You may as well post results in both threads simultaneously or stick to one thread to avoid back and forth

ETA - Tech forum.

Still, banning optics is stupid.

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?

I'll probably ask the mods what they think is the best way to handle it. The other thread is pretty quiet and a bit "cleaner".

Honestly, I have no idea. I did have a few phone calls with some of the most established and well known instructors in the tactical training industry yesterday. Most apparently have known about this for years as well but told me they didn't say anything because they didn't want to deal with the drama. One of them mentions it in his courses and has students check for parallax during the zero check.

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.

Do you have a micro? Have you experienced what he is talking about? He's not saying it can't be mitigated, but shooting prone do you get the exact same cheekweld as from a rest as when clearing a room? Immediately every time? Does everyone even with practice?

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

Thanks for the comments.

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.

Just an update. I’ve started going through my sheets and double checking formulas and math for mistakes, individually re-comparing each test sheet to the master for accuracy, etc. I’ve already caught one mistake I made in my White Monster fueled spreadsheet session yesterday. It was shown on a sanitized teaser photo I posted and I’m surprised that nobody saw it and roasted me for it.

Here it is for informational purposes:



What you are looking at is a summary sheet, where all the tester’s data for each optic are averaged and then compared against each other. The results are broken out separately by deviation observed during vertical head movement testing, horizontal head movement testing, and then an average of the two. The sample average field is simply the average of all the optics result to establish a comparative median number and the results are then color coded for being either above or below that median.

The top field “HORIZONTAL DEVIATION EXTREME SPREAD” is not correctly named, it is the average of the results- not the ES, I’ll change that later. I represented the results in two ways- one in inches, one in MOA since I thought some may find one or the other more meaningful. The column that has the average in inches was solved by plotting the two end points of the perceived movement and assigning them the appropriate (X1, Y1), (X2, Y2) locations. We then apply the Pythagorean Theorem to solve for linear distance, ex: =SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2). (If anyone was wondering, I didn’t use the “ABS” argument because the square of a negative number is always a positive). So, the column in inches is directly calculated. To make things easier for me, I calculated the MOA column from the inches column using a simple formula: =E10*(100/D10) where “E10” would be the field in the inches column and “D10” would be the distance field (there are other ways to normalize the subtension, but since the max distance tested was 100yds- I thought this was simpler). The error was- on the Horizontal Deviation in MOA, I have it calculating from the vertical deviation field instead. So, this threw off both the horizontal and total average summaries- but only the MOA results, not the inches.

Here is a screenshot of the error after correction and then checking the work in an adjacent column:



I’m going to do today what I should have done from the start and take the extra time to calculate the plotted linear distance for both the “Inches” and “MOA” column, individually, and then add a column that solves between those two columns to ensure the answer is “1”, so that the results are self-checking.

Before anyone loses faith in my math skills, or attention to detail, after I have double and triple checked the data and summaries- I’ll be sending it to several people smarter than I to review it for errors. After a few phone calls I had yesterday, the report itself will now also be reviewed by several well-known and respected instructors before it is published (but after the testers concur with the draft).

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.

To dovetail into this, have you found the Trijicon MRO to work well with passive aiming under NVG's? I know the T1/2 doesn't work that great due to the smaller tube & the Eotech is really the best when going totally passive. I currently have an Aimpoint M2 & the older 30mm tubes have been great to aim passively, but I was wondering if the MRO might be workable as well or to stick with the M2/PRO RDS when I decide to upgrade.

Thanks.

Actually the T-2 works fine under NVGs, as does the MRO (at least as I have seen from what I have seen at courses). The NVG issue with the T-1 is it has a bit of tint to the lens that cuts down on the amount of light that comes in. This tends to affect guys when we do our walk backs the first night so they can see where the limits of their equipment begin to manifest. It is common for a T-1 user at distance to see the target with his weapon unmounted, and then as soon as he brings it into his line of sight, the tint severely cuts down on the brightness of the target ares- thus losing the target.

The biggest key to using your optic as your primary aiming method (or an aiming method) is your daytime training. You have to mount your weapon  in a manner that you can keep your head square and looking directly at the target, and bring the sights up to your line of sight, without dropping your head whatsoever. Often in daylight, we blade slightly and lower our heads on the stock- effectively glancing slightly upwards as in this picture *note, this is a pic I just found on google and he is a relatively well known and respected guy, so before I get comments- I'm not saying anything about him*:

As you can see the angle of head is slightly lowered and he is looking through the upper 1/4 of his eyewear (I could spur another drama thread with some of the shifts I've seen due to this with some eyewear brands).

Now imagine a set of NVG's mounted and how the tubes would be aligned.

This is the most common mistake I see in NVG courses. People get used to weapons manipulation that works great in daylight, but then in a more complex environment (nighttime), they have to do something completely different and tend to revert back to what consisted of the majority of their training time.

That being said- this is where having the sight on a riser helps out significantly by keeping your head upright and aligned to the target. Tubed optics (like the aimponts, Trijicon, etc) are a bit more unforgiving to NVG alignment than windowed optics, but they do work. You just have to be careful with how your weapons manipulation layers into nighttime use and make sure you mount correctly.

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.

No worries. And to be clear- I am avoiding saying one optic is "better" here. It is easier to get behind the larger windowed optic than a tube. But both can be done.

Concerning the NV .... The MRO appears to have much more tint than the T1 .... The hue is much more apparent for me anyways

Not sure there- just haven't had the issues of guys losing the target due to brightness loss like the T-1. Yet that is- I've only recently had them start showing up, so the number I've seen is much too small to make an assessment on them. I have seen the slight tint on the MRO but the view through it seems a little brighter than the T-1. Maybe less tint, maybe the tube dimensions allow more light?

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.

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.

I also allow T-2s, H-1s, Comp M4's, Pro's, Vortex, etc.

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.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute, or are you just trolling the tech forum with personal insults for entertainment?

If you take some time and open your mind, he's actually gaining credibility as I see it.  I think Eotechs are bad, but the point of this thread is to point out a specific flaw in the T1 (maybe) that may not be as evident in the Eot.  The latter has a litany of issues the T1 does not suffer from though

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.

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?

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.

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.

No one said you had to get permission, and if you choose to keep your opinion/data/views/practices/experience private then I respect that.  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.

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.

Double tap

Your question was previously answered in this thread. Explaining the reasoning behind a different optic is also off topic for the OP.

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.

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.

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.

DevL,  most other guns used in the US military before the M16 had a more generous cheek weld.  And people still shot and shoot them accurately.   Like the Garand and M14.  Traditional stocks slope and from my own experience you are just not jamming your face down on the stock as hard.   I think to make a big issue about raising an optic on an AR to 1/3 lower co witness to be TOO high for decent accuracy is just false.

Thanks.

Have you chronographed your ammo at these temperature differences to take into consideration difference in POA/POI? Texas Defense Articulations just did a study in them that illustrates the variance. You can find em on the YouTube or the Facebook.

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.

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:


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:





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. 

I hope everyone reading this thread recognizes what total and absolutely horse dung this guy's entire "research" and "findings" are.

What a load.

Did you see the post above? Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

Conclusions also seems consistent with assertions about the optic.

Quick question for Eric/DoPushups.

Was there any difference between the 4 MOA and 2 MOA T1s?

You're going to get all of the data at once

Thanks for the contribution! Last I heard dopushups is still taking test form submissions if you wanted to send a form in to be included with the data for his report.
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

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?

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

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?

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. 

Got it.  I've owned five T1's so I understand; slowly replacing them with T2's but keeping my last two.  I like the integrated caps and the clearer glass of the T2.  At three right now.

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?

And wasn't this the assertion you were making originally?  You can put your head at a position on the optic, it will show parallax-results.  You come back, and the parallax-results will be a little different?

Maybe we just need this report...

Forum name, no one needs to know my real name and how much I suck at shooting 

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.