Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archangel
I haven't had a lot of range time with it yet, but I would like to get some feedback from those that have used ACOG's with the cheveron reticule (TA31F) and whether or not you felt that it is as precise as teh TA01 NSN crosshairs. I was really comfortable with the NSN model, but wanted something with a better FOV and had BAC capability. The only thing is that the reticule is really small (at smaller than the other ACOG's that I've used - NSN, TA31F, TA55). Opinions?
|
Archangel:
I prefer a cross hair and a dot. Not necessarily both. The eye can see uniformity easier and a cross or a dot or even a open round aperature are uniform so the eye can see the middle of them more comfortably and faster.
I have found the chevron reticles to be difficult for my eye to place in the middle of something and given the low magnificatgion and relatively thick chevron on the ACOG, these factors compound the problems the eye has in seeing what is centered on the chevron. The tip of the chevron on the ACOG us for 100 meters I believe so perhaps its preception problems are not significant. The vertical and horizontal stadia on the chevron reticles of ACOGs are extremely difficult for the eye to see precisely as they are very small.
IMHO a better bet to 600 would be a simple cross hair.
I also believe that you can train your eye to see perfectly with any type of reticle pattern. It will just take more time with the chevron than a cross hair.
Gene