Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 128

Thread: Fate of the ACOG

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    You're overcompensating dude and you're letting it get to you. Your tests are meaningless. But by all means enlighten us as to your methodology? What is N? What's your mean and median? Std deviation? MOE?

    You can believe your own nonsense if you wish, but it's pure bluster.

    You'd be seriously delusional if you think I don't have better things to do than watch your YouTube diarrhea. You're overcompensating thinking that somehow more videos means you're better.



    Again your overcompensating. You want this to be a dick measuring contest and once again you're delusional if I'm going to play your kindergarten games.

    Are you really that dull that you think that even if you had more training classes that it automatically makes you a better shooter? I've seen you shoot...it's on the videos you provided. I've got nothing to worry about but if you really want a solid metric to prove that come to PA and shoot against me. You pick the guns, I'll pick the course of fire.



    Ugh, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. YOU'RE PROVING MY POINT. Yes they can zero, but if you really think you're going to be counting out 1/4 MOA clicks in the heat of a firefight (on anything other than a square range) you're less competent than I thought. There is comparatively little positive feedback with the clicks. You're not quickly returning to zero, I just keep turning it until I get to that point. If you think you're going to be gingerly removing and replacing caps in hot/cold weather, with someone shooting at you, you're a moron. It isn't a combat scope...it's a gamer scope and it's not operator error when NOT A SINGLE MILITARY UNIT USES IT. It simply isn't suited to the task at hand. How does that equate to an RDS killer or a "game changer".



    Do you seriously have trouble reading english or are you just that stupid? The above statement is disingenuous bullshit. Are you really so full of yourself that you somehow think that just because someone came to a different conclusion than you did and doesn't like the optic in which you've placed so much emotional investment that they somehow haven't trained enough on them?



    Funny that you should mention Daniel Horner, I'm friends with his Daniel's parents and VERY CLOSE FRIENDS with the guy that taught him how to shoot when he was 13 years old...in fact he's not only one of my best friends but he's also my shooting coach. His name is D.R. Middlebrooks. My wife and I go on vacation there to shoot and take classes with him 4-5 times a year. Ouch? Did that hurt? It should dumbass.

    Here they are...



    http://www.tacticalshooting.com/learn-more



    I'm not knocking competitors at all but you're silly if you think that invoking their name gives you any kind of authority to speak on their behalf. Other competition shooters disagree with him, others who actually kill people for a living disagree with him also. More importantly what works for him may not work for another. He may be a great shooter but it doesn't mean you or anyone else has to burp his sperm.

    There is no "one-size-fits-all" and that's as true for optics as anything else.

    I'll choke up the rest to your inanity. Believe what you want, I'm out if someone wants to believe your idiocy that's on them.
    Compensating for something. That it thats the problem. It has nothing to do with your weak ass argument at all. The problem is all mine. LOL

    Also with the TR24 you don't have to count 1/4 moa clicks you look at the dial where it numbers displayed this stands for MOA. Dial in to your preset 400 yard, 500 yard zero etc in MOA. Counting clicks is as stupid as you accuse me of being. Sounds like you really did not try to work with your TR24 at all before giving up on it.


    Also if you need to dial the TR24 in the shooter is probably more than 300 yards away meaning time is not quite as critical as if they are in your face. The TR24 does have some weakness but it still a good optic. As far as no one in the military using it who gives a flying ****. The military is far from all knowing on issuing good gear. How long have we had the Beretta M9 now? I have no emotional attachment to the TR24. Its a good scope in its price range. Their are better scopes out there like the short dot and Swarovski Z6i. The Meopta is also good. You were the one who got hung up on the TR24.

    As for knowing a friend of a friend who once met Daniel Horner again I could give a crap less. Hell I don't care if you know is Godfather. Guess what optic he uses. A Swarovski Z6i BRT.

    Now its obvious to me that you are unwilling to accept anyone elses point of view so debating this thing further with you makes about as much sense as arguing with a wall. Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-02-11 at 19:14.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    They are used on a soft mount, with a Eo-Tech and night sight as part of heavy weapons sight system.

    The bottom line is they were bought because they could be funded with OCO funds, if they had to go through the standard testing routine they probably would not be bought.
    Obviously someone very high up (higher pay grade than yours) thought their was a need and they were purchased.
    Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-02-11 at 19:07.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    The Corps is buying the Mk8 for use on the HMGSS.... heavy machine guns, not DM guns or anything like them. I hope somebody will take my word for it when I say that they certainly managed to figure out a metric for "enough."

    None of the variables are game-changers. They're just scopes. Metal tubes with erector lenses that move back and forth. A game-changer would be coherent light weapons; no holds, nearly-immeasurable "ToF." Hell, a totally frictionless ball-bearing, ffs....THAT'S a paradigm shift. If any variable-power optic is tagged such, one's definition of what the game is is exceedingly narrow.

    Everybody remember those two Autobots in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," the ones that talked like retarded hip-hop moguls? They, too, were mildly amusing to listen to until they got annoying as hell because they were given far, far too much dialogue. It snuck up on you, until it suddenly hit: "Holy crap, WHY am I LISTENING to this garbage?" One sympathizes....

    If we've gotten to the point of name-dropping and yanking photos out of the family albums and asking if it "hurts," then the only point being argued over is which cranium comes to a sharper apex.

    Everybody, move back to hunker down behind your respective LODs and please snarl quietly at one another over a distance.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    As for knowing a friend of a friend who once met Daniel Horner again I could give a crap less.
    Hey dude, you brought up names of people (who you don't even know) as if because you could name their names it imparted some sort of mystical wisdom onto you. If you don't like losing that game, just remember that I didn't bring them into it. If you can shoot like any of them, I'll listen to what you have to say...in the meantime...why should I give a rip?

    Of course the TR-24 has it's shortcomings. That's what I've tried to say...repeatedly...Thank you for proving my point...again.

    Never mind the idiotic reticle (which is the single biggest shortcoming) Why do you think serious trigger pullers use M1 or other externally adjustable turrets? Why do you think they value things like a zero-stop? Why do you think that consistency between reticle and adjustment is desirable in a scope? Why do you think Trijicon is working on a model with exposed turrets? While those are certainly improvements over the 21 adjustment. It still doesn't account for all the shortcomings or the claim that it's a "game changer" or an "rds killer".

    I gave up on it because there are better 1-4x optics for the money. It's not a serious use scope. It's that simple. Through all of this you've failed to glean that I own AND USE low-powered variable scopes. That you started off expounding on the virtues of the short-dot, which you don't even own is a kind of lame.

    Knock yourself out on the 24 you've established your needs and you've made your choice based on that. Good for you. You don't want an RDS? See if I care. But people here need to make up their own mind on all the available evidence and despite your claims, not everyone sees low-powered variables as the end-all be-all.

    Extrapolating that choice into the claim that one optic does everything better than an RDS is the antithesis of what this website exists to do. They fill a role...so does the RDS...live and let live.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 08-02-11 at 20:43.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bourbon Country
    Posts
    366
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    This discussion has gone downhill fast. Seems to happen rather frequently when certain parties are involved.

    In fact, the Trijicon TR-21 and 24 ARE issued to .mil units and I have seen both downrange. Ill stay out of the rest of it.

    Rick

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    Obviously someone very high up (higher pay grade than yours) thought their was a need and they were purchased.
    Pat
    Actually he was CWO5, and I do out rank him.
    Last edited by R0N; 08-03-11 at 05:10.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post

    None of the variables are game-changers. They're just scopes. Metal tubes with erector lenses that move back and forth. A game-changer would be coherent light weapons; no holds, nearly-immeasurable "ToF." Hell, a totally frictionless ball-bearing, ffs....THAT'S a paradigm shift. If any variable-power optic is tagged such, one's definition of what the game is is exceedingly narrow.
    Exactly, to say these are "game changers" belies a very limited operational experience base.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    Exactly, to say these are "game changers" belies a very limited operational experience base.
    I have to admit I got out of hand and acted like an ass in this thread. Frankly I have no operation experience in the military sense since I have never been in the military. I do feel that quality low power variables have a lot to offer but admitted they are not game changers from the military perspective.
    Please accept my appology.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    You weren't the only one Pat, please accept mine as well. I'm also sorry if the message got muddied for anyone who might have benefitted from this thread.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida Gulf Coast
    Posts
    1,432
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I think I'm going to hold out a little longer on a magnified optic purchase. People in the know here have rumored about a Trijicon variable that would fix all the problems with the TR21/24.

    I'm personally hoping to see (shot show 2012 would be great) Trijicon release a variable 1-4 or 1-6 with either the TA33 or TA31 reticles offered. Externally adjustable turrets would be nice as well as electronic illumination as well.

    When I was younger I was really into archery, I had a fiber optic bow sight. It experienced the same problems as the Trijicon ACOG and TR24 in regards to awkward lighting conditions. At the time some company (cant remember who) was making a little LED light with adjustable brightness, it also had about three hundred hours of battery life on a little watch battery.

    Trijicon already has the technology in the form of the TriPower... incorporate that into the Accupoint with externally adjustable turrets, good reticles and for $1200. If Trijicon can do that, I'll buy two and tell everyone I know to do the same.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 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
  •