Rifle Scopes Browe BCO vs. ACOG

#152
Was going to contribute, read a few posts, but then...


V__891C_zps4dd7553e.jpg
 
#153
Hey guys 2014 here. Just get a 1-6x optic and be done with it.

Arguing who makes the best fixed 4x optic, is like arguing who makes the best combat revolver.
 
#154
finbox said:
Hey guys 2014 here. Just get a 1-6x optic and be done with it.

Arguing who makes the best fixed 4x optic, is like arguing who makes the best combat revolver.
Click to expand...

Weight, speed, always on illumination and reliability still matter.


A TA33 while not as versitile as a 1-6x, weighs about 12oz with mount. Most of the quality 1-6x weight between 18-25 OZ and the 3 popular mounts are around 8 oz

12oz vs 26-33oz is a HUGE difference with weapon handling. You can shoot CQB with the Acog almost as fast as the 1-6X, and lets be honest, they both are a compromise compared to a dedicated 1x like AP/EO.

I run my carbines lightweight, beacuse it is a night and day difference in handling. Much more agile, quicker on target and less fatiguing durring when you are holding the weapon all day.

The 3-4X BAC ACOGS are still relivent, atleast untill someone can come up with a reliable 1-6 with all the same features, in a similar weight, and still be as reliable.

Just my .02.
 
#155
Cobracutter said:
Weight, speed, always on illumination and reliability still matter.


A TA33 while not as versitile as a 1-6x, weighs about 12oz with mount. Most of the quality 1-6x weight between 18-25 OZ and the 3 popular mounts are around 8 oz

12oz vs 26-33oz is a HUGE difference with weapon handling. You can shoot CQB with the Acog almost as fast as the 1-6X, and lets be honest, they both are a compromise compared to a dedicated 1x like AP/EO.

I run my carbines lightweight, beacuse it is a night and day difference in handling. Much more agile, quicker on target and less fatiguing durring when you are holding the weapon all day.

The 3-4X BAC ACOGS are still relivent, atleast untill someone can come up with a reliable 1-6 with all the same features, in a similar weight, and still be as reliable.

Just my .02.
Click to expand...
A 1-4 or 1-6 is going to be more useful to the vast majority of shooters when compared to the ACOG.

ACOG is not a particularly precise optic, and it's a dated design. The reticle could be a lot better with actual wind holds, and the right side of the optic is usually blurry.

Even with its reliability doesn't make it perfect. It's not uncommon for the our issued ACOGs to shift zero, or end up canted in the mount.

It's cool if you want to "use what they use", but it would not be my first choice, especially for a rifle I know would never be taken into combat.
 
#156
Wind holds for a 1-6X is almost completley useless.

It's not about what they use, its about what "WE" use.

With a reticle like the Horshoe, with a bit of practice its just as fast as the majority of 1-x sights in CQB. They still lack Eotech speed but thats for another thread.

I don't shoot for groups, I shoot silhouette. The same way the army trained me with iron sights. While PID may be an issue, you can make reliable hits in windy conditions out to the practical range of the weapon with a quality 3/4x fixed with a decent reticle. The TA31F has been doing it for 10+ years.

It's just A tool, not the best and certainly not the only one. For simple/lightweight builts, they are very effective and the magnification brings versitility Iron or RD sights don't have.
 
#157
Cobracutter said:
Wind holds for a 1-6X is almost completley useless.

It's not about what they use, its about what "WE" use.

With a reticle like the Horshoe, with a bit of practice its just as fast as the majority of 1-x sights in CQB. They still lack Eotech speed but thats for another thread.
Click to expand...

When using the ACOG out past 300 yards, Soldiers have to hold off into blank space for anything other than a very light wind. Shooting movers even further complicates things because you have to use a lead +/- wind that is in inches, which essentially ends up being "guess until you get it right".

I think the Leupold CMR reticle (Or others like it. It's the first one that I can think of) is a better reticle. It does all the same things as the ACOG reticle, but has wind holds.

I am not going to argue about what's faster. The gun gamers are using 1-4,5,6 for what they do. None of the ones I met use ACOGs, or are particularly crazy about them.
 
#158
"Wind holds for a 1-6X is almost completley useless."

This is a statement that holds true when your looking though a 4x....BUT with my .223 rifle with a 1-6.5x I can hit a 8" plate over and over at 600 yards I WILL hold for wind and the 6.5 give the ability to see my splash and grass blowing in the wind at the target location at the max yardage of the .223 round.

I'm a 3 gun competitive shooter and X military. Most of my fellow competitors are X military and some shoot matches that are on the service teams. (Active military) 5-8 years ago ACOGS with a red dot was all the rage. I have not seen one in at a major match in years.

They have their place but in my opinion are a dated design. I have done many TIMED speed drill test with ACOGS, EOTECH, red dots, and 1-6, light weight rigs and heavy rigs. And can summarize all the test that involved a ACOGS vs 1-6 Below

CQC less than 40 yards. 1-6 blows the ACOGS doors off
200 yard 1-6 can give you the same at 4x or 6x for head shots
400 yard 1-6 has an adjustable Field of veiw, set it to where you can see your field of fire.
600 1-6 is far superior for obvious reason see above.

Weight is the only drawback and in my testing transitioning between targets with a 8.5lb rifle with 1x is far better than a 6.5lb rifle at fixed 4x for targets less that 100 yards. Sure the light rifle moves faster...but you have to hunt for the target with the 4x .The heavy ass rifle with the 1-6 on 1x has ALL the targets in the same field of view and as much faster.

My race gun is 9.5lbs and I'm faster with it and a 1-6 than any other combinations, or weight and optics. And 95% of 3 gunners have came to the same conclusion.

Weight is very subjective, I'm 6'4" and 216lbs so a 9.5 rifle is not a big deal. I can understand that all weight matters, but for the gain in weight over the ACOG the 1-6 maximizes the .223 rifle that you have to hump around.

There is a reason that ALMOST NO scope companies are dumping RD money into fixed power scopes Trijicon included
 
Last edited:
#159
Cobracutter said:
Wind holds for a 1-6X is almost completley useless.
Click to expand...

Other than the fact that I don't believe he's interested in a varible power that would depend on the OPs intended use. I've used the 1-4x bushnell with the drop reticle at on a full sized IPSC at 600yds and have found myself holding off for wind where a tree style reticle would have been useful and more precise. Just because a product is combat effective/proven doesn't not mean it's the most effective in it's given use.... I liked my ACOG but had I been given a choice it wouldn't have been in my top 3 for combat(or competiton)...
 
#160
Yep that is why ACOGS are pretty much dead now. The current crop of low power variables does everything better except be heavier. And if 10 ounces is really killing you its time to hit the gym.
Pat

finbox said:
"Wind holds for a 1-6X is almost completley useless."

This is a statement that holds true when your looking though a 4x....BUT with my .223 rifle with a 1-6.5x I can hit a 8" plate over and over at 600 yards I WILL hold for wind and the 6.5 give the ability to see my splash and grass blowing in the wind at the target location at the max yardage of the .223 round.

I'm a 3 gun competitive shooter and X military. Most of my fellow competitors are X military and some shoot matches that are on the service teams. (Active military) 5-8 years ago ACOGS with a red dot was all the rage. I have not seen one in at a major match in years.

They have their place but in my opinion are a dated design. I have done many TIMED speed drill test with ACOGS, EOTECH, red dots, and 1-6, light weight rigs and heavy rigs. And can summarize all the test that involved a ACOGS vs 1-6 Below

CQC less than 40 yards. 1-6 blows the ACOGS doors off
200 yard 1-6 can give you the same at 4x or 6x for head shots
400 yard 1-6 has an adjustable Field of veiw, set it to where you can see your field of fire.
600 1-6 is far superior for obvious reason see above.

Weight is the only drawback and in my testing transitioning between targets with a 8.5lb rifle with 1x is far better than a 6.5lb rifle at fixed 4x for targets less that 100 yards. Sure the light rifle moves faster...but you have to hunt for the target with the 4x the heavy as rifle with the 1-6 on 1x has ALL the targets in the same field of view and as much faster
Click to expand...
 
#162
Well the RCO does have Mil holds, in the event you need to shoot durring a class 4 or 5 tornado.

Keep in mind this is a BCO vs ACOG thread, in which both are combat optics (or atleast they are supposed to be).

They are made for shooting people, not little circles, squares , bowling pins or whatevere else some game uses.

The 1-6 is more versitile but it also is compromising on some important things. They have already been mentioned.

While it takes some training and time, being able to use a BAC ACOG can be very fast for close in reflex fire. This is why I always reccomend the Horseshoe over the Chevron unless its going to be used to shoot 50m+ in the vast majority.

I really don't care what some 3 gunner uses beacuse the requirements are different. There are some similarities, and the games can be good training for a practical shooter, but they are not the same thing.

I am a huge fan of the 1-6/8 optics, they have come a long way, and still have a ways to go.

One of the big Issues with reticles with wind holds is FFP/SFP size and illumination. This is why DFP optics really are the way to go.

Run a FFP and your reticle sucks for half the power range and illumation is going to be a problem.
Run a SFP and all those wind holds and elevation holds are only usable on a certain power without doing math in your brain.

When someone is shooting at you, you might not be in the optimal frame of mind to do math in your head, or have to to change the power/paralax for a clean sight picture, or remember to turn on the illumination, or a host of other issues.

We clearly have different training goals, which is fine. The long eye relief ACOG's are still relivent combat optics for the previously mentioned reasons in this thread. It's a training issue, not an equipment issue.
 
#164
355sigfan said:
Yep that is why ACOGS are pretty much dead now. The current crop of low power variables does everything better except be heavier. And if 10 ounces is really killing you its time to hit the gym.
Pat
Click to expand...

Says someone who has never had to hump in the military or extended training or just about anything where only someone with complete ignorance would say something this silly.
 
#165
Cobracutter said:
Says someone who has never had to hump in the military or extended training or just about anything where only someone with complete ignorance would say something this silly.
Click to expand...

Got news for you kid the military is not the only place where you can get extended training. Its normal for people to place a value on the training they have over what others may have in a different line of work. But that feeling of superiority you have is false. You are very ignorant. Now go beat your chest some more. What are you doing now for a living I wonder?
Pat
 
#167
Cobracutter said:
Well the RCO does have Mil holds, in the event you need to shoot durring a class 4 or 5 tornado.

Keep in mind this is a BCO vs ACOG thread, in which both are combat optics (or atleast they are supposed to be).

They are made for shooting people, not little circles, squares , bowling pins or whatevere else some game uses.

The 1-6 is more versitile but it also is compromising on some important things. They have already been mentioned.

While it takes some training and time, being able to use a BAC ACOG can be very fast for close in reflex fire. This is why I always reccomend the Horseshoe over the Chevron unless its going to be used to shoot 50m+ in the vast majority.

I really don't care what some 3 gunner uses beacuse the requirements are different. There are some similarities, and the games can be good training for a practical shooter, but they are not the same thing.

I am a huge fan of the 1-6/8 optics, they have come a long way, and still have a ways to go.

One of the big Issues with reticles with wind holds is FFP/SFP size and illumination. This is why DFP optics really are the way to go.

Run a FFP and your reticle sucks for half the power range and illumation is going to be a problem.
Run a SFP and all those wind holds and elevation holds are only usable on a certain power without doing math in your brain.

When someone is shooting at you, you might not be in the optimal frame of mind to do math in your head, or have to to change the power/paralax for a clean sight picture, or remember to turn on the illumination, or a host of other issues.

We clearly have different training goals, which is fine. The long eye relief ACOG's are still relivent combat optics for the previously mentioned reasons in this thread. It's a training issue, not an equipment issue.
Click to expand...

Your utter lack of knowledge is scary. Three gun started as a martial discipline. Meaning it was started by guys who wanted a sport to hone their combat shooting skills. We shoot all kinds of targets most of which are harder than a typical silhouette that you will shoot in a military qualification. And we shoot on courses of fire far more demanding than any training you will see in the military or LEO world. That is coming from my leo's and military shooters who happen to shoot three gun. Anyone thinking that a skills test as demanding as three gun is irrelevant to honing your shooting skills for combat is a complete idiot. Three gun and other shooting sports helps you to develop your accuracy, speed and weapon manipulations under stress. Those are very valuable skills to have in a real life gun fight. I can tell you that the slowest and least accurate person is not likely to prevail in a gun fight. Their is a reason why the military recruits the best shooters and puts them in the AMU and then takes those guys and has them teach combat units shooting skills.
Pat
 
#168
355sigfan said:
Got news for you kid the military is not the only place where you can get extended training. Its normal for people to place a value on the training they have over what others may have in a different line of work. But that feeling of superiority you have is false. You are very ignorant.
Pat
Click to expand...

Which is usualy parroted by people who have never BTDT, trying to justify a complete lack of experince and training. Says the guy who never had to carry a real load under durress.

The fact you take it a step further and try and list a handfull of clown shoe "courses" you have taken in an attempt to prove something is equally laughable.

You do not understand, and are too ignorant to realize that instead of shutting the fuck up and absorbing knowledge, you want to argue from a unwinnable possition. Ignorance is Bliss.

When someone needs to ask which kind of Donut leaves the least ammount of residue on a radio or what kind of skinny shirt to wear to look cool at a local 3 gun match, maybe someone will give you a ring.

There is nothing wrong with adding to a discussion in a subject you don't know about. But now your telling Combat Vets that you know better than what they do in actual Combat? LOL
 
#169
355sigfan said:
Your utter lack of knowledge is scary. Three gun started as a martial discipline. Meaning it was started by guys who wanted a sport to hone their combat shooting skills. We shoot all kinds of targets most of which are harder than a typical silhouette that you will shoot in a military qualification. And we shoot on courses of fire far more demanding than any training you will see in the military or LEO world. That is coming from my leo's and military shooters who happen to shoot three gun. Anyone thinking that a skills test as demanding as three gun is irrelevant to honing your shooting skills for combat is a complete idiot. Three gun and other shooting sports helps you to develop your accuracy, speed and weapon manipulations under stress. Those are very valuable skills to have in a real life gun fight. I can tell you that the slowest and least accurate person is not likely to prevail in a gun fight. Their is a reason why the military recruits the best shooters and puts them in the AMU and then takes those guys and has them teach combat units shooting skills.
Pat
Click to expand...

And yet you show YOUR complete lack of ignorance. We don't need some rehashed history lesson, nor does it take a rocket surgeon to see that IDPA, ISPCA, or any of the gun games have involved from small training into bloated, unrealistic training that not representitve of actual self defense or combat. Yes SOME military shooters use it as practice or to help hone their skills, but its just ONE variable in being a complete shooter.

And FYI, AMU recruits the "best" shooters who are already nationaly/internationaly ranked beacuse they COMPETE FOR THE UNITED STATES. When was the last time you saw someon take a Beretta DT10 over under into combat or a .22 Pistol? They are competition shooters, and while they do SOME marksmanship training for various military units (those usualy lacking in advanced marksmanship training like JSOC/SOCOM units have) they primarlily are for Skeet, Trap, Air Rifle/Pistol/ Small Bore, and Highpower competition shooting. Most members of the AMU are about as much a soldier as someone from the Army Band.

Since you seem to know so much more than everyone else here, and want to walk the walk... Why not Raise your right hand and serve the country that provided you with everything you have. Here you go:
United States Army Marksmanship Unit
 
#170
Define combat. Just because someone wears a camo uniform and gets shot at and another wears a navy blue one does not change the fact that bullets are still being exchanges. Your disparaging remarks for training outside of the miltary simply shows your bias and ignorance. And that handful of classes as you say is actually more than 1500 training hours. Based on your posts I doubt you ever saw any actual combat. Most combat vets I know are very humble about their experiences and don't beat their chests and be little others. My best friend who is currently in the AMU has had 2 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan. he has 3 pupal hearts and 1 bronze star. Yet he never down plays my training or any other LEO's. He is respectful and helpful and not an ass.

Cobracutter said:
Which is usualy parroted by people who have never BTDT, trying to justify a complete lack of experince and training. Says the guy who never had to carry a real load under durress.

The fact you take it a step further and try and list a handfull of clown shoe "courses" you have taken in an attempt to prove something is equally laughable.

You do not understand, and are too ignorant to realize that instead of shutting the fuck up and absorbing knowledge, you want to argue from a unwinnable possition. Ignorance is Bliss.

When someone needs to ask which kind of Donut leaves the least ammount of residue on a radio or what kind of skinny shirt to wear to look cool at a local 3 gun match, maybe someone will give you a ring.

There is nothing wrong with adding to a discussion in a subject you don't know about. But now your telling Combat Vets that you know better than what they do in actual Combat? LOL
Click to expand...
 
#171
You don't want training to be 100% relistic you want it to be harder than what you are likely to encounter in real life at least from the shooting challenge that is presented. I have had to use my gun to defend myself against a charging bear. I probably would have been seriously hurt had I not been as good of a shooter as I am. And those skills came from training and shooting three gun and other shooting sports. Yes competition shooting is just one tool to make you better prepared for a real world shooting. But its a very useful tool. Anyone who belittles it is simply ignorant or has had their ego bruised in a match by some civilian doctor who can shoot better than them.

Cobracutter said:
And yet you show YOUR complete lack of ignorance. We don't need some rehashed history lesson, nor does it take a rocket surgeon to see that IDPA, ISPCA, or any of the gun games have involved from small training into bloated, unrealistic training that not representitve of actual self defense or combat. Yes SOME military shooters use it as practice or to help hone their skills, but its just ONE variable in being a complete shooter.

And FYI, AMU recruits the "best" shooters who are already nationaly/internationaly ranked beacuse they COMPETE FOR THE UNITED STATES. When was the last time you saw someon take a Beretta DT10 over under into combat or a .22 Pistol? They are competition shooters, and while they do SOME marksmanship training for various military units (those usualy lacking in advanced marksmanship training like JSOC/SOCOM units have) they primarlily are for Skeet, Trap, Air Rifle/Pistol/ Small Bore, and Highpower competition shooting. Most members of the AMU are about as much a soldier as someone from the Army Band.

Since you seem to know so much more than everyone else here, and want to walk the walk... Why not Raise your right hand and serve the country that provided you with everything you have. Here you go:
United States Army Marksmanship Unit
Click to expand...
 
#172
Cobracutter said:
And yet you show YOUR complete lack of ignorance. We don't need some rehashed history lesson, nor does it take a rocket surgeon to see that IDPA, ISPCA, or any of the gun games have involved from small training into bloated, unrealistic training that not representitve of actual self defense or combat. Yes SOME military shooters use it as practice or to help hone their skills, but its just ONE variable in being a complete shooter.

And FYI, AMU recruits the "best" shooters who are already nationaly/internationaly ranked beacuse they COMPETE FOR THE UNITED STATES. When was the last time you saw someon take a Beretta DT10 over under into combat or a .22 Pistol? They are competition shooters, and while they do SOME marksmanship training for various military units (those usualy lacking in advanced marksmanship training like JSOC/SOCOM units have) they primarlily are for Skeet, Trap, Air Rifle/Pistol/ Small Bore, and Highpower competition shooting. Most members of the AMU are about as much a soldier as someone from the Army Band.

Since you seem to know so much more than everyone else here, and want to walk the walk... Why not Raise your right hand and serve the country that provided you with everything you have. Here you go:
United States Army Marksmanship Unit
Click to expand...
You do know that the AMU shoots three gun, IDPA, USPSA, Service pistol as well as the more sedate sports you mentioned. LOL The army also uses the AMU guys to teach its soldiers at all levels. Cobra you need to educate yourself before you show your ass anymore. lol. There are combat vets serving in the AMU as well now not just my friend. One more think LEO service is service to my country.
Pat
 
#173
Cobracutter said:
And FYI, AMU recruits the "best" shooters who are already nationaly/internationaly ranked beacuse they COMPETE FOR THE UNITED STATES. When was the last time you saw someon take a Beretta DT10 over under into combat or a .22 Pistol? They are competition shooters, and while they do SOME marksmanship training for various military units (those usualy lacking in advanced marksmanship training like JSOC/SOCOM units have) they primarlily are for Skeet, Trap, Air Rifle/Pistol/ Small Bore, and Highpower competition shooting. Most members of the AMU are about as much a soldier as someone from the Army Band.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly the case. There are plenty of CIBs and scrolls in AMU.
 
#174
You are like talking to a brick wall. Dad always told me you cannot reason with a moron, he was clearly right.

The ironic thing is, I almost certainly have more "civilian" formal training in Carbine/Pistol/Combatives/MMA then you even come close to. You are so off base its laughable.

Once again thanks for telling me what a UNIT does, who I have had training/working relationship in the past with. You really have no idea what the AMU is about and where their focus is. Here is a hint, the VAST majority of the Army cannot shoot for dick.

Go on living in your fantasy world. Feel free to get the fuck out of this thread while your at it, unless you have something to say about the BCO vs ACOG.
 
#175
BangBangBlatBlat said:
That's not exactly the case. There are plenty of CIBs and scrolls in AMU.
Click to expand...

Who cross train into, usualy part of the wounded warrior program or for someone who can't handle Batt/RGT/SF life cycle anymore.
The guys who are winning olympic/international medals, are soldiers in name only.

The AMU instructors who came around to do our DMR training were a former B4 CIBer and a couple civilian HP shooters.
There are legit guys there, some amazing soldiers, but look at the focus of the organization and what they really are about.
 
Last edited:
#176
Cobracutter said:
Who cross train into, usualy part of the wounded warrior program or for someone who can't handle Batt/RGT/SF life cycle anymore.
The guys who are winning olympic/international medals, are soldiers in name only.

The AMU instructors who came around to do our DMR training were a former B4 CIBer and a couple civilian HP shooters.
Click to expand...

That is bullshit Cobra and you are being disrespectful to our service men. As I have said there are plenty of combat vets in the AMU its a highly sought after place to be for those who enjoy shooting.One thing I have learned to be true in my years is that those who belittle others the most are the ones who feel the most insecure about their own past.
Pat
 
Last edited:
#177
Cobracutter said:
Who cross train into, usualy part of the wounded warrior program or for someone who can't handle Batt/RGT/SF life cycle anymore.
The guys who are winning olympic/international medals, are soldiers in name only.

The AMU instructors who came around to do our DMR training were a former B4 CIBer and a couple civilian HP shooters.
There are legit guys there, some amazing soldiers, but look at the focus of the organization and what they really are about.
Click to expand...
Was one of them short and named Dave?
 
#179
355sigfan said:
That is bullshit Cobra and you are being disrespectful to our service men. As I have said there are plenty of combat vets in the AMU its a highly sought after place to be for those who enjoy shooting.One thing I have learned to be true in my years is that those who belittle others the most are the ones who feel the most insecure about their own past.
Pat
Click to expand...

Yes because someone who is a nationally ranked shooter gets to join the Army, go through Boot camp, Get promoted to E-5 for doing nothing, get special pay/privledges and then go off to AMU for their career where they do nothing but shoot and compete full time is a soldier. Never gets deployed, not has to even do a hardship tour.

It is no different than how they fill the Army band with musicians who are wouldn't know which end of the rifle a bullet comes out, who also get Rank for nothing and do nothing but suck on a pipe or play a flute for the same money some kid deployed is getting blown up for.

Once again, you speak about shit you do not even begin to understand...... at least your consistent.

Try your whoa is me bullshit on someone who will fall for it.
 
#181
Wow, this thread took a turn sideways.

355sigfan said:
How do you know they are not. They are issuing MK6 1-6 scopes out now. Its only a matter of time before more and more guys get them.
Pat
Click to expand...
Below my name is my actual former rank when I was active duty along with my MOS (Scout Sniper), and I'll add 0311, 0369, and 8531 to that as well. It's not some arbitrary "I post a lot" assignment. I've been there, instructed and led them for a decade and a half, and I know what is suitable for issue and what is not. I have a Mark 6, got a CQBSS as well, lots of experience with ACOGs and Aimpoints along with many, many other optics. I instructed on the ranges at Parris Island for two years, ran a Scout Sniper Platoon as the Chief Scout and Platoon Sergeant for another three years on top of my two years as a Team Leader, followed by CAAT Section Leader/Platoon Sergeant for another two. I know a thing or two about equipping and training Marines at different levels. Top that off with I was that Line Company LCpl grunt with a Leatherman and half a clue but not a whole one. I've also dealt with those Marines that couldn't read a analog watch correctly or tell the difference between HE and illum when we are calling in a fire mission. That makes shit real interesting...

Tooled adjustments don't have any place in the line companies, especially when they require itty-bitty hex wrenches. They will be lost, they will be substituted, the scopes will be fucked. If it requires anything smaller than a 1/4" wrench or a flat head/casing to dial it in, it's wrong. I've had school trained Scout Snipers fuck up their Unertl's set screws by over torquing or stripping the hex screw. Perhaps if a company such as TT can introduce their tool less adjustments into a suitable optic it will be something that will be field-able across the board, but the current crop of scopes aren't ready for prime time issue FMF wide. I may change my tune when I get home and tinker with my new Vortex Razor II, we'll see.

Like I've said before, in this thread and others, the 1-6x and similar optics are superior to the fixed 4x optics, but that doesn't mean the 4x have lost their place. Durability and simplicity are the key and reticle patterning for distance is far more important than for wind holds for the infantryman, but I will say it would be nice to see lead for movers marks as those fuckers don't hold still. The ACOG and Aimpoints are well known for being some of the toughest optics out there, if not THE toughest, and yet grunts still crush them in the conditions they are required to operate in. As the old saying goes, lock a grunt in an empty padded room and give him two ball bearings, and when you come back in thirty minutes he will have broken one and lost the other...

The competition circuits are a great place for improving marksmanship, increasing shot speed and developing shoot-and-move techniques, but it's hardly a grinder for durability testing. They never start a stage with an amphibious landing from Zodiacs or Amtracks, they never deploy out the back of an Sea Stallion via 40ft fastrope onto a three story rooftop, wading/falling into a shit filled canal, and they don't spend eight hours in the back of an MRAP bouncing around shit ass roads on the way to the starting point. They also never stand a CGI inspection where rifles are blasted with every chemical known to the barracks in the effort of getting q-tip clean, used in close order drill at the latest Division/Regimental change of command (hold on while we make sure everyone looks the same so take that cowboy shit off and put on a carrying handle), or slung and carried all day-every day for a seven month deployment to the shower, shitter and DFAC on top of real field use.

Gun games are just that - games. They should never be confused with each other.
 
#182
That is an impressive background and I respect your opinion and how it was formed through your real world experience. But I will say most of your concerns can be addressed and probably have been addressed with the new VCOG and the Leupold MK6 scopes. Also as for competition no its not combat neither is training however. But like you said its a very usefull tool for improving yourself and testing your equipment. I see the place for fixed power optics rapidly declining. Their days are numbered. You have pointed out some concerns and in time they will be addressed through even better scopes and better training for those who use them. The advantages of a variable power scope can't be denied. I use them on more than my game rifles I also use one on my patrol rifle. Thanks for your service and your insight.
pat
 
#183
They do have great advantages, I absolutely agree with that. I just know the basic grunts and their uncanny ability to fuck up the unfuckable. The VCOG looks to be a great optic, I really would like to test drive one, but I still don't see wide spread implementation of it or similar. Budget alone would be prohibitive, even outfitting just the Infantry Divisions would field 40k scopes minimum, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. They have too many honey-pot projects like the fucked F-35 to waste money on, and there just isn't a ground war hammering out downrange that would justify that type of implementation. Big picture? 4x it is for the near to mid future and I'm damn glad they have at least that.

The Mark 6 is far from simple to zero. Advanced users, sure, but not for that AFQT/GT 31/80 kid who was told he could shoot or cook when he joined. "Pyle, 0300, you made it".
 
#184
Don't forget this issues with illumination on the MK6. Its not bright enough and unless you are centered up behind the optic, it starts to fade. This is VERY bad for 1X when you need to be able to shoot heads or on the move.

The Vortex HD has better illum, better glass......... but the problem is their reticles (and the fact that its vortex).

I would take the Vortex ANY day over the MK6.
 
#187
It was not an absolute. Using one or two examples in no different then the guys who say their Countersniper works great so buy with confidence. Of course there are combat vets, scrolls, CIB's, and a bunch of BTDT with AMU.

They guys who shoot and win internationaly, are not the same. The world and the Olympics don't care about 3gun or IDPA.

Shooting at that level is a full time job.
 
#188
Cobracutter said:
Don't forget this issues with illumination on the MK6. Its not bright enough and unless you are centered up behind the optic, it starts to fade. This is VERY bad for 1X when you need to be able to shoot heads or on the move.

The Vortex HD has better illum, better glass......... but the problem is their reticles (and the fact that its vortex).

I would take the Vortex ANY day over the MK6.
Click to expand...

I have a Mk 6 1-6 and the eye position is very critical if you intend to use the center dot illumination. I'm very disappointed that a scope this expensive has a very unforgiving eye box.
 
#189
Yea, and its even worse for the guys who bought the MK-6 when it first came out and even with a military discount, the Illuminated model was North of $3K??????


How do you sell non illuminated for $1500 and Illuminated for $3K+ on the military side. They have since dropped the price of illum, but raised the non illum.

2013 Numbers were around $1700 for non and $2400 for illumination....... Leupod can pound sand, Ill buy a Khales, USO or Used S&B at that price.
 
#190
Cobracutter said:
Yea, and its even worse for the guys who bought the MK-6 when it first came out and even with a military discount, the Illuminated model was North of $3K??????


How do you sell non illuminated for $1500 and Illuminated for $3K+ on the military side. They have since dropped the price of illum, but raised the non illum.
2013 Numbers were around $1700 for non and $2400 for illumination....... Leupod can pound sand, Ill buy a Khales, USO or Used S&B at that price.
Click to expand...


Fortunately I got mine on a LNIB HK MR762 and got the scope LNIB with the HK for $1400. The thing that really displeases me even more than the eye box problem is the center dot is so small it's practically useless even at 100 yards. I tried to illuminate the reticle hoping it would make the center dot more visible but it didn't help as the illumination is only for the horse shoe that surrounds the center dot. If the small center dot was illuminated perhaps it would be more useful. I might add that it may be illuminated but with my eyesight I can't see if it is illuminated or not. I ended up switching the Mk 6 1-6X to my HKSR9TC and put a Bushnell Elite FFP G2DMR 3.5-21X5O scope on the MR762. The reticle on the Mk 6 is the CMR-W reticle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
New Products Intel from Camera Land
Replies
3
Views
1K
Brettdec
B
gr8fuldoug
Huge Discounts on Sig Sauer & Buckmaster Optics
Replies
0
Views
487
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Optics All Sig Sauer Optics Are On Sale - Black Friday Has Started :)
Replies
2
Views
850
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
B
Optics WTS ** Price Drop** TRIJICON TA33R-H ACOG 3X30 BAC RIFLESCOPE | DUAL ILLUMINATED RED HORSESHOE .223 BDC Reticle
Replies
3
Views
655
bpd131
B
M
SOLD: BROWE Combat Optic 4x32 Titanium Housing 5.56 Red Chevron Reticle SORTA LIKE ACOG
Replies
8
Views
764
Myanmar Shave
M
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts