Compact ACOG?

[gcmj45acp]

I've been looking for a fast, low-medium magnification optic for my FAL for almost a year. We all know everthing is a compromise but I want to have my cake and eat it too. At anyrate, the ACOG's ruggedness was something I really don't want to give up. But normal ACOGs mount WAY too high on the FAL. I end up having to deal learning consistent cheek and chin welds...it's hard to be consistent with that sort of thing.

A better option it seemed, and one that could take advantage of the fact that I am shooting a .308 battle rifle that can reach out and smack, rather than just touch someone, would be a traditional variable scope. I can mount traditional scopes lower than the ACOG and closer to my traditional cheek weld. Of these, Leupold's Mark 4 1.5-5x and 2.5-8x MRT scopes looked most attractive to me. After that, IOR's 1.1-4x and new 1.5-5x scopes were also looking like good options. But a good friend, and far more experienced rifleman than I, pointed out the fragility and the loss of resolution over an ACOG because a variable scope stacks more lens elements than an ACOG.

So I started looking for something outside the box and arrived at a 3x compact ACOG with a special ring base. I can mount one of these REALLY low on the FAL. As low or lower than any traditional scope and it looks as if I could preserve my cheek weld or stay VERY close to it. Has anyone tried mounting a compact ACOG with the special ring base? Or am I worrying too much about mounting a traditional scope? Is there a mount that would be more robust than traditional rings for a variable if that really is the better option?

Comments or ideas requested and welcome...thanks

[bigant]

Get the Trijicon TR 21 R or A alot of 3 gunners use this optic....Plus no need for a battery


Ant

[gcmj45acp]

Thanks for the input. But the TR21 still presents the same problem I mentioned before with an other variable scope. It's stacking more glass and is more fragile than an ACOG. My question to you is, are those concerns really a valid issue at all?

[TheJokker]

http://www.thejokker.com/images/fal/fal.jpg

i'm using the 2x20 compact acog (medium height ring). the 3x24 lacks sufficent eye relief for an FAL in my opinion. trijicon is supposed to release (fall?) a 3x30 compact acog that should fit the ticket with eye relief similar to a ta-11.

[gcmj45acp]

Thanks a million for the pic Jokker. I was really wondering what such a setup might look like. I was also wondering about the eye relief too after I looked up the specs this evening. I've seen a photo of the prototype 3x30 ACOG over at AR15.com and the specs do indeed sound like it might be a good option.

Am I correct in assuming you went with the medium height ring so as to clear the rear sight? How do you like the setup and would you do it again? How is the ring base and DSA dust cover with respect to repeatable zero? I know this seems like a dumb question but, have you ever accidently dinged the rifle witth the scope mounted on it? If so, did it retain your zero? If not, how far off was it?

Thanks again.

[TheJokker]

Originally posted by gcmj45acp
Thanks a million for the pic Jokker. I was really wondering what such a setup might look like. I was also wondering about the eye relief too after I looked up the specs this evening. I've seen a photo of the prototype 3x30 ACOG over at AR15.com and the specs do indeed sound like it might be a good option.

Am I correct in assuming you went with the medium height ring so as to clear the rear sight? How do you like the setup and would you do it again? How is the ring base and DSA dust cover with respect to repeatable zero? I know this seems like a dumb question but, have you ever accidently dinged the rifle witth the scope mounted on it? If so, did it retain your zero? If not, how far off was it?

Thanks again.
i bought a one month old acog off of arfcom and it came with the medium mount. it fit well so i stayed with it. i've removed the scope several times and it seems to hold zero well. i love the setup. it's so light it's like it's not there. sometimes a little more magnification would be nice but the 3x30 would be perfect.

[bigant]

Originally posted by gcmj45acp
Thanks for the input. But the TR21 still presents the same problem I mentioned before with an other variable scope. It's stacking more glass and is more fragile than an ACOG. My question to you is, are those concerns really a valid issue at all?

Read they talk about optics in the 1-5x range (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=001238)

The ACOG is a very durable optic, but I dont think its far above the quality of a low power varible from a reputable manufactor


Ant

[gcmj45acp]

Thanks for the link Ant. The NightForce scopes mentioned by one of the posters was another scope I had considered but couldn't find much information about it. I've seen them on a lot of benchrest guns and 50BMG rifles but that's about it. It appears they may still be worth looking into. Thanks again.

[Pope Lando]

Dear GCMJ45ACP:

You CAN have your cake and eat it too. Consider a 3-9X Trijicon Accupoint. Looks and feels like a traditional scope. Has a beauty of a tritium lamp-topped post. Uses conventional one inch rings. Tough as hell, with excellent glass. No losing your crosshairs in thick brush. Never lose your point of aim, and you can adjust the solar collector strength with a simple twist of the wrist.

I used one in Africa and it now lives on an S&K mount on my SAFN 49.

All the best