Anyone run a Trijicon 1.5x ACOG?

**jhs1969** · 12-22-07, 10:42

I've used the Bushnell Holoshight and it just didn't do it for me. Therefore I have never even given the Eotech an honest trial. I've had a couple of Aimpoints (an ML2 currently) and I am completely in love with it.

I would like to find an optic with the CQB capabilities of the Aimpoint but without batteries or electronics. I used to manufacture electronics for the automotive industry and have always had a small amount of suspicion since.

I checked out a compact ACOG about five years ago in 1.5x and was impressed with it's close range speed but I've never shot with one. Is it capable of replaceing the Aimpoint on my next carbine or should I just deal with batteries and electronics and keep Aimpoints on all my carbines?

**Steve** · 12-22-07, 10:49

I have run one for several months and a few training days.

it is fast but I'm much faster with an AP/EO mainly i think due to the amount of rounds down range I have through the other systems.

it is a good unit and works well.

**TOrrock** · 12-22-07, 10:54

I run a TA44R 1.5x with the red crosshair on my M4, and I like it alot. It works in low light as well as bright sunlight.

**rob_s** · 12-22-07, 11:21

I am a huge fan of the Compact ACOGs. With that said, I would not let a fear of electronics/batteries sway me against an Aimpoint in any way.

I have both the 3x -33R model and a 1.5x.

I have used the 3x Compact ACOG on moving living targets twice at CQB distances. I would choose the 1.5x over the 3x for this purpose based on my experience. The first time, pictured below, the target was out in the open and on the run at about 25 yards, and a single shot dropped her without issue. The second time, pictured below that, the target was in heavy brush, static, and at about 10-15 yards, and all I could make out was fur without any idea if I was shooting head, heart, or ass (turned out to be ass, and the chase was on).

I personally believe that the 1.5x is a good, lighter-weight, battery free, Aimpoint alternative that is not impacted by astigmatism and which has a bit of an edge in precision shooting over the Aimpiont, while the 3x has all of the same benefits while trading CQB speed for long range precision. Hence, I have the 1.5x on the SBR and the 3x on the 16".

1.5x

3x

Comparative weights

**dubb-1** · 12-22-07, 12:04

I've used the TA44R-4 for years. It is a great optic for most applications.

**decodeddiesel** · 02-21-08, 14:28

Sorry to bump a 2 month old thread, however I need some clarification as I am trying to save up enough cash to pony up for a compact ACOG sometime in late March early April.

So...for 1.5x ACOGs I am seeing the TA44 series which has a 16mm objective lens, and the TA45 with the 24mm objective lens. From the specs I don't see much else of a difference. It seems most here are running the 16mm objective lens. Whats the reasoning behind this? I am assuming it is weight. Would it not be worth it to have a slightly larger objective lens and gain the added exit pupil for the weight penalty?

Also what recticle are most running. rob_s seems to be a fan of the triangle, but templar and others are running the X-hairs. I am looking for cqb, but also I would like some medium range capability (ie 200 meters or less) and I am afraid the X-hairs would be too thick. Any help and or personal experience here would be great.

Thanks, and once again sorry for bumping an old thread.

**rob_s** · 02-21-08, 14:39

Eye relief.

**decodeddiesel** · 02-21-08, 14:45

OK now I see, thanks rob. So the consensus is the TA44 with the shorter eye relief? OK, that prompts stupid question #2, why go with the shorter eye relief?