is the acog a meme sight

IMHO, yes.

Technological marvels back when they were first introduced, but now they are manufactured mainly for the serious LARPer.

I'd rather shoot with a 3-9x.

Nope. Anyone saying saying otherwise is a dick gobbling faggot.

File: mairaifu.jpg (150KB, 894x670px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 894x670px

No, they're awesome for anything that 5.56 can do. medium range engagements are easy as shit, the eye relief is commonly shit on by people, but I frankly cant agree with the idea that a 1.5 inch eye relief is sub-optimal, where I can keep on the optic way easier than with a variable mag optic at the same magnification setting, and the glass is incredible, mine was definitely worth getting rid of my tavor for.

>>35178974

Yes, a quality LPVO is more flexible and will have better reticles/subtensions.

>>35178974
I really like the FOV. Much larger than any variable sight (but the trade-off is short eye relief)

yes, there are now chink airshit versions that pretty much are the same and hold their zero. Don't believe me? plenty of youtubers have confirmed airshit acog knockoffs to be just as fine.

>>35178974
To its credit, the acog is an extremely robust scope. However, its main incarnation was introduced in the early 90's and optics have come a long way since then.

It is pretty much a meme sight with a large contingent of larping fanboys.

>>35178974
It's a well designed, good quality sight, but I imagine there have been some improvements since it was invented.

Anyone want to chime in on what those are, in a way that isn't whinging about eye relief?

>>35182620

They arent built to handle insane weather conditions, but if all you do is fudd around with your gun then go for it.

File: my babe.jpg (1MB, 1329x1455px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1329x1455px

I like my 31f, sure it's 4x and it's great for 5.56.
It's the only glass I own that doesn't frost in the winter. It's easy to read, even with both eyes open. My Nikon frosts, my Leopold does too. Neither let my eyes focus when I keep both eyes open.
I don't care for the religious bullshit the company is known for. But I will be replacing both my other optics for another tridjicon products.
But shelling 4 to 7k on an optic takes some consideration.
I think the ACOG might be dated but as with all military and civilian technology, it's outdated by the time it hits the market. And yet I haven't found an as rugged optic.
>pic related my favorite.

>>35184534
Yeah I'm sure you're out army crawling through mud and sleet and not just larping as an operator on /k/. The knockoff acogs work fine in rain and snow. Unless you are Mac and mud testing your sight then you don't need to worry.

>>35184748
Depending on where you are, I shoot in AZ, KS and TX. Dust is common in western states. It is inside my nikon an leopold.
That's the nature of dust, it is even behind my phone's screens.

>>35184779
True. I'm east coast so all I get is a shit load of rain and snow and my chink acog hasn't had any problems in it so far.

>>35184779
>>35184534
Forgot to mention its NOT inside my ACOG.
I would guess that a knock off might have the same issue but there is a reason why they do come with compressed nitrogen inside a real ACOG

>>35184704

>have steyr
>not using steyr optics

>>35184812
I do like that at 100 meters on my AUG its sub MOA, does your chink one do that? I am really curious, but i might pick one up for my .22 to check one out.

>>35184853
I don't care for the Steyr optics, I am familiar with my acog. I had one on every rifle i had in the army.

>>35184876
The few times I've gotten to shoot out that far it has. It's definitely worth the money. Just don't tell /arg/ or they will chimp out

>>35184951
I could see that happening. haha
But there is a reason I have a AUG and not an AR, I like it. I've had AR's but if you don't have your own opinions after using different weapon platforms there's an issue. Although, fanboys and passion usually take over and we end up in a giant pissing contest.

>>35185009
Definitely

>>35178974
In terms of competition, it doesn't have a lot of alternatives. So yes.

>>35185060
be cool to have a .22 in an AR with an ACOG and jack with people.
I need to fabricate a double stack 22 mag.

It's solid. Are there better scopes out there now? Yes. The ACOG is fifteen years old or so. For ruggedness and ease of use on a 5.56 you can't do much better, though.

>>35185077
Yeah I'm thinking about getting a .22 kit for my 20 in ar as my next purchase

>>35178974
You guys seem to know what you're talking about. I'm looking for a cheapish, not shit, 3x or 4x optic for a carbine length AR. What would you recommend?

The only scoped shooting I've done is with an old 22 my dad gave me as a kid (kinda pointless), so I'm pretty in the dark about quality and what to look for or where to start. I just know I won't be doing any long range.

>>35185117
now i need to find a chink ACOG. And a ligit killflash for the one on my AUG lol.

>>35178974
I just bought a holosun mini red dot that I'm using to replace an ACOG.

>>35185133
Depending on quality of firearm my usual rule for optics is 1/2 the price of the rifle. so if its a 1000 rifle, around 500 is a good number. NOW, should you find out the rifle out shoots your optic, then go up in price. Good brands in my experience have been Nikon, Leopold, EOtech, tridjicon, and read reviews on Bushnell products some are good, other garbage.

Another good way to find decent optics is looking at package deals, not saying get the package, look at what glass is on the package. Yes any accessory you get do some homework on but this is a starting point.

>>35185157
>holosun mini red dot
I'd like to know how those work over time. Sometimes its more fun to have a less expensive optic get some cool scifi looking reticle.

>>35185200
I have a friend who has one on a dd mid it worked fine all winter. Oh I'm keeping the acog it is going on 14.7 AR so I look the part.

>>35179082
officer spotted

>>35185279
Good that you're not letting quality hardware go away.
I'm looking at them now, seems worth it for the price.

File: 1504954167538.jpg (91KB, 736x1106px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 736x1106px

>>35185165
Rifle cost me about 480 bucks so far. Still have to mill out the lower which is why I'm still in the information gathering stage.

Thanks for the starting point. Pic unrelated. I don't have a lot of images on my phone.

>>35178974
Yes. Their only redeeming factor is weight alone now.You have rds+magnifiers which can do everything better and less awkwardly compared to acog+rmr. LPVO also give you more long range flexibility at the cost of slightly more weight compared to rds+magnifier. The alternatives to the ACOG will also cost less, too.

>>35188629
>Using BAC properly gives you a near-reflex grade capability and instant 4x switch-in
>Implying you can do that with a tube scope
>Implying a good LPVO isn't a massive increase over the price of a TA-31RCO

>>35179043
Ah yes, why would anyone really want an absurdly durable, compact, and light magnified optic with tritium and fiber optic illumination? Truly only "LARPers".

>>35188704
These threads are usually for the people with $250 Vortex LPVOs to circlejerk in. Poorfag self-comfort sessions.

>>35188668
>BAC
>near-reflex grade
Nope. Even the near "true" 1x LPVO's demonstrate they do not have the same capability as a proper reflex. BAC isn't even close to parallax free, in fact it has no parallax compensation. It's just a crutch for the optic's weakness.

>Implying you can do that with a tube scope
You don't need to. You can use a near true 1x picture with minimal distortion and parallax.

>a good LPVO isn't a massive increase over the price of a TA-31RCO
A vortex 1-4 is $440 on amazon. A trijicon accupoint 1-6 is $1180 on amazon. A TA-31RCO is $1466.

>>35188784
And a good LPVO like the Leupold Mark 6 is $2k.

The rest of your post is bullshit.
t. Veteran who actually had an M4 with ACOG.

File: vortex.jpg (55KB, 720x432px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 720x432px

>>35188982
>it's only good if you spend 2k
>you absolutely need 100% chroma accuracy and the highest grades of light transmission

Sorry I was a little mean to the ACOG, they do have nice glass, too. Otherwise people are preferring to use better optics now.

File: Operatorsknowbest.jpg (123KB, 639x1107px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 639x1107px

>>35189128
>Oper8ors are the gold standard of how a rifle should be built!
not the guy you're talking to, but...

>>35178974
The ACOG is a great choice for optic if you know what you're going to do with your rifle and it requires a fixed-power optic.

>it's another autistic REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MUH LPVO vs. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE MUH ACOG shitfest where both parties act like the others aren't still well regarded and commonly seen in the field, going nowhere anytime soon
You're all children.

>>35189152
I wasn't the one who brought up military service. I, too was a veteran with an M4. The ACOG was nicer than the plain EOTech or plain M68 on qual ranges, but once we got magnifiers for our EOTechs there was no question of the preference. Had we any LPVO's I doubt there would be many takers for the ACOG. Maybe if the armorer didn't like you, you might get stuck with it.

>>35189176
>muh autistic REEE stop arguing vs REEEE I want to try to make a point shitfest where one party thinks they're holier-than-thou and the other is arguing over technical details
You know if you don't like talking about gun accessories you can always go to another board/thread.

>>35189182
>once we got magnifiers for our EOTechs there was no question of the preference
as if to reinforce my statement that boots don't always no best...

>>35189182
>once we got magnifiers
Those things were fucking awful, they were bulky, snagged on everything in a two mile radius when not deployed, and the diopters were always cocking up.

>>35189213
>go to zero range before deployment - still zeroed
>go to zero range when entering theater - still zeroed
>go to zero range midway through deployment - still zeroed
>come back and do a pre-qual zero range - still zeroed

>oh yeah btw we should listen to these tier 1 OPERATORS about how EOTechs lose zero
What point were you trying to make again?

>>35189245
And the RMR's on the ACOGs were just fine, dandy, and never an issue?

>>35189269
>And the RMR's on the ACOG
Those were Docters, anon. And yes, they were just fine.

Are you sure you served?

>>35189269
i'm sorry, do you think i'm harping on the eotech for having zero-drift issues and not being suboptimal to aimpoints in just about every regard, and magnifiers in general being pretty shit?

I love mine, i have had it for almost 12 years. The tritium is a bit low now but the glass is great and it has brrn bullet proof.

If i were buying something today, i would buy a 1x-6x

File: SOPMOD.jpg (91KB, 1022x572px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1022x572px

>>35189269
The only branch that issues RMRs w/ ACOGs are the USMC. Everyone else has been rocking Docters for years prior, and those have a good rep.

File: 091201a5864h0121.jpg (81KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x531px

>>35189351

File: _51027353_16x-2011-tfh-010-047.jpg (112KB, 766x511px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 766x511px

>>35189372

>>35189292
Everyone in my unit liked the limited EOTechs we had better than the aimpoints. I've seen plenty of both inop for all kinds of different reasons. Even had my CompM4 battery compartment break since it was so exposed unlike the later CompM4S. Putting it this way there were no spare EOTechs and magnifiers in our armory while there were spare CompM4's sitting in the armory. Every ACOG was issued too. Somehow after I got out and read more of arfcom and 4chan I found out all the gun culture seem to like aimpoint more.

>>35189278
You're right my unit was never issued the docter sights. Some of the other brigades had them from what I remember.

>>35189351
Never implied it was a bad optic. The implementation has its own issues like height over bore and another snag point, for instance. I'd rather have it on an ACOG than not just like I'd rather have a magnifier behind my RDS than not.

File: 1455143895979.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x225px

They're pretty ok.

>>35189446
>Somehow after I got out and read more of arfcom and 4chan I found out all the gun culture seem to like aimpoint more.
And the military considering the Eotech is being completely eliminated from further acquisition in favor of Aimpoint, via the NSW-CRANE testing, but let's not mention that...

Why do these things cost so much?

How much is the military paying for each unit?

>>35189490
>According to Allen, SOCOM is evaluating other sights, including a potentially improved version of the EOTech for a long-term replacement for SOCOM’s close-combat sight requirements. Semelroth said the Marine Corps is conducting a similar search and running “a series of tests on its EOTech inventory to confirm performance meets or exceeds the equipment requirement.”

Where did you get that idea?

Optics noob here. I've seen people talking about prism scopes, and looked up stuff like how they are constructed. My question is, do they offer anything over either a red dot or a traditional scope if you don't care about an etched + illuminated reticle?

Also, can a 1x prism or a 1-4 or 1-6 variable optic be set up to cowitness correctly with AR irons, or will you be better off with a different option?

>>35189596
Magnified optics have a rear BUIS folded underneath the optic. That's why you have a QD mount on them so you can take it off if you need to use your BUIS.

>>35189182
>>35189245
I had a 68, EOTech and an ACOG. Played with magnifiers after i got my 214. I could see how they could be cumbersome in the field.

Still prefer my ACOG, but its the optic I have the most experience with. Its also the only optic I could regularly engage over 500 meters.
>>35189269
Had an issue with 2 ACOGs, one i fell out of my truck and cracked the fiber optic and it didn't collect light. The second was shot. Damage doesn't count but that's all I ever heard of for problems.
I liked my 68 better than my EOTech, just because the dot on my 68 didn't bleed through.

File: 1449974376743.jpg (79KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x480px

>>35189692
Had a 68, my own personal XPS2 on deployment (after my 68 went down), and an ACOG for a short time at the end of my 4 year enlistment. Most of us just kept the magnifier engaged and flipped it out of the way if we didn't want it, so there wasn't anything cumbersome besides the extra weight the majority of the time.

I've seen sight hoods come off eotechs, the usual battery compartment stuff for the 556's. I've seen aimpoints spin out of zero since they got twisted in their mounts (one person thought his M68 zero in a figure 8 pattern or something until he figured it out), die from being left on since we just grab random batteries out of the white try the armorer puts them in. The ACOG was the only one I saw that never had any issues.

>ACOG in video games
10/10
>ACOG in real life
5.5/10

Eat a dick army/marine fags your optic is garbage.

>>35189762
Interesting, batteries on the 68 are supposed to last 15 years on max, but armors aren't exactly great at keeping up with consumables. Much less joe smoking and joking about going to the range.

Why is it people who aren't familiar with them hate them so much? like the guy below you.

>>35190073
I'm one of the critics of ACOGs being inferior to RDS+mag/LPVO's but I do think the ACOG is pretty much the best quality optic out there, just worse in implementation compared to more modern alternatives.

The problem is when you would turn in your optic they sometimes take out the batteries for their inspections and stuff and put them right back into that white tray. I know other units had the exact same thing going on where they had the same white tray and they just grab a battery without any idea of the condition. Also the original CompM4 had like a 3 year battery life with the tiny battery before everyone started getting the AA model CompM4 and then the later CompM4S with that AA comparment moved to underneath the optic to prevent issues like I and others had.

Does the TA31 actually do well in low light? Maybe it's just my fudd logic but the objective really seems too small to gather enough lite in the dark.

>>35190163
Hey I'm all for critics, they help with shortcomings. And knowing those helps you overcome them or sometimes learn something new.
I liked my 68, but I liked the longer range I had with my ACOG. Also, I liked that it was the only optic with zoom I can comfortably look through with both eyes open, focus on a target. And not get serious eye strain.
>>35190236
My experience is that when the fiber over the top of the optic to fully gather light, it does well to be the right brightness depending on the light conditions, usually I cover mine with electrical tape and expose it when i'm at the range depending on the weather conditions. I will take a few pictures with my phone and show pics of what it looks like in the dark and light in my house with and without tape.

File: 20170916_214537.jpg (577KB, 2451x1919px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 2451x1919px

>>35190353
>>35190236
I hate image editing.

>>35190602
And I forgot to have a pic with the tape exposing the fiber optic on the top. sorry. I can take a pic of that too.

File: CAM00386.jpg (430KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 960x1280px

>>35178974

If the ACOG is a meme, it's the finest quality meme in decades and will be cherished among the choicest and longest living memes for a long time to come.

>>35190770
did your kill flash and flippers come with your ACOG?
I have the soft cover been looking for the covers and the kill flash for a while.

>>35190995

Yeah, they did on this one. Even had the LaRue mount on it already when I bought it.

I have a second too, but it came without any of those things.