ACOG - why do people say they are hard to use up close?

[gjj]

I have been using Aimpoint red dot scopes for years. I took my brand new TA11F out for some short range shooting (25 yards and less). When I keep both eyes open, I am just as fast as with my T1/M2/M3. There is no difference. This ACOG is new. But, I am scratching my head about all the concern over the ACOG performance up close. I have used traditional 3x9 scopes for hunting. Up close, even with both eyes open, they are slower than a RDS. I assumed the ACOG would be too because it is magnified. However, the difference that makes the ACOG faster is the illuminated chevron. It seems to make finding your target faster.

I wish I would have bought an ACOG sooner. I don't see the short range limitations.

[Iraq Ninja]

I guess your definition of up close may actually be a big further than you think. I would not say that 25 is up close and personal.

Try clearing a building room by room with an ACOG. Red dots make it a whole lot easier.

[ghost762]

I guess your definition of up close may actually be a big further than you think. I would not say that 25 is up close and personal.

Try clearing a building room by room with an ACOG. Red dots make it a whole lot easier.

Just get a ACOG with the DR Optics on top. It's kind of awkward to get use to but it defiantly works.

[gjj]

25 yards was the maximum distance. I was making shots at 5-10' as easily as with my CompM3. The illuminated reticle and both eyes open make it easy and fast. To me, the red dot on top would seem pointless.

These are just my first impressions.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

25 yards was the maximum distance. I was making shots at 5-10' as easily as with my CompM3. The illuminated reticle and both eyes open make it easy and fast. To me, the red dot on top would seem pointless.

These are just my first impressions.

Consider yourself lucky then! I'm trying out my TA11H for the first time next weekend.

[subzero]

I don't see the short range limitations.

Good for you.

Some of us...many of us even, find an interesting thing happens when using an ACOG up close. When we use our non-dominant eye to sight the target and impose the chevron on the target, we miss. Blink to make the dominant eye in charge again, and we see the chevron is actually several inches left (or right) of the intended target, even though we're only a few yards away.

This can be attributed to a slight astigmatism, eye dominance issues, even the very shape of our eyes. But the point is, it happens to a lot of people. We simply don't see what we think we see.

So using an ACOG up close requires us to look through the magnification, which can make things difficult.

[SHIVAN]

So your split times, on a timer, were identical for all shots inside of 25m? How about shooting on the move? Same splits as with a RDS like the M2, M3 or T1?

I know what my results were, and I know how much easier EAG Tactical's carbine course was with a RDS vs. my TA31F.

[Failure2Stop]

I can be almost as fast with a TA31 at at 7 yards as I can be with an EoTech.
The problem comes in when it is not a traditional buff target in daylight with a known position target. Just in case others didn't get the memo, neat little ranges with neat lines and neat targets are not the same as fighting for your life in a dingy room against some asshole with dark clothes in weird lighting conditions that is allowed to move around.

Magnified optics are not the answer for these environments, and especially not ones that need light to make the reticle stand out. \

I like ACOGs for what ACOGs do well. In that field they are absolutely untouchable, and I have shelled out my own hard-earned cash on them for that field.

Do not mistake square-range application with last resort, "it works or I die" application.

The longer you work with the optic in a variety of situations the more you will see the limitations. That is not a criticism of the optic (as I said before, what it does well it does very well), but rather the concept.

I think that we discussed this a while ago, in which I expressed the opinon that your use would probably fit within the ACOGs performance envelope, making the MRD redundant.

Hmmm. I will see if I can find the thread.
ETA- Ah, ha. Found it. HERE it is.

Anyway, all that really matters is if the optic works for you in your application. Would I recommend it for HD? Nope.
Would I recommend it for GP? Yup.
Which do I consider to be an essential? HD.
If you are happy and you have a gun and optic that do the HD role well- crack on and enjoy what you have. I have 2 ACOGs, and while neither of them are on a grab-n-go gun, they are both very good at doing well in 3-gun competitions.

[gjj]

Failure to stop, I always respect what you have to say about these things. I just wanted to let you know I wasn't trying to say the ACOG was the ideal optic for everything. I have 6 AR15s set up with Aimpoints for HD. I would never choose the ACOG for that. I guess what I was trying to say was that, based on what I had read about the ACOG, I expected it to be much worse at close distance outdoors. I initially planned to use a T1 on a Larue offset mount. I do not think it is necessary now. I am planning to use it for coyotes and jackrabbits up close, running, and far away. I think it will perform well for that.

My ACOG scoped rifles is my non-homedefense outdoors rifle and it seems MUCH easier to use than what I expected at extreme close distances.

The next time I raid a crack house in Compton, I will bring my rifle with the CompM3. If I have to repel Chinese invaders in the hills of Anaheim, I'll grab the ACOG. (just joking)

Thanks, as usual for your input. I sincerely appreciate it.

[Failure2Stop]

gjj-

I wasn't trying to be "this way or that way" in my post, just expounding on what you asked.

The next time I raid a crack house in Compton, I will bring my rifle with the CompM3. If I have to repel Chinese invaders in the hills of Anaheim, I'll grab the ACOG.

This could be someone's advertising campaign .