• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Smokin

Smokin

Sergeant
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 20, 2007
528
11
Houston, Texas
I have an EOtech right now on my AR platform. Personally, I prefer the EOTECH over the Aimpoint setups. Though I dont NEED magnification as this rifle isnt for precision work, it would be nice to have so long as it doesnt come at a sacrifice in CQB situations. I havent had a lot of experience with ACOGS. How are they for CQB type of scenarios? Pro/cons?
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

EO or loopy prismatic however the prismatic I havent really beat up yet so no comment on ruggedness. EO has done me well for 3 deployments.

Acog IMO wash out when used with a light and are better suited in a scenario where you need a dual role optic such as going from room to room to outside in the open.

For CQB the EO is hard to beat.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

i prefer the ACOG. it was recommended to me by the instructor of a rifle class i took and it did fine. we trained from 3 yards to 400 yards and of course many distances in between. my point is that the 4x was not too much up close and was good out to 400 yards. i have the TA31DOC that has the trajectory for M855 in the reticle and it works real good even for M193. this model had the 'doc' for up close work, but i did not get a chance to set it up (zero) so i could not use it in the class so i was only using the ACOG. i like that it does not take batteries.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

At contact range (read CQB) the Aimpoint or EOTech is going to be far superior. At 50m or more you may start to see an advantage with the ACOG.

ACOGs are great for battlefield rifles, not so much for law enforcement.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

No question the EOtech is #1 in purely CQB environments. IMO the Aimpoint at least the Army issued ones suck ass. The point of aim changes as you shift your angle of view without moving the weapon. The acog is a good piece of gear, it's just outclassed by the EOtech when it comes to purely CQB comparison.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Aimpoint T1 with a Larue mount. I have used Eotechs and Aimpoints in multiple configurations and would never give up my T1.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

You are going to get a faster sight picture and target acqusition with the EOTech. I just started carrying both so I could be ready for either situation. I know some people were using the Eotech out front and leaving enough room on their reciever to mount the ACOG when they needed it and just looking through the Eotechs glass.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

You are going to get a faster sight picture and target acqusition with the EOTech. I just started carrying both so I could be ready for either situation. I know some people were using the Eotech out front and leaving enough room on their reciever to mount the ACOG when they needed it and just looking through the Eotechs glass.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

through my years of experience, eotechs are great but cannot handle being thrown around as much as an aimoint. we replace eotechs far more often for wear and tear, because of that i prefer aimpoint.

I would just by the 3x magnifier, and use your eotech for cqb. ACOG's are niceer only when shooting past 300y in my opinion.

 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I vote ACOG - no batteries to replace, always on, bright triangle aim point, no fumbling with the brightness control or battery caps. Mine has hold-over reticule calibrated for 223 out to 800 yards. With both eyes open, short range/room clearing was easier (my opinion) than with iron sights. Scored more hits with ACOG than with iron sights.

Downside - higher profile and its heavy when compared to other CCOs

My choice

Gunfighter
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I had an EO on my patrol rifle, but ended up putting it on my SBR for use in purely CQB/FISH scenarios. For an entry gun, the EO is my favorite.

I do now have an ACOG TA33 on my patrol rifle, because I wanted to have just a bit of magnification for perimeter duty - like when I want to look in some BG's window. For general use, I like the ACOG - and it's adequate but not ideal for CQ work. For really close in, the EO is much better.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

CQB- EoTech, no question

Even out to 100-150 yards it makes grouping a breeze over irons.

Anything more, throw me some glass.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I've pretty much fooled around with most of the AR15/M16 CQB options: EOtech 551, Aimpoint M4s & T1, ACOG 4x TA31F and ACOG 2x SR. The 2x SR and the T1 are great on my FN PS90TR SBR.

I prefer a little magnification - so the 4x ACOG with the DR optic top mount is pretty good. No cheek weld when using the DR optic and I keep thinking the DR will take a hit being banged about.

My current thought is a Nightforce 1-4x24 with the CQB reticle.

No single optic has proven for me to be great between 0 and 200 yards.


 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

If you want the best of both worlds, do like I did. EOTech w/ FTS magnifier...
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CHEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No question the EOtech is #1 in purely CQB environments. IMO the Aimpoint at least the Army issued ones suck ass. The point of aim changes as you shift your angle of view without moving the weapon. </div></div>

Aimpoint does suck ass for that very reason. WTF would they put them on Army rifles for deployment knowing this? Easy answer: The ones buying it are not the ones using it in the filed. The trijicon ACOG's are better, but for outright speed and no 'moving' POA, EOTech rocks for CQB.

I personally like my USO SN4 battle sight for its multi use ranging. At 1x it's a super Circle Dot. Zoom to 4x and it's JPJ1 has the ballistic ladder for ranges to 800M.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Another option might be the Trijicon Accupoint... I think the 21R is pretty popular.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech hands down for CQM. The others offer great compromises for close to medium distance. However, I find the Eotech reticle is good enough a design and sharp enough to shoot long too. I don't recall the exact MOA of each brands dots. but the Eotechs center dot is actually one of the smallest.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

In a real CQ environment, the EOTECH with little question. I LOVE my ACOG's, I have four on various weapons. The Eotech is nearly insensitive to head position and eye relief, the two things that if you can be consistent with, the ACOG is awesome. But with the "goat rodeo" that CQ can sometimes turn into, the Eotech is so forgiving and quick, it would have the edge. Personally, I also found the Eotech easy to use with backup iron sights.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CHEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No question the EOtech is #1 in purely CQB environments. IMO the Aimpoint at least the Army issued ones suck ass. The point of aim changes as you shift your angle of view without moving the weapon. The acog is a good piece of gear, it's just outclassed by the EOtech when it comes to purely CQB comparison. </div></div>

This is VERY TRUE at 50yds and under. EO-Tech's do the same thing but not as bad.

Keep in mind 50yds and under you have to keep the dot center of the "tube"

aimpoint2.jpg


John
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I am surprised at seeing people recommend the EO on an internet forum. Go over to ARFCOM and say you like the EO, and they act like you nailed their grandma on the internet while burning their cat.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

For true CQ it's tough to beat the eotech, once you move to extended distances that gap closes. For something that had to do both roles The Acog might be nice esp. if you knew you may hit engagements past 300m. Honesty though the Eotech can deliver accurate fire to 300 yards. At that distance sure there is an advantage to having 4x. I've seen some guys that were really fast with the acog's in CQ as well but in general at least for me if it's a 300m or less gun I'm faster with an eotech. If I had to deliver accurate fire to 600m on occasion I'd probably run an acog or do what others have said. Either have a removable acog I could run in front of my eotech, or run a QR magnifier on the eotech.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

If you want close to medium range get the Eotech with the magnifier! They even have some with bullet drop compensation out to six hundred meters.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Get the Eotech with the flip to the side mount that way its only seconds from being able to use medium range to CQ. That way you don't have to remove anything.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised at seeing people recommend the EO on an internet forum. Go over to ARFCOM and say you like the EO, and they act like you nailed their grandma on the internet while burning their cat. </div></div>

Thats because people on this site SHOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not a Eo-Tech fan myself and I own one!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it does work. I like the AimPoint more. But its all the same. I do think the only real beef I have with the Eo-Tech are two things.

1. I do not like the rectangle window
2. I have used AimPoints in the Army since 1997.

Other than personal issues the Eo-Tech is a great sight. I just wish it was more robust.

John
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I have an ACOG on my work M4 and have used it on perimeter work and room clearing situations. This is a great scope! It is rugged.



Member of the Mil-Dot Club
10 years 1*
Always Faithful
Be Prepared
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

The original question is for CQB. Then I seen answers saying that when they shoot further, they prefer a different optic.

But, the original question is <span style="font-weight: bold">CQB</span>. In police and civillian distances, the range of confrontation is 7 yards and less for over 90% of all shooting.


Correct me if I am wrong, but CQB in the current war environment in Iraq is normally 0-75 yards, is it not? Essentially room to room and across the street and down the block. The C part meaning "Close"

That would mean that in the OP's quesition, then the hands down winner for best <span style="text-decoration: underline">CQB</span> optic is the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">EOTech</span></span>.


I've done some poking around and found that over the course of most wars, the "normal" combat distance for most soldiers is 300 yards and less. Of course there will be exceptions. With most being 100 yards and less. Afghanistan being the exception according to my studies.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.Boyette</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised at seeing people recommend the EO on an internet forum. Go over to ARFCOM and say you like the EO, and they act like you nailed their grandma on the internet while burning their cat. </div></div>

Thats because people on this site SHOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not a Eo-Tech fan myself and I own one!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it does work. I like the AimPoint more. But its all the same. I do think the only real beef I have with the Eo-Tech are two things.

1. I do not like the rectangle window
2. I have used AimPoints in the Army since 1997.

Other than personal issues the Eo-Tech is a great sight. I just wish it was more robust.

John </div></div>

That's because there is a Herd Mentality over there at BARFCOM and even at Lightfighter. All it takes is for 1 guy "in the know" to post a couple of bad incidents with a product and it gets regurgitated all over the internet and it multiplies like roaches.

On topic, for CQB, it is reallt hard to beat the speed of the EOTechs. Aimpoints are the next best thing. You just have to place that ghost ring on the target and pull the trigger. If you are primarily using your optic for CQB and would like some magnification for some perimeter use, I'd get an Aimpoint 3x Magnifier on a Larue flip mount or the NEW Eotech 3x magnifier. I'd stay away from the old EOTEch Magnifiers.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

def the eotech, in afghanistan I had an acog on my gun because the vast majority of the shots I took were at longer range. At times I had to switch to a CQB role and I really didn't like using the acog it's a real pain in the ass to get a quick site picture.
At really close distances I actually would use the visible laser on my peq 5 because it was much faster.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

+1 on what Keith "The Beard" said. EOtech for fast target aquisition in CQB situations is hard to beat.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Took it one step further.
Operator-on-DLOC-1.jpg

Trijicon mounted on the DLOC-T mount for main optics.
Doc Optic mounted on a DLOC-D 45deg. mount for CQB and back up sights.
Shown (in the white) using the Doc for "framing" a target. Simulating the Doc going down and using the outer frame for quick shots.
Worked perfectly with the Operators present taking 75ft. head shots.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

thats a nice setup cheese, haven't seen that before. I really don't like the doc optic mounted on top of the acog, they tend to get pretty beat up.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

"I have an EOtech right now on my AR platform. Personally, I prefer the EOTECH over the Aimpoint setups. Though I dont NEED magnification as this rifle isnt for precision work, it would be nice to have so long as it doesnt come at a sacrifice in CQB situations. I havent had a lot of experience with ACOGS. How are they for CQB type of scenarios? Pro/cons?

CQB priority with distance as secondary, your first choice of a EOT was a good one which I'd stick with. Going the other way, I'd go with the ACOG model with the back up irons on top.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Acogs are awesome if you are taking shots further than around fifty meters, the problem that I have with them is that in a cqb scenario where you may have to fire at multiple targets very quickly the magnification becomes a pain in the ass. First of all it is harder to gain your sight picture and then when you come off your sight to scan you sometimes lose what you are looking at. I have had some success in training using the acog with the red triangle (i beleive the ta31) and shooting with both eyes open. It takes a lost more training to get used to using that.

I really do like the back up irons that go on top of the acog. Nowadays it seems everyone wants to have some sort of red dot sight, but those back up irons actually work decent for CQB type shots at under 25m and they are obviously durable as hell.

In my opinion there is no replacement for the eotech in CQB, though it really is opinion based, I know guys that won't use anything but the aimpoint and even others that like the acog reflex. The key is with whatever you go with you do the proper training so everything becomes reflexive. I say try them all out find the one you like and stick with it.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KeithSF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">thats a nice setup cheese, haven't seen that before. I really don't like the doc optic mounted on top of the acog, they tend to get pretty beat up. </div></div>

Totally agree.
We took the Doc off the top of the Trijicon and applied the DLOC locking mechanisms to both the Trij and the DOC.
They are brand new. No tools, no levers, on and off in seconds and stronger than any "QD" system out there.
I relly like rolling the magnified optics out of the way and going to a fast dot type optic transition in one 20deg. roll of the wrist.
By the way, the Doc is enclosed in a roll cage to fix most if not all breakage issues.
P3050076.jpg

A better view.
DLOC for Harris bipod, scope mount, Trijicon, Doc Optic (with roll cage).
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

The only problem with the Doc Sight on an offset mount like that is that you are limited to shooting from one side (generally strong side). For CQB you want to be able to use strong and weak side.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

very cool cheese, are those gonna be available for purchase? I didn't see them on your website

Paul I never change sides when shooting even in cqb, it really isn't necessary.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KeithSF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul I never change sides when shooting even in cqb, it really isn't necessary. </div></div>

Then it won't be an issue for you and you will like it alot. We train from both sides so I cannot use it. I was just giving a heads-up to anyone that does. When I had my TA31DOC, I tried mounting the DOC on the side and on top and I didn't like it either way so I just stick with an EOTech or a variable 1x4/1x6 scope.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

KeithSF said:
very cool cheese, are those gonna be available for purchase? I didn't see them on your website

Keith,
We are in the process of developing the full line.
They will be available this year. Hopefully sooner than late.
BTW....I have found that most of the Operators wanted to mount the 45deg. red dot or hooded optic type sights at the three o'clock position. It seemed to be a very fast transition being as most of us are very familliar with the rolling motion to check the chamber of the rifle.
Thank you sir.
Click to expand...
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

The ACOG with the doctor sight is also a good choice but if you want heads up shooting with fastest response possible Eotech is the choice. I have known alot of guys that personaly buy an Eotech to outfit the M4 instead of the issued Aimpoint. Look at what the soldiers buy when they get to choose and most of the time its Eotech!
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

SO the 2 eyes open technique in the ACOG booklet is a no go??. I usually do my handgun shooting with both eyes open, and was playing with it on the ACOG, and thought it was pretty neat.. DO they train the real deal guys this way??(Active Military, etc).
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

The BAC is pretty neat, once you get the hang of it. Most any illum scopes can work the same way (put BC caps on, close the front and turn illum on).

If I can have one optic for an 0-200yds, I'm with switchy.....gimme a USO SN4. I just let mine go, as I don't clear rooms for a living and can use an ST10 with (I hope to get in the near future) a T1 mounted at 100 on the forearm.

Original question-EoTech is the fastest for close up and personal, Aimpoint close second (worse sight picture-better battery life). Aimpoints are very durable and you can leave the switch on for a year and it's still got a dot when you need it. Never could do that with my EoTech.

 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I think the ACOG are highly overrated for the $$$.....
The washout problems kill them for me.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

Eotech with with the magnifier on a flip mount is one of the best set ups.
 
Re: ACOG OR EOTECH for CQB?

I like the 3.5x35 bac with red chevron I have zero problems with it.I dont know why but it is by far the easiest of them to use for me.No batteries and no electronics I like simple but thats just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Milirad
EOTech Holographic Sight Parallax Induced POA Error Compared to Reflex Red Dot Sights
Replies
56
Views
1K
Milirad
Milirad
F
SOLD Wts/WTT AK47s, accessories and ammo - Prices dropped
Replies
5
Views
610
Fenix Mike
F
biometrician
Accessories SOLD! AT AICS Chassis
Replies
6
Views
807
Jacobward48
J
M
Looking for opinions on different optics setups
Replies
15
Views
1K
BCP
BCP
B
Swampfox Kentucky Long 2-12x44 review
Replies
2
Views
1K
TangoRomeo7688
TangoRomeo7688
Top Bottom
Back