Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 128

Thread: Fate of the ACOG

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,073
    Feedback Score
    31 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    BDC reticles work great in real life as well from what my friends have told me coming back from Iraq and Afganistan. Many times they know the range because they have lazed the target area where the enemy is before they engage. Then just hold on the appropriot mark on the reticle and shoot.
    Pat
    I agree. If you already know the range of your target, it would be great.

    I was referring to the use of the tree on an unknown distance target. You are supposed to be able to place the cross bar on the shoulders of a target and when you find a width that matches, that is your range and aiming point. It sounded really good on paper. My neighbor never stood still long enough in a position that I could use the stadia on.

    Maybe it works better in combat, but it didn't work for me on anti yard work duties.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Crow Hunter View Post
    I agree. If you already know the range of your target, it would be great.

    I was referring to the use of the tree on an unknown distance target. You are supposed to be able to place the cross bar on the shoulders of a target and when you find a width that matches, that is your range and aiming point. It sounded really good on paper. My neighbor never stood still long enough in a position that I could use the stadia on.

    Maybe it works better in combat, but it didn't work for me on anti yard work duties.
    I agree that without a range finder using the reticle to range is not easy and its a skill that takes time. However that does not make a BDC reticle useless. I suppose it depends on your application.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,956
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Once nice feature of the latest generation Elcan Specter DR's is that the reticle includes a range estimater.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    Sure like I said earlier now we have scopes that combine the following, day light visible reticle (red dot bright) with a BDC reticle with a true 1x on the bottom and magnificaiton as high as 8x on the top. There are only a handful of scopes that combine these features today and 10 years ago none did. The first scope to combine these was the Short Dot.
    Link to article on Vickers site.
    http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/short-dot/
    There is very little difference between a true 1x and 1.25x when you're talking about tube optics. You still have to maintain proper alignment behind the optic. While I own true 1-4x, they're not nearly as quick or as forgiving as an RDS. I tried to disproove it, I really did, I wanted the hype to be true. Sadly it's not. A true 1x tube optic isn't that much faster than a 1.25x (we're talking maybe hundredths of a second and most Short Dots are 1.1x). So how much is that hundredths of a second worth? An RDS is going to be faster well in excess of that. Inside of 100 yards, an RDS beats the shit out of anything else for speed by whole seconds.

    That said how much does a Short Dot cost and how do you quantify that cost compared to an Aimpoint? While the short dot is a fine optic, the marginal cost involved does not make the short dot an RDS killer. Sorry I know that breaks a lot of peoples' hearts, but it's not.

    FWIW having taken a LAV class when there were short dots in existence, the man did say that recommend that everyone have an Aimpoint, he didn't say that everyone should have a Short-Dot.

    1-4 or 1-8 are fine scopes but they're not RDS killers...especially given the weight/cost involved.

    All in all the advances in variable magnification scopes aren't that much different than what came before. They are better but they aren't game changers.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 07-31-11 at 19:57.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    There is very little difference between a true 1x and 1.25x when you're talking about tube optics. You still have to maintain proper alignment behind the optic. While I own true 1-4x, they're not nearly as quick or as forgiving as an RDS. I tried to disproove it, I really did, I wanted the hype to be true. Sadly it's not. A true 1x tube optic isn't that much faster than a 1.25x (we're talking maybe hundredths of a second and most Short Dots are 1.1x). So how much is that hundredths of a second worth? An RDS is going to be faster well in excess of that. Inside of 100 yards, an RDS beats the shit out of anything else for speed by whole seconds.

    That said how much does a Short Dot cost and how do you quantify that cost compared to an Aimpoint? While the short dot is a fine optic, the marginal cost involved does not make the short dot an RDS killer. Sorry I know that breaks a lot of peoples' hearts, but it's not.

    FWIW having taken a LAV class when there were short dots in existence, the man did say that recommend that everyone have an Aimpoint, he didn't say that everyone should have a Short-Dot.

    1-4 or 1-8 are fine scopes but they're not RDS killers...especially given the weight/cost involved.

    All in all the advances in variable magnification scopes aren't that much different than what came before. They are better but they aren't game changers.
    If you add a 3x magnifier behind a Aimpoint the weight issue is moot.
    Here is a simple speed drill at 7 yards. 2 shots on each target.
    Same gun different scope nearly identical times. (Edge going towards the TR24 scope)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlJVVZDx68
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtbL0tTirg

    The new low power variables are game changers. As to cost who cares. I am talking about the best not the cheapest.
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 07-31-11 at 20:13.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    If you add a 3x magnifier behind a Aimpoint the weight issue is moot.
    Who said anything about a 3x magnifier? You don't need a 3x magnifier to shoot within 200 yards.

    Here is a simple speed drill at 7 yards. 2 shots on each target.
    Same gun different scope nearly identical times. (Edge going towards the TR24 scope)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlJVVZDx68
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtbL0tTirg

    The new low power variables are game changers. As to cost who cares. I am talking about the best not the cheapest.
    Sure, upright, standard shooting position, without any stress involved...I guess the times would be fairly close. Repeat that drill with all kinds of positions, adding some amount of stress and that calculus changes a good bit. That said it doesn't seem like you're trying very hard.

    Who cares about cost? Are you kidding? Tell me what an extra $2K gets you in terms of performance that equates to a game changer.

    Assuming of course your definition of game changer is the same as mine.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 07-31-11 at 20:40.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    227
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I don't think they'll ever be a "jack of all trades" that will shut the rest down.Many try,but all have pos./neg.'s in the end.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ARPATRIOT View Post
    I don't think they'll ever be a "jack of all trades" that will shut the rest down.Many try,but all have pos./neg.'s in the end.
    Exactly.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    Who said anything about a 3x magnifier? You don't need a 3x magnifier to shoot within 200 yards.



    Sure, upright, standard shooting position, without any stress involved...I guess the times would be fairly close. Repeat that drill with all kinds of positions, adding some amount of stress and that calculus changes a good bit. That said it doesn't seem like you're trying very hard.

    Who cares about cost? Are you kidding? Tell me what an extra $2K gets you in terms of performance that equates to a game changer.

    Assuming of course your definition of game changer is the same as mine.
    Actually you can and sometimes do need magnification under 300 yards. Not all threats stand out in the open big and tall. Many hide behind cover and only expose what is required to take a shot at you. There are millions of situations where magnificaiton is good under 300 yards and even under 100. As for shooting from a variety of positons from akward angles that sounds like a three gun match where low power variables dominate. It got so bad that red dots had to be thrown in a division with irons so people could compete.

    As for seeming like I was not trying very hard. I am just that good.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    Actually you can and sometimes do need magnification under 300 yards. Not all threats stand out in the open big and tall.
    Wow you think? Similarly not all threats stand still some are moving and otherwise require you to be able to quickly spot and engage a target. Different target profiles require different techniques. Every optic has its limitations, every optic has its strengths. That's all I've tried to say. The claim that one scope does everything better is goofball.

    Inside of 100 yards, the RDS, at 1/4-1/5th the price and weight is still the best. Outside of 100 yards the ACOG at 1/3rd-1/4th the price and weight can do just about everything the variable power can do and if pure precision across a variety of ranges (100 yards +) is the game, I'd go with a 3-15x variable at any rate.

    Sorry but that's not really a game changer. You've heard the term jack-of-all trades...master of none. It does a lot of things well, but despite your claims it doesn't do everything well.

    At 4-5x the cost, it should not only shoot better, it better give me a handjob as well.

    As for seeming like I was not trying very hard. I am just that good.
    Well you've walked 10 miles out of your way to miss the point but if it helps you to believe that...hey...knock yourself out.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 07-31-11 at 21:57.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •