Browe BCO vs. ACOG

[SuperSet]

I don't understand the draw of a fixed magnification scope.

[09cs]

Since it's a very close design to the ACOG, I imagine the shape would handle impacts well just like the ACOG. The body is titanium which is way more rugged than the aluminum used in the ACOG (it's also lighter ). Basically, consider it like a new generation of the ACOG, nothing lost (unless you're worried about EMP ), a whole lot gained.

Thats what my tin foil hat is for

I know titanium is very strong, but with so many electronics, light sensor, circuit board etc.. I just wasn't sure if an accidental drop or something would cause a 1500 dollar optic to break

[CriticallyStressed]

As was mentioned earlier, Aimpoint has the same situation being electronically powered and they're nearly bombproof. Having a BCO I can tell you the quality is first rate and I have confidence that a former Trijicon employee put the same level of robustness into the design.

Of course, there's no way I can "prove" this. We have to see how they do long term. 15 yrs from now there would be more data to do a real comparison.

[CriticallyStressed]

@SuperSet:
If you have to ask...

In all seriousness though, fixed makes sense for certain applications and not others. Just like there is no correct answer to "which handgun should I get?" or "which rifle is best?" Context matters most.

In this case, I chose the fixed 4x BCO because I can use well from 0-600yds. It's very fast and I don't have to dial in holdovers or memorize drops. I just use the BDC and get hits. I also don't have to worry about forgetting to turn down the magnification like on a variable when making close-range shots. With the illuminated chevron, using the BAC method, it's not hard to make good hits.

Sure, an Aimpoint or EOtech is faster 50yds and in, a higher magnification variable will be better at the longer distances (300-600yds), mainly for target identification. Neither of those two choices do well across the entire spectrum of distance though.

Another factor to consider is that fixed power optics, especially those like the BCO and ACOG, tend to be more rugged than their variable power brethren.

[09cs]

@SuperSet:
If you have to ask...

In all seriousness though, fixed makes sense for certain applications and not others. Just like there is no correct answer to "which handgun should I get?" or "which rifle is best?" Context matters most.

In this case, I chose the fixed 4x BCO because I can use well from 0-600yds. It's very fast and I don't have to dial in holdovers or memorize drops. I just use the BDC and get hits. I also don't have to worry about forgetting to turn down the magnification like on a variable when making close-range shots. With the illuminated chevron, using the BAC method, it's not hard to make good hits.

Sure, an Aimpoint or EOtech is faster 50yds and in, a higher magnification variable will be better at the longer distances (300-600yds), mainly for target identification. Neither of those two choices do well across the entire spectrum of distance though.

Another factor to consider is that fixed power optics, especially those like the BCO and ACOG, tend to be more rugged than their variable power brethren.

Speaking of the BAC method, do you find it easier to use the BAC method with the front cap closed for close shots

[eviioiive]

Since it's a very close design to the ACOG, I imagine the shape would handle impacts well just like the ACOG. The body is titanium which is way more rugged than the aluminum used in the ACOG (it's also lighter ). Basically, consider it like a new generation of the ACOG, nothing lost (unless you're worried about EMP ), a whole lot gained.

The sight is lighter or titanium is lighter than aluminum..?

[CriticallyStressed]

The sight is lighter or titanium is lighter than aluminum..?

The BCO (with mount) seems lighter though I haven't weighed them.
The ACOG only gives their weight without a mount for the TA31F. The LED ACOG is heavier than the BCO though.

[09cs]

I know there was a write up on here about the three main ACOGs that showed them weighed but for the life of me I can't remember

[Press Check]

The BCO (with mount) seems lighter though I haven't weighed them.
The ACOG only gives their weight without a mount for the TA31F. The LED ACOG is heavier than the BCO though.

I just happen to have a few ACOG's and a scale sitting here.

The TA51 mount for the TA31F weighs a stout 4oz, but most aftermarket mounting systems weigh less. Combined, the TA31F with the TA51 mount weighs 13.9oz.

I also have the TA02 LED model, which weighs 17.35oz with a Bobro QD mount, and the AA battery installed. The advertised weight is 18.1oz, and since we now know the TA51 mount weighs 4oz, and the AA battery weighs .5oz, the base weight of the LED ACOG is 13.6oz.

As for the BCO, which is their combat model machined from titanium, it is advertised as weighing 17oz, but does not specify if that is with or without the battery and mount. Since it is available with 3 different mounts, it would seem safe to assume that 17oz is the base weight of the optic itself, excluding the mount, and probably the battery as well, but who knows.

Oddly enough, their BTO model, which is their tactical model, and machined from 7075 aluminum, is advertised as weighing the same as the BCO, which again, is machined from titanium. In this application, based on their data, there is no weight saved with titanium, but is marketed as being lightweight. Conversely, the aluminum model is marketed as being nearly indestructible.

How's that for marketing.

[09cs]

Thanks for the weights!

[goodlookin1]

I know there was a write up on here about the three main ACOGs that showed them weighed but for the life of me I can't remember

U mean this one?

http://www.firearmreviews.net/acog-comparison/

I have the same thing up on this forum somewhere, but started my own site and now put my reviews there. Much quicker for me to give u the above kink rather than find it on the forum.

[sunborder]

How's that for marketing.

Or it could be a typo/cut & paste error. It would be interesting to see them both on a scale with the same mount & battery in them.

[09cs]

U mean this one?

http://www.firearmreviews.net/acog-comparison/

I have the same thing up on this forum somewhere, but started my own site and now put my reviews there. Much quicker for me to give u the above kink rather than find it on the forum.

Yes that one! lol

Should do a review of the BCO vs. ACOG for me

[goodlookin1]

Yes that one! lol

Should do a review of the BCO vs. ACOG for me

Sure thing. Just have a Browe BCO sent my way and I'll do it within two weeks time, then send it back

In all honesty, I don't think it's really much different than the TA31F. Glass quality appears to be about the same, it has the same specs in eye relief and field of view, basically the same reticle options....even the owner was a high up exec for Trijicon! So it's no wonder why they are practically the same scopes.

You would have to decide if it's worth the extra $500 for the auto reticle brightness, because other than that and being much heavier than the TA31F, they are basically the same from what I can see.

But keep in mind that I have not seen this scope in person.....it's all from pictures and online word of mouth, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Best of luck!

[09cs]

Yeah that's the thing, its more for basically the same thing. The auto light thing is a cool feature though I must admit. If I like the ta31 eye relief I may take a chance on it to give people in the same boat as me a good review