ACOG vs EOTech Range Report

[Travis McGee]

Okay, this wasn't a bench-by-bench comparison. But I did shoot one rifle last week at my range, and the other rifle today at a guest range. Both ranges are in Florida, if you care, on opposite coasts.

Both rifles were comparable M-4gerys. Top end or close to to top end. (Not junk.) Similar stocks, barrels, etc. I'm not going to mention the makes, because it's not the point of my essay tonight. Trust me, both are fine, fine rifles that are capable of greater accuracy than I ever will lend to them.

Okay. Rifle #1 sports a 1 power EOTech sight and a compensator/muzzle brake. The EOTech's 1X aiming point is a one minute of angle red dot, surrounded by a red circle. If you have read this far, you already know this.

Rifle #2 sports a 4X Trijicon ACOG and a flash suppressor. The ACOG's reticle is an orange triangle, the aiming point is the top tip. In both cases I was shooting from a bench and offhand at 100 yards at standard 100 yard NRA targets. These are about 2 feet square, with about a 10" black bullseye graduated with rings. I wasn't counting scores, but initial sighting-in groups, and then offhand effectiveness.

Impressions: the Trijicon is the finest sight I've ever shot on a combat carbine, period. Bar none. Better by far than my EOTech, Aimpoints (4 minute of angle red dots) and various other optical and electronic sights I have used. Off a rest, the Trijicon was shooting a sub 2" group, and I suck at bench rest shooting. I cannot get my EOTech to shoot that well, even though it has a 1 MOA red dot, mainly because my "over 50" eyes are starting to slip, maybe. The best bench groups I could get with the EOTech were about 4". The 4X Trijicon brought that 10" bull in sharp and clear. The triangle top reticle is like a surgeon's scalpel. Sub 2" bench groups were easy. Yet it's also bright and fast and "intuitive."

Bench rest verdict: Trijicon wins, hands down.

Standing, offhand. To get a little realism into the comparison, I shot identical NRA targets offhand, "semi-rapid fire." A combat carbine is about shooting with speed while running around and trying not to get shot. Bench rest performance is just step one. Standing offhand with both rifles/sights, I could really kill that 10" bull at 100 yards. The 1 MOA EOTech is easily centered. Offhand, both rifles and scopes were far better than the shooter, me. But to be truthful, semi-rapid fire standing, and going through entire 30 round mags to simulate realistic fatigue, I found it much easier to stay "all in the black" with the Trijicon. That 4X triangle is just so damn good. And it has built-in stadia steps under the triangle for 400 and 600 yards. I'd hate to be a Taliban with ten Marines chasing me with M-16 A3 mounted with Trijicons!

Offhand accuracy at 100 yards: Trijicon wins again.

Second discussion: flash suppressor vs. muzzle brake. One area where I must give credit to my own M-4gery with the EOTech is due to its brake/compensator. Yes, the 5.56mm "mouse gun" does not have much recoil. Yes, your ten year old little sister can shoot it without crying. BUT, my muzzle brake/compensator makes a fast rifle even faster. The Trijicon with the flash suppressor was more accurate, but just a bit slower than the EOTech with the brake. The Trijicon/flash suppressor would jump off of the target just enough between semi-rapid fire shots to force you to "re-acquire" the bull on the triangle.

But my EOTech with the compensator (no holes on the bottom, for zero "muzzle flip" means that my 1moa EOTech red dot stays dead-tits on the center of the bull between shots. If the ranges allowed true rapid fire, I'm sure that's when the brake would really shine. (No 'one second per shot rule'.) With the brake you can just nail your target all the way through a magazine, with both eyes open, never ever losing your point of aim even for a nanosecond.

But with no magnification, the EOTech just could not maximize the accuracy the way the Trijicon did.

My recommendation for the deadliest combo? Put a Trijicon on top of your M-4gery, and a muzzle brake/compensator on the front. Then you will be able to attack targets like a damn sewing machine! Who needs full auto, when you can just DRILL a target at 100 yards as fast as you can shoot?

I wish I was still out west at a "free range" gravel pit where I could put this theory to the test. But our Eastern RSO's just don't like hearing 30 round mags go out in under 30 seconds.

A few more thoughts: If I knew I’d only be using my rifle from point blank to 200 yards, I’d say my EOTech would be great. Maybe even quicker under 100 yards with no magnification.

But from 100 to 600 yards, the Trijicon would win hands-down, no comparison. Zero. None.

And up close, there are those who say that the Trijoon acts like an “occluded eye gunsight” while you are swinging onto the target with both eyes open. That is, the left eye sees the target, the right eye sees that BRIGHT orange triangle. As you put them together and steady on target, the right eye comes into focus, and there you are, on target. I have not had a chance to test this (no free range gravel pits nearby) but it sounds like it would work.

Both are damn fine sights, but the Trijicon ACOG is hands down better.

Put a brake/comp in front, and you would have a seriously deadly off-hand running-around-and-shooting killer carbine.

 

[Avenger29]

The Bindon Aiming Concept you are talking about in your last paragraph does work, but can be a bit slower.

I prefer a magnified optic for any kind of "distant" work myself due to the shapes my eyes are in, but Aimpoints rule for close in work. An Aimpoint with a magnifier in a LaRue pivot mount is also a good combination.

The various 1-4x scopes in the market are also making a good showing of themselves. Trijicon makes one that is very good for the money you pay (probably one of the better options in the sub $1K range)

Yet another option is to mount an Aimpoint Micro at the 1 o'clock position or so, so you can have a good primary magnified optic yet roll the rifle slightly to bring your red dot into play. LaRue and Knight's Armament make very good mounts for this purpose.

 

[Steve in PA]

So, you compared a 4x sighting device to a 1x sighting device....and got better results from the 4x? At 100 yards that would be expected. You would have got even better results from something with 6x. Doesn't mean the 6x is a better sighting device. It only means the great magnification brings the target in closer.

The EOtech works just fine for these very, very close to 50 eyes.

 

[taliv]

Travis, thanks for the write up.

if you ever plan to cruise through middle-TN with some time to kill, send me a PM. We'll break out the shot timer for you, and a nice assortment of aimpoint, acog, and various 1-4x scopes with several different flavors of muzzle breaks and FHs.

 

[Tim the student]

Good write up. Thanks. Sounds like you had some fun too.

But... you are comparing apples to oranges. They have two different purposes. Try clearing a room or a whole house using an ACOG as a sight and then an Eotech as a sight and let us know what you like better then.

 

[speaksoftly]

With all due respect, I don't think this can be anywhere near a valid comparison without using a magnifier on the Eotech. The standalone Eotech isn't meant to shoot far distances without a magnifier. If you're making a comparison then the Eotech, magnifier, and flip up mount can be bought for less than most Trijicons. Not only will this allow the Eotech to have the same 4X magnification as the Trijicon, but the flip up mount will allow the magnifier to easily be snapped out of the way. This will allow the shooter to only utilize the Eotech for close range shooting (definitely not a capability of the Trij).

 

[taliv]

eh, you can still use the acog at very close range, it's just a bit slower.

and the acog is still going to make it easier to shoot tiny groups compared to the eotech with a 4x magnifier because the tip of the chevron is far more precise than the dots, and that is exacerbated by the magnification where that 1moa dot turns into a 4moa dot

 

[brboyer]

As others have said, your comparison is apples and oranges.

Different rifles, different conditions, different ranges, magnified vs. not, etc. etc.

 

[speaksoftly]

eh, you can still use the acog at very close range, it's just a bit slower.

and the acog is still going to make it easier to shoot tiny groups compared to the eotech with a 4x magnifier because the tip of the chevron is far more precise than the dots, and that is exacerbated by the magnification where that 1moa dot turns into a 4moa dot

Just my two cents but I would imagine that "just a bit slower" isn't a risk I would want to take when thinking in terms of a combat related rifle. My response to the second half of your statement is a quote from benEzra.

This is true of most optics, but is not true of the Eotech. This is the case because the Eotech's center dot is actually diffraction limited by the human eye; it is considerably smaller than 1 MOA and only appears ~1 MOA because the human eye is physically incapable of displaying the dot at its actual, much-smaller size (any point light source will always appear to bloom to the eye's minimum resolution limit). If you throw a 4x magnifier in front of it, the background is magnified 4X, but the dot is still diffraction-limited and thus still appears ~1 MOA. So with the Eotech, you have the unusual situation of being able to magnify the view without magnifying the dot.

 

[brboyer]

eh, you can still use the acog at very close range, it's just a bit slower.

and the acog is still going to make it easier to shoot tiny groups compared to the eotech with a 4x magnifier because the tip of the chevron is far more precise than the dots, and that is exacerbated by the magnification where that 1moa dot turns into a 4moa dot

Actually, the EOthingy dot apperas to the human eye at a consistent 1 MOA even with a magnifier.

 

[alohachris]

A more accurate comparison would have been to shoot with the Eotech at 25 yards and the Trijicon at 100 yards to compare magnified to unmagnified.

 

[possum]

good write up thanks for sharing. i have an acog on my work gun, and even though i don't really like using them for 25meters and closer, i have been training hard with it, and getting as good as i can. lso shooting from awkward postions is tuff, ie supine, urban prone, sbu etc, but i am getting used to it bit by bit. i have made some really long distance hits with it though.

i have an eotech on my personal ar, because in reality if i ever had to use my ar it would be less than 25yds in a defensive sittuation, if for some crazy un forseen reason i had to shoot out to 300yds i know i could with it, but at that point i probally wouldn't be defending myself.

i like the eotech because i am very fast with it, and very accurate at realistic deffensve ranges. and in all the wild positions that i might find mysef in in a fight.

overall i prefer the eotech for personal use. my work gun it depends on the ao that i am working in. my first 2 deployments, i would have been better off with an rds, this one i am better off with an acog.

 

[esheato]

I have an ACOG on my 223 AR and an EOtech on my 9mm AR. Enough said.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Bindon Aiming Concept you are talking about in your last paragraph does work, but can be a bit slower.

My brother could do it fairly well, but for those whose eyes aren't properly aligned (like those who don't do well with 3-D glasses at the movie theatre), BAC is a bit of a fantasy or cause of headache. Sadly, I am of that group, but I really like my ACOGs none the less.

 

[killchain]

Comparing an unmagnified sight to a magnified sight at the same ranges is going to have a skewed response.

That is like trying to compare the ACOG to the EOTech for <25m short range marksmanship drills.

 

[armoredman]

Thanks for the efforts. I have an EOTech for one reason only - I could barely justify the cost. There was no way I could justify the cost of an ACOG whatsoever. I like it. Heavy sucker, but it works.

Shooting it like this...




...gave me this at 200 yards.




I am sure your AR is far more accurate, but this works for me. Like I said, if I could have justified the expense, when I had the money, I might have gone ACOG, but for my range toy/Homeland Defense Rifle, on my salary, I couldn't. Thanks again for the range report.

 

[coyote]

i've used both extensively outdoors in a rural environment where house-clearing isn't an issue.

i agree with most here - its apple vs oranges.

seeing that i don't carry apple and orange rifles at the same time, i had to pick one. i wanted a "long range" weapon (beyond 25 yds) so picked the acog.

i've been using mine (which has a three-digit serial number, purchased new the first year they came out) for something like 25 years and have no problem making consistent hits to 600 yds (and can continue to make hits out to 800, but with a less-than-perfect hit count).

also, the acog doesn't require batteries or constant brightness adjusting.

although i picked the acog, i have seriously tested the eotech for the same mission uses and have also been able to make hits out to 600 yds, its just nowhere as easy to accomplish. (during testing the earliest eotech model, i assisted their engineers to make a number of design changes after discovering the original N-battery version's shortcomings. those changes have been incorporated in all later versions, many of which i've owned).

what esheato said above makes a lot of sense: "I have an ACOG on my 223 AR and an EOtech on my 9mm AR".

my two cents...

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

So, you compared a 4x sighting device to a 1x sighting device....and got better results from the 4x? At 100 yards that would be expected. You would have got even better results from something with 6x. Doesn't mean the 6x is a better sighting device. It only means the great magnification brings the target in closer.

Pretty much this. A comparison of a unmagnified close combat optic with a magnified medium range optic is essentially meaningless. They aren't meant for the same things, so the obviously will not perform the same when being tested. If your test had been you running through a semi-dark building, bursting into a room and seeing how fast you can put effective rounds on 2 or 3 targets, I have a feeling the EOTech would have shown it's true strengths.

They are both fine optics. I will say that I have found Trijicon products to be slightly more durable in the field than EOTech, but EOTechs are still a great optic for close combat in a dynamic environment. If I lived in a state that trusted me enough to allow me to buy and SBR, I would have a 10.5" AR with an EOTech and then switch my current 16" AR over to having a 3x ACOG. The open field of view of the EOTech is better for fast paced combat that a tube style optic.

The test was flawed from the start when you tried to test a close range optic against a longer range one, on long range terms. Your test was stacked against the EOTech from the start.

 

[taliv]

hmm... that's interesting. I have shot eotechs quite a lot, but only put the magnifier in front of my aimpoints, so i didn't realize they might be different. I will try that sometime. i'm still somewhat skeptical about the 'diffraction limited' explanation. thanks for correcting me though.

 

[EddieNFL]

IMO the Trijicon Reflex w/chevron would be a a more suitable comparison against the EOTECH. I have carbines set up with each. I give the accuracy edge to the Reflex and speed to the EOTECH.

My 20 power Ziess is more accurate than the AGOG 4X.

 

[taliv]

My 20 power Ziess is more accurate than the AGOG 4X.

well, it might be more 'precise'

 

[gunnie]

..."If your test had been you running through a semi-dark building, bursting into a room and seeing how fast you can put effective rounds on 2 or 3 targets, I have a feeling the EOTech would have shown it's true strengths."...

+1 was thinking the same thing, and THIS:

try setting a target up on an endless loop [tied together at both ends] of 1/4" rope, with pulleys on both ends. have a buddy pull the rope as fast as he can from behind ABSOLUTE sure cover. shoot at the moving target, with both eyes open. the "both eyes open" part is the forte of the EOT.

what you will come up with is the EO is good for close range, poorly illuminated and moving targets. VERY FAST. the acog, even if it was a 1X unit, blocks out too much view with the scope body.

solution- as stated above mount a small halographic to the side, or on top of the acog.

http://www.valhallaarmory.com/3_9X42_Ultimate_AR_15_Scope_p/st3942g-ult.htm

i also find the triangle emits too much light for very dark use from an acog, closing the pupil enough that a previously visible target is no longer. the eo can be adjusted down in brightness for this.

gunnie

 

[EddieNFL]

well, it might be more 'precise'

Semantics...

 

[Travis McGee]

Sorry guys for the "post and run" thread but I'm on the road with very little computer time. I just thought I'd write up my impressions of the two sights, shooting semi-rapid at 100 meters as a starting point for discussion. Of course it's apples and oranges to compare a 1X and a 4X sight, but they are two of the most popular flavors out there, and 100 yard offhand semi-rapid was meant as a fair "mid range" test of both systems, naturally giving the edge to EOTech closer and Trijicon further. The main point was just to initiate discussion and see what folks thought.

Well, looks like my computer time is about up for tonight! Later gators!

Matt on the FL west coast (for a change).

 

[Blackbeard]

I agree that the two optics are made for very different purposes. To evaluate them only against midrange stationary targets, of course the one designed for that is going to come out ahead. It's kind of like comparing a Ford F150 and a Ferrari by measuring how much timber they can haul.