Trijicon Acog Dangerous Game scope

[Altitude sickness]

Out of curiosity. Has anyone used a Trijicon Acog on a DG rifle ? They seem like a perfect tool for the job. Very fast target acquisition. Start at 1.5 to 3.5 like most like for close work. Rated to 50 BMG. Small, light, and at $1200. Comparably priced.

Are they just too militaristic of a style to be adopted?

There must be a reason they are not popular.

 

[ay2626]

A couple of issues I can think of would be that I am not aware of any mounting options for these other than pic rail nor have I seen a mount lower than standard height AR cowitness which is very high for most other rifles. They also have very short eye relief.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I assumed the short eye relief and height would be an issue.

The scopes built by Trijicon for DG rifles seem heavy in comparison. And I figured someone on here with more knowledge and experience would give me the variables and reasons why. My 1-6x24 tr25 series weighs 19.2 ozs

My comparable Leupold 1-6x24 firedot is 16oz
3ozs is a lot to shave from a scope

 

[ay2626]

I experimented with this using a vortex 3x prism. Not an ACOG but similar specs. I could not get if far back enough using a pic rail on a weatherby mark v backcountry. You basically need to use them on an AR with a short LOP so the end of the rail is right in your face. Maybe the next Gen of sights will be something like a red dot with unlimited eye relief but also have magnification. I’m assuming the military is trying to solve this one.

 

[BeeMaa]

I'd really prefer something that had true 1x at the low power setting like your scope for both eyes open instinctive (more like shotgun) shooting.

I know the argument is that it can be QD mounted, but having the dot AND true 1x would be an advantage. Something like a RMR or SRO. Options from other companies like Holosun will also give you reticle and MOA dot options on the same optic where Trijicon doesn't.

EDIT - Holosun HS507COMP has a 2 MOA center dot with 3 options for circles, battery accessible without removing the optic, can be had in red or green, shake awake technology, uses the standard Trijicon RMR footprint and weighs 1.7 oz.

 

[Rick HOlbert]

Out of curiosity. Has anyone used a Trijicon Acog on a DG rifle ? They seem like a perfect tool for the job. Very fast target acquisition. Start at 1.5 to 3.5 like most like for close work. Rated to 50 BMG. Small, light, and at $1200. Comparably priced.

Are they just too militaristic of a style to be adopted? View attachment 565218 There must be a reason they are not popular.

Good day sir. Interesting idea but not practicle with a ACOG. Personally for a DGR i would want no magnification to maybe 2X at most. My solution was to go with an Aimpoint 9000s. Can be mounted in standard 30mm rings, unlimited eye relief and parallax free. super fast target acquisition and frankly when M'Bogo is coming for you, you won't need 3X magnification. But as always, it's what works for you.

 

[Mtn_Infantry]

I’ve never run an ACOG on a DG rifle but I’ve run them on an AR in another type of DG situation and I’d never personally choose one. The eye box sucks on them on and AR Platform and would be worse on a DR or Bolt gun.

In the situations you’re envisioning utilizing the rifle there’s only a handful of times you’d need the magnification. In the other 98% I wouldn’t want to be trying to find the eyebox to use the optic. You should look at a 1-4, 1-6, or 1-8. You could get away with a 2-7 or 2-10 as well. My personal recommendations S&B 1-4 Short Dot, Swaro Z6EE, Leupold V6 1-6, Nightforce 1-8

 

[PARA45]

I assumed the short eye relief and height would be an issue.

The scopes built by Trijicon for DG rifles seem heavy in comparison. And I figured someone on here with more knowledge and experience would give me the variables and reasons why. My 1-6x24 tr25 series weighs 19.2 ozs

My comparable Leupold 1-6x24 firedot is 16oz
3ozs is a lot to shave from a scope

View attachment 565219

I don't have an ACOG, but I have the scope you have here. It is mounted on a 375 H&H CZ-550, and at first thought that it was heavy. Once mounted on the rifle, it felt perfect. I think the difference in weight is probably due to material used and for the light gathering turret and width of the eye piece. That is probably the 3 oz difference.

I took the setup mentioned above to Africa, and hunted a cow buffalo and a lioness, plus a hand full of plains game and this scope performed admirably.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I have the same 1.5x24 acog and I really love it. It has the longest eye relief of any agog if I recall and would be suitable for DG rifle in my opinion if you could mount it low enough.
The 4x acog has a terrible eye box in my opinion, i much prefer the 3.5 and 1.5x24.
I only have it on a rifle where it looks appropriate.

 

[Tucketed]

ACOGs suck, terrible eye box and extremely short eye relief. I can’t fathom how we outfitted all of many thousands of our infantry with a, granted, rugged but such a poor optic.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

The 1.5x24 acog is almost like a red dot. Very good eye relief and very easy to acquire the reticle. The 3.5 is also good IMO the government issued 4x is pretty bad.

 

[JohnD29]

The 1.5X16 ACOG is available in both high and low mount options (Trijicon product numbers TA44-C-400330 and TA44-C-400331 respectively) while the 1.5x24 is only available in a high mount. All options would require a rail section (or some custom work) for mounting. Eye relief on the 1.5x16 ACOG is substantially greater than on the 3.5 or 4x models. The published eye relief is quite conservative and I've found in reality eye relief is better than the stated 2.4 inches. I've found it comparable to the eye relief on 1-4, 1-6 or 1-8 LPVOs. Size and weight are similar to a red dot, plus you eliminate the need for batteries.

I use the low mount TA44 ACOG regularly on a Savage 42 combo gun (.22 over .410) that's my go to for small game (obviously a far cry from a dangerous game rifle!). Speed is great, as are shots on moving targets. I've found, however, that the model I use doesn't have as precise an aiming point as on most scopes due to the circle dot reticle. In my experience, I see accuracy similar to what I get with iron sights when taking a carefully aimed shot. I've considered trying the mini-ACOG for a dangerous game rifle, but have always ended up with an LPVO due both to ease of mounting, and because my personal preference is almost always to add a few extra ounces to soak up recoil.

Let me know your results if you decide to try this!

- John

 

[Nevada Mike]

1. I would not want a rail or other one-piece mount design on a DG rifle. I want LOW mount, and most DG rifles are stocked for irons or very low scopes
2. My Leupold VX6 1-6 X 24 weighs less
3. My VXIII 1.5-5 X 20 weighs even less (13 oz.)
4. Eye relief is critical and Leupold offer more than most
5. Sucker is ugly

 

[stk]

I don’t find ACOGs as terrible as many here but I’ve only ever used them on service weapons. They were obviously purpose built for that application. If you’ve never shot through one, they feel very different than a traditional scope, but I couldn’t tell you how without paying more attention the next time I’m using one.

The accupoint is an awesome DG/LPVO in my opinion. The triangle post reticle isn’t a bad choice if expecting fast and close shots but is very useable at distance as well.