Trijicon ACOG Comparison Write-up: TA33 vs TA11 vs TA31 (**Pic Heavy**) RMR Included!

[goodlookin1]

Hey guys,

I sometimes see questions on which ACOG to get. Being that I have access to the 3 most popular models, I figured I'd do a write-up and comparison with pics to help those who are trying to figure out which one to get, or which one will serve their purpose best. Who knows: Maybe this can become a sticky so that people will be able to find it in the future. Anyway, here goes the review.

Here are the three models up for review and consideration: TA33 (3x), TA11 (3.5x) and TA31 (4x). Each, I believe, has a special niche which helps them excel in certain shooting conditions. All exhibit extremely clear, bright and crisp glass....some of the best there is. They are all extremely rugged and can take a beating.



Weight
Depending on what kind of rifle you plan to put one of these scopes on, you will probably want to consider the weight of each scope. The TA11 came in at the heaviest and by far the largest/longest of the 3 at 17.93 oz. 2nd place in weight goes to the TA31, weighing 13.83 oz. The lightest of the 3 goes to the TA33, weight a scant 11.74 oz. All three weights were measured WITH the TA60 mount EXCEPT the TA31 which has an American Defense RECON single throw levered quick detach mount. It seems to be lighter than the TA60, so that helped the over all weight a little bit.....but not much.





Eye Relief
The next thing to consider with these scopes are the specs. One of the biggest factors in choosing the correct ACOG is going to be whether you require long eye relief or if you dont mind a nose-to-charging handle head position. Eye relief affects a number of other factors as well: Peripheral vision, typically field of view, head position forgiveness, general comfort, etc. The most popular ACOG is the TA31 largely due to it being the military issued ACOG. I am not aware of many other instances where a different model ACOG is issued.....MAYBE for machine gunners, but I believe MG'ers are issued Elcan optics. Anyway, it is the TA31 that has the short eye relief: 1.5" to be exact. In testing this, I found the practical distance is somewhere between 1.5"-1.75" MAX. Going back any further cuts your field of view down and darkens the edges of the sight picture dramatically with small changes in distance away from the ocular lens when past the ideal distance. Below is a picture of the ideal head position for the TA31: It requires a nose-to-charging handle head position....this was the furthest back I could go before losing field of view and exhibiting darkened edges.



The TA11 has more generous eye relief. The exit pupil is also larger and more forgiving for head positioning. Trijicon claims 2.4" eye relief and I found that to be exactly correct. To me, it felt much more natural and flat out easier to get on target with the TA11. With the scope a little further away from your face, you get a little better peripheral vision and it is easier to get your head/eye in the correct position to acquire your target, but these benefits come with two drawbacks: Scope weight and field of view. More on FOV later.



The TA33 has by FAR the most generous eye relief, which has one major advantage: Speed. For me, the TA33 is a fast, heads-up and target acquired kind of scope. Trijicon claims a meager 1.9" eye relief for this model, but I find that laughable. The practical max eye relief is actually about 4"! One of the cool things about this scope is that you can also get much close to the ocular lens (front glass eye piece) without having any negative effects on the sight picture....it will only give you a bigger black border around the sight picture. This, of course, gives you no benefit as the closer the scope is to your face, the less peripheral vision you have to your surroundings, but the flexibility of mounting it further forward or back closer towards your face is there without any detrimental sight picture effects.



Continued on next post....

[goodlookin1]

Field of View
I love a large field of view. It makes it feel like there is more magnification than is really there. You get to see more through the scope, you can ID your targets with better precision, and it's just flat out pretty. Unfortunately, the trade off for a field of view is **typically** a very short eye relief. At least in the ACOG series. This especially plays a big factor in the TA31. Field of View is measured in either degrees, which most people dont understand, or in feet. In this case, I will use feet for ease of understanding. For example, at 100 yards the TA33 will show 19.3 ft (3.7 deg). So if at 100 yards you pound in two stakes into the ground 19.3 ft across, you can look through the scope and the stakes will be on the far left edge and the far right edge with the reticle in the exact center between them. Everything past those stakes on the outsides will be blackened by the scope. Make sense? Basically, a wider field of view lets you see more in the scope. Moving on, let's compare the 3 ACOGs: As stated already, the TA33 is 19.3 ft @ 3x, the TA11 is 28.9 ft @ 3.5x and the TA31 is 36.8 ft @ 4x. What's strange is that typically, the more magnification you add, the less you will get in field of view: They have an inverse relationship. However, what has happened here is that when you mix in the eye relief specs, it flip flopped. Even though the TA33 is 3x, it has the longest eye relief, giving the smallest field of view. The TA11 is in the middle, having 3.5x in magnification and a decent (but not great) eye relief of 2.4", yielding a middle of the road 28.9 ft field of view. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum you have the TA31 @ 4x and the shortest eye relief of, we'll say 1.5", giving the largest field of view of 36.8 ft. The reality is that going from 3x to 4x doesnt affect the field of view AS MUCH as going from 1.5" to 4" of eye relief. Hope that makes sense. It does in my head, but I probably didnt put it on (e)paper very well. To demonstrate what Field of View does, look at this animated GIF picture I put together:



These pics were all taken at the same distance, which is about 25-30 yards from the fence. As you can see, looking through the TA33 is like looking through a small metal pipe compared to the other two. One note: Please forgive the bad picture taking of the TA31...it is VERY difficult to get a non-blurry picture due to the short eye relief and smaller exit pupil...in person, it is very crisp edge to edge. Below is another animated GIF that shows the scope views at a further distance of an estimated 160-170 yards or so to the fence.



All in all, field of view definitely has its' advantages, and some of those may be really important to you. But the cons to a large field of view may be more important to you to not have, so you have to decide what is more important to you. More on my thoughts on this in my conclusion.

Exit Pupil
Exit Pupil is one of those specs that doesnt get talked about much, yet it can play a critical factor in speed and accuracy. The exit pupil is basically the size of the pipe that the light travels through. It is measured at the ocular lens and is measured in Millimeters. Below is a picture of the exit pupils of the three scopes:



The TA11 and the TA33 measure in at 10mm, while the TA31 measures at 8mm. In all honesty, 8mm is still pretty generous, but it does seem to make a difference in the speed of acquiring a proper head/eye alignment with the scope. Another benefit of a larger exit pupil is that it can alleviate eyestrain, but I havent found that this happens in any of the scopes. Overall, I wouldnt put too much emphasis on this attribute, but it is/can be a contributing factor.

Objectives
There's not too much I have to say about this one that is not already obvious. To me, it doesnt seem to make a difference. Low light performance is often based on the objective size, but that usually only matters when you have a very high magnification, low quality glass and some other factors. In this case, all three have amazing glass, large exit pupils, low magnification.....all which contribute to good low light scopes. But I took a picture of them anyway:



The TA33 has a 30mm objective, the TA31 a 32mm and the TA11 a 35mm objective. They all exhibit very bright glass and one would be hard pressed to notice a difference in light throughput based on the objective size difference alone. But there is a physical difference between the scopes' objectives, so I put it in this comparison thread.

Glass Clarity and Resolution
Unfortunately, this section is something that is often in the eye of the beholder. There are tests that you can do to check for light transmission and so forth, but I do not have the tools for such an undertaking. I let my eyes do the talking. I have looked through a good number of scopes over the years and know what my eyes like. Trijicon products are definitely one of them. I should put out a warning first: If you are not used to good glass and are thinking about upgrading to an ACOG or other high quality scope, be prepared to not be satisfied with your medium quality scopes from here on out! Having good glass really spoils you, and it doesnt take long. You'll find yourself not liking to use your older, lower quality scopes. The difference between an ACOG and a budget clone or a "hold me over for a while" scope is, in my humble opinion, night and day. To me, it literally looks like someone put on a darkening filter or a sunglasses lens over the objective when looking through the cheap stuff. Maybe I am a glass snob now....no, I am DEFINITELY a glass snob now. And it's hit my pocketbook bad.

Nevertheless, "you get what you pay for" certainly applies here. ACOG glass is pretty much second to none in it's class. Some have argued that the Elcan Spectre Dr is way better: I've only looked through one once and it didnt blow me away, being that I was already used to an ACOG. But take that as a grain of salt because I didnt do a side by side comparison or anything. All I know is that for the ACOGs I've seen, they all produce crisp sight pictures, super bright glass and high resolution so you can accurately ID and aim at far out targets. Of course, these scopes arent meant to be used on a sniper rifle or for any super high precision shooting. They are pretty much in the "Body MOA" niche of the military world, which is to say, it belongs on a foot soldier's rifle.

I have tried to take high resolution photos looking through the scopes, but they just never do it justice. I have found very few on the web that really blow me away. For whatever reason, it's just hard to take a picture that does the scope justice. Therefore, I will not post any pics attempting to show you the resolution or clarity. The ones you have seen already are pretty much the best I could get with my equipment. I would highly suggest that you see these scopes in person before you buy. Look through them, mount them, get a good feel for how they would work on your rifle. That's really the best way to tell which one will work for you best......not my words.

Conclusion
Over all, all three of these scopes are very excellent. High quality construction, built like tanks, great clarity and definition, bright, automatically adjusts to ambient light conditions, etc. But deciding which one will work best for you will be determined by a few factors: I wont attempt to sell you one way or another because I dont know your situation. But below I'll give a quick summation and my opinion as a general guideline, and you can go from there.

TA33
Pros: Fast, heads-up shooting with a light weight rifle, and also allows for fast target acquisition. It's very small field of view helps take out distraction of the surrounding areas and lets you focus on what's most important: Your target. The long eye relief and large exit pupil make for very versatile head positions, scope rail mounting positions, makes awkward shooting positions more comfortable, and gives the ability for great peripheral vision. Really is amazing to me how big the exit pupil is when the ocular lens is so much smaller than its' counterparts. The TA11 has the same 10mm exit pupil, yet the ocular lens appears to have a 35% larger diameter. I also feel the lower magnification and small field of view also help with speed in CQB type shooting.
Cons: Small field of view hinders target ID'ing. It also gives the "tunnel view" feeling, like you want to see more around the target but you cant. The small field of view also makes it feel like there is less magnification. The super long eye relief also makes it so that mounting it closer to your head **can be** problematic for proper sight picture. In my case, I have my rifle's stock pinned in the first notch position for featureless configuration with TA31....because of the long eye relief with the TA33, I have to mount it further forward than I would like, which changes the weight/balance of the rifle.

TA31
Pros: Amazing field of view that lets you see the world. It's just pretty to look through and impressive. For range purposes, this is my favorite scope to use because fast head position and eye relief are not critical factors.....I'd rather see the beautiful sight picture. Clarity is amazing as well. Large field of view makes it feel like it is more than 4x. I'd say that this scope is better for situations where distance is an issue. Slower shot making, ensuring hits are made, deliberate shooting and paying high attention to the details in the sight picture.....that's what this scope does well.
Cons: Many cant stand the short eye relief. I can understand that sentiment, but it doesnt bother me much. However, I can see where it could be problematic in awkward shooting positions. It also doesnt make the scope particularly fast at heads up shooting. With practice, you can get used to it, but it certainly would be my first choice in a 3-gun competition. Smaller exit pupil also means head position is more critical. In practice, it's best if you get used to a consistent cheek weld so it is repeatable over and over. If you dont do this, your point of aim can be slightly off. And if your heads gets in a REALLY bad position, the reticle will actually blur because it is outside the exit pupil's range. Going into a pitch black room with only the Tritium illumination is weird: Without a consistent cheek weld, you will find it hard to get the reticle in a position where it is not blurry.

TA11
Pros: What can I say, this scope really seems to be the bees knees. Other than size, it is a perfect blend of TA33 and TA31. Middle of the road eye relief and field of view, it allows for fast shooting without getting lost on the sight picture, but also still allows you to ID targets and get on target fast. The eye relief is still good enough to have some mounting flexibility, and the exit pupil is a generous 10mm, making perfect cheek weld/head position not nearly as critical for proper sight picture. Picture is bright and clear, with high resolution detail. It also seems that the longer Fiber Optic line makes for a brighter reticle, like it can gather more light than the shorter ones. I dont have anything scientific to prove that, just an observation.
Cons: I dont have too much in the negative here, other than weight. Feels like a mighty big scope for a tiny, lightweight AR15 like I have. I actually dont use it on my AR15....my model is the TA11E, which has a .308 BDC Chevron reticle, and it is perfectly suited on my .308 AR. If anything, my only complaint would be the relatively low magnification for a .308, but I knew what I was getting before I bought it, and I absolutely love it so far.

[goodlookin1]

So Is there a clear winner? I dont think so. If I absolutely HAD to choose, I would choose the TA11 over the others. There, I said it. And I say it only because of its' versatility between rifles, its' "Middle of the Road"/"Pretty good at everything" kind of optic. Am I disappointed in the others? Not in the slightest. The TA33 and TA31 are better for other specific things, but IMO, are more specialized to those niches and have bigger pitfalls when it comes to the non-specialized uses. In other words, FOR ME, the specializations dont outweigh the pitfalls. The TA11 works best for me, and being that it's on a .308, its added weight isnt much of a concern for me because the rifle is already pretty heavy. I need to say, however, that all of these 3 scopes are completely interchangeable in roles. In other words, you could use a TA33 in place of a TA31 and use it for the same type of shooting, or a TA11 for a TA33....they can all be used for any of the roles that you choose, whether it be CQB, Midrange blasting, range queen, 3-gun, pretty much anything other than precision or super long range accuracy. But I do believe that each one fills a specific role better than another, with the TA11 being closer to a neutral role than the other two. One last thing I want to mention, and it applies to all three of them: The only downfall to the ACOG Dual Illumination series is that they dont work so well when shooting from a fairly dark environment, looking out into a brightly lit area. For instance, my home range has covered benches, while the targets are out in the open. Therefore, the target is bright, but the bench is shady. You can still see reticle color, but it's not anything like being under the sun. Pretty much, you either need to be shooting from the same lit environment that your target is in, or you need to somehow control the lighting on the fiber optic (tape a glowstick to it, or if it's vice versa lighting conditions, tape up the fiber line with electrical tape to block the light induction). Having said that, even in un-ideal conditions, it's still not that bad and the reticle just looks either black, or a lackluster red. Still visible. I'd still much rather have this problem than use batteries

I really dont have anything more to add than what I've already said. There are some other things, like illumination color, reticle pattern, and looks/design that I could get into, but that really comes down to personal preference and I have no business telling you which one will work/look better for you anyway. I am personally a fan of the Red Chevron and like the look of the TA31, but as always, YMMV.

Well, I hope this review/comparison thread is helpful for those in the market for an ACOG but confused on which one to get.

Oh, and a special shout out to my wife, who took care of our kids while I used up practically this entire Sunday to put this review/comparison together

NOW Included: I have added an RMR04 to my TA31F. Info on this mini red dot can be found beginning on the next page at post 46 (pictures), 48, 69 and 75.

[Press Check]

Very note-worthy review. I have a TA31-CH.

[Big bug]

Awesome write up!
Good job thanks for your contribution

[NiteQwill]

Good write-up. I think we can all appreciate the contribution.

[dragon7]

Excellent comparison of the most popular ACOG models. Wish I had your review when I was trying to decide which model to mount on my last AR build. You cover all the important features. Reading your review did help confirm for me that I made the right choice for my rifle which is the TA31GH.

[thmpr]

The TA11 is popular in the 308 platform because of the eye relief.

[Ishoot]

Appreciate the write up as well. I'm in the market and was steering towards the TA11 and this just helped it's case. It's basically between a 1-4 scope or ACOG for an "everything" scope on my 20" barreled AR and I'm just soaking up the info. Thanks

[Ishoot]

Appreciate the write up as well. I'm in the market and was steering towards the TA11 and this just helped it's case. It's basically between a 1-4 scope or ACOG for an "everything" scope on my 20" barreled AR and I'm just soaking up the info. Thanks

[Sumo99]

Great write up and it's really nice to have photos of these 3 models side-by-side for easy comparison.

So, when you going to review the different reticle types and colors.



1 small correction...In your conclusion of the TA31. Under Pros you wrote "Amazing eye relief..." when I think you meant FOV.

[goodlookin1]

Thanks guys, was just hoping to help.

Sumo, thanks for the Peer Review! You are 100% correct that I meant Field of View, so I have changed it to say that. As for your other request on reticles and colors, I currently have two hindrances:

1) My wife said it had to be at least another month before I used up another full day to write up a review/comparison thread

2) A source for the various optics with different colors to have/borrow for review. My ability to fund such a review/comparison is far from being even close to realistic I'm already broke from buying two of the three scopes in this review. Now if you wanna send some scopes my way, I'd be happy to oblige....

[HighLander51]

Have you shot any 3 Gun matches with your new setup?

[jonc]

Wow great write up!!!!

I have the TA11H..

I love it!
@600 I'm still good!

[goodlookin1]

Have you shot any 3 Gun matches with your new setup?

I've never shot in any kind of match before. It's something I've thought about though. I wouldnt say I am proficient enough with pistols and shotguns yet, nor do I have the right shotgun and pistol setup for such a match. Looks fun though!

I actually own the TA31 and the TA11. I borrowed the TA33 from my dad and have used it on a few occasions. If I were to start doing 3-gun matches, the probability of me getting a TA33 would likely be 99%.....would be such a great optic for that task. The TA31 on my AR15 wouldnt be ideal, IMO. Yes, it could certainly be done, but I know the TA33 would be quite a bit measurably faster.....at least for me.