I can get a new 4x ACOG for just a hair over $1000, how do they

Now that's a fucking torture test.

It is really up to you OP. A lot of people will say ACOG.

I'm more a fan of the ELCAN's due to their cross hairs and just hands on experience.

Get a real optic like a 1-6 like an intelligent person.

>>31326930
ACOGs are great, go for it. The ELCAN os great too, but I think the ACOG is smaller and lighter.

>>31326975
>Now that's a fucking torture test.

>"Scopes are fragile and easy to break! 1 week after SHTF, and irons will be king!"

File: image.jpg (941KB, 2212x1640px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 2212x1640px

>>31326930
I love my ACOG.

By and large the most bombproof optic out there, weather this means anything to you though is dubious.

Eye relief is not good, but does train you to use consistent shooting stances.

Would recommend

>>31326977
Would you mind explaining your viewpoint? I thought variables were on the heavier side of things with the worthwhile ones being decently expensive and my budget is "not much over $1000 with even that being a big fucking deal".

>>31326975
>Now that's a fucking torture test.

Its not so much as a torture test, as more of a "this got caught in an fuckhot fire".

Its cool that it works, but the sight is still fucked.

File: ute2.jpg (9KB, 296x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 296x184px

>>31327021
>By and large the most bombproof optic out there, weather this means anything to you though is dubious.
That does mean a lot. The AR it's going on is about as bombproof as I can make it short of using the RRA UTE2 for the rear iron sights (and only because that would get in the way of a magnified optic; if this was Aimpoint/EOTech only I'd do it).

>>31327032
I get the idea of torture tests, but if my rifle looks that fucked while it still being within reach of me odds are I'm equally as fucked. I mean, it's great and all knowing it will still work in extreme conditions, but some conditions these scopes are put through would for sure mean death for the person using the optic.
>basically what I'm saying is that my scope will work for the person who finds my body

>>31326975
>Now that's a fucking torture test.
Reminds me of the ACOG that took a round in combat, preventing said round from entering the troop whose dad had given it to him, and was still usable to keep returning fire.

>>31327021
>Eye relief is not good, but does train you to use consistent shooting stances.
That eye relief is what has kept me from buying one, doesn't that make it a bitch if you have to shoot from actual combat positions such as behind cover or whatever other awkward poses might arise?

File: image.jpg (978KB, 2816x1673px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 2816x1673px

>>31327046
You absolutely have nothing to worry about as far as ACOG durability then. This is entirely subjective but I'd wager its quite literally the most durable part of my kit, even my Mosin is fragile in comparison.

>>31327021
That's a pretty sick looking rifle setup, and paint job on it too.

>>31327051
The idea is more that if it can work in conditions that will kill you, it should have no problem in the conditions that don't.

>>31327061
Short answer is maybe.

You can still effectively use the scope from further back on the gun, but optimal eye releief requires optimal shooting positions.

>>31327094
Well yeah, of course. I just don't understand the point of torching the entire rifle or super-freezing scopes when in reality the coldest most will experience is -20 degrees and the warmest is 110-'20. I don't know, it just seems ridiculous to put scopes through ridiculous tests to prove they'll survive conditions that can be feasible for a person to experience.

>>31327142
Wow factor, or in the case of OP pic the "holy shit!" factor. People will mention the bombed out working Aimpoint in casual conversation, nobody is going to go "dude those Aimpoints still work at 120 degrees is that cool or what", and that word of mouth = sales.

>>31326975
What did you like about them besides the crosshairs?

but what if you experience a home invasion during a house fire?

>>31327205
Push invader into fire with optic while holding onto rifle. My optic can apparently handle it better than my gun so it should be closer to the heat. Then I take a picture for /k/.

>>31326930
>using equipment from Pompeii

>>31327021
Could you use the ACOG for close-up ranges without having to do the weird aiming trick if you just capped the front of the optic? (Like having it configured for faster use in home defense and then just take the optic's front cap off when it is time to do stuff at range?)

>>31327322
http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/occluded-eye-aiming/

File: 1448752228378.jpg (51KB, 658x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 658x720px

>>31327032
This sounds like it's in need of a greentext...

>>31327322
You may not be able to see the sight easily if you use the flashlight to illuminate someone, it's not nearly as bright as a red dot.

>>31327403
Not ISIS's professional-quality glossy, Dabiq?
http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/

>>31327187

There seems to me some weird fish-eye parallax on the acog that seems to be less pronounced on the elcan. You also have "limited range estimation ability" built into the stadia. I say limited because you can use it after you shoot it a bit.

>>31327656
So basically better glass for about the same price.

>>31327764

IMO, yes. I also like the fact that on some models you can illuminate the entire reticle, just have a red dot or turn it off completely. Instead of taping over the tridium like on the acog. I'm also not a fan of the acogs chevron as an aim point. This is my opinion.

The specter has a 1x to 4x throw lever so you can switch between both magnifications.

It is heavier and larger than a acog, most elcans are, honestly if it is just for a range not really that noticeable.

>>31326975
elcan a shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TWYMT4Jerw

>>31328046

Random dude on youtube. 2 videos are the same. more dislikes than likes. no actual range footage. spergload autist. You made this didn't you?

>>31327764
>same price
ACOG: 1-1.3k
ELCAN 1.8-2.5k

Pls go away

>>31327027
>>31326977

this guy is right - fixed magnification is outdated technology. 3X is the max for muh cqb. i'd try to find a used 1-6 for around 1K and you've got the best of both worlds. of course if you're not shooting past 200 a red dot is the way to go imo.

>>31328138

Variable isn't great for CQB either. Flat range with targets in close doesn't count. Clearing a house with 1x scope is not ideal. A red dot is better.

As a compromise OP, you can get a fixed scope and piggyback a RDS, but be prepared for chin weld when using the RDS.

If you're just shooting <300m, I'd just stick with an aimpoint.

>>31328090
External adjustments a shit
They use arms mounts, which are dogshit.
The glass is good, housing is good, everything else is fairly mediocre

>>31328178
>t.nogunz

t.JSOC

File: EaSDvSV (1).jpg (243KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1080x1920px

>>31326930
ACOGs are incredible. I have a TA33 w/rdr on my SCAR16 and a TA31 on one of my ARs and the optics for me have been worth every penny

>>31326975
>>31327017
>>31327032
you guys do realize the optic in OP is not an ACOG right, it is an Aimpoint CCO

File: 1468537341875.gif (80KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x480px

>>31328279

You do realize that your a faggot, while OP is asking about ELCAN's & ACOG's right?

>>31327017
They handle combat deployments, they can probably handle SHTF.
And if not then you should rely on your BUIS.

I have no authority on the elcan. But I've had a few acogs.

Some issued and the one I purchased and put on my AUG. The eye relief isn't a big deal especially if you shoot with both eye open. Durability, well its pretty damned good.

For close range, 50 meters and less, put red where you want to stab with bullets. For longer ranges and assuming you match the BDC with your bullet weight and barrel length, you can get a phenomenal grouping. I called trijicon to make sure I got the proper optic for my rifle barrel length.

When french grew bored instead of dropping PGM on durka tanks they put acogs under their wings and jettisoned them to destroy T55's.

>>31328090
elcan problems are well documented
>muh dislikes
>mug autism
just elcan damage control

>>31328178
this guy gets it

acog shits on elcan any day of the week

>>31328384
>The eye relief isn't a big deal especially if you shoot with both eye open.
ACOGs are built for both eyes open, as you bring it onto target it's like a reflex, and as you lock in you naturally see the zoomed view.

>>31328399
>Samefaging this hard

>>31328130
>4x fixed
>right there in the OP
>Elcan SpecterOS 4x fixed optic: $1250

You tried so hard, and got so far, but in the end you were still retarded.

File: icantconceivethatsomeonewoulddisagreewithme.png (69KB, 836x410px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 836x410px

>>31328435

>>31328400

>T.Noguns

When you do that with a non 1x optic, you get POI shifts from paralax.

>>31328485
surely you're just pretending to be retarded

>>31328485
Stop being an idiot: https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/company/unique_to_trijicon.php

>>31326930
>ACOG
>>31328279
>CCO
Nah, it's an Aimpoint PRO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXdriW3KfwU

>it fucking holds zero!

>>31328490
>>31328495

>Quoting trijicon marketing material

It's like the Eotech manual saying there's no thermal shift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzYyXlHIVlo

2:05

>kids think bullets hit exactly where you aim IRL

>>31328750
When you're using it like a reflex they don't have to hit perfectly, and you still zero it for long-range shooting you unbelievable twat.

>>31328792

>Somehow parallax disappears at longer ranges

TOP KEK. Explain why sniper scopes have parallax adjustments? You can use both eyes open as observation technique, but if you shoot a scope BEO, you going to get POA POI shifts, because you can still get parallax even with only using 1 eye.

Life isn't a vidya m8. But maybe you're just a dumb grunt.

>>31328849
Or maybe you're just a jackass talking out his ass. It's a fixed magnification combat sight specifically built for both-eyes-open, not a sniper scope.

>>31328884

Point your finger at something with both eyes open. Open and close your left and right eye alternatively. Are you still pointing at the same point when you switch eyes?

>being this fucking dense

>>31328399

Wish I was running damage control I'd get a direct deposit check. I'm not so still broke.

I personally haven't had the problems you want them to have. Maybe I read the manual and tm or maybe I just have a better understanding of shooting fundamentals or your just butt-hurt over your trijicon fandom. Either way it doesn't matter.

>>31328953
And you're completely missing how it works. BAC sights exploit eye-dominance. When in motion, everything but the reticule blurs in your dominant eye, so you naturally overlay it on your non-dominant vision, and for reflexive snap shooting this is more than accurate enough. When the scope stops, because your dominant eye regains useful vision it retakes control and nearly all you see is the magnified view. You're arguing theory against someone who has actually used the ACOG. And the M68.
"The ACOG mounted on the M-16 service rifle has proven to be the biggest improvement in lethality for the infantry Marine since the introduction of the M1 Garand (the first semi-automatic rifle used in combat) in World War II."
Gen James N. Mattis, Commanding General of the 1st Marine Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

>>31329108

Yea it's combat effective when you have a whole platoon shoot at a target with 1k rounds. Go shoot a match with an ACOG, and you'll see all scopes have parallax and a fixed 4x sight is terrible for CQB.

My whole initial point was that the ACOG is bad for CQB because of the POA POI shift when using BAC. A red dot is superior in that application. You got butthurt about a little criticism about your precious ACOG.

I like ARs with a FSB. Is there any point to having one though if I'm going to mount and loctite on an ACOG? If I understand things correctly the only way I can see the FSB is with the ACOG removed (which given how tough the thing is I don't ever plan to do on my go-to gun).

>>31329839
>Go shoot a match with an ACOG, and you'll see all scopes have parallax and a fixed 4x sight is terrible for CQB.

>3Gun
>Same as actual combat
kek

File: 8978b80030.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

I rock a OS4x. I love it. But it is a HEAVY S.O.B.

I paid $1000 for it NIB off the Arfcom EE

>>31331392
So the +1/4 lb over an ACOG is really noticeable then?

>>31331493
Yes.

File: DSC03490.jpg (1MB, 2211x1242px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2211x1242px

>>31331493
yes, get an ACOG

>>31331504
>>31331532
Then I should probably also find other ways to trim an ounce or two off the gun here and there and elsewhere.

File: DSC03629.jpg (637KB, 1815x1019px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1815x1019px

>>31331591
or really you just buy the ACOG and have a optic that isn't effected by external elements like dirt on it's zero

Since there's a lot of talk here about the CQC capabilities of the ACOG... what are people's thoughts on mounting an RMR up top?

File: DSC03633.jpg (613KB, 1816x1020px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1816x1020px

>>31331787
if you can keep in mind your height over bore shooting then yeah it's a solid option.
I still prefer offsetting an RMR

>>31331260
To rephrase this for the folks with popup sights: can you use your irons while you have your fixed 4x optic attached or does it need to be removed first?

>>31331855
if you want to use irons you have to take your optic off.
you can keep the front iron sight up/the post there as it'll just blur out with the magnification

>>31331923
So basically given how bombproof the ACOG is it really wouldn't be a negative to just... skip the BUIS. Especially if an RMR was attached.

>>31331833
>if you can keep in mind your height over bore shooting then yeah it's a solid option.
I'm not sure I follow as to why.
>I still prefer offsetting an RMR
Whyso?

File: DSC00417.jpg (312KB, 1781x998px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1781x998px

>>31331956
your offset is less thats why. you also maintain a constant cheekweld if you offset rather than piggyback it.
its just easier to offset the RMR and do it that way than train to be as efficient while it's piggybacked.
>>31331940
if you want, personally I don't mind adding the tiny bit of weight to have back up irons.

>>31327021
I want an acog on my SKS!

>>31327142
>I just don't understand the point of torching the entire rifle

It's probably a dead/wounded soldier's rifle from after an IED. Recovered and taken back to an armory instead of left sitting around, and the armory guy took a photo of it.

Probably not an intentional test.

>>31332438
>you also maintain a constant cheekweld if you offset rather than piggyback it.
I think I see. You just shift your focus to the left and keep your face firmly planted with nose behind the charging handle then?

>>31333219
kinda, what you'll do is keep your cheek weld where it would normally be for your standard optic, then rotate the rifle until you get the RMR to pick up.
bit simpler than moving your head up and trying to acquire the same chin weld everytime.

>>31327021
>That hat
Die.

>>31333245
I dunno man that sounds a little bit Tactical Timmy. That's supposed to be faster than BAC especially with the recoil of the rifle changing once you've rotated it?

Can anyone tell me the reason behind the EoTech-hate btw? I used a 551 for more than a year in shittistan and never had any problems with it. Only other i've used is the Aimpoint M4, and that always seemed blurry to me,

>>31331325
>le flat range vs combat argument

We're talking about mechanical accuracy here, not war is hell, buddy with legs blown off, supersonic cracks.

You think grunts spend 24 hours a day 365 days a year in a firefight? Guess what, they go to the range to practice.

BAC is mechanically inaccurate due to parallax. Try harder.

>>31333773
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/daniel-zimmerman/381271/

Aimpoints and ACOGs have historically broken FAR less than EOTechs, but when the above came to light it was an utter shitshow. You might check if you have an undiagnosed astigmatism, blurry Aimpoint dots are a good indicator of that.

>>31333856
>>31329839
>>31328849
>>31328485
So I'm not the guy you've been arguing with and I don't have a dog in this fight, but is the BAC mechanically inaccurate enough to matter? I get that in a course of fire you'll lose points the more you are off, but is it not still enough for rapid center of mass torso hits?

>>31333773
They're shit.

>>31334063
>but is it not still enough for rapid center of mass torso hits?
At ranges you'd shoot reflexively it's more than fine for slaying bodies.