“ACOGs are dumb.” – Steve “Yeti” Fisher
A video share for all you readers in quarantine as Mike ‘GarandThumb’ goes over the TA31 ACSS ACOG variant. It’s probably the best variant of the tough little optic that exists, although I haven’t yet played with the RCO update the USMC did a while back, and that looked promising.
As to Steve’s quote above (real quote, said to me as I ran an ACOG in Carbine Essentials.. again.. just because), every major optic has its fans and detractors. It’s the nature of things. Larry Vickers is no fan of the EOTech but SOCOM is. I, personally, think the Vortex UH-1 and Meprolight RDS are both sub-par for one or another reasons, both functional critiques and personal preference.
It’s not that X or Y are ‘bad‘ optics, it’s working within a combination of limitations and personal preferences. The ACOG, for all its strengths, has limits. I like ACOGs and will accept those limits. Others will not. They are both correct perspectives.
Steve Fisher won’t falsely attribute a flaw to an ACOG that it doesn’t have. Professionals, critics being as objective as they can, won’t add flaws. They don’t need to. It comes down to an optic not working in the manner the user needs from their optic, so that optic “sucks”.
So the moral of the story is this, know your system strengths and deficiencies and do a quick double check that it all does what you need it to do. Wants, cool factor, collector factor, cloning, all that jazz can be put in the need it to do column.
That’s fine. Guns can be fun. That is allowed.
All that to say that ACOGs are still awesome.
“ACOGs are dumb,” Steve chimes in from somewhere.
And yes ACOGs are dumb if the optic you need is outside the parameters of what the ACOG does. I’m equally not putting a $3,000 5-25x on a general purpose carbine, because that too is dumb.
