The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[JMA]

I'm not going to dispute the Brits findings, however I will say that the simple 'score' at the end of a weapon's qualification test isn't a good measure of a sight's worth.

Last week I fired a weapon's qual both with an ACOG and a std 1.5 scope - and scored higher on the 1.5, somewhat perplexingly. Unfortunately ACOG doesn't manufacturer an scope that improves ones' innate marksmanship! My results aren't unique, though. An ACOG/ 4x-like scope won't necessarily improve a shooting "score" in many tests.

Put it this way - when you have time to identify, align (especially if you know the exact range of the tgt) and place your shots, it will come down to your abilities as a shooter more than your ability to align your sights on a target.

This is misleading, however, as I agree that the ACOG/ 4x like sights are a huge leap ahead. They allow you do detect, recognise, identify and (if you need to) engage at a greater range - no small benefit. Further (apologies to the anti-Boydists out there, but his cycle fits in nicely to my point) the OODA-loop process is far faster with an ACOG. You can observe a target sooner, judge the distance far better using the provided human-dimension bars and once you start shooting it is a lot easier to judge your fall of shot, thus leading to a more effective application of fire (aim-off) process so your hitting what you need to. These benefits combined are a huge elevation in capability, but can be very hard to measure on a range shoot when you know the serials that will appear (thus negating the benefits of observation), you know the distances (no need to use the scope's ability to estimate range) and have no rounds/ opportunity to apply proper aim-off so repeated fire is effective.

OK, thanks for that.

Surely the optics in a range setting must enhance the ability of of even the previously poor shot to hit the target more accurately and more often?

Nothing replaces the "aiming, holding, breathing, squeezing" skills but it must surely be better than the standard metal sights.

We issued early versions of the optical sights to the more skilled, senior and experienced soldiers. and they were happy to use them on ambush and recce tasks for the perceived benefit (say taking out the driver of the leading vehicle) but for close fluid contact (in fire force) settings it was found that it was easier and more efficient to use both eyes and the metal sights than to switch from open eyes to optics multiple times.

So after confirming the obvious (which in your experience is not so obvious it seems) that the use of optical sights will improve range scores I would move on to ask how that translated into a higher kill rate in contacts. Difficult I know as there is no before and after to compare and the war evolves. But what I do hear is that there is some concern about the rifle and the calibre as at the ranges the contacts apparently take place the rifles perform sub-optimally (meaning they don't hit the enemy).

Now one would be forgiven for thinking that at these longer ranges these rifles with optical sights would perform optimally, yes? It appears not.

Is it the soldier? Is it the rifle? Is it the calibre, is it the optical sights?