trying to like trijicon

[captain awesome]

As the title says, I am having some difficulties with this. I have read so many reviews of people praising trijicon, some swearing up and down That they love the Acogs and they are worth every penny, others still giving praise though they feel that the price is not justified. I have tried, believe me i have tried to like them because of their designs and innovations that no one else seems to have that I think is really cool, but i just cant seem to justify it. Here are my expiriences

For my birthday this year I bought an rmr dual illumination reflex sight. Ordered it from dvor which was a night mare but thats another story. In short I got the optic and was severely disappointed with the clarity and brightness of the amber triangle. It was kind of fuzzy, extremely dim and it totally washed out when looking into brightly lit areas. So I returned it. I contemplated getting another thinking maybe it was just a rare lemon, but haven't had the faith to try it again.

A friend of mine bought an Acog and put it on his ar15. I got the opportunity try it out and the dot was definatly way brighter than that rmr I had briefly, but the scope just seemed dimmer than most scopes I have used. Not real sharp. It worked, but I was unimpressed with the glass. So I went to sportsmans warehouse the other day to look at scopes and saw a couple acogs In Their case and decided to give them another look. I looked through one and again, the illuminated dot was plenty bright but this one looked a little fuzzy and "S" shaped. The scope was once again, not all that bright or clear compared to others next to it; the Nikon Monarchs, Vortex, Leupolds, and well Night force blew them all out of the water which was a real treat looking through. Granted none of the other scopes were the same style as the Acogs, but some of them cost 1/3 what the Acogs did (Nightforce a lot more)

So I guess my questions are these; am I too picky? Did i just happen to find the exceptions to the rule Or Is this the norm? I have no doubt that the Trijicon equipment is durable, and the tritium/fiber optic lit reticals are certainly unique, is that the main attraction to them? Why is everyone saying they are so crystal clear when other types of scopes are so obviously better? What am I missing?

Any one else having those feelings? Should I give a dual Iillumination Rmr which I think is such a cool idea another try? What are your expiriences with Trijicon glass?

 

[primalmu]

Have you had any success with ANY red dot sight? Do you have astigmatism? If you do (whether you know it or not) that can distort red dots and make them unusable for some people. I have astigmatism, which is one reason I'm hesitant to try out any red dots myself.

 

[ugaarguy]

Wash out in bright light on amber colored dots is a criticism across the board on Trijicon sights (and tritium illuminated optics in general). Their red or green dots fare much better. The two biggest things Trijicon sights have going for them are extreme durability and years of battery free illumination from the tritium. Trijicon's biggest markets are military, competition shooting, and personal defensive firearms. None of those markets need the clearest optics. They need an optic that always works and still has enough clarity to reliably ID the target. That's where Trijicon optics excel. However, I've always thought that the ACOG sights actually did offer very good optical clarity. YMMV.

 

[Pete D.]

Trijicon

I cannot explain your repeated unsatisfactory experiences with ths brand.

I've always thought that the ACOG sights actually did offer very good optical clarity. YMMV.

That has been my experience also. I have both an ACOG and a reflex sight.
The ACOG is one of the clearest optics I have ever looked through (even considering Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon). Neither of mine are the amber triangle.
Pete

 

[Willie Sutton]

Plenty of Airsoft counterfeits out there..... If I had to bet, I'd bet it was not an authentic item.

Just a guess, but I've seen it before on other red dots.



Willie

.

 

[Onmilo]

I have two ACOGs, an ACCU-Point scope, Two Reflex sights, and an RMR
THE BEST I have ever used in any of the catagories period.
Matter of fact, I have the Accu-Point mounted on my Mossberg 500 Deer gun.
That's right, an $800 dollar scope on a $350 shotgun.
Crazy, I know, but the combination works, no regrets here.

 

[LebbenB]

As others have said, ACOGs are some of the toughest scopes on the market. They're the Timexes of scopes - "Takes a licking and keeps on ticking." The glass is good. Not great, good. But if you're going into an austere environment and you need to rely on a rifle and optic, the Trijicon ACOG would be on my short list. Try looking through a TA-01 NSN with the BDC reticle, it might be more to your liking, with no chevron or doughnut to wash out.

If you want something close to that durability with better glass, you might want to consider the IOR/Valdada Pitbull. I've used those before and was impressed by the construction and the optics.

 

[captain awesome]

Have you had any success with ANY red dot sight? Do you have astigmatism? If you do (whether you know it or not) that can distort red dots and make them unusable for some people. I have astigmatism, which is one reason I'm hesitant to try out any red dots myself.

That is an interesting thought that I will look further into. I do not have much expirience with red dot style optics. I have looked through a couple Buriss fast fires, I dont recall anything that seemed unsatisfactory about them. I do have one made by a company called Mueller that works well, but the red dot is not not quite as sharp as I would like in that one either. I have it on a shotgun so precision isnt necessary, and the dot is still much smaller than the pattern so I haven't had any reason to complain. They look about like a red laser on a wall to me. Concentraited in the center, and sa small amount of cloudy dispersions or halo on the edges.

 

[captain awesome]

Lebben b, I have ironicly read a Timex comparison about them in another forum while I was researching. Kind of funny you should mention it also, I think its a good simile.

 

[MrCleanOK]

The brighter a red dot (or any other color) is turned up, the more it is going to flare out. It's just the nature of the beast. They also appear more flared when you are looking directly at the reticle in the optic, or at a nearby object through the optic (i.e., at a wall in the store). As your eye focuses at greater distances, the dots settle down, or maybe just appear to. You also have to manage expectations. "Dot" type reticles will never be as tack sharp as video games, TV, or the manufacturer's website will have you believe. Those tack-sharp drawings of what the reticle is supposed to look like just don't mirror reality.

The reticles on ACOGs I used in the military would bloom out in the sun unless I covered the fiber optics with tape. I always left a folded over pull tab in case I needed to remove the tape quickly, but I never found a need for it. The tritium illumination was always enough for me. Also, I found the quality of the glass to always meet or exceed my expectations. I have never used any of the $$$ ultra premium quality optics, but I have used junk and good stuff, and they always compared favorably with the good stuff. With the ACOGs, you're paying for good glass, with a reticle that is optimized for targeting people, in a bombproof housing. They're a great military optic.

I don't have any experience with their RMR line, so good luck there. My best suggestion is to find a friend who does have first hand experience with one (or at least a stranger who isn't trying to sell you something) and ask them "does this look right to you?"

 

[briansmithwins]

Leica, S&B, or Zeiss has better glass than Trijicon, but their glass is among the better in the ~$1000 range. I've always thought that Trijicon's glass was a good deal for the money and their illuminated reticle and compact design is just a bonus.

I also run an ACOG with tape over the light collecting fiber. On sunny or overcast days here in Oregon the reticle is overilluminated, causing it to bloom out and become blurry. Usually not a problem indoors.

BSW

 

[Pilot]

You have to remember, the ACOG's objective lend is small compared to some others, and therefore the scope doesn't gather light as well as others. I have a 4x32 ACOG mounted on a AR, and liked it just fine. They are built to be tough, and the durability is a lot of what you pay for, and is probably overkill for most civilian situations.

I think the Accupoints are really nice scopes.

 

[captain awesome]

I am not really a gamer, and the few times I have played I can definately tell it is not what reality is. And what you all are saying makes sense. I didnt compare them to anything with a similarly sized objective end.

 

[boricua9mm]

Drop the $1k on an eye exam, two sets of glasses and a set of nice prescription sunglasses. Revisit when funds recuperate.

 

[SilentStalker]

I can give you my opinion and experience on them. I am sure many will differ but this is my experience. I love the company and what they stand for and believe their products are made like tanks to some degree but I too think they are overhyped and the price is just nonsense. Here is why.

I bought into all the hype I read online about these, believed some military buds of mine who supposedly used them overseas and so on. At any rate because of their proven reliability and all that jazz me and a friend of mine got one each. He put it on his scar and I put mine on an AR and we went to the range. We got them all sighted in and ready to go but like you I was unimpressed by them. Way overpriced IMO. The glass wasn't all that great and quite frankly I found it useless past 75 yds or so. I couldn't hardly see what I was aiming at yet some people claim to use these out to 600 yds or so. I could not. I mean with a hope and a prayer I may lob one out that far and get lucky but that's all it would be is pure luck. So, then I was like well let's try it out close range and see how we do. It did as well as I could do with any other red dot or illuminated fixed power scope as far as I could tell but it took me a lot longer to get on target than I had wished. I have found though that I do not care for tube style red dots or illuminated scopes all! The illumination for me was onky effective up close and anything far out got washed out at distance, even on FFP scopes. In some cases the illumination covered the target completely and i dont care for that. I must mention that both ACOGs were just mediocre glass and clarity of illumination IMO. I don't have astigmatism or any of that. I guess my point here is that they are ok but for the money I think there is a lot better options out there!!!!!! Some of them you already named and can be had much much cheaper! Are they battle proven and built like tanks? Probably not and I will never know because I don't plan on taking them into battle. Too many people buy into this because the military uses it it must be good. Often times that is the complete opposite. The military uses it because said company offered the lowest bid.

Anyways it's an ok optic but not one I will ever use for that kind of money. For long range stuff I use premier optics. What I wound up doing with my AR was sticking a Nikon 2-8x32 scope with the BDC reticle. This thing is clear as it can be especially for a scope in this price range. The BDC works wonders and I know I can hit stuff out to 400 yds with it. I can pick up things relatively quick when its up close but I mounted a red dot at a 45 to be even quicker for up close shots. This set up works great for me and its a whole lot cheaper than the acog was and with the difference in money you can take a class or buy more ammo.

Get behind as many optics as you can and see what works for you. That is the best advice I can give you. You can't always believe what you read online because Gs hard to separate the truth from the fanboy mall ninja opinions. No disrespect to any LEO or military people out there by a lot of people on the Internet claim to be x Navy Seals or Retired Force Recon Marine Snipers lol! Not saying there isn't any out there but again it's hard to decipher reality from someone's fantasy these days.

 

[boricua9mm]

LOL! ACOGs work...and it's not just claims; I've loaded up a 20 round mag and shot 18/20 on a B27 sized target at 570 yards after a full day of shooting handguns, shotguns and carbines. Fatigued, ready to leave...use Trijicon's BDC, compensate for wind, nail the target. It's not a "Hail Mary" proposition.

In one breath we like to say that ACOGs are too expensive, then three paragraphs later we're slamming them as being the lowest bidder. Which is it? Lemme guess...in order to maintain the argument we'll insist that Trijicon is taking a loss just to supply the Gov't with goods. Yeah! That's the ticket! Everyone wants a Gov't contract so they can LOSE money!

If anyone doubts the ability of an ACOG and its ability to put rounds on target at 500-600 yards, I'll gladly keep in touch with them and meet them at Manatee Gun & Archery Club in Myakka City, FL so they can see it in person. It's really not a big deal at all. In fact, most folks who accept event a handful of pointers wind up putting rounds on target and walking away with a smile on their face. To make things even more amusing, my ACOG is the original old-school ACOG, the TA01. No excuses!

 

[SilentStalker]

Nobody ever said anyone would be losing money. Nobody produces anything to lose money. Just because you are the lowest bidder who gets a contract doesn't mean you are losing money!!!!! Also, just because you win a contract doesn't mean your stuff is the best by no means either. Anyone that says a Remington 700 is the best rifle out there has never shot or held anything better. Not saying they aren't great rifles but are far from what I would consider the best, yet the gov used them because they passed their testing and were able to be had at an agreed upon price, nothing more nothing less.

And I never said Acogs were terrible or that they didn't have their place but they don't work for me and they especially do not work for me for the price range. For argumentative sake anyone with a good rifle and scope can hit steel, especially a man size B27 steel target, at 500 yds if they have any clue as to what they are doing. It's not rocket science. However, doing that consistently with a 5.56/.223 round at those distances in windy conditions is quite a feat because at those ranges the .223 gets blown around a lot or can. I mean it does get around this somewhat due to its speed and thr ballistic coefficient but to shoot it at those distances with a 4x scope and be consistent is good. Not saying it can't be done because it can but I can say that there is no way that I could personally do it with an ACOG. I have tried. The set up just doesn't work for me and that's why I started my post with this is my experiences and my opinion of it. I can't hardly see the steel i shoot at those distances with a 4x scope but i am not shooting man size targets either which is what the ACOG was designed for. I think the original poster needs to determine what he plans on doing with it. if he is going into battle then sure it does the job but if he is wanting the best optic for the money to shoot out to 500 yds and beyond all day then there is much better options. Then again, if someone just wants to stick the latest cool military gear on their rifle then thats cool to. I am not going to stop them. Whatever floats their boat. I am just trying to offer a meaningful opinion if my experiences with it. As far as meeting up with you and shooting if I am ever in that part of FL I would love to meet up and shoot!

 

[captain awesome]

Thanks silent stalker, sounds like your expirience is similar to mine. Glad I am not alone. I do know that my vision is very good. 20/20 last I checked.

 

[basicblur]

You might want to give the Bushnell Throw Down PCL a try?

Yeah, yeah...I know it's not a name-dropper at yur cocktail party...

I have an ACOG and have no complaints. My last purchase was the Bushnell, and while I haven't had long enough to see how durable it is, so far I'm tickled with the features / performance, 'specially for the money!

Two guns shops looked at it and commented on how sharp the view was. One employee was apparently impressed enough with it that he got the shop to throw one in it's next order (and they don't really sell Bushnell).

I have another friend that had LASIK surgery - my EOTechs drive him batty, but he liked my Bushnell enough that he now owns two of them.

Jest something to think about...?

 

[rcmodel]

I have13 year old Trijacon night sights on a pistol.

The Tritium is past it's half life and is getting pretty dim & useless.

They won't replace them because they are past the 12 year warranty.

All I need now is a $1,200+ ACOG going dim on me before I die sometime in the next 13 years.

rc

 

[boricua9mm]

Ah yes, Trijicon is the lowest bidder on a tritium/fiber optic illuminated magnified optic housed in an extremely robust, aluminum housing offering a simple rangefinding reticle that makes those 500+ yard shots easier for you average solider. Their competition is...practically nobody; hell, that just might make them the only bidder. Uncle Sam buys them because they are worth it. Law Enforcement and Civilian shooters buy them because they are worth it.

A basic M16 or an M4 most definitely falls under the category a "good rifle" and the 4x ACOG (as issued) is indeed a "good scope." If you have trouble making hits with such a combo, then maybe it isn't the rifle/scope combo that's the problem?

 

[SilentStalker]

Yep. And there it is. The insulting has started. And here we have the Rambo of awesome shooters telling me I can't shoot. Perhaps trijicon has no competition because of patent reasons. Perhaps? And perhaps they do buy them because they work for battle circumstances where one might not want to be worrying about his scope going out on him. Perhaps? Do you happen to know why the trijicon is 4x? Do you know why its not a variable power optic? one reason is because of reliability reasons. Variable scopes are more complex in design and can therefore have more go wrong. So, some of the reason a trijicon is so reliable is simply because there isnt a lot to it. again, maybe what you would want for a battle situation. However, the OP is not going into battle here so that doesn't apply. I am sure he could care less who has what government contract or patent or anything else that keeps someone else from making one cheaper for the time being. I suppose you think everything the military uses is cream of the crop? I got news for you, it isn't.

Oh and by the way I can make those shots all day long but I assure you it isn't with an AR and much less an M16 as you mention. With my TRG or any other long gun I own with a good scope sure. I can do it all day long but I am also shooting .308 calibers and above not a .223! Not saying a .223 can't make it that far but, never mind I am not going to argue about it. You also fail to mention how you are making these shots. Are you standing and shooting offhand?

 

[benzy2]

I had an ACOG for about a year. I couldn't justify what it did for the price it commanded, so I sold it. The optic was rugged beyond a doubt and seemed like something I would trust on a fighting rifle. Fortunately for me, I don't use rifles for fighting or in anticipation of fighting.

The triangle was bright in any light and appropriate in dim/low light as well. The glass was good but not great, especially for a fixed 4x optic. I would classify it as more than useful but not something I marveled at when I looked through it. To be quite honest, the Nikon Monarch 1.5-4.5x that replaced it has a brighter and sharper image than the ACOG I owned.

When I stepped back and looked at the use of the optic, I found the ACOG was no better than a handful of other options that ran a fraction of the cost. I'm fairly easy on my rifles so the absolute durability was lost on me. Most of my shooting is done either at steel at around 100 yards or out in the field on groundhogs. The first doesn't need 4x magnification and the second tends to benefit from a bit more magnification. I leave the Nikon on the Colt 6920 and the 6-18 Nikon Buckmaster sits on the pieced together rifle used for varmint hunting. Both of those options realistically are better suited for the uses each rifle sees.

I have no doubt a capable shooter can be effective with an ACOG at 500-600 yards. I've watched plenty of service rifle shooters be effective with irons at those ranges. At the same time, it doesn't mean its the perfect 600 yard optic nor the perfect room clearing optic. Its a good blend of a do all optic that can take as much or more abuse than any other made today. That's its selling point and a big reason why the military has settled with them. If I wanted an optic with absolute reliability and durability as its strongest feature set, I would pay the price in a heart beat. Those two aren't something that I demand to that degree and as such many other options which are less expensive do the job to my satisfaction.

Its ridiculous to say the optics are terrible or the perfect optic. They, like all optics are a set of compromises to accomplish a goal or set of goals. If the ACOG accomplishes your goals for the least money then its the perfect optic. If not others will be a better use of funds. I will say you see some fanatics who insist an ACOG is the only and best option for every situation. I find that to be blind fanboyism. For some/many uses they are a great option and justify their price. For some/many uses they are a mediocre to poor option and shouldn't realistically be considered.

 

[SilentStalker]

^^^^Very well said. I to have seen people in the military shoot to 500 yds or so using irons and I find that impressive as I don't think I could do it. Then again I have never tried either. I am all about long guns, long distances and tight groups. I typically shoot at a 12" steel plate at 509 yds and try to keep my groups as right as possible. In that respect an Acog is useless to me. I was just offering up my real experiences with this optic. That is all and believe me as someone who works in the industry I get to spend more time than most behind such optics, but I am no means what I would consider an expert. I just offered my opinions. And again, unless he is going to battle all of this arguing is useless. If he finds that the trijicon is not for him then he should sell it and try something else. That is all. There are other options out there and some that I consider much better for a fraction of the cost of a trijicon. Just like no one rifle is going to suit/fit everyone the same. They have to figure out what suits them best and that is not always an easy or cheap task but once you find a combination that works you will be a better shooter and enjoy it that much more. No need to try and force oneself to like something that doesn't work for them.

 

[MrCleanOK]

For those suggesting that the ACOG is a fine example of "lowest bidder", I would believe that a more accurate case would have been "only bidder". I'm drawing a blank thinking of another ruggedized, fixed 4x, illuminated, BDC optic that doesn't take batteries.

I have put my issued ACOGs through quite a few beatings. I have never had one lose zero. During the deployment in which I carried one, I had enough confidence in it to forego a backup iron sight.

If your rifle isn't getting dropped on concrete, banged around getting in and out of armored vehicles, whacked on door frames, and otherwise tortured then the cost of an ACOG probably isn't worth it to you. My personal rifles don't see that kind of treatment, so they don't get ACOGs.