The VCOG!

FFP reticle that looks nearly unusable at anything under 3x. Makes me wonder if it'd even make a good red dot at 1x.

BDC reticle that limits you to barrel length and grain weight of ammo.

Very limiting mounting options.

No tritium or fiber optic.

23.2 OZ weight.

Yup, looks like they just brought a flop to market. Do not want.
 
Here we go, a pic demonstrating the optic at 1x and 6x.

VCOG-Features1.jpg


I'll give the benefit of the doubt here and say perhaps they used an unflattering target (yeah I'm really reaching with this one, it's friggin red on white) but it looks unusable as a 1x red dot. Subtensions are absolutely gone.

Do not want.
 
Well, before everyone starts bringing out the pitch fork, these things are designed for certain requirements. You can find this stuff buried in some huge powerpoint file on project management on the net.


Squad Common Optic Initial Concept

Increment I: 2nd Generation Optic
-
Variable Magnification, 1-6x (T), 1-8x (O)

Unity power desired for Close Range Effects

High magnification desired for increased P(id)/P(h)
-
Reduced SWaP: ≤ 1.5 lbs
-
Delivery timeframe - late 2015


My guess is that they must be battery powered so they can be compatible with clip on NV.

The BDC is an army thing. It is designed to combine an ACOG and aimpoint for line soldiers. It is NOT a DMR or "sniper" optic.

The picture in the VCOG brochure is wrong. At 1X, you cannot see the donut at all. Only a reddot is visible.

The fix mounting is also an army thing - it is only going to be mounted on M4, M16 and M249 anyways. They probably make it high enough to clear for the PEQ. No way to mess things up if the mount is integrated to the scope.

You may not like it, but this is how they think they can best meet whatever the requirements that have been put forth. The Leupold MK6 is pretty much the same thing essentially but different in the details. There are some commonalities, such as recticle design, but differences in execution, such as the presence of locking turrets and battery choice.
 
Well, before everyone starts bringing out the pitch fork, these things are designed for certain requirements. You can find this stuff buried in some huge powerpoint file on project management on the net.

I'd agree with all this. The optic was clearly designed as you say to address a very specific RFQ or whatever regarding someone's perceived needs.

I'd say the price tag also goes along with it.

Someone will buy one, but, for most of us, there are better options. Trijicon didn't design this one for us, and doesn't care if we buy it or not. It's production is probably already planned based on a specific order size, and they figure they can probably make more money simply by making it available to everyone.
 
How is this better then the bushnell 1-6.5 FFP at $1200. It even has the horseshoe reticule!

Where did anyone say it was better than any other optic? The consensus here is that the VCOG was designed for a specific clientele and fails to deliver anything desirable for competitive shooters, varmint/hunters, or the majority of MIL/LE.

TDC
 
Where did anyone say it was better than any other optic? The consensus here is that the VCOG was designed for a specific clientele and fails to deliver anything desirable for competitive shooters, varmint/hunters, or the majority of MIL/LE.

TDC

I agree, it is a very limiting optic from what I can see and there is nothing about the reticule choices that say 'quick acquisition' to me. Don't get me wrong, I am a Trijicon fanboy, but I think this one misses the mark.
 
Back
Top Bottom