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 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.Originally Posted by Uboat509
Tom
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
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.
Importance of the rear sight
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.
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.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.
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.
"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
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks