>>63905856 (OP)
I like circle dots

>>63905920
dots cover targets

Wrong opinion

TRIAMNGLE

>>63905938
Okay.
Now go use your picrel ACOG at 200 yards and tell me how uncovered your target is.
Reticles are more than the funny shape at the center and the best part of the ACOG is the BDC, not the chevron.
Got outside OP.

>>63906022
>Now go use your picrel ACOG at 200 yards and tell me how uncovered your target is.
*click*

reticles are for the effete

>>63905920
So do I
:)

>>63906062
Say whatever you want homie, you don't own an ACOG so why are we even trying to defend your favorite ancient reticle?

>>63905978
sigma choice

>chink optics btfo all others
nothing personal kid

>>63905978
facts

>>63906180
What’s the little book you have underneath the optic? I always forget my holds with my ACOG

>>63906982
It's my range book from boot camp

>god is here

>>63906350
I've got the Holosun with this reticle... 503c iirc.

>>63906993
depreciated
anyone who doesnt own atleast 1 cope-more product isnt a real shooter

>>63905856 (OP)
Fucking based.

>>63907287
didn't even know that was a thing, i just took an ACOG's horseshoe & shooped it with a PSO; they're both 4x, so i figured there'd be no distinct errors
i imagined the horseshoe would be better for point shooting than the PSO's lines, with the rangefinder taking up the ACOG's slack

Who makes the most cluttered optics these days? I mean i want to be a mildot maximalist, with crosshairs and horseshoes and chevrons and range marks. Maybe even etch picrel towards the bottom of the reticle so you always know what you're shooting at.

>>63907307
its been around for about 8 years or so but it never caught traction when released. its a bit old since but its jap glass and its basically a rebranded athlon scope but not worth the $800 they still charge for it
neat and cool 8 years ago, clapped out and depreciated these days for the price

>>63907317
I wonder if there's a market for a cheap red dot with custom shit etched on the glass. Its would have to be cheap but man there could be some funny shit to put as a reticle.

>>63906993
I like the chevron better, even did a competition with an AK & POSP

>>63906062
>*click*
How many clicks do you need for a 200 yard target? You have five seconds to reply to this question and make the adjustment before fire is returned, starting now.
>claims about making fucking elevation adjustments on a scope with a BDC just to try to win an argument

>>63905856 (OP)
It really is, just on video game relation alone

>>63907339
apparently those who prefer horseshoes see it as good for lining up a perfect shot on something like a head/target

>>63907317
meopta optika 6 mrad has a crosshair inside of a chevron with a tree

>>63907384
not a chevron, a horseshoe

>>63907358
Maybe, never used one but a circle + dot is okay too. Just a dot is a little too hard to acquire fast

>>63907384
>>63907387
That's a good start, but it needs a little more

>>63905856 (OP)
it's a compromise reticle. it's why no one uses it in other optics. the point of the Chevron is that it gives you a larger illuminated reticle for close range both eyes open shooting

>>63905856 (OP)
I like, but I also like German #4.
>>63907430
Too busy, shitty crutch. Learn to shoot.

i'm going to get an RMR HD to replace my SRO simply because i like the circle dot. i know i know, all the tactical operators on the internet say the circle dot is rarted and only good for dumb noobs. but guess what. i'm a dumb noob and i'm rarted to boot. and i think the circle dot looks neato. so suck my dick

>>63909746
I have an SRO for my P01, if they made it with a circle-dot, I dont think id buy any other optic for competition. It would be 11/10 for me.

>>63909880
i like my SRO a lot too. i have it on my glock 34 and that setup shoots real smooth and easy. but apparently SROs are not the most durable and if you're rarted and drop it it'll break. so thats another reason i'm looking at getting an rmr hd eventually.
also, SRO on a p-01, thats a vibe. i dig it

Do you think there will ever be anything better than this

>>63905856 (OP)
Based. It really is.

>>63907287
>depreciated

>>63905856 (OP)
>The Chevron is simply the best reticle design

100% true. And the green chevron is the best color.

>>63905978
Based

>>63911528
Oh

circle dots are stupid because the circle gives you a false positive when going from ready to aiming.

>>63905856 (OP)
>muh crosshair
>muh chevron
¿por que no los dos?

>>63917893
I want a crosshair as well, and a 3rd arm for taking pictures.

>>63917914
wtf hax

>>63917924
Don't you have a bipod?

>>63917914
>Completely disappears once pointed at a tree like the one on the right
Easily the most overrated reticle out there. All the disadvantages of the century old thin crosshair just for the sake of that vatnik wank.

>>63907317
kekked

>>63918205
No Im a different anon

>>63907430
this is actually pretty useful

>>63918481
TBQH, I'd rather have a chevron reticle but perhaps the grass is always greener

>>63907430
got enough math homework on there?

>>63907430

>>63905856 (OP)
Agreed.
After using the chevron for years, I tried a crosshair model. Exchanged it for another chevron.

>>63905978
Came here to post this but mine also ranges to to 1000m

>>63915559
100% this

>>63918597
But what if I need to fire thermobaric rockets?

>>63918499
Yeah. One of the weaknesses of "shoulder width" rangefinding stadia is that they only work if you can see the full width of the target's shoulders, while the...IDPA target rangefinder can work with just a head or the height of the torso at any angle of presentation.

>>63918612
If the chevron is so good, how come it doesn't have chevrons all the way down?

>>63922621
because the chevron is a compromise reticle that isn't actually good for long range shooting. nonilluminated crosshairs are better. the point of the chevron is that for 200 yards and in you can kind of use it like a pseudo red dot

>>63922621
The shoulder width is the fastest and most simple to use because it's part of the drop compensation hold. You can extrapolate target width if it's rotated to some extent too with just a little bit of thinking.

Meanwhile full height stadia like the one you posted is virtually the worst kind there is since it works exclusively on targets standing in the open and not laying, kneeling, sitting, standing in tall grass or behind obstacles, making it nearly useless for actual combat. Might as well use the mildot for ranging instead.

Head size stadia is also ass on smaller magnification scopes because the object is so small at the ranges you would want to use the rangefinder on.

US used 18" target size in Vietnam and for some time afterwards, which corresponds to the torso height from the belt buckle to the chin strap of an average human. It's also what hunting rangefinders were using for game animals. Although I think it's an ok solution the need to measure just the torso slows your ranging and makes it less consistent and the 36-40" or 1 meter is ideal, as it works for the height from the groin to the top of the head, shoulder width as well as numerous other objects like wheels, doorways, even guns themselves and so on.

>>63922621
>>63922799
The chevron is for near-instinctive point shooting inside 200 yards, and for that it works very well.

I shot an entire 2000 round course where no shots were farther than about 25y with the 4x ACOG before I had the dot on it at did as well or better than anyone running a red dot or LPVO.

Farther than 200, your target is smaller and you'll be taking more time with your shots, and the vertical separation increases for each subsequent 100 yards. So, the benefits traditional stadia/crosshair takes over.

This is what makes the ACOG chevron reticle so good. It take all this into account and applies the right solution in the right place to be the perfect carbine optic.

>>63922799
>that for 200 yards and in you can kind of use it like a pseudo red dot
If the target is close enough that you can just bring the optic up and react to the color red superimposed on your point of aim, the illuminated portion of the crosshair is fine for that, too. If the target is far enough away that you have to get better confirmation than that, the crosshair is more accountable since you don't have to worry about the reticle and/or its bloom obscuring your aiming point if you're, say, aiming for a face-sized target 150 yards away. Chevrons are bad, especially fat chevrons like the one on the ACOG.

>>63923044
the point of the fat chevron was to make the illuminated point as big ass possible while still giving a somewhat defined aiming point for 50-200 yards.

>>63923272
The horseshoe dot reticle does the same thing with a 50–200 aiming reference that doesn't obscure the target nearly as much. Chevron bad.

>>63923389
the chevron doesn't obscure the target at all
>muh 50 yards or muh 200 yards
isn't the actual difference in bullet height between 100 and 200 meters like an inch and a half, 2 inches at the most? unless you are target shooting you can just use the same tip of the chevron from like 50-200 meters and it's the same thing.

>>63923422
https://img.trex-arms.com/wp/uploads/2025/03/223_Chevron_Reticle_Dimensions4x32.pdf
The chevron is 4.1 MOA tall and 5.5 MOA wide and is your entire aiming reference system out to 300 so scenarios where it completely obscures the exposed portion of your target even with the illumination turned/taped all the way off are readily imaginable.
https://img.trex-arms.com/wp/uploads/2025/03/223_HorseshoeDot_Reticle_Dimensions4x32.pdf
Compare that to the horseshoe dot, which gives you the same 300+ scale, but gives you a 2 MOA dot with a 11 MOA horseshoe that still offer a coarse aiming reference for snap shots but obscure way less of what you're trying to aim at.

>>63923506
>put tip of chevron on target
>pull trigger
it's like literally a 1.5 inch difference out to like 200 yards

>>63923573
Ballistically, yes, but please try to imagine using a reticle that's the size of man's face at 100 yards against, say, a head-sized target sticking out from cover at 200 yards. On paper you're using the crotch of the chevron as your aiming reference, in practice you're just completely obscuring the target and blasting, hoping for the best.
The horseshoe-dot and crosshair reticles do not require that sort of compromise, and if you aren't buying thousands of ACOGs for grunts who may or may not be able to shoot better than "put the chevron on the thing and start blasting" there's no reason to make that compromise.

>>63923655
you would just use the tip of the chevron not the crotch of the chevron. the aim point is the tip of the chevron for 50-200 meters and you will just end up hitting like an inch and a half low

Bindons law: All complaints about the chevron reticle and the ACOG itself come from people who have never seriously used one or trained with it.

>>63923506
Kys number crunching noguns. Chevron's entire thing is that it comes to a fine point unlike a dot so it doesn't obscure the target.

Meanwhile horseshoe is a dogshit retarded idea that is a shitty cope out for LVPOs with worthless sfp reticles that gives them a red dot at the cost of having a garbage ring obscuring the target at any other magnification.

For anything else but a LVPO the horseshoe reticle is absolutely disgusting failed abortion of a design that's the worst thing ever created since the SUIT upside down post.

>>63923880
>sfp reticles
FFP reticles*

>>63923655
>head-sized target sticking out from cover at 200 yards
>you're using the crotch of the chevron as your aiming reference
no, you're still using the tip of the chevron.

>>63923756
100% this. the chevron doesn't cover your target unless you are shooting past 200+ meters and then you can just use the start of the post and hold low

>be chevron
>have crosshair for where it actually matters
could it be more perfect bros?

>>63905856 (OP)
100%

>>63905856 (OP)
>muh chevron has a infinitely clear point of aim
>simultaneously infinitely vague

>>63926571
>vague
It couldn't be more defined

>>63907358
This is the concept behind the original horse shoe. Uses 10" for ranging

>>63926571
it's a combat optic, not a target optic

speaking of sights, what are the chances of this being legit and should I smash or go gen 2 for $95 from same sellers

>>63905988
Just like your nose!

>>63926571
Don't bother. These people are beyond nogunz ESLs—they don't even understand how shapes work. Look at all the people like >>63924962 simultaneously claiming to use the tip of the chevron for everything out to 299 meters *and* that the chevron doesn't cover their intended point of impact when they do this.

>>63929062
I have an acog and gunz you gay retard. from 50-200 yards the deviation is like 1.5 to 2 inches. You can just use the tip of the chevron and it's fine, you will be at most 2 inches low and unless you are target shooting that isn't a big deal. It's how people have been target shooting and combat shooting forever. Past 250 or so meters you use the 300 mark and you might have to hold low. you never use the crotch of the chevron because you never try to aim for exactly 200 meters unless you are target shooting on a KD range. The only time you put the chevron over the target is when you are trying to shoot fast in which case you just do red on target
god you are a gay retard

Alright /k/, give me your wisdom (and autism). Should I be using red or green in my SVD's optic?

>>63929307
And here's green. I'm personally partial to green.

>>63928883
Anon, if you're trying to cheap out on even poverty optics, its time to put some money into an account thats going to earn interest instead. Just buy from a reputable dealer so you know your warranty/product is legit should anything go wrong and need to be sent in.

>>63929062
>a diagonal 1.1moa line is covering my target what ever will I do
It's almost like some of you have never used one. How does one make the same shot alluded to earlier with a 2moa red dot + magnifier? Will the dot not also be covering your entire target? Post less, shoot more.

>>63907344
The answer is 8 right?

>>63905856 (OP)
I've used acogs with both the chevrons and cross hairs. The chevron was slower because the instinct is to put the center mass of the glowy thing on the center mass of the target. A cross hair being centered just does this better.

Also, the "bindon aiming" bullshit is fucking stupid. Your focus ends up flitting back and forth between the target and the bright reticle in a way that's super fucking distracting. Easier to just look over the top of the rifle and point shoot.

>>63909746
Just get an 6-8moa dot.

>>63909919
>but apparently SROs are not the most durable and if you're rarted and drop it it'll break
FWIW anon if you care there are some dudes (jagerwerks) that make a simple steel wrap around shield+foam for it that enhance the drop/bump durability quite a bit. Doesn't change the fact it's a big piece of glass on the front (or that it's an open emitter) so if you manage to drop it on a point that hits that it still breaks, but that should be less likely. I've got one and it's kept my SRO working fine on a woods gun, though I did cowitness it just in case.

>>63929470
Here's how it looks on a gun. Works fine.

Also agree that if the SRO had more reticles it'd be fucking awesome, but Trijicon are lazy hacks fat on guvbux and being early so I'm doubtful.

>>63929528
Like, you'd think they'd offer their designated gamer optic with a dot bigger than 5 fucking MOA—pathetic

>>63929371
If you don't have your illumination turned/taped off, that 1.1 MOA line is more like 3 MOA due to bloom, plus the comparison here isn't against a 2 MOA dot, it's against the 0.4 MOA crosshairs on the objectively correct ACOG.

>>63929416
>I've used acogs with both the chevrons and cross hairs. The chevron was slower because the instinct is to put the center mass of the glowy thing on the center mass of the target. A cross hair being centered just does this better.
the chevron is 100% a compromise design to give a bigger red section for aiming at close range and snap shooting
>>63929601
that crosshair is slower to use inna building. Like yes, crosshairs are objectively better aiming points and that's why the acog has nonilluminated crosshairs for 400 m +, but the chevron is faster

>>63929583
lol, doubt they'd even offer a closed emitter at all yet if it wasn't for holosun amping the pressure up more and more.

>>63929620
The chevron is faster/the crosshair is slower if you stupidly insist on getting a clean sight picture through your 4× optic on a target 5 yards away, yes, probably.

>>63929660
it's a larger illuminate segment to put on the target

>>63929741
"if you stupidly insist on getting a clean sight picture through your 4× optic on a target 5 yards away"
Even if it weren't 2025 and you weren't running a stacked or offset red dot for 1× purposes, multiple ACOG SKUs have factory BUIS or you can just index off the length of your rifle like a shotgun bead.

>>63929775
I'm explaining why the Chevron exists you no guns, never shot, no acog retard. putting red on target is quicker than irons and the Chevron gives you a quicker flash sight to use at close range than a cross hair would. stop being a completely wrong gay retard

>>63929307
Green washes out for me in daylight, red appears more visible and also protects lowlight vision

>>63929787
If you're just shooting off color confirmation, the crosshair reticle has just as much red as the chevron (in a "just as good" sense)
The concept of the chevron being "the best all-around reticle due to a balance of CQB speed and medium-range precision" is an artifact of militaries adopting things before they knew better, like gas trap actions and battle rifles. 100% of people who think the chevron is good either used it in the military or are echoing people who did, and would be saying exactly the same thing if the Army had picked the triangle or donut reticles.

>>63929601
You're wrong bro.

I'm telling you I was convinced by all this theory crafting meta bullshit until I actually bought a crosshair ACOG. I exchanged it after two days. It all sounds good on paper but it's flat worse in practice.

>>63929831
You're not just shooting off color you obtuse contrarian. The chevron projects a much better point of aim both eyes open than the crosshair.

>>63929913
This is objectively an improvement over the chevron since it doesn't cover 100+meter targets.

>>63930103
the Chevron never covers up your target unless you are close enough you are intentionally using it as a red dot, retard.
>>63929831
then you have bloom on your crosshair, which is gay and annoying. the chevron gives you
>a defined aiming point out to 200/250ish yards with the tip that doesnt cover any of your target
>a large and fast red section you can use as a red dot if you need to shoot quick.
you cant do the same thing with a cross hair unless you have a dial to set brightness

here is a chart with m193 out of a 16 inch barrel, it might not be 100% correct but it's close enough
0-200 yards you are worst case like 2.5 inches low. That means you if you have time to aim you aim at the top of the chevron and that's close enough to score a head shot, if you don't have time to aim you just put red on the dude and you should be close enough to score hits on a human size torso
at 250 yards you are either 5.5 inches low with the chevron or 5 inches high with the 300 m aim point, you can just use either if you have a torso, if you are trying to score headshots at 250 meters, idk good luck but it still increased hit probability over a red dot or irons. everything 400m out is a crosshair with no illumination. You basically have more or less the same holds as the old A1 style sights with the short range 0-250 yard battle sight and the 250-350 yard long sight between the top of the chevron and the tip of the 300 meter post

>>63930156
>unless you have a dial to set brightness
But you do have manual brightness adjustment—if you have a fiber-optic unit and don't have tape over 90% of the lightpipe your reticle is going to be unusably bright and bloomed out any time you're shooting under direct sunlight.

>the Chevron never covers up your target unless you are close enough you are intentionally using it as a red dot, retard.
It seems like you just don't understand that a chevronCOG could possibly ever be employed against a target smaller than 5.5×4.1 MOA less than 299 meters away. Sad!

>>63930197
It's wild how confidently wrong you are.

>>63930193
Nobody is arguing that the chevron isn't adequate or "good enough" or that you can't make it work if you have to—the argument is that you are a private citizen buying his own gear and don't have to settle for a reticle that's "good enough" because it can be made to work if you have to—you DON'T have to; you can buy an ACOG with a reticle that maximizes the optic's ability to engage point targets out to 600 meters, even if the point target is only partially exposed, and you can deploy some other sighting system or technique, like a stacked/offset RMR or even just point shooting, for targets that are close enough that a thick, obstructive reticle might be helpful.

>>63930228
Even if the chevron isn't perfect, every other reticle is objectively inferior to it.

>>63930197
>But you do have manual brightness adjustment—if you have a fiber-optic unit and don't have tape over 90% of the lightpipe your reticle is going to be unusably bright and bloomed out any time you're shooting under direct sunlight.
let me just quick play with my tape while being shot at
>It seems like you just don't understand that a chevronCOG could possibly ever be employed against a target smaller than 5.5×4.1 MOA less than 299 meters away. Sad!
see>>63930193
if it's out to like 250 yards you can use the tip of the chevron. the tip is your aim point. if its 250 yards + just use the 300 m post. You don't need to ever cover the target with the red part of the reticle unless you intentionally want to
>>63930228
what reticle do you think is better? even the fag who makes the acog vids who shills the crosshair cog doesn't like the illumination and he turns it off when he shoots

>>63929416
No, YOUR focus does. The Bindon Aiming Concept works fine for me. Sucks to suck.

>>63930270
yeah honestly in a house I find using the acog with both eyes open pretty easy

>>63929416
>Also, the "bindon aiming" bullshit is fucking stupid. Your focus ends up flitting back and forth between the target and the bright reticle in a way that's super fucking distracting. Easier to just look over the top of the rifle and point shoot.

Sounds like you're disabled or retarded or something.

>>63930273
Me too. I wasn’t always an Acog enjoyer. Maybe if trij would bring back the reflex 2. Mro is okay though.

For me, it's the crosshair
Although if I could get this
>>63927278
etched with some slight changes, I would

>>63930275
and it sounds like you've only tried bindon aiming at the range at 25yds and "confirmed" it worked after getting mediocre hits a few times

>>63930908
@ 25yds you're basically far enough to be just using the optic properly, BAC works well inside that. 3-15yds it works perfectly well if you spend even 15 minutes training to control your focus which for BAC should he target focus.

I've shot >2k rounds under 25yds just through my most recent rifle using a chevron and shredded plenty of A-zone.

If you're distracted so severely by not being able to control your eye focus, you're never going to make it regardless of how you're aiming or with what optic. First time the smoke detector chirps you're kilt in da sheetz.

The ACOG is a compromise optic with a compromise reticle but it does it pretty successfully when you consider it's a combat reticle and not a precision reticle.
The compromise is the army and marines wanted a fixed power, light weight, durable optic that didn't require batteries.
the reticle is basically 4 reticles in one
1.From 0-200 yards you can use the chevron as a red dot. it's basically a 50/200 yard zero, which is what everyone zeros their red dots for anyway and what the M16A1 had as a zero and what the revised enhanced battle zero on the A2s does. 5.56 is very flat shooting out to 200 yards. if the bad guy is 200 yards or in, put red and shoot, you should be within 3 inches, which is fine on a torso
>but he is only sticking is head out
2. for shots out to 200 or so yards you can use the tip of the chevron as a precise 6 o'clock hold aiming point, again out to 200 yards you should be within 3 inches of that tip of the chevron and you aren't blocking your target at all. 5.56 is very flat shooting within 200 yards
3. for 250 yards and out you can use the red tip of the post under the chevron. at 250 you might be like 5 or 6 inches high, which is fine for a torso shot. the tip of the post is literally a 25/300 meter zero which the marines thought was good enough to be the main battle zero for the A2. 5 inches should be fine on a torso and you can belt buckle hold if you are having issues. again, it doesn't cover the target at all because the chevron gap is out of the way, you have a precise aiming point.
4. you have nonilluminated ranging points out from 400-600 or 400-800 meters. hitting a mansized target with 5.56 at 400+ meters is optimistic, but now you have your nice crosshair for center mass and a way to range a lot of things like men, doors or wheels out from 300-800 meters.
the only people who seethe about the chevron are paper shooters who are trying to make the acog into an optic for paper. Like the people who think A2 sights are better than A1

>>63930908
it's a combat optic, mediocre center mass hits are hits

yeah

>>63931472
Correct. Fast, center mass hits 0-300m+ with a wide FoV while being compact and robust.

It is the absolute best choice for that use case for now.

If you're exclusively door kicking, or doing bullseye prs competition, or shooting to 500 and beyond, maybe you get something else. The chevron ACOG achieves what it sets out to do very well.

>>63931470
>>63931472
>>63934269
I completely agree with all this, I'll just say though purely in terms of reactions:
>the only people who seethe about the chevron are paper shooters who are trying to make the acog into an optic for paper
I think some of the seethe is because, like literally every decent performing tool in existence, there are a certain number of fanboy faggots amongst the /arg/ set who will insist the ACOG is the absolute bestest at everything including paper shooting (the only thing they ever do) and that anyone who doesn't have one is "a poor" etc etc. This naturally results in counter reactions as the resulting verbal furballs go as one would expect.

I personally think it's retarded to react to, because if someone is talking theoryshit on the internet who cares and if someone talks shit at the range prove them wrong via your groups on target (and if you can't then you shouldn't say anything lol). If they can do well with an acog then objectively it works, and if you can do better with your reticle objectively that works. But that's not a majority view, or at least not the view of a loud minority.

>>63907317
>mildot maximalist
>maybe even etch [Virtuvian Man] towards the bottom

Fucking kek

>>63918205
>>63917893

What’s the point of the thin vertical line at the top?