Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 128

Thread: Fate of the ACOG

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    All valid reasons for making the personal choice that you have. Extrapolating that to others as an objective superior choice or an RDS killer is the issue. Your statement was hyperbolic and you got called on it.

    Accordingly it would be foolish to presume to speculate as to what my training level is and is not or whether I've not given enough time to one system or another. More significantly you're incorrect on all counts.
    The current low power variables are game changers. You did not call me out at all. You simply have a different opinion and I think we have debated our points well.

    Basically that is what this has come down to. You saying I am wrong and me countering with evidence to the contrary. Evidence which you then minimize.

    I plan on doing some more drills on video involving moving and shooting around barricades with my Aimponit R1 and my Trijicon TR24. I have them sighted in on the same rifle.


    Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-02-11 at 04:34.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    At least in my experiance neither as well, but is close enough for government work

    I currently have 2, 1-4 sights (well 1.1-4) and standing still they are about as good as an aimpoint, moving not so much. The IOR is almost as good as the ACOG at distance, but not quite because it is not bright enough to use BAC. The Accupoint triangle lacks auto ranging and is hard to apply hold over with.
    My Swarovski Z6i BRT is great. It has hold overs that work as good as the ACOGS have for me and the second focal plane reticle makes the dot cover 1.5 inches on 6x and 9 inches on 1x so its fast up close. The reticle is bright and easy to use even in full sun light. It truly is a game changer. My TR24 is great as well but lacks a BDC.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Under certain circumstances, as you show, they can do the same things. But they are like all things that do multiple things, jacks of all trade that master none.

    Night vision was a "game changer" ACOGs and CCOs were a game changer from irons. This is not a game changer, there probably won't be one till the next gen sights are produced. They will not only do multiple magnifications setting, night and day capable, but will incorporate ballistic computers and LRF similar to tank primary sights.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    Under certain circumstances, as you show, they can do the same things. But they are like all things that do multiple things, jacks of all trade that master none.

    Night vision was a "game changer" ACOGs and CCOs were a game changer from irons. This is not a game changer, there probably won't be one till the next gen sights are produced. They will not only do multiple magnifications setting, night and day capable, but will incorporate ballistic computers and LRF similar to tank primary sights.
    My Swarovski does everything an ACOG can do and it can do 99% of what a red dot can do. Yes its a game changer. No longer do you have to have separate optics for perimeter vs entries. You can do it with a good low power variable scope.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    It would seen Marines equipped with RCOs have been doing both for some time without an issue or the need for separate optics. Same thing with CCO equipped Soldiers.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    The current low power variables are game changers.
    The current low power variables are essentially the same as they were 10 years ago. There are more flavors of them but they essentially perform the same function. The technological advances have occurred but are mostly in the form of nice features, but any shooter worth his salt and who has spent some time learning the basic features and methods of using a scope, are still using those basic features and methods. It's not the scope that makes the difference, it's still the shooter behind the gun. I know it's hard to understand, I know it is hard questioning those dearly held assumptions, but ultimately you've got to make the effort.

    Basically that is what this has come down to. You saying I am wrong and me countering with evidence to the contrary.
    Except that it's not evidence. It's a nice video of you showing a gamer setup, coming to conclusions you were predisposed to come to based on the purchases you've made. Evidence not only requires you to prove your concepts multiple times, in multiple ways but once you've sufficiently gathered that evidence, you try to disprove it to be sure to eliminate the human element. This is the essence of critical thought. If you like the scope for your purposes, that's just fine. They make nice scopes and I use them. Extrapolating that by saying it's an RDS killer (i.e. a qualitatively better scope), the standard of proof goes much higher.

    You've shown nothing about what makes a new scope better than an old scope let alone what a new scope does better than an RDS. Honestly you're where I was 4 years ago. I tried to believe it, I've gone out of my way to think like you did. I started with variable powered optics and started my training with them and spent years trying to make them as versatile and functional as an RDS. In the end they weren't. The RDS genuinely rules the roost inside of 100 yards and with a bit of skill and practice is functional well beyond that range. Hell I've shot RDS's out to 600 (without magnifiers) and while it's not easy, it can be done.

    Gear doesn't make up for lack of skill. You go on and on about the short-dot and how "cost doesn't mean anything when your life is on the line" and yet you don't even use one? That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Instead you use the TR-24 which imo the worst low-powered variable there is. I've owned two accu-points, used them extensively, and sold them both once I realized I was handicapped compared to those using RDS. They're not even in the same league as the short-dot never mind the same ballpark.

    While the short-dot is a nice optic, for the cost of a TR-24 a Vortex PST is a superior scope with superior features and better glass quality and is at least as rugged, never mind a better reticle and vastly superior turrets. The TR-21/24 are hunting optics, not tactical. In that role, it does well enough but it's not a panacea. Essentially it's a red-dot with the magnifier built in, but it's neither as rugged as an Aimpoint nor as functional. The reticle is absolute garbage. It buys you neither speed nor accuracy (it's still not faster than a red-dot in virtually all of the non-traditional shooting positions which is a requirement in a combat optic and it's as fast or faster standing up and static, it's forgiving in terms of eye position which he TR-24 isn't and despite all that the TR-24 is not as accurate as a scope with decent, trackable turrets and a functional reticle). You can't dial in any dope, use holds, range a target or do any of the other things a magnified optic should be able to do (and have been doing for 10-20 plus years) and yet you claim it's a game changer? It's absolutely goofball.

    I like and use low-powered variables. They do some things very well on a carbine and are ideal on an SPR setup. They are not, however, an RDS killer. You're doing those that don't know any better a disservice by making them believe that they can compensate for their lack of knowledge with a variable powered optic. It's a bad joke and it's transparently so. This is why it's called the errornet.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 08-02-11 at 09:28.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    The current low power variables are essentially the same as they were 10 years ago. There are more flavors of them but they essentially perform the same function. The technological advances have occurred but are mostly in the form of nice features, but any shooter worth his salt and who has spent some time learning the basic features and methods of using a scope, are still using those basic features and methods. It's not the scope that makes the difference, it's still the shooter behind the gun. I know it's hard to understand, I know it is hard questioning those dearly held assumptions, but ultimately you've got to make the effort.



    Except that it's not evidence. It's a nice video of you showing a gamer setup, coming to conclusions you were predisposed to come to based on the purchases you've made. Evidence not only requires you to prove your concepts multiple times, in multiple ways but once you've sufficiently gathered that evidence, you try to disprove it to be sure to eliminate the human element. This is the essence of critical thought. If you like the scope for your purposes, that's just fine. They make nice scopes and I use them. Extrapolating that by saying it's an RDS killer (i.e. a qualitatively better scope), the standard of proof goes much higher.

    You've shown nothing about what makes a new scope better than an old scope let alone what a new scope does better than an RDS. Honestly you're where I was 4 years ago. I tried to believe it, I've gone out of my way to think like you did. I started with variable powered optics and started my training with them and spent years trying to make them as versatile and functional as an RDS. In the end they weren't. The RDS genuinely rules the roost inside of 100 yards and with a bit of skill and practice is functional well beyond that range. Hell I've shot RDS's out to 600 (without magnifiers) and while it's not easy, it can be done.

    Gear doesn't make up for lack of skill. You go on and on about the short-dot and how "cost doesn't mean anything when your life is on the line" and yet you don't even use one? That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Instead you use the TR-24 which imo the worst low-powered variable there is. I've owned two accu-points, used them extensively, and sold them both once I realized I was handicapped compared to those using RDS. They're not even in the same league as the short-dot never mind the same ballpark.

    While the short-dot is a nice optic, for the cost of a TR-24 a Vortex PST is a superior scope with superior features and better glass quality and is at least as rugged, never mind a better reticle and vastly superior turrets. The TR-21/24 are hunting optics, not tactical. In that role, it does well enough but it's not a panacea. Essentially it's a red-dot with the magnifier built in, but it's neither as rugged as an Aimpoint nor as functional. The reticle is absolute garbage. It buys you neither speed nor accuracy (it's still not faster than a red-dot in virtually all of the non-traditional shooting positions which is a requirement in a combat optic and it's as fast or faster standing up and static, it's forgiving in terms of eye position which he TR-24 isn't and despite all that the TR-24 is not as accurate as a scope with decent, trackable turrets and a functional reticle). You can't dial in any dope, use holds, range a target or do any of the other things a magnified optic should be able to do (and have been doing for 10-20 plus years) and yet you claim it's a game changer? It's absolutely goofball.

    I like and use low-powered variables. They do some things very well on a carbine and are ideal on an SPR setup. They are not, however, an RDS killer. You're doing those that don't know any better a disservice by making them believe that they can compensate for their lack of knowledge with a variable powered optic. It's a bad joke and it's transparently so. This is why it's called the errornet.
    Just when I think you can't be more wrong you go and do it again. These videos were not made to test which optic was better. In fact the original reason was to test the speed of a pistol vs a rifle at close range. I used a variet of pistols, rifles and optics. I used 3 different shooters as well. Rifles were faster for all but one shooter. What you were accusing me of is researcher bias which was clearly not the case and the use of multiple shooters shows that. I have their videos up on my channel as well.

    Its not a gamer set up. Its a simple skills test. Again its apparant your ignorant of what gaming actually is. Come to a three gun match some time and you can learn about it first hand.

    Wrong on the TR24. You can dial in dope and I do it all the time. The turrents are marked in MOA and they can be re set to zero. You can also use holds by sighting in with the tip of the triangle as your 200 yard zero and use the bottom for shooting 300 yards. Have you actually seen one of these scopes in person. Talk about errornet. Your inability to properly take advantage of the TR24 does not lesson its value as a good optic. Taren Butler has used the TR24 to win many a major three gun matches. (if youwould like instruction on how to use the TR24's properly I am sure I could put something together for you)

    Gear does not make the shooter yea yea yea. We all know that. However gear does given you an advantage if you have the skill to take advantage of it.

    I also never told anyone (go over my posts all you want) that gear will make up for a lack of skill.

    Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-02-11 at 13:04.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    It would seen Marines equipped with RCOs have been doing both for some time without an issue or the need for separate optics. Same thing with CCO equipped Soldiers.
    I have talked to soldiers who are very un happy using an ACOG in a house clearing enviroment. Just because someone has made a less effective tool work does not make the tool more effective. I also know plenty of soldiers un-happy with their Aimpoints in a longer range shooting situation. (the reason the Short Dot was developed in the first place)
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    Just when I think you can't be more wrong you go and do it again. These videos were not made to test which optic was better. In fact the original reason was to test the speed of a pistol vs a rifle at close range. I used a variet of pistols, rifles and optics. I used 3 different shooters as well. Rifles were faster for all but one shooter. What you were accusing me of is researcher bias which was clearly not the case and the use of multiple shooters shows that. I have their videos up on my channel as well.
    Reading is fundamental and you're blowing smoke.

    So let me get this straight... now your story is that the videos weren't meant to prove that your optics were better than RDS, only that carbines were faster than pistols? (Can you say duh?) So what's the freaking point of showing them?

    I'm somehow supposed to glean that this is actually a pistol test despite the fact that they don't show a freakin pistol and this is the first time you mentioned it? Researcher bias doesn't just exist in the test, it also exists in the interpretation of the data. Your test did nothing to demonstrate that one optic was better or faster and if you came to that conclusion it's because you selectively threw out one set of facts in favor of another.

    Its not a gamer set up. Its a simple skills test. Again its apparant your ignorant of what gaming actually is. Come to a three gun match some time and you can learn about it first hand.
    Again you're making presumptions which are not only foolish but dead wrong.

    Wrong on the TR24. You can dial in dope and I do it all the time. The turrents are marked in MOA and they can be re set to zero.
    You simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you've deluded yourself into believing the above is true but it's simply delusion. Having dials to adjust zero isn't the same as being able to quickly and efficiently dial in dope. This is why turrets on most scopes don't have covers, and usually the turrets themselves are marked. Moreover 1/4 click adjustments such for this purpose. You're proving my point...you have no basis for coming to the conclusions you're spouting as objective fact. You don't know what you don't know.

    You can also use holds by sighting in with the tip of the triangle as your 200 yard zero and use the bottom for shooting 300 yards. Have you actually seen one of these scopes in person.
    MEEEEP. Incorrect that's not hold over, that's having a different hold point. If you can't actually see something you can't "hold over". That's kind of a fundamental concept. That big ****ing post in the middle of the optic obscures the target. Again another presumption that's dead wrong. Since you apparently can't read basic English I've not only seen them, I've owned them. I've shot them...extensively.

    Talk about errornet. Your inability to properly take advantage of the TR24 does not lesson its value as a good optic. Taren Butler has used the TR24 to win many a major three gun matches. (if youwould like instruction on how to use the TR24's properly I am sure I could put something together for you)
    Well if Taran Butler uses them shooting games, then I stand corrected. Seriously that carries no weight with me.

    How many of these scopes are actually in operational use?


    I also never told anyone (go over my posts all you want) that gear will make up for a lack of skill.

    Pat
    Actually that's exactly what you've said by implication and clearly the rest of your argument is nonsense.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 08-02-11 at 13:57.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    It would seen Marines equipped with RCOs have been doing both for some time without an issue or the need for separate optics. Same thing with CCO equipped Soldiers.
    It is one of my biggest gripes, as it is with pretty much every above-average shooter I know that is saddled with one. We don't bitch about it openly much because we know what battles to fight and what ones are simply wasted effort.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •