Is the ACOG now standard issue instead of the SUSAT?

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Grey_Fox, Jan 29, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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

    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. 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. 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. 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.
     
  11. Is the little red-dot sight that they mount above it really that much cop? or is it just better than the alternative iron sight?
     
  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. 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.
     
  14. Cheers
     
  15. 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!).