Combat optics, iron sights and you

I recently had the opportunity to train on an Engagement Skills Trainer for an afternoon. We had a Brigade fail to show-up and the operator and I spent a lovely afternoon engaging photonic targets and learning more about combat shooting.

For those of you who do not know what it is, the Engagement Skills Trainer 2000 (or EST 2000, for short), is a big old video game that incorporates an entire squad, shooting semi-realistic small arms gunnery including recoil and incoming artillery.

I had three big takeaways from the training: 1. 3 hours is a looooong time to be in a firefight. The right side of my body was on fire for the rest of the night, and two days later it still aches. 2. Even with the limitations of technology, an experienced shooter can learn a lot about his/her bad habits from the computerized trainer. 3. Shooting with electronic optics will ruin your iron sight skills. Much to my own embarrassment, I kept losing my rear sight. Be advised that I have coached 3 position rifle at the collegiate level, build and own several AR target rifles, and was almost literally born with a rifle in my hand. And I repeatedly lost my rear sight while doing snap shooting. I almost feel like less of a man....:(

I blame technology. Modern optics are parallax free and allow for some superfast acquisition under all sorts of bad conditions. They also will help you unlearn basic skills in a hurry. I've been shooting almost exclusively with modern optics since 2002. As much as I love my EOTechs and Aimpoints, they go back on the shelf until I can engage targets consistently, and at speed with my irons.

Hi 120,

Sounds like fun - there are days when I would really like to bang away with something like that :rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I blame technology. Modern optics are parallax free and allow for some superfast acquisition under all sorts of bad conditions. They also will help you unlearn basic skills in a hurry. I've been shooting almost exclusively with modern optics since 2002. As much as I love my EOTechs and Aimpoints, they go back on the shelf until I can engage targets consistently, and at speed with my irons.

---

This will sound like an odd suggestion, but try your "retraining" where you are wearing some particular piece of clothing or jewelry (e.g. a ring or a hat or something like that) that you wouldn't wear when you shoot with the modern optics. The idea is to give your sub-conscious mind a sensory stimulus that is available in one situation but not the other, so that your brain stores the two sets of muscle memory in different places. The action of putting on or taking off the item will act as a cue to your sub-conscious.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I recently had the opportunity to train on an Engagement Skills Trainer for an afternoon. We had a Brigade fail to show-up and the operator and I spent a lovely afternoon engaging photonic targets and learning more about combat shooting.

For those of you who do not know what it is, the Engagement Skills Trainer 2000 (or EST 2000, for short), is a big old video game that incorporates an entire squad, shooting semi-realistic small arms gunnery including recoil and incoming artillery.

I had three big takeaways from the training: 1. 3 hours is a looooong time to be in a firefight. The right side of my body was on fire for the rest of the night, and two days later it still aches. 2. Even with the limitations of technology, an experienced shooter can learn a lot about his/her bad habits from the computerized trainer. 3. Shooting with electronic optics will ruin your iron sight skills. Much to my own embarrassment, I kept losing my rear sight. Be advised that I have coached 3 position rifle at the collegiate level, build and own several AR target rifles, and was almost literally born with a rifle in my hand. And I repeatedly lost my rear sight while doing snap shooting. I almost feel like less of a man....:(

I blame technology. Modern optics are parallax free and allow for some superfast acquisition under all sorts of bad conditions. They also will help you unlearn basic skills in a hurry. I've been shooting almost exclusively with modern optics since 2002. As much as I love my EOTechs and Aimpoints, they go back on the shelf until I can engage targets consistently, and at speed with my irons.

---

I would also suggest skeet, trap, or sporting clay shooting because wing shooting makes the shooter's eye the rear site. It reinforces consistent stock weld and follow through, both of which cater to better use of iron sights.

Tom

120mm, If you can find some old training materials from late 60's to early 70's on snap shooting as it was taught in basic training you will find that you should not be using your rear sight at all. My BCT class in 72 started with BB guns shooting at metal disk thrown in the air from there we progressed to the M-16 which had a piece of wood placed over the front and rear sights (something like a long ruler) and then went on the range to shoot live rounds. I used to have some literature on this but maybe someone can find it online somewhere, the theory behind it is pretty interesting.

Slap,

the TTPs were referred to as "Quick Kill" (at least in the Marine Corps). My brother taught me the technique using a Ruger 10/22. And it is very much like shooting a shotgun albeit without the swing as you are "snap" shooting a single point in space.

Tom

120mm- The EST is a GREAT training tool. You can put soldiers in multiple scenarios from a checkpoint to an urban defense to shoot/no-shoot engagements. Plus you can use just about every weapon in the army inventory to do training from the M9 pistol to the Mark 19! We used the EST back when I was a CO CDR as part of the Pre-Marksmenship Instructions (PMI). We found a significant improvement in not only qualification scores, but also during MOUT live-fires since the soldiers had increased confidence in his abilities, safety manipulation and more training time.

Tom has a great point about shooting skeet. I took lessons for the first time last summer and the instructor was always looking to see if a new student "got" lead. He said alot of shooters, especially those who normally shoot at static targets, have a hard time computing lead while trying to get in front of a target. I found my shooting skills greatly improved after lessons and joining the skeet league here on post. Definately a fun way to improve your shooting skills while blasting clay targets!

Tom, I found a reference "Rifle Quick Kill US Army TT-23-71-1" if someone can find it. I imagine it is long out of print but I do not know for sure. I do know the technique works as advertised, it usually amazes people because they don't think it will but about hour later they will usually be convinced.

Wikipedia has an interesting article here, and there is a link to FM 3-22.9 which may be of use. I can only find for purchase copies of the TT 23-71-1 (also available here).

Marc

There's a good piece here from Army CWO Michael Haugen on Optics

http://www.boomershoot.org/general/ChoosingOptics.htm

I was always very leery of the EOTechs et al specifically for the reasons mentioned here. I found the EOTechs fogged on me and I have always been hesitant to rely on anything that takes batteries. Aimpoints are very nice but like you guys have already said optics like this erode your fundamental skills.

For OIF II I went with the ACOG (I had an M4/203 combo) and LOVED it. Initially I wanted one of the sexy new ninja sights but learned very quickly that this little beast was where it was at. It had just enough magnification to enable me to get a clearer picture of what was out there but not so much that it prevented me from being able to engage in the close fight. (With DA, CQB roles and presentation drills I would aim "slightly high" and put rounds exactly where I wanted them.) I found that even after using the ACOG I could pop it off and fire iron sights with the same level of proficiency because even with the little scope I still had to have sight alignment, sight picture which equated to front/rear sight alignment with iron sights so very few of the good habits were erased. The lens itself is large enough to facilitate rapid target acquisition and I never had a problem with using the scope and my NOD's either so that was another plus...

One last thing on that little optic... once it is dialed in that sucker will dot "i's" and cross "t's" if you want it to... near or far.

Ender,

Did you ever use the "iron sights" molded into the top of the ACOG for CQB? I ask, because I didn't go to the ACOG because of some of the issues with magnification and CQB. Perhaps I decided too quickly.

The iron sights on the top of the ACOG are crap. Most of the guys I know who use the ACOG (myself included) either have taught themselves to aquire the sight very qucikly throught the scope or they use what is called Jpoint which is simply a red dot sight that sits where the iron sight would go (it actually screws into the same holes). This is what I use and I really like it. It takes some getting used to at first because it sits higher but you can actually aquire the picture quicker. I just put a 10 meter zero on the Jpoint and get my hold off out to 25 meters and beyond that I have the ACOG. It is a pretty good system.

SFC W

120mm,

Uboat is right on the money, I did something very similar to my rig (because he is right those sights are crap) and was able to acquire that sight lead with only a little practice... I think his Jpoint suggestion is an excellent one and would have definitely added it if I could. In the right hands this setup makes a shooter surgical at almost any range.

One last thing about the ACOG that can not be said enough, I don't know why I didn't say it earlier, they are RUGGED. I put mine through hell and always had this mental itch to check my zero but the dope was always good...they are made simply and solidly.

I would also like to add that Tom's point about skeet, trap etc... is solid. I dated a girl in Lejeune whose father hunted everything that moved. He turned me on to skeet and so many of my skills were honed in the months we shot together.

I can not think of a better exercise for instinctive shooting, overall barrell/sight alignment, target lead or sheer enjoyment. Hitting the pigeon with a pellet or two is nice but nothing says "fun" like literally turning 25 flying objects into flying dust from a variety of angles.

I always found sniping turtles on a pond, head shots, at long range with a .22 was a good workout. the turtles were pretty safe. Poor man's skeet using heavy washers is a good workout too using a .22

Quote:

---

I can not think of a better exercise for instinctive shooting, overall barrell/sight alignment, target lead or sheer enjoyment. Hitting the pigeon with a pellet or two is nice but nothing says "fun" like literally turning 25 flying objects into flying dust from a variety of angles.

---

I wish I did turn 25 to dust but at least the ones I miss break when they hit the ground. Shooting a 28 gauge, I feel content when I am in the "20s" and joyous when I break 23. :wry:

Quote:

---

I always found sniping turtles on a pond, head shots, at long range with a .22 was a good workout. the turtles were pretty safe. Poor man's skeet using heavy washers is a good workout too using a .22

---

I have a pond at my house and the turtles would take over if I did not reduce the herd. I just built a custom 10/22 for the job, set up to take .22 Shorts, that does the job nicely. Basic ballistics mean that a .22 Short CB 29 grain round hits harder than a .177 cal 7 grain pellet. A pellet traveling at a muzzle velocity of 1000 FPS just won't penetrate a shell with a half inch of water over it at 25 to 30 yards; the 29 grain .22 bullet at a muzzle velocity of 710 FPS does so with a solid wallop.

The real bottom line in all of this is something everyone knows; the more you shoot, the better you get at it. I guess I am too much of a neanderthal to get into simulation; I like the smell of the gunpowder or the oily smell of a heated barrel. Smells like....victory!:cool:

Tom

As a squad leader currently serving in an MP Company in Iraq, honestly, I think the problem is almost the exact opposite—very few soldiers in the Army really understand how to boresight, zero, use and maintain the optics and lasers issued to them. Soldiers, even initial entry, have shot hundreds of rounds thru iron sights, but most have not shot a single round using an M68 or ACOG.

During the mob and train up for this deployment I too had a chance to shoot on an EST and I thought it was great. At our mob station our company shot the Army CQB course and we fired it again in Kuwait, good stuff. However, a class on boresighting the M68 at the mob station would have been great. My unit didn’t zero our M68 CCO’s until we arrived at our FOB in Iraq. I was the only one in the company to construct a boresight board and boresighted the entire platoon’s M68’s, consequently our zeroing was finished in hours, other platoons took an entire day. My company in Iraq has a dizzying array of optics and lasers, CCO’s, ACOG’s, some MARS optical sights, PEQ2 and PAQ4 lasers. Few soldiers take the time to read the manual. “Spray and pray” is an unfortunate reality.

While in Iraq I noticed something wrong, most units didn’t take advantage of issued equipment. My platoon was the only one to mount our PAQ4 lasers to our M2 .50 cal machine guns. Some of my soldiers found the mounts abandoned in a recently vacated barracks. Used in conjunction with our AN/PVS 14 passive night sights, our gunners can night fire as accurate as daytime, resulting in more kills and less collateral damage. Although this technique required effort, I had to consult the 2002 SAIB for the proper offsets, it’s proved useful.

I currently carry an M4 with a CCO and backup iron sight and have shot hundreds of round with both. Simply putting the dot the target and not having to worry about aligning anything else is a relief.

Arty,

If you can go to the CALL NIPR site and you can download CALL Newsletter 06-16 Company-level SOSO Vol 6 which deals with Tactical Marksmanship, Sniper and Counter Sniper. Also look at Own the Night 2 on NODs and sights. You may already have these but they may help others who have not seen them.

Tom

I suggest a Trijicon Reflex sight. It is ideal for police use since there are normally no real long shots to take. It has no batteries, is intuitive and quick to use, can take a beating and holds the zero. Precise shots, at the range, out to 200 yds. were so easy they were boring. 300 yds and out, I couldn't make out the target but somebody with good eyes would have no trouble. Also if for some reason you need to use the iron sights, just look through the tube (I used a flip up rear sight and left the front sight in place when I set up my AR).

I have had a long standing interest in the Luepold CQB (I think that is what it is called) sight, the one that can go from zero to 3X magnification. Does anybody know if those work well?

I have no first hand knowledge but when I suggested trying one of them to my company SGM he told me that some of them have a problem in that when you change the magnification, the reticle moves. Zeroed at 1 power may not be zeroed at 4 power.

SFC W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uboat509

I have no first hand knowledge but when I suggested trying one of them to my company SGM he told me that some of them have a problem in that when you change the magnification, the reticle moves. Zeroed at 1 power may not be zeroed at 4 power.

SFC W

---

I don't know about that particular scope. Leopold has a well-deserved rep for quality. Trujicon I have not tried. But the issue of shifting points of impact is a common one for variable power scopes and one that should be tested on any variable regardless of make. Most quality scopes have consistent impact points; I have seen others (including expensive makes) do so. I would say that my experience is that it is an individual scope issue, hence the caution to test each scope. Makes sense anyway as it is comforting to know ahead of time that zooming in or zooming out will not move point of impact to any significant degree.

Tom

With iron sights, why would you be worried about losing the rear sight? The rear sight is supposed to "ghost" out, which is the reason for the aperture ring. I was trained to focus on the front sight and it is more effective than focusing on the rear sight, especially in shoot and move/CQB type situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FL-CRACKER

With iron sights, why would you be worried about losing the rear sight? The rear sight is supposed to "ghost" out, which is the reason for the aperture ring. I was trained to focus on the front sight and it is more effective than focusing on the rear sight, especially in shoot and move/CQB type situations.

---

The theory that you can concentrate on the front sight and the rear sight will "ghost" out, is one of those assumption things, that is pretty popular among certain gun writers.

And you and I both know that "assumption" makes an ass out of "you" and "umption".

In reality, you can concentrate on the front sight, and miss the side of the barn you're inside. While you do not focus on the rear sight, it still needs to be aligned with the front one to hit what you're aiming at.

One of the by-products of being raised on buckhorn style sights; the "intuitive" nature of the peep aperature isn't so "intuitive" to me. It's a perishable skill that took hard work to develop.

When you are shooting and scooting, as in CQB, it is really easy to "lose" your rear sight (it's really a cheek weld issue, more than anything). Not a big deal, if you are using holographic sights, which is how I developed this particular bad habit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FL-CRACKER

With iron sights, why would you be worried about losing the rear sight? The rear sight is supposed to "ghost" out, which is the reason for the aperture ring. I was trained to focus on the front sight and it is more effective than focusing on the rear sight, especially in shoot and move/CQB type situations.

---

I hear you on the ghosting your rear ring and can only think of one way to describe why having an "awareness" of the rear sight is critical.

Imagine you have an M-4. Now point your M-4 at an imaginary mental target. Now drop your buttstock 6 inches. Your front sight post may very well be aligned and for all intents and purposes it may feel like you are aiming at your target but your rounds are going to impact way high. I think the emphasis was that you can never truly be sure WHERE that front post is at unless its position in time and space is relative to the overall eyes/rear sight/front sight alignment.

EDITED AFTER: Sorry 120 I didn't see that you had in effect posted the same response.

Quote:

---

When you are shooting and scooting, as in CQB, it is really easy to "lose" your rear sight (it's really a cheek weld issue, more than anything). Not a big deal, if you are using holographic sights, which is how I developed this particular bad habit.

---

Spot on (sights on?). That's why I advocate skeet -- or variations like crazy quail, clays, etc--simply because of spot weld discipline. I see myself make 2 main errors--often related. The first is break spot weld by raising my head to track a target rather than tracking it as a unified system where my head on the stock in the same position does the same thing as a rear peep. It forces sight alignment. The second is slowing or stopping swing--that usually happens as I lift my head, slow down, and shoot behind the target.

The same thing applies on modern bow sights. You cannot just concentrate on the front pin. Your head has to be position so you look at that pin from the same angle. Peep sights on the bow string do that but they have their own issues. I use a bow-anchor sit that is mounted off to one side but tells me that my head is in the same place. Most close in misses on elevated shots come because the shooter's was not lined up behind the pin.

Tom

I am a fan of the various optics. I ave used all three I am partial to the Aimpoint, but the ACOG is close as well. The problem, as I saw it, was the inital failure of the Army to field an adequate flip-up iron sight in the initial fielding time. This has led to a lot of work arounds. I had to teach CQB to the 39th eSB in 2003.2004. We gave a block on how to zero, how to co-witness and such. As far as block of instructions on these things go, Tom already mentioned "Own the Night II" which is a really good document. The other answer is the user manual that coems with each respective optic. Many soldiers like the EoTech. Personally, I was not a fan of the controls for adjustinf the reticle brightness, but that is me. I have found if you have the proper Back-Up Iron Sight (BUIS), you can co-witness it with the dot. I was trained to zero the dot at 200 m, and that would cover 200m on in. In the long run there alot of ways to skin this cat. The other thing to remember is taht the M-4 carbine is not as "forgivng" as the M-16 when it comes to being sloppy on shooting fundamentals (breathing, trigger control, etc.).

Thanks for the feedback gents. Now that you mention that, I see what y'all are saying and come to think of it I did have that happen when we were doing medium distance - team bounding drills and we were shooting proned out from around cover. I don't know why I didn't think of it when I originally read this thread. All the running and maninpulating your gun around the cover can definitely screw you up. I guess you don't have to worry about that with optics really though.

I myself had an ACOG, but found it very difficult to bring it on target in CQB fights. I switched to the M68, which I found requires less thinking on my part. I can shoot it like it is intended to, with both eyes open. I don't like the battery part, but I don't have a problem receiving them through supply channels. Aimpoint changed their circuitry and according to their website the new M68 lasts 8 years on a single battery. Sounds like a stretch, but the Army would love to switch to these considering the amount of money they spend in batteries in any given fiscal year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyRecon

I myself had an ACOG, but found it very difficult to bring it on target in CQB fights. I switched to the M68, which I found requires less thinking on my part. I can shoot it like it is intended to, with both eyes open. I don't like the battery part, but I don't have a problem receiving them through supply channels. Aimpoint changed their circuitry and according to their website the new M68 lasts 8 years on a single battery. Sounds like a stretch, but the Army would love to switch to these considering the amount of money they spend in batteries in any given fiscal year.

---

Even with iron sights in very close quarters situations, you have to aim a little higher because of the 2 & 1/2" difference from the barrel to your sight. Aim for the forehead and you'll hit the eyes, etc.

I too have heard great things about the M68. If I were to personally by an ACOG, I think I'd have to go with that as well. My cousin is a Recon guy too and just got back from a deployment with one and said he turned it on when he got off the plane in the sandbox and didn't turn it off until he got back to Camp Lejeune some 7 or 8 months later.

Have you used the magnifier with the M68?

Interesting points brought up by all. I am slow school...yes slow school. I distrust certain elements of technological solutions, and optics is one of them. When the Marine Corps purchased ACOGs (which became Rifle Combat Optics - RCOs duing full procurement), I noticed a few things.

The first is that an RCO doesn't necessarily make everyone a crack shot. If the shooter sucks at the fundamentals of marksmanship, the RCO may only show them how much they suck between strings. I am a firm believer that if you cannot go 10 for 10 with a properly zeroed M-16 at 500 yds, in the prone, you are not applying the fundamentals consistently.

At the end of the day, it will always come down to the basics, a stable platform, and muscle memory. Too many problems I see in inexperienced shooters come from a failure to consistently mount the weapon into the shoulder, or a sloppy shooting position that screws up natural point of aim. Despite having had excellent instruction in bootcamp, when I advise a shooter that they need to check their natural point of aim, they do all sorts of weird stuff and not what they need to do.

I've never shot an M-16 series weapon with any sort of optic, so the jury is out still on whether I like them. The funny thing is that too many Marines will want one for the "cool guy" factor, and not read the instructions, as mentioned before, nor do they try to understand the theory behind the scope.

About twice a year, I re-read The Art of the Rifle by Col Jeff Cooper. It is a easy read, yet full of tips and concepts that I think every student of marksmanship should own.

I need to pick up a copy of that book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ender

One last thing on that little optic... once it is dialed in that sucker will dot "i's" and cross "t's" if you want it to... near or far.

---

Couldn't have said it better if I tried all night. These mounted on an M16A4 make them stupid-accurate and just palin fast. Worth every penny the Government spends on them. Time spent on a range with a borrowed setup was almost boring due to the lack of effort of putting shots where I wanted at distances of up to 300 meters. No combat experience with them, but that's where you come in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FL-CRACKER

Have you used the magnifier with the M68?

---

I currently have an M68 mounted atop a Colt branded M16A4. The magnifier works well (generally requires a spacer for height) but is not practically accurate (IMHO) at distances beyond 150 meter because of a high MOA. It works far better at CQB distances for which it was designed; the ACOG far outshining the aforementioned setup. ACOGs can be used with great effectiveness in CQB modes, but I have only anecdotal evidence to offer as I was not issued an ACOG this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyRecon

I myself had an ACOG, but found it very difficult to bring it on target in CQB fights. I switched to the M68, which I found requires less thinking on my part. I can shoot it like it is intended to, with both eyes open. I don't like the battery part, but I don't have a problem receiving them through supply channels. Aimpoint changed their circuitry and according to their website the new M68 lasts 8 years on a single battery. Sounds like a stretch, but the Army would love to switch to these considering the amount of money they spend in batteries in any given fiscal year.

---

I loved my M68. I couldn't drill at a distance like the ACOG allowed, but *DAMN* I was dead on everything at 250m and below. Like you said, I liked being able to use both eyes open, and I had soldiers trained to do the long range stuff. My RTO/PSD had an ACOG to balance me out. He was a gun nut anyway. Company CO's need to be thinking rather than shooting for the most part. :(

The other advantage on the M68 (we tested it and proved it) is that at 250m and below it is zeroed for anyone who places the red dot - it isn't sight picture dependant like iron sights. Useful when someone needs to hotseat a weapon for some reason.

The thread is correct - M68's and ACOG's are great equipment, and I never had one go out. Of course, I changed the batteries every month, just in case.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Slap,

the TTPs were referred to as "Quick Kill" (at least in the Marine Corps). My brother taught me the technique using a Ruger 10/22. And it is very much like shooting a shotgun albeit without the swing as you are "snap" shooting a single point in space.

Tom

---

Tom,

Bring back any memories?


PRINCIPLES OF QUICK KILL TT 23-71-1

Some interesting training stuff on this site.

Great post! The only thing missing was my brother saying, "Dummy" or other endearments.

Best

Tom

sgmgrumpy, it does to me, I was taught this in 72 at Ft. Jackson. The BB Guns that were used are now collectors items.

I do not remember which a BDE commander of 10th MTN had OPDs in the 90s at the skeet range on this very technique using BB guns. Unfortunetely, I didn't get to attend for obvious reasons:(

I do remember using the BB guns on force on force in Panama in early 80s. We were only suppose to pump them one time,:rolleyes: never tell that to a paratroop;) we were like, yeah right, we then proceded to add about 9 more pumps for a more effective result:D

Quote:

---

I do remember using the BB guns on force on force in Panama in early 80s. We were only suppose to pump them one time, never tell that to a paratroop we were like, yeah right, we then proceded to add about 9 more pumps for a more effective result

---

Ohhhhhhh man. Shades of Christmas Story :eek:


I once briefed the 2-505 when we were getting ready for an exercise against the 101st in 1979. We were told to tell the troops not to punch, kick, bite, or otherwise maim soldiers from the 101st. I followed instructions and gave my pitch at which point the BN Commander followed up with, "Don't listen to the 2. Kick their asses." You can imagine how that exercise went...

Tom

This setup could work alright...provided it comes with a step-ladder!:eek:

I've been able to use the M68 and its commercial derivatives to do quite a bit on the flat range.

They work well, if you use them properly.

As jcustis said, the fundamentals still matter. Shooters tend to get sloppy with RDS' because they are so much easier to use. You have to constantly work on the basics.

RDS' will make you a lot faster. A lot.

As for shooting in a house, when I use irons to go through a kill house it slows me down a lot, but I get slightly better hits. I use the front sight base to index; I don't use the rear at all. At that distance it doesn't really matter that much.

Many Soldiers don't know how to use the M68 and are full of all kinds of bull#### about it. But that is in part because most Soldiers haven't been properly instructed n the basics of mechanical offset, trajectory and the like, and because inferior mounting equipment can get in the way of being able to properly use the gear.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt

This setup could work alright...provided it comes with a step-ladder!:eek:

---

God, I hate the G36. Possibly the worst combat rifle produced this century, and I include the Ross rifle when I say that.

POS optic, non-ergo and cannot be effectively fired when wearing body armor due to the LOP of that huge stock.

On a related note, I am now using an M92 Yugo Krinkov in Afghanistan. I wish I could use an M4, but this is what I was issued. The Aimpoint H1 is The Answer as far as optics go, and I can use the iron sights as configured. I wish I could mount it further forward, but we are prohibited from modifying our weapons, despite the "Hello Kitty!" bling....http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._7443578_n.jpg

Just to continue Kiwigrunt's HK "tower" thread :)

http://d.imagehost.org/t/0237/g_36k_idz-tfb.jpg

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2.../the-g36k-idz/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

God, I hate the G36. Possibly the worst combat rifle produced this century, and I include the Ross rifle when I say that.

POS optic, non-ergo and cannot be effectively fired when wearing body armor due to the LOP of that huge stock.

---

They must have heard you...they just designed this stock half an hour ago. Now they need to have the cocking handle come out to the side so they can drop the scope-rail another 20 mm or so. With the new rail on these photos they have obviously dropped it as much as they dared but the operator on Kaur's photo will struggle to get his glove in that gap when he's in a hurry!
Mechanically I think the rifle is quite good and it is a breeze to clean (without a silencer!), but you are right, the ergonomics leave a lot to be desired.

I don't know what to think about this.:confused: Surely this scope would need an externally adjustable mount to compensate for the trajectories of the M2 and Mk19 (unless that's what a BERM is).