ACOG TA01 vs TA31F reticle

[mutt]

I have a TA31F and I like it except for 1 thing. I've found the chevron reticle isn't the best for trying to do more precise shots at 200m. 100m and 300m shots are fine since I use either the tip of the chevron or the tip of the post, but the 200m POA is the area where the chevron's inner legs meet:

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae156/mutt112000/ta31fs00m.jpg

Since the chevron covers the top half of the target area, it tends to obscure smaller targets, like clays. It really gets bad when there's a lot of sun and the chevron blooms.

I started looking at other ACOG reticles and I noticed the TA01 has a more traditional cross hair reticle. Does anyone have any thoughts on the TA01 reticle? Does it work better for smaller targets at 200m than the TA31F reticle? Or maybe I'm just using the TA31F reticle wrong at 200m?

[TheBelly]

a standard crosshair reticle will be easier for the smaller targets, but there is something else to consider: How small is the target? The width of the actual reticle hash marks can get it the way of this.

Also, the ACOGs have a Ballistic reticle and not a mil-based system. They are calibrated for a particular bullet/powder/barrel/density altitude combo. Just double check to see where your rounds is actually striking at the distances being advertised by the reticle. Essentially, 200 yards might not be where the bullet actually strikes when you get it out to 200 yards.

Thirdly, if the ACOG has a fiber optic light collector on top, you can put a piece of electrical tape, duct tape, or even a fancy scope fly on it to control how much light gets collected, and thusly how bright the reticle becomes.

[King]

Yeah but the TA31f reticle is much faster for target acquisition. Its a combat optic, not a target optic

[marty]

Yeah but the TA31f reticle is much faster for target acquisition. Its a combat optic, not a target optic

The TA01 has an excellent reticle but has a very short eye relief. I sold mine due to the eye relief, kept whacking my glasses.