Rifle Scopes ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

[Turk]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I find it hard to beat open sights or no sights for CQB. Especially for the money!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQr58oTEco

 

[KeithSF]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

haha, I'll stick to aiming for now thanks. Though I suppose from three feet away that's effective.

 

[AlanM]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech gets my vote.

 

[juicehead2004]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech for CQB gets my vote also.!

Getting ready to buy my second one later on this week.

 

[JasonB]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

NF 1-4 w/ Mildot Ret, Zero Stop, and Mil Clicks

 

[scotharr]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the ACOG are highly overrated for the $$$.....
The washout problems kill them for me. </div></div>

I've heard this quite a few times from cops who use them in low light, flashlight on = reticle off...oops. But that was on ar15.com and apparently those guys don't know anything since they prefer aimpoints.

One of the important issues is magnification: its very undesirable in true CQB. In Iraq, red dots are widely used because they do a lot of cqb. In Afghanistan, longer shots are often required and you see a lot more ACOGs.

I love my Aimpoint, plan to use it for coyote "cqb" shooting.

 

[Turk]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

What distance qualifies for CQB distances?

 

[scotharr]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Inside a building, across the street: very short distances where keeping both eyes open and getting a super-fast sight picture are all important.

 

[CWSShooter]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

ACOG NSN with iron sites or red dot is the only way on my end. Why spend 350 + 500(MAGNIFIER) for what you get all in one. If it is real CQB, point shooting usually comes in to play anyway. Just my .2

 

[Turk]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inside a building, across the street: very short distances where keeping both eyes open and getting a super-fast sight picture are all important. </div></div>
That is why; properly trained I don't consider open sights a detriment. I think it is just easier to train the masses!

 

[SPDSNYPR]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the ACOG are highly overrated for the $$$.....
The washout problems kill them for me. </div></div>

I've heard this quite a few times from cops who use them in low light, flashlight on = reticle off...oops. But that was on ar15.com and apparently those guys don't know anything since they prefer aimpoints.

One of the important issues is magnification: its very undesirable in true CQB. In Iraq, red dots are widely used because they do a lot of cqb. In Afghanistan, longer shots are often required and you see a lot more ACOGs.

I love my Aimpoint, plan to use it for coyote "cqb" shooting.

</div></div>

If anyone cares, I use a front scope cap on my TA33 for close-in stuff. It acts as an OEG at that point, and you don't have near the problem with reticle washout with the cap closed. Not quite as fast as the EO or Aimpoint, but it is pretty close.

Crappy pic for visual people:

 

[JRose]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

EOTech.

 

[U2AV8R]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

As has been said, in a CQB environment, field of view. EOTech hands down.

 

[LRS76251]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

ACOG for distance and EoTech for CQB. The ACOG with DOC is good but the DOC tends to get beat up with a lot of use because of where its mounted.

Chad

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech for CQB in my opinion. You can add or even get a 3x or a 4X flip to side magnifier that flips out of the way that way you have your perfection at CQB distances and then your extended range whenever you need it. You do not have to get your head ligned up perfectly for the Eotech to work. if you look thru the center of the eotech at 2" or 3+ feet it still performs flawlessly....Eotech can be had in AA battery versions , 123 battery versions and N battery versions. Do not get the N battery option.( This is less desirable and batteries are more expensive and harder to come buy. The magnifier( if you get it) has no batteries. My AA batteries last so long that I forget when I actually replaced them....I can live with that....Good luck with your choices. In another month ( April 3rd at Knob Creek machine Gun Shoot, I will be purchasing another Eotech with the 4X flip combo and the dust cap comes with it, all in a nice little box for around $1G..Happy camper am I .....SmokeRolls

 

[Strangedays]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

What Everyone has said is go with the Eotech!!!

 

[JRose]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Did I mention Eotech?

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I think we said " Eotech" hahahahaha......SmokeRolls

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Plus the Eotech even works when glass is broke. I saw a picture of one that was still working after being shot with a bullet in Afganistan or Iraq ( I think). That ain't too shabby...SmokeRolls

 

[Ratbert]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.Boyette</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised at seeing people recommend the EO on an internet forum. Go over to ARFCOM and say you like the EO, and they act like you nailed their grandma on the internet while burning their cat. </div></div>

Thats because people on this site SHOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not a Eo-Tech fan myself and I own one!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it does work. I like the AimPoint more. But its all the same. I do think the only real beef I have with the Eo-Tech are two things.

1. I do not like the rectangle window
2. I have used AimPoints in the Army since 1997.

Other than personal issues the Eo-Tech is a great sight. I just wish it was more robust.

John</div></div>

And don't forget, John, that they don't adjust repeatably for shit. Not a huge deal once you're setup, but I'm still kinda impressed at how disconnected the amount you turned the screw was from the amount the reticle moved. A 1/8th turn could be anything from 1/3MOA to 3 MOA adjustment any given time.

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

No issues with accuracy here.....Zeroed once, haven't had to mess with it since........I think...SmokeRolls

 

[Ratbert]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Yeah, once you're setup you're fine.

 

[scotharr]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Main dings I've seen on EOTech over time has been durability and battery life. Its personal preference, but I chose aimpoints because these two features are important to me. The new aimpoint M4 has a 7 year battery life on a single AA battery. Mine has been sitting in my 125 degree arizona garage for over a year now with the aimpoint turned on and the battery is still kicking....most impressive. Also the new micro's are pretty tiny and impressive: no obscuring your field of view with those. Nice to have lots of great choices.

 

[1Bolt]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech is the only way to go. Fast accurate kill zone and don't have to be centered behind the optic.

 

[PLeighton]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Don't forget the trijicon Tri-Power.
The latest generationi is pretty nice.

 

[SmokeRolls]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Elkhuntinguide...The only tuck and roll I get is when I trip and bust my ass in a very ungraceful way.....That was funny about you chasing your wife in her thong though...hammer down on it and treat her like a queen.....SmokeRolls

 

[ZLBubba]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I've used ACOGs, EOtechs, and Aimpoints and for strictly CQB work, Eotech is the best choice. They're a good product. If you're going to do a lot of CQB with occasional midrange work (out to 200 yards), then it's a tossup between Aimpoint and EOtech. The EOtech starts to cover up the target and farther ranges. The Aimpoint seems to be a bit faster for target acquisition and a little more precise at midrange. If you're doing just a little CQB but have more midrange target engagement in mind, then the ACOGs can't be beat.

On deployments, I have my ACOG mounted full time and switch to Aimpoint if we've got a CQB mission. LaRue mounts kickass, and they'll hold your zero really well. All in all, practice as much reflexive fire as you can with whichever optic you choose. That will make a bigger difference in your effectiveness than the difference between the scopes themselves.

~ZL

 

[azdead]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Just my 2 bits, EOTech works fine in my opinion. I like the fact that as a true reflex sight it doesnt matter your cheek weld on the weapon as long as you can see the red dot, your shot is on...as long as your batteries are good. Been in bad ways with that. Like the openness of it too, not as restricting as the Aimpoint, feel like it is too restricting as a 'scope". Been in bad ways with that too. Thats why I have leaned to the Trijicon on a 45 degree mount. This allows you the ability to immediately access your irons without any downtime. The trijicon is small and strong. Just my 2 bits.

That is all.

 

[bmt]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What distance qualifies for CQB distances? </div></div>

A completely made up rule of thumb--used for training purposes:

0 to 25 meters = CQB

25 to 100 meters in law enforcement is "precision rifleman" range (where most such shots happen). Again, rule of thumb developed primarily for training purposes.

100 to 600 meters is mid-range shooting.

600 meters = Long range.

Real life, of course sucks-no warnings, no pre-arranged distances, no time-outs for equipment changes.

BMT

 

[bmt]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All in all, practice as much reflexive fire as you can with whichever optic you choose. That will make a bigger difference in your effectiveness than the difference between the scopes themselves.

~ZL </div></div>

Wisdom, right there.

BMT

 

[SuckitTrebek]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

When you don't have to take into account ruggedness or battery life sure the eotech wins over the aimpoint.

I own both. But it's hard to make an arguement against an optic you can use as a hammer, is on 24/7 with a 6+ year battery life and has a 2moa center dot.

Having said that I own both but have only had problems from my eotech and had to send it in to the company for repair.


As for the discussion between usefullness of acogs vs aimpoints/eotechs.

Well, anyone else here ever try to shoot from a moving vehicle with an acog? Yeah, nearly impossible. However easy with an aimpoint or eotech to do both things like that and make hit's out to 500. The aimpoints/eotechs are more versatile than some think. That is of course if the guy behind the trigger can get the job done, sadly most are lacking.


If I had to choose one the aimpoint wins hands down, with the 2moa dot that is.

 

[ggmanning]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I settled on this a couple of years ago and it works well for me....Eotech with a 3x magnifier on a flip mount. It covers everything from up close to distance if I want to flip down the magnifier. I am not hunting people or clearing rooms so my needs may be different.

 

[HaveBlue83]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

i was just gonna say with the 3x magnifier on a side-flip mounted you have all you need for CQB-decent ranges.

I really liked the setup I saw on an officers M4 in Iraq.

 

[SCRUM69]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I figure I'll put in my 2 cents an help get my post count up.
I own a Armalite M15 .223 with the ACOG red chevron and a
S&W M&P 15 again .223 with the Eotech 552 an the 4x flip magnifer
Though I have not hunted any insurgents with either; I have walk
ed around a field hunting jacks, and I perfer the flip magnifer
set up it worked great for a couple coyotes I saw about 4-500
meters off. Now my uncle has a AGOC with the doc site on top,
and that Also seems to be useful for CQB an very effictive
down range more so that the flip setup

 

[Asm1]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JRose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did I mention Eotech? </div></div>

EOTECH... as said...

CQB was the original debate..

 

[Raabe]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I own both, I've spent a lot of range time with Aimpoints, some of my buddies use Eotechs. I've seen on multiple occasions where when someone running an Eotech gets on the line to shoot, and its not work. Whether it be dead batteries, which lets face it what good is a red dot sight without a dot. Or just dead Eotechs, the XPS have the issue with recoil due to the orientation of the battery with the recoil of the rifle. When you need that rifle, you need it to work, and you need its sights to work as well. For a Red dot or a CQB sight I have a hard time going with anything other than a Aimpoint T-1.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Raabe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I own both, I've spent a lot of range time with Aimpoints, some of my buddies use Eotechs. I've seen on multiple occasions where when someone running an Eotech gets on the line to shoot, and its not work. Whether it be dead batteries, which lets face it what good is a red dot sight without a dot. Or just dead Eotechs, the XPS have the issue with recoil due to the orientation of the battery with the recoil of the rifle. When you need that rifle, you need it to work, and you need its sights to work as well. For a Red dot or a CQB sight I have a hard time going with anything other than a Aimpoint T-1. </div></div>

I haven't heard of any EOTech XPS having any problems. By the way, th Aimpoint M4's also have issues. There have been reports popping up about guys in the military having issues with the issued Aimpojnt M4, so nothing is bomb proof. That's what the BUIS is for. I'm a big fan of both Aimpoints and EOTechs.

 

[5RWill]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I saw some comments about how you don't have to be centered with the EOtech all you have to do is see the dot put it on the target and shoot. Maybe i'm getting confused but i thought it was the other way around? I though it was the aimpoint that was parallax free and required no centering of the optic? Or are they both like this now? As for my vote i also like aimpoint for my 14.5 anyway. I've looked through an EOtech and the particular one i looked through had a fuzzy reticle, could've been just that one though. I also dislike the buttons on the EOtech vs the turret on the aimpoint. While i prefer aimpoints and like the aimpoint Micro alot, I have looked at the EOtech XPS which has caught my eye for the future, seems like the EOtech would fit better on per say a 11.5 SBR.

 

[shane45]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

My experience has been no measurable difference in my times between eotech and aimpoint. A bit better accuracy for me with the aimpoint. But so close its moot. So since the aimpoint has features that are important to me, I choose the aimpoint. Also for whatever reason, the eo ret is SUPER grainy for me which annoys me LOL. My experience with my Acog TA33 H-g was great. You could close the cap and run it OEG style for very close up but even close, there was a good amount of shift for me. It was measurably slower in the 0 to 30 yd ranges due to having to slow down a bit with transitions from target to target. Beyond that it was fantastic. Also I had no washout issues with green. Far better in that regard than any other acog I have owned or used. Elcan specter dr. This optic has been fantastic. I honestly believe that it has given me significant advantage allowing me to run a slower heavier rig competitively against all the 5.56's im competing against, Im usually top 3. (keep in mind Im competing at a local level, not expert/national level. Just avg shooters against avg shooters id say). Ive had no shift issues and it has been great from 3 yds to 300yds. Starting out a stage that has 100yd precision-ish shots and ending in 7 yd shots, it was great being able to flick to 1x with no cheek weld change, no head bobbing, ability to transition left or right, etc etc. What I want to try next. I want to mount up my SN3 1.8X10 in a QR mount with a T1 hanging at 45. The goal is to change the focus of the 308 to med/long engagements but still keep it capable at close range.

 

[-Beck-]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

For strictly CQB with the occasional longer range shooting (100-200m) I prefer the EoTech like so many others have mentioned. I don't baby mine and it takes the abuse well. Regardless of my cheek weld if I can see the reticle, put it where I want bullets to go, and squeeze the bullets will go there. Mine gets a lot of use. It gets turned on and left on most of the day, 3-5+ days every week. I replace the AA batteries once every three months. I haven't had any batteries die since I've been replacing them like this. AAs are cheap.

Regardless of what optic/site/point shoot combo you choose you've got to be competent with them all. There is not one fit for every situation, especially with CQB. Like was mentioned before, you've got to do a lot of reflexive shooting to become proficient. Otherwise it doesn't matter what you choose, it's a waste of money, time, and bullets (and that's best case scenario).

Just my .02

 

[bmt]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

FWIW:

"ACOG" encompasses a lot of scopes.

I have been playing with the TA11 which has excellent eye relief and good BAC "usability."

Other ACOGs have more critical eye relief and are tougher to use.

BMT

 

[cooper623]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

i personally prefer the eotech for CQB since i think that the magnification on the acog, though small is disorienting when doing fast paced things such as CQB. Also, besides the magnification being disorienting, i dont like the tunnel vision effect that looking through an acog produces for CQB. In CQB of all things you need to have as big of a field of view as possible since your own team members or loved ones are in very close proximity, i feel that the eotech allows you to stay open to the whole picture while providing a quick and intuitive to use aiming solution.

 

[bmt]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

BTW-I think Iron Sights and a light are best for "pure" door kickin' CQB. Eotechs are great.

I am looking at this ACOG (TA11-J 308)for general purpose use.

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA11J-308

BMT

 

[Raabe]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I didn't, nor claim anything is bomb-proof. As to the XPS issues, its the orientation of the batteries not being inline with the recoil impulse of the gun, as Riverine put it ",because the batteries are not shock-isolated properly, and because batteries aren't designed to take jarring or impact from their short axis, they warp, crack, and usually leak."

 

[LawnMM]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Haven't read the three pages of responses but I will throw in my own two cents.

I have an Eotech on my patrol rifle for work and the viewing angle on it and how big it keeps your world is pretty unparalleled if you ask me. You can keep both eyes open without any focus or distraction issues and see whats going on as you are moving. The 1 MOA dot is also smaller and a tad more precise than some of the other options.

You can mount a small magnifier and a flip mount on your rifle and get the same magnification capabilities as with an acog but with the ability to flip it to the side and get a good open view of whats going on if in real close.

 

[TigOlBitteez]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I use an Eotech on my Sig556 and really like it. I can draw it quickly at 50 yards and be accurate enough to shoot multiple Dr. Pepper cans off of a platform with precision. No magnification, but it would make it better. It is a great close quarters aiming device.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Raabe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't, nor claim anything is bomb-proof. As to the XPS issues, its the orientation of the batteries not being inline with the recoil impulse of the gun, as Riverine put it ",because the batteries are not shock-isolated properly, and because batteries aren't designed to take jarring or impact from their short axis, they warp, crack, and usually leak." </div></div>

I think you have it backwards. They had those problems with the pre-XPS models. That's why they went with the traverse style on the XPS instead of the inline batteries of the previous models. I've been using EOTechs for years and I prefer the XPS/EXPS models over the previous ones.

 

[robdes]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

This might have been mentioned...
I have found it easier to be precise with the eotech than with the aimpoint. You can turn the power down really low and you have a nice tiny dot.
I'm sure this isn't an issue with minute of man type shooting but for target shooting it is.

 

[BERTMAN77MK2]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech is the best for CQB and short range running shots on
game--wish they made a miniaturized version for handguns

 

[ggmanning]

Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BERTMAN77MK2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eotech is the best for CQB and short range running shots on
game--wish they made a miniaturized version for handguns </div></div>

Try a Burris Fastfire II