Trijicon Accupoint scopes

[OZZ]

I used the 3-9x this summer in Zimbabwe. I did a review of it in the HUnting and Sporting Arms forum - http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=501885&highlight=trijicon

Bottom line is that I was unimpressed. The illuminated triangle is too large (illuminated portion should be 25% the sizer that it is), the illumination is too bright and distracting even when turned all the way down in brightness) and the glass quality was poor, exhibiting the "fish-eye" effect. I did look through the demo at P&D and it looked better but there are fundamental problems with the illumination system that I cannot get past. I shot 5 animals using that scope, missed two and wounded one (a baboon). FOr the price the scope should be better and the system should have been though through better.

Obviously something wrong with your unit that you used or your eyes just dont like the scope. I 100% disagree with everything you say about it, the glass is very clear to my eyes. I also wish the green triangle on both of mine could be brighter as it washes out from dark to a very bright area but the black outline of the triangle still shows up fine.

 

[DaveMachine]

I used the 3-9x this summer in Zimbabwe. I did a review of it in the HUnting and Sporting Arms forum - http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=501885&highlight=trijicon

Bottom line is that I was unimpressed. The illuminated triangle is too large (illuminated portion should be 25% the sizer that it is), the illumination is too bright and distracting even when turned all the way down in brightness) and the glass quality was poor, exhibiting the "fish-eye" effect. I did look through the demo at P&D and it looked better but there are fundamental problems with the illumination system that I cannot get past. I shot 5 animals using that scope, missed two and wounded one (a baboon). FOr the price the scope should be better and the system should have been though through better.

I don't understand how you can attribute missing your target 3 times out of 5 with an optic from a company like Trijicon. Maybe you had a bum scope but somehow I don't see it.

 

[BigUglyMan]

I don't understand how you can attribute missing your target 3 times out of 5 with an optic from a company like Trijicon. Maybe you had a bum scope but somehow I don't see it.

Quite simply the illuminates triangle is too large and too bright. On quick shots it will tend to cause your eye to concentrate on the middle portion (brightest) of the triangle and cause your shots to go high when sighted in for POI to coincide with the tip of the triangle. A smaller lighted portion and the ability to completely choke off the fibre-optic would reduce this tendency. When given more time to settle and concentrate on the shot there was no trick to making good hits with the rifle, but when the light starts to get dim and the reticle is glowing like a bonfire in the scope, it's not ideal. Just needs some tweaking to be perfect.

This is the difference between using a product on the range and using one in the bush. Minute of paper silhouette is not minute of animal.

 

[Satain]

but the mil-dot accu-point does not have these same issues. I find that only the triangle one to give me this type of focusing issues.

 

[allanderoo]

Quite simply the illuminates triangle is too large and too bright. On quick shots it will tend to cause your eye to concentrate on the middle portion (brightest) of the triangle and cause your shots to go high when sighted in for POI to coincide with the tip of the triangle. A smaller lighted portion and the ability to completely choke off the fibre-optic would reduce this tendency. When given more time to settle and concentrate on the shot there was no trick to making good hits with the rifle, but when the light starts to get dim and the reticle is glowing like a bonfire in the scope, it's not ideal. Just needs some tweaking to be perfect.

This is the difference between using a product on the range and using one in the bush. Minute of paper silhouette is not minute of animal.

that sounds like a personal problem to me, you should adapt and over come

 

[Gundoggy]

The TR24 (I have TR24G green triangle) has a fiber optic cover that can be adjusted to cut off illumination.

I've always found Trijicon to be clearer glass than Leupold. The triangle is not the most precise scope but when mounted on a 16" carbine, sighted in to 50y, pretty much holds zero to 200y with only minor rise at 100y.

 

[Omega]

Quite simply the illuminates triangle is too large and too bright. On quick shots it will tend to cause your eye to concentrate on the middle portion (brightest) of the triangle and cause your shots to go high when sighted in for POI to coincide with the tip of the triangle. A smaller lighted portion and the ability to completely choke off the fibre-optic would reduce this tendency. When given more time to settle and concentrate on the shot there was no trick to making good hits with the rifle, but when the light starts to get dim and the reticle is glowing like a bonfire in the scope, it's not ideal. Just needs some tweaking to be perfect.

This is the difference between using a product on the range and using one in the bush. Minute of paper silhouette is not minute of animal.

Very astute observations! I had one mounted on a rifle here and 4 out of 4 people shot high in the exact way you describe. The glass was very mediocre and certainly aimed at the 100 yard paper warriors. I dumped the unit.

 

[OZZ]

Very astute observations! I had one mounted on a rifle here and 4 out of 4 people shot high in the exact way you describe. The glass was very mediocre and certainly aimed at the 100 yard paper warriors. I dumped the unit.

eh, mediocre compared to what scope in this price range? And what about when you were shooting it, Did you shoot high too even tho you hade zeroed the scope yourself? You hand any scope set for yourself off to someone else and Im sure they wont be very accurate.

Is it a target scope?? HELL NO! Its a center mass destroyer

I also dont get the too bright?? I can competelly close of the fibre optic on both of mine and when I do this I can barely see the green in the triangle in the daytime, the black post and outline of the tip stand out more than the lit center.

Ultimatelly I think this shows lack of trigger time with your equipment.

 

[BigUglyMan]

I also dont get the too bright?? I can competelly close of the fibre optic on both of mine and when I do this I can barely see the green in the triangle in the daytime, the black post and outline of the tip stand out more than the lit center.

Maybe your unit has a different shade on the fiber. The ones I've handled did not completely cover the fiber and thus could only be "choked"off so much. I hunted with the cover as closed as I could make it. The one I hunted with was amber, though I doubt the colour makes a big difference. And as I said, if the illuminated portion was 25% the size that it currently is the bright triangle would tend to draw your eye closer to the tip rather than down to the biggest (and thus the brightest) part of the reticle. For me, a lighted reticle need only be so bright that it is visible in the shadows as the darkness comes.

Ultimatelly I think this shows lack of trigger time with your equipment.

Wasn't my scope. It was on a rental from the outfitting company. Both were new that year so only had 3 months of hunting on them. I do agree that had I been more familiar with the scope my shooting might have been easier. My point was, simply, that I find the reticle too bright and coarse for precision work under pressure.

 

[OZZ]

I dont know maybe what you used was older one? I have noticed the fibre optic part looks different on some of their scopes, some look like a oval mines just a straight line. I have 2 of them, one is 1-4x24 green triangle and its dimensions are 4 moa at the tip down to 16 moa at the base, also have a 3-9x40 green triangle and its 2 moa at the tip down to 6 moa at the base.

Link to the specs, http://www.trijicon.com/pdfs/AccuPoint_Specs.pdf


I dont think from a rental unit ( rifle/scope ) that you would expect laser beams every shot, how can anyone expect great accuracy from some combo you never ranged yourself? You didnt know the gun,scope or ammo at different ranges so how can you expect better?

If you dont like it then hey fair enough but saying it sucks under those circumstances I dont think is fair at all.

 

[Omega]

eh, mediocre compared to what scope in this price range?

Nothing in that price range, I was thinking more like a Bushnell 3200 price range.

And what about when you were shooting it, Did you shoot high too even tho you hade zeroed the scope yourself?

No I didn't shoot high as I knew better but I had to think about it everytime. I shot nearly 500 rounds through it on 3 different rifles and it NEVER became second nature. Maybe that isn't enough shooting it, I don't know, I do know that a dot or crosshair is instinctive first time every time.

You hand any scope set for yourself off to someone else and Im sure they wont be very accurate.

Wrong. They may not hit the same POI as I but the rifle/scope combination will still be accurate and group to the shooters ability. you can guess how hilarious the giant groups shot with the Accupoint were at the range. The same comment came from the red faced people, "now why the hell would they set a scope up that way?"

Is it a target scope??

No truer words were ever typed!! I wouldn't mount another one on anything. I can't think of a single application that the silly triangle would be the perfect fit for.

 

[BigUglyMan]

If you dont like it then hey fair enough but saying it sucks under those circumstances I dont think is fair at all.

I didn't say that it sucks, but from my experience it could be better. I think my criticism is completely fair. Whether or not I'd shot it prior to the trip is academic - I spent 10 days carrying, aiming and shooting the rifle and scope. It was plenty accurate, but I believe that the reticle design was poorly thought out and could be better. The glass on the unit I used left a lot to be desired and the illuminated reticle was too bright. YMMV, but that was my experience in a certain circumstance. Other guys might have had great experience with them. The duplex reticle model with the dot might have been outstanding and alleviated the issues I found with the triangle. I will say that the triangle reticle made hitting my trotting warthog at 40 yards quite easy. It just wouldn't be my choice if I was buying a general purpose hunting scope. But for a bush scope that might require fast action it is sound in theory - just needs a smaller illuminated triangle.

 

[OZZ]

I get it you guys dont like it and cant deal with it so it sucks. Maybe you guys have some kind of mothman syndrome?
When you see a bright light you get all hyper-orgasmic and cant concentrate on the tip

Stick to those ultra clear Bushnells..........

 

[smak_daddy]

I sold my TA31 ACOG for a 1.25-4x accupoint. I wouldn't go back to an ACOG if you paid me.

Accupoint is variable power and has WAY better eye relief.

The bightness of the reticle can go from none to full.

I am going to buy a 4x-12x with a traditional cross hair reticle to hunt with.

 

[smak_daddy]

Here is the reticle of my 1.25-4 trijicon accupoint. The triangle is quite small in my mind.

NOTE - THE RETICLE IS VERY SHARP AND IN FOCUS IN REAL LIFE, MY PHOTOS JUST SUCK.

1.25x (the triangle is 100% crisp in real life, it looks fuzzy in my photo)

4x (again bad camera work, the triangle is super crisp)

4x low light

4x pitch black, 100% no light

set to allow 100% light in to illuminate reticle

set to allow 50% light in to illuminate reticle

set to allow no light in to illuminate reticle (normal scope)

My eyes are bad but the adjustable objective makes eveything look crisp and sharp

 

[Omega]

I get it you guys dont like it and cant deal with it so it sucks. Maybe you guys have some kind of mothman syndrome?
When you see a bright light you get all hyper-orgasmic and cant concentrate on the tip

Stick to those ultra clear Bushnells..........

Hahaha! So because i'm not one of the sheeple drinking the silly triangle kool aid I must be a moth? Not the brightest argument I've heard.
I never said Bushnell glass was clear, it's not. I only said the Trijicon optics quality was almost as good as Bushnell, another mediocre optic I don't own anymore.