I have decided on getting a TA-33 series ACOG, but I have not decided which reticle option to go with. Of the two reticle options, chevron or horseshoe/dot, does one outperform the other when used on 50-200 yard targets? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?
Additionally, between the three color options of amber, green, and red, is one color superior to the others in faster acquisition of the reticle/target? Any other topics related to color choice that I have omitted would also be helpful.
Green tends to be faster to acquire for the bulk of the population, because that particlar tone is the one that’s smack-dab in the middle of the human visible spectrum, and is therefore the color that the human eye is most transparent to. In order by population, it goes green, red, amber, in terms of which is easiest for the human eye to pick up. Bottom line, though, only you can say which one you will end up liking best.
The chevron is a good, workable reticle for a general-purpose optic, but the horseshoe is, I think, easier to use because you can see through it fot 200-300m shots better than you can the chevron. The Marines we’ve taught to use the SDO (TA11 w/red horseshoe and 9MOA RMR), the vast majority prefer the horseshoe to the chevron on the RCO.
My buddy and I are doing a RECCE build, BCM upper, DoubleStar lower, Vltor stock and we were having trouble deciding on which TR33 reticule to use. We know we want green as mentioned above. So, I asked my Master Sergeant friend who was deployed to Iraq twice and this is his take:
Well it depends on what you are doing. If I was doing only CQB stuff I would like the Circle Dot but if I was going to be doing more precision shooting I want the chevron.
At distance the Dot may cover up too much of the target whereas with the chevron I could sight in to hit 1 1/2 inch high at a hundred putting me dead on at two hundred and about 4 inches low at three hundred. At four hundred I would be able to put the point of the chevron on the nose and drop the round into the chest. For my job that’s a game changing shot.
That pretty much did it for me and we pulled the trigger on ordering two TR33G-8’s from G&R.
The dot in the horseshoe is 1.7MOA. How much of a target do you think that that’s really gonna cover up? That’s right around 7" @ 400m. I see where you’re going, though. Given enough distance…
Also, if you’re not going to zero the thing correctly, according to the BDC it has on it, why go with it? There are other optics out there with chevron or triangle type reticles that offer you a less cluttered FOV, and actually cost less. Ultimately, it’s no big deal, a reticle is a reticle, and allows one stadialines from which to judge holds. However, it strikes me that you may be spending too much money on something only to use it for a purpose other than what it is designed for, when you could spend the same or less on something that more specifically fits your needs, like a TR24 or similar.
I have the TA33 for 7.62 in amber with chevron on an M1A. I had an amber triangle on a TA47 and thought I would like the same color on the bigger scope. I still like the TA47 as it is but if I had it to do over I think I would go for the red on the TA33. In my area there is a lot of brown and tan sagebrush and grass and I would prefer more contrast.
I have decided on getting a TA-33 series ACOG, but I have not decided which reticle option to go with. Of the two reticle options, chevron or horseshoe/dot, does one outperform the other when used on 50-200 yard targets? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?
Additionally, between the three color options of amber, green, and red, is one color superior to the others in faster acquisition of the reticle/target? Any other topics related to color choice that I have omitted would also be helpful.
Thanks in advance for the help.
OK. I was just trying to be helpful to the original post because he said he had decided on the TA-33–no mention of cost or budget problems. I like to go to my military friends who have put these things through the paces in real combat for advice. As I saw it, the Sgt. was simply saying that if you want mostly CQB and speed, go with the horeshoe, if you want more accuracy at distance, go with the chevron. I just got my TA-33G-8 and I will say that I own an Eotech, an Aimpoint, and several Nikons, none of them touch the TA-33 for clarity or accuracy. And, the stadia do not “clutter up” the reticule. As far as the horeshoe for CQB, the size of the TA makes it a lot slower for aquisition than either the Aimpoint or the Eotech. I can hit 50 - 200 yard targets with both of those easily, but I just wanted something that was more accurate at longer distances. As far as spending too much money, my budget would allow me to buy 5 Acogs and not make a dent in my wallet. It boils down to what you want and what you can pay. As far as not zeroing the thing correctly, a lot of operaters zero at 300 yds. because the 223 has a flat enough trajectory to work the numbers. Besides, I tend to take the word of a Master Sergeant who lost five men to an IED and kept fighting while pulling them out of the wreck. So if he chooses to zero 1 1/2" high at 100 yds. and dead on at 200 yds., so what? Back to the original post (I guess you can tell I don’t like getting stepped on in a thread), if all you are looking for is 50 - 200, go with the horeshoe, it will do all you need and more.
I’ll tell ya so what, dudebroski. Get used to being “stepped on,” if that’s a euphemism for getting pertinent questions asked of you. I’m not the only one that’s gonna end up doing it.
I wasn’t gonna get into it, and didn’t frame my questions in this fashion you seem to think (wrong people are often oversensitive to getting called on their horse manure), but since you brought it up: your sainted MSgt’s part of the problems I run into every time I step in front of a new class of warfighters and end up having to correct the false positives, gross misinformation and utter bullshit that they have been fed by their senior leadership who are supposed to know better.
Yes, “a lot of operators…” DO zero it at 300m,…USING THE 300M STADIA LINE ON THE BULLET-DROP-COMPENSATOR…because if you zero it correctly at ANY known distance in meters, a 0-800m zero is what you end up with because that’s the way the reticle is designed to work. It’s printed right in what you’d likely describe as the “manufacturer’s opinion,” and the rest of us call the Operator’s Manual.
It’s also NOT what you described, in any way, shape, or form. So, which is it? A 300m zero (perhaps based on the 300m stadia line in the BDC? :eek: no shit, huh?) or 1.5" over the horseshoe’s dot @ 100m, which completely tosses out the entirety of the BDC from top to bottom?
And, since we’re on it, yeah, I’ve neeeeeeeeever had the concept of combat even introduced to me. Ever. Never ever ever. Gimme a ringy-dingy sometime, and we can talk about my own lack of experience further, hopefully like adults, and without having to hide behind screen names. Your internet-penis is as impressive as your obviously lacking knowledge base, which I was attempting to correct by asking leading questions, which you chose to ignore. Please tell me more about your friends and what they say, and I’ll reciprocate by sharing what my bestest buds occasionally impart to eager young minds.
Jim Santoro
NET Trainer
Thermal, Image Intensification, and Scout/Sniper and Day Optics IPTs
PM Optics and Nonlethal Systems, Infantry Weapons Systems
Marine Corps Systems Command
540-658-5554 jim.santoro@lmco.com
Or, answer the questions that were asked of you, right here, right now, so that the discussion can go on in something resembling a civilized, informative fashion.
I followed Trijicon’s directions in the operator’s manual when I sighted mine in, except I had to improvise a little since my local range is stepped off in yards instead of meters. I initially sighted mine in using the 300m mark on the reticle with the target set at 25 yds, then moved the target out to the 100 yd position to check zero with the dot in the center of the reticle. It was really close and it only took slight adjustment to get it dialed in.
As soon as we get my friends range set up I plan on going back and sighting it in using meters instead of yds. Mine is probably sighted in good enough for my use, since this is not for combat purposes…but I’m a picky ass engineer, so it bugs the living hell out of me if things aren’t “perfect”
Oh - and if any of the experts on here see that I didn’t sight it in correctly please chime in, I’m all ears because I know enough to be dangerous at this point and any constructive input is much appreciated :).
i’m just a recreational/hobby shooter, but with that understanding of which colour was easier for the eye to pick up, i still went with red because it provided the most contrast in the areas i shoot most frequently. IMHO, it’s not only about which colour the eye picks up quickest naturally, but also the contrast between the reticle colour and your target/background, so you should also take your AO and lighting conditions into consideration.
i shoot in the desert, and found that an amber reticle was difficult to pick up against the yellow-tan landscape under certain lighting conditions, at least for me. during the last couple of hours before darkness, when the light is waning and the reticle isn’t lit up as brightly, i had a harder time with the amber than the red. on other occasions, while green was brighter than red under the same lighting conditions, i also found that i was able to pick red out better than green against foliage. so while red may not be the brightest or most easily acquired by the eye, i found it the best choice for me as there’s a lot less red in nature in the area i shoot than green or amber. YMMV, of course.
I’ve been surprised at how many male shooters there are out there that can’t see red worth a damn.
Make sure you aren’t one of these guys before you buy.
I picked up a TA31F at a really good deal because the shooter couldn’t see the red unless it was in direct sunlight. You know how bright that is!
He got a green reticle now and loves it.
Red works terrific for me, donut (preferred) or the chevron is great, haven’t seen the horseshoe yet. I suspect I’ll love it as well. Seems to me a green horshoe would need a fiber optic cover for sure, must be bright as all heck in the sun!
Anyway, terrific writing on the ACOGs, USMC03, great job as usual!
You’re on the right track. You can certainly use yards, just use the right distance (33m = 36yds = 108’, 100m = 109yds, 200m = 219yds, etc). Just jam “distance conversion” onto your Google to make sure. I have an iTouch with the ConvertBot app on it so I can convert back and forth as needed with the stuff I don’t already have memorized. Being an engineer, you may factor in the inevitable decimal places that I round up or down because I’m second-from-the-left on the evolutionary chart.
We use 33m because it’s a closer ballistic match than 25m, but either 25 or 33 will work to get you on paper so you can track your groups @ 100m, just expect to be a bit low – usually 1/2" - 2" from the 33, it can be more from the 25m line – at the start of your confirmation.
MM is completely correct; the bottom line still ends up being what color nets the best results for the shooter, and there is no One Ring To Rule Them All. If one has the chance to select the color reticle that gets you the best hits under the broadest range of conditions you experience, you owe it to yourself to test them all out (without plucking leaves from the magic money-tree we all don’t have growing in our back yards).
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you prefer sighting initially using the 300m tick and the target set at 33 meters, then move out to 100m and check zero with the dot?
I think you said you had a TA33, correct? If so, disregard the 33m and stick to 25m for field-expedient. I’m used to 33m in regard to the TA11 and TA31; think the TA33 differs enough that that’s a closer match.
[/b]
