ACOG for a .308

[Spartan359]

Ok. I've read damn near every post for ACOGs on this site and I pretty much now how people think about them. BUT, I was wondering if anyone has had any shooting experience with the ACOG (TA55A) 5.5x50 Red Chevron BAC .308 Reticle. Pro's/Con's? I've become proficient at various ranges with my iron sights (In my opinion) and was looking for an optic to slap on my M1A. I know there are better optics out there but I was just wondering if anyone's played with the TA55A. Any takes?

[The Reaper]

Ok. I've read damn near every post for ACOGs on this site and I pretty much now how people think about them. BUT, I was wondering if anyone has had any shooting experience with the ACOG (TA55A) 5.5x50 Red Chevron BAC .308 Reticle. Pro's/Con's? I've become proficient at various ranges with my iron sights (In my opinion) and was looking for an optic to slap on my M1A. I know there are better optics out there but I was just wondering if anyone's played with the TA55A. Any takes?

Heavy, especially for the M1A, but use whatever makes you happy.

What do you want to do with the rifle?

TR

[Spartan359]

Heavy, especially for the M1A, but use whatever makes you happy.

What do you want to do with the rifle?

TR


I have no doubt that it's heavy Sir. Hell, the M1A isn't the lightest thing in the world either! I would like to take some rounds out to atleast 500 meters. I know if I want to take it out further than that I should look into an actual scope. I want to be able to work my shooting up to 1000 meters. From what I've read I know ACOGs are sort of a happy medium. Can't aim too far and can't aim too close. For right now I just want to master my shooting around the 500 meter range. I just wanted to know if the TA55A is alright for the range I want to be shooting at.

[HOLLiS]

Spartan, I really love the M1A but.. If you want a scoped rifle to reach out to 1000 M, would it not be better to build a bolt gun with a cartridge that has a little more horse power.

I have a std issue M1A, and scopes on them, is not worth the efforts IMHO. Most removal mounts sets the scope too high. I have seen one M1A that the mounts was drilled to the receiver, iron sites where not functional. I have tried a burris black diamond on my M1A and ugggggggg, sold the mount kept the scope. Also I got rid of the bi-pod too, just not a bi-pod person (except for heavies) and I like things simple.

I have shot my M1A at a target (2ft x 3ft) with iron sites, at 1000 M, and hit it. I prefer my two bolt guns for long range shooting. One is a Mod 70 is 338 Win Mag, the other a Rem, sendaro in 300 Ultra mag. Just some thoughts or bias' of mine.

[kgoerz]

I have the .308 ACOG mounted on my M14 and it works great out to 600M. Any ranges out to the 800M to 1000m it’s hard to identify the threat because of the ACOG'S low magnification. I haven’t shot enough rounds thru it to give you a detailed evaluation.

[Spartan359]

Spartan, I really love the M1A but.. If you want a scoped rifle to reach out to 1000 M, would it not be better to build a bolt gun with a cartridge that has a little more horse power.

I have shot my M1A at a target (2ft x 3ft) with iron sites, at 1000 M, and hit it. I prefer my two bolt guns for long range shooting. One is a Mod 70 is 338 Win Mag, the other a Rem, sendaro in 300 Ultra mag. Just some thoughts or bias' of mine.


Well I would LOVE to get a good lefty bolt action rifle. I've had my eye on a Patriot Arms for awhile. It's either a scope or the rifle. If I were to buy the rifle I wouldn't have money to get a good scope. So in the sake of my funds I'll use the rifle at hand and go for the scope. But don't get me wrong I do agree with you. I'm just trying to use what I got with little money.

Hey thanks for the reply kgoerz. Does it sit too high on the mount to get a good cheek weld? It's a shame you haven't put to many rounds through it. Just send it to me and I'll send a few down range for ya. :D

[Gene Econ]

Does it sit too high on the mount to get a good cheek weld? It's a shame you haven't put to many rounds through it. Just send it to me and I'll send a few down range for ya. :D

Spartan:

Any optic will sit too high on a M-14 -- unless you have one of the straight tactical stocks or maybe that Sage stock. With the issued stock, guys built up the stock with various things. Dense foam pads found in ammo cans comes to mind with green tape around the stock. I am sure McMillan or someone makes a decent tactical stock for a M-14 with an adjustable cheek. These stocks tend to be heavy which may be a good thing for M-14s.

I have yet to see a scope mount for an M-14 hold zero. Maybe if it was drilled and tapped into the upper or literally welded on. We have been through this before so no need to go into it again.

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of any well made but low power optic to give great performance at long ranges. May be a low magnification but I have found guys can train their eyes to see sight pictures quite well.

You won't find much of a difference between 5.56 ball and 7.62 ball to 500. I personally could care less if the reticle is designed for 5.56 or 7.62 at these ranges. From what I gather, most mid range optics with graduated reticle patterns are somewhat based on issued ball and the lower magnifications tend to keep shots to 500 or less anyway.

If you decide to zero them at 100 and then want to take shots using the stadia for hold overs, keep the reticle vertical as canting will give you a whole bunch of windage you don't want. I have our guys zero them at 300 so errors in keeping it straight up and down are less at 500.

I have found that the guys prefer the ACOGs that use the straight cross hair reticle pattern, not the chevron. You may want to eye each one to see what appeals to your own eyeballs.

Gene

[ChandlerSniper]

McMillan makes a couple stocks with adj. cheekpieces for the M14..I just sold a brand new one I got for myself, then sold my rifle. They aren`t cheap.. but very worth the money. If you choose to go that route, have it bedded by someone who knows how to work on M14s/ MIAs... you will be much better off in the long run.

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of any well made but low power optic to give great performance at long ranges. May be a low magnification but I have found guys can train their eyes to see sight pictures quite well.


This is spot on....I ran an ACOG ( first a TA01 NSN, then a TA11 with the donught reticle ) on my 3 gun rifle for a while. When I got my hands on the Leupold MR/T 1.5 x 5 its been on it ever since. The scope is really fast for quick target transitions up close, and I can up the power and make hits out to 500 yds fairly easy. I also agree with Gene on the crosshairs over the chevron or triangles..I just cant get used to using them for holdovers when they block out the portion of the target I`m shooting at. Small or partial targets are a pain at times.. even for someone who knows thier rifle well.

CS

[Spartan359]

Hey I thank all you guys for your input. As always you gentlemen answer my questions. I've toyed with other ACOG's and I do agree with the crosshairs over the chevron or triangles. As been stated the mounts for M1A's do sit high. I just purchased the mount from SpringField Armory's website. A buddy of mine is gonna loan me his ACOG for a bit so I can get the feel for it. Thanks again and Merry Christmas.

[The Reaper]

IMHO, the reticle has to be selected for the purpose.

The ACOG crosshairs are fine for long distance, but will be nearly useless for CQB. They will also not allow the BAC to work, though not everyone can use that technique anyway.

If long range (500-100meters, by your definition) is the purpose of the rifle, assuming that you can get a mount to lock up tight, you are probably better served with a Leupold, either one of the Mark 4 MR/Ts or LR/Ts. Frankly, unless you have shot matches at 1000 yards before, you are probably choosing the wrong weapon, and with the ACOG, are definitely choosing the wrong optic.

Under what circumstances do you envision engaging a target at 1000 meters?

Among the ACOGs, IMHO, the chevron (not the triangle) is the best all around reticle. The donut reticle is best for CQB. Each has a purpose, none are superior at all tasks.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Spartan359]

TR,

I don't plan on using my M1A for CQB. Nor am I shooting matches. Though If I ever want to shoot in a match I do agree with all of you in that there are better .308's to choose from. Shooting at that distance is for self improvement. I'm tired of lingering at the distances that I shoot at. I'd like to push myself to see what I can do. I'm just trying to use what I got with little money.

I've looked at the very Leopolds that you mentioned the other day. It would be nice to engage a silhouette under the best conditions at that distance but we all know that won't happen.

I've had to teach myself (or learn from my mistakes I should say) about shooting. The Navy didn't help one bit. They use compressed air and lasers to train people. I guess what it boils down to is I was looking at various optics and was wondering for starting out at 500 meters would an ACOG be suffice. As I stated I know once I reach the max distance I would have to switch to a real optic. If I'm going about this wrong do tell. I haven't bought anything yet as I'm still looking.

[The Reaper]

FWIW, I think that the ACOG is the wrong optic for 500-1000 yard shooting.

I would go to the Leupold Mark 4 series (which are also less expensive than the ACOG), but the key remains a stable M-1A mount, which are as scarce as hen's teeth.

TR

[Spartan359]

Roger that Sir. I'll see if I can find a dealer here in town so I can look them over. I'll just have to figure something out for my mount.

[Gene Econ]

Roger that Sir. I'll see if I can find a dealer here in town so I can look them over. I'll just have to figure something out for my mount.


Spartan:

Might as well look at the Leupold MR-T (TMR) 3.5 - 9X mid range optic. Quite respectable IMHO -- for ranges to about 700 on upper torso size targets.

If you are going to compare different optics for your own liking, compare resolution, clairty of the glass, reticle patterns, ease of adjusting elevation, windage, and parallax or focus -- all while in position. Unless you are really going to take on things in low light or moon light -- you probably don't want or need an objective over 40 mm.

Generally speaking, you really want something more than 10X for the long ranges (600 +). Most guys stick with a 16X or 20X optic for the long ranges. I wouldn't advise anything over 20X though.

Oh yes, if you want such an optic, get one that is made for those distances in terms of its ability to elevate. Not sure if this is precise but most of the long range optics have about 150 minutes of elevation and guys still use a 30 minute mount to ensure they have enough elevation for 1000. These optics use 30mm tubes -- not one inch -- you may want to note that or we will soon hear you asking about rings that give you enough elevation for your proposed ranges.

He, he, he. I have a Unertl 10X optic that I believe was tailored towards the M-14. 'Raven'? -- not sure of its name. I have yet to see better glass and would shoot that at 1000 if I could figure out how to convert its idiotic mounts to fit on a rail. Also, all adjustments are external and thus are prone to effects of climate. No wonder Unertl went out of business.

Gene

[N.Franklin]

I have been using a 10x on a Smith NSN mount for a few months and have concluded I really enjoy the M1A with the iron sights over the glass. I usually shoot at gongs around 450m and can hit them just as well if not better with iron sights. Something like a low power ACOG might be fine for the rifle, but I would think it would sit too high, even with a lower mount such as the ARMS piece. If I decide to throw another magnified optic on the rifle, my choices are going to be the Leupold 1.5-5x20 or the USO SN-4.