I'm thinking of modernizing the optic setup on my main AR.

>>33126401
>Looking for a total package under 11oz in weight
Then you're not going to find anything, dumbass. Your ACOG weighs more than that already, unless you're using that tiny shit magnification one, and ACOGs are a generally hard to beat option for going lightweight.

http://www.firearmreviews.net/acog-comparison/

>>33126444
I was going off Trijicon's specs on the sight, but I realized it didn't include the weight of a base. Let's say then 14oz, which is the weight of ther TA31 with a milspec mount.

What can I get that will be better without going higher weight? Willing to get a bit spendy for lighter weight materials.

>>33126556
If by 'bit spendy' you mean $2-3 grand and up, then we can talk. Otherwise you fucked yourself with the weight restriction and lack of single variable. Unless you don't mind sacrificing durability for a few ounces... and honestly, even if you do it's going to be tough.

>>33126935
2k is a lot, but something doable for an amazing optic.

I've done the blood rituals and bought spendy long range optics before, so I understand the cost factor.

>>33126401
If you've gotten used to it and like it, you're hardly falling behind the times by using it and the training factor is the most important thing about using any scope out there. Every option has drawbacks, but training and familiarity with the option you've picked beats all else. You've not heard the phrase "beware the man with only one gun"?

>>33126981
opticsthoughts.com is the place to ask. He'll probably recommend a side mounted ultralightweight red dot along with either a lighter weight ACOG like the TA-33 or the Leupold VX-R (both being really light options). Still might not make the weight requirement you posted.

>It's used for close range to intermediate range shooting
Irons.

You fucking mall ninja.