rifle upgrades

**Mr Happy** · 12-03-2008, 17:43

Originally Posted by Chris_2oo6

all i got told was that were getting them first (inf)

Probably...

I saw the distribution order for C95 back in 1996, there were two columns, they were for ARMY and TERRITORIAL ARMY. The idea appeared that the distribution would start with the Regs but before all the Regs were done, the TA would start getting theirs:

Basic Reg order was

C/S deploying for Bos
C/S deploying for NI
22 SAS
Inf
arty
cav
remfs

basic TA order was

21/23 SAS
HAC
Inf
arty
cav (?)
remfs

The sum of this means that if you're not deploying to Iraq or AFG anytime soon you might find that a TA RLC L/Cpl will have his A2 gucci'd before you. Of course, rifles aren't C95 so the order may be different.

**EX_STAB** · 12-03-2008, 17:55

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

there's a couple of work arounds for the Stanag,

1. get a thin converter for stannag to pictanny, should be able to be done without too much trouble. it would raise the height of the sight a bit but the SUSAT is already quite high so perhaps this will work well with ACOG

2. have an arm coming off the top of the foregrip pictanny allowing the sight to be mounted on the arm. So it sorts of floats above the STANAG grooves.

As I recall the STANAG rail is welded on to the receiver. (long time since I've seen one)

In this case your option(1) above would be the best.
Alternatively, a rework would just screw one on over The STANAG item.

Option (2) that you describe would be very bad for holding a zero. Might work for fitting an image intensifier that the ACOG looks through though. I've seen pictures of similar setups.

**Mr Happy** · 12-03-2008, 17:57

I agree both comments, option 1 OK, option 2 asking for trouble. But I had to think of something to compare option 1 with!

**Gun_Nut** · 12-03-2008, 22:11

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

image is too small, does anyone have the kit mag url?

Page 21:

I believe that the ACOGs are being bought with STANAG brackets fitted. And yes, we are the only NATO country to actually use the NATO rail!

**EX_STAB** · 12-03-2008, 23:56

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

image is too small, does anyone have the kit mag url?

Page 21:

I believe that the ACOGs are being bought with STANAG brackets fitted. And yes, we are the only NATO country to actually use the NATO rail!

That really is barmy. Then again, I suppose the alternative would be adaptors for everything else.

Hmmm......

**Confused_Andy** · 13-03-2008, 06:42

Well if theres an order for a couple of thousand units, the manufacturers would put a different rail fitment on.

**petergriffen** · 13-03-2008, 07:20

If the rails are from b&t they must be pricy.

**bobath** · 13-03-2008, 12:58

Why use the ACOG site at all? There is a pic about with a SUSAT with a red-dot site on the top in place of the EBS.

Is the ACOG sufficently better to require such a costly upgrade. I have only used one on COD4 so I can't say anything about the realy world site.

**chrisg46** · 13-03-2008, 13:06

How is the SUSAT "too complicated"?

**EX_STAB** · 13-03-2008, 13:24

Originally Posted by bobath

Why use the ACOG site at all? There is a pic about with a SUSAT with a red-dot site on the top in place of the EBS.

Is the ACOG sufficently better to require such a costly upgrade. I have only used one on COD4 so I can't say anything about the realy world site.

Principle differences:

The SUSAT is British made and features a fixed reticle (aiming post), external mechanical adjustment for zeroing and external range adjustment.

The US made ACOG has zeroing by way of internal adjustments to the reticle and range adjustment by use of multiple aiming points on the reticle.

Both use Tritium although the ACOG also has light gathering reticle illumination via fibreoptics.

Both could mount the miniature red - dot satisfactorily.

The SUSAT in theory ought to be more robust but modern scopes are very good in this regard anyway. The ACOG will be much quicker and easier to zero. Holding over for range would be easier with the ACOG and the sight picture is a lot easier to my mind. I think the ACOG sight picture would actually lead to better marksmanship but that's purely speculation based on my own experience.

The ACOG requires a different reticle (and hence scope for all practical purposes) to suit different weapons.
The SUSAT uses the same scope with a different elevation drum fitted in the mount.

SUSAT manufacturer's website:
http://www.usiltd.co.uk/usi.php?load...l&productid=27

ACOG mnfrs website:
http://www.trijicon.com/specialties/military.cfm

Trijicon reticle superimposed on a figure target outline. Note aiming points for various ranges. Perhaps it is a bit too fussy.

**Mr Happy** · 13-03-2008, 14:56

Having had the chance to use "THEM's" ACOG on a C8 (I think) I believe, during my brief fam the following list is a fair account of the differences:

1. wider field of view
2. the size of the horizontal bars is the width of a man so you aim higher to hit him at longer ranges

Not the best image I've seen but you can see the horizontal bars, simple put those between your targets shoulder and pull the trigger. Not sure how it works on a running man though!

3. Its lighter (apparently)
4. Better night performance (I was told). I believe it requires a battery, may be wrong here. But even without, its better than the SUSAT

Lastly,

Whilst SUSAT was liked on introduction, you have to remember everyone had iron sights or SUIT back then, it was seen as a great piece of kit and probably was, but like mobile phones, technology has changed.

**bobath** · 13-03-2008, 15:20

Thanks for that. Just a note, I KNOW WHAT A FECKING SUSAT IS!

Looks a little complex in those pics though. KISS applys at all times (it does in my unit anyway, that last S most of all). My service will be up by the time it comes in so I'm not worried.

As for it being lighter the Brit version will no doubt be made of lead and DU to over come that little problem.

**Mr Happy** · 13-03-2008, 15:26

Originally Posted by bobath

Thanks for that. Just a note, I KNOW WHAT A FECKING SUSAT IS!

Looks a little complex in those pics though. KISS applys at all times (it does in my unit anyway, that last S most of all). My service will be up by the time it comes in so I'm not worried.

As for it being lighter the Brit version will no doubt be made of lead and DU to over come that little problem.

I would be the last person to agree that THEY are smarter than the average soldier so if the door kickers can handle it, OC Stackers Sqn should have no problem, Its really easy and (here;s the important bit), if you can get some range practice in, you'll have no problem. Its a doozy. practice makes perfect..

**Whiskey_60** · 14-03-2008, 00:01

Theres a couple of pictures on ArmyNET, 2 PARAs pages of them doing pre tour training with the ACOGs fitted.

Its got like... an extension thing on so the sight sits quite high and looks really unnatural compared to the SUSAT.

Its hard to describe but for those without Armynet access im sure there will be pictures of them in Afg soon enough so you can see what I mean.

**bobath** · 14-03-2008, 13:56

I suppose with a bit of practice you can get used to anything. A sight is a sight after all.

Given that money's tight is it such a leap forward though that we should be spending cash on this, and the converter rails etc? I am not being difficult, I am just thinking of cost to benefit ratio. Like I said I've never used one so don't know the difference it makes.