Trijicon vs. Aimpoint for AR15

[esrice]

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.

Interesting! Thanks for the reply Nick!

 

[phylodog]

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.

There are advantages to either setup and the strengths of both systems overlap considerably. They both have limitations and as long as the user understands them, they're not likely to create a major problem if properly chosen for the task. Like ESRice mentioned earlier, find whichever works for you and run with it. They are both solid systems, combat proven and durable.

 

[the1kidd03]

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.

Believe what you will it makes no difference to me

My point about not needing sights is NOT that you don't need them...it's that if you train PROPERLY (enough) anything within that range you should be able to hit center mass without them and only through muscle memory...as I have done on numerous occasions. When you have time, ability, and distance between you and your attacker to use the sights then obviously do so.....but an average man can run about 20 feet faster than you can draw a pistol...that's pretty quick and so within a short range it's up to you and circumstances whether or not you want to take the time to get proper cheek weld for perfect optic alignment or not


nobody ever said ballistics in combat were different

and if you want to put your live on the line of a busted sight system...REGARDLESS of what kind...trusting it's still accurate...be my guest...I'll take cover and swap out for irons ASAP until I have the opportunity to actually check the sights

let's see your perfect cheek weld with NVG's and/or gas mask on? let's see how much you rely on your sights when you can't put a cheek on the buttstock nor get your face aligned properly behind the optic.....i've fired thousands of rounds, ACCURATE rounds without proper cheek weld or good sight alignment......keep trusting your books

the situation you're in ALWAYS dictates your actions and how you can engage/ use your sights....I've been in many situations (even in training) where you cannot get a perfect site alignment, cheek weld, etc, etc...shooting weak side, in odd positions, you name it.....train hard

perhaps rather than spending your time trying to "discredit" some random person over the internet whom you'll never meet....try actually READING the words he prints rather than jumping to conclusions

everyone's welcom to their opinion on optics....of the guys I know/served with...very few wanted red dots...I prefer the versatility of the ACOG...that IMO......what you're using the optic for is going to play a BIG part on what you choose....if I want accuracy at extended ranges, I wouldn't go with an ACOG but rather a scope.....it just depends largely on your own use.....and preference

POG

 

[the1kidd03]

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?

it's at your own discretion if you wish to have flip ups or what not.....but some units depending on how your chain of command is don't want you using anything that's not issued to you.....(generally POG Co's)....a lot will let you though.....but even at that they EXPECT you to carry your issued carry handle with you "just in case"...if not you'll get your a$$ chewed and prolly some extra PT.....it all just depends on your command

 

[IndyGunworks]

......keep trusting your books

You dont know who phlydog is or what he does do you? I dont think he is talking about experience from books. I value his opinion very highly.

 

[esrice]

......keep trusting your books


POG

This is just a civil discussion on optics-- no reason to take things to a personal level.

I'm not aware of your personal background or credentials, but I do know some about phylodog's, and he knows what he's talking about. His opinions are valid (as are yours).

 

[phylodog]

Believe what you will it makes no difference to me

My point about not needing sights is NOT that you don't need them...it's that if you train PROPERLY (enough) anything within that range you should be able to hit center mass without them and only through muscle memory...as I have done on numerous occasions. When you have time, ability, and distance between you and your attacker to use the sights then obviously do so.....but an average man can run about 20 feet faster than you can draw a pistol...that's pretty quick and so within a short range it's up to you and circumstances whether or not you want to take the time to get proper cheek weld for perfect optic alignment or not

You should do a little research on who you're attempting to talk down to. I can promise you that an average man isn't getting anywhere near me before I can draw my pistol.

nobody ever said ballistics in combat were different

I said that ballistics will change with the weather or the elevation which is a fact. A BDC reticle which works at sea level is not going to work in the mountains.

and if you want to put your live on the line of a busted sight system...REGARDLESS of what kind...trusting it's still accurate...be my guest...I'll take cover and swap out for irons ASAP until I have the opportunity to actually check the sights

My point was that if the lens gets busted on an Aimpoint it does not make the sight unusable. Not so with the ACOG. I'd consider that an advantage.

let's see your perfect cheek weld with NVG's and/or gas mask on? let's see how much you rely on your sights when you can't put a cheek on the buttstock nor get your face aligned properly behind the optic.....i've fired thousands of rounds, ACCURATE rounds without proper cheek weld or good sight alignment......keep trusting your books

Thanks for making my point for me. I regularly shoot with both gas masks and night vision and it's difficult, if not impossible to obtain a proper cheek weld. The fixed parallax of the ACOG along with it's eye relief requirements make shooting it with a gas mask on that much more difficult. Not so with a red dot. Parallax free and no eye relief requirements are a huge advantage when operating under adverse conditions.

Your round count claims won't impress me. Been doing this a bit longer than you have.

the situation you're in ALWAYS dictates your actions and how you can engage/ use your sights....I've been in many situations (even in training) where you cannot get a perfect site alignment, cheek weld, etc, etc...shooting weak side, in odd positions, you name it.....train hard

You're right. Like I mentioned, hold that ACOG out at arms length and see if you can make out your reticle. Now try it with a red dot. Advantage = red dot.

perhaps rather than spending your time trying to "discredit" some random person over the internet whom you'll never meet....try actually READING the words he prints rather than jumping to conclusions

POG

I've read your words. They sound a whole lot more like someone with hundreds of hours playing Call of duty than anyone who has a clue as to what they're talking about.

POG? Wow, that really hurts. I spent 6 years on active duty in the Army prior to my 12 years in LE, 8 with SWAT and 7 as a handgun & rifle instructor. As I've mentioned, I've trained with men they have written books about and I'll give a bit more weight to their choices in optics than an internet blowhard.

 

[the1kidd03]

no...but it makes no difference to me when he wishes to disrespect someone else with the insinuation that they are lying or full of BS...and doesn't even pay attention to what they are actually saying.........he mentioned reference to books as though they were the "end all" and from his earlier opinions seemed to be based on that of a competition target shooter...of course that is my assumption which I normally advocate against making assumptions....but regardless I only respect a man as they respect me...nothing more......and the implication of an operator lying about their experience is rather annoying to say the least

 

[IndyGunworks]

I spent 6 years on active duty in the Army prior to my 12 years in LE, 8 with SWAT and 7 as a handgun & rifle instructor.

Told ya he knew a thing or two about what he was talking about

 

[phylodog]

So you're an "Operator"?

My mention of books was not training books. I'm talking about books written about the accomplishments of these men.

 

[the1kidd03]

same here..... the blowhard part......the fact is that we're over the internet....anyone can talk a big game on whatever they wish......I've came across a few guys who talked a big game even in person.....but find out in their record they were a nobody who got a DD or a medical and never did anything...or something similar...

my point is not to offend you and never has been....I take everything I read online regardless of it's supposed source with a grain of salt...no discredit to any individual...but let's face it...it's the internet

my reference to the cheek weld was that you seemed to put such a "necessity" spin on it....and my point was that it is not always attainable.....whereas you meant exactly that and so the aimpoint was a better performer in that regard......good point and my mistake in confusing your meaning

 

[the1kidd03]

I'll be sure to speek more clearly in making my points from now on as well as asking questions to better understand someone elses'.......misunderstandings just makes for such silly pissing matches.....so I'll work on further clarity.....and I apologize for that....you have made valid points for the aimpoint that I too have not thought about

your point about it not working in the mountains....could you elaborate a little...because the way I read it.....doesn't quite make sense....because, over mountains elevation is going to be all over the place and so it's going to change the effectiveness of the ballistics no matter what the sight, especially at any good distance....and so, I am failing to see how you are making that a +1 for the aimpoint?

 

[VUPDblue]

Ballistic trajectory change with altitude due to air density, pressure etc... if a scope with a BDC for a certain load is calibrated at sea level, that load is going to perform differently at elevation than at sea level so your BDC will be inaccurate when at elevation.

 

[the1kidd03]

Told ya he knew a thing or two about what he was talking about

I don't try to dicredit anyone's experience...I do however tend to make assumptions based on what is written...just as any person does.....likewise, I don't like,agree with, or appreciate when someone questions my own experience either.....the assumption that I'm a noob or young because of my "rank" on some silly internet forum and somehow associating that with real world experience is misfounded/disrespectful....however, I will/have apologized for the confusion...and do not wish to take any more time from the OP and the topic at hand

 

[the1kidd03]

Ballistic trajectory change with altitude due to air density, pressure etc... if a scope with a BDC for a certain load is calibrated at sea level, that load is going to perform differently at elevation than at sea level so your BDC will be inaccurate when at elevation.

ok...this I know...and his point makes more sense to me now....when he stated in the mountains...my immediate thought was in the way of firing at one elevation to a target at a different elevation...and having to use the PT formula, etc to make adjustments for the shot......but the mountain shot would still be a problem for the red dot as well right? aside from having to do yet more math to adjust the sight...I still fail to see how/if a red dot is beneficial in such a situation

 

[esrice]

some silly internet forum

Ok now I'M offended!

 

[phylodog]

My point about the BDC reticle is that it can lull the uninformed into a false sense of security. Switching from M193 to M855 to Mk262 ammo is going to cause problems with a BDC reticle as they are calibrated for one type of ammo, barrel length and atmospheric condition. Not suggesting that you weren't aware of it, but that others may not be. We still get some folks who believe that a bullets travels in a flat line. (not bashing them, everyone starts somewhere).

POI is going to shift regardless of what optic you choose. Having an understanding of those shifts is critical to making hits. Holdovers can effectively be made with a red dot although a properly calibrated ACOG will have an advantage.

 

[the1kidd03]

Ok now I'M offended!

lol.....

 

[the1kidd03]

My point about the BDC reticle is that it can lull the uninformed into a false sense of security. Switching from M193 to M855 to Mk262 ammo is going to cause problems with a BDC reticle as they are calibrated for one type of ammo, barrel length and atmospheric condition. Not suggesting that you weren't aware of it, but that others may not be. We still get some folks who believe that a bullets travels in a flat line. (not bashing them, everyone starts somewhere).

POI is going to shift regardless of what optic you choose. Having an understanding of those shifts is critical to making hits. Holdovers can effectively be made with a red dot although a properly calibrated ACOG will have an advantage.

roger that....thank you for a little clarification

I have only ever used the 855's and on numerous "unknown distance" ranges which had different elevations...not DRASTICALLY different such as a mountain.....perhaps what an Indiana native would consider a mountain..lol.....but i never really had the worry of it being "off" enough to worry about not hitting a body....for shots like that the DM/sniper rifles were used rather than ACOG's

 

[jblomenberg16]

I should have done a poll with this thread.

I think it would have still come out pretty close to 50/50. Which means you should get both.