My initial thoughts.....
1) Heavy, yea. The TARS they put out last year was significantly heavier than all competing scopes. On that count this one is not quite as bad as the TARS. It is lighter a few of the competing optics but on the whole it is definitely heavier than I would like. One of the big selling points the ACOG has is it's light weight. This is especially true given its fairly large objective.
2) Reticle - There was a time that I thought the ACOG's shoulder width lines were the most brilliant idea ever. However, after doing the testing in my
scale vs stadia rangefinding article I came to the conclusion that range cannot be reliably determined with this method beyond about 400 yards. Given that range is not really even important with a 5.56mm until 300 yards that is not much of an achievement. I still consider the drop lines quite useful but the range-finding method now seems more wishful thinking than useful tool. As for the close quarters aspects of this reticle, less has proven to be more in my testing. I do not consider the crosshairs on the edges to be a good idea. I also consider the broken circle or horseshoe features to be a crutch for outdated illumination systems that do not belong in a scope of this price range.
3) Speaking of illumination, I like the use of a AA battery. I loved this in the CQ/T and I am happy to see somebody else do it as well. I am sad to see no fiber though. This is especially true since this is Trijicon's thing. One of their main selling points was the bright, always on, daytime fiber illumination. Really the power source of the VCOG illumination is not the big problem though. The diagrams in the spec sheet seem to indicate that these are neither illuminated in flash dot fashion nor full scale illumination. This means that you don't get the speed advantage of bright dot illumination or the low light long range shooting advantage of full scale illumination. Virtually all the scopes close to the VCOG's price point are dot illuminated this optic appears to use an significantly less desirable scheme.
4) The optics numbers - The exit pupil numbers, if honest (and they look to be) are fine though certainly not blowing anyone's mind. The field of view, however, is lacking. 95ft at 1x is not great. Most High end variables do much better. The Elcan, an interesting comparison given the price and heavy military focus of both companies is the champion in this area boasting 146ft but almost anything near this price point and most stuff not near it will better 95ft. Now, for all that can be said about stat sheet numbers they really don't matter near as much as the actual experience of using an optic and assessing its clarity, how comfortable the eyebox is, and how much distortion there is but these numbers aren't stand out all the same.
5) The mount - I am happy to see Trijicon adapt a variable with an integrated mount. It appears that the mount is even compatible with flat top adapters from the ACOGs. All wins on that front. Of course, one of the main reasons I like the idea of an integrated mount is to save weight and they obviously didn't do that but I still think it will make for a more rugged package with nothing to loosen up.
All in all I'll have to see the VCOG to really know if I like it or not but I'm not immediately blown away by the numbers or features. I am also not blown away by the price but given that this company is heavily supported by Uncle Sam I really didn't expect to be. Actually, given that Uncle Sam has been kicking the tires on 1-6x scopes lately, I expect the VCOG has mostly to do with that.
