I am new here and to the AR world , my rifle is on the mail and will arrive some time this week . I am sure that this question has been posted before , but I will really like a detailed suggestion so I can be guided by it and order the correct optics : I will be using the rifle mostly to shoot at the range… now, after that being said, I at first , thought of installing a regular scope, but after seeing the wonders of the red dots, and alike, changed mi mind . I need to choose between the Aimpoint CompML3 + 3x Mag , along with the 2 mounts for them from Larue , that more or less will total around $1200.00 and the Trijicon Acog TAO1NSN for just about the same money. I think (just thinking outloud) that the Aimpoint set up is too cumbersome, with all those parts, etc, etc, and that the Trijicon is in that aspect more easier to handle. I will apreciate a suggestion as to what comparation I can do to decide which is better , since both cost around the same. Thanks to all josey88
Neither.
Nice plate, but didn’t really help the OP at all…
Fair 'nuff.
It’s my opinion that the TA33 R8 3-power ACOG would be good consideration.
For a good review & discussion on it, you may go here.
ETA: But if you wanted to keep it strictly between the options you listed, I think that the ACOG would make for a better range optic.
Josey88;
I have both the Aimpoint ML3 and the TA01NSN ACOG. I have, in my limited experience, learned:
The ACOG is hard to use on either moving targets at close range, or when trying to quickly engage multiple targets at close range (less than 50-75 yards), but it’s possible with training and practice.
The Aimpoint doesn’t lend itself to sitting at a bench and trying to shoot microscopic groups, as would an optic with a more traditional reticle.
The ACOG requires a consistent cheek weld to minimize parallax, as well as to make sure that you are close enough to obtain a full field of view, as the eye relief is more critical than a zero magnification red dot-type sight.
The reticle on the TA01NSN is a relatively traditional cross-hair setup, but isn’t illuminated via fiber optic like the “doughnuts, triangles, dots and chevrons” that are used in other ACOG’s. The center of the reticle is illuminated in dim light/darkness, and it glows amber (thanks to the tritium in the scope). I bring this up, as it might be an issue if engaging a dark target in low light, but not so dark that the tritium “kicks in” to assist in obtaining a proper sight picture. That said, the ACOG does gather and transmit a lot of light to the shooter’s eye, so that wasn’t an issue for me.
I have, after no small amount of deliberation, decided to sell the ACOG and will be sticking with the ML3. If I thought that I would be needing a magnified optic, I also think that the stand-alone magnifier in its own mount would be bulky/heavy and would probably just stay with the ACOG (I have no experience with the 3X magnifier).
However, if I knew that I would be using the optic to engage targets at medium to longer ranges (over 75 yards) and not trying to use it in a CQB role, the TA01NSN would be a great choice. Oh, the iron sights mounted on top of the TA01NSN are very difficult to adjust (if needed) and are so far above the bore axis that a chin weld on the stock would be needed to use them with any precision.
Again, this has been my limited experience, but I hope it helps.
grinchcop : Many thanks for your great reply . It has been very much a confirmation to my final decision on which optics to get… I will like to shoot some distances , like 200 yards most of the time and also sometimes 100 yards, 50 yards too. I have decided to get a Trijicon Accupoint TR20-2 3-9x40 scope , a regular scope iluminated , but regular variable scope. I think that , given the various distances , I can use the variable scope better and it is half the price of the Acog. Of great importance too is the fact that I am a middle age guy and mi vision is not what it was years ago, so I will need the variable power and the extra magnification , no question about it. The scope will be mounted in a LaRue LT104 QD mount , and the rear Iron sight will be an Troy Rear Sight. I have not decided yet about the front sight , if to replace it with a Vltor gas block/flip up front sight or leave the original factory sight ; It will depend on if the front sight will bother me with the scope or not. Let me know what you think of this choice…Thanks josey88
You’re welcome!
The big issue you’ll face is researching how to incorporate back-up irons while using this type of scope. There are a lot of folks out there who have had much experience with different combinations that could provide better feedback.
One thing I have learned is that a back-up rear iron sight won’t work if looking through a magnified optic. Also, if there is even minimal magnification, the front sight (if in view) “ghosts” and isn’t really visible, much less useable. If you think that your main optic might fail, and it’s of a magnified type, you would need a QD mount. Back up irons (at least the rear one) might also cause a problem with the eye relief of the scope, since they might fight for “real estate” on the upper receiver. You mentioned LaRue; I cannot say enough good about their products or their customer service.
Good luck and happy shopping!
Yes, I have done some research about back up Irons and everybody agrees that the Troy rear sight , is very good. I want to have Iron sights as a back up , in case I have to take out the scope. I will also be installing a railed handguard , so the flat top rail will be extended and I will be able to move the LaRue mount forward if I need it , depending on the eye relief and the space for the rear sight… Most likely I will replace the front sight with the Vltor VST flip up sight , but I will wait to check that for last. Yes, the mount is a LaRue QD so I can detached it easily. Thanks again … josey88