Another silly ACOG question

[FatBoy]

Edit: changed the topic on the #7 post and the title so as not to clog up the forum.




My googlefu is failing me. I’m trying to find the MOA measurements on some of the ACOG reticles. Specifically the TA01NSN 5.56 and the 7.62 reticle. Also the TA01D. Need to see how these compare to my loads and MV in various rifles to see what likes up with my 77 or 69gr loads best.

Any help is appreciated, links, etc.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Did you try Trijicon's website? They have the subtension sheets on the website under downloads for each of those optics.

 

[FatBoy]

Shit. I’m apparently too stupid to check the download section, which should be obvious . Standby as I attempted to rectify my dipshittery..

 

[FatBoy]

Damn, if I zero the M193 1MOA high at 100y it lines up exactly with my load in my 14.5. OR I guess I could try another .3gr of RL15 and go from 77s to 75s or 69s. Hmmm.

Thanks @Trigger Monkey . You got me hooked up.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

No problem, Trijicon used to be the worst when it came to trying to get their subtension data. They'd have nothing up on the site, nothing in the manual, and if you called them, if you got a human they'd give you the generic ballistic data it was based around. I was working on an article on BDC reticles a while back and was pulling together BDC examples and noticed Trijicon had stepped up their game. They're still not perfect though, they still don't have any data on some of their reticles but it seems like they do for their more popular models. I'm glad I could help.

 

[FatBoy]

I noticed no 6.8 SPC data.

I wish they put the RCO reticle in a TA01 tritium only version.

 

[FatBoy]

Another stupid question I’m coming up short on, what is the difference between the TA150RCO-M4CP-G and The TA31RCO-M150CP in the Army 4x32s?

Reticle is the same besides color. Is it the mount height? The reticle color designation? Something else I’m not considering as these look essentially exactly the same except for the color of the chevron.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Pretty sure it's just reticle color, as near as I can tell.

 

[FatBoy]

10-4. Curious with their rational in naming conventions…

 

[Jigstick]

Was going to start another topic but this seems like a decent place to ask my question.

is the ACOG obsolete now with the advancement in LPVOs? Does it still have a place on a fighting rifle?

 

[clcustom1911]

The only time an optic is obsolete is when it fails to do it's job at the desired task, or broken.

Shit, my TA31 4x ACOG still does full size IPSC plates with all my loads out to 400-500 without much effort, so I'd say it's still effective. The only real down side is... eye relief? What eye relief?

My LVPO's are cool too. It's nice to go from 1.x power to whatever on the top end.

Is it a red dot? No. Can you be just as fast with it if you train with it? In my opinion, yes, but takes actual practice 25y and in with both eyes open to properly utilize the Bindon Aiming Concept. Most people don't do the reps to become at least proficient.

Overall it's up to the end user and their desires. Just train/ practice with what you got until you can't get it wrong. You'll be lightyears ahead of most everyone else who trains until they get it right.

 

[roostercogburn98]

Couldn’t agree more with the above statement. Proficiency is king of whatever you own/use. There used to be a .mil unit that said apprx 10,000 repetitions is where you began to fall into a proficiency range for said equipment. There are tons of things that will work more efficiently and maybe a tad “better” but if you are intimately familiar with your equipment, you should be damn good.

 

[camocorvette]

Was going to start another topic but this seems like a decent place to ask my question.

is the ACOG obsolete now with the advancement in LPVOs? Does it still have a place on a fighting rifle?

I had one in Iraq. I think the fact that it was dropped, bounced and beat up and still held zero still makes it relevant. But given tech advances I would prefer a LPVO. I've not carried one in combat. So I can't vouch for their ruggedness. I've got a low tier strike eagle 1-8 on a AR15 truck gun that gets thrown around and dropped and it's held zero. That's my extent.
I think their are better options out there now adays. But I also think it is still a viable option. I'm probably biased, as for our unit that was the best option we had for magnification aside from a 10x on my 24.

 

[308ftWIN]

Since this is the random ACOG question thread,. Battery Powered, or FO/Tritium?

Looking at the 3.5x models.

 

[Bart]

I have been enjoying my battery powered 4 acog...wish it was the 3.5 power though! Got it used so that I could dip my toe into the battery powered acog world, as all of my previous experience was with the trit/fo flavor.
I found that my niggling issues with the acog were based around the trit/fo illumination, so the battery powered one has been pretty sweet!

 

[camocorvette]

No experience with the battery. I enjoyed my tritium acog. Put a strip of duct tape over 3/4 of it and you were good to go.

 

[roostercogburn98]

Acogs fall into the same odd category as elcan in my opinion. Solid options that will take a beating but you and only you can weigh the pros and cons of having one.

 

[308ftWIN]

This falls under another weird/silly question. Likely splitting hairs on stupidly hypothetical situations...but this is the internet, so why not?

I use an Accupoint 1-4 Green Triangle on my AR. It's obviously not an ACOG, but, it's relying on the same Tritium/FO Non-electric illumination technology.

I've long wanted to try an ACOG, so I'm trying to factor the below into my decision to buy an LED model vs the FO models. Any decision I would make relates to a do-it-all rifle, capable in a SHTF type situation.

When in a very dark area, looking into a very bright area, there's no visible illumination. The FO obviously gets no light and the Tritium isn't able to overcome that kind of washout. The contrast between the lit area and the reticle etching is still relatively decent, but, I'm definitely a little slower finding the reticle on target after recoil.

1) Are Tritium/FO Acogs any better in these situations than an Accupoint? Just on the chance the FO on those collect more light/the reticle designs lend themselves to being brighter and easier to find?

2) Has this ever been a factor to Armed Forces/LEO units to the point they want to favor electronically illuminated optics over FO/Tritium optics?

Thanks!

 

[GreenMushroom]

I think it's going to depend on the reticle. I have a horse shoe reticle in a 31 and it's pretty fine and I don't think lends itself to fast shooting without illumination. I have an accupoint 1-6 as well and I can't see any of the acogs reticles standing out as well as the post on an accupoint.

I only recently got on the acog band wagon and went with an led model. It seemed like the way to go and I like it so far. Seems to solve all the potential lighting problem and is rated to run for 6 months constant on at level 4 which is where most people will run it. Takes aa batteries which most people have lots of. Couple aa in your stock and a few dot batteries in your grip and your good for awhile.

All that being said I think acogs really shine with an offset dot. Think of it as like your accupoint but 1x is better and 4x is better and you just tilt the rifle to change power instead of dicking with your scope. The only potential negative to the led model is the dot has to be higher but I actually like the location. For instance I had a ggg 45 mount and the dot was blocked by the battery compartment. Put it on a .5" riser and I like it a lot better. You just rotate the rifle a little and the dots right there. Being higher your left eye clears the acog more making both eyes open shooting with the dot easier.