Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
I got a 1.5x mini ACOG with amber dot reticle (6MOA, I think). I zeroed it roughtly a few weeks ago, had no chance to use it otherwise. Took it on a long hike through the woods and fields, wearing full gear. Learned a few things, such as:
a slippery camelbak buckle ended up on the vest's recoil pad, preventing good stock mounting
A2 stock is just too long, I should get a Sully stock installed on mine. With that in mind, I also removed the slip-on recoil pad from my shorty Garand.
Three point sling slips off my right shulder and cuts into the neck. My vest has no epaulets, so I can't lock the sling in.
Can't figure out how to sling the rifle in the back with the three-point set-up...I think it is possiblem just not sure how.
Sneakers suck for cross-country, need boots. Same for the thin cargo pants, need something that would keep thorns out. Need to find my gloves, hands got abraded a bit.
Now to the scope.
GOOD:
Optics are great, sharp and free from flare. Target is easier to see than with naked eye or an unmagnified red dot. LESSON: Get compact binoculars for the kit.
Reticle was ALWAYS bright and contrasty, either orange on dark background or black on light background. Vertical line below helped with ranging and could be used as a reference to stop me from canting the sights.
The mount is sturdy.
BAD:
Viewing with two eyes (Bindon concept) didn't work all that well for me. The sight picture between the two eyes differed considerably left to right, requiring aim adjustment. Not as fast as an EOTech.
The dot reticle is big. It is not suitable for precision shooting, as it obscures the bullseye. At 50 yards, I got a 2" group. Some of it was due to shooting prone after walking and running about three miles in full gear, but I did as well with Garand shorty and iron sights.
Up close, muzzle rise on recoil moved the target out of the field of view. At longer ranges, I could observe the impact.
THOUGHTS
Considering that the scope was to help in identification and acquisition of human-sized targets out to 200m, it probably can work. The reticle is just about the width of a head at 100m, and the dot+vertical line are half a body height. I am sure that continuing with weight training would improve my ability to handle the 20" HBAR (for now, it enabled me to function for several hours with a lot of gear on) and I'd get better accuracy eventually. However, I can't help thinking that a scope with different reticle (triangle or chevron) would be better, a wider field of view and maybe slightly higher magnification would make it better for precision shooting.
WHAT TO DO?
Besdies training more with the AR and with .22s, I wonder what I could do. I don't think that reticle replacement is an option. I called Trijicon, they said they won't do it.
I could try to sell this scope and get a replacement, if compact ACOGs are available anywhere. Any comments from your experience with these? Looking at the specifications, it seems that eye relief and field of view are inversely related, and that higher magnification (2x) scopes would execerbate the problem with losing the target after firing. Also, iron sights cannot be used through the scope as they could be through EOTech, so I wonder if I ought to go back to the red dot. The problems with the red dot are:
having to fiddle with the brightness adjustments every time I pointed at lighter or darker background (the workaround is to keep the dot dim and use iron sights when in bright light)
optics are more prone to flare when in bright light
The Aimpoint option is probably out because I find the narrow tube a handicap and easily lose the sight picture with it. I don't want to stay with iron sights only, because focus on the front sights requires focusing away from the target. That makes acquiring and tracking low-contrast, moving objects difficult. I don't want a really strong scope, as this rifle is for self-defense use out to 200m...and more likely under 25m.
Please advise.
a slippery camelbak buckle ended up on the vest's recoil pad, preventing good stock mounting
A2 stock is just too long, I should get a Sully stock installed on mine. With that in mind, I also removed the slip-on recoil pad from my shorty Garand.
Three point sling slips off my right shulder and cuts into the neck. My vest has no epaulets, so I can't lock the sling in.
Can't figure out how to sling the rifle in the back with the three-point set-up...I think it is possiblem just not sure how.
Sneakers suck for cross-country, need boots. Same for the thin cargo pants, need something that would keep thorns out. Need to find my gloves, hands got abraded a bit.
Now to the scope.
GOOD:
Optics are great, sharp and free from flare. Target is easier to see than with naked eye or an unmagnified red dot. LESSON: Get compact binoculars for the kit.
Reticle was ALWAYS bright and contrasty, either orange on dark background or black on light background. Vertical line below helped with ranging and could be used as a reference to stop me from canting the sights.
The mount is sturdy.
BAD:
Viewing with two eyes (Bindon concept) didn't work all that well for me. The sight picture between the two eyes differed considerably left to right, requiring aim adjustment. Not as fast as an EOTech.
The dot reticle is big. It is not suitable for precision shooting, as it obscures the bullseye. At 50 yards, I got a 2" group. Some of it was due to shooting prone after walking and running about three miles in full gear, but I did as well with Garand shorty and iron sights.
Up close, muzzle rise on recoil moved the target out of the field of view. At longer ranges, I could observe the impact.
THOUGHTS
Considering that the scope was to help in identification and acquisition of human-sized targets out to 200m, it probably can work. The reticle is just about the width of a head at 100m, and the dot+vertical line are half a body height. I am sure that continuing with weight training would improve my ability to handle the 20" HBAR (for now, it enabled me to function for several hours with a lot of gear on) and I'd get better accuracy eventually. However, I can't help thinking that a scope with different reticle (triangle or chevron) would be better, a wider field of view and maybe slightly higher magnification would make it better for precision shooting.
WHAT TO DO?
Besdies training more with the AR and with .22s, I wonder what I could do. I don't think that reticle replacement is an option. I called Trijicon, they said they won't do it.
I could try to sell this scope and get a replacement, if compact ACOGs are available anywhere. Any comments from your experience with these? Looking at the specifications, it seems that eye relief and field of view are inversely related, and that higher magnification (2x) scopes would execerbate the problem with losing the target after firing. Also, iron sights cannot be used through the scope as they could be through EOTech, so I wonder if I ought to go back to the red dot. The problems with the red dot are:
having to fiddle with the brightness adjustments every time I pointed at lighter or darker background (the workaround is to keep the dot dim and use iron sights when in bright light)
optics are more prone to flare when in bright light
The Aimpoint option is probably out because I find the narrow tube a handicap and easily lose the sight picture with it. I don't want to stay with iron sights only, because focus on the front sights requires focusing away from the target. That makes acquiring and tracking low-contrast, moving objects difficult. I don't want a really strong scope, as this rifle is for self-defense use out to 200m...and more likely under 25m.
Please advise.