Initially, I was pretty much all-in on green, but I think some of the arguments I've read about it's lack of contrast against foliage makes red perhaps more compelling. Kind of the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" concept. I plan to run the ACOG with an offset red dot LaRue Tactical Angled CQB Mount for Micro T-2, so up close would be the job of the red dot. Given that, maybe the cross hairs are most ideal for 100 yards plus? I've heard some thoughts that the chevron is perhaps covering too much of the target at distance?

Thoughts.

I have virtually no experience with the chevron type reticles, but it seems obvious to me that such designs are intended for relatively close distance, rapid target acquisition. For precision shooting at longer ranges I believe its shape would be more susceptible to elevation (i.e., vertical up/down) aiming errors than a traditional crosshair. And I would also be concerned about how much of a small target would be covered by the chevron.

Horseshoe reticles are what I’d consider to be a compromise between the thick chevron and traditional crosshair. The horseshoe would probably be faster to center around a target than positioning a crosshair, and the central dot would be more precise than a chevron. I have found that my SAI LPVO scopes with their fine central crosshairs are a little slower to get on target with than an Aimpoint’s bright illuminated dot. But for precision aiming, though, I much prefer a crosshair.

I don’t make recommendations, but if I were going to use a conventional nonmagnifying red dot sight in conjunction with an ACOG, I’d select the reticle that gave me the best precision aiming ability. (I am not a fan of BDC reticles in general, but that’s another matter.)

I have been all over the place with AR sights and am back with a Primary Arms 1-8 with the ACSS reticle which is a chevron.

The tip of the chevron is the aiming point, the point doesn't cover much up.
At 200 yards put the chevron on the pumpkin like a hat and hit it.

I have a Sig Romeo5 XDR Predator that has a green triangle.
I don't have any issues with contrast outside and prefer it to red as it seems play nice with my astigmatism and dot sights.
Just gotta see the target well enough at 100 yds to be useable for me, which is why I'm back to an LPVO for the moment.

I was leaning pretty hard towards an NX8 but since Eotech came out with that little 3-9 I am pretty much set on picking one up instead.
No BDC (yay), comes with a red dot that can be clocked and is around 16 oz.
https://www.eurooptic.com/eote...K_sGZtu3L8DK9W_zZVDk

This is probably one of the best firearm videos in YouTube. I prefer red crosshair for my area.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:


This is probably one of the best firearm videos in YouTube. I prefer red crosshair for my area.

That was super helpful. Having watched that, I believe the Crosshair in Red will be my choice.

I have one on a 12.5 AR and one on my Scar 17. I piggybacked RMR’s on both. I went with red horseshoe dots on both.

I have a TA44 on another AR with the green horseshoe dot. It’s worked well here in FL where we have a lot of green.

My pick would be the crosshairs in red. Green can sometimes do weird stuff when used in conjunction with white light.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
My pick would be the crosshairs in red. Green can sometimes do weird stuff when used in conjunction with white light.

After that prior video, that's where I've landed as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
This is probably one of the best firearm videos in YouTube.

Well worth watching; thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by powermad:

I was leaning pretty hard towards an NX8 but since Eotech came out with that little 3-9 I am pretty much set on picking one up instead.
No BDC (yay), comes with a red dot that can be clocked and is around 16 oz.
https://www.eurooptic.com/eote...K_sGZtu3L8DK9W_zZVDk

Nice scope; reminds me of the airgun intended Beeman Blue Ribbon shortscopes.

There's always a compromise; the ACOG might have advantage in seeing small targets at distances > 100yds.

The reviewer did extol its virtues at shorter range applications.
___

"... in our testing, we found it a marvelous precision rimfire scope,

I wouldn’t hesitate to put this scope on a turkey shotgun, a slug gun, a straight-wall cartridge carbine, or even a dangerous-game rifle. "


"Two elements hold back the bantam Vudu from optical greatness. The first is the lack of parallax. Because the parallax is fixed at a distance inside 100 yards, targets beyond 100 yards are distractingly fuzzy. I fussed and fiddled with the diopter and simply couldn’t get a crisp picture at distance. I also observed a fair amount of fishbowling, or dishing of the image.



Those are significant shortcomings, but they don’t dim the innovation and overall brightness of this remarkable hand-sized tactical scope that has surprisingly good talents for a hunting optic."

https://opticsforce.com/blogs/...-new-optics-category
___

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Because the parallax is fixed at a distance inside 100 yards, targets beyond 100 yards are distractingly fuzzy.

Someone does not understand what parallax is all about. If the image (targets) are not sharp and clear beyond 100 yards, it’s because of the poor optical quality of the sight—poor lenses, misalignment of components, or something else in a crappy optic.

Throughout the history of riflescopes the vast majority had, and still have, fixed parallax with no way for the shooter to adjust it. If that made it impossible to see targets clearly beyond the fixed distance which is commonly 100 or 150 yards, no one would be using optical sights on their rifles.

What a fixed parallax setting actually means is that if the shooter is not looking through the exact center of the scope, parallax can cause aiming errors at distances other than what the parallax is set at. That can be a concern for shooting at close distances or with high magnifications at moderate distances, but generations of shooters have managed to hit their targets despite that theoretical issue.

In addition, the reviewer doesn’t understand the purpose of the eyepiece diopter. That is to adjust the focus of the reticle, not the focus of the image of targets seen through the scope. And the comment about “fishbowling” probably refers to optical barrel distortion, which is another characteristic of a very poor quality telescopic sight.

I know this and you know this, and the reviewer doesn't know this.

So now what do we do, before investing in the thing?

Can we find other reviews that contradict this guy, specifically about image clarity past 100 yards? I'm not having much luck with that.

Did the reviewer get a lemon, was it his own poor eyesight, or is Eotech putting out a crummy scope with poor lenses, misalignments or other problems?
_________

Edit: Weeelllllll ...

Here's a pretty well written ( and complimentary) review, with pictures and stuff.

https://www.guns.com/news/revi...du-3-9x32-riflescope

"What everyone wants to know first is: how is the glass? It is great. To temper expectations a little bit, the Vudu line is EOTech’s mid-tier line. For an intermediate-priced scope, the glass is outstanding. The image is sharp and clear. Light transmission was great, with good color and no chromatic aberration. At 3X, the image was perfect edge to edge. At 9X, there was the slightest distortion at the outer edges.

What everyone wants to know first is: how is the glass? It is great. To temper expectations a little bit, the Vudu line is EOTech’s mid-tier line. For an intermediate-priced scope, the glass is outstanding. The image is sharp and clear. Light transmission was great, with good color and no chromatic aberration. At 3X, the image was perfect edge to edge. At 9X, there was the slightest distortion at the outer edges. "

I'm all about the red horseshoe, everyone gets to make their own choice though.

Used the 394 on my patrol rifle.

TA-02 Received and mounted! This is my first scope ever. I like it, but it certainly reveals the weakness in my right eye at distance vs, my left. Bummer for me. I have glasses for driving, but I don't like to use them for shooting as I have a pair of ballistic safety glasses for the range. I'll deal with it. Maybe I'll investigate contacts.

I have no idea what they would be like in actual use, but some manufacturers of high quality protective eyewear do offer versions with prescription inserts.

Added: This is not a recommendation, but this is one such company.

https://revisionmilitary.com/a...qUIiK-3C_Z-aY.TFG3ZB

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
TA-02 Received and mounted! This is my first scope ever. I like it, but it certainly reveals the weakness in my right eye at distance vs, my left. Bummer for me. I have glasses for driving, but I don't like to use them for shooting as I have a pair of ballistic safety glasses for the range. I'll deal with it. Maybe I'll investigate contacts.

Hunter's Gold HD can do very high quality shooting glasses with your prescription.

I previously owned a red chevron ACOG. If I ever own another ACOG, it will have a crosshair reticle.

The chevron is problematic on targets smaller than 8 inches at 150-250 yards because it can obscure most or all of the target.

If your metric for target size is torso size targets, just remember that if you ever need the optic for real, people tend to hide behind things when they are getting shot at.

quote:

but it certainly reveals the weakness in my right eye at distance vs, my left.

What is going wrong?

Reticle not clear? Target image at distance not clear?

A little of both. It's always been dicey. I have glasses for distance, but my left eye is nearly perfect at distance, so with both eyes I get by without them fairly well. But when I close down on a scope with only the right eye, and look at fine detail like that beautiful crisp reticle, it's readily apparent that I'll need to address it somehow.