narrowed it down to two, TA11 and TA33. use is SHTF. rifle is 16" N4. at the range where i practice, the maximum distance is 300 yards.
TA11
+FOV
+ER
-more weight
-more expensive
TA33
+less weight
+cheaper
-ER
-FOV
i’m leaning towards the TA33, but the TA11 seems like the ultimate ACOG if i can look past the weight and pony up for the price of admission.
what would you go for? compact or standard ACOG? believe me, i would love to buy both but that might take me a little while.
I had looked into getting a TA11E for a DSA that I have and in researching prices ran into the TA33. I thought I had found the pefect answer. It was $300-400 less than the TA11E and seemed to be comperable to me. It’s just that the closer I got to buying the TA33 I just couldn’t click that final button to complete the transaction and would always find myself looking more at the TA11E. So I can understand your delima. Myself I have not bought either, but have decided that it will be the TA11E or bust. But I also realize that this will have to be at a later date because of it’s price. If you feel you need it now, go for the TA33. Otherwise hold out for the TA11.
I wrote this in another thread several months ago:
Like DocGKR, I prefer the TA11 due to eye relief.
Eye relief has a lot more utility than keeping the scope from hitting you on a rifle that has heavy recoil.
Eye relief aids in finding targets quicker (when engaging multiple targets at various distances), getting on target quicker (because head position is not as critical), etc.
I have owned both the TA01NSN and the TA31. I prefer the TA31 as I’m quicker with BAC. You can get a little more accuracy (depending on what type of targets you are shooting and at what distance) out of the TA01NSN due to the reticle.
The only thing I don’t like about the TA01NSN and the TA31 is the short eye relief. Not a big issue if all your shooting will be done from a bench, but the short eye relief on the TA01NSN and TA31 really “expose” themselves when running and gunning an shooting from non traditional positions. Note the distance from my eye to the back of the ACOG in the following pics:
Larger version of above photo.
Larger version of above photo.
Larger version of above photo.
The barricade is so low I have cant my carbine just to be able to see the target. I would have been much slower and in a much more uncomfortalbe position if I was using a TA31 with 1.5" eye relief. Just another example of how important eye relief can be:
Due to the short eye relief on the TA01NSN and TA31, I found it hard to locate targets down range when shooting at several targets at varying distances down range. Having shot the same courses of fire with both the TA31 and TA11, I found the TA11 much quicker in locating targets down range:
(steel targets are positioned from 175 yards to 425 yards)
(same targets, closer pic)
My preference is for the TA11, as it has the same features as the TA31 with longer eye relief. The only down side to the TA11 is that it’s larger than the TA01NSN and TA31. The larger size of the TA11 is not an issue on a rifle or mid-length, but they tend to dominate a M4 or SBR.
Semper Fi,
Jeff
thanks for the replies.
i guess you’ve both confirmed what i’ve known in my heart all along. i’m keeping my sights set on the TA11. ideally i’d love a TA11H with a .223 calibration (shot show '09 maybe?) but i’d happily “settle” for a donut o` doom any day.
time to start saving those pennies. :rolleyes:
+1 on a TA11H.223
I really like that reticle and I figure since they have it in .308 it is just a matter of time before the make a .223 version.
I wouldn’t let the published eye relief of the TA33R-8 dissuade you. While Trijicon’s site say’s it’s just 1.9" vs. the TA11F’s 2.39 inches, I still believe that the TA33’s eye relief is being incorrectly reported on their site based on my own usage.
I originally purchsed a TA45R-2 because of it’s long eye relief of 3.6 inches, and subsequently bought the TA33R-8 after that. While it’s not 3.6 inches, the TA33 definitely has a longer eye relief than that posted.
TA45 on the top rifle, TA33 on the bottom rifle. Note the relative mounting positions.
thanks for confusing me more, rob_s
i wish picking ACOGs were as easy as the M4 or Aimpoint charts 
i know that i’m sensitive to weight and balance issues with weapons. i hate HBARs and heavy rails. the size of the TA11 is a turn off, but i’d be willing to give it a try if the added capabilities warranted taking on the extra size.
since you find the ER to not be a huge issue with the TA33, how do you find the FOV? i have a Trijicon TR21 and it does feel a bit like a straw on 4x. however, when utilizing the Binden Aiming Concept you still can maintain situational awareness.
but it seems that for target acquisition or friend/foe ID more scanning would be required with the more narrow FOV.
do you find the reduced FOV of the TA33 to be a hindrance compared to the TA11? does the enhanced weapon handing characteristics of the carbine equipped with the Compact ACOG make up for the more narrow FOV?
Admittedly, I’ve got far more questions than answers where ACOGs are concerned, as I’ve been trying to sift though the model line myself. My intended application is a 14.5" SS N4 and on the face it it, I look at the TA31 RCO-M4CP and wonder why that wouldn’t be the most obvious choice.
Granted, none of these are really the right solution for a 25m/50m carbine course, but when all-around versatility is factored-in, the ACOG makes a compelling case. The only question, of course, is which ACOG? I’m almost at the point where I’m lamenting the fact that Trijicon has given us so many possibilities to choose from.
Almost. 
Chief
I think it depends on what you are looking for. I think it’s pretty well documented that I’m into lightweight setups as well, and for that the Compact ACOG line is king (well, was, until the Aimpoint Micros came out).
I have had issues tracking a hog in high brush at close range with the TA33R-8, but I guarantee that I would have had the same problem with the TA11 as well. That’s just a fact of life with these aiming solutions. Conversely I had no problem tagging a running hog at 25 yards out in the open using the BAC and dropping her with one shot.
I know it’s not fighting, but in terms of our matches, I ran the TA33R-8 for a year +/- and had no real problems to speak of. As long as I kept up with it, the BAC worked reasonably well for me and I didn’t have any problems with targets at contact distance out to 130+. If you forget, however, at close range and close one eye you can easily wind up tagging a non-threat or losing your place in line after a reload. The real lesson here is that BAC requires a fair amount of sustainment training to be effective and the “skill” perishes very quickly if not kept up.
I haven’t done much in terms of target ID at distance oustide of trying to pick my target in an array at 200 in a Randy Cain carbine class. I didn’t feel like I had “excessive scanning” but then I wasn’t actively trying to pick out players in a long range drama. Picking a static target out of an array of otherwise identical targets is not the same thing as tracking moving people at distance while they fight with each other.
Hope this helps.
I can tell you that I’ve used my TA33 in two classes. One a Randy Cain and the other a Pat Rogers. If you have no experience with either, I can tell you that Randy’s classes range form 200 yards in to contact distance, and Pat’s range from 50 to 3. While I think that Randy’s class was better suited to the ACOG, I never felt as though I was at a disadvantage in Pat’s. However, I have gone back to Pat’s class twice more now, both times with a 1x RDS as I do think it’s better suited to that type of class.
I know that classes, and matches, aren’t fighting, but what my experience has led me to believe is that the 3x and up ACOGs are more for rural and (some) suburban areas where longer shots are more likely than CQB, and where you might have a need for target ID like a strange vehicle driving up a long private drive. What you give up is that you may be slightly slower should the driver of that vehicle make their way into your house. The 1x RDS like the Aimpoint are better suited to close up urban work where long-range target ID isn’t possible, let alone necessary, and close in speed is your primary concern.
rob_s & USMC03, thank you. you’ve both been very helpful. USMC03, i hope you get your shoulder healed so you can AAR your T&E findings with the TA33-8 for everyone 
last newbie ACOG question.: i’m going to be using an LT mount on a flat top upper no matter what i pick. do i have to pick a “flat-top ready” version of the ACOG with the 1913 adapter (TA51 mount), or will the carry-handle style work with the LT mount as well?
also, i ASSume the BDC is identical between the carry handle and flat top versions of the same ACOG model. is this correct?
Rob could you go over BAC. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what it does and doesn’t do. I use it, but I’m not sure I understand how to explain it properly.
My understanding has been that the reticle works as an OEG for snap shooting during movement/CQB, and then when static, your eye/brain will choose the magnified image for stable, more precise shots but I’m sure that’s imperfect.
At least with the compacts, which is where the majority of my experience lies by a long shot, you want the carryhandle base as the Larue mount is made to mimic a carry handle with a channel for the ACOG to ride in and a bolt hole to secure it with.
that’s more or less it.
here is Trijicon’s official answer.
Personally, I tend to close one eye at distance and leave both eyes open close up, so I’m not using the BAC “correctly”, strictly speaking.
Let’s say I’m at 6000ft ASL, along with bullet choice (from XM193 to something like a 77gr .223 PRVI load), out of a 16 inch barrel, how is that going to affect the accuracy of the reticle? Does it really matter?
I read the JP article about his custom reticle, and that is really intesting, but I’d like a lit reticle.
Had a hard time with the model numbers, finally came up with.
TA31: 3+1=4power
TA33: 3s= 3 power
TA11: the one I can’t come up with a numer-monic for so it is 3.5
At least H stands for Horseshoe
I practice target acquisition thru my ACOG scopes all the time: moving/stationary, short/long range, large/small sizes. I do this daily or at least a few days per week, whether i am live-fire or dry-fire. I even have a cheap 4x30 that I keep in my truck and I routinely scope while out and about. The more you look thru the scope, the better you will get. I personally feel in my bones that civilization’s collapse is coming before I am a grandpa and I am a freak about drills and readiness. The learning curve with my ACOG 3x was not automatic.
I choose the ACOG 3x/3.5x for all scenarios. It handles most distances, but I really don’t won’t anyone close, so I expect 75+ meter shots, much shorter distances are very easy with practice. I sometimes spend hours of my day walking around the house and property scoping and acquiring various targets w/ a mounted TA33 with Red Chevron. The eyes-thru-optic-to-target visual learning curve was not and is not natural to me or anyone I know, but it becomes nearly instinctive after lots of practice and a few headaches. Practice! Whatever you get, practice with it every day until you become one with it. Merry Christmas.
PS. If you are losing your young man vision, which I haven’t yet, or you can’t figure it out, stick with iron sites or a shotgun.
i lost my young man vision when i was about 12, i’m afraid. i’m pretty used to glasses at this point.
i started out with irons when i was in the service. we had M2 M68 CCOs as well, so most of my trigger time is on irons and RDS. i have some EOs and aimpoints on some of my ARs already.
also, i have a couple telescopic sights on two ARs as well, but they are both variables. this is my first time trying to pick an ACOG (or other fixed power telescopic). i have a little time behind the TA31F, but that is all.
right now its back to my original pick, the TA33. i think i am going to have to go with a flat top version, because the carry handle versions don’t seem to have BDC reticules.
its looking like the TA33-8 right now, but i’ll probably change my mind 15 more times before i actually drop the pesos on the sight.
still confused why you’d recommend i pick up a shotgun instead of a carbine if i don’t have great eyes tho? does having bad eyes somehow turn the shotgun into an effective combat weapon?
Parabellum, sounds like you got a great knowledge/experience base on optics. I spent a lot of time using other’s optics before I committed to the TA33 ACOG. I am a whore. The 3x and 3.5x ACOG are the best all around on the market, so far, for me. Durable, no battery, cover most distances. My only desire is that I had crosshairs.
Eyesight is key and I mention shotguns cause alot of guys dismiss them, especially when they have no business wasting money, time and blood on a rifle due to deficiencies, including poor vision. 12gauge with 00buckshot are king at close range where I come from and they forgive many of our aiming/reflex defects.
Sounds like you are above average in experience so you will make the right choice. The optic decision dillema is a bitch and I try not to ‘what if’ my decision. I won’t even shoot with anyone elses optics anymore because I don’t won’t to doubt. I like to see guys wrestle with the choice, cause it is not/should not be an easy one. There is lots to think about. You can only bring one to a fight, so I stick with my choice.
