I apologize if posting that certain video sort of derailed the topic.  I thought I was clear about why I posted it.  I posted at what point you can see they do sort of a similar, but much simpler, parallax test and showed that all of them had the issue, except one.   And that it's probably a good thing to be looking for in your red dot, so you can be aware of it.  Yeah, the video was biased.  I didn't care about all that.

I read years ago that the max parallax for the T1 happened to be at around 50yards and was mostly in one direction (I'm pretty sure it was vertical but I could be wrong) I thought it was commonly known but apparently I was wrong.

Either way I don't see it as a reason to ban it from a class but I'm not the instructor. All reddot have  My guess would be that the T2 just has the glass shifted so the parallax isn't as obvious, whether changing the distance it occurs, or reducing shift and extending it over a longer distance I don't know.

Sure enough. I was skeptical, but both of my T1's exhibit a slight shift.  I don't notice it with my T2.  Won't be rushing out to replace the T1's as I don't get to shoot past 100 yards and never had an issue hitting targets.

What I find a little bit odd about all this, is I thought most RDS makers claim they are parallax free.   Although I don't really know that.  I thought that's just what I heard around here....   Hmmmmm......

Right from Aimpoint's website:

Standard features of all Aimpoint® sights

• Unlimited field of view
• Parallax-free
• Unlimited eye relief
• Unaffected by extreme weather conditions
• Extremely rugged, durable construction
• No hazardous materials
• No laser emission that could be harmful to your eyes
• Increased aiming confidence and hit probability
• Reduced training time and ammunition consumption
• Battery life measured in years

http://us.aimpoint.com/products/military-le/

FYI
Parallax testing by Dave Merrill, featuring Aimpoint H1, EOTech EXPS, Trijicon MRO/RMR, and Leupold LCO.
http://www.breachbangclear.com/parallax-free-isnt/

I'm really impressed with your scientific attitude and patience, Eric.  Thanks for sharing the info.

Thanks for that. I should be able to start compiling test reports tomorrow morning. Thanks for the patience, I know there are a number of people waiting to see the reports one way or another- sorry it is taking a bit.

I have yet to see one that doesn't do it.  

That being said, for me and the purpose of the optic, it's irrelevant.  Same principals of precision shooting apply.  Keep your head position consistent, just like you do with any optic, and it's not an issue.  

To those that posted RE the agenda comment. Acknowledged it was in reference to the other video posted.  I didn't watch it and the quote chain made it tough to determine exactly what was being referenced.  I have believed from word go that the observer has been nothing but genuine about what he saw.  

What would be a nice twist however would be for the instructor to educate T-1  owners of this phenomenon and teach them how to properly overcome it.  

But again, his observations are 100% dead nuts on point.

This is an excellent point. This is something that I teach and reinforce, especially in the course in question. Unfortunately, keeping a dot in the center of a larger tube can be difficult for many shooters as it does not offer as much precision (with regards to alignment) as say iron sights that you can evaluate well due to the closer perceived proximity within the shooter's field of view- or a scope, in which you can use scope shading to help aid in determining a more consistent position. Unfortunately, when doing good hard grouping while focusing on fundamentals and attempting to be as precise as possible, I have consistently observed this one optic model (just this one and no others from the same brand) frustrate shooters. Some of those shooters in question have posted in this thread. Some shooters have been able to mitigate the shifts by referencing the relative position of the dot to the front sight post (not on it, but noting the space and position), however it does not eliminate it- at least in my specific observations. Also, in this specific course, it slows down the student's progression. The goal of shot group feedback for diagnosis of possible causes of fundamental error is to push the shooter towards self-diagnosis- through observing the position and behavior of the sight before, during, and after the shot. This results in the ability to note a possible error at the time of the shot and reference what they did/felt at that time to the list of possible causes, with regards to the two firing tasks, and correct them. Unfortunately, since it can be difficult to precisely observe or recall the exact center point of the tube, this can build in some uncertainty in the student during the grouping debrief at the target. When I have the conversation with the shooter, asking questions to drive the shooter to recall what they saw/felt to use as a visual indicator that could correlate to the result at the target, you often get a "I'm not 100% sure if it was in the center". While it is reasonable to have the ability to observe optical center of the sight, it is not as distinct at the comparative recall of the perceptible lift and movement of the aiming dot during the shot follow through, that can give an indicator of possible errors.

So, therefore I made the call for this one optic, in this one course. It concerned me that it was reducing the amount of progress that clients are paying me to make with them. I’m not in this to get rich and I don’t want to take pay that I feel I haven’t earned. So when I get a guy who is shooting much smaller groups than the rest of the class, but is still struggling with getting his head alignment perfect to attempt to minimize POI shit and the rest of the class is ready to move back in distance or to a new position- it puts me in the position of moving him on before we have worked out his issue, or holding back the rest of the class when they should be moving on. It was not a decision I took lightly (it took me 3 years to make it), but when I took people’s feeling or my unwillingness to deal with industry drama (like this thread) and looked at it from the point of performance, client satisfaction, desired end state, and the ethical standards that I attempt to hold myself to- I had to make the call. Again, just for ONE optic model (not the T-2), and for ONE course.

One last addition to my previous post- this is most likely getting off topic, but I have a doc that some may or may not find interesting. After my service life, I went over to the middle east and taught, among other things, marksmanship in a schoolhouse setting. I had several foreign instructors (westerners) working with me and they hadn't done grouping diagnostic before. So I sat down, using the Army Marksmanship Field manual, Marine Corps pubs and other sources as references to put together my later experiences and training into a digestible format. I've been meaning to update it, and it definitely could be improved, but I thought I would share it here. I don't do any of the proprietary this or trademark that game- so feel free to download, plagiarize, copy, use for your business/personal use, or print it out and light it on fire.

GET Instructor/ Coach Guide to Diagnostics

I like to watch things burn.

Makes more sense.  Knowing that you've recognized this for three years helps clarify that point as well.  Obviously you have been doing what I suggested, and realized it was a detriment to the other students.  Solid, and reasonable approach!

Does this issue exist to this degree in the comp M3/Pro series?

i have had plenty show up at courses and not seen the effects on paper. After seeing this the first time with the T-1, I check every student's optic and have not seen any significant movement. Same with the T-2 (which I haven't seen any excessive movement with either). I am, however looking for a few of those to add to the test group. Turns out I may be able to add another 18 or so T-1's to the test this coming Mon/Tue and am trying to work the M3/Pro's into that test to get some actual user data though. Unfortunately, I'm limited by what people will donate to the test and their personal/work schedules as I am not contacting any manufacturer or distributor for samples. Just user owned optics.

I have always read that RDS are parallax free and the dot will stay true regardless of head position. BS!
But, I have always experienced the opposite. When I move my head out of my "sweet spot" I can see the dot moving on the target even though the rifle is steady and not moving.

Thus, I know that I have to keep the same head position. I hate it when I'm in the middle of a group and a bug lands on my face or someone forces me to take my cheek off the stock to answer a question. I believe that group is now off because I may not have the exact cheek weld and position.

I even remember back in Basic, during BRM, when the DI would yell to us to keep the same cheek weld. They would tell us to keep nose to charging handle, as an easy guide to help keep consistent cheek weld.

Unless I am misunderstanding the OP, this is not a new issue. WTF are those students doing with their heads while shooting a group? Do they stop to chat, or post on FB during a string? Keep your damn head in the same place!!

He's not saying that groups aren't small since the head shouldn't be moving while shooting a group. The problem is that different groups have different points of impact since the head is not completely consistent between the different groups. 

So, nose to the charging handle was a method for getting students into a consistent position with iron sights. It wasn't the cure for inconsistent sight picture- you still have to precisely place the front sight post in the center of the aperture by judging the empty space above, below, and to the sides of the rear aperture. The multiple reference points, like the front sight guards, and the relatively close perceived distance between the front post and the rear aperture aids in this. With the red dot sight, especially with a single dot, there is considerably more empty space between the dot and the inner diameter of the viewing tube and window. This makes it a bit more difficult to visually check for sight alignment (or in the red dot sight, optical center alignment) and causes inconsistencies. Most red dot optics are fairly forgiving for inconsistencies in head alignment because of their intended design. Now if you have one optic that is much more sensitive to head alignment than the others......

As to what they are doing between shot groups- they are walking downrange to debrief their shot groups and walking back.

This would be an example of what we are doing between shot groups:  

There will be a point where the sample size is diminishing returns, but adding another 18 to the mix would be valuable.

thays what I'm thinking. There needs to be a reasonable sample size to rule out the chance of having one bad optic. For instance, we had one Burris Fast Fire. Interesting results and multiple testers observed it- but it is just one

This thread is full of and.

First off, thank you to Dopushups for your service to the United States. Your sacrifice is what makes life worth living possible. For that, I thank you.

But, respectfully sir, I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to Optics.

I've read the whole thing, and I'm just shaking my head. Maybe I should be a firearms instructor.. Lol. Here's what I'm envisioning right now....

" Come out to my bum fuck Farmville range! We ain't professionals with good and bad habits from the sandbox, but we'll show you how to have a proper cheek weld, with your face and your ass, and have you be able to put round dot inside of a circle. You over there, step right up here. Son, you's ever seen an asshole in real life? I'm not talking about the figurative asshole, but the literal asshole, you know the sheriff's badge with the actual hole in the center of it that you shit out of?"

"Yeess, yes sir,......"

"Excellent young man. So when I say put something in the center of, you can understand the orientation I'm trying to convey you? A location in space, not whether you're queer not?"

"Yes sir?"

"Well there you have it class. Imagine your AimPoint is the literal asshole, and not the figurative one. Put the fucking dot In the fucking Center of the tube,....."

"There's is the fundamentals of shooting class, don't suck with the trigger pulls, and you'll be out shooting the best snipers in the world and no time. Make sure you leave your payments of $1,000 each on the way out the door."

I hate to be a dick in this thread. But come on? You guys are acting like this is some big ol scientific fucking discovery. Red dots are amazing pieces of equipment. But, they are not magic makers either. You still have to do your job of following fundamentals, and keeping proper orientation of things if you want to quote claim precision.

Bobbing your fucking head up and down, and not maintaining some level of a proper sight picture and sight alignment, and expect things not to work out right and just generally suck at shooting? No shit?

Rant off and flame away. I think some you guys need to get out and shoot more, and spend less time on the internets trying to turn this into some Stevie McHawking type shit. .....

If you guys want, I'll buy anybody's T1 AimPoint for $10 apiece since they are complete utter shit according to the the wisdom here.

Thanks for your comments.

First- I would never speak to clients in that manner.

Second- you may consider asking some of the people in this thread if what you envision of my classes represents their experiences.

Third- I wish you the best of luck should you choose to teach classes.

Not sure I am following your post, you are gracious in one sentence then insulting in the next, followed by some type of backwoods narrative I am guessing what you think his class would be like. Then you said I don't mean to be a dick and go ahead and be one anyone.

Nowhere in either of these threads did dopushups say T 1's were utter shit, if that is what you understood I am not sure you can offer anything of substance to the conversation, besides insults, sarcasm and distorted comprehension of the discussion.

You post once every six days and this is the best you could muster.  Hang out in GD with your nonsense.

I have five micros, so one could say I have skin in the game.  Dopushups is stating that the problem could be so prevalent that, after shooting one group and walking downrange to have a look, and immediate follow-up group could be compromised unbeknownst to the shooter.  

For someone who read the whole thread your deduction of what is happening here leaves much to be desired.

Contribute or disagree, but keep the trash in GD.

While I do have vested interest in the topic of this thread because I own a T-1, been to Eric's courses, experienced the issue, and am also a personal friend of Eric's...

I'd like to ask what have you done to further improve the field of firearms?  What branch of the military did you serve in?

I have a single t1 so I don't have a  dog in this fight. I am transitioning to LPVO instead of rds but I do want to see the findings.
I'm curious to see the findings because I do want to see the limitations of my equipment but I will not be getting rid of my t1. The bodies of dead pigs and coyotes at ranges from 20-200 yards killed with my t1 couldn't tell or didn't seem to mind the dot not being perfectly centered in my tube.
Is the optic bad enough to ban from a class? Personally I don't think so but it's not my class I'm running so my opinion is mute.

The only way to see the limitations of your equipment is for you to test it. My test report will not be representative of your optic, only the sample group.

Unless the report indicates that my ban was without merits, it will remain unchanged.

I am curious as to what additional optics will be added to the naughty list and if the T-1 is redeemed to the nice list

I have tested it. Hence my statement of the dead animal bodies I've pilled up over the years. That's my only available test sample.

Like I said, your class your rules.

I did read the thread guys. And yes, I did thank him for his service. I was not envisioning what his class would be like, I am envisioning what my class, if I taught firearms, being some guy in bumfuckville teaching a class could be like with no DOD experience, just me as some farm guy that doesn't get out shot very often.

My story was just a fictional little story where I would teach fundamentals with some profanity and not ban Optics from a class period because that's a bit ridiculous.

So are you guys for or against proper shooting fundamentals when you are trying to make as Tiny groups as possible at 50 yards with a 2 mod Red Dot sight? Because it seems to me like the argument here is you are citing lack ability of the equipment to perform? Rather failures in at least slightly proper form on behalf of the shooter?

See, here's the thing, Dopushups service to our country is a wonderful thing. I don't want it to go unrecognized. I don't wish to disrespect him as a soldier. I am just trying to point out that what he is saying here as an "instructor" a bunch of bunk.

Honestly, I think this whole thing is just a click bait maneuver. Say something questionable about one of the most highly-regarded Optics companies in the world just to get exposure for your business. Well, I guess if that was the goal job well done. I had no idea you were who Dopushups was prior to original post. No such thing as bad advertisement, right?

So what's the big test? Are you sticking a laser bore sight in a rifle and engaging in some range theatrics? Or do you have some other whiz-bang magic for collimating your setup and measuring The Parallax? Or did you guys set The Parallax, then collimate since what difference does it make right? Since there's no ammo, did you say bang when you pull the trigger?

This is the crux of the argument for why he has banned this optic only for this one course. Not sure why this is being missed. If you are trying to get a newer shooter to concentrate on the fundamentals, why would you allow entry of a variable with a repeating issue experienced across many people and different gear, it being the one constant that presents a consistent issue, to get entered into the equation, confounding and frustrating the progress of the shooter?

Say you're  teaching a kid to ride a bike, you need them to concentrate on balance, foot coordination with pedals, arm coordination with steering, and seeing where they are going. Why would you put water in one of the tires to eff with the rotational balance of one of the tires? That's mean, and you'd be rightly considers a dick, especially if you were charging the kid money. This only confounds the students progress.  Conversely an experienced biker could easily overcome this imbalance and perform riding the bike. However, i as sure as :&it wouldn't want to ride this bike in the Tour de France. And that's what we are training for when considering this gears employment in home defense. At least that's what my two kids are expecting.

I've improved the field by teaching new shooters the proper fundmentals. Things like cheek weld and not trying to look sideways through a T1...

Buddy and I did some run and gun last month with ladder drills. I could hit an 8" plate at 25yd, then 50, then 75, then 100, and all the way back down. While running between the shoot stations. So since that T1 seems to have no problem with that drill, should I throw it in the trash or is it good to go?

I've never served, but thanks for asking. Is that a prerequisite to get to comment on firearms and optics? I've never served, but I've have been shooting ar15s in various various forms for 25 years.... Does that count?

That's all good and great exercises, no bs. The issue, however, when applied to further advanced courses that Dopushups employs, plays in to lethal shot placement, incapacitating shot placement,and target discrimination. I will respect dopushups Opsec and not go into details, but any grouping wider then a 2" spread is a bad shot. My experience running the T1 within these stringent requirements, puts you at a detriment. If other people's tolerance is higher, then more power to you. That said, when looking at the overall curriculum dopushup provides, the building block crawl walk run progression, you would further appreciate his perspective on what is required and the theoretical end game that is desired.

I can only vouch from my class experience with Eric. Two years ago he brought up the T-1 issue, so I doubt he's doing this for exposure.
I've taken hundreds of hours of training and Eric was the one teacher that really pushed my mind harder than my weapon.
See you in September dopushups

Yet another reason a lower 1/3 cowitness is a horrible idea if you don't wear a gas mask on a regular basis or need to clear an IR laser.

I can see parallax with the dot at the edge of glass. If it's there it means I am moving and shooting at the same time. I might be 1/8 inch to an inch off up to an inch shooting on the move at 25 yards? I'm good with that.

There is zero shift with zero head movement. So it sounds like you should FORCE all your students to use a T1 to emphasize and demonstrate the need for consistent head placement. Hard to ha e consistent head placement with a lower 1/3 cowitness, so great to teach against its use, seeing how horrible of a concept it is, as well. I am only seeing upsides here for a T1 in your class.

You bring up a great point. I'm not an advocate of the co-witness with tactical rifles. I prefer a higher height over bore (my sight and LaRue LT101 rider give me a 3.75" HOB). This makes mask usage, head mounted NVG alignment much easier. It also allows you bring the sights up to your eyes without moving your head, as you usually have to drop your head a bit to get behind a lower optic in CQB/CQM. Some optics definitely had much more movement in the portion of the window/tube that is outside of center.

I'm going to disagree with you though on the upside to using the T-1 in the class. I watched it for three years and did excactly what you are talking about. I do find it to be very valuable for students to see something themselves and not just rely on some guy (like me) telling them they should do it because I said so. It has just proved to be a distraction. For fundamentals work, I try to de-complicate the tasks as much as possible form the beginning. Get them into a good supported position with a shooting bag, get them to focus on just one or two things at first and do them perfectly (usually natural point of aim and sight placement), and then when they get comfortable and consistent with it- layer on something else to add to the checklist like breathing, trigger manipulation, etc. I have found this to be an effective means of controlling the students mental bandwidth so that they can actually recall how the sight looked and moved during the firing process and then begin to correlate it with effects on target and begin to troubleshoot errors- students who try to focus on too much too soon have great difficulty absorbing and processing what they see in that split second. So, adding a mandatory layer of focus when it isn't necessary at that point, often has a detrimental effect on progression.

This post is off topic, so I understand if it gets snipped due to CoC, but I need to say it.

So, I woke up this morning to the new comments. It does suck that this is the new normal, but one of the accusations is really sticking with me. That this is just some publicity stunt or clickbait. The reason this is grinding on me is that when I decided to start up my own training business, I sat down and studied. I studied other instructors, the industry, forums, anything I could. I read course AAR's, forum threads about instructor meltdowns, personality types, etc.

Then I sat down and decided what I did and did not want to be as a businessman. These are are some of the list of requirements/decisions/ethics that I set my course to:

1- I would never accept a brand ambassadorship position with any company. (my wife wishes I would because there is $$$ there, but I saw how it can call into question your objectivity)

2- I would not market myself solely off my name, background, former unit, etc. I would let referrals, reviews and the training drive my business. You may have noticed in this thread, that it is other people bringing up my background, not me. The information is out there, but I don't wave it like a flag. As most people who have attended my courses could attest to, I rarely give much of an introduction of myself on the first day of training or explain my background even there. My goal as an instructor is to succeed or fail based on my performance as an instructor- not by relying on past achievements, but the quality of the instruction- which I constantly try to improve.

3- I would not operate my company in credit, terms, loans, etc. I have no credit cards, lines of credit or net terms with anyone. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. So while I may not have the fanciest range gear (well Labradars, laptops with AB Desktop, field printers and AB Kestrels are a but fancy), it is functional. So when I post a picture of a target debrief at a target stand that is held down by an old tire- the though of "that looks janky" doesn't really cross my mind.

4- I would make myself as accessible as possible to any client, prospective client, or interested party (or anyone really)- by all communications means possible, as much as possible: When you call or email from the website, I answer. There is no secretary, booking agency, nobody. This company is one person, me. Well, my wife would get pissed if she were beside me reading that- she helps out, as does my 3 year old son. Clients will often see my son riding around on the range (if they come out early in the morning or the day prior) on his power wheels, setting out cones or targets. My wife helps put together SWAG bags, print reference binders, etc. But all communications are handled directly by me. I actually answered 2 emails when I woke up an hour ago that were from users of this forum the I had never spoken to. I felt that if I really cared about the clients, then I needed to be the one they talked to. So, I tell them they are free to call, text, email, facebook message, even stop by the house- anytime. And they do. From when I wake up until I go to sleep, I am constantly responding to text messages, FB messages, calls, etc. Most of it is answering questions about problems, tactics, gear, etc. Some of it is also just friendly chat or banter. Several of my clients have had dinner at my house. Many of my clients have become good friends.

5- I would not, under any circumstances- run any entertainment courses,"experience" day/weekends, or "shooting drill" courses. I was trained by presenting fundamentals and tasks in a layered, building block methodology. The fundamentals were covered in extreme detail. I saw that this worked and is the basis of the mantra "there is no advanced shooting, just perfect application of the fundamentals while problem solving". This severely limits the amount of material I cover in a two day course, but it is covered in great detail and in depth fundamentals are always the focus. If I am teaching lateral/ forward movement at CQM, how to rapidly get into a position at Tac Rifle fundamentals, or room entry procedures at CQB fundamentals- it is broken down to the smallest element and layered up. My courses probably aren't "fun", they don't have any flash or cool guy appeal. They are mentally demanding and I do not compromise by moving on to the next task before the class is ready for the sake of progress. If all we cover during the two days is the first day of planned tasks- then that is all we do. I had a student show up at a course once and when I asked him how he heard about me, this is what he said: "My buddy attended one of your courses and told me about you. When I asked him how the course was, he  told me "extreme fundamentals", and I said that is what I want.". I liked that story and it reinforced to me that my methodology is what I want because it tends to attract clients who are very serious about training and aren't there for a meet and greet and 1,000rds fired. (DISCLAIMER- that is not a statement calling anyone out. If that is what you like and keeps you interested, then that is a good thing).

6- I would not overbook any courses. Most of my courses are hard capped at 12 students, because that is the max number that I feel I can safely manage and ensure they all receive individual attention and feedback.

7- I would never trash talk, call out, disparage, or question another instructor on the internet. Not that this has happened (well I did remove myself from a CQB thread on this forum because the thread was heading down that path), but if I have an issue with another professional- I will take it directly and privately to them. That being said- I may reference some techniques, tactics, or methods that are being taught by some outfits during courses. but, it is for the purpose of engaging the students in a discussion so that they can objectively evaluate what I am teaching in a comparative manner so that they can make their own conclusion.

8- I would keep all of my social media family friendly. Some people get mad and think I'm deleting their posts on the company facebook page, but I have profanity filters turned on. I try to keep my courses family friendly as well. I'm not perfect, and I'll slip a curse word here and there, but if a guy wants to bring his 15y/o daughter to a pistol course- I don't want him to think he's stepped into a port bar during fleet week. Full disclosure- I do ban people and delete comments that continue to be disrespectful. Those on the banned list are ineligible for any courses or services. The way I see it, if you can't control yourself behind a keyboard, I'm not going to try to see if you can control yourself behind a firearm.

I'm not perfect, like everyone else- I'm a flawed human being. I don't always live up to my own standards. I sin. I make mistakes. But, I don't let them define me, I learn from them, and I move on attempting to be better.

I have some other things I strive to, but that is the cliff's notes.

I am not in this for fame, money, attention, or glory. I do not take myself that seriously or walk around with a chip on my shoulder. While what I used to be made me who I am, all I am now is a family guy who runs a small business, and teaches. Active Operators are at peak functioning capacity, and while many of us that are now civilians teach and stay sharp on the range- the thought that we could get called up and hop right in on a full profile hit on a complex target, keep up with them and not be dangerous- is outside the realm of reasonableness. So- I am who I am, not what I was.

So, after that long wall of words that took me 3 cups of coffee and two piss breaks to write before 6am- here is what I have decided:

When I post the report, I will post it HERE first. There will be absolutely no links to my company website or social media (barring youtube because I may have to upload the videos there). I will not post the report on ANY of my social media for 48 hours (that's 2 days) after it is uploaded here. This will double the work on my end, because the format for forum posts and website blogs is drastically different (I could be just doing things wrong though), but just like this test- I am willing to take any steps that remove any question in my motivations.


Romans 12:2 NIV- Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Very noble and honorable sentiments.  You're earning fans here just as a derivative (not intentioned) of your professionalism.

For the hell of it  at the range yesterday I put my rifle in a sled and at 50 yds my mro would shift a good 6 inches off the target in any givenvironment direction. At very specific angles it would shift almost 1ft.

I agree.

We may not see eye to eye on every little detail but who does?

I'm not going to confirm or deny if the group of testers I had last weekend saw the same thing on the MRO's I had or not yet. But your observations are interesting, indeed.

Personally I appreciate your efforts you are putting forward but not as much as your service to our country. If I didn't live so far away I would be taking your courses.

As in anything with forums.  There are always going to be opinions and people who will always have something to say, whether it is constructive or just put out there to be negative.

Either way keep doing what your doing and I look forward to the results. Thanks

Fixed it for you.

Dopushups has articulated why he has made the decisions he has made in a very clear and concise manner all while upholding a manner of professionalism in his replies that frankly, you don't deserve.  He made a decision that while some may not agree with, anyone with a level of reading comprehension at or above a 5th grade level would at least be able to understand why it was made.  

If your post is truly indicative of what you've taken away from this thread, then may God have mercy on your soul.

And as many have stated that are aware of this issue (me), keeping your head centered will mitigate most of the precision woes, and unless you put your dot on the outer edge of the viewing area, your T-1 wouldn't be the cause of a miss at that distance on an animal that size.

It has the potential to throw a group around on paper at 100 if you settle into a different position between groups.  Not cause your rounds to mimic going trans-sonic.

All ANY of you have to do to test this is drop your rifle on a set of bags, preferably at a somewhat defined point.  Without touching the rifle, look through your optic and watch what the dot does as you move your head around.

If you really wanted to measure it, it probably wouldn't be that hard.  My guess is a lot of RDS optics do this, if not all of them, to one degree or another.  AGAIN, I noticed this quite some time ago, and have had no problem mitigating this issue to a level that meets my satisfaction.  As such, I have three of them, and don't plan on changing them.

I noticed the issue a while back when I switched a KAC Mod 2 from a TR24 back to a T-1.  With MK262, the rifle is a solid 1.5 inch shooter at 100.  When I went back to the T-1, I moved back to 50.  Same ammo.  Added a DBAL A3, which is in my FOV for obvious reasons.

As I started zeroing, I'd stack 3 rounds with ease at 50.  Due to being the "don't fuck this up" type of guy I am when I shoot, I'd take a few seconds, wiggle around, re-set and fire 3 more.  I noticed that my group started to drift.  I'd get frustrated, get my wiggles out, reset and shoot three more.  Still off.

What I realized I was doing: First string of three; perfectly centered dot in the optic.  I'd get happy, do my "fuck yeah 'Merica" dance for Carlos Hathcocking three rounds of greatness and get back on the rifle, and go again.  String two, I had a tendency to center the dot left to right, but now instead of centering it in the optic top to bottom, I'd center it for some reason between the top of the T-1, and the top edge of my DBAL.  I wanted to "see more", so I'd move my head position so that there was more free-space around the dot.  Third string, I'd get pissed about my last one, put the dot on the target and fire without paying attention to my head positioning, and the group would be a 2 inch circle, at 50 yards.

After having this happen a few more times, I realized exactly what was happening.  Since I zero with a pretty solid front rest and a rear back, as I was proning out behind the rifle, I did so slowly, and saw the dot at the top of the optic as soon as I got behind it.  As I slide down into position and my head dropped, I was still looking at the dot.  I watched the dot move laterally.

Moved my head around and confirmed.  Go figure.

Again, super easy to test and observe.  Instead of questioning it, go do it, and see if its too much shift for you.  I decided I could live with it, and it hasn't been an issue.  But something worth being aware of....no doubt.

The only heartburn I have with this thread is the Facebook post from Green Eye Tactical that was quoted by OP. At the end he said:

" I highly recommend dumping the T-1 if you have one, and getting a T-2 if you are an Aimpoint fan. Maybe sell the T-1 to someone who thinks it is the greatest optic ever."

This statement seems uncharacteristic of the otherwise evenness and professionalism you've shown in your posts here. I noticed you didn't repeat it in your video. The fact that the T-1 is not a precision optic, and that no scientific evaluation had yet occurred, adds to the sensationalism. No doubt it has contributed to some of the throwing shade towards you. It goes beyond your assertion that you're just banning one optic in one course, and makes a subjective recommendation in our post-EOTech world. Ignoring the probability that most T-1 owners will never encounter these issues presented in your rigorous course, once you established your bona fides in this forum you create a level of doubt among shooters that are bombarded daily with over-hyped and aggressively marketed products, and come here for the "straight scoop." 

I hope for your sake that your test supports your assertions, and that more importantly, that they are reproducible. 

I 100% are with you. I think in retrospect, I meant it to be funny- but it wasn't. I had thought about editing the post to remove that, but since it is in the OP here and another member commented on it in the thread- it would be better to not try to hide a mistake.

Quick alibi- the test is designed to be 100% reproducible. That was the idea behind the other thread in this sub-forum so that people could peer-review it beforehand. I've tried to make the evaluation process as simple as I possibly can, while maintaining some order measurement, control and consistency. I am very much looking forward to people in the community to reproduce the test, record the results on the evaluation sheet and post their results. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm hoping to get a draft report in the hands of the testers as soon as possible so they can approve it before going further. So far I have compiled all the data and am producing summary tables and charts. The results are pretty clear from our sample group and are consistent no matter how we break out the data.

Just dawned on me that someone will probably post "I don't know how someone can distinguish 0.33333333333 inches at 50yds". The numbers on that chart are the raw average of all of the tester's evaluation for that particular optic and that distance.

This is all interesting. Call it what you want but I'm pretty sure Aimpoint is claiming to be parallax free and this seems like a parallax issue to me. Now because of your findings, SOCOM will sue Aimpoint and kick them to the curb. overnight, we will then all jump on the bandwagon and hate Aimpoint in the same way we do EOTech.

Then the MRO will shine like it never has before! Till we discover a deficiency with it.

Sometimes I don't know if I should laugh or cry