4×32 BROWE Optic for the .300 AAC BLK

bco_004-tm-tfb

BROWE has introduced a new model of their 4×32 BROWE Combat Optic with a reticle calibrated for both supersonic and subsonic .300 AAC BLK loads.

From the press release …

The 4×32 BCO .300 Blackout reticle is based on the popular horseshoe and dot style reticle and provides a bullet drop compensated (BDC) reticle for both the subsonic and supersonic ammunition. The 7 MOA horseshoe has a 5 MOA inner dimension and provides an illuminated 2 MOA wide ring for quick target acquisition. The center 1 MOA dot gives the operator that precision shot and was designed to be zeroed at 100m with the supersonic round or 25m with the subsonic round. For long range precision, the 4×32 BCO .300 Blackout reticle features a BDC reticle that ranges out to 900m for the supersonic and out to 400m for the subsonic. The horizontal stadia lines represent 19” at the indicated ranges. The reticle also offers a horizontal mil scale that has an overall length of 30 mils, with indicators every 5 mil.

The reticle is available in yellow, blue, green or red.


Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • John

    …and the .300 wipe out craze continues. Wake me up if and when something like the .30 HRT becomes popular.

    • Other Steve

      Right! Because needing a special bolt, special mags, and special brass is all (somehow) far superior to 300blk.

      • John

        Are you constantly switching your barrel, bolt, and magazine? Oh, you, at the most, switch between uppers? Hmmm. Guess what makes rounds superior? Numbers and ballistics.

      • JMD

        Cost and logistic concerns are important, too. .300 BLK definitely has the edge over …that cartridge you listed that nobody else knows about.

    • gunslinger

      forgive my ignorant question, but..

      I coudln’t find any info on a .30 HRT. can you offer up some?

      • TJ

        the 30 HRT (Herrett Rimless Tactical) uses 30 Herrett data, and it based on 6.8SPC brass necked up to 30 cal. Never caught on, much like the 6.8 in general. Would use 6.8 bolt and mags.

        What the 30AAC,300 Whisper,300/221 or whatever its called today, has going for it is that it uses standard AR-15 bolts and mags.

        I have one, its a fun round. Glad its easier to find loaded ammo and stuff these days.

  • Alex-mac

    I wonder why these type of reticles aren’t more popular in military optics. (russians excepted) Is it because it’s seen to be just too complicated for the average soldier to use?

    • Demize99

      The standard USMC ACOG has a similar reticle.

    • charles222

      So does the M145 Machine Gun Optic and most ACOGs the Army issues; there’s still probably a few floating around with the old crosshairs, but most look like this.

  • Hikerguy

    It is amazing how the .300 Blackout has taken off in such a short time, and appears to be more versatile than the other .30 offerings for the AR platform. The thought that went behind this has led to a very good optic for the round.

  • John Doe

    USMC ACOG + .300 BLK = this?

  • gunslinger

    got a price on those things?

  • Lance

    They better watch out looks like a ACOG copy and Trijicon is not known to be nice to copiers of there scopes.

    • Jefe

      This optic has been around for a while now, and I haven’t heard of any pending litigation. I think the fact that it’s battery-powered separates it enough from the acog for it’s similarities to be a non-issue.

      • Jeff

        I bet that’s what Samsung thought about Apple =P

      • Jefe

        Actually, I retract what I said. I forgot about the l.e.d. ACOG.

  • Mike Knox

    Let me get this straight: an optic dedicated to just one cartridge?

    • LJK

      All optics which have a ballistic reticle are dedicated for a particular round. Because different rounds have different ballistical properties (duh).

      They’re also generally limited to a particular load, in a particular altitude. That is, if you have an ACOG with a ballistical reticle for a 5.56 NATO, the distance marks are for the most common military 5.56 NATO loading. Will the differences be really noticeable if you switch to a different brand of commercial 5.56? Probably not, but the differences do exist.

      • Mike Knox

        That’s a flimsy argument by the looks of it. But there’s one thing: The purpose of optics with graphed reticles is to use those increments for rangefinding, not ballistic congruency/alignment for a certain cartridge. Dedicating one optic to one cartridge is more often wasteful, otherwise there’s no point of interchangabity options for the optic.

        The Trijicon ACOG was designed for the sight offset of the AR-10/15 Rifle, not the ballistics of the 5.56x45mm NATO off a 14.5″ to 22″ barrel.

        The factors involved with the cartidge and barrel is just under the basics of marksmanship disciplines. The optic is just an implement to gauge out the range between muzzle and target to facilitate a proper line of fire in accordance to sight picture..

        • that guy12

          dude?,…really?,…

      • LJK

        Directly from Trijicon’s website regarding their 4×32 BAC line of ACOGs (http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product2.php?id=ACOG&mid=4%20x%2032%20BAC):

        “The TA31RCO is an Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) designed for the M4 and M4A1 weapon system (14.5 barrel). It provides the shooter with quick target acquisition at close combat ranges while providing enhanced target identification and hit probability out to 800 meters utilizing the Bullet Drop Compensator.”

        “The TA31RCO is an Advanced Combat Optical Gun sight (ACOG) designed for the M16A4 Weapon system (20” barrel). — Designed to the exact specifications of the United States Marine Corps, the unique reticle pattern provides quick target acquisition at close combat ranges while providing enhanced target identification and hit probability out to 800 meters utilizing the Bullet Drop Compensator.”

        “ACOG 4×32 [TA31H-68] Scope with Red Horseshoe BAC Reticle- includes Flattop Adapter. Features dual illumination (Fiber optics provides daylight illumination and tritium illuminates reticle at night). The ranging reticle is calibrated for 6.8 SPC flattop rifles out to 800 meters.”

        The increments you see in ballistic reticles are indeed used as indicators to where the specific bullet out of a specific barrel will land at that distance. All ballistic reticles do not have their own tools for range estimation. Some do, such as the Russian PSO 4×24. It has a rangefinder and a ballistic reticle (http://kalinkaoptics.com/pso-4×24-illuminated-rifle-scope-w-dragunov-1000m-rangefinding-reticle-sks-svd-version.html). You measure the distance with the thingy on the left, put your target on the specific chevron, adjust for windage and send the bullet.

      • Mike Knox

        What you just quoted only says about eye releif and reticle/graphic pattern. The ‘bullet drop compensator’ itself is a range finding aspect. It’s even in the classic ‘stadia funnel’ pattern.

        As far as I can tell, your replies don’t indicate any experience with marksmanship..

      • LJK

        I don’t like quoting Wikipedia that often, but it had the quickest explanation of the subject:

        “Bullet Drop Compensation (BDC) (sometimes referred to as ballistic elevation) is a feature available on some rifle scopes. The feature compensates for the effect of gravity on the bullet at given distances (referred to as “bullet drop”) in flat fire scenarios. The feature must be tuned for the particular ballistic trajectory of a particular combination of gun and cartridge at a predefined muzzle velocity and air density. Telescopic sights designed for military use like the ACOG or PSO-1 featuring BDC reticles or elevation turrets with range markings are fairly common, though commercial manufacturers offer the option to install a BDC reticle or elevation turret as long as the customer supplies the necessary ballistic data.[13] Since the usage of standardized ammunition is an important prerequisite to match the BDC feature to the external ballistic behaviour of the employed projectiles, telescopic sights with BDC are generally intended to assist with field shooting at targets at varying medium to longer ranges rather than precise long range shots. With increasing range inevitable BDC induced errors will occur when the environmental and meteorological circumstances deviate from the predefined circumstances for which the BDC was calibrated. Marksmen can be trained to understand the main forces acting on the projectile and their effect on their particular gun and ammunition and the effects of external factors at longer ranges to counter these errors.”

        And this is the last small moment of my time I’m going to put into hammering direct facts at someone who has decided on something and will not budge, not matter how much information is put to the table.

        Generally, a debate is lost when one chooses to attack the argumenter instead of the argument. By the finishing remark in your last post, I’ll conclude you’ve nothing smarter to add either.

      • Mike Knox

        @LJK
        Well, just as I’ve said, the reticles are for rangefinding. They only vary based on their designed eye releif, optic dimensions, and lenticular orientation. It’s just the same, the optic details on the sight picture and it’s up to the shooter’s marksmanship to do the rest. I’m saying this out of experience, not opinion. You just say otherwise out of the latter.

        What I’ve said on my previous reply comments on yours. It wouldn’t matter if you take offence at it but doing so reiforces it.

        I still stand by it that this optic’s just a dull idea..

  • Justin R.

    Just the other day I was wondering when someone was going to come out with this. Awesome!

  • Mark

    19 inches? Shouldn’t that be 19 feet? “=inches ‘=feet…the reason I ask is I was curious as to why the stadia would represent 19 feet…
    seems a random measure..

    -m

    • Mark

      wait…dork alert….those are seconds….feel free to bash me appropriately
      resuming reading and letting the experts be expert..and this reader to be..well..a dork..

      • Mark

        still curious though..why 19 seconds?

    • Mike Knox

      You know what, I was about to answer your question but the way you put it got me confused. Why 19?

  • joelaugust

    First time post on here but this is my favorite blog. The ACOGs are based on 19 inches as well. The reason for this is that 19 inches is the average shoulder width of a human. It is made to easily help for rangefinding.