User Panel
You may as well post results in both threads simultaneously or stick to one thread to avoid back and forth
|
|
I've read the entire thread. Why does this occur in the T1 and not the T2?
I always wondered about Aimpoint moving to the T2. Flip up lense caps, beefed up body to protect turret caps? Is it conceivable that they knew about this issue and were quietly moving away from the T1? Similar to SilencerCo and the MAAD/Trifecta issues and the move to ASR? |
|
|
Quoted:
I've read the entire thread. Why does this occur in the T1 and not the T2? I always wondered about Aimpoint moving to the T2. Flip up lense caps, beefed up body to protect turret caps? Is it conceivable that they knew about this issue and were quietly moving away from the T1? Similar to SilencerCo and the MAAD/Trifecta issues and the move to ASR? View Quote I also had a guy comment on my YouTube channel and state he had just checked his H-1 and didn't see any major movement. |
|
I can't trust a guy who likes higher optic height. It causes problems with fundamentals which eliminate this whole issue entirely. And you don't "lower your head" to get your head on the stock, you lean forward and stop standing up sway back like a girl... I mean come on. People pay for this advice? Solid cheek to stock weld cannot be attained with a high optic mount. Anything higher than the irons is excessively high and harms consistent head placement because your cheek is lifted off the stock. With no need to run a gas mask or IR, there is no need to run lower 1/3, especially if you run folding sights.
Honestly, I think it sounds like your technique and optic height recommendations are far more detrimental to your students than the T1 parallax. A good instructor would not have the issues your students have because teaching better techniques solves the issue completely. |
|
Quoted:
I can't trust a guy who likes higher optic height. It causes problems with fundamentals which eliminate this whole issue entirely. And you don't "lower your head" to get your head on the stock, you lean forward and stop standing up sway back like a girl... I mean come on. People pay for this advice? Solid cheek to stock weld cannot be attained with a high optic mount. Anything higher than the irons is excessively high and harms consistent head placement because your cheek is lifted off the stock. With no need to run a gas mask or IR, there is no need to run lower 1/3, especially if you run folding sights. Honestly, I think it sounds like your technique and optic height recommendations are far more detrimental to your students than the T1 parallax. A good instructor would not have the issues your students have because teaching better techniques solves the issue completely. View Quote Let's wait for the test results. Should people not know the T1 could shift a bit? Certainly the issue is hedged with a perfect cheekweld, but even with dozens of hours behind one it still isn't always possible right away from every reasonable shooting position |
|
Quoted:
I can't trust a guy who likes higher optic height. It causes problems with fundamentals which eliminate this whole issue entirely. And you don't "lower your head" to get your head on the stock, you lean forward and stop standing up sway back like a girl... I mean come on. People pay for this advice? Solid cheek to stock weld cannot be attained with a high optic mount. Anything higher than the irons is excessively high and harms consistent head placement because your cheek is lifted off the stock. With no need to run a gas mask or IR, there is no need to run lower 1/3, especially if you run folding sights. Honestly, I think it sounds like your technique and optic height recommendations are far more detrimental to your students than the T1 parallax. A good instructor would not have the issues your students have because teaching better techniques solves the issue completely. View Quote While ensuring that your weight is forward to control recoil is important and can affect sight recovery, I would be interested to hear your explanation as to how weight transfer adjusts sight alignment? I'm may have not explained myself properly here. I run a higher optic mount BECAUSE it makes mounting the rifle during CQB, under NVG's, and with masks more natural. If this isn't in your task list- then you are correct in that there may be no need for this method. You and I are probably talking about different styles/purposes of shooting as well. Cheek weld can aid in getting into consistent head alignment, however it doesn't necessarily align the sights or center the optic. That must still be done visually. If all you are doing is standard shooting positions- then cheek weld can be used effectively and commonly throughout your training methodology. Now for the more "tactical" uses: Let's say hypothetically, you have two optics. one is very sensitive to head position and one that is not. With the sensitive one, you must achieve a very consistent cheek weld to aid in finding optical center to prevent shift. The other does not. If you could, answer these questions- addressing the affects you might have between the two optics mentioned: - What would the possible affects be in non-standard or compressed shooting positions, where it may be difficult or not possible to achieve a consistent cheek/stock weld? - What would the affects be should you need to orient the weapon not vertically, but canted at a 45 degree angle or a 90 degree angle? Would this modify the consistency the cheek/stock weld affords due to the change in vertical and horizontal position relative to your line of sight and the cheek weld point (which is the pivot)? - Would wearing body armor vs not wearing body armor affect the relative consistency of your cheek weld? What would the effects be? Your theory that optical height affects the amount of observed parallax movement is interesting. We, in fact, had a few of the same model sight with different Height over Bore amount. You have inspired me to add another comparative result to the report. |
|
I've gotten some Army SOF Units and LE tactical teams that are going to test their optics for me and send me the results. If you have some time this weekend, it would be of help if you could run the test. Try to have a buddy or two with you- 3 different people testing 1 optic gives better results than 1 person testing 3 devices. This is a very easy test to set up, no live ammo or even a range required. Optics do not need to be mounted.
I have modified the test and evaluation form to make them more simple, self-explanatory, and removed unnecessary fields. I have also simplified the test setup and procedures to make them as easy to set up as possible, while maintaining some form of consistency. The testers don't need to be shooters, they just need eyeballs and the ability to write. I will be putting all the "remote" user testing in a separate section of the final result and comparing them to the original test. We especially need Aimpoint T-2's, pre-EXPS series EoTechs, Vortex, and Aimpont M68 evolutions (Comp, Pro, etc). But more of what we currently have is great as well. I will include all properly filled out submissions All files and instructions can be found in this shared Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/obpot49wnlitcql/AAC6XpeK8SZq9QLBXjxXthzba?dl=0 Feel free to share this information with anyone that may be interested. |
|
Quoted:
*Sip* I'm may have not explained myself properly here. I run a higher optic mount BECAUSE it makes mounting the rifle during CQB, under NVG's, and with masks more natural. If this isn't in your task list- then you are correct in that there may be no need for this method. *Snip* View Quote Thanks. |
|
Interesting, I thought guys were having issue with the physical size of the T series of sights when going passive under NODs, hence just one of the reasons EOs reign in certain circles. I have a pair Sentinels and its just dead simple to go passive with the bigger M2 & I dont want to give that up when shopping for a replacement. I would just stick with the PRO, but finding battery's is practically impossible locally.
Might have to give the MRO a good look then, thanks, these are some great threads. |
|
Quoted:
Interesting, I thought guys were having issue with the physical size of the T series of sights when going passive under NODs, hence just one of the reasons EOs reign in certain circles. I have a pair Sentinels and its just dead simple to go passive with the bigger M2 & I dont want to give that up when shopping for a replacement. I would just stick with the PRO, but finding battery's is practically impossible locally. Might have to give the MRO a good look then, thanks, these are some great threads. View Quote |
|
Concerning the NV .... The MRO appears to have much more tint than the T1 .... The hue is much more apparent for me anyways
|
|
Quoted:
Concerning the NV .... The MRO appears to have much more tint than the T1 .... The hue is much more apparent for me anyways View Quote |
|
Quoted:
ETA - Tech forum. Still, banning optics is stupid. View Quote Sights with real, admitted issues vs sights HE and his band of merry civi shooters found. Agenda. I don't think I've ever seen someone destroy their credibility so quickly. Yikes. |
|
Quoted:
I can't trust a guy who likes higher optic height. It causes problems with fundamentals which eliminate this whole issue entirely. And you don't "lower your head" to get your head on the stock, you lean forward and stop standing up sway back like a girl... I mean come on. People pay for this advice? Solid cheek to stock weld cannot be attained with a high optic mount. Anything higher than the irons is excessively high and harms consistent head placement because your cheek is lifted off the stock. With no need to run a gas mask or IR, there is no need to run lower 1/3, especially if you run folding sights. Honestly, I think it sounds like your technique and optic height recommendations are far more detrimental to your students than the T1 parallax. A good instructor would not have the issues your students have because teaching better techniques solves the issue completely. View Quote Or he maybe have barely passed. |
|
Quoted:
What totally reveals this guys agenda is he allows EOtech but not T1's Sights with real, admitted issues vs sights HE and his band of merry civi shooters found. Agenda. I don't think I've ever seen someone destroy their credibility so quickly. Yikes. View Quote The ban was not targeted to a brand, but to a specific model. I have repeatedly stated that I like some of the Aimpoint models. Your post is an example of why we cannot have rational conversations that are based on data in the community. The minute someone makes a statement that disagrees with your opinion or that of your circle of the community- you resort to anger and personal attacks, instead of saying "prove it". If we were all skeptics when it comes to claims and demanded reproducible data to back it up, then the consumer market would have much more power over the brand manufacturers and they would have to be much more careful as to what capabilities they claim. I'm not going to get drug into discussing other issues, like "thermal drift". That issue is not the subject of the ban or the test. I can see that this is an important issue to you, however, so if you could- take some of your time and test some to get some data as to the incidence rate, deviation amount at temperature points, comparison between models, comparison between manufacturing date, etc. I would actually be very interested in seeing it, as would many others- I imagine. |
|
Quoted:
This is what I was trying to say earlier. This guy might have been an A+ soldier but that doesn't always translate into instructing. Or he maybe have barely passed. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
What totally reveals this guys agenda is he allows EOtech but not T1's Sights with real, admitted issues vs sights HE and his band of merry civi shooters found. Agenda. I don't think I've ever seen someone destroy their credibility so quickly. Yikes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA - Tech forum. Still, banning optics is stupid. Sights with real, admitted issues vs sights HE and his band of merry civi shooters found. Agenda. I don't think I've ever seen someone destroy their credibility so quickly. Yikes. |
|
I just did an informal test with my T2; same I did for the T1. As mentioned already, the T1 showed about a 2" movement when I moved my head from right to left at a target about 20' or so. The T2 hardly moved at any angle.
The test was not scientific, and I attempted to remove expectation and bias (I own and like both) but interesting nonetheless. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not going to get drug into discussing other issues, like "thermal drift". That issue is not the subject of the ban or the test. I can see that this is an important issue to you, however, so if you could- take some of your time and test some to get some data as to the incidence rate, deviation amount at temperature points, comparison between models, comparison between manufacturing date, etc. I would actually be very interested in seeing it, as would many others- I imagine. View Quote I've personally witnessed several models with thermal drift and the related zero chasing. I've also observed several with the LED dimming issues. I've also observed the battery contacts issues. There's an abundance of examples of the LED and prism and battery contact failures listed on the web. There's EoTechs own internal independent scientific lab test results listed in the lawsuit. There's.gov testing results listed in the lawsuit performed in a scientific method. Given your observations with the T1, have you never encountered issues with the EoTech system that are remotely consistent with the above mentioned info? I'm still interested in your test data but if you do allow EoTechs I would really like to read your philosophy and experience behind making that decision. |
|
Quoted:
For clarity sake, do you allow EoTech sights? I've personally witnessed several models with thermal drift and the related zero chasing. I've also observed several with the LED dimming issues. I've also observed the battery contacts issues. There's an abundance of examples of the LED and prism and battery contact failures listed on the web. There's EoTechs own internal independent scientific lab test results listed in the lawsuit. There's.gov testing results listed in the lawsuit performed in a scientific method. Given your observations with the T1, have you never encountered issues with the EoTech system that are remotely consistent with the above mentioned info? View Quote I don't spend much time browsing forums and social media groups, but over the past week I have spent some time looking at the resulting threads and comments over my ban of one optic model from one course that was based on performance observations. From the tone of the comments in forums, social media groups and from individuals- it appears that some have perceived notions that instructors must consult with them before making decisions, or they must justify decisions they make to them before making them. Let me state this plainly- This is a false perception. Nobody, including instructors in the industry, has any obligation to ask permission from, or justify their actions to any social media group or forum. I have talked to several well known instructors in the industry (who have noticed some of the issues I have) over the last week and they have indicated to me that they have neither the time, energy, or interest to do so. The reasons for this can be seen by simply scrolling up in this thread. Although there have very objective responses from members here and on other sites, they get drowned out by emotions, generalizations, or as in your case- an attempt to delegitimize a point by deflecting to a separate issue. Nobody, including instructors, has any obligation to spend inordinate amounts of time collecting data to support decisions they make. Including me. That being said, I have made the decision to spend the time here to insulting comments and to take time and effort to collect data on an issue that quite frankly, anyone can check for and plainly see. I made that choice in the hopes that some may take that example and instead of posting a generalization or third hand information to support a view, they might actually seek out the data or collect it themselves. What we as an industry (and as a country really) have lost sight of is- the Scientific Method. We do not seek data that is produced with all of the information that was used to collect it, thus making it reproducible. We do not seek to prove a theory, concept, data set, etc by attempting to DISPROVE it. Instead we read some general statement and either slap each other on the backs or engage in keyboard combat on the internet. I don't make decisions of that nature lightly, and it wasn't made from a snap observation. If I was wrong, then I'll say I was wrong. However, you may have noticed that I have collected a bit of data and I have not retracted the decision or removed the posts regarding it. So, to summarize: you are free to discuss and debate anything. However I am not putting choices I make regarding my training methodology, content, equipment allowed, etc up for public debate. I make choices based on the best interests of my clients, not the feeling or opinions of echo chambers in the industry. Regardless of what is said in this or any other forum or social media group- the data and results will be posted. You can choose to do with it as you will. I acknowledge that this reply is fairly strongly worded, it isn't intended to be directed at everyone and I have been very thankful for some of the encouraging private messages and thread replies I have seen. But, I believe that I need to make my boundaries here clear. |
|
Quoted:
Before I head out with the family for the day, let me address this. I want to do this in a respectful manner, but I need to be a bit firm in what I'm saying. I don't spend much time browsing forums and social media groups, but over the past week I have spent some time looking at the resulting threads and comments over my ban of one optic model from one course that was based on performance observations. From the tone of the comments in forums, social media groups and from individuals- it appears that some have perceived notions that instructors must consult with them before making decisions, or they must justify decisions they make to them before making them. Let me state this plainly- This is a false perception. Nobody, including instructors in the industry, has any obligation to ask permission from, or justify their actions to any social media group or forum. I have talked to several well known instructors in the industry (who have noticed some of the issues I have) over the last week and they have indicated to me that they have neither the time, energy, or interest to do so. The reasons for this can be seen by simply scrolling up in this thread. Although there have very objective responses from members here and on other sites, they get drowned out by emotions, generalizations, or as in your case- an attempt to delegitimize a point by deflecting to a separate issue. Nobody, including instructors, has any obligation to spend inordinate amounts of time collecting data to support decisions they make. Including me. That being said, I have made the decision to spend the time here to insulting comments and to take time and effort to collect data on an issue that quite frankly, anyone can check for and plainly see. I made that choice in the hopes that some may take that example and instead of posting a generalization or third hand information to support a view, they might actually seek out the data or collect it themselves. What we as an industry (and as a country really) have lost sight of is- the Scientific Method. We do not seek data that is produced with all of the information that was used to collect it, thus making it reproducible. We do not seek to prove a theory, concept, data set, etc by attempting to DISPROVE it. Instead we read some general statement and either slap each other on the backs or engage in keyboard combat on the internet. I don't make decisions of that nature lightly, and it wasn't made from a snap observation. If I was wrong, then I'll say I was wrong. However, you may have noticed that I have collected a bit of data and I have not retracted the decision or removed the posts regarding it. So, to summarize: you are free to discuss and debate anything. However I am not putting choices I make regarding my training methodology, content, equipment allowed, etc up for public debate. I make choices based on the best interests of my clients, not the feeling or opinions of echo chambers in the industry. Regardless of what is said in this or any other forum or social media group- the data and results will be posted. You can choose to do with it as you will. I acknowledge that this reply is fairly strongly worded, it isn't intended to be directed at everyone and I have been very thankful for some of the encouraging private messages and thread replies I have seen. But, I believe that I need to make my boundaries here clear. View Quote I am interested to see your test results from various optics as you are attempting to do it I a reasonably repeateable and affordable manner. That said given the mountains of information availble on EoTechs issues, I would like to know what your field experience, personal observations and own testing of well know EoTech problems has shown. If I am willing to give credence to your stance on all of the optics you are testing for parallax shift, I am equally open to what you have to say on EoTechs. I like the EoTech reticle, I just don't trust it based on my own experience, observation, reading of the lawsuits and reported issues from others. I'm hoping you can shed a different light on my views that would make me trust them again. |
|
Quoted:
No one said you had to get permission, bud. Although that was quite a long way around not answering the question, I hope you understand my original inquiry about your stance on EoTechs wasn't an attempt to discredit you or say you were wrong to allow them. I am just curious to know where you stand on EoTechs and why. I am interested to see your test results from various optics as you are attempting to do it I a reasonably repeateable and affordable manner. That said given the mountains of information availble on EoTechs issues, I would like to know what your field experience, personal observations and own testing of well know EoTech problems has shown. If I am willing to give credence to your stance on all of the optics you are testing for parallax shift, I am equally open to what you have to say on EoTechs. View Quote |
|
Sorry for the short response and the obvious frustration- I'm just not willing to open another can of worms until the current one is finished.
|
|
Quoted:
Sorry for the short response and the obvious frustration- I'm just not willing to open another can of worms until the current one is finished. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
No stone throwing or attempt to cause frustration...I look forward to hearing your thoughts on EoTechs and their use in the field. I'll dig through this thread and see what I turn up but I'd like to hear the details behind your stance either way. The temperature variance concerns are real for me he in NC where we were having 80* weather two weeks ago and snow a week later. Add in the temperature variations that occur when a gun is stored in the trunk of a car on a hot summer day when it was zeroed in 60* weather....Like I said, I'm curious to hear your thoughts and I look forward to whenever that maybe. View Quote What I can attest to is the N-type battery 551 models we used at the unit. Exposed that one to the same weather you have in NC, and in addition to halo jumps onto range 19 where the ambient air at altitude was well below zero and engaged targets on the ground at summer temps, and other uses in various climates overseas. I currently have EXPS 3.0 model in Texas. This year especially I taught courses in ~28F to 80F, Last year saw 100F. I personally have not seen shifts in either. I, however have not used any of the model/ year types that from what I understand were at the center of the controversy. I honestly have no idea what to think about it and would really like more data on the issue. I'm sure this reply will draw some responses- but I don't have a better answer than my personal observations. |
|
Quoted:
I can't trust a guy who likes higher optic height. It causes problems with fundamentals which eliminate this whole issue entirely. And you don't "lower your head" to get your head on the stock, you lean forward and stop standing up sway back like a girl... I mean come on. People pay for this advice? Solid cheek to stock weld cannot be attained with a high optic mount. Anything higher than the irons is excessively high and harms consistent head placement because your cheek is lifted off the stock. With no need to run a gas mask or IR, there is no need to run lower 1/3, especially if you run folding sights. Honestly, I think it sounds like your technique and optic height recommendations are far more detrimental to your students than the T1 parallax. A good instructor would not have the issues your students have because teaching better techniques solves the issue completely. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Screw it- What I can attest to is the N-type battery 551 models we used at the unit. Exposed that one to the same weather you have in NC, and in addition to halo jumps onto range 19 where the ambient air at altitude was well below zero and engaged targets on the ground at summer temps, and other uses in various climates overseas. I currently have EXPS 3.0 model in Texas. This year especially I taught courses in ~28F to 80F, Last year saw 100F. I personally have not seen shifts in either. I, however have not used any of the model/ year types that from what I understand were at the center of the controversy. I honestly have no idea what to think about it and would really like more data on the issue. I'm sure this reply will draw some responses- but I don't have a better answer than my personal observations. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
No stone throwing or attempt to cause frustration...I look forward to hearing your thoughts on EoTechs and their use in the field. I'll dig through this thread and see what I turn up but I'd like to hear the details behind your stance either way. The temperature variance concerns are real for me he in NC where we were having 80* weather two weeks ago and snow a week later. Add in the temperature variations that occur when a gun is stored in the trunk of a car on a hot summer day when it was zeroed in 60* weather....Like I said, I'm curious to hear your thoughts and I look forward to whenever that maybe. View Quote |
|
I thoroughly expect people to vilify Aimpoint as they did with EOTech...Oh wait...Crickets? Crickets?
Uh huh..... This will be fun to watch. |
|
Ok I thought it was well known dot sights had parallax up to around 50 yards
Once past that pretty much no parallax. As I remember you would only be off the distance between the center of the optic and the outer ring of the optic not MOA ,but only like .25 to .5 of an inch at 50 yards and in I posted in both. If I should remove it from one of the threads let me know. Not sure which for normal discussion. |
|
I hope everyone reading this thread recognizes what total and absolutely horse dung this guy's entire "research" and "findings" are.
What a load. |
|
|
Quoted:
So I saw the video last week and finally got around to testing for it. I set up a large target with half inch black pasties at 50 yards. I used a 16in LaRue barreled homebrew frankengun, Lake City M855 and a T1, 2moa dot on a LaRue 660. Here are my results: http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_133830_zpsw8hzot3h.jpg Very quickly I found out how difficult it is to shoot half in pasties in bright sunlight at 50 yards when I have very bad eye sight lol. The left side of targets was the first day at 70°, and then the right side was shot the next day at 77°. Here are the sight pictures used as noted on the groups: http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_131032_zpsrhfj4bfb.jpg http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170323_160508_zps4u6jdgg9.jpg http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_133020_zpspv2fkrax.jpg http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_134029_zpsspqdfxyc.jpg Conclusions: I have no trouble keeping a consistent stock weld and managed to get a few hits on a 400 yard steel gong once I'd figured out my holds. I will gladly buy your T1s if anyones dumping them for cheap. View Quote |
|
Quick question for Eric/DoPushups.
Was there any difference between the 4 MOA and 2 MOA T1s? |
|
|
Quoted:
So I saw the video last week and finally got around to testing for it. I set up a large target with half inch black pasties at 50 yards. I used a 16in LaRue barreled homebrew frankengun, Lake City M855 and a T1, 2moa dot on a LaRue 660. Here are my results: (Picture) Very quickly I found out how difficult it is to shoot half in pasties in bright sunlight at 50 yards when I have very bad eye sight lol. The left side of targets was the first day at 70°, and then the right side was shot the next day at 77°. Here are the sight pictures used as noted on the groups: (Pictures) Conclusions: I have no trouble keeping a consistent stock weld and managed to get a few hits on a 400 yard steel gong once I'd figured out my holds. I will gladly buy your T1s if anyones dumping them for cheap. View Quote Here's a test form with instructions: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/obpot49wnlitcql/AAC6XpeK8SZq9QLBXjxXthzba?dl=0 (Looks like there's an example video in there too showing red dot movement also) He talks about it more in the other thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/710680_Red-Dot-Testing-planned-and-protocols-and-procedures--pre-test-peer-review-.html&page=1 |
|
Quoted:
So I saw the video last week and finally got around to testing for it. I set up a large target with half inch black pasties at 50 yards. I used a 16in LaRue barreled homebrew frankengun, Lake City M855 and a T1, 2moa dot on a LaRue 660. Here are my results: http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_133830_zpsw8hzot3h.jpg Very quickly I found out how difficult it is to shoot half in pasties in bright sunlight at 50 yards when I have very bad eye sight lol. The left side of targets was the first day at 70°, and then the right side was shot the next day at 77°. Here are the sight pictures used as noted on the groups: http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_131032_zpsrhfj4bfb.jpg http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170323_160508_zps4u6jdgg9.jpg http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_133020_zpspv2fkrax.jpg http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu24/TheHiddenMan/Mobile%20Uploads/20170324_134029_zpsspqdfxyc.jpg Conclusions: I have no trouble keeping a consistent stock weld and managed to get a few hits on a 400 yard steel gong once I'd figured out my holds. I will gladly buy your T1s if anyones dumping them for cheap. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Quick question- it appears the each of your grouping locations in the pictures you posted consist of two (2x) 5 round groups. Is that correct or was that a continuous 10 round group? View Quote Yes I know I suck at shooting. The pasties were nearly completely obscured even at lowest visible brightness. I should get my glasses updated lol |
|
Quoted:
Each group was continous 10 round group. Yes I know I suck at shooting. The pasties were nearly completely obscured even at lowest visible brightness. I should get my glasses updated lol View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I would have written a different conclusion based on the results. So what you're saying is, at 50y and different head positions, you could be off 4-5" from your POA to your POI. And, that's okay b/c you always get a consistent cheekweld? View Quote The T1 lens is so small, that if you are 'running' and 'driving' your gun so hard and fast, that you either find the dot in the center of the lens or you don't. |
|
Quoted:
My conclusions are firm because the amount of contorting my face to get those sight pictures was ridiculous. If you have a similar red dot, I suggest you try it and see how unnatural and unlikely it is for you to be put in that position. My face just naturally fits on my stock. The T1 lens is so small, that if you are 'running' and 'driving' your gun so hard and fast, that you either find the dot in the center of the lens or you don't. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I would have written a different conclusion based on the results. So what you're saying is, at 50y and different head positions, you could be off 4-5" from your POA to your POI. And, that's okay b/c you always get a consistent cheekweld? The T1 lens is so small, that if you are 'running' and 'driving' your gun so hard and fast, that you either find the dot in the center of the lens or you don't. |
|
Quoted:
Each group was continous 10 round group. Yes I know I suck at shooting. The pasties were nearly completely obscured even at lowest visible brightness. I should get my glasses updated lol View Quote Also, your target story board matches a validation I did today and the measurements I was able to take from your photo using the 0.5" dot as scale matches my results. So, I intend to use your photo in my report to compare to mine. Would you like me to cite your forum name in the photo, true name or not at all? |
|
Quoted:
Got it. It appears you have two separate groups. Did you find yourself shifting position, adjusting head position for cosion or glasses half way through? Also, your target story board matches a validation I did today and the measurements I was able to take from your photo using the 0.5" dot as scale matches my results. So, I intend to use your photo in my report to compare to mine. Would you like me to cite your forum name in the photo, true name or not at all? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Each group was continous 10 round group. Yes I know I suck at shooting. The pasties were nearly completely obscured even at lowest visible brightness. I should get my glasses updated lol Also, your target story board matches a validation I did today and the measurements I was able to take from your photo using the 0.5" dot as scale matches my results. So, I intend to use your photo in my report to compare to mine. Would you like me to cite your forum name in the photo, true name or not at all? Maybe we just need this report... |
|
Quoted:
Got it. It appears you have two separate groups. Did you find yourself shifting position, adjusting head position for cosion or glasses half way through? Also, your target story board matches a validation I did today and the measurements I was able to take from your photo using the 0.5" dot as scale matches my results. So, I intend to use your photo in my report to compare to mine. Would you like me to cite your forum name in the photo, true name or not at all? View Quote Like I mentioned before, tiny pasty, bright sunlight and myopia are not conducive to shooting tight groups. If I adjusted position or glasses it was unconcious as I attempted to keep the same sight picture and POA. |
|
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.