https://www.guns.com/news/2025/06/09/marines-sign-contract-with-trijicon-to-refurb-acogs

well yea not everyone if going to be running a high powered variable scope with a 15lb varmint rifle
but grunts big retard, smooth brain for wanting their SL to run an M4 with ACOGs LOLOLOL

LPVO's are a meme.

>>63855743 (OP)
Why wouldn't they go all in on LPVOs? Is it the triple digit battery life? Is it because they have only a fraction of the durability of an ACOG? Maybe it's because the lightest LPVO with a mount is double an ACOGs weight. Actually I can see exactly why they did this.

>>63855743 (OP)
Its for basic training armories. Every boot gets one now, and they treat them like dogshit. Way cheaper to fix what you have than buy new.

>>63855821
This.
ACOGs basically just got relegated to carry handle status and became the newest REMF identifier.
Same way nobody got an ACOG during early OEF/OIF until unit training or deployment.
Non-POGs will be getting the SCO/VCOG, which is great for Trijicon as they are basically just double ending the USMC for optics now.

>>63855848
That or they are just buying as many as humanly possible before things pop off. By referb they could just mean replace the tritium as well, since it's been 20 years since first orders.

>>63855848
>angry nightforce hands typed this post

>>63855743 (OP)
I've pretty much exclusively reverted back to ta02 ta31 and vcogs even replaced my eokek with a ta47 for my rifles. Wasn't even intentional just ended up that way over the last 4 years cause they are simple and reliable. Was meh when I was issued them and jumped head first into the lpvo trend only to come back.

>>63855848
If that's the case just don't give them anything...

>>63855848
>“In Fallujah, Iraq Marines with ACOG-equipped M16A4s created a stir by taking so many headshots that until the wounds were closely examined, some observers thought the insurgents had been executed.”
Optics are a force multiplier, ACOGs have good FOV and give sufficient magnification for modern distances.

>>63855995
>>63855848
whats the one veryone used during this operation/time?
The arrow one or the new one?

>>63856108
It's the chevron, ta31

>>63855995
This isn't a thing that actually happened so I don't know why this board is so in love with repeating this particular anecdote.

>>63856138
Damn they used the arrow one? I thought you guys said it's bad or somethin.
>>63855743 (OP)
Why wont they use the new one with batteries?

>>63856180
>>63855995
next gen fuddlore?

>>63856197
Can confirm true, both my recruiter and a DI told me. Did you also know we have seven belt loops for the seven seas, and our blues tunics are based on reversed British redcoats? And in WWI, the Marines were so good at fighting that the Germans gave them a cool nickname?

>>63856228
>>63855995
1775% true. Anbody who says otherwise is a butthurt soldier or a terrorist.

>>63856228
>>63856283
hooooorah

>>63856228
>>63856283
>>63856387
Btw, that stylish and indicative red stripe on our trousers? Yeah that's because of the significant number of casualties taken during one specific battle of the Mexican-American war.

>>63859133
That stylishly twisted rope? Yeah, that's a fouled line representing us not being sailors.

>>63856190
>I thought you guys said it's bad or somethin.
It is hands down the most versatile and widely used reticle that they offer. The chevron provides an infinite point of aim at its tip and you're provided with bdc tree from ~3-800m depending on ammo and barrel length. Its also great for use with both eyes open for closer range as it can be used much like a red dot, and the shape of the reticle makes it fast to pick up when doing so.

>>63856190
You know what's crazy, it has been 14 years since BF3 released and I can picture the exact location that dude is aiming from. They don't make games like they used to.

>>63856190
>Why wont they use the new one with batteries?
>buy new units
>upgrade existing ones
Tritium lasts 10-15 years and the fiber illumination is blinding if not taped off in sunlight. The only advantage the led version provides is the ability to dial in nighttime illumination and its mounting position for a top mounted 1x red dot (which I doubt they're concerned with). The fiber acogs are set and forget minus a piece of tape to peel back and forth over the fiber. Its the most idiot proof magnified optic you could design and thats why its perfect for this role.

>>63859213
>fiber illumination
does it work in complete darkness?

>>63859287
No, that's why they have tritium.

>>63859346
I don't get it, do they glow in the dark or nah

>>63859357
Tritium glows in the dark

>>63859357
Yes, due to the tritium.

>>63859174
These ones are being refurbed with a horseshoe reticle for M855A1 same as the old M27 SDO reticle

The elcans are much better than acog but acogs are still fine. And since it's the marines hand me downs are the standard anyways.

>>63855743 (OP)
We already did this for victor units: went from the TA31RCO A4/ M4 variants to the M7. Major differentiating factor was the “chevron” versus the “horseshoe” reticle. Officially grunts can’t have non M7 variants anymore along with the TA11SDO (sight traditionally meant for the M249). If this contract is in the same style as the last one, it’s to replace glass, reticles, and springs. We’re keeping them around as backup for the SCOs and some units are kind enough to give the grenadiers an M4 instead of the M27 (when the staff and LT aren’t hogging them). The housing will probably be reused unless they’re snapped in half, but really we just need new springs in a good chunk of the windage/elevation adjusters, which is causing the majority of “floating” reticles. You have to beat them as hard than my old SgtMaj did his wife in order to get them to settle when zeroing, and even then…
Oh, and we may or may not be getting refurbished scout sniper observation telescopes from Leupold. Turns nobody ever renewed that contract with them due to the tripod supplier owning the contract and they don’t exist anymore. Didn’t figure this out until I called them.
Periscopes for the scout snipers (what’s left of them) are also bought from some dude’s house in Orange County, go figure.
t. lens licker (the germanium tastes good)

>>63859711
Elcan is shit vs the ACOG. This meme is only propagated by guys who have never owned an elcan because they are poor or guys trying to justify their elcan purchase. Elcan does arguably look cooler tho, I'll give em that

the acog is a fantastic optic for grunt infantry. its one of the few times a 'jack of all trade' gun accessory is actually optimal

>>63856190
theres only one 'bad' acog reticle

>>63859711
t. nocog

>>63859711
>elcans are much better than acog
lol no but its adorable how the cult repeats this line

They've always repaired the USMC's optics though. The GWOT era TA31s had flush adjustment turrets that you turned with a piece of brass, and as they go back to trijicon for tritium and seals they also replace the turrets with the new external ones.

Also I believe the Marines sent the vast majority of M16A4 spec TA31s back to trijicon and had them retrofitted with brand new TA31-D-100581 spec prisms and all the above new upgrades as well. The 100581 is a one sized fits all reticle for the A4, M4 and IAR.

This is not really news they probably just renewed their contract, or the old contract ran out of funds, ACOGs just do not fail that often.

>>63859711
>The elcans are much better than acog
How do you figure?
>same short eye relief
>worse glass quality
>weighs half a pound more
>piss filter
>shit tier qd levers
>uh but it has a 1x that you'll never use, because you mounted a red dot on it instead!
I don't get it.

>>63860394
He doesn't know because he doesn't have an Elcan and only knows that its better than an ACOG in video games and that green berets use them

>>63860394
NTA. Have used both the Elcan and TA02.
>same short eye relief
It doesn't. The Elcan's eye relief is noticeably longer. It's actually much less forgiving in terms of the allowable front-to-back range, but it's significantly longer.
This can be very helpful for preventing scope eye under certain circumstances.
>worse glass quality
Sometimes the ACOG looks sharper sometimes the Elcan looks sharper. Overall at any given point and time there's likely to be little difference in clarity and resolution.
>weighs half a pound more
That is the cost of the dual role mode and the longer eye relief, yes.
>piss filter
Actually makes vegetation look more vivid. Your shitbrown environments will lose contrast, but environments with more varied colors will pop more.
>missed out on the ARMS Mk2 levers
Sad!!!
>uh but it has a 1x that you'll never use, because you mounted a red dot on it instead!
Don't mount a red dot on it.

Aside from all of that. the Elcan's eyebox is more consistent across various lighting conditions than the ACOG's. It's a bit smaller on 4x under normal circumstances, but never shrinks much while the ACOG's situationally can. Also you get 2 different modes of illumination and arguably better means of rangefinding.

None of that is to say the Elcan is objectively better. Competitive and viable, yes.

>>63860433
Shittest of shit takes, as expected from a TA02 user.

>That is the cost of the dual role mode and the longer eye relief, yes.
Indeed it is the cost of two utterly useless 'features', that's why it's bad. Added weigh for no reason is bad, not good. Having a worse 1x than a red dot is bad, it adding half a pound of weight is worse.

The eye relief is no better than an ACOG.

>>63860433
Thank you for an actual effortpost, Lord knows nobody else in this thread has actually used both enough to have an opinion

>>63855743 (OP)
Fuck yes

The 1x on an elcan is literally useless. You bindon aim an acog at 4x and superimpose the reticle over your left eye at "1x". it works great if you're not severely optically challenged. It's not possible to bindon aim an elcan at 4x and no thought was given to make it bindon capable when they designed it, unlike every acog

The 1x on the elcan is terrible not because of the eye relief but because of the parallax and the fact that if your head is just slightly tilted at the wrong angle the reticle disappears. It's not an unlimited eye relief red dot and will never be a red dot, this is half the reason people put red dots on top of elcans, the other half is they want to get into a chinweld with their head up and not be sucked into the absolute cowitness elcan. Same is true of the acog even though you can just bindon

>>63860443
>Having a worse 1x than a red dot is bad, it adding half a pound of weight is worse.
Totally subjective, but overwhelmingly people aren't voluntarily using standalone 4.25"+ HOB red dot mounts. Even the instatrend tower mounts are only like 3.5".

Elcan 1x is great. Big eyebox, giant FoV, big bright dot, nice glass. I prefer it over a piggybacked dot.

>The eye relief is no better than an ACOG.
Again, in terms of avoiding/reducing scope eye, this is just demonstrably false lol. Elcan eye relief is about ~2.15" for optimal eyebox (actually measured this with a ruler), 4x ACOG eye relief for optimal eyebox is like...1.2" or something.

ACOG eye relief is more forgiving and I don't deny that advantage but it also isn't that important in practice if you're not a troglodyte who can't figure out how to get a consistent cheek weld.

>>63860463
ty anon

can we all stop pretending that we can tell the difference in glass quality in low magnification optics?

>>63860485
>You bindon aim an acog at 4x and superimpose the reticle over your left eye at "1x".
This is not bindon aiming, it is occluded aiming, which usually induces significant POA/POI shift due to phoria and perspective reasons.
Bindon is using occluded eye aiming to roughly acquire the target and then shifting your 'focus' to your right dominant eye, which is precise but also involves more steps and effort.

>It's not possible to bindon aim an elcan at 4x and no thought was given to make it bindon capable when they designed it, unlike every acog
wtf? I can literally go and do it right now. True bindon aiming is harder within 20m due to the fixed focus range but it's still entirely possible. Occluded eye aiming...there's like 0 optics with illumination that can't do it.

>but because of the parallax
Do you even know how to calculate parallax? Within 70m (the Elcan's 1x parallax range) you will never see more than ~9mm of parallax induced POA/POI offset, because that is the approximate radius of the eyebox. And that would require you to engage at literal contact range.

>and the fact that if your head is just slightly tilted at the wrong angle the reticle disappears.
>doesn't know how to set up the eye relief properly for optimal eyebox
Many such cases. Elcan eyebox is great.

>the other half is they want to get into a chinweld with their head up and not be sucked into the absolute cowitness elcan.
Again almost no one uses a 4.25"+ standalone dot if they can get a mount that's shorter. If the Elcan's gigantic 1x FoV doesn't provide enough situational awareness for you then you can peep through the BUIS mounted on top, it doesn't matter how mediocre they are when you're looking at stuff like 5 yards away which is the only time getting "sucked into the scope" can realistically become a problem.

ta44 but battery powered would be sweet. I liked mine a lot.

>>63860493
No. It's very important for poorfags to reaffirm that the best optic they can afford is the best optic period, hence all the self-fellating ACOG owners.

>>63860480
>Putting an acog on a rifle meant to be used <100 yards
Why.jpg

>>63860493
Absolutely not. The ACOG has outstanding glass and I can immediately spot inferior glass.
>>63860529
>best optic they can afford
The ACOG is the best optic anyone can afford, as it is the best optic. These two Nightforces are dogshit in comparison. Low powered post by a low powered variable optic fan.

>>63860552
How much are those and if the acog is so much better than why do you have two of them

>>63860557
>How much are those
Did this noguns really just argue about optics with anon lmao?

>>63860557
>How much are those
The ATACR is only like $2500 nowadays and the other is like $2000. Not too bad.
>if the acog is so much better than why do you have two of them
Because I already have two ACOGs, it would be silly to buy more, right?

>>63860567
>Proclaims acog is superior
>Doesn't just outfit all rifles with an acog

>>63860565
No nigga that's my first post ITT

>>63860571
>cant fathom different use cases for different setups/optic choices
>cant even own a gun
many such cases

>>63860578
I'm not into rifles beyond having an AR with a basic aimpoint red dot on it, I mostly collect and shoot pistols

Besides, what kind of faggot knows the price of every single firearm accessory? Fill your head with something useful, knowing how much scopes and gun accessories cost doesn't make you cool or accomplished

>>63860571
Don't tempt me, I'm already autistic enough to buy the same gun twice, twice. Shit, it might be a good idea to get two more ACOGs that way both of my M4a1s and both of my block IIs can have ACOGs.
>>63860586
Stop, you'll make /arg/ cry, they have it bad enough

>>63860587
Idk I briefly considered looking into acogs and distance scopes but I decided it's doing too much in my case and I'd be fine with a dot and magnifier, I don't shoot rifles that much and living where I am if you want to shoot more than 100 yards you're going to have to drive for like 4-5 hours and I ain't doing all that

>>63855743 (OP)

I love my Credo with the segmented circle and wish they made a SFP VCOG.

>>63860596
>but I decided it's doing too much in my case and I'd be fine with a dot and magnifier
Same conclusion every SOF unit came to more than a decade ago.
Red dot/mag or LPVO is the natural progression of combat carbines, despite what neverserveds on 4chan and Reddit think.
4x is not enough when you actually need magnification and pre-calibrated reticles are useless.
>b-b-but my clooooner build ACOG is perfect for shooting at the range with M193/M855 at fixed distances!
Weird, almost sounds like that's exactly what it was designed for, range shooting with military loads.

>>63855803
LPVOs only ever get used at max or min magnification and it takes time to switch between those. An AGOC with red dot is lighter and you can switch your magnification instantly.

>>63860669
>wtf no you can't just use a BDC you have to use mils instead
>no you can't just aim inbetween the bdc hashes like you would with mils, that's impossible!
deranged take from the mentally deficient

>>63860703
no bro you gotta understand bro I need my crappy 10x mode for PID at 800m bro I'll totally be able to see what I need to zoom in on with my naked eyeball bro I can totally distinguish an enemy combatant from any random fucker with 100% confidence just using a 10x scope bro you gotta believe me bro

>>63860703
hold overs only work for red dots anon. if your bdc doesnt match up EXACTLY then the entire optic is useless. what are you gonna do, go train and learn your holds? crazy talk

>>63860726
BDCs are more versatile than you think, often times you can compensate for a difference in velocity and/or BC between your selected loading and your BDC's calibration by simply zeroing at a different distance.

So what if you are like 0.5 MOA off, your range estimation skills will make far more of a difference than a slight discrepancy in drop.

>NOOOOO you cant just zero for your combat loading what will you do when you want to practice with your shit M193 loadings nooooooo
who the fuck cares. record your approximate POI offset so you have some idea of how well you're aiming and then go for precision over accuract. its practice ammo

>>63860703
Mils can be used to accurately range a target for windage and elevation holds.
They also can be used to communicate with a spotting scope that has a mil reticle for those holds without making adjustments, both of which are very valuable to people who shoot scoped and have a spotter.
Neither of those can be done with a BDC, which is why BDCs are for entry level and budget optics now that the technology has progressed.

For someone like you who doesn't know how to use a magnified optic beyond walking your shots in, the above might as well be magic though.

>>63860752
>So what if you are like 0.5 MOA off,
Way further off than that, lmao.
>your range estimation skills will make far more of a difference than a slight discrepancy in drop.
Or use a mil reticle partially designed to do exactly that on the fly instead of hoping your Kentucky windage holds up.
Retard.

>Holding for elevation in the year 2025
KEK

>>63860767
>Way further off than that, lmao.
That is about as big as the difference gets between my 5.56 loading of choice and my 7.62 BDC, yes.
Oh yeah, in case you didn't realize, you don't have to use purposely designated 5.56 BDCs for 5.56. You can use whatever BDC matches up the best.
>noooooo you have to spend half a minute ranging your target with mils and referring to your DOPE card and consulting with your spotter when using an intermediate caliber rifle
FFS, do bench faggots really? totally missing the point of low powered optics

>>63860755
>Mils can be used to accurately range a target
So can the ACOG bdc retard
>For someone like you who doesn't know how to use a magnified optic beyond walking your shots in
Oh gee guys let me range my target uh it's
>nvm the guy with the ACOG already lined it up, which auto-ranges his target, and took the shot

retard

>>63860939
I think he knows it can be used to approximately autorange your target, he's just gooning over the fact that he won't mistake 640 yards for 670 yards if he takes another 3 conversations to dial his range in. which is apparently the most important thing for a rifle that performs best within 0-400ish yards and embodies a concept that prioritizes "good enough" accuracy and range coupled with high volume of fire and ease of use, over being the most accurate thing possible from a static position.

but muh recce, muh PID, muh reach out n touch things. if i can see it i can shoot it bro

On a TA110 which reticle is considered "best"? Should I get the horseshoe/dot if I'm used to red dots and LVPOs?

>>63861005
First of all, make sure the reticle you pick has the correct drop markers for your rifle. Only some of them are meant for a 16 inch barrel, with the majority being for 14.5 barrels.

As for your choice, it's entirely dependent on you. I love the V reticle because it's precise enough to always be inside a target. Some love the horseshoe because it's "fast"; you just get someone inside the big circle and shoot.

>>63860443
Anyone who bad mouths an acog's eye relief is either retarded or has never heard of the TA11

>>63855760
Marines run M27s

>>63855864
Isn't that something easily done by 2111s?

>>63859711
Elcan is only good on a 240 since the bitch is already fat.

>>63865335
Imagine being in a situation where you need to switch over to 1x on a 240. Fucking kek. Big Acog or bust on that mofo.

>>63864281
kek this one's good.

>>63865319
How fast do they run?

>>63856180
>Insurgents peek out against optics equipped marines and get shot in head because optics advantage
Not fuddlore just funny reporting.

>>63855743 (OP)
ACOGs are 4500 USD in my shithole country.

>>63855743 (OP)
I'm a fkn idiot, but uhh.. what's this got to do with civie acog enthusiasts like myself?

>>63860433
Elcan also has 90% less battery life than led ACOG lol

>>63867705
how much is a nightforce atacr?

>>63860779
What is this? a flip to side passive BDC? I've been wondering why nobody makes this. Seems literally perfect for larger red dots (Comp/Pro/Vortex).

I remember there was a company making one that flipped "up" and laid flat on the rail but I could never find it when I googled because it doesn't really have a fixed industry term

>>63867705
The TA02 was designed specifically for markets like yours where tritium products have ridiculous tariffs, you should see if you can't just straw purchase one from an american that can ship it to you as camera equipment. I have no idea if it's ITAR

>>63865479
Keating immediately comes to mind.

>>63869750
Imagine if everyone had a 1,5x-10x on an m14 they wouldn't have lost the outpost outside of the FOB

>>63869765
>M14s
You've never purchased a fishing license, have you?

>>63861005
>>63861504

I wish there was one with the Credo-style segmented reticle. I see a lot of people recommend the crosshairs but the whole reticle looks odd.

>>63855743 (OP)
if I always have to adjust the diopter on LVPOs am I screwed for acogs

>>63869618
>nightforce atacr
5350 USD

>>63867705
Cool, fuck off back to your shithole country retard
>>63870226
Nah they just werk for 99% of people

>>63870314
>Cool, fuck off back to your shithole country retard
you deserve to get drafted and die for israel

>>63870226
no they're perfect and the glass is unmatched

>>63870310
lmao

>>63855743 (OP)
It really is the be all end all optic.

>>63870319
You deserve to get stabbed by some African

>>63870310
>>63867705

>>63869713
Tacom alpha tarac iirc

>>63860247
>donut reticle
What’s the logic behind this one
t. Green crosshair enjoyer

>>63860492
It is not totally subjective. Weight is an incredibly important category. A 4x ACOG with a light mount like Scalarworks makes it 13 to 14 ounces which is the same category as an Aimpoint Comp M4. An Elcan is about 23 to 24 ounces which puts it in the same category as an NX8 1-8 LPVO. The Elcan is completely incapable of competing in its weight category and is blown away by it's competition.

Comparing the Elcan with an optic half its weight doesnt make sense. Compare it against optics in weight class and suddenly it sucks in every category.

>>63872077
nta but I like them on the 1.5x models, though the new reticle for them is superior

>>63872288
>Comparing the Elcan with an optic half its weight doesnt make sense. Compare it against optics in weight class and suddenly it sucks in every category.
They never understand this.

>>63872288
The problem is it does get compared against optics half its weight and lose.

May we see all these supposed Elcan chads that own and use these bricks every day

>>63860586
>every single firearm accessory
I know how much each of MINE cost, cause I let friends know what a good deal is and dont overpay

Elcan is a tough sell when I can have an ACOG with an RMR on top and ~$500 in my pocket, or an Elcan. And the ACOG is just so good.

>>63874302
The funniest part is Elcans have just consistently gone up in price. You used to be able to find them for about $1500.

They have consistently gone up in price despite becoming more and more outdated. Ironically the ACOG which poorfags screech about being outdated still fills a niche that no other optic does.

ACOG/RMR is now outdated.

>>63874985
Wouldn't this ruin the FOV of the ACOG?

>>63874985
Would be cool if it was actually part of the acog mount instead of in front of it

>>63876104
Larue used to make one long ago.

>>63876357
Trijicon should really just make a fiber optic ACOG with a front RMR mount. Also give it an ajustible dioptre for my 30+ year old eyes.

>>63855803
because the lpvo meme is finally dying

Elcan? they should call it Elcant afford it!