Are ACOG reticles as small as they seem in pics?

>>33789419
That's as big as you want it anon
Any bigger and it would clutter up the reticle

>>33789419
Last one I saw was a red chevron. Yours looks pretty good

>>33789419
Is that the 240 intended acog?

>>33789419
>2017
>fixed 4 power
JUST

File: IMG_1266.jpg (822KB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 4032x3024px

Here's mine

You don't want it any bigger

>>33790314
Whats wrong with fixed 4x?

>>33790479
Shit for cqb.

>>33790548
what would you consider the most versatile?

>>33790556
Lpv

>>33789419
small reticles, small groups

>>33790548
>can't into BAC
>too poor to into RMR

>>33790557
So let's say I am a noob to optic types. What does LPV stand for? Low power view?

>>33789419
It looks bigger when your eye is two inches from it.

>>33790568
Ask me how I know you own neither.
>double vision
>chinweld + HOB
Idiot.
>>33790628
Low power variable. A 1-x.

Are fixed medium power optics good or not? I figure they are good since nearly every western military has standardized them, but it seems like everyone thinks they suck for CQB. Maybe they aren't as good as a reflex sight, but could they really be that bad?

>>33790649
Ask me how I know you don't own either.
>can't into BAC
>doesn't cant rifle 45 degrees to place RMR over left eye instead of being retarded and lifting cheek
idiot

File: IMG_1629.jpg (113KB, 774x799px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 774x799px

>>33790568
>>33790649
>>33790722
>BAC
>HOB
>RMR
What?

>>33790548
Post your BCM® GUNFIGHTER™ Weapon System

>>33790722
Going full retard.
>Canting rifle doesn't fix HOB
>BAC can be done with LPV as well but not fucking ideal. You get shit FOV and double vision at 4x. Your POA + POI shifts as well due to parallax.
If you're shooting around cover at all, any difference in height and bore will be shit to deal with. Shooting at paper in the open at 10yards doesn't count.
Just admit you bought an outdated design.

>>33790831
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tzYyXlHIVlo

>>33790836
>can't into BAC
If you are so concerned about CQB, then stick with a red dot because a 1-4x is not going to be parallax free.

>>33790854
Holy shit m8. What is relativity? At 4x you're going to have way more parallax than at 1x. Plus, it's slow as shit to BAC. Most ACOG owners admit these limitations. You're just being a butthurt tripfag trying too hard to justify his shitty pruchase by denying objective truths.

File: 2017-04-15 15.07.22.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

seems good enough

>>33790880
Not the other guy, but my aversion to variables:
>3-4x the weight of a 4x acog
>never really used the low setting
If I'm consistently shooting inside 200yds I'd just as soon use my T2

>>33790880
Everything has limitations, including variable magnification optics. An ACOG is going to give you better glass, offer more durable combat optic, in a lighter and more compact package than you are going to get with a quality variable magnification optic, especially with one in its price range.
>inb4 razor II HD
No one really wants to add a nearly 3 lb optic w/mount to their rifle.

And those limitations with the ACOG are completely acceptable and they have been used efficiently and effectively for 30 years now. I'm not knocking 1-4x, 1-6x, or 1-8x optics but they've got plenty of their own limitations as well.

Quit acting like the ACOG is dead and is a useless brick without any merits or qualities which some might prefer.

If it's really a big deal to you, offset the RMR instead of piggy backing it.

>>33790936
Yea but targets don't usually show up where YOU want them to unless you're at the range. LPVs are a great compromise to let you shoot from 0 to 600+ yards with an AR. If you add a magnifier with your RDS, you're approaching LPV weight. ACOG + RMR is just clunky to use. Maybe if you offset mount the RMR, but it's still not as good as a good LPV.

ACOG might win in durability though and is the most proven, but modern LPVs are pretty tough.

>>33789419
Can't own guns in my country but always wondered: how do you zero in a scope on your target? As in how do you make sure you look through the scope reticle in colinearity with your target, and not have a perspective view through the scope? I mean for iron sights, you have two points (rear and front sight) and your target is the 3rd so you can align a 3 point line, but scopes have markings on only one lens right?

>>33790956
Can't wait till army ditches the ACOGs and watch you mall oper8tors cry. You can get accupoints for less or equal to an ACOG.

>>33790111
240/SAW yeah

>>33790997
Everything has parallax, even red dots. At close distances, it's enough to matter. At far, the parallax is minimal. You're also taught to see the center of the scope. If you see a shadow in the circle, then you might get more parallax.

>>33790999
>Accupoint
>Shit reticles
>Glass is not as clear
>Not as durable
>Weighs more

>>33790999
so now you've given up and ceded his points?

>>33791014
So why not draw markings on both lens to simulate how iron sights work?

>>33791025
>10+ year old design
>still 1k+ dollars
LPVs will decrease in price and increase optical quality very quickly and have already been in the last THREE years.
>>33791033
No. L2r. Back to /arg/ circle jerk. Both of you.

>>33791066
Let us know when optical quality of LPVs exceeds that of the ACOG and when they're also lighter (when factoring in mounts) and more durable at a lower price point.

>>33791066
what was there to read? all you said was "muh military gonna make u fake operators cry"

>>33791107
Because only people who buy ACOGs nowadays, especially the 4x, are clone fags and mall ninjas. When the military ditches it and they will, all of you will ditch it because you have not a single original thought in your heads.
>>33791083
Are you serious? You honestly don't believe that will happen in a few years? Even now they are better.
>muh weight
Yea, you're also getting more features. Bet you're the type of fag who will add a sopmod stock, full length rail, rail covers, vfg and light, then complain about a few ounces on the optic.

>>33791155
>resorts to attacking his own projections this hard
>claims others don't have a single original thought in their heads

You sure showed us

>>33791202
Wow. Then why did you buy the ACOG?
>durability, weight, glass
Anything else? Nothing to do with military service? Okay then. Enjoy it. No one cares. But it's outdated.

>>33791215
>But it's outdated.
So are brass cartridges and Glocks. So is the AR. Your point is obsolete.

>>33791223
Lel. False equivalency. There are better optics out. ARs and Glocks are dated too. Many better options out now as well. Good thing acog is waterproof because you're crying so much tears into it.

>>33791215
>No one cares.
>But it's outdated.
wat

>>33791237
No, he has a point. Does it still work? Is it nearly indestructible? Is it going to continue performing its intended task. Is it still a fantastic optic despite your incredibly autistic judgements?

Post your optic.

>>33790999
>till army ditches the ACOGs
>army
Funny way to spell Mureens.

>>33789419
your pic is the most cluttered and bulbous ive ever seen

acog brand acog reticles with the red chevron are extremely crisp and clean-edged chevrons with much less thickness than whatver shit that is in your pic

>>33791285
No one cares about his personal preferences. Doesn't change the fact it's outdated. Learn to read short hand and logic.
>>33791292
>p-post optic
>stooping to MSD levels
Pathetic
I laid out objective points. You ACOG owners got butthurt. I don't care if you like them and continue to use them. There are better options now. Period.
>>33791338
Can't be both?

>>33791357
>extremely crisp
>have to use electrical tape

File: 1476408047283.jpg (406KB, 2193x2617px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2193x2617px

>>33790890
>acog
>fixed front post

File: 20170115-IMG_2208.jpg (1MB, 1920x2880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2880px

>all this acog hate
wew lads

>>33791376
>There are better options now.
At twice the price and you don't own any of them.

>>33790556
1-4x scope with BAC reticle.

>>33790890
What's that type of reticle called?

>>33791645
Crosshairs?

>>33791496
>m-muh Strike Eagle is just as good!

>>33791649
Yeah, but there are different types of crosshairs. Is there a name for that specific style?

>>33791744
That looks like its the TA01NSN model Acog. The alternative would be the TA31CH.

>>33789419
Yeah.

Why would you want it to be any bigger though? It's big enough to be used as a red dot at close range and yet small enough to not obstruct the target too much at up to 400 meters.

>>33790778
>BAC
Balls and Cock
>HOB
Have Overbite
>RMR
Retarded Monkey Reticle

>>33791910
Delicious pic

where do you live?

>>33791938
Thx, colorado

>>33790649
LPVs are lighter though

>>33792025
Heavier, not lighter

>>33791767
Thanks

>>33790649
>can't shoot with both eyes open

How do I know you are literally a disgusting casual that can't into proper technique

Your opinion no longer matters.

>>33790890

you're a fucking idot

>>33791910
Does the reticle get lost as easily as I think i would?

>>33791496
Wow. 2k is some Donald Trump money. Lmao. Khales Blows the Acog out of the water.
>being this delusional of a trip faggot
>>33791701
Nice strawman.
>>33792291
Refer to >>33790853
>he doesn't understand relativity
>he doesn't understand POA + POI shift
Sad!

>>33790722
your rifle can't pen a guardrail

>>33789419
I've got to shoot with one a couple of times, it did seem a bit small, but honestly not any smaller than your front sight post regardless.

File: M4A1_ACOG.jpg (24KB, 501x202px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 501x202px

>>33791389
yeah who in their right mind would do such a thing

>>33790548
>needing an optic in close quarters
retard alert

>>33790890
You seem to be the sort of guy that doesn't get invited twice to go shooting xD

>>33794470
nah he gets invited back because he has nice rifles and night vision

>>33794468
Yes. People use cover in rl, not like your fantasies.

>>33790999
I hope for the day when whatever service ditches ACOGs because muh surplus.

>>33794610
Not happening, when an acog/aimpoint is dropped out of service they shatter the glass and throw it away.

File: 20170428_182939.jpg (915KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 2560x1440px

Here's my acog reticle

File: 20170428_184115.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

Jk it's not an acog hahaha suckers

>>33795145
Pls kys

>>33795145
what scope is it then?

File: 1482022705467.jpg (1MB, 3264x2306px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2306px

postin acog

>>33795842
Browe BCO

Took those motherfuckers 14+ months to fulfill my order due to military priority and glass sourcing issues, but damn is it clear.. titanium, too

Overall worth the <$700 paid

>>33790666
It's not too bad. I've shot with ACOGs within 5yds and its quite doable, not as good as a red dot but not bad. Most people on /k/ who say they suck either haven't or don't know how to use them. If you know your holds you can use one at 0-500yds. 4x magnification is great for target ID, which nobody mentions, but is why a lot of militaries use them.

Nvm make that $900 discounted

File: 20170428_144542.jpg (3MB, 2880x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2880x2160px

posting not an acog

>>33790985
I don't think acogs are nearly as durable as everyone thinks. I had 2 break on the inside lenses just riding around in hmmwvs so I can't get behind the hype.

>>33791385
No he means at night.

File: 1490751733247.png (448KB, 499x745px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 499x745px

>>33790778
I swear to god

>>33791389
I have an A4 clone. The front sight just kinda disappears when you're looking through the ACOG. It's a non-issue.