Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: Combat optics, iron sights and you

  1. #21
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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

  2. #22
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default Rear sight?

    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.
    "Amateurs practice until they get it right. Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong."

    "Training should be like a bloodless battle so that battle is just like bloody training." - Roman Legion Maxim

  3. #23
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FL-CRACKER View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Council Member Ender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default Importance of the rear sight

    Quote Originally Posted by FL-CRACKER View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ender; 05-03-2007 at 04:32 AM.

  5. #25
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    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

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Morning Calm
    Posts
    177

    Default

    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.).

  7. #27
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    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.
    "Amateurs practice until they get it right. Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong."

    "Training should be like a bloodless battle so that battle is just like bloody training." - Roman Legion Maxim

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyRecon View Post
    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?
    "Amateurs practice until they get it right. Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong."

    "Training should be like a bloodless battle so that battle is just like bloody training." - Roman Legion Maxim

  10. #30
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    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.

  11. #31
    Council Member FL-CRACKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I need to pick up a copy of that book. Thanks for the recommendation.
    "Amateurs practice until they get it right. Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong."

    "Training should be like a bloodless battle so that battle is just like bloody training." - Roman Legion Maxim

  12. #32
    Registered User bluefalcondelta3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bluefalcondelta3; 07-09-2007 at 08:46 PM. Reason: Digital Dysgraphia
    "They say 'Nothing is too good for you'... and that's exactly what you'll get." -EURCOM officer commenting on Army logictical policies.

  13. #33
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyRecon View Post
    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.

  14. #34
    Council Member sgmgrumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth Kansas
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    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.

  15. #35
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

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

    Best

    Tom

  16. #36
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

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

  17. #37
    Council Member sgmgrumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth Kansas
    Posts
    168

    Default

    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, 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

  18. #38
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default You'll Shoot Your Eye Out, Ralphie

    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


    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

  19. #39
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    This setup could work alright...provided it comes with a step-ladder!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  20. #40
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •