I am very interested in this optic for a project I am working on, that requires a general purpose optic. Some have claimed that the optic washes out when you use a flashlight in conjunction with it in the dark. Any thoughts.
I haven't used that ACOG but the line is good. Strong, solid designs with clear glass. They don't wash out, thats the reflex. Instead if you overwhelm the illuminated reticle it simply appears black.
I went with the 4x32 because, strange as it may seem, it has a wider field of view than the 3x30. I thought that Trijicon's website was in error so I pulled a couple off the shelf at work and they were right.
Odd I will have to look into that. So the 4 x 32 is more general purpose in that it is better close and further out?
just spoke to Trijicon and they recommended the 3.5 x 35 with green chevron.
less critical eye position, more eye relief, middle FOV.
just spoke to Trijicon and they recommended the 3.5 x 35 with green chevron.
less critical eye position, more eye relief, middle FOV.
Just remember that the 3.5x35 is MUCH larger than either the 3x30 or 4x32. Some people think that it looks too bulky on an M4. Chevrons are good for fast work but not so good for precision.
tip of the chevron is smaller than 2 MOA center of horseshoe dot, Trijicon techical recommended chevron for more precision!
yes it is bigger/heavier so is a Nightforce, shortdot etc.
and yet is is rated 1100 g's for 2 millisecs and 100 meters below the H2O. Not for an M4 so I am thinking live with the weight and size and get what I want or compromise.
In the Marine Corps we use the 4x32 with chevron and 5.56 ballistic reticule. Makes shooting out to 500 a breeze.
Top of the chevron is your 0-100 bottom of the chevron is your 300, and then you get into the hash marks.
http://www.militarywarfighter.com/Trijicon_ACOG_Comparison_and_FAQ_s/386.htm#556I've only used one, the 1.5" eye relief didn't work for me but they have better options now.
tip of the chevron is smaller than 2 MOA center of horseshoe dot, Trijicon techical recommended chevron for more precision!
Not for an M4 so I am thinking live with the weight and size and get what I want or compromise.
Yeah, but I'm old fashioned and have the original TA01 with regular crosshairs.
What are you putting it on, anyways?
In the Marine Corps we use the 4x32 with chevron and 5.56 ballistic reticule. Makes shooting out to 500 a breeze.
Top of the chevron is your 0-100 bottom of the chevron is your 300, and then you get into the hash marks.
They didn't have those cool toys back when I was a grunt.
Is that drop-dope with the A2, or the M4? And, what ammo?
In the Marine Corps we use the 4x32 with chevron and 5.56 ballistic reticule. Makes shooting out to 500 a breeze.
Top of the chevron is your 0-100 bottom of the chevron is your 300, and then you get into the hash marks.
They didn't have those cool toys back when I was a grunt.
Is that drop-dope with the A2, or the M4? And, what ammo?
They have a model for the A2/A4 (no one uses the A2 anymore except the National Guard office pogs) and they have a model for the M4. It's all based around the standard issue M855.
When you look at the ACOG model number it will end with M4 or A4
TA31RCO-A4
TA31RCO-M4
RCO being Marine speak for "ranged combat optic"
They come standard issue with a kill-flash and a neoprene cover along with a coyote brown pouch. The mount is a POS thumb screw that comes loose, so I bought a Larue mount for mine. It paid off when it counted.
just spoke to Trijicon and they recommended the 3.5 x 35 with green chevron.
less critical eye position, more eye relief, middle FOV.
That scope kicks butt. My second choice is hte ACOG 4x Army combat optic version with is about 1200 bucks. Presently I have 2 acogs but the 3.5x35 will be my next one.
I actually still prefer the older 4x TA01 version. I prefer it due to the reticle pattern.
Eye relief has not been an issue for me, that others have mentioned.
Shooting full profile, human shaped targets, where there is a greater margin for error elevation wise, a chevron reticle pattern is OK, but for precision, the original 100, 200 300,etc yard horizontal bars offer a distinct advantage.
For a recreational shooter, most likely shooting at a coyote or something that size, at a longer distance, where there is very little margin for error, elevation wise, I find the chevron pattern to very be poor as compared to the horizontal bars.
Under 100 yards, I do not think it would matter much. It is when the dogs hang up at 200 to 400 that the precision of the original reticle design really shine.
It is what works for me. Different strokes!
I only own a 1.5x mini ACOG, not much experience with the others but I've watched Marines plink steel out to 500 with their ACOG RCO's on M4's and they made it look easy.
Let me recant part of my eye relief problem, it was on a fixed carry handle with a cheek riser. I hated it but after thinking about it, that may have been more the problem than eye relief.
I don't care for the chevron, give me crosshairs.
I get the picture on the chevron, I looked through one over the weekend. The bright green upside down horseshoe with a dot looks a lot easier to use. I will hunt with the rifle but also probably take one of those carbine classes with it.