Rifle Scopes ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

[MeridianNW]

I've been reading with interest several similar threads lately, the 1-8x Scope Options ( linked here ), the USO C2 reticle thread ( linked here and the Update here ) for the 1.5-6x, and the USO C2 for the 1.8-10x thread ( linked here ). I think a few of us have been along for the ride.

I recently acquired my first 'higher' quality scope and it's a gas. I have been greatly enjoying my new (used) USO 1.8-10x 37mm scope, it is excellent on several fronts. I was also very interested in the ACOG line of scopes however because of their versatility. (I had lots of time for research as I was eating ramen! I eventually went with an optic a little more on the DMR side for my carbine.)

I know some would argue that the ACOGs aren't good for CQB, and some would argue they are indeed suitable for that. Without opening that can of worms, my question is specifically about the BAC (Binden Aiming Concept I think), or ability to aim with both eyes open that Trijicon touts.

I know some use all scopes that way, I am one. But like many, I am able to choose which image my brain is going to focus on and when I look through a scope, I don't generally try to form a single image out of it.

But the BAC is supposedly a technology which works for anyone, though it takes some getting used to. I have never used an ACOG on a rifle, but I'm curious how well it works compared to a low power variable scope.

I can imagine that opinions vary a lot and some like them and some don't. So for those who have used both, how do they compare?

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

Assuming you have normal vision, it all really comes down to a willingness to put the work in.

Shooting fast and accurately with an ACOG is requires the ability to shoot with both eyes open, simultaneously receive and process visual inputs from each eye, as well as transitioning (focusing) on each input as necessary.

At the most basic level - the non optic eye scans and locates the target; as the rifle nears the end of the swing on to the target, the shooter shifts focus to inputs from the optic eye, press, shift focus back to the non optic eye (and peripheral of the optic eye) and continue to scan. Repeat.

0 - 25: you should be able to shoot this distance solely by index at speed. Regardless, even using the optic, your splits shouldn't be any different than with an Aimpoint on a simple COF like an El Presidente.

25 - 75: this is the distance range that requires the most work with an ACOG

75+ - advantage ACOG and one that is good with it


ACOGs were state of the art. Now state of the art means variable with 1x, a ranging ret, and a daylight visible electronic dot.

Features and variables - the only things that count in a low powered variable are 1x, the ret, daylight visible, and quality of glass. Anything else is a puff piece by the manufacturer. No one shoots at mid power. There is a difference between 1x and 1.5x, and a reticle that is not daylight visible is the same as not having one at all.

I'd still take an ACOG with a fiber strip over any low powered variable out there today other than a Short Dot.



Good luck

 

[MeridianNW]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

Thank you MoZamBeek, this is the kind of feedback I am looking for. I have done this with red dot sights and it's pretty natural once you get the hang of it.

But I have been trying it with my optic dialed all the way down to 1.8x and it's much harder than I expected. I am so used to 'managing' my two images from each eye independently, I find it difficult to merge them into a single image. That's probably made harder by them being slightly different sizes. It's also more difficult looking into a light background like sunlight or lots of sky.

Anyone else?

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

I dunno about merging. IMHO it is two separate images and your brain says 'non optic image', OK switch - 'optic image', bang, OK 'non optic image'. The faster and more naturally you can force your gord to do this, the faster and more accurately you can shoot one.

I've shot movers in matches from 40 to 100 with a fixed 10x - it is no different.

I often dry fire with just this in mind. POAs from across the room to 100 - search, swing, transition, press, transition, search, swing... - if it is a carbine, I also throw a reload in between just for practice too.



Good luck

 

[MeridianNW]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

Hmmm, that's very interesting. That would certainly explain a lot. For some reason I was assuming that the BAC was using both eyes on the same aimming point.

But I just double checked their website and although there really isn't much there about the BAC, all it does talk about is both eyes open.

This makes a lot more sense now, because my problem was trying to merge the separate images into one single image thinking this is how people used ACOGs. I could understand how that would be effective, but I couldn't understand how it was achieved in practice.

Now I really want to try one out. I have a shooting buddy is who is in the selection process and he keeps coming back to the ACOG with red dot as being the ultimate AR sight combo. I think I'll give him a nudge in this direction so I can try it too!

 

[Rafael]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

USO is working on a 1-8 right now.
Should be out soon.

 

[MeridianNW]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

I keep waiting for them to update their website. They offer a lot of options but you almost have to call to shop. Maybe their webmaster is wearing too many hats or something.

A true 1x to 8x sounds nice, maybe with the C2 reticle? Are you going to get one?

 

[Rafael]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

I would really like one.
I already have a USO 1.5-6, and money is a bit tight with me right now.

One day.

Will be adding the new internal bubble level to that one.

The website update is overdue.

 

[MeridianNW]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

Would you trade out the 1.5-6x then, or would you keep both? It seems a little redundant to have both.... just sayin...

 

[Rafael]

Re: ACOGs BAC vs. Low Powered Variables

Valid point....yes I will be looking to sell my 1.5-6 with green-lit JNGMOA reticle and the very low profile knobs and covers as soon as I can afford the 1-8.

It is in excellent condition.