Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 128

Thread: Fate of the ACOG

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo_Zam_Beek View Post
    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.
    The dot on my Short Dot most definitely increases in size as magnification is increased. It is very evident when shooting in low light on 4X.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,165
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    It got so bad that red dots had to be thrown in a division with irons so people could compete.
    I recall from the Brian Enos forums that the inclusion of RDS's with irons was as much or more due to the fact that the irons division rarely saw more than one or two participants at anything but the largest matches. I recall also reading that the inclusion of RDS's with irons increased match participation in general.

    My memory could be bad, though. And what I read may not be accurate, either.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,073
    Feedback Score
    31 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Vlad Tepes View Post
    Great debate gentlemen. I'm a bit of a simpleton and I still only have irons on my 6920, and I haven't gone beyond a self debate to deciding if I want to put an aimpoint, a TR24 or an ACOG on my rifle that fills the role of essentially a general purpose/homestead defense carbine, so I'm watching this debate carefully.
    If you are planning on shooting at people outside of your ability to communicate effectively with them, variable or ACOG.

    If you are planning on finding out who they are and what they want before you shoot them, RDS or irons.

    This all changes if you are planning on everyone carrying cell phones/walkie talkies/megaphones in your SHTF plans.

    Seriously, buy the optic that best fits what you do with your rifle 80% of the time and hopefully you will actually use it and be good enough with it to prevail over 95% of the people out there who buy a rifle and take pictures of it and then postulate on how they would use it, if they ever actually took it out of the safe.

    That other 5% will get you anyway even if all they had was a rolled up newspaper.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The vast majority of the members on this and other forums will never shoot at anything other than paper or steel, although they should be prepared to fight things that go bump in the night. Sometimes we make things way more complicated than they really are.
    Last edited by DWood; 08-01-11 at 18:59.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    417
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DWood View Post
    The dot on my Short Dot most definitely increases in size as magnification is increased. It is very evident when shooting in low light on 4X.
    Then you should return it as defective. If you are unsure what it is really doing, you should use grid paper that indicates a constant size at 100 yrds and work through the power adjustments. It is visually deceiving b/c the dot is appears to be moving closer to your eye and thus getting larger and brighter. In reality it covers the same area down range at 1x and 4x.


    Good luck

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    I don't really think it is a game changer per say. They are an example of doing multiple things alright but neither perfect.
    Well it does long range as good as the ACOG and it does close range as good as a red dot with the exception of akward position shooting.
    As for the post who was worried about moving parts. I have seen scopes go through torture tests like the Nightforce for example and keep on ticking. There is an add showing a bullet through a soldiers Nightforce scope and it still worked. So I am not worried about robustness just because its a variable scope.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn View Post
    I recall from the Brian Enos forums that the inclusion of RDS's with irons was as much or more due to the fact that the irons division rarely saw more than one or two participants at anything but the largest matches. I recall also reading that the inclusion of RDS's with irons increased match participation in general.

    My memory could be bad, though. And what I read may not be accurate, either.
    That is true but red dots were not keeping pace with variable power scopes in Tactical division so no one used them. This allowed people to come to matches who would have otherwise stayed home because they had un competative equipment.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    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.
    As for cost I want the best optic that will give me an edge and help me come home at the end of my shift. I don't care so much how much it costs now as long as I don't end up paying with my life because I went cheap.
    Now for weight that is a factor but I have got my rifle down to a weight I can handle so its now a moot point. I would not run a RDS without a magnifier anyway and that would bring the weight up to a comparable level. Like I said the new breed of low power variables are sealing the fate on the ACOG and the older full size red dots. The micro red dots still have a role on light weight weapons and as a back up optic. (such as in conjunction with a low power variable to deal with those akward shots you find so daunting. I can accept that you have come to a different conclusion in your journey. Perhaps its because you did not train hard enough with a variable to become familar with them or you gave up too easily or you went cheap on the quality of the optic. Not sure not my problem. But as for me and my training and testing I have found the low power variables to be the best do all optic out there.
    Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-01-11 at 19:43.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo_Zam_Beek View Post
    Then you should return it as defective. If you are unsure what it is really doing, you should use grid paper that indicates a constant size at 100 yrds and work through the power adjustments. It is visually deceiving b/c the dot is appears to be moving closer to your eye and thus getting larger and brighter. In reality it covers the same area down range at 1x and 4x.


    Good luck
    The dot is on the first focal plane so it appears like it is growing and shrinking but its not.
    Pat
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    C'mon Pat, so that means the reticle only appears to be growing and shrinking too?
    Last edited by DWood; 08-01-11 at 20:09.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •