Why setting up your rifle based on the mission is wrong

[Paladin]

Some interesting thoughts based off numerous combat tours:

[LTUME1978]

Thank you for sharing this. I have run an ACOG for the past 12 years and think it works well from point blank to as far as a AR will shoot. Don't understand the need for the VCOG.

[Paladin]

Thank you for sharing this. I have run an ACOG for the past 12 years and think it works well from point blank to as far as a AR will shoot. Don't understand the need for the VCOG.

My ACOG has the ACSS reticle which I find works just fine for close in shooting for me. The ACOG is slower with target transitions than the EOtech, but nothing beats an EOtech for transitions.

From 2009:

One of the limiting factors of a magnified optic such as the ACOG, is that it is not ideal for close
quarters battle and multiple targets. To address this concern, one of the latest variants, the TA31F,
includes a red chevron aiming point, which uses the Bindon aiming concept. Under the Bindon aiming
concept the shooter keeps both eyes open and engages a target in a similar manner to the M68 red dot
sight. The red chevron is illuminated by tritium for nighttime use and fiber optic for daytime use. In
theory, the bright red chevron is similar to a red dot scope. At close distances, a shooter will
unconsciously transfer the red aiming point and unmagnified image presented by his non-dominate eye
into one picture to engage the target. One of the flaws of the Bindon aiming concept is that it relies on the shooter having the same
vision in both eyes. If not, the system does not work and the soldier is limited in using the optic in close
quarters battle. Additionally, the system works well for one target but is very slow if transitioning
between multiple targets, as the soldier will have to focus on the threat, un-focus, and re-focus on the
additional target.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdf

[C-dub]

Thank you for sharing this. I have run an ACOG for the past 12 years and think it works well from point blank to as far as a AR will shoot. Don't understand the need for the VCOG.

My ACOG has the ACSS reticle which I find works just fine for close in shooting for me. The ACOG is slower with target transitions than the EOtech, but nothing beats and EOtech for transitions.

From 2009:

One of the limiting factors of a magnified optic such as the ACOG, is that it is not ideal for close
quarters battle and multiple targets. To address this concern, one of the latest variants, the TA31F,
includes a red chevron aiming point, which uses the Bindon aiming concept. Under the Bindon aiming
concept the shooter keeps both eyes open and engages a target in a similar manner to the M68 red dot
sight. The red chevron is illuminated by tritium for nighttime use and fiber optic for daytime use. In
theory, the bright red chevron is similar to a red dot scope. At close distances, a shooter will
unconsciously transfer the red aiming point and unmagnified image presented by his non-dominate eye
into one picture to engage the target. One of the flaws of the Bindon aiming concept is that it relies on the shooter having the same
vision in both eyes. If not, the system does not work and the soldier is limited in using the optic in close
quarters battle. Additionally, the system works well for one target but is very slow if transitioning
between multiple targets, as the soldier will have to focus on the threat, un-focus, and re-focus on the
additional target.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdf

I'll have to give that a look see next time I can get out to the range. I have had a 4x ACOG on my M4 for a few years now. I have it zeroed for 100 yards and know where the POA/POI on the range marks on its reticle are at CQB distances. I've used it in only two 3-gun events and don't remember any problems. Next time I can get out I'll set up a few targets and see what the transitions are like at 25, 10, and 3-5 yards. Maybe even run my timer and compare the differences between the carbine and handgun. It sounds like spreadsheet time. I feel like Sheldon Cooper getting ready to write up some sort of contract agreement.

[Paladin]

Next time I can get out I'll set up a few targets and see what the transitions are like at 25, 10, and 3-5 yards. Maybe even run my timer and compare the differences between the carbine and handgun. It sounds like spreadsheet time. I feel like Sheldon Cooper getting ready to write up some sort of contract agreement.

Indeed!

[LTUME1978]

I have the marine corp version of the ACOG and just had the tritium refreshed. I have used it in competition and at several classes at CSAT. I don’t feel like I am giving up anything with it. I can go prone, shooting off of my magazine and hit 9 inch steel discs at 300 yards that we shoot in one of the matches with 55 grain Bullets.

I don’t know about the vision comments. I have the right lense (in my glasses) set for the front sight on a pistol and my left lense for far vision. I find that looking through any of my optics on my rifles is much clearer than using far vision in both lenses and can get a better focus on any optic that has that feature. I was taught to shoot with both eyes open back in the day when I shot rifle silhouette to avoid eye fatigue. Once you get used to that with a 24 power scope, everything else is a piece of cake.

The ACOG works well on the Mary Katherine targets even when turned sideways at seven yards (requiring that you know your offset). The offset is easy as the graduations for distance serve as the aiming point. The Mary Katherine target is a threat/hostage target that is used at CSAT.

[MadMonkey]

Thank you for sharing this. I have run an ACOG for the past 12 years and think it works well from point blank to as far as a AR will shoot. Don't understand the need for the VCOG.

My ACOG has the ACSS reticle which I find works just fine for close in shooting for me. The ACOG is slower with target transitions than the EOtech, but nothing beats an EOtech for transitions.

From 2009:

One of the limiting factors of a magnified optic such as the ACOG, is that it is not ideal for close
quarters battle and multiple targets. To address this concern, one of the latest variants, the TA31F,
includes a red chevron aiming point, which uses the Bindon aiming concept. Under the Bindon aiming
concept the shooter keeps both eyes open and engages a target in a similar manner to the M68 red dot
sight. The red chevron is illuminated by tritium for nighttime use and fiber optic for daytime use. In
theory, the bright red chevron is similar to a red dot scope. At close distances, a shooter will
unconsciously transfer the red aiming point and unmagnified image presented by his non-dominate eye
into one picture to engage the target. One of the flaws of the Bindon aiming concept is that it relies on the shooter having the same
vision in both eyes. If not, the system does not work and the soldier is limited in using the optic in close
quarters battle. Additionally, the system works well for one target but is very slow if transitioning
between multiple targets, as the soldier will have to focus on the threat, un-focus, and re-focus on the
additional target.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdf

After using a multitude of different optics, I've settled on an ACOG with an RMR on top as being the absolute best for me. You have magnification, zero magnification, it's ambidextrous, transitioning between sights takes only a slight movement with no hand coming off the weapon, and the red dot is at a much more comfortable height for a more heads-up position which in my experience allows for better awareness in a CQB environment (not to mention the higher red dot is now usable with night vision). You have a ton of options in a small, relatively lightweight package, especially if you choose a TA33.

As far as the Bindon aiming concept, the original concept actually is for fast target acquisition, not necessarily shooting with both eyes open. It's hard to find (for me anyway) Bindon's original concept since there is so much misinformation, mainly thanks to the USMC who insisted on trying to use ACOGs as red dots which can be a big issue for someone who is cross dominant like myself (you'll be WAY off target at anything but very short ranges). The original idea was to keep both eyes open, acquire a target quickly by putting the lighted reticle over it, then transition to the scope view for firing. They're very fast this way.

[C-dub]

As far as the Bindon aiming concept, the original concept actually is for fast target acquisition, not necessarily shooting with both eyes open. It's hard to find (for me anyway) Bindon's original concept since there is so much misinformation, mainly thanks to the USMC who insisted on trying to use ACOGs as red dots which can be a big issue for someone who is cross dominant like myself (you'll be WAY off target at anything but very short ranges). The original idea was to keep both eyes open, acquire a target quickly by putting the lighted reticle over it, then transition to the scope view for firing. They're very fast this way.

I'm planning my trip to the range for next Saturday and maybe find out how my 4x ACOG works out. I had not heard about the cross-dominant eye issue until this thread. That may or may not be an issue for me since several years ago I was left-eye dominant while being right handed. I was trying to learn to shot handgun with both eyes open and it took me a year or more of training to end up with a less dominant left eye. Now, when I do that triangle thing with my hands and bring it to my face they come back to my nose and neither eye. Maybe/hopefully that's why I have been able to make use of the BAC. However, I'll see if I can get some empirical data on that next weekend.

[The Annoyed Man]

I have several different optics on different ARs. 4 of them are more or less tactically configured.

My 11.5” SBR has an Aimpoint T2 Micro, with an available 3x magnifier on a flip to side QD mount. But I don’t keep the magnifier mounted. Instead it’s just in my pack in case it’s needed. I don’t really like any extra weight on that rifle most of the time. This is my "primary" weapon.

I have a 16” gas-piston carbine with a 4x32 TA31F ACOG on it. I would probably prefer the ACSS reticle for it, but that wasn’t an available option at the time I bought mine. ACOGs have amazing glass. But their weakness… of the 4x32 versions, anyway… is a very short eye relief (1.5”) with an unforgiving eyebox. Also, it lacks a diopter adjustment. This was much less of an issue for me personally when I was younger, but as my eyesight has deteriorated, I find the optic harder to use than I used to, and it is harder to use the Bindon aiming concept for me now. I’ll keep the optic because my son will want it some day, but it’s no longer my go-to choice.

I have another 16” carbine that has a Primary Arms SLx 1-6x24mm FFP Rifle Scope - with their ACSS-RAPTOR reticle. This combines the best of both ACSS and the less complicated TA31F ACOG reticle. I find it very easy to use. My only complaint, such as it is, is the extra weight. But the glass is pretty good for a $400 scope, and I don’t bother with SFP scopes anymore. And it has a diopter adjustment. The reticle BDC works about as well as the TA31F. I would have no problem recommending this scope for a "general purpose" carbine.

Lastly, I have an older EOTech that I have mounted on my wife's 16” carbine. She’s right handed, but incurably left eye dominant, and has to shoot rifles left handed. Between the EOTech, the above mentioned optics, and a few other scopes I have, this is the ONE optic that she can use without too much difficulty…so it’s hers.

Of the above setups, my favorite is the SBR with the Aimpoint. If I were going hunting with an AR, I’d take either the carbine with the PA scope, or an 18” DMR I built some years ago with a higher powered variable Vortex scope on it.

People can argue all they want about the pros and cons of mission-specific rifle setups, and yeah, I get it, but I don’t have to worry about it because I’m fortunate to have been able to put together multiple mission-specific rifles, and I have options. My very favorite is that 11.5” SBR. But if I had to reduce my collection to just one, I’d probably keep the PA LVPO, and mount it on a 20” /A4 I have which currently sports carry handle sights, and ditch the others. That same optic on a 16” carbine also works well for GP use.