So the Marines just made a purchase of $28,092 new ACOG’s at $8,169,996.00; nice little sale for Trijicon, on a great scope for our soldiers. The math works out at just under $291.00 per ACOG. Now when I try to buy an ACOG, about the best price I find for the same scope (4x32 w/ TA31 reticle) is just over $1,200.00! Man, I thought H&K treated their civilian customers rough...that’s over 4X the price the US military is paying.

Now of course you would expect to pay more since you’re ordering one vs. 28,092…but 4X more? Twice the price would be about expected…or perhaps 2.5 x the price. Or if we follow the precedent of the Sig 320, which civilians pay just under 3x the price (retail is around $600, military pays $207 per pistol).

We’re being a bit gouged. I guess hat’s off for Trijicon and Sig pulling it off.

Price of ACOG
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/24/trijicon-awarded-new-marine-corps-rco-contract/

Price of Sig 320
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...r-pistol-sig-sauer-m17-modular-handguns/

wow

It's impossible to be gouged on a purchase that you're not required to make.

Yeah, I would probably still buy one if that's what I decided I wanted.

I have a 3.5X35mm and I don't really love it. I prefer a standard scope like a Leupold VX6. Nothing wrong with the ACOG, just not my favorite.

I've got a TA31F 4x32 red chevron + a TA51 mount that I paid $1026.99 for from Opticsplanet.com that I worked a deal on.

Don't be afraid to engage in conversation with some of the salesmen. They're on commission and hungry. And they do go on sale occasionally. Eurooptic and Grabagun have them for $999 right now.

PS- GunGeek, you do realize the Marine Corps version is the RCO. They're a bit more expensive than the regular TA31. So you may want to factor that in, too.

Too critical of eye relief with acog,s to me , i liked a m68 and a peq2 myself. Pet peeve. I gaurantee that if a soldier or a marine lost their acog outside of a combat loss, Their statement of charges for it back to unca sugar would have 10% depreciation and the cost would be at least double per that aquisistion cost ,ie its actual listed nsn cost.

Don't be kcuntnnny...




Clark

Uh... The reason your paying $1200 is so Marines can have ACOGS.
If the Department of the Navy saw a requisition for sights in that quantity at $1200 a pop then it would be denied.
So, thanks.
I think in '95 we were paying under $100 for Beretta's.

I also assume that once the military chooses an item the civilian demand gets bumped by many times

I assume that also is a reason they make the price very attractive for the contracts

Colt makes quite a few 1911s but everyone wants a CQP

Hank

It's both...they use the RCO with the TA31 reticle.

GG, my point was that the RCO's are more expensive.

So, the math would be even less favorable to the civvy consumer.
Just sayin.

ACOG is old tech. I would look elsewhere.

Such as.....

Oh yeah, when you pay 8 million plus for 28,902 in cash... thats nuts.... ROTFLMAO

Is there anything out there that can compete in durability though? Maybe the ELCAN?

Still have about 100k more units to purchase to fulfill the Commandant's goal.

Since I'm helping the Military to pay for these with my tax money I'm glad they are getting them at discount.

While I believe low power variables are more flexible for CQB to extended distance shooting, ACOGs are still are rather effective tools.

Recently I was at a social gathering/shoot at the residence of a well known figure in the industry. Guys had all manner of optics, and I was the only person with an ACOG. We were allowed 1 30 round mag to hit 5 steel targets at extended ranges, from various shooting positions.

I was running my lightweight gun, w/ the old TAO1. 5 shots later it was all over, including 1 mandatory support/weak side shot.




Guys complain about the eye relief on them, and they are a little short, but if your gun is set up properly for you it is really a non issue, and you can do some great work with an ACOG.

LOTS of enemy combatants have found out how effective the combo of a solid platform, an ACOG and a good shooter is.

You are making this much too complicated, IMHO. Trijicon makes a quality product for which there is demand. They make that product (and others obviously) to make money on the transaction, and they will charge whatever the market will bear. No one is forced to buy their products. Businesses exist to make profits and more profits are better for the stockholders than less profits. It's really very simple.

Nightforce NXS variables and SWFA SS 1-6x HD. If you listen to Trijicon the VCOG is as well, however the Marines had some problems with them. The ones we have, have been fine. The Elcan, can not.



Acogs work. But they are old tech, or at least an older way of looking at things- yet I would say that about ANY BDC reticled optic. Having said that, there is an Army SMU that seems to be pleased with the Acog/RMR combo.

Showed up in Fallujah in 2005 with RCT 8. They were kind enough to issue us ACOG's for our AR's. We took them to the range to zero and easily got one hole ragged groups from the standing. Over the next 8 months, we used them hard; dust, heat and long rides over rough roads. None of them lost zero or failed. My first experience with this optic and I was impressed.

In both cases, their product liability insurance costs are probably quite a bit higher when they put them on the civilian market than when they sell them to the military.

What's wrong with the Elcan?

Due to the design itself, they will probably never be truly durable and reliable. You have a lever that flips a prism and any play of that lever results in inconsistent alignment of the prism. That's ignoring zero shifts between 1x and 4x.

They can work, but I see a higher failure rate than I find acceptable.

I had good luck with my Elcan, for durability/reliability and accuracy....but I left it on 4x, and used it because of the all external mechanicals and abuse it took in and out of vehicles and such. Would it be my top choice if I was the guy going in? Probably not, but it was a better option for me than an eotech or aimpoint, and we were thin on acogs at the time. Once we got more acogs, I just stayed with the elcan because it wasn't broke, and it had better glass/reticle, to me.