Eric at Green Eye Tactical made a great video of some issues seen at his courses with the Aimpoint t-1.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE7AD_oJrhM


****AIMPOINT T-1 BANNED AT ALL FUTURE TACTICAL RIFLE FUNDAMENTALS COURSES****
I do not make this decision lightly. I am not endorsed by any optics company, nor am I a product ambassador for any company. The Aimpoint T-1 did not exist when I was in Army Special Operations, so my first experience with them was as an instructor when they first started showing up in my courses over 3 years ago. The very first exposure I had to them was in the first Tactical Rifle course I taught........

No T-1s, but T-2s are okay?  Hmm . . .

And am I to assume this also means no H-1s, but H-2s are okay?

Care to clue those of us who don't want to watch a YouTube video at this moment, in to those problems? You know, so this seems less click baity.

****AIMPOINT T-1 BANNED AT ALL FUTURE TACTICAL RIFLE FUNDAMENTALS COURSES****

I do not make this decision lightly. I am not endorsed by any optics company, nor am I a product ambassador for any company. The Aimpoint T-1 did not exist when I was in Army Special Operations, so my first experience with them was as an instructor when they first started showing up in my courses over 3 years ago. The very first exposure I had to them was in the first Tactical Rifle course I taught. During the Tac Rifle course (which many think is more similar to precision rifle training, but I just call it fundamentals) I had a couple guys bring them. These students were excellent shooters and were easily laying sub-MOA groups at their zero distance, which was close to 50yds. During this training, we will fire a 5-10 round group, focusing on fundamentals, then go downrange and analyze the group for possible fundamental errors, and then go back and fire another group throughout the day. However, when these shooters would fire consecutive groups, they would produce a significant Point of Impact (POI) shift. This shift was anywhere between ¼” and 2”. My immediate concern, of course, was to check the sight mount for loose mounts, barrel and muzzle treatment tightness, carbon buildup in the muzzle crown, ammo lot consistency, and several other factors. None of those possible errors were evident. After this issue persisted, I got down behind their rifle and sighted it towards a target. I immediately noticed that when positioning my head, the aiming dot moved. So, I grabbed a rifle vise, aimed it at the target and got completely behind the buttstock. I then carefully moved my head vertically up and down. The first student’s T-1 dot moved in a “C” that

was significant enough at 50yds for the dot to leave the NRA 25yd bullseye at its apogee. I then checked the second student’s T-1 and his moved in a “U” pattern. Since then I have had many T-1’s turn up at courses. EVERY SINGLE ONE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. Referencing the aiming dot to the front sight post mitigated the POI shift to some extent, but it never eliminated it. This inconsistency makes precisely zeroing the T-1 and troubleshooting other fundamental errors very difficult. In most situations, I prefer students to see the problem themselves and arrive at my conclusions without just having them take my word for it. However, I feel at this point that students coming to my Rifle Fundamentals course with a T-1 means that they are not getting the full value of the training they are paying for. I know that many in the industry are emotionally attached to all things Aimpoint and will vehemently deny that this problem exists. Interestingly, this non-existent problem was fixed with the T-2, which does not have this issue. I think that many of these people deny the issue because they never do precision grouping work with their T-1 out to the distances we do in the Tac Rifle Fundamentals course. And before you say “red dots aren’t for precision grouping”, the T-2 (and other Aimponts), EoTech, MRO, and other optics have no issues with this process. So, sorry if this triggers you (not really)- but, it is what it is. Bring your T-1 to any other course you want (you’ll hate it at the Night Vision Operator course as well- but I’ll allow it there), but not the Tactical Rifle Fundamentals course. 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.

I can peg a 8 in steel plate at 300yards consistently.  Good enough for me.

Good for Him

I will buy all the used T-1's that get posted up on the EE...

So a guy (I never heard of) who was in SOCOM says he's banning T-1's, we all should... Puhleese....

If there is a reoccurring issue I don't see anything wrong with bringing it up. I don't think he's telling people to dump their optic. If it works for you keep running it. Not all the Eotechs had the same issue when everyone was dumping them because LAV said they sucked.

So, I got notified that this was shared here. I am Eric, and Green Eye Tactical is me.

What was shared here was a post to my company Facebook page this week. After a few years of instructing in the civilian industry after leaving the service and teaching overseas, I finally banned the T-1 from one of my courses- the Tactical Rifle Fundamentals course. This course could be compared to a prescision rifle
Cirriculum, but I just see it as Fundamentals. In this course we set up a custom zero, based on the individual rifle, optic and ammunition combination- measured by a Labradar and evaluated by Applied Ballistics software. We then conduct fundamentals training through detailed shot group evaluation at near zero distance, 100, 200 and 300 yards in the prone supported, unsupported, seated and kneeling positions.

Due to this program of instruction, the ability of the student to consistently place groups is critical to achieve an acceptable zero. To this date, I have observed no issues with any red dot optics- other than the T-1. (Granted the large dot size of some optics causes some issues >200yds, notwithstanding).

What I have observed, and every client that has brought a T-1 has observed is that while the client will place an acceptable group on one iteration, after conducting shot group debriefing and placing another shot group- the group will shift impact point.

To be clear- ALL RED DOT OPTICS ARE NOT PARALLAX FREE. That being said- all other optics I've seen do not present this issue and the shift is not evident until we push back to 200 and shift to other positions.

What has been observed is that the T-1 has excessive and irregular parallax movement.

Without getting too into the weeds on what we have observed, I would ask those in this thread to squat-hold for a few days. While it is not necessary to justify the actions I have taken, I recognize that it is important in the industry that we are data driven in our evaluations. To promote this ideal- I am holding an open and public optics test in the DFW area. You can go to the Green Eye Tactical Facebook page for event information and details. I am asking anyone able to attend to bring an many and different types of red dot optics as possible to ensure a good sample group. My goal is to leverage all public attendees to observe every optic on site and record their observations to preserve impartiality. I also intent to establish controls and protocols for the test, which will be published with the unedited findings so that anyone can reproduce the results and evaluate them on a peer review basis. All are welcome to attend and/or observe, regardless of what side of the discussion you line up on. The chips will fall where they fall.

To be clear here- I'm not saying you should do anything. The post shared here was pertaining to only one of my courses.

Your rifle, your sight, your choice.

Well.

Noted.

Mine was great until it shit the bed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

As defined, it is pretty much exactly what I am
describing. Although this is somewhat different than why we think of when we discuss setting parallax on a scoped optic. If you have a different opinion on the terminology, definition, or term usage- I would be open to hearing them. If anything is confusing or misused then I will ensure that the verbiage is adjusted accordingly for the test report next week. Which, by the way, you aren't too far away and are welcome to come to.

hmmmm .... So you haven't noticed this with the T2?

Very interestingly, the issues I have claimed in the shared post here have not been observed in any T-2's. They also removed the lens tint that caused some other issues. I have actually not had any H series Aimpoints show up at courses, so I have no data to make an assessment there. I have seen many of the M68 evolutions up to the current PRO and they have not exhibited this issue at all.

Correct. Again- due to reactions I will have comparative test data, independently verified (well by people testing that I have no ties to) this coming week. I also intend to video the movement discussed and post the video as well.

The issues Eric has described occurred with my T-1.

And for those that doubt his credentials, I did check him out before signing up for his classes. He's legit, just a low-key, quiet professional.

Same as above: If you have a different opinion on the terminology, definition, or term usage- I would be open to hearing them. If anything is confusing or misused then I will ensure that the verbiage is adjusted accordingly for the test report next week. I'll look forward to your constructive feedback.

I watched both videos I don't understand this thread could someone explain this in moron drunk person English please?

as I understand it, it sounds like the complaint is "if I move my head the dot moves".  that cannot be correct.

thanks to who ever sets me strait.

I'll work on my verbal diction in future videos, if that was the issue.

The complaint is that the dot does move when your head moves. But that is not necessarily uncommon with red dot sights, which are not parallax free to begin with. The issue is the extent of the movement and the irregularity of the movement.

Clear video, data, and evaluations to come shortly.

At what distances are you seeing deviations in groups?  And to what extent?


I don't shoot for same-hole accuracy from mine, I'll admit,  but I have a T1 in a Larue mount on my full auto MK18 and an H1 on my full auto MP5.  I run both of them pretty damn hard in the dynamic temperature and humidity we have here in FL.

I've never noticed a POI shift on either one.  My shots are almost all taken inside 100 yards though.

I picked this up within the first few days with my t1. It was my first aimpoint and the shifts with head position are quite annoying. I need to keep a really constant cheek weld at distance. I wonder if the irregularity comes from the angled front lense.

Instead of posting here with what my observations have been over the years, I'm going to withhold posting specifics. I'm holding a test this weekend and will post the results from impartial testers.

Interesting observations. Looking forward to hearing the follow-up.

I would assume no because the T2 isn't affected (according to him) and it has an angled front lense as well

I agree with mcordell here. The type of movement I have seen and the fact that it is different in most T-1s I have seen has me leaning towards inconsistencies in the lens curvature. However, that is purely hypothesis. I can only comment to the existence of the issue. The testing I intend to do, I believe, will not indicate the cause either- only confirm or refute the existence of the issue.

That's too bad, I haven't had the chance to see any H series ones yet. I'm hoping to get the sample size as large as possible. If you change your mind, it would be great to have people in both sides of the discussion to prevent bias.

That being said, I'm going to do my best to establish reproducible procedures and protocols so anyone not present can repeat the test with their own optic and compare their results.

I want to see someone easily shoot a sub 1/2" group at 50 yards with a RDS.

For those that don't know,  Eric is quite the quiet professional with real world experience and a wealth of knowledge. I've taken one of his classes and will be making the drive to take another this year.

I thought the same thing when I read that.

Sorry if you already covered this (big walls of text and my lack of reading comprehension due to fried brain cells don't mix ), but are you banning T1's in fear of somebody getting shot or just off principle?

As I'm sure you know the EOTech wandering zero due to temperature change was a larger shift than you're describing with the T1. And I doubt you're having dudes putting rounds inches from other dudes heads so I'm just curious as to the why behind your stance on it

This is absolutely not a safety call. It is a usability issue for one course. Scroll up a bit, I outline the point of instruction for it.

The EoTech is a separate issue. I have actually never seen any EoTech have a zero wander, or at least not to an extent where it was significant enough to notice. I have not however, use the year models that directly preceded the EXPS series. Just the older N-Type battery powered variants and the current EXPS that the Unit still uses. I am also still waiting for repeatable (or any) test data with regards to that issue. Although since the DoD temperature and pressure chamber, that is specifically designed for scope/optic testing, at Aberdeen was never contacted- I'm guessing we will never see any data.

Can you provide your observations on the MRO?

At this point I have had about a dozen MROs in various courses and have seen no major issues. They seem to run fine at this point, but I'm still watching them to see how they do over a bit more time.

Tango Mike.  Just have to be careful when replacing the battery due to the prongs.

Good way to make yourself a laughing stock.

No but YOU figured this out. Lol ok. Not like the EOtech where it was the worse kept secret. No no, you, you found this with the one of the most respected, bombproof sights out there.

Sounds like a problem with how you teach people on its use.

This is laughable. Absolutely laughable.

And before anyone says I'm a shill I sold my Aimpoints in favor of lpv's and circle dots.

Wait, so is eotech banned?  Because, you know, they actually have this issue as opposed to your "findings"

Just because someone has credentials doesn't mean they can't be full tilt bias. Prime example right here.

Millions upon millions of users. This guy finds the problem. Lol. Ok.

Why do some guys think being in one of the top tier groups makes guys pros on equipment?  It doesn't. Case in point right here.

So wait, you say that students will hate a red dot at your NV course but guys like John Lovell say a red dot and NV go together like bread and butter.

I can't logically connect with someone who makes a video admitting that there are already training videos out there but he won't do them because........he doesn't want the wrong people to see training!  The cat is already out of the bag! Lol. Unless you have some super duper training no other high speed guy got?  

Maybe this guy is on the up and up but I dunno.

So, I I did not say that students will hate red dots at night vision courses (If I did, it was in error). I said they will hate the T-1. I am actually teach using the red dot as the primary aiming device under NVGs and using the laser as a secondary aiming device, target indication method, or as an illumination tool. The main issue with the T-1 under NVG's is the tinted lens. What this causes is less light to pass through the optic and results in a less bright picture of the target when viewed under NVGs. So, when we say- doing walk backs to identify failure points in personal equipment with regard to distance clarity. A user (especially with single tube devices) that can see a target with his weapon not mounted- will tend to lose it when the weapon is brought up and the optic is utilized to sight with. Again- absolutely not an issue with the T-2. I'm not anti-Aimpoint here.

As for the YouTube video you mentioned- I'm assuming by your comment that you are the poster there with a similar comment that was posted near the same time as this one. I answered it there. I am going to tread carefully, because this is a tech forum and this could be considered derailing the OP and getting off topic. But, this is somewhat related (mods just let me know if it is off topic and I will delete this part if you don't snip it yourself). So, below I am going to link the video in question AND also copy my response to you for those that don't want to click on links.

"Thanks for the comment. You pose a very reasonable point here. The information IS out there. This was a very hard personal choice for me, and undoubtedly will have financial impacts. The guys that do these videos can easily generate interest to fill classes.

When I first started my training business, I had plans for all kinds of videos- including vignettes in CQB and Vehicle Tactics. My turning point was the days following 08 July 2016. Late that night I started receiving calls from close friends who were in downtown Dallas at some of the bars and clubs. They were sheltering in place. I then started receiving texts form Dallas police officers and SWAT officers about what was happening.These were good friends of mine and my concern for them was very real. In the following days, details began coming out about the Active Shooter. He trained with a Texas based outfit. He was reported to have been observed practicing barricade drills in his backyard. And- his web browsing history revealed that he watched many of the more popular instructor's YouTube training videos.

At that moment the though popped in my mind- what if it had been my videos he watched, what if the tactics and techniques that I saw on the video footage of him killing those that serve our community were learned from me?

That is a pretty tough thought.

Of course it is impossible to 100% be sure that someone attending a course won't go crazy and do something stupid. But at least by limiting certain information dissimilation to courses, I feel that I am taking reasonable measures that are prudent. I also gives me the opportunity to meet the student, look them in the eye, and make an assessment about them. Depending on how I asses the sensitivity of the course, the vetting required is also increased.

Anyways- that's my point of view and the thought process that led to it. If you don't agree with it- then as you said, the information is out there for you to view from others.

Thanks for your comment."

This comment was a bit out of line, I admit. Your weapon, your sight, your choice.

I don't know if we are watching the same thing. I don't see where Eric ever says students will hate a red dot at his NV course. I do see where he says he will allow the T 1 in the NV course but they won't like it. I thought that was pretty clear.

Please show me a instructor video on Vehicle Tactics not just a highlight video, please show me a video on counter surveillance and detection, again not just a highlight reel. He did training videos he has an entire set free on his website will all the same basic stuff that is out there but in more detail.

I think if I go back and re watch his video he gives a good reason why we doesn't want to show certain class training.

So, I understand your reaction. I know that there are heavy opinions on different brands. To be clear- I think the T-2 is a great optic. I'm not anti-Aimpont, but I do run EoTechs. I am not endorsed, sponsored or a product ambassador for any optics company. I do not sell optics nor receive any do I receive any benefits for anyone purchasing a particular brand or model. I like to think that I am bias free, but we all do have some inherent bias.

Now, I'm not the only guy to mention this. You are free to engage the users who posted in the original facebook post, describing their 1st hand experience and ask them what they observed.

I absolutely am not asking you to take my word for it. This announcement that was posted here was pertaining to ONE of my courses. This was not an industry announcement or advice as to what you should do.

That being said, due to some of the emotional response (and although this post had absolutely no bearing on your life) I think this is a good opportunity to show that equipment assessments should be data driven in the industry. I would like to invite you to come out this weekend and test optics. Bring yours. Record the results. We will post them and the data will be what it will be. Users will be able to replicate the protocols to prove or disprove findings. We can have a discussion based on data rather than broad statements like "never seen it before", or "millions of users have had them for years".

I hope to see you there this weekend. If not- I will look forward to your peer evaluation of the results.

All red dots do that , they are not holographic sites, so do scopes.


Does he not understand this or is he trying to explain something else?

Something else. I know this thread is getting long, but if you scroll up a bit that is addressed.

I'm looking forward to videos and results from testing

[Deleted]

Interesting thread, I will be following "dopushups".