It mostly applies to the roll-over prone where the gun is horizontal (parallel to the ground laterally). It is used primarily for coming out of low cover/low aperture to the dominant side. With the angled mini-red dot (MRD) you cannot get the gun as flat and low as you can with an optic in the traditional position and even then you have to crane your head over and around the stock to get behind the MRD. It's just something you have to give up with that combination. A piggy-backed MRD on top of the ACOG will still work, but you will be exposing more of your meat-abacus from behind cover, and it requires a dedicated and distinct approach to training immediate use of the optic. Lasers work pretty well, if you are willing to deal with trace-back and your laser is powerful enough to work in the situation. This is all assuming that the magnified optic won't work for your situation for some reason (which can be numerous).Originally Posted by gjj
It really comes down to priority, compromises, and money.
If your primary need is semi-precision from 50 to 600, with a lesser but present need for close-quarters work, the ACOG+MRD, whether piggybacked or offset, will be a reasonable choice. Giving up some CQB ability and some ability to use low apertures to maximize longer range engagement may be the best answer for some.
If you have to balance CQB and semi-precision out to 300+, either a RDS+Magnifier or low powered variable will be the most useful compromise, with the CQB edge going to the RDS and the precision/longer range edge going to the low-powered variable (provided that you choose one appropriately). Most variables with bright enough reticle illumination for use in a fight are expensive and have much lower battery run times. The TR24 seems like it may be a very good variable as far as lighting the reticle without facing the issues with battery run time, but without a BDC or range-adjustable turret it sits in the same category as magnified RDSs. In my opinon the 2 MOA M3 or M4 with a magnifier are a great solution, with the T1 being a great weight saver but at the cost of a slightly larger dot and more refined cheek-weld requirement for fast-n-nasty. The EoTechs do work nicely with a magnifier if you are ok with their battery life, auto-shutoff, robustness, and mounts. There are ways to range with the ring, though at the distances that range estimation makes a big difference it's kinda dicey.
If you are going to put 2 optics on the gun, you will have to make the choice of which one you train to be the immediate use optic. If the shooter becomes accustomed to dropping into the MRD for immediate engagement and then to switch to the COG for more precision it will generally benefit the shooter more than the opposite. However, if you are going to use the optic in an environment in which it makes more sense to drop into the ACOG for 98% of your shooting and transition to the MRD for 2%, it will become habitual to hit the COG first. While it won't kill you to do so when hunting 'yotes, it might if you are actually fighting someone. Likewise, it won't make much sense to focus on getting into the MRD for an application in which the ACOG is clearly the best answer and with enough non-life threatening time to make the decision. Contrast that to the variables or RDS+3X, with which you always go to the same cheek-weld and gun orientation regardless of magnification need and you can see where your training $ will go further. They are all viable, and the question of what you want, need, and are willing to spend $$ on (for optic and the requisite training) is only for you to answer. It really makes no difference to me, but at the end of the day there is no real "best", only different levels of compromise. I have an opinon on what compromise I would rather take, but that is rested on my ability, skill progression, and mission.
No. It actually needs more light going into the reticle. The ACOGs are funny in that regard, most of the time the reticle is too bright, thus necessitating a cover of the fiber-optic cable in daylight to refine the reticle, but needing more light into the cable when inside. There are some ways to do it- mini chem light or thumb-LED taped next to the cable, but then it is only usable at very close range due to the amount of bloom since there is no fine control to the amount of light in relation to the background. It also causes a lot of other side-effects. This is the reason that mini-red dots started to be used in conjunction with the ACOGs and were still favored even with the introduction of the fiber-optic models.
The green reticle, especially the very prominent ones such as the donut and horseshoe-dot, are less effected. The longer the fiber-optic strip the more light goes in, and the brighter the reticle becomes. The TA11s have the highesty light-gathering, and the green prominent reticles have the highest contrast with most backgrounds/targets. My favorite ACOG for a 90% solution is the TA11G. I simply do not have enough time on the horseshoe-dot to be able to comment, though it seems like it may be in the same league, thus my favoritism for it for competition. Now I am not saying that it is the best thing ever or that good variables might not be equal solutions, but I am in no rush to get rid of mine for another option at this time.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks