle. It has always worked well for me. I would assume a T1 set up with a 3x mag would work similarly.

I base my comments on my experiences during this rotation. Most of the distances within these mud huts are damn near point shootable (yes, I know that is an abhorrent thought) during daylight hours. At night, its IR illum all the way. So for me, in my application, the T1/EOT in addition to an ACOG is redundant. Redundancy is not a bad thing particularly, but for me it wasn't worth the hassle. Obviously, this may not hold true for others.

For the OP's purpose of coyote shooting, I think he would be well served with an ACOG. And as FTS said, if you want to ratchet it up a notch and toss in an offset T1/H1, by all means. Just get the training/practice so you are familiar with it and you will be in very fine shape indeed.

[gjj]

Thanks again El Mac and Failure2Stop for all your comments.

Failure2stop, I didn't quite understand the statement you made ...

"However, having the T1 mounted at an angle takes away a lot of the nonconventional position application of the optic, forcing you to use something else."

It really helps getting good perspective from guys that have done things for real. Thanks.

[Gutshot John]

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

If you are in a dark area and shooting into a lit area the reticle will be in much less contrast to the target, especially if the target is dark and you are using a red reticle or if the target is light and you are using an amber reticle. This loss of reticle is in direct proportion to the darkness of the shooter's area compared to the "litness" of the threat. The extremes of this are when in a dark room using a tac-light, as the proximity will make it very difficult to use a two-eyes open technique as the reticle will be subdued and sight picture will be difficult to obtain rapidly. Another loss of reticle was mostly relevant to the amber reticles, was when shooting from deep within a room into bright daylight if the target and ground were sandy/light.

Can this be mitigated by covering the fiber-optic to dim the reticle as much as possible?