Is the ACOG now standard issue instead of the SUSAT?

#1
Or is it only used in certain Infantry Regiments? Was just wondering as you see some pictures on the news and sometimes the pic will show a SUSAT and others will show the ACOG!

So is it just a slow phase out or what?

Just curious!

Cheers.
 
#2
Oh!, what a day that would be? But i fear not. The procurement cycle for something as fundamental to what we do as that would be tortuous! I managed to use one a couple of times on TELIC 4 (not attached to the SA80 I hasten to add), and I for one would welcome it as an option.
A lot of the US military seem to have purchased their own, and the chain of command seems happy with this. Plus there is the advantage that they can go up to 5x magnification.
 
#3
A slow phase-in, IIRC

Von_Paulus said:
A lot of the US military seem to have purchased their own, and the chain of command seems happy with this. Plus there is the advantage that they can go up to 5x magnification.
Yes, but their gats have a standard Picatinny rail on the top, to which you can attach a shop or interweb bought ACOG. Part of the slowness of the phase-in is the necessity to procur them re-worked for the perfectly good as it goes but thoroughly non-standard rail on the SA-80.
 
#4
Actually, I think you'll find that the sight rail on SA80 IS the NATO standard. It's not our fault if nobody else took any notice of the NATO bumper fun book of Ordnance standards, and stuck Picatinny rails on everything, now is it?

At the mo, ACOG is for teeth arm troops on TELIC and HERRICK. There are various minor exceptions, but that's the rule of thumb.

IMHO, SUSAT is still pretty good (FISH excepted), and has the added bonus of being virtually indestructible.
 
#5
The actual sight itself might be indestructable (debatable)

but the mount is dogs, the amount of time I spend repairing the mounts is stupid, easily the most common fault on the weapon

the range drum is a pain, compared to the ACOG system its way short of ideal, SUSAT, guess range adjust drum to suit, ACOG move sight up target until horizontal line fits shoulder width, pull trigger, which would you prefer?
 
#6
Surely now is the time to remove the STANAG rail though? As mentioned, the rail is the NATO standard, but no one bothers with it, except us.

A bit like the spams forceing 7.62 on us and then deciding 5.56 is better (after we bought the SLR and killed off the EM-2)

As the ACOGs come in, the rifles (and other weapons) could have a grinder taken down the top of their bodys, and a picatinny put on. Done and dusted. Label the weapons the A3 or A2a (for ACOG :D ), and then Inf would use that, and everyone else would use A2, that would reduce problems int he G4 chain.

This would save a fortune later, as we wouldn't have to get firms to manufacture sights in the nato standard rail, but could just purchase readily available picatiny railed equipment.

And when the SA 80 is replaced we wont have the added expense or thinking time of "should we go picatinny on the new weapon?" with the answer "but all our existing sights are STANAG"

Not too sure on the American scheme of personal sights, IIRC weren't M-16 improved flash suppresors being bought too?
 
#7
chocolate_frog said:
Surely now is the time to remove the STANAG rail though? As mentioned, the rail is the NATO standard, but no one bothers with it, except us.

A bit like the spams forceing 7.62 on us and then deciding 5.56 is better (after we bought the SLR and killed off the EM-2)

As the ACOGs come in, the rifles (and other weapons) could have a grinder taken down the top of their bodys, and a picatinny put on. Done and dusted. Label the weapons the A3 or A2a (for ACOG :D ), and then Inf would use that, and everyone else would use A2, that would reduce problems int he G4 chain.

This would save a fortune later, as we wouldn't have to get firms to manufacture sights in the nato standard rail, but could just purchase readily available picatiny railed equipment.

And when the SA 80 is replaced we wont have the added expense or thinking time of "should we go picatinny on the new weapon?" with the answer "but all our existing sights are STANAG"

Not too sure on the American scheme of personal sights, IIRC weren't M-16 improved flash suppresors being bought too?
CF - you have put your finger on it. Unfortunately the UK use of the NATO rail has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Everytime a new weapon is bought (e.g. LMG), the beancounters go: "Of course you cannot have a Picatinny rail - what about all those expensive day and night vision scopes with NATO brackets?" and every time we buy a new sight (e.g. ACOG), those same beancounters say: "Those sights must have NATO brackets - it would be far too expensive to fit new Picatinny rails to all those weapons!"

Believe me, I was once in a position where I thought that I might have some influence on this debate and I argued until I was blue in the face. No dice I'm afraid... About the only people who are really happy about this are the sight manufacturers, who are only too happy to charge MOD extra for NATO brackets. :x

I reckon our only hope for common sense to break out is in about 2020, when we are due to replace both our smallarms and optics.
 
#8
armr617 said:
The actual sight itself might be indestructable (debatable)

but the mount is dogs, the amount of time I spend repairing the mounts is stupid, easily the most common fault on the weapon

the range drum is a pain, compared to the ACOG system its way short of ideal, SUSAT, guess range adjust drum to suit, ACOG move sight up target until horizontal line fits shoulder width, pull trigger, which would you prefer?
1. In the course of the last twenty odd years, I've only seen a handful of SUSAT damaged beyond repair. Conversely, I've seen the bloody things survive an awful lot. This includes surviving blast damage, being run over by a Land Rover AND a Warrior, and several examples of "airborne drop test" (bergan & rifle dropped from 800 feet-ish accidentally).

2. Fair enough, the mount isn't brilliant. That's what Armourers are for.

3. I'm quite happy to say ACOG is better than SUSAT. I should bloody hope so, it's twenty years further along the development path. However, SUSAT is IMHO still pretty good. Put it this way, for anything other than CQB, would you prefer iron sights over SUSAT?
 
#9
I have missed somthing very basic ?

Can anyone tell me why is the ACOG so good ? ,

I know its lighter and has 1x more Mag than the SUSAT but other than that ,im lost ?

many thanks

FM
 
#10
fatmini said:
I have missed somthing very basic ?

Can anyone tell me why is the ACOG so good ? ,

I know its lighter and has 1x more Mag than the SUSAT but other than that ,im lost ?

many thanks

FM
It was a spin out from the FIST programme, which was doing studies into enhanced surveillance and target acquisition for the section. Basically it has been proven through extensive trials at ITDU that the ACOG gives increased hit probability under stress and therefore section lethality is significantly enhanced. It's largely down to the clever reticle as described above. With this information at hand it was a relatively simple step to justify a UOR for current ops.
 
#12
I'm pretty sure that the ACOGs mounted on the SA80s are 4x magnification.

The reticle is pretty funky, as the fibre-optic along the top means that it adjusts to the ambient light so it is never too bright or too dim and you don't have to fiddle with it. The field of view is clearer as it doesn't have the big pointer in the middle, and the illuminated reticle is very easy to pick up for snap targetting but also fine enough for greater precision.

The holographic sight is interesting as you can keep both eyes open without much effort and easily bring it onto target at close quarters. At any reasonable distance (any more than 30-40 m really) the scope is better.

NB I've not shot a rifle with either, just got my grubby paws on them for a look-see at a few different places.
 
#13
Gun_Nut said:
chocolate_frog said:
Surely now is the time to remove the STANAG rail though? As mentioned, the rail is the NATO standard, but no one bothers with it, except us.

A bit like the spams forceing 7.62 on us and then deciding 5.56 is better (after we bought the SLR and killed off the EM-2)

As the ACOGs come in, the rifles (and other weapons) could have a grinder taken down the top of their bodys, and a picatinny put on. Done and dusted. Label the weapons the A3 or A2a (for ACOG :D ), and then Inf would use that, and everyone else would use A2, that would reduce problems int he G4 chain.

This would save a fortune later, as we wouldn't have to get firms to manufacture sights in the nato standard rail, but could just purchase readily available picatiny railed equipment.

And when the SA 80 is replaced we wont have the added expense or thinking time of "should we go picatinny on the new weapon?" with the answer "but all our existing sights are STANAG"

Not too sure on the American scheme of personal sights, IIRC weren't M-16 improved flash suppresors being bought too?
CF - you have put your finger on it. Unfortunately the UK use of the NATO rail has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Everytime a new weapon is bought (e.g. LMG), the beancounters go: "Of course you cannot have a Picatinny rail - what about all those expensive day and night vision scopes with NATO brackets?" and every time we buy a new sight (e.g. ACOG), those same beancounters say: "Those sights must have NATO brackets - it would be far too expensive to fit new Picatinny rails to all those weapons!"

Believe me, I was once in a position where I thought that I might have some influence on this debate and I argued until I was blue in the face. No dice I'm afraid... About the only people who are really happy about this are the sight manufacturers, who are only too happy to charge MOD extra for NATO brackets. :x

I reckon our only hope for common sense to break out is in about 2020, when we are due to replace both our smallarms and optics.

MOD has procurred 30k plus new picitinny rail fore-ends for the A2. 16AA had these phased in during the last tour to AFG and i believe 3CDO are using them as well.
 
#15
para-dox said:
MOD has procurred 30k plus new picitinny rail fore-ends for the A2. 16AA had these phased in during the last tour to AFG and i believe 3CDO are using them as well.
Absolutely - and a good thing too. But the rail on the top is still a STANAG!

The Grip Pod is a useful enhancement. Recently I read an interview with Reed Knight, the original inventor of the Picatinny quad rail. He recalled being told by the US Army that the addition of the forward vertical grip to the M16 did more for hit probability than had been achieved in the entire 1980s Advanced Combat Rifle programme (spend about $300m!).
 
#16
Gun_Nut said:
para-dox said:
MOD has procurred 30k plus new picitinny rail fore-ends for the A2. 16AA had these phased in during the last tour to AFG and i believe 3CDO are using them as well.
Absolutely - and a good thing too. But the rail on the top is still a STANAG!

Of course your right, gun nut, cheers. There have been a few A2's converted to picitinnty top rail, although not on issue yet. Dont know if the MOD have any plans for this yet.
 
#17
Gun_Nut said:
para-dox said:
MOD has procurred 30k plus new picitinny rail fore-ends for the A2. 16AA had these phased in during the last tour to AFG and i believe 3CDO are using them as well.
Absolutely - and a good thing too. But the rail on the top is still a STANAG!

The Grip Pod is a useful enhancement. Recently I read an interview with Reed Knight, the original inventor of the Picatinny quad rail. He recalled being told by the US Army that the addition of the forward vertical grip to the M16 did more for hit probability than had been achieved in the entire 1980s Advanced Combat Rifle programme (spend about $300m!).[/quote]

A bit offtopic, but had to ask how this is?

I've not used one, but does a vertical grip really change things so much?

I can see how it'd be handy for room clearing and such but for other situs, especially at a fair range I'd have thought a plain vertical grip would have made aiming harder rather than easier?

Unless we are talking the grip-and-bipod ones the MoD have bought... With those and a new sight, the L85 is going to be damned impressive in terms of how far it'll be able to hit out to. And thats from someone who's all for the usual vanilla A2 with green furniture and SUSAT.
 
#18
Battalions are going to be brining back picatinny rails and acog sights with them when they cycle through herrick, so they will start filtering there way into all regiments at some point. I have no idea about telic mind...
 
#19
Voltiguer said:
Gun_Nut said:
para-dox said:
MOD has procurred 30k plus new picitinny rail fore-ends for the A2. 16AA had these phased in during the last tour to AFG and i believe 3CDO are using them as well.
Absolutely - and a good thing too. But the rail on the top is still a STANAG!

The Grip Pod is a useful enhancement. Recently I read an interview with Reed Knight, the original inventor of the Picatinny quad rail. He recalled being told by the US Army that the addition of the forward vertical grip to the M16 did more for hit probability than had been achieved in the entire 1980s Advanced Combat Rifle programme (spend about $300m!).[/quote]

A bit offtopic, but had to ask how this is?

I've not used one, but does a vertical grip really change things so much?

I can see how it'd be handy for room clearing and such but for other situs, especially at a fair range I'd have thought a plain vertical grip would have made aiming harder rather than easier?

Unless we are talking the grip-and-bipod ones the MoD have bought... With those and a new sight, the L85 is going to be damned impressive in terms of how far it'll be able to hit out to. And thats from someone who's all for the usual vanilla A2 with green furniture and SUSAT.
1. The position and hold must be firm enough to support the firearm.
2. The firearm must point naturally at the target without physical effort.
3. Sight alignment must be correct.
4. The shot must be released and followed through without disturbance to the position.

I would argue that the Grip Pod enhances both principle 1 and 2. Some marksmanship gurus will argue that it will not enhance accuracy as it lowers the hand below the bore line, but remember we are largely talking about offhand snap shooting, not gravelbelly marksmanship. The important thing is that it works. The pop-out bipod is also a useful accessory for increasing hit probability where time allows.
 
#20
Heard reports on BFBS today of another new type of osprey and Mk 7 'US Style' helmet. The US body armour is still the best as far as I know, (saw an interesting documentary on Discovery about it recently) dont know if this is what we are getting now in our DPM. Maby someone else can enlighten us?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Weapons, Equipment & Rations 21
Old_banger Infantry 5
Cpt_Darling Infantry 3

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top