Wow. That's crazy. The Marine's life is saved when the acog his dad bought for him stopped the round. Best money that dad ever spent. That gives me chills just thinking about it.

@jbuckley2546

8 ай бұрын

Probably bs.

@nunyadambusiness6902

8 ай бұрын

We had a guy catch a round with the phone that was in his left top pocket. A plate could've stopped it, but the phone stopped it halfway through & it was stuck. My guess is the abu Sayyaf guy was at max range when he took the shot, so it lost enough energy for the phone to stop it... Wasted tf out of the sat phone... 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Wasn't deformed at all, so the genius had a team member take a pic & send it to his wife from the Philippines - she hit the roof... 😂😂😂... She gave him hell about wearing his body armor for YEARS after that... 🫣🫣🫣...

@TheOriginalFaxon

8 ай бұрын

@@jbuckley2546 There's literally a photo of the ACOG in question on screen when he's telling the story, chances are the sniper was far enough out that the round had lost a lot of energy before it hit his optic, allowing it to stop the round fully.

@workingguy6666

8 ай бұрын

There used to be an absolutely great thread on ARFcom of a veteran telling stories of how it really was in the early years of the war on terror when it came to gear, and specifically optics, that family and friends would by for deployed soldiers. Much of it would be considered entry-level or mid-level in optics and red dots, but it all served, and most of it served well. He was into that stuff, so he knew the makes/models of what he had seen others using, as well as what he went with (was sent). After a while ARFcom mods or somebody absolutely pissed that poster off, so he deleted all his posts in the thread. What was a wealth of knowledge of how it really was (vs. wanna-be's believing that only the best optics would ever be worth anything in a warzone) has been deleted.

@colbunkmust

8 ай бұрын

But ironically, immediately after that shot, that marine needed to rely on his irons.

ACOG when trained right is a force multiplier. The new sight by vortex is another generation jump. Also for the record. As a US Army Armorer. I’ve never dealt with a broke ACOG. I’ve never even heard of one being broke outside a incident where the rifle wasn’t destroyed as well.

@chrisclark6161

8 ай бұрын

I saw exactly one break when I was in the Marines. It was weird failure on the range where it just kinda popped and the lenses busted out. I can only assume it was a manufacturer defect because the rest were indestructible. I never loved the RCO (that eye relief is punishing on a A4 with body armor) but I always trusted it.

@1BeGe

8 ай бұрын

The rifles we had had iron backup rear sights tucked underneath with the acog essentially partially protecting them. About half of the irons were broken. None of the acogs were. The idea that iron sights are inherently tougher than optics and therefore need iron backup is an assumption from the start, and in my experience a false one.

@M14Jeep

8 ай бұрын

​@@1BeGeI would agree. The built in carry handle rear sight is very strong but the bolt-on backup iron sights even the military grade ones I feel are more fragile in an ACOG. I also think that it's easier to bend an iron sight out of zero then to knock an ACOG out of zero.

@MTMILITIAMAN7.62

8 ай бұрын

My only infantry DI in boot camp gathered us around for story time after we passed our Battalion Commander Inspection and told us he hit an IED that blew him out of his Humvee. He woke up being pulled out from underneath an uparmored Humvee door. His A4 was blown in half at the receiver pins. When he was issued another rifle he put his old RCO on it just for grins. In front of the 2111, he put rounds on the 36 yard target, and the RCO was not only functional, but still more or less BZO'd.

@1BeGe

8 ай бұрын

@@MTMILITIAMAN7.62 Yeah, I've literally seen more people manage to snap off the FRONT sight of an M4 (yes, you heard me...) than I've seen break ACOGs.

Irons- First to learn last to use. Optics- Last to learn but preferable in any situation over irons.

I was in the Marines 74 to 78. Qualified as expert rifleman. And I am 100% behind any technical improvements that makes a marine more lethal and help them survive.

I carried the iron sights for 20 years, expert. I carried ACOG to Iraq as a civilian. I mandated my team, USMC Vets and LE, to have iron sights and ACOG on our M4s. I believe being proficient with both is always great advice.

@thefifthbelfry92

8 ай бұрын

It’s the only advice, one mind any weapon

@StephenDawson2015

8 ай бұрын

You mandated, yeah...right.

@astos1244

8 ай бұрын

probably when he said civilian he meant contractors duty@@StephenDawson2015

@maltheri9833

8 ай бұрын

​@@StephenDawson2015Thank you for your enlightening input

@StephenDawson2015

8 ай бұрын

@@maltheri9833 Thank you for your silly response to enrich humanity.

My unit was deployed in Iraq from 07-08. We had Aimpoint Red dots. I'm not aware of anyone having there optics broken. We did still have pop up iron sights as backup and did qualifications with both.

@slappy8941

8 ай бұрын

There optics? Really, bro?

@thepurplebandit3859

8 ай бұрын

​@@slappy8941no one cares

@AWDfreak

8 ай бұрын

I deployed to Afghanistan in the mid 2010's, and we were issued M4 Carbines equipped with Aimpoint CompM3's and CompM4's. I was very skeptical of them until they made us qualify with them. Just like you, we were to qualify with both. Just like your experience, we actually never experienced any issues besides some troops needing new batteries for the CompM3. Once I qualified with the Aimpoints, I had a bit more faith in them. Hell, the night qualifying course only magnified the advantage of them. Many years after my enlistment ended, I realize red dots and optics have a really big advantage (assuming the user's eyes are compatible with them) that cannot be ignored. Even with the crazy high prices of the products, the fact that they give such an advantage for tools that can be used to save lives cannot be overstated.

@ThatMurse

8 ай бұрын

There*

@russellkeeling4387

7 ай бұрын

Did you leave them turned on all the time or did you have to turn them on whenever you needed to shoot at something and then turn them of if the firearm wasn't going to be used for a time?

The only problem I had with the ACOG was that having it get hit/jostled/moved and be off it's center/zero--but this has been VERY rare (once over 4 deployments). I relied on it in IZ and AF and it took me from being a "good" marksman to being a "great" marksman. Let's also be precise in wording. ACOGs do not make rifles more accurate. They make shooters more accurate. The accuracy of the M16A4/M4A1 are just fine.

@suokkos

8 ай бұрын

Iron sights are fairly good when shooting conditions are perfect. Shooting conditions are rarely perfect outside basic drills at a training range.

@Stlaind

8 ай бұрын

If we want to be precise about wording, it does make the shooter more accurate, but does not change either the shooter or rifle's precision.

@heinedenmark

8 ай бұрын

ACOG sucks in urban battle. We used Elcan optics in Afghanistan.. but had iron sights as backup.

@jeffconner2886

8 ай бұрын

😊

@FS2K4Pilot

8 ай бұрын

@@heinedenmarkHence why some can be equipped with back-up sights or even micro-red dots. I never found the Bindon Aiming Concept to be workable myself.

One thing to mention about the ACOG that often gets overlooked is the incredible situational awareness it gives you. The massive field of view and incredible clarity lets you gather a huge amount of information down range. It's the only scope that you use the scope to find things rather than using your eyes and then trying to find it in the scope. It's like a pair of binoculars you can shoot stuff through.

@civicsr2cool

8 ай бұрын

Agreed, and the vcog that replaced the acog for the Marines has even more fov plus 4x more magnification for positive id!

Were the Marines right ,Yes.

@dmacpher

8 ай бұрын

They made the decision sitting on the weir.

@bonedoc4556

8 ай бұрын

Where they made the decision no one knows.

@JRAT777

8 ай бұрын

Got to love when you have a typo in your comment about the typo. We're would not make any sense either.

@ars3nic

8 ай бұрын

​@@JRAT777that's the joke

@shanesanders2255

8 ай бұрын

No. Iron sights should have been left on. As a back up

I love that Alex is now the "real facts" guy. Yeah there's US bias and whatever, but if you want accurate, properly researched and well-presented facts, you ask Alex. I'd comment on the content of the video too, but Alex already did that.

@markmitchell457

8 ай бұрын

Sandbox was a bit sketchy in the past, I agree he has improved his posts considerably. The real KZread money is in true and accurate posts. Think of the channels you watched 2 years ago for info when the invasion started. We all dropped a lot of channels and kept watching the solid channels. Sandbox is pretty solid now.

@johndoh5182

8 ай бұрын

Ever since I've been watching I think he's done a great job getting to the data, saying what is known and what isn't and he can move through the material at a good clip giving the viewer a pretty complete understanding of whatever it is he's talking about and it's why he's now been nominated for awards for a few years now. I hope he wins this time because he deserves it. I watch one 2 other channels for military info, I like Alex the best. One is Ward Carroll. He's a little more long winded to get to where he's trying to go with a topic but still good. The other I'm not going to say but it's still based on US military or whatever it is they go up against. And I think he does a pretty good job of removing the bias and looking at the data. Or, if you mean he's biased in his topics, sure. His main focus is US military aviation and does an excellent job with it considering he was Marine infantry. To me that shows his dedication to learning.

@ApothecaryTerry

8 ай бұрын

@@johndoh5182 Your last paragraph is exactly what I meant with the bias - Alex biases his topics towards the US Military. You can see a fairly clear bias in the sense that he is proud of the US forces. Those are, of course, entirely reasonable biases. It only seems to affect the choice of story and occasionally the enthusiasm of delivery. The fact Alex is entirely honest about his perspective is very refreshing as far as I'm concerned. Being able to frame a story with that context, without letting it influence the story, is something I wish every other journalist did. There are others who manage it, but Alex is certainly one of (if not the) best I'm aware of.

The advantage of optical sights is beyond question. That being able to use BUIS is also beyond question. If memory serves, I recall some concerns following the second battle of Fallujah, when a large number of insurgents were found dead from headshots. Some suggested they had been assassinated, when in fact the Marines had put their ACOGs to proper use, and were making kills at distance with headshots. If that isn't proof enough, the Army study should clear up any doubts.

@triadwarfare

8 ай бұрын

The insurgents must be angry the fight wasn't fair.

@Ukraineaissance2014

8 ай бұрын

Shoot centre mass not headshots

@flyoverkid55

8 ай бұрын

@@Ukraineaissance2014 When all you can see is the head, and that person is trying to kill you and your friends, you take the head shot.

@MelodusDethicus

8 ай бұрын

@@Ukraineaissance2014 They were headshots because that was the only thing to shoot at.

@chadblechinger5746

8 ай бұрын

​@Ukraineaissance2014 There was also some talk about the center mass shots and tight urban areas allowing wounded insurgents to escape or hide in town and then return to fighting once healed. Also a few comments have already suggested that there was a lot of peaking over obstacles instead of around( from the side). This makes the backdrop act as a white( or cream or monotone) canvas and is picked up by the eye very easily. If you peak around an obsticle, the backdrop is much closer do to you being lower and generally offers some visual distraction or clutter that does not tend to be as easily noticed. Imagine some looking over the top of the car in any given remembered street or lot and then imagine the same setting but they peak around from down by the bumper. Both are visible but the over the top scenario is much more so and will be the case most of the times since sky is up and ground is not. Also the way alot of structures are built is with walls. Unless this wall happens to be camo or so detailed that it serves as camo it will more often then not work as a contrasting monotone backdrop...... maybe

When I built an LR-25, I included backup iron sights. I can’t help it, there is always that little inkling of doubt that an optic will fail. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@matchesburn

8 ай бұрын

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Being prepared is always a better mindset to have than being content. And... I mean... MBUIS, although definitely not the best BUIS out there, are small and your pocket change weighs more than it does. It simply doesn't make sense to not have BUIS on a service rifle.

@808INFantry11X

8 ай бұрын

​@@matchesburnI just got MBUIS for my AR as well best to always have back ups and not to mention all the ones I found are the real thing coming from an Army back ground trained the MTECH but to many knock offs that's what I hate about it.

@dan725

8 ай бұрын

I have backup irons in all my rifles. The only times I’ve ever used them was when I zero’d them haha. It’s been many years and my optics have yet to fail me.

@markmitchell457

8 ай бұрын

I'm a civilian with absolutely no combat experience. I did take advanced pistol training at the San Diego Police range. One police instructor told me that my Ruger P89 was not a stay alive pistol even though it's still an approved carry weapon in many police departments. I replaced it with his recommendation. I do believe that Marines should have a weapon that they believe is a stay alive weapon. They know best.

@buildmotosykletist1987

8 ай бұрын

There's also the challenge of using iron sights. In competition I prefer to compete with iron sights, it is more difficult.

ACOGs are awesome. I am not the best shot on iron sights as I struggle to maintain my cheek positioning. I would always barely qualify marksman with my iron sights. When we deployed with ACOGs though and qualified before deployment I went straight to expert because the rest of my fundamentals were good. I wish I could always have used it.

@panzer6tiger

8 ай бұрын

Did you have an easier time with Irons with the second apature?

I qualified on iron sights as a Marine infantryman in the late 80's, early 90's. I then served in the Army Reserve from 2001-2021. I never got to use the ACOG, but it seems like it would be a massive improvement. Most young people are near-sighted anyways, so this could compensate. The Army never issued me an ACOG (3.5 years OIF/OEF), but then again, I was a Cyber Warrant Officer; so if I had to use a weapon, we were screwed.

@FS2K4Pilot

8 ай бұрын

I qual’ed with iron sights aboard Paradise Island in ‘08, then got the RCO in the Fleet. My biggest annoyance was that when we’d BZO at the range, they’d never give us enough rounds to fire to get the point of impact into the center of the black, so my rifle always shot a bit off to one side. It was, however, quite precise. I once put three shots into the “head” of the target at the 500 yard line.

@doujinflip

8 ай бұрын

We got issued red dots when we deployed in 2012 (also a signal unit so something went very wrong if we were shooting more than comms). Practically guaranteed qualification on the first try, even without magnification. In fact there was a debate about how much better our scores should have been had we not been on a range with stale pop-ups with plenty of prior holes around center mass.

@poolee77

8 ай бұрын

You need corrected vision to use it. It does not have an adjustable diopter. It’s fixed for 20/20

@brandonlme4121

8 ай бұрын

​@@doujinflipyea the Army needs to do something with the pop-up target system. Like you mentioned, the holes all in center mass but also those electronic systems do fail. I remember being on a range at Camp McCain Grenada, MS and the 50 meter target would not go down for anyone. The pop-up target system can and does fail.

@90whatever

8 ай бұрын

Same, AF intel. Most with Aimpoints and M9s. If we had to engage the site was being over run. Plus we had to dump crypto on all gear and take axes to hard drives.

I deployed with these as a Grunt in 05/06. As a Grunt that pretty much lived outside the wire let me say, we were not careful or gentle with our government issued stuff. These optics were never babied and i never once thought to myself "will this break my ACOG?". That being said I never once saw or heard of a broken ACOG. The advantage of these things is amazing. Not only does it make distance shooting much easier, accurate, AND faster while allowing for keeping both eyes open during urban warfare. It also allowed for on the fly range adjustments while shooting without ever having to adjust the sights. That meant I could engage a target at 200 yards, immediately engage a target at 300 yards, and then drop back to 100 yard engagement without ever having to adjust my sights to correct for distance. Also I was able to us the reticle marks to get an approximate range, is also handy.

@adammathers4879

8 ай бұрын

I was a grunt too and we used meters, not yards. That being said, I agree with everything else you said.

I think Alex just demonstrated the old saying that at heart every Marine is a rifleman.

I am "old Corps" Marine I went in back in 1980 and left 13th Award expert. Yeah I learned to "crawl" in iron sight and "ran" with ACOG but I never qualified with the ACOG that being said I yet to know any ACOG being down. But yeah it's easy with ACOG to hit target, but saying that I can hit 10/10 at 500yrds with iron sight is soon becoming an urban legend myth. I must say I prefer ACOG over iron sights but still the nostalgia of hitting target up to 500yrds is a bit of a badge of honor that newer Marines will never know

@aenima2288

8 ай бұрын

the way i see it is if you can do it, then its bragging rights and pretty dope. But optics now are so insanely durable your putting yourself at a disadvantage by not getting one, i dont mean you personally i mean like some old salt dogs who think irons are the be all end all.

@studentaviator3756

8 ай бұрын

Is there value in training the newest recruits on irons to teach shooting fundementals.

@Packaroo

8 ай бұрын

Fundamentals will get you through the proverbial technological failures.@@studentaviator3756

@BeniBen

8 ай бұрын

I doubt it.. it's a perishable skills even if it's taught they won't have much use in the fleet with optics being part of their T/E @@studentaviator3756

@ecr-9341

8 ай бұрын

Yeah you’re not old Corps. Chucklehead…..

Another awesome video Alex, thanks. And thanks to all the vets for their comments and especially their service. Semper Fi.

I love POGActual's reply. He wasn't aggressive. He wasn't calling names or talking shit. He was very eloquent in his words. If only we could always have discourse like this. Anyways, I had an Aimpoint M68 on my M4 but I also kept a full rear sight/ carry handle in my kit and on me at all times. I would recommend this for anyone using an M4/M16/AR15/AR10 style rifle.

Canada went to optical sights (Elcan C79) in 1989; They are reliable, and dramatically increase effectiveness at range.

@sukhoiboy4140

8 ай бұрын

terrible sights. hate the reticle seriously everyone in the unit hates the reticle. terrible sight dumb reticle

@bikeman1x11

7 ай бұрын

when has canada ever won a war?? Id never trust optics without backup iron sights- i learned on iron sights and they just work

@iCookCrystalMeth

7 ай бұрын

i’ve always had a thing for the c79

I love my ACOGs and LPVOs but, whenever I start training someone to shoot, I always start them on iron sights and a standard mil trigger. I only transition to optics after they've gotten the fundamentals down.

@oskar6661

8 ай бұрын

Basic fundamentals are always important - and it helps the new shooters understand what an advancement an RDS or magnified optic is, or how fantastic an upgraded trigger "can be", etc. You won't appreciate anything if you jump into the deep end and get spoiled on 'fancy' or 'gucci' guns. I think a perfect example of this was that old show "Top Shot" on the History(?) channel. They would gather 12-14 people who shoot firearms - be it military, law enforcement, competitive shooting, hunting, etc. The people who frequently struggled the most were the competition shooters - probably spoiled by having race triggers, optics, low-power ammunition, etc. The people who were the fastest to pick up almost every firearm were the redneck hunters, or the guys who'd just been shooting random guns their whole lives.

American Gunsmith published a DoD Small Arms Repair Technician report with maintenance data tracking weapons from five brigades (about 8,000 weapons and accessories.) On a per-unit basis, iron sights required five times more service and maintenance than modern optics like the ACOG. Video with details: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mGSYusyepNSqhrQ.html

I'm old school, but I'm sold on optics with rifles. The SA80 and Steyr AUG has been around for decades. These new optics appear to be even better. Recruits should still be taught using iron sights though. It's always good to have some type of backup.

Yes. Much easier to make hits with an optic. Having back up irons is still a good thing to have.

Being an avid shooter, I can whole heartedly agree with you Alex. Thanks for taking up the cause, and doing what you do best, Real Journalism. Thanks Again!

Prism optics in general are very durable. It’s why that’s what’s on my “general purpose” rifle.

As an old Infantry Company Armorer, I agree with your assessment of the ACOG. On deployment it was the sight soldiers wanted on their M4s.

Forget wealth or fame. The respect and admiration of so many honourable and brave people must feel pretty good Alex. Love your stuff🇦🇺✌️

@darrenhooper9050

8 ай бұрын

🏴‍☠️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🏴‍☠️

From the perspective of a former Grunt soldier and eventually, weapons systems engineering Officer, the changes when my National force switched to optics back in the 80's were extremely positive. Soldiers struggling to qualify for marksmanship pass levels were suddenly making the grade, and the quality of the shooting of the non-warfighters lifted dramatically. Even before the change we had instinctive shooting skills drilled and night shooting skills without image intensification honed to a high degree, making even iron sights for the battle shot simply a reference. That weapon also had a basic night/battle sight with tritium dots but I can assure you, it was simply a reference, even in daylight. Single aimed shots is still a better choice and again the optics are simply a better solution but the argument that a redundant sighting facility on a personal weapon is desperately needed to make war is a huge stretch given the reliability and toughness of the Trijicon (and other similar optics I have used and assessed) and the unlikeliness of a total failure or catastrophic destruction. Additionally, in a battlefield analysis you quickly come to the realisation that there will soon be extra weapons at hand. It's almost a given. You can still lay effective fire without aiming. US troops utilised the full auto clearing patrol in Vietnam and I bet there wasn't much aiming at all. Aussies had water drip auto firing mechanisms on fixed rifles at Gallipoli to undertake a tactical withdrawal and keep enemy heads down....using bolt action single shots. It worked. My point is, basic soldiers need to concern themselves less with fantasies of sniping the enemy and recognise that they are a multi-tool with many ways to employ their tools of trade to defeat the enemy. You Marines have a certain saying about Adapt, Improvise, Overcome, which is a bit like the Aussie Can-Do attitude. Historical blind spots exist which is why I like to leaven my engineering work with researching history, and for a great portion of the history of projectile weapons there were limited or no dedicated sighting systems. A soldier may be less effective with no sighting mechanism, but an aggressive and adaptable soldier will find a way. Unfortunately we will always see the weight of momentum of a culture resist change. Usually because the brass refuse to properly engage the natural intellect of the soldier regarding their field of expertise, but also "just because". Modern weapons are accurate, reliable, and resilient. Take it to the bad guys with whatever you have at hand, and hope it's something new.

@GeorgiaBoy1961

8 ай бұрын

@GTRgeoff - Re: "Take it to the bad guys with whatever you have at hand, and hope it's something new." Soldiers in garrison are often required to be procedure-driven, regulation-oriented and "chicken-sh*t" if you'll pardon the old-school lingo. Because of inspections, senior NCOs and officers, and so on. But in the field, the smart army will let its soldiers solve problems using their own initiative and if a few rules get broken or bent, so what? During the Korean War, when sharpshooting and sniping enemy soldiers often required making long shots across mountain passes and valleys, enterprising U.S. soldiers and Marines jury-rigged a scope to a Browning 50-cal HBMG, and used it to fire upon Chi-Com and NK soldiers. The famous U.S. Marine Carlos Hathcock took the idea further and used a scoped 50-caliber MG - squeezing off single-shots at a time - to score what was at the time a record-distance sniper kill of over 2,000 yards. In WW2, when U.S. forces were bottled up by the German defenses in the hedgerow country of Normandy, and could not break out into open country, the brass thought they were stymied. They couldn't see a solution to the problem of the enormous and quite extensive and strong network of hedgerows. However, an army sergeant named Curtis Cullen took scrap steel from Rommel's beach-front obstacles and welded together a sort of chopper or modified bulldozer blade, which was attached to the front of M4 Sherman tanks. This "Rhino" device as it became known, allowed the GIs and their supporting tanks to burst through a hedgerow with one or two mighty thrusts, and clear whatever enemy were inside. Cullen got decorated with the Legion of Merit, and the rest is history. The morale of the story is let the soldier in the field solve his problems using his own inventiveness and initiative.

Righteous. Thank you for answering literally all of the questions I've had recently pertaining to this and putting my mind at ease. Ooh rah!

Going to an optic makes sense, especially since you can co-witness the optic with iron sights. In other words, co-witnessing allows you to still see and use the iron sights if the optic breaks. As it turns out, most ACOG models, when mounted to a carry handle, have an open space through the mount to allow the use of the rifle's iron sights without removing the scope.

@poolee77

8 ай бұрын

Not possible without removing the optic with the mount and irons the Marine Corps uses. Hell I was issued a carry handle rear as a backup so it stayed in a pouch lol

Had an ACOG hit by the main rotor of an AH1W during a crash. The rifle was destroyed. The ACOG had a chip in the optic guard. That's all the damage it had.

I love to see the respect between channels like this.

I remember very much loving the 'battle sights' as they were called on my M-16A2 way back in the day, but when you're sweating in the desert and your vision is slightly blurry because of that sweat running down profusely and getting into your eyes, it's hard to see those 200-300 meter targets without any type of magnification. You will shoot with more confidence and clarity with even a modest 1.5x or 2x sight. as I am much older now, I would have a hard time identifying a target at 300 meters without optics even in the best conditions.

Alex, I learn more good stuff every time I get a new download from you! Thanks, and have a good one.

Alex For some reason it appeared that you really loved this topic and challenge given to you. Love your channel and information you share. Keep up the great work! Doug

Alex,I'd like to say that you have one great channel, with great info!!

Thank you for your insights.

Thanks for the video.

I carried it for a year in Afghanistan and loved it. Never had a problem with it and was banging it around getting in and out of our RG-31 and walking on patrol all the time. Amazing optic. Couldn't say enough good things about it. Thanks for the story.

Thank you for sharing 🏆🤗🙏🇺🇲🎖️

thank you for many of the facts and numbers in this vid

Here in Australia when we went from the old semi auto SLR 7.62 nato weapon to the Austyer 5.56 nato weapon it had a optical sight as part of the carry handle it was all in one pice with the reciever having trained initially back in the 1970's with the SLR where we spent many hours shooting the old bugger some of witch were first issued before I was born but we were able to by time of leaving basic training mostly qualify to basic sniper level accurcy with the SLR with peep and blade iron sights then in 1988 we in the reserves finally started to get the new fantastic plastic Austyer and I for one would always qualify simply because as a reservist all i had to do to qualify was fire 20 rounds down range a year and it didnt even matter if you hit the target. Our biggest concern was that the 5.56 had no where near the stopping power of the 7.62 which was borne out in our deployment as UN Peace Makers in east timor in 2000 when an insurgent was hit over 20 times by 5.56 rounds and was able to get 5 miles away before he set a trap if he had been followed and in the process of waiting for the follow up bleed to death. This was because while depployed the UN would not allow us to use the ss109 rounds we had for the weapon and made us use what were basically our target range PRACTICE rounds because the ss109 had a penetrator inthe round and the UN classified this as an amour piercing round. However due to being earmarked for deployment to a combat area we in our 6 month work up were given the sort of intensive range time I knew back in the 1970's and I was able to qualify with the Austyer as a sniper and my over all shooting was improved from a 1/2 inch grouping in the 1970's to almost a 1/4 inch grouping with the austyer. These were later modified to have picaniny rails to fit different ttypes of scopes on to the weapon and the old inbuilt optics in the carry handle went away with the carry handle. But the optics were much better as well. but the FIRST Austyers had a back up on top of the optical sight which allowed you to use a small V and a blade iron sight as a backup.

I don’t own an acog but two predecessors ACOGs (advanced combat optical gunsights) and mounted them on my 12 gauge BPS shotgun. Understatement to how quick I could track and shoot anything running or flying. Both eyes open and a red dot just appears in your entire field of view. Has some disadvantages in that me and my brother of a very similar genetic makeup could swap guns back and forth with no shift in impact but when I let a friend shoot it his point of impact was off by feet at 40 yards. Some disadvantages if one were to be used in a combat environment but not an issue with a du k or and 8 point buck.

I think like a tool, it can certainly help those who use optics. That being said, there are rare situations where optics will not work, get broken, etc, especially with how many are going to be digitized eventually. I think it's still important to know the foundations of shooting from the ground up, just in case you need to go back to them.

I have been using the ACOG on and off since the TA01 came out in 1987. At over $750, it was a brutally expensive sight back then that had trouble catching on mostly because of the cost when Red Dots and the idea of LPVO were in their infancy. The TA01 proved to be a superb optic, 4X and they mounted on the carry handle mount but later on when the first AR flat tops appeared (weaver or STANAG upper receivers well before M1913 rails appeared), some guys I knew made that transition and used the front sight as their sole backup. There was a lot of pushback from the Military, LE and Civilian Firearms community back then as with all new types of tech but it didn't take too long for such to catch on and stay. I had no trouble engaging and hitting targets at 500 yards. Nowadays, you can get the ACOG with backup irons or their RMR on top which in my opinion is plenty redundant. That being noted, the optic itself is super rugged BUT I have had failures with them, all related to the fiber optic dry rotting usually due to the glue used to hold that material up against the interior of the housing. This issue was more prevalent on Trijicon's Reflex optics than on the ACOG as the FO parts design is very different. The ACOG will keep working if the fiber optic fails, you just won't have the illuminated reticle.

@atelerdt7725

8 ай бұрын

You may find it finny that quite a lot of IDF ACOG users tend to hide their fiber strip with a piece of tape. It is considered cooler that way

"What if the ACOG breaks?" The ACOG is already broken, but as long as you don't tell it it doesn't care.

I'm not a veteran of any kind (much less a Marine) but I've been a fan of iron sights since I was a kid. To the point where at 13 I pulled a Leupold scope off my hunting rifle and put a Redfield aperture sight on it instead. But that was ages ago, and today all my target rifles have high quality optics on them. Mostly Leupold. Maybe 25% of that is because my eyes suck anymore, but the other 75% is it's simply more versatile and accurate. I've never had an ACOG in my hands, but if I were going into a safety not guaranteed situation I would certainly choose it over irons.

wow! great report!

The USMC moving target study found iron sights interfered with engaging running targets. All of which is why the USMC is investing heavily in new moving target ranges. In any study, the outcome criteria’s fidelity is critical.

Great vid! Semper Fi

Sold! I'm putting the ACOG on my shopping list. I was 0341 75-77 Active duty then Tanks Reserve for a couple years. Semper Fi.

In "After Action," a book written by a Cobra pilot, he talks about one occasion where he was operating the weapons system on said aircraft in a hostile area and saw someone who looked like they had a rifle slung on their shoulder. He warmed up the targeting systems and took a good look before firing and ... through the enhanced optics, he could tell that the person had a guitar slung on their back, not a rifle. The "target" was non-combatant. He held his fire. He emphasizes, multiple times in the book, that he was well aware of the lethality of the weapons at his command and he was scrupulously conscientious about whom he shot and whom he didn't. There were occasions where someone fired a heavy weapon at someone under his watch, then dismounted the weapon and tried to melt away into the local populace; not happenin', guys. They had clearly demonstrated that they were combatants and, lack of uniform notwithstanding, he was within his RoE to wipe them out. He did so, before they could mix with the local populace and he could still clearly identify them. This is something which you just can't get with iron sights. While I share the concern about "what happens if it breaks," I think it can be argued that they've got to great lengths to avoid that happening. These sound like a net positive.

great video. all info I already knew but the 9 min video was so well written it felt like a couple minutes.

Hey Alex, great video! That last statement you made quoting James Maddis(sp?), that the change in optics was biggest improvement for Marine infantry since the M1 Garand in WWII? WOW! That is a hell of an indorsement, as the Garland changed everything for our infantrymen, particularly in the Marine Corps! Wow!

@angman1966

8 ай бұрын

GARAND -I hate auto correct

Trijicon appreciates the boost in sales attributed to this video.

Great video

Good job!

The the expansion of content subjects! 👌 A video breakdown on the UK army new assault rifle would be a great watch!

Yes... I bought mine when I got out.. which hurt more than me needing to clean my rifle after using it before a 96.

Active duty Marine here. When I checked into my POG unit on Lejeune in March I was issued back-up irons

Love trijicon. Love the new VCOG

Thanks Mr Hollings......🇺🇸

The military spent about $300 million to see if they could make a gun that was twice as accurate as the M-16. Several companies worked to make some crazy designs up. Finally one manufacturer said if you put optics on a rifle you will achieve the results you are after. So the government spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to find out scopes help you shoot better. Who would have thunk it?

All my favorite channels posting in the same hour is crazy

I was usmc from 2003-2009. I was iron sights the entire time and reached sharpshooter at best. Then when i got recalled in 2009 under the IRR i was given an acog for the first time and scored a high expert. Shit was easy with that thing. I love it

@bigdoze172

5 ай бұрын

Felt good to go from pizza box to expert

I got out of the Corps in February. I was a Forward Observer, part of an artillery unit, and everyone there got Back up Irons, and the ACOGs all were on QD mounts

Not only were we right in leaving irons sights behind, we were right in leaving the acog behind! The vcog is the new hotness baby, no need for scout snipers when everyone is running around with 8x magnification now!

Evolving mission calls for a better view of targets for better identification.

5:03 Nice!😁

2:40 It's not just the Marine Corps that does that. When I have an appointment at the VA hospital I always wear my Navy ball cap. The ritual is that (for example while waiting at the pharmacy) you see another older guy wearing an Army etc cap and you immediately exchange insults regarding his/her branch of service. Then you query each other on where you served and what you did. Finally you bring it all home by commiserating on how terrible the military is nowadays compared to when WE were young bucks in uniform. Good times.

What a great video, very informative. Yeah, the AGOG is the daddy: no math ranging, and spot on bullet drop compensation.; plus, a reticle which quickly gives the shooter exacting recognition for where the rifle is pointed.

The answer is yes. The answer to what if it breaks is "It doesn't."

@matchesburn

8 ай бұрын

"The answer to what if it breaks is 'It doesn't.'" Until it actually does, anyways. We should definitely emphasize and train on modern optics because we're fighting on a modern battlefield. But just assuming that nothing will ever go wrong with them and not having BUIS is... hubris. Yes, the chance is incredibly small. But if it does happen, you're going to wish you had BUIS on your rifle.

@AnAngryRedGummyBear

8 ай бұрын

@@matchesburn It's a strange assumption that the sight needs to be more durable than the weapon system or have more redundancy than the weapon system. Any impact capable of destroying an acog would destroy the upper receiver. No one talks about the need to walk around with a spare upper or a spare lower. Or the gas system. Could it be destroyed? Yes. Is the weapon itself likely inoperable at that point? Also yes. Its far more practical to have 1 complete spare system among the squad (a carbine for someone usually carrying a bolt gun or shotgun) or a few spare rifles if you're in vics, than it would be to equip 13 pairs of irons. You'd end up with stupid shit like when people were attaching carry handles upside down to the quad rails to use as the worlds worst forward grip.

@matchesburn

8 ай бұрын

@@AnAngryRedGummyBear "It's a strange assumption that the sight needs to be more durable than the weapon system or have more redundancy than the weapon system." ...No, no it isn't. "Any impact capable of destroying an acog would destroy the upper receiver." Also wrong. As evidence by this very video showing an ACOG with round through it and the rest of the rifle untouched. Very bad assumption and it goes to show how little thought you've put into this.

@AnAngryRedGummyBear

8 ай бұрын

@@matchesburn And if that round had hit the upper, the upper would be fucked. If it hit the mag well, weapon fucked. FCG, weapon fucked. Buffer tube, weapon fucked. Why is the optic treated differently?

I agree with this assessment.

Alex, I’m a 33 year video production professional. You’re getting intermittent overmodulation on the plosives. Get your audio guy to get you a pop-stopper to sit in front of your mic. These things are cheap (Stedman Proscreen is great and $45) and make a difference to sound quality. Also, your space is reverberant. Look at treating the room a bit, for example with blankets draped over clothes rails, etc. Also cheap and improves sound a lot. Thanks for the great content 😊

You need to look at the introduction of SUIT L2A2 site unit infrantry trilux for the L1A1 SLR and the SUSAT (site unit small arms trilux, the needle in the Susat points upwards compared to the suit pointing down) for the SA80/L85 used by the Royal Marines and British army infrantry regiments. This was quite abit earlier than the ACOG. I know I was in the the first troop through commando training to use the Susat and SA80. The SA80 broke often, the Susat never did.

Absolutely an upgrade. I read a report many years ago, although I can’t remember the numbers, hits exponentially increased with the introduction of the acog, especially in Afghanistan. It’s the reason the army started using the CCO.

@kevinallies1014

8 ай бұрын

Exponentially? I doubt they actually increased exponentially. Maybe you don’t understand what an exponent is?

I had a lense shatter in my AVOG RCO on my 2nd pump.. where where chasing a BOLO vic at night with IR Flood and NODs, driver hit 12 foot wadi doin 50 or 60 in open dessert... 240 ejected off mount, I buttstroke myself, axel snapped when daylight came and we took up security when we got towed I looked through my ACOG and it was shattered. IRONS also gave me confidence so when I got an ACOG I was more confident. Just like you learn surf passage with paddles before you get horsepower.

Started with irons in the army. Then used M68 (Aimpoint Comp M2) in Afghanistan, then eventually ACOGS, Eotechs and Elcan Spectres. I truly believe the optic is a massive improvement in every way. Improved time to target, faster recovery, two eyes open (with some of them), etc etc etc. my battery last years and had zero failures of any kind except for the eotechs I use them all still but prefer the elcan

I was in the Corp from 78 -84 so I never used an Acog on a service rifle, but I taught my 3 children and 4 grandchildren to use open sights. Yes any type of lenses in an optics is better but you still have to learn the basics. And yes if Acog's weren't so expensive I'd have one on more of my equipment. 😂

I wrote the FONS for the M-4 with mounted ACOG in 1995! I had MGen Wilhelm , CG MARFORLANT, come out to Stone Bay when I was the SNCOIC of 2nd MarDiv Scout/Sniper School at that time, to attend a Sniper Employment Class he had ordered all Infantry Plt/Company Commanders to attend prior to any Deployment. He accepted the challenge to participate in a “shoot/no shoot” drill from the 200 yd line. First, the standard issued M16A3 with iron sights. He could not ID the threat and did not fire. Next, same drill… same Tgts… with the M-4 with ACOG (X4 Power), and he immediately double tapped the threat Tgt!! He immediately turned to the entourage behind the firing line and SHOUTED… “ I want this system in the hands of every Infantry Marine that deploys from now on”!!! He wrote a P-4 to all USMC General Officers in Command Billets (Combat Arms/MARFORSYSCOM), demanding resolution!! This is published in LtCol Norm Chandlers Sniper Series Death From Afar. I had written three “Letters to the Commandant” Gen.Krulak) describing this issue. The Range Officers around the Corps responded with a resounding “NO WAY”, Marines shoot Iron Sights… period!!! This from one of the only MOS’s that doesn’t deploy!! Competitive Shooters I called “paper shooters” verses the Infantry… “People shooters”! This pissed them off even more! This is how the entire thing started REGARDLESS of how some twisted history got somebody a Silver Star at WTBN, Quantico or MARFORSYSCOM!!! Marines began buying their own version of an ACOG ( attachable to their carrying handles) to deploy with because in modern combat target ID us everything. Prior to the demonstration with Lt. Gen Wilhelm, I had included the use of the M-4 rail mounted ACOG in two Scout/Sniper Classes for use by the Spotter! That is about all of the durability test ANYTHING needed to convince Me, my Instructors, and WTBN Stone Bay that this was the way to go! I don’t care about not getting credit for any and ALL of the advancements that came out of the Scout/Sniper Schools I had the privilege to run ( All three at that time), ( The M82A1, improved Camo, Defeating thermals, better ammo, variable powered scope, Urban Employment, on and on), we’re just glad that the issue has been addressed and saved a lot of Marines!!!! A small part of the Corps (Never T/O by 45%), less than 250 Marines at any given time… impacted the entire Corps and our SWAT L/E friends… so much for the better from the mid 80’s through about 2004!!! That’s when trying and results were the best in the world, in all of our history! Now the Scout/Snipers have been removed from the infantry. I know why and it’s a damn shame. This is not the forum for that but I’ll just say it was probably a self inflicted wound due to the lack of training and command/control issues… in the schools and in the Units both in Garrison and the Field! Much like it was before the mid 90’s!

@neilmorris6927

8 ай бұрын

Mid 80’s… I stand corrected!!

The ACOG is without a doubt superior to open or iron sights. In every way. I never worried much about the studies run on this issue. My concern has always been with the one 19 y/o PVT who’s optic gets damaged. He still has his weapon system… but he’s now out of the fight. It’s not ‘if’ a piece of equipment is damaged. It’s ‘when’ the situation + fate + whatever else factors into these things, ultimately finds a way to take that piece of equipment offline. What does he do?

I was the range OIC when my company first fielded the RCO’s. There were 240-ish shooters. All using brand new ACOG’s. One was bad out of the box.

As a Marine from the early 70’s who only had peep sights for the M16A1, I really like Vortex. Especially for old eyesight.

Optics improve performance. That is a fact and having magnification helps in threat identification so the broader adoption of the ACOG is only a benefit. Though I still say learn the fundamentals with irons first.

@ashhawk7489

8 ай бұрын

The air force secury forces runs red dot sight on M4 and it speeds up target acquisition and identification in CQB so there is another data point.

I pre-qualified with iron sights and had to learn to use the RCO for qual day. Shot expert on both. It isnt hard, but takes adjustment.

I've got to say the USAF should use that photo of you in 2009 for recruitment. It's the panicle look of a US Soldier. Thanks for your service then and today! I hope you win at least one of those honors for Journalism that you are up for.

I qualified with iron sights in ‘89. I have an issue where it’s difficult for me to keep one eye closed & one open. I can do it, but I have to kinda force it, so those muscles get tired pretty quickly. It also makes it harder to just relax & concentrate on the shot. I can’t imagine how much the ACOG would’ve improved my shooting. Even if it didn’t (which I don’t believe for a second) it would’ve been far more comfortable for me.

Well a friend of mine was working at Quantico at the time when the decision was made to deploy m4 and optics. We discussed this subject many times. He said it took a lot of convincing before both happened. The same was true for mass deploying the cans.

the drop leg holster says EVERYTHING..Firmly beleive in iron sights as part of annual quals then you can optic. need to spend more time in field. 5 mi 35 lbs (CMC reading list Soilders load....) hump to range, live in field. shoot and hump back

Apology in advance, chiming in @ 1:55. FWIW the individual unit of Marine is (according to my dearly departed former Korea Marine father) the Rifleman. The most Marine of Rilfemen is the Expert, and most Marines strive mightily to be good Marines at the least, and thus expert is the desired state of being. I'm an operational dinosaur, and don't mind irons at all as is true of most experts trained nearly exclusively with iron sights for around 60 years. Optics are easier to teach shooters to use effectively. Easier equals faster and because the only universal currency is time, it is always going to be FAR cheaper. On a battle field the dead ACOG on a rifle in hand isn't the working ACOG a few feet away that a former fellow Marine no longer needs, unfortunately. Problem solved, for that use case. Back to your video now, and thank you. P.S. - Firstly thank you for your service, and I truly enjoyed your research and observations! Time well spent.

I served from 83 to 87 age 17 to 21. Iron sites was all we had. Today old eyesight the ACOG is a game changer for me. Wish i had it when i was in.

Fascinating

The ACOG fits directly onto the carrying handle of the M16. The iron sights can also be used through the hole on the base of the ACOG. It's how I carried my ACOG in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't like not having iron sights as a backup.

Had to drop this comment because I got lucky on this topic. My battalion in USMC bootcamp San Diego in 2011 were the first to use ACOG's from the start. The range instructors told us they were using us as a sort of a test for future classes with ACOG's. It always felt weird seeing more senior classes marching with iron sites while we had scopes. In the end one of the range instructors told us that he thought we actually performed slightly worse than those with iron sights. Not sure what the reasons for that were but I thought it helped me quite a bit.

That’s a loaded question. Mission dictates your sights. Room to room-irons House to house-EOTech Block to block-EOTech/ACOG Open country-ACOG

@Dero_milsurp

8 ай бұрын

Dumbest logic so far. You've obviously done nothing of what you listed.

@baneofbanes

8 ай бұрын

Room to room is what red dot and holographic sights were made for.

Oh, By the way… We trained the shooters to BZO with iron sights, mark the sights and rail with fingernail polish, then put them in their ass pack. Easily replacing a broken ACOG ( if ever needed), and still being in the fight accurately. A “peep through” type of attached optic was a non-starter! We also demonstrated the use of this system for CQB verses the HK MP-5.

Modern optics are a true force multiplier. Having said that, anyone looking to be a proficient shooter will benefit from mastering iron sights first, before making the jump to an optic. Iron sights require the user of the firearm to have or develop sound fundamentals in order to be effective with them. Proper sight alignment and natural point of aim, the mechanics of pressing the trigger and follow-through, proper body position and posture, and so on. There is also the fact that using iron sights requires the brain and eye to index three different objects in space, namely the rear sight, the front sight and the target itself. If you are proficient with iron sights, making the jump to something like an Aimpoint red-dot sight or an ACOG is revelatory in that it takes so much of the work out of making a shot. It is almost literally point-and-click. I remember back during the mid-2000s, the International Red Cross was complaining that "atrocities" were being committed in Iraq by U.S.-coalition forces. How? So many enemy corpses were being recovered with head-shot kills. Iraqi propagandists and others sympathetic to them were claiming that captured enemy personnel were being executed "gangland" style. An investigation was done and it turned out to be nothing of the sort: American infantry equipped with ACOGs and other optics were so proficient with their sights that they were scoring routine head-shots from hundreds of yards or meters away. But better have those back-up iron sights, because you never know when you might need or want them. Better to have and not need or want than to need and want but not have....

I mostly use optics on my AR uppers, but I also practice with backup iron sights as well

I started out on an iron sight A2, then A4 with CompM4, and eventually transitioned to M4 with ACOG. I liked the ACOG the most and it survived an IED blast inside the humvee I was in.