Trijicon vs. Aimpoint for AR15

[the1kidd03]

I dont know if i would go that far. eotechs and aimpoints have seen combat service all around the world and to great success.... they just fill a differant niche market.

also, eotechs can be found mounted on crew served weapons. i think thats where they really shine over the aimpoints because it definatly increases your field of view.

true...but they are battery powered which can fail...and they're more of a "reference point" type of optic...great for crew served weapons systems....but for an individual rifle where you may need to engage a target at 500 meters one minute, and 30 meters the next minute...they're not that great ....especially not as accurate on such weapons

 

[phylodog]

Wow, lol...

 

[the1kidd03]

Wow, lol...

lol...what, can you tell I don't like Eotechs....lol

 

[phylodog]

I don't either but the reasons you state are founded in BS. There are some pretty high speed/low drag fellas doing unspeakably dangerous work across the pond who trust their lives to red dot scopes.

I've used Aimpoints, EoTechs and ACOgs. I don't trust EoTechs, I've seen enough of them fail that I won't spend my money on one. ACOGs are fantastic pieces of glass and worth their asking price but limited due to their fixed magnification. I've never had an Aimpoint fail and the T-1 coupled with the 3X provides me with the ability to do what I need to do in virtually every situation from 0-200 yards, and do it well.

You aren't going to slap any old ACOG on any old AR15 rifle and expect the BDC reticle to be accurate out to 800 yards. It doesn't work like that. Different rounds are going to have different trajectories and in the 5.56 those trajectories are going to start varying widely beyond 400 yards. If you are shooting a round the BDC was designed for you can expect reasonable accuracy out of it but that is going to change with the weather, literally. Got it doped in just right here in IN? See what it does in the mountains, ain't gonna be the same.

Can you shoot the ACOG holding the rifle out at arms length?
Can you shoot the ACOG if the objective lens gets cracked?
Does your cheek weld change when wearing a gas mask?

Everything has it's compromises. You like the ACOG? Fine, run with it. Just be realistic about it, it's not the end all - be all nor is it the only way to skin a cat.

YMMV

 

[gunman41mag]

I have a AIMPOINT 2X

 

[IndyGunworks]

I don't either but the reasons you state are founded in BS. There are some pretty high speed/low drag fellas doing unspeakably dangerous work across the pond who trust their lives to red dot scopes.

I've used Aimpoints, EoTechs and ACOgs. I don't trust EoTechs, I've seen enough of them fail that I won't spend my money on one. ACOGs are fantastic pieces of glass and worth their asking price but limited due to their fixed magnification. I've never had an Aimpoint fail and the T-1 coupled with the 3X provides me with the ability to do what I need to do in virtually every situation from 0-200 yards, and do it well.

You aren't going to slap any old ACOG on any old AR15 rifle and expect the BDC reticle to be accurate out to 800 yards. It doesn't work like that. Different rounds are going to have different trajectories and in the 5.56 those trajectories are going to start varying widely beyond 400 yards. If you are shooting a round the BDC was designed for you can expect reasonable accuracy out of it but that is going to change with the weather, literally. Got it doped in just right here in IN? See what it does in the mountains, ain't gonna be the same.

Can you shoot the ACOG holding the rifle out at arms length?
Can you shoot the ACOG if the objective lens gets cracked?
Does your cheek weld change when wearing a gas mask?

Everything has it's compromises. You like the ACOG? Fine, run with it. Just be realistic about it, it's not the end all - be all nor is it the only way to skin a cat.

YMMV

all excellent points. I am partial to the acog because most of my firearms at this point are geared towards fun, and SHTF. I will make the argument that an acog is better for SHTF just because of the battery deal.

the trajectories comment is true as well, but w/ the limited testing i have done w/ the various ammo i have stockpiled, all the milsup 5.56 in both 55 grain and 62 grain have proved to be VERY close to the reticle. i am not talking pinpoint accuracy, i am talking about hearing the bullet hit steel on a 20x40 inch piece of steel. I can do this reliably out to 500 w/ most ammo that my rifle will digest.

again, i am not knocking the other gear, just making the argument for the acog. its what i prefer, so its what i reccomend.

 

[phylodog]

all excellent points. I am partial to the acog because most of my firearms at this point are geared towards fun, and SHTF. I will make the argument that an acog is better for SHTF just because of the battery deal.

the trajectories comment is true as well, but w/ the limited testing i have done w/ the various ammo i have stockpiled, all the milsup 5.56 in both 55 grain and 62 grain have proved to be VERY close to the reticle. i am not talking pinpoint accuracy, i am talking about hearing the bullet hit steel on a 20x40 inch piece of steel. I can do this reliably out to 500 w/ most ammo that my rifle will digest.

again, i am not knocking the other gear, just making the argument for the acog. its what i prefer, so its what i reccomend.

Got no problem with that although the battery life is pretty ridiculous on the Aimpoints these days. I haven't bought a replacement for my T-1 for fear it would die in it's packaging before I needed to put it in the optic. I never rely solely on any electronic devices, that's why we require BUIS on any of our rifles.

Like I said, the ACOG's are great scopes and if they fit your purposes, great. I guess I take offense when someone attempts to make blanket statements about the inferiority of my choice.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Got no problem with that although the battery life is pretty ridiculous on the Aimpoints these days. I haven't bought a replacement for my T-1 for fear it would die in it's packaging before I needed to put it in the optic. I never rely solely on any electronic devices, that's why we require BUIS on any of our rifles.

Like I said, the ACOG's are great scopes and if they fit your purposes, great. I guess I take offense when someone attempts to make blanket statements about the inferiority of my choice.

I can see where you got that from as well. Its pretty easy to get wrapped up in the "perfect" piece of gear. I think the acog is pretty damn close to it.

battery life on the newer aimpoints is amazing, BUT, if you forget to turn it off, or just plain use it, once its dead its dead, and in SHTF that means you are going back to irons. I know my acog will stay illuminated for the entire service life of my rifle. I also train at point shooting inside of 30 yards. not perfect at it by anymeans but confident. i think the acog really shines after 50 yards, but in your situation i dont doubt the gear selection at all.

I hope you didnt take any of my comments as statments of the inferiority of your choices. I never intended the comments that way just based off the OPs comments of SHTF i believe the acog to be the better choice.

 

[phylodog]

Not to worry.

The battery on my T-1 is rated for 50,000 hours of continuous use. That's five years of not turning it off, lol.

 

[Lock n Load]

Ive had 4 or 5 EoTechs over the years, never had any issues with them..... lucky I guess. I didnt care much for the APoint w/o magnifier, my aging eyes appreciate the magnification.

Im very partial to the ACOGs. Im able to shoot both eyes open with them so close targets are not an issue. While Im not engaging bad guys for Uncle Sam anymore, I would trust my life to the ACOGs !!!

The downsides to an ACOG are the $$ and the eye relief on the 4x models. I aquired these thru trades so the price paid was less than half of the selling prices which made them very affordable.

EoTech 512, TA31F w/ red chevron and a TA01 w/ std. reticle:

 

[the1kidd03]

I don't either but the reasons you state are founded in BS. There are some pretty high speed/low drag fellas doing unspeakably dangerous work across the pond who trust their lives to red dot scopes.

I've used Aimpoints, EoTechs and ACOgs. I don't trust EoTechs, I've seen enough of them fail that I won't spend my money on one. ACOGs are fantastic pieces of glass and worth their asking price but limited due to their fixed magnification. I've never had an Aimpoint fail and the T-1 coupled with the 3X provides me with the ability to do what I need to do in virtually every situation from 0-200 yards, and do it well.

You aren't going to slap any old ACOG on any old AR15 rifle and expect the BDC reticle to be accurate out to 800 yards. It doesn't work like that. Different rounds are going to have different trajectories and in the 5.56 those trajectories are going to start varying widely beyond 400 yards. If you are shooting a round the BDC was designed for you can expect reasonable accuracy out of it but that is going to change with the weather, literally. Got it doped in just right here in IN? See what it does in the mountains, ain't gonna be the same.

Can you shoot the ACOG holding the rifle out at arms length?
Can you shoot the ACOG if the objective lens gets cracked?
Does your cheek weld change when wearing a gas mask?

Everything has it's compromises. You like the ACOG? Fine, run with it. Just be realistic about it, it's not the end all - be all nor is it the only way to skin a cat.

YMMV

the argument that the ballistics change so much at the drop of a hat in a combat scenario is simply not the case.....if you're trying to achieve accuracy for small competition targets at long distances...of course each round is going to be different, but if that were the case you wouldn't be using any the mentioned sights...it would be a scope....

.the talk is about COMBAT OPTICS.....that means hitting man's chest sized targets and the greatest variety of ranges as simply/easily as possible......I have fired many different kinds of ammo with ACOGS mounted on 20" and 16" from all sorts of different terrain and climates from one end of this country to the other side of the world....they practically ALL hit man sized targets effectively with the ACOG....of course with a proper BZO for each round, but they all still hit a chest accordingly with the ACOGS designated marks and shoot relatively similar.......my point is that it is not an accuracy optic...it's a combat optic......hitting 6" paper cirlces at 800 meters is a lot differnt than hitting 30" chests.....

if you're shooting any rifle at arms length you're going to have minimal accuracy at all with any optic...but you can shoot it none the less...and sending rounds in the direction of an attacker is going keep them from coming at you either way you do it

you can't shoot ANY combat optic with a broken lens....that's why everyone carry's their handle sites with them for back up

everyone's cheek weld changes with a gas mask....but in combat you're not concentrating on you cheek weld...you're concentrating on dropping threats and taking cover.....target shooting and competitions you can think about cheek weld all you want....but for combat optics it's not a concern....and i've fired thousands of deadly accurate rounds with my cheek barely touching (if touching at all) especially with NVG's on

I never said nor implied that the ACOG is the only way to skin a cat....merely explaining why it's superior to a typical red dot type sight.....you put it on, sight it in, and you basically don't have to touch it again within your AO....if an enemy is too close for the ACOG to be "effective" you're probably not going to need sites of any kind to drop him

 

[the1kidd03]

Not to worry.

The battery on my T-1 is rated for 50,000 hours of continuous use. That's five years of not turning it off, lol.

that's impressive battery life for ANYTHING in the weapons industry...lol but I still wouldn't put my life on it personally

 

[the1kidd03]

Ive had 4 or 5 EoTechs over the years, never had any issues with them..... lucky I guess. I didnt care much for the APoint w/o magnifier, my aging eyes appreciate the magnification.

Im very partial to the ACOGs. Im able to shoot both eyes open with them so close targets are not an issue. While Im not engaging bad guys for Uncle Sam anymore, I would trust my life to the ACOGs !!!

The downsides to an ACOG are the $$ and the eye relief on the 4x models. I aquired these thru trades so the price paid was less than half of the selling prices which made them very affordable.

EoTech 512, TA31F w/ red chevron and a TA01 w/ std. reticle:

ACOGs aren't cheap...but the model which the Marine Corps issues can be bought NIB for only $850.....there are many scopes which cost more and eotechs are around 500......to me it's WELL worth the extra 300 or so for the ACOG

 

[esrice]

Are Aimpoints as durable?

Is the sun hot?

http://www.downrange.tv/show2/

 

[mammynun]

When I was in the military ('84-'90), I never saw any RDS's... but here's my civilian take: If you want quick, get an RDS. If you want distance, get a scope.

I have an EOTech XPS-2 (3? years) on my AR and (recently) an Aimpoint T-1 on an AK. The EOTech has been solid and returns to zero on it's Larue mount and I really like the reticle. The T-1 has been turned on for a month and doesn't have any issues with heat on a Saiga 7.62 with a MI/US Palm rig. FWIW, I've never had any heat issues with a PA micro on an Ultimak either, but the battery needs to be changed quite often.

I've thought of getting an ACOG, but the (lack of) eye relief has always caused me to back off. My thought process is that if I need magnification, what great advantage does an ACOG offer that other scopes don't? My answer to myself is "tritium and FO reticle and it's probably more durable." But Aimpoint, Nikon, Leupold and probably others offer similar solutions at less expense (Uncle Sammy is not issuing me any gear).

Not to mention that as a civilian I'd be hard pressed to justify a shot over 300m as "self defense."

 

[phylodog]

the argument that the ballistics change so much at the drop of a hat in a combat scenario is simply not the case.....if you're trying to achieve accuracy for small competition targets at long distances...of course each round is going to be different, but if that were the case you wouldn't be using any the mentioned sights...it would be a scope....

.the talk is about COMBAT OPTICS.....that means hitting man's chest sized targets and the greatest variety of ranges as simply/easily as possible......I have fired many different kinds of ammo with ACOGS mounted on 20" and 16" from all sorts of different terrain and climates from one end of this country to the other side of the world....they practically ALL hit man sized targets effectively with the ACOG....of course with a proper BZO for each round, but they all still hit a chest accordingly with the ACOGS designated marks and shoot relatively similar.......my point is that it is not an accuracy optic...it's a combat optic......hitting 6" paper cirlces at 800 meters is a lot differnt than hitting 30" chests.....

if you're shooting any rifle at arms length you're going to have minimal accuracy at all with any optic...but you can shoot it none the less...and sending rounds in the direction of an attacker is going keep them from coming at you either way you do it

you can't shoot ANY combat optic with a broken lens....that's why everyone carry's their handle sites with them for back up

everyone's cheek weld changes with a gas mask....but in combat you're not concentrating on you cheek weld...you're concentrating on dropping threats and taking cover.....target shooting and competitions you can think about cheek weld all you want....but for combat optics it's not a concern....and i've fired thousands of deadly accurate rounds with my cheek barely touching (if touching at all) especially with NVG's on

I never said nor implied that the ACOG is the only way to skin a cat....merely explaining why it's superior to a typical red dot type sight.....you put it on, sight it in, and you basically don't have to touch it again within your AO....if an enemy is too close for the ACOG to be "effective" you're probably not going to need sites of any kind to drop him

In combat this, in combat that, BS. I've trained with men they write books about and they don't talk like that. They talk about what works and putting accurate rounds onto a threat is what works. Not needing sights at 40 yards? F'n ridiculous. Ballistics are different in combat?

You can shoot an Aimpoint with the objective lens cracked, shattered or spray painted black for that matter.

Not worried about cheek weld? You'd better be if you're shooting that ACOG because it's much more important than it is when using and Aimpoint or EoTech. Apparently spraying inaccurate rounds toward a threat is how the military is training troops these days?

Sure seems to be a lot of guys with pretty healthy pedigrees shooting red dot sights versus ACOGs. Seems odd that gentlemen the likes of Larry Vickers and Kyle Lamb would choose a vastly inferior optical system for their rifles.

 

[esrice]

that's why everyone carry's their handle sites with them for back up

Guys in the sandbox don't use folding backup iron sights with ACOGs? I can't imagine I'd like to take the time to take off the ACOG and then fuss with installing a carry handle. Do carry handles return to zero?

 

[IndyGunworks]

In combat this, in combat that, BS. I've trained with men they write books about and they don't talk like that. They talk about what works and putting accurate rounds onto a threat is what works. Not needing sights at 40 yards? F'n ridiculous. Ballistics are different in combat?

You can shoot an Aimpoint with the objective lens cracked, shattered or spray painted black for that matter.

Not worried about cheek weld? You'd better be if you're shooting that ACOG because it's much more important than it is when using and Aimpoint or EoTech. Apparently spraying inaccurate rounds toward a threat is how the military is training troops these days?

Sure seems to be a lot of guys with pretty healthy pedigrees shooting red dot sights versus ACOGs. Seems odd that gentlemen the likes of Larry Vickers and Kyle Lamb would choose a vastly inferior optical system for their rifles.

You have definatly mentioned some perks to the aimpoint that i have not considered. something that i should have considered. I have never really trained shooting from uncomforitable situations where a proper cheek weld is not an option. laying your rifle flat on top of your cover and still being able to minimally expose your head and still place accurate rounds is one of those perks.

The non sighted rounds i train w/ on the acog is a matter of trying to master the bindon aiming concept to utilize the acog at closer ranges. its difficult if not impossible to master w/ a speed and consistantcy that would be even close to an aimpoint.

all of my "combat" was limited to convoy security where any threat we would encounter would either be at a considerable distance, or never bee seen to begin with. this environment is where the acog shines because if you do take some rounds from a distant village, i can lay more accurate suppressive fire.

Its also the optic i was trained w/ in designated marksman school. 20 rounds per distance from 0-600 yards at ft benning and in the "class competition" at the end, i only missed one shot. that also helped sell me on the acog as i dont think i would have that sort of reliability w/ a reddot.

all and all this thread has made me rethink the reddot. I have never trained w/ a red dot outside of MOUT distances and i guess i have a bit of a bias thinking that its only a door kicking optic. I would love to put some rounds through a rifle thats been set up properly and see what kind of distances i can get reliable hits w/ it as well as shooting from some not so perfect positions.

 

[IndyGunworks]

I will say also, that if i found myself in a situation thats similar to what modern combat has become i would prefer the aimpoint. but i still gear my stuff towards SHTF, and the ability to engage threats at a MUCH further distance has its perks. in a perfect world if i am having to engage targets inside of 40 yards, i will have my 870

 

[IndyGunworks]

Guys in the sandbox don't use folding backup iron sights with ACOGs? I can't imagine I'd like to take the time to take off the ACOG and then fuss with installing a carry handle. Do carry handles return to zero?

I have had decent luck w/ my carry handle returning to zero when i tried it out. the acog when remounted would not return as close to zero however, but that might be because i am able to achieve a finer aiming point.

we were not issued backup sights w/ the acog, but i put my own on my rifle because its just plain stupid to put all your eggs in one basket when your life might be on the line.