What's the actual intended range for the ACOG? not like the
>you can hit out to 800 meters, see the lines
not the
>you shoot out to 600 meters on a KD range
not the
>you can detect and identify out to x meters
like what was the intended range for scoring hits in combat with the optic?

50-200yds

>>63921878 (OP)
That would depend on the model of ACOG in question & what caliber the reticle is BDCed for.

>>63921897
the fucking normal 4x for ARs
>>63921882
thanks

>>63921878 (OP)
It's like 100 - 300m for the 5.56 version

>>63921878 (OP)
In the marine corps they shoot to 500 yd (~450m). Damn near all marines get an ACOG
But in the Army we just shoot to 300m, even with the the new Tango on the XM7 (everyone but infantry is using a mix of CCOs and ACOGs).

ChatGPT Chimes in on the average combat engangment range:

>Conflict Typical Infantry Engagement Distance
>WWII 100–300m (sometimes closer)
>Korea 200–500m
>Vietnam 20–100m
>Gulf War 300–600m (infantry); >1,000m (armor)
>Iraq 25–150m
>Afghanistan 300–800m
>Modern Era 50–800m (varies with terrain)

You average the the max ranges (excluding that 1000m armor stat) and you get what? 464m being the average max engagement distance. Now im not sure if the marine corps did similar math or just said "500 yd is good" but there you go.

TLDR nerd: Honestly I think 25m to 450m MAX. Targets in real world conditions farther than that in many environments would be laying down or stabilized on cover to return accurate fire and you'd hard pressed to actually hit the fucker.

>>63922991
Bitch in your pic needs a bacon cheeseburger

>>63922991
>In the marine corps they shoot to 500 yd (~450m). Damn near all marines get an ACOG
yeah, on a KD range. We've known for close to 100 years now that most fighting is done within 300 yards since you can't really see anyone beyond that and the only time in human history where combat was regularly fought beyond that was between the end of the civil war and start of WWI when armies used to do line based warfare with semi modern smokeless rifles because canon tech hadn't caught up by then

>>63922991
>You average the the max ranges (excluding that 1000m armor stat) and you get what? 464m being the average max engagement distance. Now im not sure if the marine corps did similar math or just said "500 yd is good" but there you go.
the marines picked 500 yards because it's what they were doing for drills dating back to like 1903. 500 yards on a KD isn't the same as 500 yards in combat. hell 500 KD isn't the same as 500 yards hunting

oh good another "i will accept NO answers!" thread.

>>63923141
what?>>63921921

>>63923108
>hell 500 KD isn't the same as 500 yards hunting
Really it is more that long sightlines don't exist except in special cases such as salt flats, barren mountain, or polygon forest.

>>63922991
While you can shoot 600-800m with irons with a 14.5" M4, you're going to want the entire squad to take that shot and pray volume of fire has an effect, especially since the bullet is going to be in the air for three to four seconds of time and external ballistics.

The designated marksman or squad sniper exists for this also a telescope on a .50Cal M2 HMG can also do that long range direct fire.

>>63923056
>>63923108

I totally agree with you guys, thats why from personal experience shooting in bum fuck forest to open grass land at targets I just post up, I give 450m as the absolute real max when you dont know the exact range. More than likely you'd have to know from experience that the man-sized target is 300+ because its so small and then walk it in or aim high then low.

>>63923141
the only pushback this thread was about the marines shooting out to 500 yards and that has nothing to do with the acog and has everything to do with the marines being retards since they've been doing that for over 100 years at this point and most of the bad changes from the M16A1 to the A2 were related to the marines wanting to shoot out to 500 yards on a KD range

>>63922991
>In the marine corps they shoot to 500 yd (~450m).
And we did that with irons before there were ACOGs. Optics lower the skill bar and aid target ID. They do not increase the effective range of the rifle.

>>63923356
that's a lot of targets in those trees

>>63923395
I was at a higher elevation than the trees. The sight picture is me on my stomach on a mound. If you are feeling for the trees, dont worry they were dead (snapped some brittle branches trying to fit the targets in them).

>>63922991
>almost 500 meters
>500 meters
>one li
>it's just like ancient china!

I've heard several GWOT SF say 150-200m was the practical limit for hitting an individual man shooting back at you.

>>63923390
Wasn't talking about effective range of the rifle, but you aid my point.

>Marines shoot 500 yd with irons
>Get ACOGs
>Still shoot 500 yd

So yeah
>Optics lower the skill bar and aid target ID. They do not increase the effective range of the rifle.

meaning
>What's the actual intended range for the ACOG?
>25m to 450m

As I said because if the ACOG was produced for the AR platform using 556 then the max range wouldnt change for the AR, that limits the max range for the ACOG down to ballistics of a M4/16 and real world conditions

>>63923531
people aren't shooting out to 500 yards at man sized targets with M16s in combat. they didn't design it for that. the marines are just retards and they've been doing that shit for 100 years at KD ranges. hell the marines made a bunch of retarded changes in what became the M16A2 because muh 500 yard KD range

>>63923390
>They do not increase the effective range of the rifle.
Yeah no fucking shit you stupid retarded mouth breathing mongoloid. JFC please consider the rope next time before you post some dumbass statement like that.

>>63923531
>Optics lower the skill bar and aid target ID. They do not increase the effective range of the rifle.
This is accurate in letter, not in spirit.

Optics significantly improve the definition of effective in effective range. If previously with iron sights effective range meant hitting 1 in 10 or 5 in 10 times, optics changed it to 8 in 10 times.

>>63923594
Effective in terms of accuracy, yes. Effective in terminal ballistics, no.

Its ulitmately limited by the rifle and round.

>>63923594
For the sake of getting down to an agreed Max Effective range with the ACOG in a combat situation, we drop from 450m (500 yd) to what? A flat 300m? Maybe 350m? Or even closer than those?

>>63923973
Where are your BUIS friend

>>63924022
I don't have BUIS on my AR either because acogs are as durable as irons

This >>63924042

>>63924022
I did it because the ACOG eye relief is sadly a dick punch but also but the ACOG is damn near indestructable. Delta34's videos fully convinced me

>>63921878 (OP)
same as an M16

>>63924022
He has 3 aiming systems on the rifle already, the primary one being arguably the most indestructible combat optic ever made.

>>63924128
>>63921878 (OP)
why is the solution to close range on ACOGs to put a red dot on them, I thought the whole point of them was two eyes open bindon bullshit at any range

>>63924490
it's nods larp and also red dots are easier to use at close range than acogs

>>63924490
What >>63924499 said.

Top dot allows for immediate on target accurate pew pew up close than open eyes. I've done both and the dot is much preferred.

Also looking through a magnified optic with bright af tritium with a NOD is not the move. The top dot is 100%

350 meters ish

>>63921878 (OP)
yeah

>>63924490
>>63924717
have shit eyes with astigmatism and usually need diopters on prisms so I guess LVPOs it is