Question - Trijicon ACOG sight for M16A4?

[cuzinbruce]

I saw a Trijicon ACOG sight recently. Marked TA31RCO-A4 so it is for the M16A4 rifle. It also had an NSN number marked on it. Does the NSN number mean it is ex-GI? The ones I saw on their website mostly had a CP added to the number and someone said that was a commercial product? It also had the JN8:12 in tiny letters so it is probably 2 or 3 years old. I remember they got in trouble for putting Bible references on their military products. John 8:12. Drove the atheists wild! Then they had to stop it. Looked like a pretty good sight for an AR.
Thanks,
Bruce

[5 RING]

I have the ACOG on my M4. great lil' scopes, you can do head shots out to 400-500m once you get proficient with it. there not cheap but for a CQC its a lot better then any red-dot out there.
Larry

[Artful]

Careful a lot of fake ACOG's out there now.

like this one
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h290/Charger-Aficionado/acog2.jpg

compared to real
https://www.trijicon.com/images/product_additionals/TA31RCO-A4CP_270.jpg

[cuzinbruce]

Thanks for the pics. Any pointers on what to look for on fakes. The one I saw did have the fiber optic tube which the fake doesn't. I wonder if they put the jn8:12 marking on the fakes?

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Thanks for the pics. Any pointers on what to look for on fakes. The one I saw did have the fiber optic tube which the fake doesn't. I wonder if they put the jn8:12 marking on the fakes? Since all the fakes are manufactured in china, it would be a safe guess to assume they do. Buy from a reputable dealer and you should be okay. Avoid ebay on a purchase like that.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I personally would avoid the ACOG's all together. My opinion on them is based on the number of failures I have observed at shooting classes. These things are also not cheap and for the money they should be 100% reliable. THEY ARE NOT! Shifting zero is the major complaint. I do not know why this occurs, but as I said above, for the price, any malfunction of any type is unacceptable. I also lump Eo-techs in this same category.

There are lots of less expensive optics available that are completely suitable for AR's. And my whole point here is for you to do a bunch of research on line and figure out what is going to give you the best bang for your buck. You're probably not going to war, and you definitely will be paying for all of your own equipment so the idea of buying a $800-1700 optic to shoot paper targets or tin cans might warrant some further consideration. Money might be better spent elsewhere?

Also,, If the ones you're looking at, aren't that much $,,, then they probably aren't the real thing?

I personally like the Bushnell TRS-25 for a Red Dot sight and have 5 of them. So far all of them have performed flawlessly and at $90 or less each they are a pretty well respected optic with very few negatives. Simply read the reviews on the different sites, (Optics Planet, Midway etc.) it tells a pretty good story of how an optic performs, and if the "value" is there.

Then compare the prices.

Completely on the opposite end of the cost spectrum from what you are looking at, but alot more bang for your shooting buck without a doubt.

Only you can decide what is best for you, but that doesn't mean you have to be dumb about it. Do your homework, there is just too many choices out there and you really need to understand what you are looking at.

Then you can make an informed decision instead of listening to a bunch of BS from people like us. [smilie=2:

Randy

[cuzinbruce]

I did some more research on it and it is BOGUS. Looks really good and fooled a number of military collectors who looked at it. The Trijicon is in raised letters and looks real. But no serial number, the fiber optic doesn't do anything, the reticle doesn't correspond to the model number, the eyepiece unscrews, and it doesn't have the number at the bottom of the reticle. But it does look really authentic. Amazing what the Chicoms will do to fake the stupid Americans out of their $$$. But the guy only wanted $75.

[Artful]

heck of a deal :roll:

[MtGun44]

I would expect that the failures are in the fakes. Real ACOGs are standard issue in
Army and USMC, and have a reputation for extreme durability. I have several friends
and relatives that have owned and used them for up to 25 yrs and I have never heard
of a failure in a real ACOG.

Bill

[Love Life]

I personally would avoid the ACOG's all together. My opinion on them is based on the number of failures I have observed at shooting classes. These things are also not cheap and for the money they should be 100% reliable. THEY ARE NOT! Shifting zero is the major complaint. I do not know why this occurs, but as I said above, for the price, any malfunction of any type is unacceptable. I also lump Eo-techs in this same category.

There are lots of less expensive optics available that are completely suitable for AR's. And my whole point here is for you to do a bunch of research on line and figure out what is going to give you the best bang for your buck. You're probably not going to war, and you definitely will be paying for all of your own equipment so the idea of buying a $800-1700 optic to shoot paper targets or tin cans might warrant some further consideration. Money might be better spent elsewhere?

Also,, If the ones you're looking at, aren't that much $,,, then they probably aren't the real thing?

I personally like the Bushnell TRS-25 for a Red Dot sight and have 5 of them. So far all of them have performed flawlessly and at $90 or less each they are a pretty well respected optic with very few negatives. Simply read the reviews on the different sites, (Optics Planet, Midway etc.) it tells a pretty good story of how an optic performs, and if the "value" is there.

Then compare the prices.

Completely on the opposite end of the cost spectrum from what you are looking at, but alot more bang for your shooting buck without a doubt.

Only you can decide what is best for you, but that doesn't mean you have to be dumb about it. Do your homework, there is just too many choices out there and you really need to understand what you are looking at.

Then you can make an informed decision instead of listening to a bunch of BS from people like us. [smilie=2:

Randy

I find my experiences and the experiences of others to be 100% opposite of yours.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Everybody has experiences. Mine were at Front Sight in two different 4 day rifle classes where 2 ACOG's were shifting zero with every few shots. The guys (buddies) had bought them from the same source and they were the real deal at $1200 a pop. The other class had EoTech problems on my Bro in Laws gun.

This was much to the disappointment of the Range Master who had significant experience with these specific optics being ex Marine with sand box time. It was not a mounting problem it was an internal problem. I do not know what they did about it after the class but they were pretty disappointed.

As far as Eotechs go I have direct experience with them with failed electronics dead batteries and shifting zero. These are all from my Bro in Law who has 3 of the things and all of them have given a variety of problems, and him asking me to figure out what was wrong with them. I figured out that you send them back to the factory and have them figure out what is wrong. These were only $600 optics.

We also had one guy here on the site, who had 25 of them (Eotechs) shift Zero 2 feet sideways simply by being carried in gun racks in the trunks of a fleet of Sheriffs Cruisers. Great when you actually need the thing to work and you can't hit anything with it.

People think just because they pay a bunch for something that it is superior? It is not always the case, (Fill in your experience)

I might add that all of these optics have been civilian versions and may or may not undergo the same QC procedures as ones bought by the Military. I would think they would, but who knows. I have had enough first hand experience dealing with the military procurement system (since they are my biggest customer) to know that the added paperwork for certifications to sell a specific item to them will double or triple the price. Maybe Trijicon and EoTech doesn't do all of this BS with civilian models to keep the price down.

However the overall point of my post was that you don't need a $1200 optic to shoot tin cans. I am relatively sure anyone would agree with this point, since the back side of the argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Randy

[Love Life]

I didn't see where the purpose of the rifle was to only shoot tin cans.

I'd take an ACOG over an EOTECH or Bushnell anything anyday. The real ACOG is a rugged, reliable, and accurate optic.

However; this discussion was about whether the optic in question was a fake or not.


ETA: If you ever find out why those ACOGs were out of wack, I would love to know what was wrong with them. Makes me think of the Gunner telling everybody to rap the side of the optic hard after making adjustments to "Settle" the optic.

[cuzinbruce]

I have a couple pictures of the optic in question. It looked pretty good, to myself and a couple military collectors. After some investigation, it is a three dollar bill. Among the issues, no serial number, fiber optic is not functional, eyepiece unscrews, reticle doesn't correspond to model number, no number at bottom of lens when looking through it. Take a look>98647986489864998650

[Larry Gibson]

I also have had a lot of experience on ranges, hunting and in the "sand box" with many different ACOGs &Eotechs. I not only used them but also instructed their use to many soldiers and marines. I've not seen the problems Randy mentioned either.

When mounted correctly both sights give excellent service. The problems I did see were incorrect mounting and failure to change batteries (all batteries go dead at some point)
. The problems were all operator induced.

Larry Gibson

[M-Tecs]

Awhile back one of the major chain stores was selling fake Leupolds by mistake. I don't know all the details of the how but at some point in the supply stream the fake ones replaced the real ones. I am in the camp that has never heard of a real Trijicon ACOG failing.


Everybody has experiences. Mine were at Front Sight in two different 4 day rifle classes where 2 ACOG's were shifting zero with every few shots. The guys (buddies) had bought them from the same source and they were the real deal at $1200 a pop.


Based on my experience and the experiences of others the chance of two ACOG failing in what is a relatively light usage is small. Did they return the 2 ACOG's to Trijicon? If so did Trijicon find them to be real? Spending $1,200.00 doesn't ensure that they are the real deal.

A friend works for a heart pacemaker company and they are finding fake pacemakers that have been implanted in patients.

[Combat Diver]

I've used them since 95'. They are rugged but like any mechincal device can fail. Had very few fail over the years. One thing to check when zeroing is to tap the windage/elevation knob after changing settings. This will seat the adjustments so they don't wonder. In the pictures with fake and real one, different models are shown. Fake is a copy of a TA01NSN that doesn't use a fiber optic like the TA31 shown. TA01NSN uses tridium for luminating the reticle in low light. The TA01NSN is the standard optic issued with the SOPMOD kit to Special Forces. The TA31 is the standard issue to the US Army and TA31A4 is for the USMC. I've like enough that I've bought my own upon retiring for my own M4ergy.


CD

[W.R.Buchanan]

The ACOG problem/problems I described came during a Front Sight 4 day Rifle Class. I was not involved beyond being close to these guys on the firing line and seeing what they were complaining of and watching the instructors trying to help them fix the problem. They couldn't,,, so the guys removed the optics and finished the class with Iron Sights. Beyond that I have no further info.

I don't know them personally and will probably never see them again as people come to Front Sight from all over the US and unless I have direct interaction with them, I simply forget them. After attending a dozen or so classes with 60 people in each one, some people do stand out, but most just fade into the crowd.

The EoTech failures are a different story. My Bro in Law has experienced those and we shoot together. Most were battery failures, however all three of his have been sent back to the factory for zero shifts as well. They seem to be fine now, except for killing the batteries without warning

As far as not saying he's shooting at tin cans, his choices for targets in a civilian environment are some what limited. Paper, steel, balloons, clay pigeons all pretty much come under the heading of "tin cans."

Randy

[Love Life]

I have a couple pictures of the optic in question. It looked pretty good, to myself and a couple military collectors. After some investigation, it is a three dollar bill. Among the issues, no serial number, fiber optic is not functional, eyepiece unscrews, reticle doesn't correspond to model number, no number at bottom of lens when looking through it. Take a look>98647986489864998650

You can see that that thing is a fake from three miles away...in the dark.