Thread 64012405

What do you do at like 250 meters with an acog? Like for the drop from 100 to 200 yards with M193 is 2 inches which is 1 MOA which is negligible. You can easily just put red on the target and pull the trigger or use the tip of the chevron and 2 inches generally won't make or break a shot at 200 yards. The difference between 200 and 300 yards is 3 MOA or 9 inches. 250 yards has 5.5 inches of drop from 100 yards and is 5 inches high compared to the 300 meter zero point. Do you use the top of the post or does it just really not matter?

>>64012405 (OP)
>>64012405 (OP)
Learn your bdc and how it matches your cartridge. That requires going to the range. No bdc has ever been perfect even for the listed load. It is dependent on so many factors like altitude and temperature. Basically the answer you are looking for is to hold between the tip of the chevron and the 400 hash.

>>64012444
>250 M
>400 hash
thanks for all those words without knowing what you are talking about, nogunz

>>64012405 (OP)
It's not a precision optic. As long as you hit paper or steel at your intended range then you're doing what the optic was designed for

>>64012470
Thanks for correcting him so he learns instead of sperging out.

>>64012470
Post acog retard. Im typing fast phone posting at work.

>>64012405 (OP)
>tip of chevron is 100M
>underside of tip is 200M
>tip of BDC is 300M
It is therefore reasonable to deduce that 250M would be basically inside of the chevron, just above the BDC tip. Where tf is your confusion coming from?

>>64012504
my acog is at my house, not here fagola. you wrote unhelpful nonsense and you are gay
>>64012488
>>64012570
again, not super helpful do you use the chevron and hold over or the post and belt buckle hold

>>64012576
You are a fucking retard anon spelt it out for you

>>64012576
Ok you autist. If the asshole of the Chevron is 200 and the tip of the bdc is 300, then if there are no other factors and your using the exact same rounds and barrel that was used to design the reticle, you would put whatever the fuck you're trying to hit in between the 200 and 300. I really don't see how that is so difficult. Also sage

>>64012405 (OP)
how many times do you have to make this thread you absolute nigger?

>>64012657
you like sucking dick and eating shit
>>64012663
>t. no gunz

>>64012715
oh no, did a nogunz drone thread die? faggot

>>64012744
You're probably European

>>64012771
nope. I'm white

>>64012405 (OP)
You shouldnt even be allowed to own guns with how fucking dumb you are

>>64013072
you sure are one angry no gunz

yeah

>>64012405 (OP)
RTFM

>>64012405 (OP)
You read page 26 of the operator manual and refer to figure 24. You learn to search for information yourself instead of pleading like a baby to be fed it from a spoon. You note the existence of the QTDDTOT thread. You stop being a faggot.

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/63905856/#63930193

the same mentally ill nigger refuses to listen and just floods the topic with the same garbage over and over again. euthanize all the schizoid scum.

>>64014525
take your medz homo
>>64014500
>>64014464
nah, fuck QTDDTOT you faggot. there are 99 no gunz threads. posting a gunz thread is based and fine, you eat human shit

>>64014540
>posting a gunz thread is based and fine, you eat human shit
This isn't a gunz thread, it's a nigger-tier "Reading is for fagz" thread.

>>64012405 (OP)
300 low hold.

>>64014574
thank you
>>64014572
this is a gunz thread. there are 99 no gunz threads. you must be mad your no gunz thread got slid or something, faggot

>>64014577
>300 hold
Visibility, and the 200 will look like a VC hat on somebody so it's extra funny.

>>64014585
lmao, I'll have to get silhouette targets to try that

>>64012405 (OP)
You want an honest answer? You've completely missing the point of a BDC. They're for human-sized targets at unknown ranges. You match their shoulders (or make a good guess) to the correct width and pull the trigger at that hold. 250 vs. 200/300m is a completely pointless conniption to throw yourself into, you don't have a spotter ranging targets for you to nail them at point-blank ranges with your ACOG.
It sounds like you should just buy an optic with a mil/MOA reticle and build out a dope.

>>64012405 (OP)
Like, can you start a thread that's like worded maturely. Like it's a bit tiresome, you know like when we all have to like read your sentences. Like what's your audience? Like shouldn't you be in summer school learning proper english? Geez... like gag me with a spoon, man.

i am so tired of "OP is argumentative on purpose" threads

>>64014742
>>64014764
Shalom and GMS! I didn't argue with the on guy who gave a good answer about holding low with the tip of the post
>>64014652
and if the guy is slightly bigger than the chevron? Granted if you have a whole torso it probably doesn't matter. 5 inches down from center mass and 6 inches up from the belt buckle or belly button both hit the torso

>>64012405 (OP)
>What do you do at like 250 meters with an acog?
That's the neat part—you don't. Even the chevron reticle's defenders will tell you to cover your intended point of impact with the chevron and hope for the best because "it's not a precision optic"
Please pay no attention to the objectively superior reticle behind the curtain

>>64012783
Most European countries are majority white. USA is now a white minority

>>64015498
lol no they aren't.
>>64015494
chevron is better for clearing a house and sub 200 yards

>>64012405 (OP)
>>acog magnified for long ranges
>>not a precision optic

>>use bindon aiming
>>not good at close range put a dot on it

so what are you supposed to do with an ACOG

>>64016843
people weren't dialing their sights when they had irons. they'd set a battle zero and aim center mass. acogs are like combat irons but better because magnification, nothing blocking your sight picture, red is easy to pick up and they are easier to use indoors than peep sights. most of the red dot on an acog stuff is for night vision

>>64012405 (OP)
Are you fucking stupid, OP?

>>64016730
Not a single European country aside from Russia is over 10% non-white.
London, Birmingham or Paris are not the baseline European experience.

>>64016908
a.
>t. no gunz
b. it would be lower than that
c. it's easier to use the chevron and hold high or the post and hold low than aim using fucking nothing. you sound like one of those retards who say you are supposed to hover the bead in the buckhorn sights with no way to check your windage for long range shots

>>64016930
lol, good joke there, nigel

>>64012576
Zero with the chevron at 25m along the top of the target. Everything you shoot to 0-300m is above the post and below the chevron.

>>64016995
>zero so the BDC doesn't work
why?

>>64016934
>t. no gunz
Post a gun you own.
>b. it would be lower than that
It was eyeballed (~) but the bullet drop gets more pronounced the further it flies, which is why the drop between 200-250 is more than the drop between 250-300.
>c. it's easier to use the chevron and hold high or the post and hold low than aim using fucking nothing.
I'm sorry you're too mentally stunted to visualize a line between the bottom of the chevron and the post and put a point on it.

>>64017078
>more
Durr, less obviously but you get what I mean.

>>64017078
nice air shit, no gunz no dick, cuck boi. there is no 22nd month of the year, so you better go back to retard school. oh and GMS!

>>64017157
>no gun
I accept your concession, tourist-kun.

>>64017165
sure thing there GMS! air shitter. try using a fork the next time you eat. we both know you don't own real guns. hell, you don't even have a calendar.

>>64016908
>GOOD BOY GOOD BOY

>>64012405 (OP)
>bernie_mac_in_bad_santa_repeatedly_saying_Half.gif

>>64012405 (OP)
>this thread again
You use the top of the post (300) and maybe aim a little low.

It is truly incomprehensible to me what's so difficult to understand about this. This is an optic for shooting longpigs in the torso.

>>64018159
"What do you do if the target presentation is smaller than an entire head and torso and you can't engage it effectively with Kentucky BDC?"

>>64018258
You make your best effort and fire off a few rounds like in any other situation. Life isn't a video game.

>>64018273
That's a nice way of saying "the chevron reticle isn't meaningfully better than a red dot + magnifier"

>>64018573
The ACOG as an optic is vastly superior to a dot+magnifier as an optic when all things are considered.

>>64016730
>chevron is better for clearing a house and sub 200 yards
I'd rather just have the superior reticle/crosshair an just slap a piggy back or offset dot for door kickin.

>>64018837
ok
>>64018573
>>64018837
The whole point was to make a single optic that didn't take batteries and is more durable than the rifle and is an improvement over the iron sights, and it is an improvement over the A1 and A2 sights. the chevron is faster and easier to use in low or mixed lighting like in a building than a peep sight, the magnification increases hit probability at range because it's easier to hit what you can see, easier to use an illuminated optic than to have half your sight picture fucked by a front sight and it gives you a 1/200 meter zero, a 300 meter zero like the a1 sight, the 300 meter zero and bdc like the a2 sight and you don't need to fuck with the dial.
if you think red dot or a red dot/magnifier is durable enough for you, go for it.

>>64018870
In fairness, the chevron is a huge improvement over irons (that's not a high bar to clear—the AUG's donut reticle is a huge improvement over irons)

>>64018897
when do you think they started making acogs? they developed them in the 80s and 90s to improve upon irons. They are still very good when it comes to weight and durability

>>64018929
That's the point. Like the AUG's 1.5× donut of death, the chevron was a game changer in the good old days after 9/11 but in the current year it's outclassed. If you're running an ACOG by choice you probably have a stacked dot for your 1× needs, so there's no meaningful downside to embracing the crosshair's superior precision.

>>64019018
price and weight

>>64019018
>>64018159
But I'm running a stacked dot with a chevron by choice. I bought a crosshair model first, decided I didn't like it, and exchanged it for the chevron. The chevron is my preference and all the complaints about it exist only in your imagination. In use, you find they aren't a problem at all. The only reason I even have the dot is for NVGs really.

>>64019074
>>64019018
yeah Idk how a crosshair acog would be superior to a chevron acog

The shit people are posting in this thread.

The chevron only covers the impact point at 100-200y.

"Oh but that's a huge deal because I'm a big dog precision shooter."
Nigger, the chevron is 1.1 minutes thick. What the fuck are you shooting at with a fixed power 4x combat optic at less than 200 yards with an AR that is less than an inch across? What level of larp are you on? Same people sperging about 25m battle zero breaking the BDC or someshit. Idk how this board ended up with so many people that can show guns but have no fucking clue how any part of them works or how to shoot them.

>>64012576
>belt buckle hold
turdie detected

>>64019342
>the chevron is 1.1 minutes
I brought this up way back and it was ignored so now I assume this faggot is just driving engagement with these threads. Like and use whatever reticle you want just dont be disingenuous about a 1.1 moa reticle covering an entire human at 30 yds kek

>>64019342
"The chevron is good up close because it's basically a 5.5×4.1 MOA dot but it's also good for relatively precise shots out to 299 meters because it's only 1.1 MOA thick and offers an infinitely precise aiming point"
Meanwhile the illuminated portion of the crosshair is ~16×16 MOA and the crosshairs themselves are 0.4 MOA thick

>>64019352
Nope, I'm American, cope, retard
>>64019342
yeah IDK what the dumb argument about the chevron itself is because 5.56 is flat out to 200 yards so that part doesn't matter. It's a 3 MOA drop between 200 and 300 yards, which is why I wanted to know when people switch to using the post

>>64019376
the chevron is good because out to like 200-225 or so yards you have a big red dot while also having a super fine aiming point if you want or need to shoot without covering up the target. Using the chevron vs the tip only changes the point of impact by like an inch at 100 yards and 2 inches at 200 yards so not really enough to matter since when are trying to hit something sub 2 inches at 200 yards on a nonKD range? the thing that's weird is the 200-300 yard range. anything past 300 yards is on a nonKD range while being shot at is kind of good luck unless the dude is standing up and not moving or something, but the BDC is still cool because you can range men, tires and doorways with it

>>64019376
Are you trying to say that it's impossible to see through an unfilled shape? That seems to be the gist of it, behind some wording to deliberately obscure it.

When someone tells you a window is 5.5 feet high with a 1.1 foot frame on the sides and top, and no frame on the bottom, is your first instinct to claim that there is no window, or are you just a belligerant retard about optics?

>>64019495
yeah I don't get the seethe about the chevron specifically because it's nice that you can use it as both a dot and like a 6 o'clock point sight that doesn't cover your target.
IMO the battery vs fiber is a better thing to seethe or argue over

>>64012405 (OP)
Nuts-guts-chest from near to far using the tip of the chevron.

>>64017078
Greetings fellow bullet slide enjoyer!
>>64018870
I've also noticed that many people not trained on the chevron acog (or can't be bothered to even read the manual) don't realize that the chevron and lines represent the shoulder width of an average military aged male at their respective ranges. So you can't roughly gauge your targets distance by putting the edges of the chevron or lines on someones shoulders.

>>64019599
thank you
>>64019604
not just dudes. a doorway isn't much wider than person size and the rims on a truck are only slightly smaller than person size.

Damn I really did almost get psyopped by the ch ACOG shill and was gonna get one to try it out, but chevron is probably fine

>>64019731
yeah, acogs have faults, it's like what a 30 year old design at this point? but the chevron really isn't a problem. it's as good if not better than cross hairs out to 225 yards due to how flat 5.56 shoots, it's faster than crosshairs if you want to use it as a dot inside or out to 225 yards and you have a super precise aiming point that out to 225 yards isn't going to be more than like 2.5 inches off and doesn't block or cover the target at all. That's why they have that story from the GWoT where they thought troops with acogs were doing executions due to all the head shots. Any faults the chevron has as 250+ yards the crosshairs would have the exact same issues because other than the 300 meter aiming point being a post on the chevron and a crosshair on the crosshair, the bdc from like 300m+ is the same on both the crosshair and chevron reticles

>>64019731
Nobody is saying the chevron is bad or unusable—obviously you can make it work, as evidenced by decades of US military use—just that the crosshair is just as good for up-close color confirmation shooting and better for ranged engagements since you have specific 100 and 200 meter aiming points instead of a glowing chevron and a prayer. The chevron is "probably fine" but there are better options if you aren't married to the reticle you used in the Army and are open to putting a red dot on/next to your ACOG for real 1x.

>>64019822
you don't need a separate crosshair for 100 and 200 yards. that's the whole point. the come up from 100 to 200 yards for 5.56 is only 1 moa. the come up from 200 to 300 is 3 moa. odds are you aren't shooting 1 moa groups at 200 yards, and if you are you sure as shit aren't shooting them while getting shot at and a chevron works better as a red dot than a crosshair

>>64019828
I'm sorry, I guess I just have the wrong kind of autism; it's much easier for me to accept the illuminated portion of the crosshair reticle as a "red dot" for close quarters than to tolerate using my 100m aiming point for everything less than 300m away when alternatives exist—if the BDC for 300+ meters is just a hopeful suggestion and the BDC for <300m doesn't exist, why not just use a red dot + magnifier at that point?
Also, this whole discussion is ignoring the horseshoe reticle that literally gives you a glowing 11 MOA ring for close shooting, a 2 MOA center aiming point like a red dot, and the same 300+ BDC as the others.

>>64019878
>using my 100m aiming point for everything less than 300m away
You don't. You use the bottom of the chevron for 200. It's been explained many times in this thread already and is literally in the operator manual.

>>64019878
>>64019894
>doesn't understand the ACOG reticle
>bitches about it

Many such cases, sad.
It's literally idiot proof, and the ranging method is far superior to the Soviet/German alternative, because you're not guaranteed to see an upright figure; once you're in combat, it's actually really, really unlikely.

>>64019878
acogs are lighter, more durable and have really good glass. they are inferior to red dots for like inna house. what's nice about the chevron is you have basically a red dot and a really nice point at the top to use for precise aiming. you also have ranging features and the 300m aim point is decent, since it's a glowing post which is a nice aiming point, it's just limited if someone's not giving you a their whole torso to shoot. It's basically the M16A2 battle zero. You would be 5 inches high at 250 yards and 7 inches low at 350 yards. if you try to use the 400 m aim point for 350 yards you will be like 10 inches high but 400 m with an AR carbine and 5.56 on a nonkd range while in combat with 4x is kind of optimistic. you should think of it like the A1 flip sights, you have the 200 m main battle zero and the 300m long range battle zero
>>64019894
you don't use the bottom of the chevron. you either put the chevron on the guy and shoot or you use the peak of the chevron. you never use the crotch of the chevron since the come up from 100 to 200 yards is 1 moa so it don't make a difference

>>64019905
not to mention the shoulder ranging is superior because it also works on doors and vehicle wheels

>>64019905
>>64019910

Also unlike with separate ranging reticles, once you've got someone's range with the ACOG, you can immediately fire instead of shifting the target from the ranging back to the aiming reticle (and possibly having to acquire it again).

>>64019894
Per the manual, the 200m aiming point is the crotch of the chevron, not the bottom, and please refer me to at least three posts ITT pointing this out and not just chevronfags coping about how they can just put the fancy triangle on the bad man and start blasting

>>64019914
Is the bloom that bad in person, or does it actually obscure everything down to the 400m hash and make the "infinitely precise" tip of the chevron a suggestion?

>>64019920
the chevron is 1 moa thick
the come up from 100 yards to 200 yards is 1 moa
a 100 yard zero will only shoot 2 inches low at 200 yards.
you put the red on the guy and shoot, you don't fucking use the crotch of the chevron as an aiming point. there is no 200 m aim point, there is a 100m aim point and 300-800m aim points
>>64019924
the bloom can get pretty bad, but it's a combat optic. that's like bitching about your red dot not being 0.0001 moa or bitching about not having a fine enough front blade

>>64019929
>there is no 200 m aim point
cf. figure 24

>>64019920
>the 200m aiming point is the crotch of the chevron, not the bottom
Pic related.

>>64019920
>and please refer me to at least three posts ITT pointing this out

>>64012570
>>64016908
>>64018870
>>64019894

>>64019924
It's not, what it is is a 13 year old pic taken under a lamp with a shitty compact camera. It's pretty sharp but kind of ass to take a picture of unless you cover the fiber optic completely.
It blooms out if you're in direct sunlight and aiming somewhere dark, about four inches of duct tape solves that forever.

>>64019924
>hasn't actually ever seen a chevron ACOG IRL but will argue about it endlessly
It's extremely depressing that this is the kind of people debating shit on /k/ 99% of the time.
t. chevron and crosshair ACOG haver

>>64019931
the chevron is 1 moa thick
the come up is 1 moa.
you just use the chevron as a red dot or the tip of the chevron for 200 meters, at worst you are like 2 inches low