Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Field report/comparison of ACOG & Shepherd scopes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1458920" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I ended up going with the 5.5x ACOG over the 3.5x for the reason you mentioned... I didn't feel like the small stadia lines would be too terribly useful at the longer distances. I can effectively range man-sized targets out to 7 or 800 with mine. It has stadia lines out to 1200m, but they are so close to the same size out past 800 that they are pretty hard to use. Those smaller lines are better used just as an aiming point for a target that you have estimated range on using other methods (known distance, map, laser rangefinder, or just eyes trained well enough to make an estimate within 10% or so accuracy).</p><p></p><p>I have the 5.5x on my M1A, and the BDC is extremely accurate. With 147 grain surplus ball, it scores me consistent hits out to 700, which is as far as I have had the occasion to try it at. I was on a range with steel silhouettes out to 1000, but it was muddy, misty, and rainy, and it was too hard to spot hits or misses any farther out than that.</p><p></p><p>It is definitely a battle rifle optic rather than a precision rifle optic... it is designed simply to get quick first-shot hits on man-sized targets, with battle rifles firing standard ball ammo. It would not be a good choice for a precision rifle firing match grade or hand loaded ammo and trying for sub-MOA groups, but that's not what it is designed to do. As for compensating for wind, it is easy enough to figure out a hold-off in MOA based on the stadia lines, since you know a man-sized target is approx. 20" wide. A simpler method is to remember the ranges and wind conditions that will give you a hit with an edge favor on a 20" target.</p><p></p><p>I know how to use a mil dot or MOA reticle, but I like the ACOG for a battle rifle because I tend to think all of that math needed for ranging would go out the window in a stressful situation like a 2-way range, when it is important to get quick hits. With the ACOG, it's as simple as picking the line that is closest to your target's width, putting it on him, and squeezing. Just that gives you pretty good odds. If it is a miss, the glass is such good quality that you can usually see where the round went and hold off that amount for your next shot. I tend to think that is the method most guys with mil dots end up going with when under stress anyway... just taking a quick shot, seeing where it goes, and applying kentucky windage for the next shot. For close range, i.e. 300m and under, it's really easy... if the target is as fat or fatter than the big illuminated chevron, just put it on him and squeeze. You will get a hit somewhere. If you need a little more precise shot at those ranges, you know that the tip of the chevron is for 100m, the underside of the tip is 200m, and the base is 300m. For REALLY close range, i.e. CQB distances, you can just look through the scope with both eyes open, and your eyes will superimpose the illuminated chevron on your un-magnified vision from your non-scope eye, and it will function like an unmagnified red dot optic. Pretty cool stuff. </p><p></p><p>For a sniper-type rifle, where you are counting on having a little bit of time to range and engage your targets, a Mil or MOA scope is the way to go. For a battle rifle, an ACOG can't be beat (except maybe for an ELCAN). For the 5.56 platform I'm building, I will probably go with a 3.5 or 4x ACOG, since that rifle will have a little shorter max effective range than my good ol 762.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1458920, member: 4235"] I ended up going with the 5.5x ACOG over the 3.5x for the reason you mentioned... I didn't feel like the small stadia lines would be too terribly useful at the longer distances. I can effectively range man-sized targets out to 7 or 800 with mine. It has stadia lines out to 1200m, but they are so close to the same size out past 800 that they are pretty hard to use. Those smaller lines are better used just as an aiming point for a target that you have estimated range on using other methods (known distance, map, laser rangefinder, or just eyes trained well enough to make an estimate within 10% or so accuracy). I have the 5.5x on my M1A, and the BDC is extremely accurate. With 147 grain surplus ball, it scores me consistent hits out to 700, which is as far as I have had the occasion to try it at. I was on a range with steel silhouettes out to 1000, but it was muddy, misty, and rainy, and it was too hard to spot hits or misses any farther out than that. It is definitely a battle rifle optic rather than a precision rifle optic... it is designed simply to get quick first-shot hits on man-sized targets, with battle rifles firing standard ball ammo. It would not be a good choice for a precision rifle firing match grade or hand loaded ammo and trying for sub-MOA groups, but that's not what it is designed to do. As for compensating for wind, it is easy enough to figure out a hold-off in MOA based on the stadia lines, since you know a man-sized target is approx. 20" wide. A simpler method is to remember the ranges and wind conditions that will give you a hit with an edge favor on a 20" target. I know how to use a mil dot or MOA reticle, but I like the ACOG for a battle rifle because I tend to think all of that math needed for ranging would go out the window in a stressful situation like a 2-way range, when it is important to get quick hits. With the ACOG, it's as simple as picking the line that is closest to your target's width, putting it on him, and squeezing. Just that gives you pretty good odds. If it is a miss, the glass is such good quality that you can usually see where the round went and hold off that amount for your next shot. I tend to think that is the method most guys with mil dots end up going with when under stress anyway... just taking a quick shot, seeing where it goes, and applying kentucky windage for the next shot. For close range, i.e. 300m and under, it's really easy... if the target is as fat or fatter than the big illuminated chevron, just put it on him and squeeze. You will get a hit somewhere. If you need a little more precise shot at those ranges, you know that the tip of the chevron is for 100m, the underside of the tip is 200m, and the base is 300m. For REALLY close range, i.e. CQB distances, you can just look through the scope with both eyes open, and your eyes will superimpose the illuminated chevron on your un-magnified vision from your non-scope eye, and it will function like an unmagnified red dot optic. Pretty cool stuff. For a sniper-type rifle, where you are counting on having a little bit of time to range and engage your targets, a Mil or MOA scope is the way to go. For a battle rifle, an ACOG can't be beat (except maybe for an ELCAN). For the 5.56 platform I'm building, I will probably go with a 3.5 or 4x ACOG, since that rifle will have a little shorter max effective range than my good ol 762. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Field report/comparison of ACOG & Shepherd scopes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom