Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 128

Thread: Fate of the ACOG

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic_Salad0892 View Post
    Shouldn't it be around.... 23-2500 fps?... I don't have a chrono, I'm just going off of what it should be on a 10.5'' and adding like 100.
    That seems about right. Make sure you're putting your sight height @ 2.755", and you should get something pretty close to right, if you're running numbers through a ballistic calculator.

    Per procedure, you zero the SDO @ 100m to the top of the dot, making the bottom of the dot your 200m hold, top of the BDC is your 300m hold, etc., but that's with the specified weapons/ammo for that optic....
    Contractor scum, AAV

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,706
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post
    That seems about right. Make sure you're putting your sight height @ 2.755", and you should get something pretty close to right, if you're running numbers through a ballistic calculator.

    Per procedure, you zero the SDO @ 100m to the top of the dot, making the bottom of the dot your 200m hold, top of the BDC is your 300m hold, etc., but that's with the specified weapons/ammo for that optic....
    You forgot the 36 yard quick BZO for lazy Range OICs
    Why do the loudest do the least?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Indeed, I did NOT, Sir!

    I'd LIKE to.....
    Contractor scum, AAV

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    I don't care if your impressed or not.
    Hey you made the statement that you made it look easy after I told you you had missed the point.

    One thing I do notice is a lack of any thing from you to prove your theory that RDS's are always faster.
    Always and never are two standards of proof to which I never subscribe or aspire. You made the claim that the low powered variables are RDS killers, sorry bud but the burden of proof is on you. I didn't make the claim, you did.

    When I said you weren't "trying" that hard was that your videos don't really show a real test. If your video had shown you shooting upside down underneath a car against moving targets...well then you might have something. As it stands you were simply looking to provide evidence that comes to the conclusion you wanted it to. You didn't try to disproove your own assumption. This is the antithesis of testing.

    You said you ran some drills but you did not post the results.
    I don't video tape drills to post on the internet to show what a cool guy I am. I run them for my own results and finding what works for me. I'm not so arrogant to believe that what works for me works for everyone. You can either accept my word or not. I will say that your videos prove nothing other than what you wanted them to say. I did say that static, standard, shooting positions against static targets at close range, the differences between an RDS and a variable optic are negligible (the RDS will still be faster). Where the RDS kicks the snot out of low-powered variables is in a dynamic environment against dynamic targets, while you're doing something other than standing up. Even still at that range your accuracy was less than impressive. It looked as if you were gaming it.

    Like I said the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims rather than on me to disprove them.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post
    That seems about right. Make sure you're putting your sight height @ 2.755", and you should get something pretty close to right, if you're running numbers through a ballistic calculator.

    Per procedure, you zero the SDO @ 100m to the top of the dot, making the bottom of the dot your 200m hold, top of the BDC is your 300m hold, etc., but that's with the specified weapons/ammo for that optic....
    Santoro, and Pat. Thanks. I appreciate it.

    My goal is to have the stadias capable out to 600m, but I don't know if I can get that.

    Thanks anyway.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    Hey you made the statement that you made it look easy after I told you you had missed the point.



    Always and never are two standards of proof to which I never subscribe or aspire. You made the claim that the low powered variables are RDS killers, sorry bud but the burden of proof is on you. I didn't make the claim, you did.

    When I said you weren't "trying" that hard was that your videos don't really show a real test. If your video had shown you shooting upside down underneath a car against moving targets...well then you might have something. As it stands you were simply looking to provide evidence that comes to the conclusion you wanted it to. You didn't try to disproove your own assumption. This is the antithesis of testing.



    I don't video tape drills to post on the internet to show what a cool guy I am. I run them for my own results and finding what works for me. I'm not so arrogant to believe that what works for me works for everyone. You can either accept my word or not. I will say that your videos prove nothing other than what you wanted them to say. I did say that static, standard, shooting positions against static targets at close range, the differences between an RDS and a variable optic are negligible (the RDS will still be faster). Where the RDS kicks the snot out of low-powered variables is in a dynamic environment against dynamic targets, while you're doing something other than standing up. Even still at that range your accuracy was less than impressive. It looked as if you were gaming it.

    Like I said the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims rather than on me to disprove them.
    The part in red was proven wrong.

    My videos were of a test of shooting ability with various optics. I have shot many more as well. I have already conceaded that shooting from an akward position like under a vehicle with the rifle canted the edge will go to the red dot. But in the majority of shooting positions the 1-4 holds it own and it has a huge edge in distance shootng or for shooting at smaller targets.

    Hate to tell you but the majority of self defense shootings don't involve crunching up in urban prone. They involve shootnig off hand on the move, kneeling behind cover or shooting prone. You accuse me of dismissing weakness I don't like. You on the otherhand are ignoring several advantages the low power variables have because of one weakness. Your throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    As for the video its not about arrogance its about putting my money where my mouth is. What is arrogant is to state your opinion as fact and get insulted when people don't take it as the gospel without any proof. Now you can claim all you want that RDS sights are faster in all situations and that is simply false and I know it from personal experience. There is only one situaiton where they have an edge and we have covered that.

    As for gaming it in the videos. You have no concept of what gaming is apparently. There is no way to game such a simple drill. Gaming involves taking a complicated course of fie and finding the most efficient way to shoot it. Shooting 3 targets at close range is so simple there is only one way to do it. My accuracy was fine considering the speed at which I fired and what my target was. I was not trying to shoot 1 inch groups but rather hit com as fast as I could like in a real life scenario.

    You have made some of your theories known in this thread but have yet to back them up with anything. Get back to me when you do.
    Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-01-11 at 15:29.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,669
    Feedback Score
    29 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    ACOGS are quality optics but a low power variable is must more of a jack of all trades optic than an ACOG is.
    Pat
    True about flexibility. I would rather have the robustness of ACOGs over the flexibility in the optic since I run my ACOG occluded 50-75% of the time within 25 yards. I have trained and shot with it so I get 1 power-esq shooting while still maintaining all of the qualities and high points of an ACOG. I will agree that 1-4's are great flexible sights, I just don't know if the weight and extended profile is a good enough tradeoff for the more compact and robust nature of ACOGs.

    I am not a big fan of moving parts in something that tells me where I am slinging bullets. What I did to my ACOG and EOTech, I wouldn't do to any variable unless it was 1500+ glass and then, I wouldn't want to because if it did break, I might or might not get the warranty work for it. EOTechs are cheap enough to replace without too many tears lost.

    Each, 1-4's and ACOGs, have their pluses and minuses. I think the pluses of ACOGs outweigh the pluses of 1-4's that you prefer. That is why we live in America We each have our own choice.

    As to the debate between you and the other guy about which optic is better: choose what you feel comfortable with and go shoot instead of wasting your breath and fingertips arguing over the internet. I would rather have 4 swinging dicks on my left and right that have trained and shot with irons than the same number with really cool optics and less training. Trigger time is the best training instead of arguing over the internet, but that is just my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal Dragger View Post
    Marines love CLP. Chow, libo, pussy.

    Beyond that everything else is a crap shoot.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Culpeper, VA
    Posts
    6,313
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    The part in red was proven wrong.
    How is that? Your videos were static against a static target. So at best you proved that they were comparable in a static/standing shooting position against a static target.

    You're rigging the test/game in order to get the results you want. Even if you didn't game it one video doesn't prove jack squat. You might shoot it better, on that day, which provides a subjective opinion but it doesn't equate to objective fact. You don't throw out positions/characteristics that are inconvenient and then simultaneously claim you've proven anything.

    I can see that our standards for what constitute proof are dramatically different. Have you ever taken a statistics class?

    Repeat that test 36 times (in statistics n=36 is the accepted number of data points for using z-scores and coming up with a statistically relevant sample), using various shooting positions, around various forms of cover against moving targets and you'll get closer to demonstrating something. At best you only demonstrated that it was POSSIBLE that you MIGHT be slightly faster (but of course you've only provided a statistical sample of one which is worth exactly nada). This isn't proof on any planet in our solar system.

    If you're training to only be shooting from a static position against static targets, without barricades than yes, perhaps the low-powered variable optic can be as fast. For myself (and many others) I don't see that being a realistic scenario so when you say it's an "RDS killer" you're going to have to be prepared for someone to run up the BS flag.

    I have RDSs, ACOGs and low-powered variables. I like them all. I'm not knocking any of them, but they each have drawbacks and limitations. Factor in other things like weight and cost you've got yourself a real WTF moment.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 08-01-11 at 17:31.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    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.
    I don't really think it is a game changer per say. They are an example of doing multiple things alright but neither perfect.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    417
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    One problem with discussing gear is that end user is rarely defined - this is a great example.

    On that note and for the average shooter - yeah, an ACOG is great. It gives them a lot of advantages, makes suitable compromises where it can, and yields on balance an outstanding do it all with 'one' optic.

    That said - it all depends on the shooter.

    I have had a TA31 for years. Inside of 15 yrds it IS as fast as an RDS - IF you are capable of doing it all on index and index alone. It is slower than an RDS from @ 15 - @ 100 yrds b/c of what is required of the shooter in transitioning from T to T - transitioning back and forth from visual inputs from the non optic eye while searching and then transitioning to the optic eye for the shot and then back again. Even if you are a stud with one - it is slower than an RDS.

    Also the ACOG shows its limitations at a distance - 400 and beyond. There are better choices out there. Adjustable turrets favor the shooter that understands their platform, load and atmospherics. A reticle that is precise to subtend amplifies the accuracy potential as well. Each ladder on the stadia bar represents 19" or 5.28 MILs. If your shooting hold offs it isn't all that easy to fractionalize a 1/4 or 1/2 MIL hold. Now add the lack of adjustable turrets to the mix, the BDC is set for one load out of one barrel length, under one set of atmospherics - so it is close but not 100%. Therefore at a distance the shooter is often holding for both elevation and wind - holding in space and having to use the background as a reference point while looking at the stadia and trying to fractionalize it. Way harder than with some reticles and adjustable turrets.

    As for the short dot - the dot is 5 MOA the dot doesn't change size regardless of the power setting. FFP is better b/c with the dot on, the clutter from the reticle goes away when powered down to 1x. If your cheek weld is grooved it is the same speed as an RDS. If it isn't grooved it will be slower and your hits will not be as clean - you need to line up in the same place every single time. At 4x if the dot is too big - power the dot down so it becomes opaque. It is the preeminent do it all in one optic. Price? Yeah,its steep. Better? For an arm's length to 1k yrd optic that you can dial, subtend and hold off with, range with, daylight capable dot, and has that level of durability? There isn't anything else out there. The knock for price is warranted, those that are unhappy beyond that aren't using it in a capacity that shows its value relative to all others out there; or simply don't have the need to value those attributes.

    Like anything - what do you want to do with it?





    Good luck

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •