Build me a rifle for an ACOG

[C_R_Slacker]

So instead of asking what's the ideal optic for a particular rifle, I'm asking what's the ideal rifle for a particular optic. I don't have an ACOG, but I guess I'm looking for an excuse to get one. Something about them is just intriguing to me. Currently I have a 16" lightweight 5.56 with a red dot, an 18" 6.8 with a 2-7 leupold I built for deer hunting, and a 20" precision rig in 223 wylde with a 4-16 pst. I don't really want to replace the optics on any of those with an ACOG, so now I guess I have to build a new rifle for an optic I don't even have...

I have both AR-15 and AR-10 lowers in the safe begging to be built. What would you build as the perfect host for an ACOG? I'm considering the ta31, ta33, or ta11 for what it's worth. Also, for the sake of this discussion, let's just pretend 1-6 variables don't exist.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

I can't really play. I had one and didn't like it. It was a ta01b iirc. It was on a 16" .308. I didn't like the eye relief. It was nice however and worked well in a gg & g qr mount

 

[C_R_Slacker]

Yeah, I've read that before about the 4x models. If I get one, I will probably go for one of the models with more forgiving eye relief, especially if I'm going 308. Even if I could shoot a large frame AR nose to charging handle, I wouldn't want to.

 

[bigjake83]

I would highly advise you to rethink you're optics choice, there are several that will out perform an Acog in that same price range, and you never build a rifle around what scope you want to use...

I would do some more homework..

Vortex Gen 2 1-6
Burris XTR 2 1-8
Vortex PST Gen2 1-6

 

[C_R_Slacker]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I know a low power variable with a true 1x on the bottom end is a more versatile, practical optic. But like I said, there is just something intriguing about them to me. Simple, rugged, light weight, always on, and easier to shoot longer ranges compared to a red dot. It's definitely not something I "need," but something to have just because. I just want a rifle that will get the most out of the optic as possible if I decide to get one.

Thanks for the input though. I've thought about replacing my red dot with a 1-6, but I'm a weight weenie and I'm afraid it would change the feel of the rifle too much.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I spent a few minutes behind an Acog once. I'm not sure why they're still on the market.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

ACOGs - I have had a TA11 (3.5x) and still have a TA31. I also have RDS and a Short Dot. ACOGs are outstanding in terms of resolution / clarity, durability, and flexibility. They are poor in terms of precision. I have put all of the above optics on the clock from room distances to 100 yards. They are all about the same speed providing you are proficient at both index shooting as well as the Binden Aiming Concept (non optic eye receives visual inputs while searching, weapon swings, as the weapon begins to slide onto POA, visual inputs come from the optic eye, shot is fired, visual inputs go back to the non optic eye).

Eye relief on the 4x models will require that you shoot NTC - I prefer the 4x. The real downside to the ACOG is fractionalizing the stadia for holds at a distance.


Regardless of ACOG or low power variable, your 16” LW is appropriate. Just get a good QD mount for both the RDS and the magnified optic.

 

[45.308]

For 40 years hunting I used a fixed 3x Leupold Alaskan scope on my 338 meat getter, I prefer fixed power keep it simple stupid, light is right doctrine. I have 2 TA11 on 556 and 762 both with 16.25 barrels and absolutely love mine. I have LaRue QD mounts and I find no issues with eye relief, the same as most scopes I have. I also have 1-4x scopes. Variable scopes cause some sort of extra manipulation with my hand to adjust the power or turrets, ACOG nothing and I use the hold overs, OK my 1-4x scopes do not have true ranging ret and yes can keep them at a set power, but then why have variable power, glass clarity on Vortex and Leupold not in same league as ACOG to my eyes. my experience opinion is I prefer ACOG for certain applications. They are not precision optics, the chevron is OK but still not ideal as a thin cross hard. I had a 1-4x first on the 762 below befor I got ACOG and if I wanted to shoot groups then yes a 1-4x is preferred. I have banged steel out to 600 yards with my 762 using ACOG, the hold over marks are close to M118 but not true accurate but rounds down range I figured this out. To me faster than my 1-4x scopes for holder overs. I ran a couple course drills with my 556 and ACOG down to around 10 yards on B27 targets, not ideal at all, a simple red dot I prefer better and was a quicker through the drills but ACOG did work ok for me in this application and is more ideal for me past 50 yards. I ran some house clearing drills with my ACOG, works best occluded with a cap on. Outside in sunlight, the fiber tube will wash out the ret, we used tape on them to dim them down some. This is the good ole USA, its your coin, you want it so get the ACOG. I would suggest 556, I have shot my 556 with ACOG out there a little but I rarely go past 200 yards with it and ACOG but at 50 - 300 yards, 556 and ACOG is ideal for me, it works, is rugged and simple.

7.62 wth ACOG and bipod, now sports BCM vert grip, no bipod.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i527.photobucket.com\/albums\/cc360\/45acp308win\/Guns\/AA308a_zpsu34mgtgl.jpg"}[/IMG2]




100 yard steel with 762 and ACOG above



First day out with the 762 above using 1-4x sighting zero in 100 yards, my first 3 shots bottom left, quick adjust and good to go. It is much easier to dissect targets for groups with an actual scope Vs ACOG.


[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i527.photobucket.com\/albums\/cc360\/45acp308win\/Targets\/AA%20308%20first%20target_zpshku0h3yh.jpg"}[/IMG2]

 

[C_R_Slacker]

Thanks for the input Mike and 45 308. So the consensus is...they are not precision optics and fall short of a LPV in that role. A LPV is also better in close quarters at true 1x. The only advantage an ACOG has over an LPV is size, weight, and simplicity. But if you train with an ACOG and with binding aiming concept, they can be effective in a variety of situations. Also, it seems like they are most at home on 5.56 rifles that are light and handy.

So I guess it makes more sense for me to use an ACOG as a second optic for my 16" 5.56 and swap back and forth with my RDS depending on the situation. I can save my lowers for rifles that would fill a different role. Thanks for the input eveyone, especially those with lots of hands on experience with ACOG's.

 

[jevan126]

I have 2 ACOG's and wouldn't trade them for anything, you are right about the eye relief that is why I bought the TA11-j for my .308 and my .223 Wylde. Also another great ACOG is the TA33 it has even more eye relief. And by the way nothing beats an ACOG IMO

 

[Dag34]

I would build a 14.5 inch ar15 for your acog of choice. Keep the build simple and light and of quality parts and it will be hard to beat.

Or

SBR ar15 in your favorite flavor....this is what I did.
I built a 8.25 in 300blk and topped it off with a ta31 with the 300 blk reticle. It is an amazing little gun, fantastic for the east coast woods.

 

[K-tech]

I was looking for an excuse to buy an ACOG in the worst way awhile back until I got a chance to borrow one. Don't get me wrong, I actually like the fixed power and the eye relief I could deal with. What was a deal breaker for me is my eyes are a bit weak and so the only way I could get any sort of clarity looking through the optic was to squint like hell. That said, I feel the scope is meant to be set up on a battle rifle so pick a flavor, M4/M16 clone, Tavor, AUG, etc.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

I feel ya...it's just one of those pieces of gear I want to like so bad, but my rational brain says there are more practical options, especially for the money. Maybe I can find one at a demo day or something to actually shoot with instead of just fondling them in the store, haha

 

[elfster1234]

So instead of asking what's the ideal optic for a particular rifle, I'm asking what's the ideal rifle for a particular optic. I don't have an ACOG, but I guess I'm looking for an excuse to get one. Something about them is just intriguing to me. Currently I have a 16" lightweight 5.56 with a red dot, an 18" 6.8 with a 2-7 leupold I built for deer hunting, and a 20" precision rig in 223 wylde with a 4-16 pst. I don't really want to replace the optics on any of those with an ACOG, so now I guess I have to build a new rifle for an optic I don't even have...

I have both AR-15 and AR-10 lowers in the safe begging to be built. What would you build as the perfect host for an ACOG? I'm considering the ta31, ta33, or ta11 for what it's worth. Also, for the sake of this discussion, let's just pretend 1-6 variables don't exist.

Trust me when I say this been there done that. Don't get an acog.... I'm amazed they still sell them. I'd get an aimpoint pro or a good 1-6 as I know you don't want to hear this.. design the rifle around your application and then worry about the optics for that rifle and the application used

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Trust me when I say this been there done that. Don't get an acog.... I'm amazed they still sell them. I'd get an aimpoint pro or a good 1-6 as I know you don't want to hear this.. design the rifle around your application and then worry about the optics for that rifle and the application used

Truth.

 

[Scotts556]

I spent a few minutes behind an Acog once. I'm not sure why they're still on the market.

They are simple, they work. About as bomb proof as you can get. No knobs switches leavers or batteries to worry about. Zero it and forget it. Hands down probly still one of the best combat optics for a average rifleman to date.

 

[BarrettBoy]

Get a SCAR 17 to put it on.
A 'combat' style optic deserves a 'combat' style gun.

Would be a real sweet set up.

 

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I've used on a TA-11 on my 18inch 223 3-gun rifle and as the optic on a LMT-MWS. The optic, I think works for 100-500 yard targets where you don't have time to laser them. You guess and then adjust fire. I can use it as Binion aiming device, not my preference. They are just tough as nails and zero mess ups. No fiddling with mag, parallax, windage or anything. Made to shoot things when getting hits fast is more important than getting hits with the first shot or with a limited number of shots.

A buddy always said to buy (build) guns for a specific purpose. When you build a gun by spec sheet or desire, it ends up being a safe queen. Nothing wrong with that, if you have the resources.

 

[DP425]

I would suggest just doing a sort of mil-spec build. 14.5 with a pinned muzzle device of proper length, or 14;7" with a pinned A2. Zero reason to get fancy when running an ACOG. Quality parts (in terms of durability and function), otherwise plain.

 

[TheGerman]

Get a TA33 and put it on a 5.56 or 7.62 carbine.

Learn to engage multiple targets with it using the BAC with both eyes open and you'll be set.

 

[lkluemper00]

Scar 16 or 17

 

[C_R_Slacker]

So basically, whether 5.56 or 7.62, keep it light and handy. No need chasing match grade accuracy, just keep it a simple, bomb proof battle rifle. After reading everyone's responses, I might have to put this project on the back burner and pursue other projects first. I still want one, but given the cost, I think there are higher priorities for me. Thanks for all the input.

 

[45.308]

I have a few years with several different rifles with ACOGs. I have Aimpoints, EoTech several other red dots along with 1-4x on gassers. For one rifle, one optic for all my training my ACOGs have proven their worth. For a dedicated close, medium or long range rifle, not the best choice but I have those rigs too. While I was little vague before, yes you can get some precision target dissection with an ACOG by using the 400 meter mark.Of course this will not be your 100 meter zero but it will allow you to shoot groups, not a zero group at 100 that everyone wants to prove their accuracy. The 300 meter mark will suffice too but I prefer the 400. This is not why I have my ACOGs. Like has been said, I can run close drills, medium range then out to approx 600 yards without ever having to remove my hands or adjust check weld on my rifles with ACOGs. Red dots are a little faster in close drills but suffer at longer ranges. To me, I think the benefit of the ACOG at all ranges trump red dot and my 1-4. My 1-4x have very think ret, so using them at 300 plus the ret covers more of the target than ACOG, my 1-4x has just hash marks so I have to know what mark is what, , ACOG has range numbers and while not perfect (neither is my 1-4x), very close and I can hit steel with a few rounds adjustment.

If I mark my cheek weld with ACOG, its the same as 1-4x on 4x, not an issue, its actually better as weld never changes with different settings. Mount your rifle this way every time and ACOG sight requires no adjustment.

Aimpoints have the tube effect. EoTechs have a great field of view but I do not like the ret or battery, had several go dead and a 512 AA split open inside the sight, what a mess. 1-4x require too much manipulation with my hand or check weld.

Most who do not like them are 3 gunners and comp guys, I do not care about comps, its not my thing, I am a loner not someone who likes being around groups, I train the way I train.

No the ACOG is not perfect but then what sight is but it fills my needs as one rifle one sight system.

 

[A5scott]

Ta33, the 3x acogs look great, and I love Trijicon glass, way better than my Micro H-1. the 1.5x acogs will go on my SBRs.

TA33 on a SCAR 17 would be pretty sweet.

Scott

 

[Clem Doore]

Took the words right out of my mouth... that's what I've got and like it a lot. My brother on the other hand is in the camp that is not a fan of ACOG's but to each his own.

Get a SCAR 17 to put it on.
A 'combat' style optic deserves a 'combat' style gun.

Would be a real sweet set up.