Acog Ta33 GH VS: Green Chevron?

[payj]

What one would you want and why?


thx

[JSantoro]

There's a button in the header, in between New Posts and Quick Links. It reads "Search."

Utilizing it like I just did by typing in "ta33 gh," and specifying the "Optics and Mounts" subforum, you can get results such as this:

http://m4carbine.net/search.php?searchid=2175434

My answer to the specific question is "horseshoe," because unlike the chevron, it provides 200m range estimating capability and is open enough so that you can see through the reticle and see more of your target for 0-300m shots.

[payj]

Could you please explain why the horseshoe is the only one with 200m estimation? Looking at both of them it seems both could do that?

thx

[JSantoro]

The base of the chevron provides range estimation capability for 300m based on the idea that the average width of a human torso is 19" +/-. I think we can all agree that an object of a certain width will look larger the closer it is to you and smaller the further it is away. For what you say to be factual, there would have to be some line, marker, indicator, stadia, or what have you somewhere above the base of the chevron and wider than the base of the chevron, as 19" would appear wider the closer it is to you.

While the 2nd/lower/inner apex of the chevron (we usually refer to it as the "crotch") is the 200m aimpoint on the chevron reticle, but I don't see how you'd think there's any 200m range estimation stadia. Unless...

With the horseshoe, the opening in the base of the circle (which gives the pattern its name) corresponds with the base of a chevron reticle; same width, and is 19" @ 300m. 3 and 9 o'clock on that same circle is 19" @ 200m.

So the question becomes: What are you seeing on the chevron reticle that isn't there, and what's causing that? Are you somehow confusing range estimation with aiming? Because the two are separate, though closely related, activities.

[kac]

First of all, thank you for your instructional work at CCJA, which I really enjoyed this past Sunday.

As a new guy to ACOGs, and to the horseshoe, let me make sure I understand. If the torso's at the width of the horseshoe, he's 200m. away, and if it's the width of the opening, he's 300m. away.

That's well and good, but on the horseshoe, what's the aimpoint for 200m? I assume the top of the "stick" is the aimpoint for 300m, no?

Thanks again.

[C4IGrant]

The horse shoe model is my favorite.

We also have them in stock if interested. Shoot us an e-mail for a price quote.



C4

[JSantoro]

No aimpoint for 200m on the horseshoe, if you want to stick to specific definition. Even more specifically, there is no specific mark on the reticle that is designed for 200m.

However, consider this: You zero the dot to 100m, per correct zero procedure. So, at a 100m target, you will aim COM with the dot and get COM hits.

Apply the same COM hold with the dot at a 200m target, press rounds. Numbers will differ according to barrel length, ammo, twist rate, etc., but you should generally see something like a 4" drop. Ergo, you aim at the base of my sternum with the dot, you'll see the rounds fall 4" lower than that, or about halfway between the base of my sternum and my belly button. Considering the platform and the general intent, those are effective hits, so a COM hold is okay.

If you want to drill COM, take a SWAG as to what is 4" higher (say, center of sternum, just over true COM on a full, waist-to-head torso), and press. Rounds will fall in true COM. This is the methodology we generally favor.

OR, as a vehicle for answering the "top of stick" question (simple answer is YES), you have a 100m dot and a 300m aimpoint in the form of the topmost vertical, glowing line of the BDC. One would not be far off to guess that the 200m aimpoint lies somewhere in between the 100m and 300m reference marks provided on the reticle. I'd personally say to use the base of (or 6 o'clock) of the dot.

Many roads lead to Rome.

[kac]

Thanks, that helps a bunch! Almost as much as your description on tactical reloads.

[payj]

Jesus you know more about this stuff than most people thats for sure... This will be my self defense rifle that will be used for plinking along with shooting "human sized targets" its my shtf gun.

Some people say the chevron is more "pinpoint" as you can just use the very tip for precision shooting or for cqb just put the full triangle on the target and pull the trigger. I was also thinking the triangle would be more "clean"? The horseshoe more cluttery?

Also, In the future I plan on running an offset T1 for cqb (not for a while though) So would it make more sense to run the triangle for the longer distances assuming I have the T1 for shorter distances? Because isn't the horseshoe acog designed for a mix of cqc along with medium range stuff? Where as the triangle more for medium long range?

Thanks for all the help! Please excuse my ignorance! Most of this is new to me.

[JSantoro]

Some people say the chevron is more "pinpoint" as you can just use the very tip for precision shooting or for cqb just put the full triangle on the target and pull the trigger. I was also thinking the triangle would be more "clean"? The horseshoe more cluttery?

There's some logic to the underlined part. Example: It's generally encouraged that one put tape or something similar over the fiber-optic of an ACOG in bright sunlight IOT limit the amount of light being fed to the reticle and prevent "blooming." That's when too much light makes the lit part of the reticle appear both fuzzy and up to 2x as big as it actually is. The right amount of light makes the lit part of the reticle easy to see, but while maintaining the crispness of the lines. This is regardless of what shape the reticle is.

So, smaller, tighter stadia can help a shooter attain greater precision, presuming correct, practices application of the other fundamentals. In that regard, some shooters will benefit from the small, sharp tip of a chevron reticle.

That said, I and many others find that the horseshoe is less cluttered a sight picture, because the horseshoe is around the target, while the middle parts of the legs of a chevron are over it, causing obscuration. In the end, the only way to know for sure is for the shooter to give each a fair shake and figure it out for themselves. Can't define the intangibles of preference, only the characteristics that lead to it.

Look up some of Molon's threads. Between basic descriptions of different ballistic arcs and how one's accuracy does NOT automatically suffer by using a 4MOA Aimpoint vs. a 2MOA (and why that is), you'll see some very helpful info.

Because isn't the horseshoe acog designed for a mix of cqc along with medium range stuff?

ALL of the ACOG line are primarily designed as general-purpose optics. They are hard to beat in what I refer to as the "middle of the shooter's bell curve," which I loosely define around the TA31RCOA4 as being 100-500 meters or so. 50m and in, they do the job, but take practice to make it happen and will never be able to match a RDS for speed. 500m and out, it stops being a question of gun/ammo reaching that far, but one of whether the shooter can make those shots IF they detect, recognize, and establish PID of a target in the first place.

An offset RDS alongside an ACOG variant is a sound concept.