Why an ACOG?

[Jaywalker]

My basic question is "Why do door-kickers in Iraq and Afghanistan who mount scopes always seem to use ACOG?" If the USG buys them under contract, then that just moves the question back one step - why does the USG buy ACOGs?

I had an AimPoint red dot on my previous AR and I know it won't do for me - I'm a scope guy.

So, what makes the ACOG good? Is it more robust than other scopes?

I've read the recommended thread and know there are adequate and cheaper alternatives, but I still want to know why people buy ACOGs.

Thanks.

[m796rider]

Referencing the 4x models typically found on military rifles:

- They're very robust;
- They require no batteries yet provide daylight visible reticle illumination;
- Optical quality is excellent, as is FOV;
- Very simple to use;
- Trijicon's support is very good.

I have an Aimpoint Micro T-1 on my home defense carbine, ACOGs on my general use carbines, and variable scopes on my precision rigs. Like any optic, ACOGs are the result of conscious compromises. I just happen to be able to live with those compromises and appreciate the ACOG's strengths. I've used lots of 1-4x variables and prefer my ACOGs.

[bwaites]

Civilians buy them because the look cool. I'll admit they do look cool and seem to be the right size for the top of an AR15.

USG buys them because they are fairly rugged, have a buying code, and seem to do what most Joes need. But LR1955 and others with massive experience will tell you that although they are rugged, they are certainly not as foolproof as the suppliers would have us believe. They fog, leak, and have multiple other problems. In Iraq and Afghanistan, both very dry, that hasn't been a huge issue.

BUT...look at what guys who get out of the military put on THEIR rifles, and it generally isn't an ACOG.

At LR1955's recommendation, I avoided one for my Beowulf, and instead use a Leupold CQ/T, which doesn't leak or fog. There are newer, more current optics than it is, but it just flat works.

[LRRPF52]

The real question should be: "What do guys put on their M4's who have a choice and are in units without the regular Army BS restrictions?" I haven't seen ANY of them using ACOG's, but they did have a ton of S&B PMII Short Dots, or Eotech's for the non-magnified CQ optics. My biggest problem with the ACOG's is the tiny exit pupil and unnaturally-short eye-relief, which really sucks whether you're wearing a helmet or not. Even the 3.5x TA31, which was supposed to fix this, didn't. The guy who really wanted it from me bought it, and quickly sold it to another guy who thought it was cool. It gets the job done, but for the money, I could find better optics for my needs. I much prefer the 1-4x and 1-6xscopes that are currently flooding the market.

A little history behind the ACOG: If you look at the German FG42 paratroop rifle from WWII, they had an optic that looked very much like what the ACOG now looks like. The Brits realized that the Germans were on to something with a practical, low-magnification optic for riflemen that could take the abuse, and the EM-2 bullpup system had one. They eventually fielded the SUSAT scope, which has seen a lot of service on the SA80 bullpup rifle. The ACOG seems to be very much inspired by this crude combat optic, made with better materials and stronger internals, but still not without serious issues.

If one is looking for a practical marksman rifle optic, I would steer in the small, variable power direction, and away from the TA11-type ACOG's. That's just my input, after using several different optics designed to meet these requirements. The 1-4x Scopes tend to be very forgiving in acquiring your sight picture clearly, both in eye-relied and exit pupil. The ACOG's are neither...

[RStewart]

I have an Eotech XPS2 on an AR. A friend has an ACOG on his. He likes mine better. Lol!

[Mutt]

I'm a retired veteran with 20 years of service and combat experience in Iraq. I do have to say that I perfer the things I prefer because of what I used to use while on active duty. You get comfortable with certain things and build a hell of alot of muscle memory. Then, when you finally get out, you tend to go back to "what you know'. Which is why you typically see guys using certain things. It's not because it's the best. But, usually because that's what the soldier is used too. Having lived with a weapon 24-7, alot of guys like to build an AR so they can continue to have that feeling of security and like to build them up similar to what they carried on duty. Now, having said that ..........

In Iraq, red dot sights were prefered because of the fast moving nature of the battle field. It's a step up from iron sights. Shooting from a vehicle or at a vehicle, it was much more effective to shoot with both eyes open, so the red dot sights worked well. I personally prefer the Eotech. But, the ACOGs had thier place. Most Eotechs in country were purchased by the soldier or his family. Some units would supply ACOGs, but that was not the standard. Unless you were a designated marksman or a sniper, there wasn't alot of practicle use for a scope. I saw many guys with scopes that stood alot of watches on fixed posts (like guard towers). But, for the typical grunt getting in and out of vehicles, they just aren't practicle. If you end up kicking in doors, any kind of magnified optics were just useless.

Now, that just happens to be my own personal opinion and I have been retired for almost 7 years. Things have probably changed since then.

[Jaywalker]

Great info - my question is completely answered.

[LRRPF52]

That is the benefit of the 1-4x with illumination. You leave it on 1x with the illumination on, and with a Front Focal Plane optic, the reticle can look and act like a red dot for the house and alley to take out hood rats up close. Once you get out of the house, you can crank up to 2x,3x, 4x and higher if it's a 1-6x, and engage targets with more precision, at distance, and also help ID targets and no-shoots.

I have two 1-4x scopes that fit this role right now that I'm testing, and they are great. The big challenge across the industry right now is getting the illumination bright enough for using the reticle as a red dot in bright sunlight outside. Once you're inside, no issues, or under overcast conditions, but etched reticles present a technological limitation that is vexing all scope makers currently. With the fiber-optic reticles, you get plenty of brightness, but are limited to reticles with very large lines that must be connected to the outside of the field of view.

[davidj]

Gentlemen,
You cleared up a lot of questions that I had too. Thanks for the information.

[QuadCam]

I love using the acog scopes but I wouldn't buy one if I wanted a precision scope. They seem to be great for getting shots on target quickly and reliably but you aren't going to be using an acog if you are shooting for tight groups. As odd as it seems, I have been able to get tighter groups with iron sights on an AR at 100 yards than with a 4x ta31 acog. doesn't make sense, but it's true.

[Mutt]

I was thinking about this thread and forgot to mention a couple of other things that came to mind.

Out of all the red dots out there right now, I would take the Vortex Strikefire over an ACOG, Aimpoint or an Eotech for 2 reasons. First is price. I can buy a Vortex and a heck of a lot of ammo for the price of an Eotech, Aimpoint or ACOG. And, neither one of those optics seem to do anything better than the Vortex. At 115 dollars it is probably the best buy for the buck. The second reason is quality. The Vortex is made as well as any of the others mentioned and is very durable. You just can't beat the price or customer service.

Having said that, I wouldn't put any of them on a Grendel. It severly limits the capabilities of the rifle. The reason I built my Grendel was because of the long range capabilities. The only pratical use I could imagine for a Grendel with a red dot sight (used for kicking in doors etc) would be for Law enforcement, where the engagements are typically very short and limited in scope. In any other situation, I would want a scope with good magnification for engagments at longer distances that better utilize the cartridges capabilities. Now, I wouldn't mind a good scope up top and a very small red dot sight angle mounted next to the scope. That would work out well. But, an Aimpoint, Eotech, ACOG and Vortex would be too big for that application.

[LRRPF52]

For me, ACOGs are not fast at all. You have to really take the extra time to find the exit pupil box and eye relief, which is a major pain. Unless you find a mount that is perfect for your eye height above that tiny exit pupil, you're screwed for fast shots.

Look at the 1-4x or 1-6 scopes if you want a dual CQB/practical marksman magnified optic. There are also the 1.1-8x scopes now being offered by Leupold ($4000), S&B 1.1-8x Short Dot(well above $2000), Premier 1.1-8x $2900, and these scopes are much bigger than the 1-4x or 1-6x tubes. I think Burris has a 1.5-6x XTR now. GRSC has a 1-4x ($350) and a 1-6x ($1000), with one of the best reticles out there for the dual-role scope. Swarovski has the Z6i 1-6x, which is the best glass in a 1-6x I have ever seen, but their reticles are meant for dangerous game hunting. There is also the March Optics 1-10x, but the reticle is useless for a practical scope, but their glass is fantastic. If I could get a hybrid GRSC reticle in the March 1-10x with a very fine crosshair in the middle of the doughnut, that would be nice, but the FOV gets really weird on those 10x magnification factor scopes from March.

There are a lot of developments going on right now to bring a great scope that can fill both these roles to market, but several engineering and physics challenges need to be overcome.

[Grocerystore_Ninja]

For my squads you put a acog for your dsm every body else gets m68's or irons. For magnified optics in combat acogs are the tits. You need the red chevron it works, so well so that the first marines who fielded them got investigated becaus they were all getting head shots. and in a cqb situation >50m you shouldn't need to be looking down gun sights.

[LRRPF52]

Marines would be making head shots with 1-(n) scopes just as well, and wouldn't need a separate red dot for CQB. That is the beauty of the 1-(n)x scopes. There are several that are a true 1x when dialed down, and basically work like a red dot on that setting. Get out of the house or alley, dial up to whatever power tickles your tastes, and make effective shots within the maximum ballistic potential of your weapon.

The benefits of the ACOG in this area are that you don't encounter some of the mounting issues with standard tubular scopes that the average rifleman could screw up easily, such as scope/reticle rotation in the rings, ring screw tightness and loc-tite, etc. Tubular scopes need to me employed by more-educated soldiers who can put 2 and 2 together, versus many of your first-term joes with sub-85 GT scores. This is why MARSOC just purchased over a thousand Leupold 1.1-8x Scopes, since you probably won't even be screened for those units without a GT of 110 or higher, in addition to existing experience.

If Army Infantry AIT and Marine School of Infantry focused more on true weapons and accessories training, versus peacetime military BS like equal opportunity, sensitivity training, homosexual awareness and indoc, hug your buddy, etc., the problems with lack of "gun-guy" savviness could be tackled, but at the end of the day, it is the government running the show, and time at the chow hall and parade field doing D&C is more important than learning the way of the warrior, especially when limp-wristed noodle-spine leaders with no extensive combat experience are running the initial entry show, having failed to land a more deployment-oriented command slot.

Every now and then, some good ones find their way there, but the initial entry, continual training, and leadership development schools in the military are very lacking in battle-focus, while heavy on the weak sauce.

[Jaywalker]

Do these 1-(n) illuminated scopes have any disadvantages? I recall reading on some forum that one of the Leupold close quarters (can't remember which) suffered a little from lack of brightness, or wrong color, or something like that. (FWIW, the best groups I ever shot with a hunting rifle at 100 yards were with a Weaver 4X, so I know the power itself isn't much of a limitation, at least out that far.)