Grendel's with Trijicon AGOGs

[scottg]

LRRPF52

I have been going through the same problem,which optic for 100-400 playing. Paper,silouette. Also mine is ar-15 green box 6400 colt carry handle. I want to keep the handle on and looking at the smith mount. I was looking at acog 4 power. But after reading pros &cons monies would be better spent on viper2-10. just concerned about how high it would sit. Any help or suggestions welcomed. Heck of alot of knowledge on this board. I love all the discussions

scottg

[LRRPF52]

scottg,

For the Colt 6400, is it unmodified from the factory? What buttstock is on yours? The whole purpose of the detachable carrying handle is for mounting optics in a better plane for your head-eye-ocular piece interface. If you mount a scope on top of the "carrying handle", you will need a cheek piece on your stock, unless you have a monstrous head of grotesque proportions, or are a true living giant.

For a 5.56 gun like the Colt 6400, you really need to decide what you want to do with it. The lower is the most valuable component to many, while the other features like the muzzle device are no longer sought since the expiration of the Clinton AWB in 2004. A factory 6004 with a 2.5-10x44 scope mounted to the detachable rear sight housing is a horrendous thing to behold. You don't need that much scope for 100-400yds anyway, so I would go minimal weight, minimal profile, best glass and features for my budget.

I would look at the Vortex 1-4x24 PST or HST, or Burris 1-4x24 MTAC. You could also consider building another upper, or floating yours with a rifle-length tube, low-pro gas block, and new muzzle device. If you're shooting 3-gun, that muzzle device actually might work better for you, but they are not for practical use next to others or indoors, as you might have already noticed.

The good thing about the Colt is that you have a series of quality critical components in the barrel, bolt, BCG, lower parts, and a Colt rollmark lower that will retain value, especially for collectors, even though it's a newer manufacture.

[scottg]

LRRPF52

Thank you for your thoughts. A2 stock .I did not know I could take handle off. And put rail on.Is there better rails that would bolt on to my rifle. Idont want to make more holes and not good enough to make new upper but love to read how the guys on this board do it. Want to keep it stock to hand down later in life.18 barrel,1:7.Would 62 gr work well at 200yds?

[Michael]

My experience with the ACOG's is that the exit pupil is horrible, the eye relief is much too close, the scope features aren't all that suited for a well-trained marksman, and the price is way too high. For an entry-level soldier, maybe it makes an acceptable combat optic that can take some pretty serious abuse, but there clearly are much better options for half the price.


+1 on the comment above from LRRPF52. I was part of the group that expermented with combat optics back in '02 and got the Marine Corps to adopt Trijicon's ACOG. I love the ACOG on an M-4 in combat (and used it on more that a few occassions) enough that I bough one for my personal M-4. For a Grendel, and the money you would spend, there are much better optics out there.

[LRRPF52]

LRRPF52

Thank you for your thoughts. A2 stock .I did not know I could take handle off. And put rail on.Is there better rails that would bolt on to my rifle. Idont want to make more holes and not good enough to make new upper but love to read how the guys on this board do it. Want to keep it stock to hand down later in life.18 barrel,1:7.Would 62 gr work well at 200yds?

If you took a pic and posted it, I could get a definitive answer about exactly how your blaster is configured. Are there 2 large knobs on the left side of the carrying handle, clamping it to the upper? The Colt 6400 is a production post-ban model made during the Clinton AWB, and is legal in certain States that passed their own violations of the 2A aside from the Clinton AWB.

62gr 5.56 M855 with the steel penetrator works very well on a lot of targets at 200yds, although it isn't known for being a very accurate load lot-to-lot, or within the lot. It does blow through mild steel like swiss cheese, and will sometimes perforate certain armored steels. It has devastating wound ballistics usually within 125-150m, and will make small holes in tissue after that. You can make hits with it reliably on man-sized silhouettes out to 400-600yds depending on the wind and the accuracy of your particular barrel.

If you get some other quality ammunition, you can realize some surprising accuracy from the mouse gun, but it should be free-floated if you are looking for optimum accuracy.

There are a multitude of one-piece base scope mounts specifically geared towards the AR15 "flat-top" upper receiver, which is what you should have if it's a 6400.

[LRRPF52]

My experience with the ACOG's is that the exit pupil is horrible, the eye relief is much too close, the scope features aren't all that suited for a well-trained marksman, and the price is way too high. For an entry-level soldier, maybe it makes an acceptable combat optic that can take some pretty serious abuse, but there clearly are much better options for half the price.


+1 on the comment above from LRRPF52. I was part of the group that expermented with combat optics back in '02 and got the Marine Corps to adopt Trijicon's ACOG. I love the ACOG on an M-4 in combat (and used it on more that a few occassions) enough that I bough one for my personal M-4. For a Grendel, and the money you would spend, there are much better optics out there.

I think I saw ACOGs first in the private sector in the early 90's, then in the Long-Range Surveillance community in the mid-1990's, and then with 2nd Ranger Battalion in 1997, where they had been in-use for at least a year, maybe 2 IIRC. They then became a standard issue item in SF, where a Team would get 4 for every 12 M4A1's, along with 4 Trijicon Reflex sights, which were worthless in the sun in that time period with the faint orange triangle.

By the time the early model 4x NSN ACOGs had been ironed-out, the fiber-optic versions were introduced, which is what the Marines got, and is a better optic than the original 4x, in my opinion, especially for Joe tentpeg, who doesn't have a lot of experience with weapons and optics, and has a leadership climate that isn't filled with a lot of gun guys who know their way aroound optics, trajectories, BDC's, etc.

The ACOG has proven to be pretty tough, compared to other tubes, and I've seen iron sights get damaged more often than an ACOG (bent front sight posts). For guys that do a lot of diving, jumping from altitude, and shooting, the ACOGs are either respected or hated. For me, the eye relief and exit pupil are the NO-GO criteria that forced me to sell even my 3.5x fiber optic ACOG, which is a little more forgiving than the previous models, but much longer as well.