Opinions on Trijicon TAO1 ACOG

[artabr]

I'm thinking about buying a TAO1 and would like to here your opinions about it . One problem I may have is I'll be shooting 69gr. Match Kings verses 55gr. bullets, but I don't think this will be a big deal.
Also were to get the best price? I'm looking at Budsgunshop.com (anybody deal with them) or SWFA.
I'll be mounting this on a Bushmaster M4 style AR . Any input will be greatly appreciated.
ART

 

[rockmup]

http://www.evil-black-rifles.com/


Email or call him. His name is Pete. Best price you will find on those. Tell him I sent you.

 

[swagge1]

I can't see spending thst much $$ on a that scope unless your life depended on it. Thats just me... good luck though!

 

[dawg23]

I had one.....sold it a year ago. Not much of a practical tool.

For hunting the 4x scope is too little.

For self defense, at ranges up to 150 yards, the Eotech and Aimpoint (1x or 2x) are more than adequate and are much quicker (for me) in acquiring your target.

For ranges beyond 150 yards, the AR starts to lose effectiveness (especially with fragmenting bullets). The AK starts to lose accuracy beyond 150 yards. On a .308 Win. platform, you could maybe make a case for the ACOG.

The ACOG's (TA01) tritium crosshairs will weaken with age. Buying something this expensive, knowing it will degrade over time, is foolish ............like I was. Fortunately I was able to recoup my investment.

 

[ajt2341]

I have to wonder why you think the AR looses effectiveness after 150 yards when I can shoot an m16 accurately to 500 yards with an ACOG and every soldier who goes through basic training can hit targets at 300 yards with iron sights, which is double what you seem to think is the effective range.

(I'm assuming by AR you are talking about a .223 civilian version of the m16/m4)

 

[Richard in LA]

I think he was referring to terminal ballistics past 150 yards w/ the AR.

 

[dawg23]

I think he was referring to terminal ballistics past 150 yards w/ the AR.

Yep.

 

[ajt2341]

Sorry, wasnt thinking about that. But with the tumbling of the 5.56 wouldnt it be effective at any range, fragmentation just adding to the effectiveness?

 

[dawg23]

I think you'll find that fragmentation is the result of tumbling.....i.e. no tumble, no breaky-uppy.

Here's some info from Arfcom's Ammo Oracle. He is considered by many, if not most, to be the definitive source for all things which pertain to AR15 ammo.

(And here's a link to the Ammo Oracle's FAQ site): http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/


Q. At what range will M193 fragment? How about M855?

"Assuming true M193 or M855 ammo, velocity is the key. Velocity is dependent on barrel length and environmental conditions.

As barrel length increases, the bullet is propelled faster by the expanding gasses in the barrel, imparting more velocity on the bullet, resulting in a longer range before a fired bullet drops below 2700 fps. A shorter barrel imparts less velocity, and therefore the bullet has less range.

Temperature, altitude and humidity are other factors. As temperature or altitude increases, air becomes less dense and bullets travel faster. Contrary to common conceptions, as humidity increases air also becomes less dense and helps bullets retain velocity.

It is important, then, to keep in mind that any statistics given can only be approximate and can be affected by a wide range of factors. But as a baseline, these numbers are what you could expect for 75° F, 25% humidity, at sea level, from various barrel lengths:

Distance to 2700 fps
................ 20" Barrel ....... 16" Barrel....... 14.5" Barrel........ 11.5" Barrel

M193
................. 190-200m .......140-150m .......95-100m ............40-45m

M855
..................140-150m....... 90-95m ...........45-50m ...........12-15m

As you can see, barrel length and ammo selection make a major impact on fragmentation range.

Opinions (Pro and Con):
14.5" and 11.5" barrels are great, why waste all that weight and effort lugging around something larger?:
Shorter barrels are critical to close quarters battle (CQB) and urban work. Here ranges are shorter and getting that barrel around corners and inside houses is tough enough without it being too long. All that velocity isn't necessary and I'm worried about overpenetration anyhow so it's a good thing to keep it under control. If I really am worried about low velocities I'll just switch to controlled expansion rounds.

I wouldn't be seen with anything shorter than a 16" and I'd try to hide my face if friends saw me without a 20":
I need a more flexible weapon that allows me to get out to 200 meters when I have to. Additionally, fragmentation is critical to my philosophy about wound ballistics and I want as much of it as I can get. This means at least 16" on my barrels and 20" is better. 16" is plenty short enough for interior and urban work and it gives me the advantage of not having to worry about using my rifle for long shots on deer or for longer defensive engagements. Plus, if I had a true 14.5" barrel I'd just have to register it with the ATF as a short barreled weapon anyhow. Why should I have 16" of overall length and only get the benefit of 14.5" of that?

 

[ajt2341]

Thanks, I read over the info but it seems that he's saying the ammo doesn't have the velocity to tumble reliably or fragment after those ranges but when you consider that you can still penetrate a target at over 600 meters it seems kind of short sighted to say it's not terminal because it may not reliably tumble. A head shot is terminal whether it tumbles after entering or not, same goes for a fair amount of wounds in the upper torso (center of mass for most soldiers aiming purposes) due to the vital organs such as the heart and lungs. A good penetration in the gut can be just as terminal, just slower.