User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 10:16:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stupid is very strong with this instructor. So you hopped into a tech thread with a simple personal insult? I'm very interested to hear what your specific disagreement is, addressing what has been said previously here. I will also look forward to your feedback on the results when they are posted |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:03:35 AM EDT
[#2]
Personally, I think the whole thing is misguided. I've been using Aimpoint optic of various flavors for the past 15 years, and a lot of folks here have been using them even longer. All of them have done exactly what they are designed to do, and that is give the shooter the ability to put rounds on B27 sized targets fast, and given a combat/duty grade rifle, they do exactly that from contact distances out to 200 yards with relative ease.
Using a red dot sight in conjunction with match grade rifles and ammunition is an excercise in futility. They are simply the wrong optic for precision shooting. Frankly, it's amusing that any of this would come as a shock to anyone. Here we are discussing try to obtain 1MOA or better with a red dot when most shooters themselves and their rifle/ammo combos are not capable of that, period. What I have noticed with Aimpoints is that there can be a point of impact shift when a shooter switches from both eyes open to one eye closed, and vice versa. Using the optic as intended, with both eyes open, and within its design parameters, many have found that the Aimpoint is easily the best in its class. Count me in for heavily discounted micros on the EE. It's been a while since we've been able to cash in on a good old fashioned witch hunt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:12:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you hopped into a tech thread with a simple personal insult? I'm very interested to hear what your specific disagreement is, addressing what has been said previously here. I will also look forward to your feedback on the results when they are posted Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The stupid is very strong with this instructor. So you hopped into a tech thread with a simple personal insult? I'm very interested to hear what your specific disagreement is, addressing what has been said previously here. I will also look forward to your feedback on the results when they are posted You should have done a press check. Join date: check Post Count: check |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:44:32 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should have done a press check. Join date: check Post Count: check Ah, as in dude creates a new account just to troll? Honestly compared to most- I'm not that experienced when it comes to forums and social media. It isn't something I really enjoy, but I'm working on figuring it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:55:44 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1- He is right. I noticed this a long time ago. My solution always has been and always will be to simply center the dot in the tube when precision is necessary. My T-1s dots have a left to right shift when I move my head up and down. All 3 do it. It has never impacted my ability to get quick hits on target but it can toss a group apart when you're zeroing if you don't have a consistent cheek weld. 2- have you noticed he wicked optical shift with the T-2 when you compare it to irons? I found that a zeroed T-2 with the irons set to the dot will require excessive windage to be dialed to the rear sight. I've found that if you set irons this way, or zero while looking through the T-2, the zero will be significantly off if you shoot irons with the T-2 removed. Every optic has its quirks. The shift in irons is what led me to keep my T-1s. I just tried a the head moving test with my HD T-1. I wedged the rifle and put the dot on a specific point. When I moved my head d left to right, very very little shift. Top to bottom and bottom to top, very very little shift. Right to left? 2 inch shift. The "target" was about 10 yards away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:59:12 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just tried a the head moving test with my HD T-1. I wedged the rifle and put the dot on a specific point. When I moved my head d left to right, very very little shift. Top to bottom and bottom to top, very very little shift. Right to left? 2 inch shift. The "target" was about 10 yards away. I'll be explaining it in the test results post later this week- but I would recommend performing the shift check at 50yds. This puts it fairly past the distance that most manufacturers claim "near parallax free". Once you observe there, do a rough confirmation at 25 and 100 to see if there is any change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 12:13:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you hopped into a tech thread with a simple personal insult? I'm very interested to hear what your specific disagreement is, addressing what has been said previously here. I will also look forward to your feedback on the results when they are posted I reject your premise in its entirety. 1. red dots are not precision optics, they are designed for speed over iron sights, although there are videos of people making hits with T-1s out to 1000 yards...... 2. T-1s have been out for quite sometime and I think a lot more people would have noticed this problem if its as prevalent and as big a deal as you think it is. 3. If anything there are a fraction out there with imperfections in the glass. Send it back let Aimpoint fix it - no need for drama or overly elaborate testing that you are not qualified to perform nor qualified to analyze. 4. Results of any test you do will be meaningless and statistically insignificant unless you test many random samples of the same model unit. 5. My sample size of one works great and I have complete confidence in it. 6. Are you sure the lenses are clean? Any oil splattered on them would cause the problems you are describing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 12:17:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I reject your premise in its entirety. 1. red dots are not precision optics, they are designed for speed over iron sights, although there are videos of people making hits with T-1s out to 1000 yards...... 2. T-1s have been out for quite sometime and I think a lot more people would have noticed this problem if its as prevalent and as big a deal as you think it is. 3. If anything there are a fraction out there with imperfections in the glass. Send it back let Aimpoint fix it - no need for drama or overly elaborate testing that you are not qualified to perform nor qualified to analyze. 4. Results of any test you do will be meaningless and statistically insignificant unless you test many random samples of the same model unit. 5. My sample size of one works great and I have complete confidence in it. 6. Are you sure the lenses are clean? Any oil splattered on them would cause the problems you are describing. Your optic, your rifle, your choice. I do not expect you to take my word for it, that is why I did the test and will post the results. I will look forward to your feedback on the findings. I would ask though, why you haven't commented on the posts in this thread to users that have detailed observing this issue. I am also glad you mentioned that if there is a defect, you should send it back to be fixed. We, in fact, had one that had done just that. Still has the RMA number on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 12:28:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I reject your premise in its entirety. 1. red dots are not precision optics, they are designed for speed over iron sights, although there are videos of people making hits with T-1s out to 1000 yards...... 2. T-1s have been out for quite sometime and I think a lot more people would have noticed this problem if its as prevalent and as big a deal as you think it is. 3. If anything there are a fraction out there with imperfections in the glass. Send it back let Aimpoint fix it - no need for drama or overly elaborate testing that you are not qualified to perform nor qualified to analyze. 4. Results of any test you do will be meaningless and statistically insignificant unless you test many random samples of the same model unit. 5. My sample size of one works great and I have complete confidence in it. 6. Are you sure the lenses are clean? Any oil splattered on them would cause the problems you are describing. One other thing: you make some points that completely negate each other. You state a red dot is not a prescision optic, yet you then point out people make 1,000yd shots with it. You then state that the results are invalid without a large sample size, and then state that your sample group of 1 is adequate. I can appreciate that you like your optic. Nobody, including me, is saying that you should get rid of it. But it appears that you are pre-judging the results. If you are confident that you are right, just chill out and wait for the results to be posted. Then replicate the test and attempt to disprove it, using the same controls and protocols. That is how things should work. Then we can have a conversation based on data that is reproducable and comparable to anyone in the industry. If more people that disagreed with someone's statement, as you do mine, took the time to produce provable data to refute it- then we would truly be bias free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 2:58:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One other thing: you make some points that completely negate each other. You state a red dot is not a prescision optic, yet you then point out people make 1,000yd shots with it. You then state that the results are invalid without a large sample size, and then state that your sample group of 1 is adequate. I can appreciate that you like your optic. Nobody, including me, is saying that you should get rid of it. But it appears that you are pre-judging the results. If you are confident that you are right, just chill out and wait for the results to be posted. Then replicate the test and attempt to disprove it, using the same controls and protocols. That is how things should work. Then we can have a conversation based on data that is reproducable and comparable to anyone in the industry. If more people that disagreed with someone's statement, as you do mine, took the time to produce provable data to refute it- then we would truly be bias free. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I reject your premise in its entirety. 1. red dots are not precision optics, they are designed for speed over iron sights, although there are videos of people making hits with T-1s out to 1000 yards...... 2. T-1s have been out for quite sometime and I think a lot more people would have noticed this problem if its as prevalent and as big a deal as you think it is. 3. If anything there are a fraction out there with imperfections in the glass. Send it back let Aimpoint fix it - no need for drama or overly elaborate testing that you are not qualified to perform nor qualified to analyze. 4. Results of any test you do will be meaningless and statistically insignificant unless you test many random samples of the same model unit. 5. My sample size of one works great and I have complete confidence in it. 6. Are you sure the lenses are clean? Any oil splattered on them would cause the problems you are describing. One other thing: you make some points that completely negate each other. You state a red dot is not a prescision optic, yet you then point out people make 1,000yd shots with it. You then state that the results are invalid without a large sample size, and then state that your sample group of 1 is adequate. I can appreciate that you like your optic. Nobody, including me, is saying that you should get rid of it. But it appears that you are pre-judging the results. If you are confident that you are right, just chill out and wait for the results to be posted. Then replicate the test and attempt to disprove it, using the same controls and protocols. That is how things should work. Then we can have a conversation based on data that is reproducable and comparable to anyone in the industry. If more people that disagreed with someone's statement, as you do mine, took the time to produce provable data to refute it- then we would truly be bias free. Your assertions here are some that many Aimpoint fans are not wanting to hear, me included. You're also taking a very pragmatic and calm approach as evidenced in your post above. Most people bought a T1 for weight savings and its ruggedness and battery life, also built on the appropriate Aimpoint reputation. When shooting the T1, most also can get 2moa groups and make hits to 250-300y+. What many may not have focused on is, after multiple zeroing sessions or whatever the circumstance, the T1 may have been a slight detriment. Will it work for an HD scenario? It's more reliable than most. Does it have issues? Testing will tell. I haven't really noticed a problem with the 3 I have, but for other reasons I also believe the T2 is superior. Keeping tagged for more details. And yes, keep this thread respectful please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:39:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just tried a the head moving test with my HD T-1. I wedged the rifle and put the dot on a specific point. When I moved my head d left to right, very very little shift. Top to bottom and bottom to top, very very little shift. Right to left? 2 inch shift. The "target" was about 10 yards away. I agree. Shift is minimal. But something to keep in mind while zeroing. If you get inconsistent with your cheek weld and sight picture while performing a zero, it can actually be the cause of that "flier" you just opened up an otherwise nice grouping with. Also, for anyone saying you can't be precise with an aimpoint...dial your aimpoint down to minimal brightness, but to the point you can see it. If you have 2 moa dot, bring a 4-6 inch target to the range. At 50 yards (where I zero my RDS), there is NO reason you cannot put together a grouping that is really really close to the best that your rifle/ammo combo is capable of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 3:43:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, I have not notice the optical shifts with the T-2. I've actually been relatively impressed with its performance. But then, I do not advocate attempting to zero a red dot to the front sight post. They need to be zeroed independently. In the past (when i allowed it) I would tell clients with T-1's that they may try to remember the dot's position (when perceived in the center of the tube) relative to the front sight post. That can serve as an indicator if you are achieving inconsistent alignment because it can be difficult to place a small dot in the center of a large viewing tube. I also don't go much for setting irons to the dot, I generally do it to get close and turn the dot off, and then zero independently. My problem was that when I did this, I had to dial excessive windage to the rear sight. This is with 2 (maybe 3, it was when they first came to market) different T-2's, both direct from aimpoint. Its relevant because if you zeroed your irons with the T-2 in place, and you remove the T-2, you will be off 3-4 inches at 50 yards. If you zero your irons with the T-2 absent, and then shoot with your irons while looking through the T-2, you're off. If this has changed, I'd love to know. Other than that issue, I much preferred the T-2 over the T-1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:02:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One other thing: you make some points that completely negate each other. You state a red dot is not a prescision optic, yet you then point out people make 1,000yd shots with it. The person doing the shooting is an exceptional shooter, it shows what is possible but not typical as the shooter is a major factor in consistency. Its the singer not the song. With regard to the acceptable accuracy from surplus ammo I think your expectations are a little high. You then state that the results are invalid without a large sample size, and then state that your sample group of 1 is adequate. I dont have the money to buy 100 t-1s for a proper test. Mine working fine does not prove or disprove anything it only means that mine works. I can appreciate that you like your optic. I dont "like" the optic, it does what I need it to do, if it didn't I would use something else, I split hairs on size, weight, battery life and durability Nobody, including me, is saying that you should get rid of it. But it appears that you are pre-judging the results. Off the bat, small sample size is all I need to know about the validity of your test. If you are confident that you are right, just chill out and wait for the results to be posted. Then replicate the test and attempt to disprove it, using the same controls and protocols. That is how things should work. Then we can have a conversation based on data that is reproducable and comparable to anyone in the industry. If more people that disagreed with someone's statement, as you do mine, took the time to produce provable data to refute it- then we would truly be bias free. Again, I dont have 100 random t-1s to test or even 10, which would at least be a step in the right direction. Your test, as ive read, will use multiple shooters of multiple different brand optics. The results will be useless in regard as to whether there is a significant design flaw in a significant number of T-1s. The only thing it might prove is your opinion that this is a big deal to you - without any realistic consideration to the T-1s other merits, typical ammo choices and numerous other variables. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:09:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Those interested in eventually viewing the test results, as well as the test protocol should direct their attention to this thread:Test Protocol and Results.
Before doing so, allow me to remind all that Tech forums have strict rules about personal insults and wandering off-topic. A number of people will be reading the linked thread, myself and Aimless included. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:11:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, well I would absolutely love to check out your optic if you are every down in Texas. Or perhaps you could post some video replicating what I will post next week. I would welcome any data that differs from what I have Other than that- I'll let the report speak for itself and eagerly await other's posted data that either confirms or disproves it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 4:19:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those interested in eventually viewing the test results, as well as the test protocol should direct their attention to this thread:Test Protocol and Results. Before doing so, allow me to remind all that Tech forums have strict rules about personal insults and wandering off-topic. A number of people will be reading the linked thread, myself and Aimless included. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 7:31:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your optic, your rifle, your choice. I do not expect you to take my word for it, that is why I did the test and will post the results. I will look forward to your feedback on the findings. I would ask though, why you haven't commented on the posts in this thread to users that have detailed observing this issue. I am also glad you mentioned that if there is a defect, you should send it back to be fixed. We, in fact, had one that had done just that. Still has the RMA number on it. But what you fail to understand is you're not qualified to make or execute a scientific test. Period. You won't be doing it correctly, or with the correct controls. It would be like a scientist trying to do your job. You'd laugh at him. Why haven't IDPA or any other pro shooters found this? But you noticed it with a bunch of civi shooters? Cmon man. Screems agenda Given this, it's hard not to imagine you don't have an agenda. Get more traffic? Get your name out there? Something to do with trying to bring down Aimpoint because EOtech finally got exposed? People laugh but I know some guys with strong emotional ties to that optic and just can't stand that the company admitted what the rest of us knew for years. It's a great reticle with questionable quality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 7:38:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One other thing: you make some points that completely negate each other. You state a red dot is not a prescision optic, yet you then point out people make 1,000yd shots with it. You then state that the results are invalid without a large sample size, and then state that your sample group of 1 is adequate. I can appreciate that you like your optic. Nobody, including me, is saying that you should get rid of it. But it appears that you are pre-judging the results. If you are confident that you are right, just chill out and wait for the results to be posted. Then replicate the test and attempt to disprove it, using the same controls and protocols. That is how things should work. Then we can have a conversation based on data that is reproducable and comparable to anyone in the industry. If more people that disagreed with someone's statement, as you do mine, took the time to produce provable data to refute it- then we would truly be bias free. 
What? Seriously? You can't see what he was saying? It isn't a precise optic but yes, in some instances it can handle a long shot. I'm not trying to be a jerk but this entire thing clearly demonstrates you don't know/weren't trained how to shoot with this optic. And before you scream your spec ops.....so? Not every doctor out there graduated with an A averages. Some barely made it by. And that's not an attack. You must understand when you make a claim as outlandish as this and then say you're going to test it like you have the credentials to do so, you're going to get called into question. But I honestly still have a hard time believing that. You write too well to be average. That's why I say agenda. Has to be Decades and decades of shooters from novice to pros yet you find a problem. Does not compute. And your "results" are useless before you even find them. Tell you what. Pay the money to have a proper third party do the test. Won't be cheap. Them gave them share it for peer review. Then we can talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 7:41:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But what you fail to understand is you're not qualified to make or execute a scientific test. Period. You won't be doing it correctly, or with the correct controls. It would be like a scientist trying to do your job. You'd laugh at him. Why haven't IDPA or any other pro shooters found this? But you noticed it with a bunch of civi shooters? Cmon man. Screems agenda Given this, it's hard not to imagine you don't have an agenda. Get more traffic? Get your name out there? Something to do with trying to bring down Aimpoint because EOtech finally got exposed? People laugh but I know some guys with strong emotional ties to that optic and just can't stand that the company admitted what the rest of us knew for years. It's a great reticle with questionable quality. So, I have participated and run a number of tests in my former career. I'm not sure where you have derived your information that I am not qualified. Really, we should all be testers. I believe I also extended an invitation for you to participate or give feedback as to how the test should be run. I still offer that invitation. I have said this more than once this thread and I don't know why it keeps coming up. This is not a brand vs brand issue. I have seen this in ONE model. I actually like the T-2. No emotional ties anywhere. Really it was the users here that got mad with a descision I made for one course I teach that most likely had zero bearing on them to begin with. There was and is no more need for me to justify that descision than there is for you to justify what you choose to put on your rifle. Even with all that, I was willing to take my spare time to put some effort into producing some data that may or may not demonstrate the descision in question. Regardless of what is said here, how many people get angry, this will be published and then if you disagree- then you can take your weekend, set up a better test, and refute it. I look forward to reading the products of your effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 7:44:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And before you scream your spec ops . I'm starting to think that you are just here to argue and troll. At no point have I justified any of my observations by my background. That has only been waved around by people making opposing posts here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 7:49:27 PM EDT
[#21]
I strongly suggest viewing the tests as mentioned in the thread linked above before commenting further.
When that information is available, then some sort of rationally-based discussion can occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 8:54:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every optic has its quirks. The shift in irons is what led me to keep my T-1s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 8:56:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, well I would absolutely love to check out your optic if you are every down in Texas. Or perhaps you could post some video replicating what I will post next week. I would welcome any data that differs from what I have Other than that- I'll let the report speak for itself and eagerly await other's posted data that either confirms or disproves it. I wouldn't try to replicate your results the way that you are doing it. If i was really interested in measuring parallax in a given optic I would first, eliminate as much human error as possible. I would use a camera rig that could be moved precisely and incrementally behind a firmly secured optic to simulate head movement. Down range, targets would have a dot and a grid that can be measured from the bench. Align target dot and optic dot. Then I would measure and plot results on a graph along the desired axes. This would show the deviation between where the point of impact should be and the projected point of impact is due to parallax error in the sight. Repeat for 10 different T-1s, different ranges etc., different optics |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 9:01:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't try to replicate your results the way that you are doing it. If i was really interested in measuring parallax in a given optic I would first, eliminate as much human error as possible. I would use a camera rig that could be moved precisely and incrementally behind a firmly secured optic to simulate head movement. Down range, targets would have a dot and a grid that can be measured from the bench. Align target dot and optic dot. Then I would measure and plot results on a graph along the desired axes. This would show the deviation between where the point of impact should be and the projected point of impact is due to parallax error in the sight. Repeat for 10 different T-1s, different ranges etc., different optics I appreciate the feedback. I'd like that for a follow up. Perhaps someone like yourself could try the camera option. My test was complete yesterday. Results will be compiled and posted. Interested parties can take it from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 9:02:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how would you know?  j/k, ive seen your sub-moa 100yd groups with iron sights, very impressive
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 9:13:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I appreciate the feedback. I'd like that for a follow up. Perhaps someone like yourself could try the camera option. My test was complete yesterday. Results will be compiled and posted. Interested parties can take it from there. easier typed than done
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 9:16:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
easier typed than done As I found out Saturday,I believe you are correct. Even the relatively simple test I did took almost 6 hours- which is the point where volunteers start getting less than friendly texts from wives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 9:52:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? Seriously? You can't see what he was saying? It isn't a precise optic but yes, in some instances it can handle a long shot. I'm not trying to be a jerk but this entire thing clearly demonstrates you don't know/weren't trained how to shoot with this optic. And before you scream your spec ops.....so? Not every doctor out there graduated with an A averages. Some barely made it by. And that's not an attack. You must understand when you make a claim as outlandish as this and then say you're going to test it like you have the credentials to do so, you're going to get called into question. But I honestly still have a hard time believing that. You write too well to be average. That's why I say agenda. Has to be Decades and decades of shooters from novice to pros yet you find a problem. Does not compute. And your "results" are useless before you even find them. Tell you what. Pay the money to have a proper third party do the test. Won't be cheap. Them gave them share it for peer review. Then we can talk. ^^^ That is a completely irrelevant statement. So it is only a precision optic sometimes? You can pick and chose when it is and when it isn't? It is a matter of how repeatable it is and I personally don't find a 1000 yard shot very repeatable with a 2moa dot. I have to analyze drug research as part of my career and I don't see anything wrong with the testing methods. He doesn't need a third party because he is using multiple independent testers. As a T2 user and a previous (and pretty regular) T1 user, I don't find anything wrong with the optic and do think banning it from a course is a bit much (I would really need to look at the specifics of the course before really making that judgement tho i guess). The T1 has always worked well for me but I am not going to discredit the test results before i even see them. If it works for you use it, but don't refuse to even acknowledge potential flaws in the equipment you are using because everything is going to have limitations and you are going to be better off if you understand them and apply that understanding to how you use that gear. The world isn't ending. The T1 is still a great choice... i would still use one despite whatever this test shows. Its still good info to have and you can still thank this guy for going to the effort to demonstrate whatever it is he is observing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 10:13:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Scalar Works just sent me an email seems they are shipping their new low T-2 T-1 H-2 H-1 Benelli mounts...
Glad I snatched one |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:22:43 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I strongly suggest viewing the tests as mentioned in the thread linked above before commenting further. When that information is available, then some sort of rationally-based discussion can occur. Agreed. And to those who claim the test isn;t valid, it's completely asinine and also should be the impetus for you to test out yourselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2017 11:30:24 PM EDT
[#31]
No matter the result, I certainly appreciate your positive attitude and professional manner.
Anytime someone puts themselves out there, a few can't resist being rude. Regrettably I have been that person on a few occasions as well. This thread has been enlightening, entertaining, and has convinced me to go test/validate my own optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 12:49:52 AM EDT
[#32]
delete
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 3:53:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No matter the result (or my opinion on the topic, one way or the other), I certainly appreciate your positive attitude and professional manner. Parenthesis added by me. I've been impressed by this throughout the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 4:12:38 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No matter the result, I certainly appreciate your positive attitude and professional manner. Anytime someone puts themselves out there, a few can't resist being rude. Regrettably I have been that person on a few occasions as well. This thread has been enlightening, entertaining, and has convinced me to go test/validate my own optics. Thanks for that. If the only thing that comes from this is that one person is motivated to do that- it will be worth it for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 5:17:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then you're using it wrong. Open your second eye and the housing disappears. People that claim tube effect on these kings are using them wrong. To the subject at hand, I don't notice the issue on my t1s You still see it with both eyes open. It's one of the reasons people like Eotechs so much. I think. Because it just clutters less, even with both eyes open. You can see better. Kyle Lamb calls it "Battlefield of View". If it doesn't bother you, more power to you. But there's no way around the fact that there is a housing obscuring the view you have with your dominant eye. Some optics more than others. The delta point pro takes up less too and is an upside to it. kylelambonthedeltapointproandtalksaboutbattlefieldofview I have no doubt that some people are not affected by the housing of the tube sights, or affected less. But just because some don't prefer it, doesn't mean they're "doing it wrong". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 5:36:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you misunderstood what he was saying. It was clear to me. He would get a shift from having them zero'd with the optic off. Then, when you put the optic on, and used the irons through the optic (which you would do in the case of optic failure), he had to dial in a bunch of windage. Or was it elevation? I forget, but it was way different. It is a known thing that you need to zero your irons through your scope if you intend to use them that way. But I could see how that would be annoying when you take it off for any reason if the shift is great. I'm not sure what you meant by the , but his post made complete sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 6:43:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for that. If the only thing that comes from this is that one person is motivated to do that- it will be worth it for me. Yeah, well done and thanks for the info. I'll be looking at how my Aimpoint PRO does. Or any other RDS I come in contact with. I was actually watching a youtube vid last night and they did a similar, less defined parallax test between 4 different RDS. They were comparing them. And some did better than others. I was half falling asleep but I don't think T-1's were one of them in the comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXOFt5TKpRQ No, they were all "reflex" type sights. Although it has an AP M4S in the test. 
2:28 in.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2017 11:02:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Idiotic test that seems to have an agenda, but the parallax test is interesting
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 12:53:24 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Every optic has its quirks. The shift in irons is what led me to keep my T-1s. Time for the crayons I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 12:58:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Idiotic test that seems to have an agenda, but the parallax test is interesting Agenda or not, the guy is right. If you have a T-1 and a set of bags, it's pretty easy to test in about 2 minutes. It's not a huge shift, but it's there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 1:38:34 AM EDT
[#41]
Regardless of whether the issue exists or not, I am highly impressed with the professionalism displayed by dopushups, both in his presentation of his findings and his dealings with the posters disagreeing with him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 2:22:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agenda or not, the guy is right. If you have a T-1 and a set of bags, it's pretty easy to test in about 2 minutes. It's not a huge shift, but it's there. I think he might've been referring to the video I posted. Which does seem like it wants to sell you a certain sight. But 3 out of 4 optics had parallax issues. One was an Aimpoint M4s, A trijicon Reflex and an eotech. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it at least shows kind of what is going on here with this test and the possible T-1 issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 2:40:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he might've been referring to the video I posted. Which does seem like it wants to sell you a certain sight. But 3 out of 4 optics had parallax issues. One was an Aimpoint M4s, A trijicon Reflex and an eotech. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it at least shows kind of what is going on here with this test and the possible T-1 issue. That makes more sense! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 2:49:14 AM EDT
[#44]
All red dot optics have parallax.
Keep the dot centered and keep a consistent head position/stock length. POI shift in Aimpoints often has more to do with the reticle design and projection. The Aimpoint dot changes shape bigly depending on brightness. If you look at it under magnification, you will see that it is functionally flower petals that illuminate clockwise with increasing brightness as each petal powers up. This power up also changes the shape and size of the dot. It is why instructors teach to use the top edge of the dot...not the whole thing or you get a POI shift from brightness adjustments. Beyond that, you will 100% get a small POI shift from parallax. EO Techs do it too. I can get about a 6 MOA shift on an EO Tech if I put the center dot in my EO in the upper right corner of the lens. You would never do that in real life...it is totally awkward...but it shows the parallax. Bottom line- Keep the dot centered, head position consistent, stock length set to one spot, and brightness close to the setting you used for zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:46:06 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agenda or not, the guy is right. If you have a T-1 and a set of bags, it's pretty easy to test in about 2 minutes. It's not a huge shift, but it's there. ETA: was beat to it! Should have read further. I think defender is referring to the video posted immediately above him. I was confused too as he had complimented dopushups earlier. I agree with defender that the video posted by the different tester was stupid and had an agenda. Looks like Dopushups is only interested in doing the parallax test though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 7:59:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: was beat to it! Should have read further. I think defender is referring to the video posted immediately above him. I was confused too as he had complimented dopushups earlier. I agree with defender that the video posted by the different tester was stupid and had an agenda. Looks like Dopushups is only interested in doing the parallax test though. Correct. All I will report on is deviation due to parallax (well could be a spherical aberration, no clue and not going to speculate in the report), based on user observation. There will be no conclusions or comments on what is the "better" optic. Also to update- got another training commitment today that came up last minute. So I won't be able to start compiling results until tomorrow at the earliest. I'll work on getting this done for review- but it is sliding right a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:19:27 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agenda or not, the guy is right. If you have a T-1 and a set of bags, it's pretty easy to test in about 2 minutes. It's not a huge shift, but it's there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Idiotic test that seems to have an agenda, but the parallax test is interesting Agenda or not, the guy is right. If you have a T-1 and a set of bags, it's pretty easy to test in about 2 minutes. It's not a huge shift, but it's there. I don't disagree and earlier state I see a shift when moving my head right to left behind the T1, or at least one of them. Have not checked the others nor my T2s. The rest of that test is stupid though. Look at what optic comes out on top. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 9:22:31 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: was beat to it! Should have read further. I think defender is referring to the video posted immediately above him. I was confused too as he had complimented dopushups earlier. I agree with defender that the video posted by the different tester was stupid and had an agenda. Looks like Dopushups is only interested in doing the parallax test though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Agenda or not, the guy is right. If you have a T-1 and a set of bags, it's pretty easy to test in about 2 minutes. It's not a huge shift, but it's there. ETA: was beat to it! Should have read further. I think defender is referring to the video posted immediately above him. I was confused too as he had complimented dopushups earlier. I agree with defender that the video posted by the different tester was stupid and had an agenda. Looks like Dopushups is only interested in doing the parallax test though. Yes, correct. Dopushups has been professional, objective, and patient. Quite impressed with him and look forward to rest results in the other thread. It's the four optic test video I found imbecilic |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 10:39:40 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree and earlier state I see a shift when moving my head right to left behind the T1, or at least one of them. Have not checked the others nor my T2s. The rest of that test is stupid though. Look at what optic comes out on top. I agree. Any "test" that declares a "best" product argues against its objectivity. Stating "within the sample group tested, X optic demonstrated more/less of X effect" would be more objective |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2017 11:10:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you hopped into a tech thread with a simple personal insult? I'm very interested to hear what your specific disagreement is, addressing what has been said previously here. I will also look forward to your feedback on the results when they are posted You are being entirely too (admirably) gracious with the trolls in here. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
