Gents, I'm putting together the plan for the test and the protocols and procedures to be used. Since the intent of this is to ensure repeatability and peer review- I'd like to post them today to solicit feedback before implementing them Saturday (there are definitely guys on these forums that like good tests).

Would you guys prefer to see them posted here or as a new thread?

New thread.  This will continue to be a shitstorm.

Yup, new.

New thread please, as you can see some people take things to personal.

Wilco

I have posted a thread containing a ~rough~ plan and outline. I'm still working it, but I wanted to get it out ASAP since the plan is to do it this Saturday. I would really like constructive feedback. Thanks for your time.

Isnt that how everything works?

Great until it craps out

So what I am reading is that my Bushenll TRS32 is better than an Aimpoint T-1

Finally some proof that eotech is the superior choice over aimpoints

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/710680_Red-Dot-Testing-planned-and-protocols-and-procedures--pre-test-peer-review-.html

To manage expectations: the conclusions of this test will be solely based on the data collected. I will not narrate conclusions from the data comparisons, it will be up to the reader to make their own conclusions.

Tagged

Parallax is more misunderstood than just about any concept on the internet.

I don't know about easily, but a 2 MOA dot on a NM rifle pointed at a 6 MOA target should be just as difficult as irons. Quite doable.

Tagged.

I ran a T1 on a shotgun and did not see shifting but did have that issue with m4.

I dont doubt the report.

No more aimpoints for me or RDS period.

ACOG ACOG ACOG.

Low powered or any other one. You get a clear view without the looking through a toilet paper roll effect.

Is there a misuse of this term that you see, or a different terminology that you would see appropriate? I'm using it as defined: "Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines." I'm not, however, immune to misunderstanding something or misusing a term and there are definitely very smart science type guys here so I would like to be corrected with an explanation if I'm off here.

"Easily" may not have been the best word here. Not every student I get will leave a rifle fundamentals course stacking 1/2" groups @50yds. It depends on their starting point and rate of progression over two days. It also requires a high degree of mental discipline and making consistency in everything they do a habit. It also depends on many other factors, including, the ammunition quality and matching, rifle quality, sights, visual acuity, etc...

Usually in that class I will have 1-3 students who falls into this category. The majority of the other students, I tend to see a progression to around 1" groups @50- which equates to 2MOA. I should also note here that not all students shoot at 50yds. The distance to the zero target where the first set of grouping is conducted before pushing to 100yds, will depend on the muzzle velocity measured, bullet date, atmospherics, and the trajectory analysis done- since we are using zeros customized to the student's individual setup. So, nearly every student's target will be at a different yard line that can range anywhere from 25yds (for some very short barrels running heavy grain) to 56yds. Just wanted to make sure that was fully disclosed there.

That being said- the two students that I referenced in the example of that facebook post, which was pasted in the OP of this thread WERE consistently laying sub-moa groups. They were running match grade rifles with 16" barrels and ammunition that indicated a high degree of consistency in the chronograph session. They were also very switched on and disciplined students and were not first time shooters.

Here's a bonus for you- last night, both of those shooters I referenced will be there Saturday. Come out and meet them.

Yes, this name is dumb. I originally had my company name as my tag here- but it wasn't allowed by the forum rules so I had to change it.

It definitely is. While a nice 1MOA dot does simplify the process- it  is all in how you reference the sight consistently towards the target. That is the main limiting factor to error induced by inconsistent sight placement. Using other landmarks to help with consistently referencing as well, like the viewing tube/window itself referenced to the target backer, if EoTech, using the outer ring and vertical/horizontal index lines as an additional reference to the target, allowing the your breathing cycle to drop/raise the aiming point and uncover the target to aid in measuring vertical placement, etc. It is really just a matter of how much effort and mental discipline you put in it. There isn't a real reason that a 5 MOA aiming dot on a 6 MOA target couldn't produce consistent groups. It is all in your ability to consistently reference the dot to the target.

(no doubt the response here will be "I'd like to see you do a sub-MOA group with a 5 MOA dot......")

I have a friend who had an H-1, and I noticed when you moved your head around the dot would shift along the angle of the front glass on the target by about an inch or so at roughly 50yards.  I never actually studied it at the range to assess whether it was parallax or something else. But I did speak in detail with John Enlo about it, and he said it was different from parallax and was a non-angular artifact of the design which would not increase in spread with range.  I was skeptical and he recognized that and assured me this was the case.  That said, I wonder if what you're observing is somehow related to whatever causes the "comma"/dot-smear effect under magnification unique to the T/H-1 series.  I ended up with an M-4s and love it, but have often considered switching to the T-2 since it came out.  

Then you're using it wrong. Open your second eye and the housing disappears. People that claim tube effect on these kings are using them wrong.

To the subject at hand, I don't notice the issue on my t1s

I have multiple Aimpoints, including 2 T1s. I have been able to shoot plenty accurately with them from all position, especially for the intended purpose of the rifles.

That being said, more information is never a bad thing. I look forward to seeing the test and procedures. I will probably do a similar test on my own with my Aimpoints.

I just set up the range for tomorrow and decided to throw my rifle up and do a quick test on all the targets (25, 50, and 100 yards) to see how video will turn out. I had an EXPS 3.0, MRO and a T-1. The video turned out very, very clear. I won't post it up yet because I don't want to influence any testers, but let's just say that the results will be very interesting and clear as day. This will be pretty good. I'm looking forward to the responses next week.

Interesting.  Unrelated to the issue described, but I got rid of my T1s and H1s a while back.  I had some problems with the rheostats and I had dots that appeared to my eyes like starburst or comet trails.  I'm not opposed to giving the T2 a go, but I've been using other less expensive alternatives that I've had zero issues with to date.  Never had an issue with the CompM4s though.

Lol.

Yeah, I was thinking it's doable, but you gotta have the right things going for you.  A good amount of skill, a good rifle and some good ammo.  Or ammo your rifle likes.  

As far as this problem with T-1's I woudn't have a clue.  But it does seem to me like a lot of shooting gets done at close range, for good reason.   And an issue like this might not be completely evident among shooters in general.  As I've had my own issues with using an RDS, from old eyes, I hear a lot of, "It's not a precision sight".  From what I can tell I can actually shoot my irons sights more accurately than I can my Aimpoint PRO.  Obviously it's probably not the sight that is at fault.  

I might be off with that too though.  But if most guys are banging silhouette sized steel and getting hits at say 100 yards, I don't think an issue like this would be all that evident.   Obviously the farther out you go, the more evident it might be.  But shooting past 100 yards is not the norm.  I don't think.  I admittedly haven't done it a lot.  Some, but not nearly as much as 100 and under.

Even with "excellent shooters...easily laying sub-MOA groups" I don't see how you could detect and measure a 1/4" difference in POI and then attribute it to some kind of malfunction in the optic.

I'm looking forward to the results of the further testing.

In the interest of the accuracy of results, make sure to verify they are indeed authentic.
There are tons of fakes out there.

Just got home from the testing. It took A LOT longer than anticipated.

All optics were photographed with serial numbers visible and were recorded so the authenticity can be independently verified.

I'm looking forward to compiling the data and publishing the results for review. One optic type in particular had VERY surprising results that nobody expected.

That's the first thing I thought.  I noticed it about ten years ago when I tried the first T1 at a class.  They are not as perfect optically as the Comp M4.

It was attributed by ruling out other causes and then actually observing the movement in the optic. Then having 12 other students observe the exact same thing.  

The results will be very interesting. Should have them compiled sometime next week.

My t2 looks like a starburst, but I'm not sure if it's astigmatism or the optic. I'll have to take a look though a comp m4 and see if it does it too.

I'm interested in the results for sure.
Fwiw, the only thing I run a red dot on is my HD rifle.(T-1) Everything else gets a LPVO.

Night vision on my head with aiming laser for night work. Nods and red dots I can't get to work unless I run it over my dominant eye and it's not as fast as my laser and I know a pvs14 and a
Lpvo is a no go.

I'm looking forward to publishing them. One model consistently had a 6" spread of deviation at 25yds, 50 and 100.

I do have to ask a question here. You have banned this from your rifle fundamentals class and none of your other classes. Rifle fundamentals seems like it's a beginner level course and not an advanced course from my understanding.
Now with that said, I honestly do not care if I'm stacking rounds into 1/2" groups at 50 yards. If I'm in a training class trying for 1/2" groups, it is a dedicated precision rifle class and the distance is going to be 100+.
My idea, and it could be wrong, is that if I can meet your standards for a course of fire, Paul Howe's standards, Jason Falla's, ect, who cares if it's with a T-1 or a $20 optic from Amazon.
Is this a safety call or am I missing something?

Scroll up. I explain the general format and the reason. It is performance based, not safety. I'm not concerned with what other instructors do, just my clients ability to make the most of their training. You may consider asking clients that have posted in this thread or on the original Facebook post what their thoughts are on the matter.

I would assume you're using the same ammo from one group to the next, correct?  Same box of ammo?  

I've got an AR that will deviate that much between different ammo when extreme weights.   Like going from a 45 grain to 62 grain.   55's are kind of close.  You the picture.  I'm assuming you probably were aware of those types of issues when doing the test and tried to mitigate this by using the same ammo.

Swing over to the protocol thread in this sub-forum, it is top ten on the list I think.

No ammo was used for this test- it would add in too many variables and honestly isn't remotely necessary for what we were evaluating. That is, unless you can argue that if your dot is not on your desired point of aim that you wouldn't correct it.

Aaaah, yes, I forgot I did peruse that thread.  You got targets with grids marked out on them.

I would like to elaborate more explicitly on what it was we were seeing as I was one of the attendees at the class where this issue first presented itself. It seems there are some misunderstandings on what was attempting to be accomplished in the class, hopefully this provides some clarity. To the comment above, this was not what was attempting to be corrected, rather, trying to understand the cause of substantial POI shifts in between 5-shots groups that included remounting the rifle between groups and evaluations.

First, Class Curriculum: Grouping, grouping, grouping. The part of the class where this issue was discovered, the focus was to understand and develop natural point of aim. Concentrating on recoil management, becoming aware of what your reticle did once the shot broke - using that information to call shots, mounting the rifle in a consistent manner, breaking the shot consistently in your breathing cycle, shot follow-through. IT focused heavily on 5-shot groups and analysis after each group.

The specs:

The Rig: LWRC SPR 16" 1:7RH Twist. Atlas Bipod, Rear Rifles Only Sand Bag, Aimpoint T-1 Micro 2MOA on a Larue LT751 Mount.

Ammo: PMC 55gr BT, Not Black Hills by any means but part of the class involves chronographing ammo to develop custom charts for distance.
Highest: 2947
Lowest: 2890
Spread: 57
Mean: 2911
Standard Deviation: 17
Pretty salty, all the same lot.

Setup: My ideal rifle zero, with height over bore considerations, landed at 48 yards.

We would lay prone, shoot a 5-shot group, then the class would journey down together and see evaluations of every participants grouping and return back for another group. We did not adjust optics until we saw consistency in grouping and POI on the targets, no point in adjusting optics if you're all over the place.

1st Grouping: 1/2" grouping overall. From target center I was at about the 4 O'Clock position 3 inches from target center. Not alot of feedback on grouping as it was pretty tight.
2nd Grouping: .75" grouping with a little flier, still acceptable; however, the group was at the 11 O' Clock position 3" from target center. Asked if I made an optic adjustment, negative. Keep in mind, that 6" difference in group location at 48 yards, 12" at 100 yards, 2' at 200 yards etc...
3rd Grouping: 1/2" grouping, now at the 2 O'Clock position 5 inches from center. Started getting fishy. Asked if I was putting the rifle somewhere different on shoulder, mounting it differently, adding different pressure.
4th Grouping: Eric watched each shot break, looking at trigger placement, follow-through, shoulder mounting, any outliers that could explain the walking groups.

We looked at loose mounts, battery, butt-stock, muzzle break, you name it. Finally after putting the rifle in a vice, and somewhat by happenstance the movement of the reticle became apparent. Now, this wasn't a normal parallax phenomenon, in that the reticle moved opposite your head movement, but on the same axis, rather it moved irregularly. The profile of my reticle's movement was in a "C" shape, this made the predictability much more difficult. It is this irregularity of the parallax movement, along two axises, that is being tested, as it didnt present itself in a consistent manner.

I sent the T1 back to Aimpoint for evaluation, they just sent me a brand new optic.

I hope this better clarifies what happened and the silliness of some of the comments subsides. Pretty sure Unit guys have heard of parallax, it's a thing, and comments as such does nothing to improve the shooting community as a whole or work to hold the manufacturers, who we give our hard earned money, to an ever improving standard.

'Merica.

can you give me an executive summary? In a few words.

So have you had a chance to check out the new optics performance? Did you get any kind of explanation as to what the problem was from Aimpoint?

Sorry for the teases guys. I'm keeping the results close hold until I get the results put together and the testing board approves what I will post.

I did not contact Aimpoint or any other manufacturer for this test. I don't expect this to be the definition end to the discussion, I'm hoping that it is a starting point for others to look into it. Perhaps using a better or more detailed method as well

1-  He is right.  I noticed this a long time ago.  My solution always has been and always will be to simply center the dot in the tube when precision is necessary.  My T-1s dots have a left to right shift when I move my head up and down.  All 3 do it.  It has never impacted my ability to get quick hits on target but it can toss a group apart when you're zeroing if you don't have a consistent cheek weld.

2- have you noticed he wicked optical shift with the T-2 when you compare it to irons?  I found that a zeroed T-2 with the irons set to the dot will require excessive windage to be dialed to the rear sight. I've found that if you set irons this way, or zero while looking through the T-2, the zero will be significantly off if you shoot irons with the T-2 removed.  


Every optic has its quirks.  The shift in irons is what led me to keep my T-1s.

I missed where you mentioned ammo being a variable. I would think most students in a carbine class will be shooting M193 or 855.

Eric, I am looking forward to seeing your test protocol as I have been using a T1 since Aimpoint was giving out "goodguy" samples. I have taken all manner of carbine classes including the Telluric Group's Night Vision Course and have not once had a issue.

I am however open to the fact that I may actually be a better shot than I think and have been hamstrung by a T1 all these years. Once you publish your test protocols I plan to go to my local indoor range and put both a T1 and a T2 through your test. I appreciate your insight and because I am me, will need to prove it to myself, cognitive dissonance not withstanding.

Yeah, when I contemplated using live fire- I realized the only way to 100% control the possible variables with regards to fundamental errors, weapon differences, etc- would be to set up one match grade firearm (maybe a bolt gun) on a hydraulic sled, using a remote trigger to fire it, and to have a couple lab radars set up chronographing each round. It is definitely doable, you would just need to be able to definitively rule out any other cause for a POI shift. At least that was my thought on it.

edit- also, I'm glad to hear you say that you want to go out and reproduce the test. That is exactly the effect that I wanted this effort to have. I don't want people to take my word for it- test and see it yourself and make your own determinations.

So, I have not notice the optical shifts with the T-2. I've actually been relatively impressed with its performance. But then, I do not advocate attempting to zero a red dot to the front sight post. They need to be zeroed independently. In the past (when i allowed it) I would tell clients with T-1's that they may try to remember the dot's position (when perceived in the center of the tube) relative to the front sight post. That can serve as an indicator if you are achieving inconsistent alignment because it can be difficult to place a small dot in the center of a large viewing tube.

Personal remarks, such as personal insults, are not allowed in Tech forums. raf