User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 6:19:54 PM EDT
This post will be met with strong opposition, because it goes against the current coolness.
I have a significant number of LPVOs like NF, Trijicon Credo-HX, Steiner P4Xi, Vortex Razor, Geissele Super Precision, etc. I've owned and used A LOT of others, and have made a concerted effort to understand / appreciate / want them. However, I just do not see their advantage over an ACOG with RMR piggyback or Offset RDS. LPVO Disadvantages Heavier than an ACOG More fragile than an ACOG Short battery life (ACOG is tritium powered with ambient light gathering) Slower than an ACOG (I can transition instantly from 4x to 1x by just raising my head on the ACOG while I have to remove my support hand, find the dail, dail down the mag, resume support hand placement on the LPVO) LPVO Advantages Greater than 4x magnification available ACOG / RDS Advantages Durable Prism ACOG Nuclear Powered, yo RMR can run over a year on one battery / T1 or T2 can run for like 5 years on one battery Simple Lightweight ACOG Disadvantages Eye relief I've owned ARs for 40 years and have watched a lot of trends come and go. Are LPVOs a trend or the future? If the future, please help me understand why / how they're better than an ACOG with some sort of RDS combo. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 1:38:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better. So if you had free reign (anything goes, to include moving targets) to design a stage that would benefit ACOGs as much as possible, and disadvantage LPVOs as much as possible, what would it look like? So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aimpoint on my home defense sbr or the ACOG on one of my other ARs. Nor should it but that's a very specific role IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 1:43:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 45-Seventy]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: So if you had free reign (anything goes, to include moving targets) to design a stage that would benefit ACOGs as much as possible, and disadvantage LPVOs as much as possible, what would it look like? Kinda sounds like: 1) Targets of C-Zone size or larger from 50-300 yards. 2) No time component. I love my ACOGs, they’re excellent for a lot of real world uses, but I’m scratching my head as to what he actually wants. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 1:51:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Umm… yeah. Speed and accuracy is pretty important. So… ACOGs would be fully competitive if we had matches that didn’t have so many close targets… or long range targets… and the scoring didn’t reward fast, accurate hits. Yeah, these matches are super biased. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. Other best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate, when I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a magnifier, they might do better. So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aim point on my home defense sbr. Umm… yeah. Speed and accuracy is pretty important. So… ACOGs would be fully competitive if we had matches that didn’t have so many close targets… or long range targets… and the scoring didn’t reward fast, accurate hits. Yeah, these matches are super biased. It sounds like you do a better job designing things than I and some others are seeing. That's a good thing and makes sense. You might have a point about ACOG with the close targets, but that's very difficult to parse out in the competitions, because as we already discussed, the close targets are nearly meaningless. And the common configuration of an Acog with piggyback or offset is in open div (which is dumb). Even with better and more complex designs, the scoring is very flawed. It's so bad that it seems very difficult to design around. It seems that in most cases, you are ultimately deciding everything off of one task. That task is how fast can you shoot smaller targets at range. A good optic with 6X or more can be a huge benefit for that specific task. It is arguably the least practical and least important task available to measure. But that depends on your viewpoint and what you think you are training for. If you wanna believe the games are a well rounded evaluation of shooting tasks... The scoring is an obvious and significant flaw with that. In the end the games are essentially a DMR competition, which isn't overall a bad thing. If that is what you want to evaluate, great. A scope is unquestionably the better tool for DMR. If you try to use an RDS or ACOG for DMR... Well, just look at the results of your local matches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:13:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 45-Seventy]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It sounds like you do a better job designing things than I and some others are seeing. That's a good thing and makes sense. You might have a point about ACOG with the close targets, but that's very difficult to parse out in the competitions, because as we already discussed, the close targets are nearly meaningless. And the common configuration of an Acog with piggyback or offset is in open div (which is dumb). Even with better and more complex designs, the scoring is very flawed. It's so bad that it seems very difficult to design around. It seems that in most cases, you are ultimately deciding everything off of one task. That task is how fast can you shoot smaller targets at range. A good optic with 6X or more can be a huge benefit for that specific task. It is arguably the least practical and least important task available to measure. But that depends on your viewpoint and what you think you are training for. If you wanna believe the games are a well rounded evaluation of shooting tasks... The scoring is an obvious and significant flaw with that. In the end the games are essentially a DMR competition, which isn't overall a bad thing. If that is what you want to evaluate, great. A scope is unquestionably the better tool for DMR. If you try to use an RDS or ACOG for DMR... Well, just look at the results of your local matches. 3-Gun uses Time Plus which is incredibly common in the competitive shooting world. The other alternative is Hit Factor. I personally prefer Hit Factor Scoring but there’s going to be very little change to outcomes on a long range stage, it will just be presented differently. So… What scoring system would be preferable, exactly? Everything is going to favor fast and accurate hits, that’s basically what makes competitive shooting competitive. As far as “a rifle with two optics is Open and therefore dumb”, what Division should it be in and why? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:27:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: -OdieGreen-]
[#5]
Most fun I ever had shooting was a “course” a marine buddy set up. A few targets at 25, a few at 50, a couple at 100, 1 at 200, and 1 at 300 if I remember right. The targets were color coded with painted heads.
He would call out the color and target you shoot from, the color and target you shoot at, and the shooting position you’d use. Something like “green 50 prone, red 200”. You would then run from 0 to 50, drop down and make your hits, and he’d call the new details as you finished. I thought it was just a way for him to kick my ass at the time. Later I realized he probably subconsciously set it up based on what he knew best, which was advancing an assault. He was a huge ACOG fan, and at the time I was running a PA prism and it worked well for me in that scenario. Despite him moving years ago and having not run that course of fire since, I still love distance based target transitions, shooting offhand, and prism sights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:32:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: So if you had free reign (anything goes, to include moving targets) to design a stage that would benefit ACOGs as much as possible, and disadvantage LPVOs as much as possible, what would it look like? Nor should it but that's a very specific role IMO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better. So if you had free reign (anything goes, to include moving targets) to design a stage that would benefit ACOGs as much as possible, and disadvantage LPVOs as much as possible, what would it look like? So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aimpoint on my home defense sbr or the ACOG on one of my other ARs. Nor should it but that's a very specific role IMO. I'm guessing that would basically just be a large breadth, of larger targets from 50-400 or so. Essentially variations of the basic military quals pop up ranges are what ACOG does very well. Those ranges were built on cold war designs for expected battlefield conditions in Europe and believed to be a good general training and evaluation tool for infantry combat in the field (but obviously very different than urban areas). So randomized and timed pop ups would be ideal, but I understand that isn't an option most places. Doing what you can to replicate those types of tasks makes sense to me. A good stage designer can do a lot, if they understand the different tasks they are trying to force on the shooter. I've seen very few competition stages that replicate engaging moving men from 50-300 yards well by any measure. This has been understood as the quintessential infantry rifleman shooting task for like 100 years or so. Engaging and killing/fixing a maneuvering enemy, is typically far more valuable than killing a static one at cover. Just as it is known that quickly killing a near target, is higher priority than a far target. It still probably wouldn't be a huge advantage for ACOG, because the LVPO guys can just adjust to 3-4X and I would think the tools are fairly equitable for the common infantry riflemen engagements. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:34:27 PM EDT
[#7]
I bought a TA11 for my AR308 and started to wonder why I had waited so many years before buying this amazing optic.
you guys are saying LVPO's are superior? Which should I try? I suppose I'd have to buy a reasonably expensive version to match the glass quality of Trijicon? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:42:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I'm guessing that would basically just be a large breadth, of larger targets from 50-400 or so. Essentially variations of the basic military quals pop up ranges are what ACOG does very well. Those ranges were built on cold war designs for expected battlefield conditions in Europe and believed to be a good general training and evaluation tool for infantry combat in the field (but obviously very different than urban areas). So randomized and timed pop ups would be ideal, but I understand that isn't an option most places. Doing what you can to replicate those types of tasks makes sense to me. A good stage designer can do a lot, if they understand the different tasks they are trying to force on the shooter. I've seen very few competition stages that replicate engaging moving men from 50-300 yards well by any measure. This has been understood as the quintessential infantry rifleman shooting task for like 100 years or so. Engaging and killing/fixing a maneuvering enemy, is typically far more valuable than killing a static one at cover. Just as it is known that quickly killing a near target, is higher priority than a far target. It still probably wouldn't be a huge advantage for ACOG, because the LVPO guys can just adjust to 3-4X and I would think the tools are fairly equitable for the common infantry riflemen engagements. How are you going to incorporate random targets and maintain competitive equity? Like you said, this doesn’t seem like there would be any difference between an LPVO and AGOG. Help me help you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:45:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MkTwain: I bought a TA11 for my AR308 and started to wonder why I had waited so many years before buying this amazing optic. you guys are saying LVPO's are superior? Which should I try? I suppose I'd have to buy a reasonably expensive version to match the glass quality of Trijicon? You mean like a Trijicon LPVO? Basically any Japanese LOW optic or something with European or American glass will get you there. But if a TA-11 suits your needs why would you need to? The optical qualities are phenomenal. The only issue is that it’s massive. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:46:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: 3-Gun uses Time Plus which is incredibly common in the competitive shooting world. The other alternative is Hit Factor. I personally prefer Hit Factor Scoring but there’s going to be very little change to outcomes on a long range stage, it will just be presented differently. So… What scoring system would be preferable, exactly? Everything is going to favor fast and accurate hits, that’s basically what makes competitive shooting competitive. As far as “a rifle with two optics is Open and therefore dumb”, what Division should it be in and why? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: It sounds like you do a better job designing things than I and some others are seeing. That's a good thing and makes sense. You might have a point about ACOG with the close targets, but that's very difficult to parse out in the competitions, because as we already discussed, the close targets are nearly meaningless. And the common configuration of an Acog with piggyback or offset is in open div (which is dumb). Even with better and more complex designs, the scoring is very flawed. It's so bad that it seems very difficult to design around. It seems that in most cases, you are ultimately deciding everything off of one task. That task is how fast can you shoot smaller targets at range. A good optic with 6X or more can be a huge benefit for that specific task. It is arguably the least practical and least important task available to measure. But that depends on your viewpoint and what you think you are training for. If you wanna believe the games are a well rounded evaluation of shooting tasks... The scoring is an obvious and significant flaw with that. In the end the games are essentially a DMR competition, which isn't overall a bad thing. If that is what you want to evaluate, great. A scope is unquestionably the better tool for DMR. If you try to use an RDS or ACOG for DMR... Well, just look at the results of your local matches. 3-Gun uses Time Plus which is incredibly common in the competitive shooting world. The other alternative is Hit Factor. I personally prefer Hit Factor Scoring but there’s going to be very little change to outcomes on a long range stage, it will just be presented differently. So… What scoring system would be preferable, exactly? Everything is going to favor fast and accurate hits, that’s basically what makes competitive shooting competitive. As far as “a rifle with two optics is Open and therefore dumb”, what Division should it be in and why? There's lots of ways to do it, that would be better. I don't know what would be "best" but as we've already discussed, the way they do it now is trash. I've seen both T+ and HF and the results for rifle are the same. You end up with a competition where one task is weighted to a degree that the other shooting tasks are irrelevant except when essentially used as tie breakers. The obvious result of doing business that way is beyond retarded. Seeing this as a guy new to competition a few years ago... It really lowered my opinion of competitive shooting. To be blunt, it's just plain ass clownery that significantly degrades the legitimacy of the sport. As an example, the military method is FAR superior. The time stress is induced by the pop up targets. And it also does a fairly good job of replicating the effects of movement. The only thing left to score are hits and misses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:49:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: You mean like a Trijicon LPVO? Basically any Japanese LOW optic or something with European or American glass will get you there. But if a TA-11 suits your needs why would you need to? The optical qualities are phenomenal. The only issue is that it's massive. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By MkTwain: I bought a TA11 for my AR308 and started to wonder why I had waited so many years before buying this amazing optic. you guys are saying LVPO's are superior? Which should I try? I suppose I'd have to buy a reasonably expensive version to match the glass quality of Trijicon? You mean like a Trijicon LPVO? Basically any Japanese LOW optic or something with European or American glass will get you there. But if a TA-11 suits your needs why would you need to? The optical qualities are phenomenal. The only issue is that it's massive. I have an aimpoint and a quick flip magnifier, that meets any "needs" I have. Everything else is gravy. the TA11 is delicious gravy.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:57:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 45-Seventy]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: There's lots of ways to do it, that would be better. I don't know what would be "best" but as we've already discussed, the way they do it now is trash. I've seen both T+ and HF and the results for rifle are the same. You end up with a competition where one task is weighted to a degree that the other shooting tasks are irrelevant except when essentially used as tie breakers. The obvious result of doing business that way is beyond retarded. Seeing this as a guy new to competition a few years ago... It really lowered my opinion of competitive shooting. To be blunt, it's just plain ass clownery that significantly degrades the legitimacy of the sport. As an example, the military method is FAR superior. The time stress is induced by the pop up targets. And it also does a fairly good job of replicating the effects of movement. The only thing left to score are hits and misses. So basically, don’t time anyone because it hurts feelings? “I’d be awesome at this shooting event if I wasn’t timed. This is clearly biased against me and my equipment.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:03:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: How are you going to incorporate random targets and maintain competitive equity? Like you said, this doesn’t seem like there would be any difference between an LPVO and AGOG. Help me help you. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I'm guessing that would basically just be a large breadth, of larger targets from 50-400 or so. Essentially variations of the basic military quals pop up ranges are what ACOG does very well. Those ranges were built on cold war designs for expected battlefield conditions in Europe and believed to be a good general training and evaluation tool for infantry combat in the field (but obviously very different than urban areas). So randomized and timed pop ups would be ideal, but I understand that isn't an option most places. Doing what you can to replicate those types of tasks makes sense to me. A good stage designer can do a lot, if they understand the different tasks they are trying to force on the shooter. I've seen very few competition stages that replicate engaging moving men from 50-300 yards well by any measure. This has been understood as the quintessential infantry rifleman shooting task for like 100 years or so. Engaging and killing/fixing a maneuvering enemy, is typically far more valuable than killing a static one at cover. Just as it is known that quickly killing a near target, is higher priority than a far target. It still probably wouldn't be a huge advantage for ACOG, because the LVPO guys can just adjust to 3-4X and I would think the tools are fairly equitable for the common infantry riflemen engagements. How are you going to incorporate random targets and maintain competitive equity? Like you said, this doesn’t seem like there would be any difference between an LPVO and AGOG. Help me help you. Yeah that's the more difficult thing to solve. You need someone to run the range (see post #5 above for this manual/human method of randomization), or a real expensive automated range setup. The goal for a competition wouldn't be to have it purely random, just a random order. So everyone faces the same number of targets at the same distances and locations... But the order that they are required to be engaged is randomized. I personally don't give a shit if ACOGs end up sucking at competition. They might. They were very well designed, tested, trained and proven in combat for specific infantry shooting tasks. They are known and proven to do those tasks very well. It isn't really a question anymore, it's scientific fact. If you hold a competition and ACOGs don't do well... One of two things: 1. The acog shooters were inferior. 2. The course of fire or scoring didn't evaluate those rifleman tasks well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:06:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MkTwain: I bought a TA11 for my AR308 and started to wonder why I had waited so many years before buying this amazing optic. you guys are saying LVPO's are superior? Which should I try? I suppose I'd have to buy a reasonably expensive version to match the glass quality of Trijicon? There is no optic that is better for all things and all places. If it fits your needs, why change? Do you need or benefit from more magnification? Then a scope is probably the right solution for you. Do you also potentially need to shoot things close up with the same rifle? Then LVPO might fit the bill. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:10:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I'm guessing that would basically just be a large breadth, of larger targets from 50-400 or so. Essentially variations of the basic military quals pop up ranges are what ACOG does very well. Those ranges were built on cold war designs for expected battlefield conditions in Europe and believed to be a good general training and evaluation tool for infantry combat in the field (but obviously very different than urban areas). So randomized and timed pop ups would be ideal, but I understand that isn't an option most places. Doing what you can to replicate those types of tasks makes sense to me. A good stage designer can do a lot, if they understand the different tasks they are trying to force on the shooter. I've seen very few competition stages that replicate engaging moving men from 50-300 yards well by any measure. This has been understood as the quintessential infantry rifleman shooting task for like 100 years or so. Engaging and killing/fixing a maneuvering enemy, is typically far more valuable than killing a static one at cover. Just as it is known that quickly killing a near target, is higher priority than a far target. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I'm guessing that would basically just be a large breadth, of larger targets from 50-400 or so. Essentially variations of the basic military quals pop up ranges are what ACOG does very well. Those ranges were built on cold war designs for expected battlefield conditions in Europe and believed to be a good general training and evaluation tool for infantry combat in the field (but obviously very different than urban areas). So randomized and timed pop ups would be ideal, but I understand that isn't an option most places. Doing what you can to replicate those types of tasks makes sense to me. A good stage designer can do a lot, if they understand the different tasks they are trying to force on the shooter. I've seen very few competition stages that replicate engaging moving men from 50-300 yards well by any measure. This has been understood as the quintessential infantry rifleman shooting task for like 100 years or so. Engaging and killing/fixing a maneuvering enemy, is typically far more valuable than killing a static one at cover. Just as it is known that quickly killing a near target, is higher priority than a far target. First, thanks for being a good sport and discussing and elaborating on your position on this. I think there is something to truly randomized (of which at least the Army's are not) pop-ups, and you have free reign. You are acknowledging that there is a time component to both pop-ups and moving targets. This is where the train of thought starts to derail (as it does in the pistol optic threads) where it's implied that an emphasis on the combination of speed and accuracy are only valuable and relevant to games, not when lives are on the line. I don't think you've quite gone as far as some with that but I still don't see anything here that would specifically advantage a fixed-power optic. It still probably wouldn't be a huge advantage for ACOG, because the LVPO guys can just adjust to 3-4X and I would think the tools are fairly equitable for the common infantry riflemen engagements. Exactly. We aren't training for the Cold War anymore and while ACOGs are still in circulation we are seeing more of the newly selected optic type. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:26:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: So basically, don’t time anyone because it hurts feelings? “I’d be awesome at this shooting event if I wasn’t timed. This is clearly biased against me and my equipment.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: There's lots of ways to do it, that would be better. I don't know what would be "best" but as we've already discussed, the way they do it now is trash. I've seen both T+ and HF and the results for rifle are the same. You end up with a competition where one task is weighted to a degree that the other shooting tasks are irrelevant except when essentially used as tie breakers. The obvious result of doing business that way is beyond retarded. Seeing this as a guy new to competition a few years ago... It really lowered my opinion of competitive shooting. To be blunt, it's just plain ass clownery that significantly degrades the legitimacy of the sport. As an example, the military method is FAR superior. The time stress is induced by the pop up targets. And it also does a fairly good job of replicating the effects of movement. The only thing left to score are hits and misses. So basically, don’t time anyone because it hurts feelings? “I’d be awesome at this shooting event if I wasn’t timed. This is clearly biased against me and my equipment.” You aren't following what I'm saying, because you've never seen it. Of course time matters. Military Pop up targets are, by their very nature, timed. IIRC, a target falls down after 3-5 seconds, when not hit, and that's scored as a miss. This replicates target movement, as well as inducing a time stress. So there's no need for a stop watch. I don't expect the local sportsman club to have a range like that. But it still doesn't excuse the shit results of basically applying pistol shooting scoring (which works well for that) to rifles. One potential for improvement is weighting the scores of the closer targets. As I stated in an earlier post, in combat, closer threats are far more important to deal with quickly. Lets use the numbers the other guy gave in a previous post. They sounded pretty good to me. Let's say the common difference in bay scoring is plus or minus 3 seconds. And the longer range stuff is more like 30+ seconds. If true, it would make sense to weight the bays X10 to compensate and make the stages impact to the overall scoring similar. I might have screwed up the math or scoring above, but you get the idea. The problem is that the scoring now is heavily weighs results towards the longer range / time stages. That's dumb. There are a multitude of ways to manipulate the scoring to offset such nonsense. Perhaps some places already do one form or another of this, but I've not seen it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:30:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: PacNW5]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better. So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aimpoint on my home defense sbr or the ACOG on one of my other ARs. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better. So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aimpoint on my home defense sbr or the ACOG on one of my other ARs. I think you should really look at PCSL 2Gun as the rulebook states that the maximum distance to any target is 200 yards. I've shot several PCSL matches already, including the nationals, and think that it's an excellent beginner friendly sport. Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Military Pop up targets are, by their very nature, timed. IIRC, a target falls down after 3-5 seconds, when not hit, and that's scored as a miss. This replicates target movement, as well as inducing a time stress. So there's no need for a stop watch. I don't expect the local sportsman club to have a range like that. But it still doesn't excuse the shit results of basically applying pistol shooting scoring (which works well for that) to rifles. One potential for improvement is weighting the scores of the closer targets. As I stated in an earlier post, in combat, closer threats are far more important to deal with quickly. Rio Salado in AZ has this target and used it at the Superstition 3gun major. To me, it's just like spinning an MGM spinner or pistol plate rack at 50, it's just another shooting challenge. And if you look at the scores, the one thing you'll find is that the guys who are winning the static stages, also win stages like this. It's the same with the blind stages. This makes you think that skill level is the one commonality. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:51:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: First, thanks for being a good sport and discussing and elaborating on your position on this. I think there is something to truly randomized (of which at least the Army's are not) pop-ups, and you have free reign. You are acknowledging that there is a time component to both pop-ups and moving targets. This is where the train of thought starts to derail (as it does in the pistol optic threads) where it's implied that an emphasis on the combination of speed and accuracy are only valuable and relevant to games, not when lives are on the line. I don't think you've quite gone as far as some with that but I still don't see anything here that would specifically advantage a fixed-power optic. Exactly. We aren't training for the Cold War anymore and while ACOGs are still in circulation we are seeing more of the newly selected optic type. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I'm guessing that would basically just be a large breadth, of larger targets from 50-400 or so. Essentially variations of the basic military quals pop up ranges are what ACOG does very well. Those ranges were built on cold war designs for expected battlefield conditions in Europe and believed to be a good general training and evaluation tool for infantry combat in the field (but obviously very different than urban areas). So randomized and timed pop ups would be ideal, but I understand that isn't an option most places. Doing what you can to replicate those types of tasks makes sense to me. A good stage designer can do a lot, if they understand the different tasks they are trying to force on the shooter. I've seen very few competition stages that replicate engaging moving men from 50-300 yards well by any measure. This has been understood as the quintessential infantry rifleman shooting task for like 100 years or so. Engaging and killing/fixing a maneuvering enemy, is typically far more valuable than killing a static one at cover. Just as it is known that quickly killing a near target, is higher priority than a far target. First, thanks for being a good sport and discussing and elaborating on your position on this. I think there is something to truly randomized (of which at least the Army's are not) pop-ups, and you have free reign. You are acknowledging that there is a time component to both pop-ups and moving targets. This is where the train of thought starts to derail (as it does in the pistol optic threads) where it's implied that an emphasis on the combination of speed and accuracy are only valuable and relevant to games, not when lives are on the line. I don't think you've quite gone as far as some with that but I still don't see anything here that would specifically advantage a fixed-power optic. It still probably wouldn't be a huge advantage for ACOG, because the LVPO guys can just adjust to 3-4X and I would think the tools are fairly equitable for the common infantry riflemen engagements. Exactly. We aren't training for the Cold War anymore and while ACOGs are still in circulation we are seeing more of the newly selected optic type. Speed and accuracy are absolutely critical. If you somehow got the impression I was arguing against that, I am not. The details of how you go about it, and evaluate it, can be important. As we've discussed at length, I've got some issues with both, in my limited competition experiences. Nevertheless, I still go when I can and there is some value in doing it, with whatever optic. Despite the flaws, it's still better and more dynamic training than a lot of things. I think we agree more than we disagree on optics. There are obvious tradeoffs for optics. ACOGs are very good at what they were designed to do. It seems a lot of folks don't know what that is, nor appreciate when and where it can be best applied. When it comes to optic choices, there are three key variables: 1. Planned use. 2. User training. 3. Optic design / capability. Those three things need to complement each other. When they don't, that when you have issues. I'm still of the opinion that 90% of AR owners are best off with an RDS. Because they won't train much and are VERY unlikely to shoot beyond 100 yards except at the occasional range every so often. So the LVPO craze is a bit perplexing. Are there Chads who can use an LVPO to do just about anything a 5.56 rifle does well? Yeah. I suspect there's one or more in this thread. I wouldn't dare try to tell them what's best to think about doing, and even if I did, they wouldn't listen. They shoot a lot and already got it figured out. That doesn't mean LVPO is a good choice for everyone, because the planned use and training are the real key to getting it right. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 3:53:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Joedirt199]
[#19]
That's why I like the 5/10k run and gun style comps. No stage walkthrough, just a quick synopsis of what you are expected to do when you get there to the stage brief. It is all on your time so you get to the stage and may get lucky enough to have a few runners ahead of you so you get some time to plan, if not get a quick brief and have at it. The Legion runs in Kentucky were good with some targets out to 300. Shot up steel that matched the background, some cardboard targets in the woods with camo tops on. The Lead Farm in Versailles MO has targets out to 600 but the stages are pretty wide open. Some steel that is beat up and hard to see or tight shooting lanes through the trees that you have to move around to find. Much better than a flat shooting bay with everything visible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:03:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: You aren't following what I'm saying, because you've never seen it. Of course time matters. Military Pop up targets are, by their very nature, timed. IIRC, a target falls down after 3-5 seconds, when not hit, and that's scored as a miss. This replicates target movement, as well as inducing a time stress. So there's no need for a stop watch. I don't expect the local sportsman club to have a range like that. But it still doesn't excuse the shit results of basically applying pistol shooting scoring (which works well for that) to rifles. One potential for improvement is weighting the scores of the closer targets. As I stated in an earlier post, in combat, closer threats are far more important to deal with quickly. Lets use the numbers the other guy gave in a previous post. They sounded pretty good to me. Let's say the common difference in bay scoring is plus or minus 3 seconds. And the longer range stuff is more like 30+ seconds. If true, it would make sense to weight the bays X10 to compensate and make the stages impact to the overall scoring similar. I might have screwed up the math or scoring above, but you get the idea. The problem is that the scoring now is heavily weighs results towards the longer range / time stages. That's dumb. There are a multitude of ways to manipulate the scoring to offset such nonsense. Perhaps some places already do one form or another of this, but I've not seen it. On the contrary, I know exactly how a .mil range course goes. You’re saying that it’s important to weight scoring with time… but also that time seems to be biased in favor of some optics. So you want a scoring system which weighs accuracy and time but seemingly doesn’t reward shooters which are significantly faster than other shooters. I don’t know if you’re listening to yourself but you’re kind of all over the map here. If your argument is, in fact, “Competitive shooting is heavily biased towards people with higher skill levels” I suppose we agree. The other option would be to crank up an entirely new shooting event with a unique scoring system. Targets should be large, but not too large. Not too close, nor too far away and be timed but shooters with faster times don’t get a better score. I don’t know how popular that would be but I guess it’s worth a shot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:05:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: I think you should really look at PCSL 2Gun as the rulebook states that the maximum distance to any target is 200 yards. I've shot several PCSL matches already, including the nationals, and think that it's an excellent beginner friendly sport. Rio Salado in AZ has this target and used it at the Superstition 3gun major. To me, it's just like spinning an MGM spinner or pistol plate rack at 50, it's just another shooting challenge. And if you look at the scores, the one thing you'll find is that the guys who are winning the static stages, also win stages like this. It's the same with the blind stages. This makes you think that skill level is the one commonality. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification. LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me. I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better. So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aimpoint on my home defense sbr or the ACOG on one of my other ARs. I think you should really look at PCSL 2Gun as the rulebook states that the maximum distance to any target is 200 yards. I've shot several PCSL matches already, including the nationals, and think that it's an excellent beginner friendly sport. Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Military Pop up targets are, by their very nature, timed. IIRC, a target falls down after 3-5 seconds, when not hit, and that's scored as a miss. This replicates target movement, as well as inducing a time stress. So there's no need for a stop watch. I don't expect the local sportsman club to have a range like that. But it still doesn't excuse the shit results of basically applying pistol shooting scoring (which works well for that) to rifles. One potential for improvement is weighting the scores of the closer targets. As I stated in an earlier post, in combat, closer threats are far more important to deal with quickly. Rio Salado in AZ has this target and used it at the Superstition 3gun major. To me, it's just like spinning an MGM spinner or pistol plate rack at 50, it's just another shooting challenge. And if you look at the scores, the one thing you'll find is that the guys who are winning the static stages, also win stages like this. It's the same with the blind stages. This makes you think that skill level is the one commonality. Thank you for the tip. I will check that out. I was signed up for one of those last season and had kid stuff come up, so I had to cancel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:17:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: On the contrary, I know exactly how a .mil range course goes. You’re saying that it’s important to weight scoring with time… but also that time seems to be biased in favor of some optics. So you want a scoring system which weighs accuracy and time but seemingly doesn’t reward shooters which are significantly faster than other shooters. I don’t know if you’re listening to yourself but you’re kind of all over the map here. If your argument is, in fact, “Competitive shooting is heavily biased towards people with higher skill levels” I suppose we agree. The other option would be to crank up an entirely new shooting event with a unique scoring system. Targets should be large, but not too large. Not too close, nor too far away and be timed but shooters with faster times don’t get a better score. I don’t know how popular that would be but I guess it’s worth a shot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: You aren't following what I'm saying, because you've never seen it. Of course time matters. Military Pop up targets are, by their very nature, timed. IIRC, a target falls down after 3-5 seconds, when not hit, and that's scored as a miss. This replicates target movement, as well as inducing a time stress. So there's no need for a stop watch. I don't expect the local sportsman club to have a range like that. But it still doesn't excuse the shit results of basically applying pistol shooting scoring (which works well for that) to rifles. One potential for improvement is weighting the scores of the closer targets. As I stated in an earlier post, in combat, closer threats are far more important to deal with quickly. Lets use the numbers the other guy gave in a previous post. They sounded pretty good to me. Let's say the common difference in bay scoring is plus or minus 3 seconds. And the longer range stuff is more like 30+ seconds. If true, it would make sense to weight the bays X10 to compensate and make the stages impact to the overall scoring similar. I might have screwed up the math or scoring above, but you get the idea. The problem is that the scoring now is heavily weighs results towards the longer range / time stages. That's dumb. There are a multitude of ways to manipulate the scoring to offset such nonsense. Perhaps some places already do one form or another of this, but I've not seen it. On the contrary, I know exactly how a .mil range course goes. You’re saying that it’s important to weight scoring with time… but also that time seems to be biased in favor of some optics. So you want a scoring system which weighs accuracy and time but seemingly doesn’t reward shooters which are significantly faster than other shooters. I don’t know if you’re listening to yourself but you’re kind of all over the map here. If your argument is, in fact, “Competitive shooting is heavily biased towards people with higher skill levels” I suppose we agree. The other option would be to crank up an entirely new shooting event with a unique scoring system. Targets should be large, but not too large. Not too close, nor too far away and be timed but shooters with faster times don’t get a better score. I don’t know how popular that would be but I guess it’s worth a shot. Other people seem to be following what I'm saying just fine. If you know how those ranges work, and knew they included time, then why try to claim they don't? Just to be an ass and try to deflect from an honest debate? Ignorance is fine, disingenuous arguments are beyond stupid. It seems you just don't want to address the fact that the scoring is greatly weighted toward the longer distance (and by nature longer time) stages... The other dude articulated that well, and you agreed. This dynamic happens to greatly benefit dudes shooting with a scope. Or is your argument that magnification doesn't help? You seemed earlier to claim you have seen this as well, where the guys with scopes have an easier time with the smaller and more distant targets. You were soooo sure that competitions were a great evaluation of a variety of skills and equipment. Now that we've gone through many of the limitations and how they commonly aren't that... Well damn. Some people just have a hard time admitting that they might have had the wrong idea. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:37:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Other people seem to be following what I'm saying just fine. If you know how those ranges work, and knew they included time, then why try to claim they don't? Just to be an ass and try to deflect from an honest debate? Ignorance is fine, disingenuous arguments are beyond stupid. It seems you just don't want to address the fact that the scoring is greatly weighted toward the longer distance (and by nature longer time) stages... The other dude articulated that well, and you agreed. This dynamic happens to greatly benefit dudes shooting with a scope. Or is your argument that magnification doesn't help? You seemed earlier to claim you have seen this as well, where the guys with scopes have an easier time with the smaller and more distant targets. You were soooo sure that competitions were a great evaluation of a variety of skills and equipment. Now that we've gone through many of the limitations and how they commonly aren't that... Well damn. Some people just have a hard time admitting that they might have had the wrong idea. Because there’s a huge difference between running a timed stage and having a blanket par time. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:46:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Speed and accuracy are absolutely critical. If you somehow got the impression I was arguing against that, I am not. The details of how you go about it, and evaluate it, can be important. As we've discussed at length, I've got some issues with both, in my limited competition experiences. Nevertheless, I still go when I can and there is some value in doing it, with whatever optic. Despite the flaws, it's still better and more dynamic training than a lot of things. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Speed and accuracy are absolutely critical. If you somehow got the impression I was arguing against that, I am not. The details of how you go about it, and evaluate it, can be important. As we've discussed at length, I've got some issues with both, in my limited competition experiences. Nevertheless, I still go when I can and there is some value in doing it, with whatever optic. Despite the flaws, it's still better and more dynamic training than a lot of things. Okay, and of course I agree that closer targets get priority in combat. I think we agree more than we disagree on optics. There are obvious tradeoffs for optics. ACOGs are very good at what they were designed to do. It seems a lot of folks don't know what that is, nor appreciate when and where it can be best applied. When it comes to optic choices, there are three key variables: 1. Planned use. 2. User training. 3. Optic design / capability. Those three things need to complement each other. When they don't, that when you have issues. I'm still of the opinion that 90% of AR owners are best off with an RDS. Because they won't train much and are VERY unlikely to shoot beyond 100 yards except at the occasional range every so often. ACOGs/prisms do have some very good qualities, but being the best at quickly and accurately engaging targets at the widest variety of distances is simply not it. I absolutely agree that an RDS is a wonderful choice for HD, most likely defensive uses for most people, and beginners that don't want to invest a lot of money upfront and are unsure of how often they will train. So the LVPO craze is a bit perplexing. Are there Chads who can use an LVPO to do just about anything a 5.56 rifle does well? Yeah. I suspect there's one or more in this thread. I wouldn't dare try to tell them what's best to think about doing, and even if I did, they wouldn't listen. They shoot a lot and already got it figured out. That doesn't mean LVPO is a good choice for everyone, because the planned use and training are the real key to getting it right. LPVOs are the most versatile single optic and I don't think one needs to be an expert Chad to figure them out but agreed, planned use and training are key. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 5:38:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Okay, and of course I agree that closer targets get priority in combat. ACOGs/prisms do have some very good qualities, but being the best at quickly and accurately engaging targets at the widest variety of distances is simply not it. I absolutely agree that an RDS is a wonderful choice for HD, most likely defensive uses for most people, and beginners that don't want to invest a lot of money upfront and are unsure of how often they will train. LPVOs are the most versatile single optic and I don't think one needs to be an expert Chad to figure them out but agreed, planned use and training are key. I agree. LVPOs are the most versatile. They do the DMR long range and small target tasks much better as well. Maybe ACOGs are a slight advantage over LPVOs, for what they are best at. Similar to how an RDS can be a slight advantage over LPVO in the bays. It isn't that you have to be a Ninja chad to use lvpo... But it takes more training and proficiency to do the same tasks as well as the same shooter could with a RDS and ACOG for many tasks. At least that's the case for me. I'm a good bit faster in bays with an RDS. But I have many years experience with RDS and relatively a lot less with lvpo. DMR task and mentality is more difficult to start with. So while the LVPO is clearly the best choice for those tasks, the vast majority of shooters aren't going to be able to do the task anyway, because they lack the skill. It will be interesting to see how the lvpos for infantryman thing shakes out. Maybe I'm out of touch, but it seems pretty new still and the jury is still kinda out on that one. It seems an interesting case of new requirements, new capabilities, SOF and shooting community feedback influencing them. As someone who trained thousands on marksmanship basics for the Army... I have some doubts about getting the average Soldier to shoot 1,000m in addition to the things they were already expected to do. I happen to know that most of them couldn't hit a 300m silhouette with an RDS. A well resourced program with the right emphasis is not easy, but plausible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 6:01:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: -OdieGreen-]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree. LVPOs are the most versatile. They do the DMR long range and small target tasks much better as well. Maybe ACOGs are a slight advantage over LPVOs, for what they are best at. Similar to how an RDS can be a slight advantage over LPVO in the bays. It isn't that you have to be a Ninja chad to use lvpo... But it takes more training and proficiency to do the same tasks as well as the same shooter could with a RDS and ACOG for many tasks. At least that's the case for me. I'm a good bit faster in bays with an RDS. But I have many years experience with RDS and relatively a lot less with lvpo. DMR task and mentality is more difficult to start with. So while the LVPO is clearly the best choice for those tasks, the vast majority of shooters aren't going to be able to do the task anyway, because they lack the skill. It will be interesting to see how the lvpos for infantryman thing shakes out. Maybe I'm out of touch, but it seems pretty new still and the jury is still kinda out on that one. It seems an interesting case of new requirements, new capabilities, SOF and shooting community feedback influencing them. As someone who trained thousands on marksmanship basics for the Army... I have some doubts about getting the average Soldier to shoot 1,000m in addition to the things they were already expected to do. I happen to know that most of them couldn't hit a 300m silhouette with an RDS. A well resourced program with the right emphasis is not easy, but plausible. It’s actually quite surprising how little military data there is for the DVO. Good, bad, indifferent, just seems like no one is talking about it that I’ve been able to find. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 6:03:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Because there’s a huge difference between running a timed stage and having a blanket par time. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Other people seem to be following what I'm saying just fine. If you know how those ranges work, and knew they included time, then why try to claim they don't? Just to be an ass and try to deflect from an honest debate? Ignorance is fine, disingenuous arguments are beyond stupid. It seems you just don't want to address the fact that the scoring is greatly weighted toward the longer distance (and by nature longer time) stages... The other dude articulated that well, and you agreed. This dynamic happens to greatly benefit dudes shooting with a scope. Or is your argument that magnification doesn't help? You seemed earlier to claim you have seen this as well, where the guys with scopes have an easier time with the smaller and more distant targets. You were soooo sure that competitions were a great evaluation of a variety of skills and equipment. Now that we've gone through many of the limitations and how they commonly aren't that... Well damn. Some people just have a hard time admitting that they might have had the wrong idea. Because there’s a huge difference between running a timed stage and having a blanket par time. It doesn't have to be a blanket par time. That's how the Army does it, but it could be done better. Instead, if the targets, or range dude react to the speed of the shooter, then you can still run a stage time. You would just need the time between hits/misses and next target presentation to be consistent overall. With the above, the bad shooters would be less punished by the stop watch, than a non reactive range... But there could and should be scoring for hits/misses. I would say that mentality is backwards for rifle engagements of 50 yards or more anyway. In the field, the enemy often dictates target presentation and timing. People who are trained, train to 3-5 second rushes, and/or cover to cover. So the ability to hit fleeting targets with a few seconds of presentation is a far better skill test, than who can hit a series of known distance static targets a few seconds faster or not. A lot of the stages here have basically zero application to an infantry fight. They set up little targets at 250 or 300 yards or so. Then the average shooter takes well aimed shots every 6-8 seconds or so, because those are pretty tough shots to make. And most are making 1st round hits with a few 2nd round hits. But if they were using pop ups, they would have gone down and had zero hits. In a fight, against a decently trained fire team moving as trained, they wouldn't have gotten a single aimed shot off. In the bays, the emphasis on time for static targets is still not ideal, but makes far more sense. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 6:11:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 45-Seventy]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It doesn't have to be a blanket par time. That's how the Army does it, but it could be done better. Instead, if the targets, or range dude react to the speed of the shooter, then you can still run a stage time. You would just need the time between hits/misses and next target presentation to be consistent overall. With the above, the bad shooters would be less punished by the stop watch, than a non reactive range... But there could and should be scoring for hits/misses. I would say that mentality is backwards for rifle engagements of 50 yards or more anyway. In the field, the enemy often dictates target presentation and timing. People who are trained, train to 3-5 second rushes, and/or cover to cover. So the ability to hit fleeting targets with a few seconds of presentation is a far better skill test, than who can hit a series of known distance static targets a few seconds faster or not. A lot of the stages here have basically zero application to an infantry fight. They set up little targets at 250 or 300 yards or so. Then the average shooter takes well aimed shots every 6-8 seconds or so, because those are pretty tough shots to make. And most are making 1st round hits with a few 2nd round hits. But if they were using pop ups, they would have gone down and had zero hits. In a fight, against a decently trained fire team moving as trained, they wouldn't have gotten a single aimed shot off. In the bays, the emphasis on time for static targets is still not ideal, but makes far more sense. Poor performance gets punished. Good performance gets rewarded. That’s why it’s a competitive shooting event. Have you considered just shooting better rather than coming up with an entirely new system? I mean, that seems easier. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 7:06:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Poor performance gets punished. Good performance gets rewarded. That’s why it’s a competitive shooting event. Have you considered just shooting better rather than coming up with an entirely new system? I mean, that seems easier. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: It doesn't have to be a blanket par time. That's how the Army does it, but it could be done better. Instead, if the targets, or range dude react to the speed of the shooter, then you can still run a stage time. You would just need the time between hits/misses and next target presentation to be consistent overall. With the above, the bad shooters would be less punished by the stop watch, than a non reactive range... But there could and should be scoring for hits/misses. I would say that mentality is backwards for rifle engagements of 50 yards or more anyway. In the field, the enemy often dictates target presentation and timing. People who are trained, train to 3-5 second rushes, and/or cover to cover. So the ability to hit fleeting targets with a few seconds of presentation is a far better skill test, than who can hit a series of known distance static targets a few seconds faster or not. A lot of the stages here have basically zero application to an infantry fight. They set up little targets at 250 or 300 yards or so. Then the average shooter takes well aimed shots every 6-8 seconds or so, because those are pretty tough shots to make. And most are making 1st round hits with a few 2nd round hits. But if they were using pop ups, they would have gone down and had zero hits. In a fight, against a decently trained fire team moving as trained, they wouldn't have gotten a single aimed shot off. In the bays, the emphasis on time for static targets is still not ideal, but makes far more sense. Poor performance gets punished. Good performance gets rewarded. That’s why it’s a competitive shooting event. Have you considered just shooting better rather than coming up with an entirely new system? I mean, that seems easier. I shoot ok. I'm probably never going to be great or compete at any single shooting sport. I would rather spend my limited time and money that I have to fuck around with tactical rifles, focusing more on learning to shoot well at things that potentially matter and have application. The games are ok at that in general. If you wanna get serious and really compete to win, it seems you need to really focus on and get good at a couple of DMR tasks. Which I don't care to spend a ton of limited resources on. Those tasks don't have a ton of applicability for me. But this is one reason why a lot of people shit on and don't wanna go to your games. We can tell you exactly how/why it's fucked up and silly and give solutions. And they will just be denied or ignored. Your scoring mechanisms when applied are retarded and backwards, and in no way reflect who shot best overall. "Stop telling me how to do better and more realistic training, and get better at the very limited, stupid and backwards shit that I'm used to doing." Well ok, you're the guy with tenure and the clip board. Have fun. |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 10:40:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HawkinsID]
[#30]
Wow. You guys are missing the point on the LPVO vs ACOG thing.
LPVOs (alone) suck because they are not practical to dial up and down in real world unknown scenarios. ACOGs (alone) suck on close dynamic targets especially in low light. Either the ACOG or LPVO is tactically sound with an offset or piggyback red dot. The answer … magnification + dot There should be no open classification penalty for two optics. Two optics is the only thing that makes any real world sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 10:52:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: PacNW5]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Wow. You guys are missing the point on the LPVO vs ACOG thing. LPVOs (alone) suck because they are not practical to dial up and down in real world unknown scenarios. ACOGs (alone) suck on close dynamic targets especially in low light. Either the ACOG or LPVO is tactically sound with an offset or piggyback red dot. The answer … magnification + dot There should be no open classification penalty for two optics. Two optics is the only thing that makes any real world sense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Wow. You guys are missing the point on the LPVO vs ACOG thing. LPVOs (alone) suck because they are not practical to dial up and down in real world unknown scenarios. ACOGs (alone) suck on close dynamic targets especially in low light. Either the ACOG or LPVO is tactically sound with an offset or piggyback red dot. The answer … magnification + dot There should be no open classification penalty for two optics. Two optics is the only thing that makes any real world sense. If you want to run an offset dot with your primary optic and not shoot Open class, you should also check out PCSL 2Gun. Originally Posted By Missilegeek: "Stop telling me how to do better and more realistic training, and get better at the very limited, stupid and backwards shit that I'm used to doing." Well ok, you're the guy with tenure and the clip board. Have fun. This is the same conversation that led to the creation of IDPA. Rather than modifying the existing sport, smaller groups break off and try to start their own. There's plenty of options out there if you want to pursue that kind of match. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 10:58:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I shoot ok. I'm probably never going to be great or compete at any single shooting sport. I would rather spend my limited time and money that I have to fuck around with tactical rifles, focusing more on learning to shoot well at things that potentially matter and have application. The games are ok at that in general. If you wanna get serious and really compete to win, it seems you need to really focus on and get good at a couple of DMR tasks. Which I don't care to spend a ton of limited resources on. Those tasks don't have a ton of applicability for me. But this is one reason why a lot of people shit on and don't wanna go to your games. We can tell you exactly how/why it's fucked up and silly and give solutions. And they will just be denied or ignored. Your scoring mechanisms when applied are retarded and backwards, and in no way reflect who shot best overall. "Stop telling me how to do better and more realistic training, and get better at the very limited, stupid and backwards shit that I'm used to doing." Well ok, you're the guy with tenure and the clip board. Have fun. You really got crushed hard at a match, didn’t you? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 11:39:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: You really got crushed hard at a match, didn’t you? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I shoot ok. I'm probably never going to be great or compete at any single shooting sport. I would rather spend my limited time and money that I have to fuck around with tactical rifles, focusing more on learning to shoot well at things that potentially matter and have application. The games are ok at that in general. If you wanna get serious and really compete to win, it seems you need to really focus on and get good at a couple of DMR tasks. Which I don't care to spend a ton of limited resources on. Those tasks don't have a ton of applicability for me. But this is one reason why a lot of people shit on and don't wanna go to your games. We can tell you exactly how/why it's fucked up and silly and give solutions. And they will just be denied or ignored. Your scoring mechanisms when applied are retarded and backwards, and in no way reflect who shot best overall. "Stop telling me how to do better and more realistic training, and get better at the very limited, stupid and backwards shit that I'm used to doing." Well ok, you're the guy with tenure and the clip board. Have fun. You really got crushed hard at a match, didn’t you? Have fun with your DMR matches and pretending that they mean something that they don't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 11:42:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: If you want to run an offset dot with your primary optic and not shoot Open class, you should also check out PCSL 2Gun. This is the same conversation that led to the creation of IDPA. Rather than modifying the existing sport, smaller groups break off and try to start their own. There's plenty of options out there if you want to pursue that kind of match. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Originally Posted By HawkinsID: Wow. You guys are missing the point on the LPVO vs ACOG thing. LPVOs (alone) suck because they are not practical to dial up and down in real world unknown scenarios. ACOGs (alone) suck on close dynamic targets especially in low light. Either the ACOG or LPVO is tactically sound with an offset or piggyback red dot. The answer … magnification + dot There should be no open classification penalty for two optics. Two optics is the only thing that makes any real world sense. If you want to run an offset dot with your primary optic and not shoot Open class, you should also check out PCSL 2Gun. Originally Posted By Missilegeek: "Stop telling me how to do better and more realistic training, and get better at the very limited, stupid and backwards shit that I'm used to doing." Well ok, you're the guy with tenure and the clip board. Have fun. This is the same conversation that led to the creation of IDPA. Rather than modifying the existing sport, smaller groups break off and try to start their own. There's plenty of options out there if you want to pursue that kind of match. At least the IDPA tards can design a pistol stage and develop a coherent scoring system that makes some sense. People love to shit on IDPA, but overall it makes more sense, and is a better comp than the tactical rifle matches I've seen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 11:53:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Wow. You guys are missing the point on the LPVO vs ACOG thing. LPVOs (alone) suck because they are not practical to dial up and down in real world unknown scenarios. ACOGs (alone) suck on close dynamic targets especially in low light. Either the ACOG or LPVO is tactically sound with an offset or piggyback red dot. The answer … magnification + dot There should be no open classification penalty for two optics. Two optics is the only thing that makes any real world sense. Keep the LVPO on 1X then dial up as needed. If the problem is so far away, that you truly need magnification, then you probably have time to dial. RDS is still the issued optic for the majority of military folks. The "need" for magnification is highly debatable. If you're not going to use 1X, then why have an LVPO? Just use a scope with a piggy back and give yourself more magnification of better clarity at the top end. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 1:06:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Wow. You guys are missing the point on the LPVO vs ACOG thing. LPVOs (alone) suck because they are not practical to dial up and down in real world unknown scenarios. ACOGs (alone) suck on close dynamic targets especially in low light. Either the ACOG or LPVO is tactically sound with an offset or piggyback red dot. The answer … magnification + dot There should be no open classification penalty for two optics. Two optics is the only thing that makes any real world sense. Listen, it's ok not to like something... but that is a lie. Brought to you by guys that have done this in real world applications. This is one of those times where if you don't know, then don't pretend to know. |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 9:17:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: HawkinsID]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: Listen, it's ok not to like something... but that is a lie. Brought to you by guys that have done this in real world applications. This is one of those times where if you don't know, then don't pretend to know. Not a lie. Maybe in the gamer world you have time to dial. Not in the real world. If an LPVO is all you have, to be most effective and safe, you have to leave it on 1x. Every time you want to look in a window for a bad guy, you have to dial up. Then, you better dial down. That gets old fast. Every time you use magnification you have to dial back down. Sure you can try to use magnification up close on a target that surprises you. But, it is less effective than 1x. You need instant 1x with magnification. I had a coyote coming in on a full charge at 200 yards. I had him in my ACOG in case he stopped and I had a second to make the shot. He didn’t. Instead, I rolled to my T2 and made the shot at 50 yards on the run. Then, I saw his buddy at 150 yards looking at me, so I rolled back to the ACOG and made that shot too. I can focus on my target instead of fiddling with my scope. This is no different than a truck full of bad guys driving through your neighborhood post SHTF looking for opportunity. You can’t gamer walk that course in advance. And, you are not going to want to be dialing your scope up and down as they get closer to your position. It is absurd. Accusing me of lying because I don’t buy into your silly gamer mentality is pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 9:27:41 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: At least the IDPA tards can design a pistol stage and develop a coherent scoring system that makes some sense. People love to shit on IDPA, but overall it makes more sense, and is a better comp than the tactical rifle matches I've seen. Given your methodology and focus, I think you would be happy shooting more IDPA and IDPA-like matches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 9:52:38 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: At least the IDPA tards can design a pistol stage and develop a coherent scoring system that makes some sense. People love to shit on IDPA, but overall it makes more sense, and is a better comp than the tactical rifle matches I've seen. IDPA is really awesome for slow people. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 10:08:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MkTwain: I bought a TA11 for my AR308 and started to wonder why I had waited so many years before buying this amazing optic. you guys are saying LVPO's are superior? Which should I try? I suppose I'd have to buy a reasonably expensive version to match the glass quality of Trijicon? I don't think anyone is saying (blanket) that the LPVO is superior--just that for their use-case, or in their experience, they prefer the LPVO. That's where I'm at. I tried the ACOG and there were some things about I liked, and some things I didn't like. For what I needed it to do, the '-' column of the ACOG was bigger than the '-' column of the LPVO, so an LPVO is what I use. Doesn't mean the ACOG isn't an incredible optic. As far as what to try in the LPVO category--that's pretty personal. I always come back to a Razor 1-6 for 2/3-gun matches. Incredible glass, simple and easy to use reticle, robust. I just picked up a PA PLXC 1-8 that seems pretty awesome as well. You may just have to try some out and see what you think. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 10:15:07 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: There's lots of ways to do it, that would be better. I don't know what would be "best" but as we've already discussed, the way they do it now is trash. I've seen both T+ and HF and the results for rifle are the same. You end up with a competition where one task is weighted to a degree that the other shooting tasks are irrelevant except when essentially used as tie breakers. The obvious result of doing business that way is beyond retarded. Seeing this as a guy new to competition a few years ago... It really lowered my opinion of competitive shooting. To be blunt, it's just plain ass clownery that significantly degrades the legitimacy of the sport. As an example, the military method is FAR superior. The time stress is induced by the pop up targets. And it also does a fairly good job of replicating the effects of movement. The only thing left to score are hits and misses. I look forward to the new competition that you are going to start running, after you win the lottery so you can afford an automated rifle range with pop-up steel targets! I'll be the first to sign up (for real). Joking aside, I think everyone recognizes that a competition is no replacement for real military-style training, or gear evaluation. It's a game, after all, and most are just playing to have fun. Matches are run by poor-as-fuck volunteers who just want to facilitate other folks having a good time. The match you describe sounds like it would be great fun--and I'd absolutely participate in it. But it also sounds unrealistic financially to run, except for some very wealthy people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 11:15:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Razzman1: I look forward to the new competition that you are going to start running, after you win the lottery so you can afford an automated rifle range with pop-up steel targets! I'll be the first to sign up (for real). Joking aside, I think everyone recognizes that a competition is no replacement for real military-style training, or gear evaluation. It's a game, after all, and most are just playing to have fun. Matches are run by poor-as-fuck volunteers who just want to facilitate other folks having a good time. The match you describe sounds like it would be great fun--and I'd absolutely participate in it. But it also sounds unrealistic financially to run, except for some very wealthy people. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Razzman1: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: There's lots of ways to do it, that would be better. I don't know what would be "best" but as we've already discussed, the way they do it now is trash. I've seen both T+ and HF and the results for rifle are the same. You end up with a competition where one task is weighted to a degree that the other shooting tasks are irrelevant except when essentially used as tie breakers. The obvious result of doing business that way is beyond retarded. Seeing this as a guy new to competition a few years ago... It really lowered my opinion of competitive shooting. To be blunt, it's just plain ass clownery that significantly degrades the legitimacy of the sport. As an example, the military method is FAR superior. The time stress is induced by the pop up targets. And it also does a fairly good job of replicating the effects of movement. The only thing left to score are hits and misses. I look forward to the new competition that you are going to start running, after you win the lottery so you can afford an automated rifle range with pop-up steel targets! I'll be the first to sign up (for real). Joking aside, I think everyone recognizes that a competition is no replacement for real military-style training, or gear evaluation. It's a game, after all, and most are just playing to have fun. Matches are run by poor-as-fuck volunteers who just want to facilitate other folks having a good time. The match you describe sounds like it would be great fun--and I'd absolutely participate in it. But it also sounds unrealistic financially to run, except for some very wealthy people. There are ways to design and execute a stage to better replicate more depth, breadth and movement with current equipment. You just have to figure it out/know how to do it, and it can be a bit harder to execute. In some cases you may need a volunteer to range safety the stage. As others have said, I'm probably just seeing stale stage design locally and others are probably a lot better. Using a scoring system that basically makes the bays irrelevant is an even bigger problem and incredibly stupid. Not only are the bays better designed, but those tasks are far more likely to be needed by civilians defending themselves. Throw in the fact that a lot of the things happening in the longer stages, are retarded and at the end of the day, you are basically just evaluating who is the best retard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 11:33:46 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Not a lie. Maybe in the gamer world you have time to dial. Not in the real world. If an LPVO is all you have, to be most effective and safe, you have to leave it on 1x. Every time you want to look in a window for a bad guy, you have to dial up. Then, you better dial down. That gets old fast. Every time you use magnification you have to dial back down. Sure you can try to use magnification up close on a target that surprises you. But, it is less effective than 1x. You need instant 1x with magnification. I had a coyote coming in on a full charge at 200 yards. I had him in my ACOG in case he stopped and I had a second to make the shot. He didn’t. Instead, I rolled to my T2 and made the shot at 50 yards on the run. Then, I saw his buddy at 150 yards looking at me, so I rolled back to the ACOG and made that shot too. I can focus on my target instead of fiddling with my scope. This is no different than a truck full of bad guys driving through your neighborhood post SHTF looking for opportunity. You can’t gamer walk that course in advance. And, you are not going to want to be dialing your scope up and down as they get closer to your position. It is absurd. Accusing me of lying because I don’t buy into your silly gamer mentality is pathetic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Listen, it's ok not to like something... but that is a lie. Brought to you by guys that have done this in real world applications. This is one of those times where if you don't know, then don't pretend to know. Not a lie. Maybe in the gamer world you have time to dial. Not in the real world. If an LPVO is all you have, to be most effective and safe, you have to leave it on 1x. Every time you want to look in a window for a bad guy, you have to dial up. Then, you better dial down. That gets old fast. Every time you use magnification you have to dial back down. Sure you can try to use magnification up close on a target that surprises you. But, it is less effective than 1x. You need instant 1x with magnification. I had a coyote coming in on a full charge at 200 yards. I had him in my ACOG in case he stopped and I had a second to make the shot. He didn’t. Instead, I rolled to my T2 and made the shot at 50 yards on the run. Then, I saw his buddy at 150 yards looking at me, so I rolled back to the ACOG and made that shot too. I can focus on my target instead of fiddling with my scope. This is no different than a truck full of bad guys driving through your neighborhood post SHTF looking for opportunity. You can’t gamer walk that course in advance. And, you are not going to want to be dialing your scope up and down as they get closer to your position. It is absurd. Accusing me of lying because I don’t buy into your silly gamer mentality is pathetic. My real world isn't against coyotes and you are STILL wrong. It sounds like your using gear to fix a hole in your fundamentals and tactical applications. I wish I could afford to be that terrible with my manual of arms. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 11:50:08 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Not a lie. Maybe in the gamer world you have time to dial. Not in the real world. If an LPVO is all you have, to be most effective and safe, you have to leave it on 1x. Every time you want to look in a window for a bad guy, you have to dial up. Then, you better dial down. That gets old fast. Every time you use magnification you have to dial back down. Sure you can try to use magnification up close on a target that surprises you. But, it is less effective than 1x. You need instant 1x with magnification. I had a coyote coming in on a full charge at 200 yards. I had him in my ACOG in case he stopped and I had a second to make the shot. He didn’t. Instead, I rolled to my T2 and made the shot at 50 yards on the run. Then, I saw his buddy at 150 yards looking at me, so I rolled back to the ACOG and made that shot too. I can focus on my target instead of fiddling with my scope. This is no different than a truck full of bad guys driving through your neighborhood post SHTF looking for opportunity. You can’t gamer walk that course in advance. And, you are not going to want to be dialing your scope up and down as they get closer to your position. It is absurd. Accusing me of lying because I don’t buy into your silly gamer mentality is pathetic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Listen, it's ok not to like something... but that is a lie. Brought to you by guys that have done this in real world applications. This is one of those times where if you don't know, then don't pretend to know. Not a lie. Maybe in the gamer world you have time to dial. Not in the real world. If an LPVO is all you have, to be most effective and safe, you have to leave it on 1x. Every time you want to look in a window for a bad guy, you have to dial up. Then, you better dial down. That gets old fast. Every time you use magnification you have to dial back down. Sure you can try to use magnification up close on a target that surprises you. But, it is less effective than 1x. You need instant 1x with magnification. I had a coyote coming in on a full charge at 200 yards. I had him in my ACOG in case he stopped and I had a second to make the shot. He didn’t. Instead, I rolled to my T2 and made the shot at 50 yards on the run. Then, I saw his buddy at 150 yards looking at me, so I rolled back to the ACOG and made that shot too. I can focus on my target instead of fiddling with my scope. This is no different than a truck full of bad guys driving through your neighborhood post SHTF looking for opportunity. You can’t gamer walk that course in advance. And, you are not going to want to be dialing your scope up and down as they get closer to your position. It is absurd. Accusing me of lying because I don’t buy into your silly gamer mentality is pathetic. Coyotes are smaller and run a lot faster than people. They are way smaller than cars. All of the shots described are very doable with an RDS or LVPO on 1X. How do you know that you didn't have another 2 seconds to dial up for the second yote? How long do you think it takes to change magnification? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 12:31:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Coyotes are smaller and run a lot faster than people. They are way smaller than cars. All of the shots described are very doable with an RDS or LVPO on 1X. How do you know that you didn't have another 2 seconds to dial up for the second yote? How long do you think it takes to change magnification? Between just less than a second to around a second and a half. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 12:38:50 PM EDT
[#46]
After over a decade of shooting competition l, I have learned those that are the most against it are people with low shooting skills and don't want others to see it.
As much as some people want to detract from competition, it does make you a better shooter. The Army knows this. The Marines know this. Many tactical trainers know this. If people don't want to shoot competition, that's totally cool. Just don't say how "retarded" it is. It just shows a fragile ego that doesn't want to be shown how poor their shooting skills really are. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 12:41:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Kinda sounds like: 1) Targets of C-Zone size or larger from 50-300 yards. 2) No time component. I love my ACOGs, they’re excellent for a lot of real world uses, but I’m scratching my head as to what he actually wants. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By DDS87: So if you had free reign (anything goes, to include moving targets) to design a stage that would benefit ACOGs as much as possible, and disadvantage LPVOs as much as possible, what would it look like? Kinda sounds like: 1) Targets of C-Zone size or larger from 50-300 yards. 2) No time component. I love my ACOGs, they’re excellent for a lot of real world uses, but I’m scratching my head as to what he actually wants. I don't see why an LPVO wouldn't compete on equal footing, if not dominate, there too. The worst case scenario for an LPVO shooter would be requiring the shooter to engage targets in a specific sequence 50, 300, 50, 300, etc. with no opportunity to dial on the move... but even then, the savvy LPVO shooter would just dial the optic to 3X (or whatever) before the stage and just leave it. There's no rule that says an LPVO shooter MUST dial up/down for each target... they can run their LPVO at one ideal magnification just like an ACOG. And then for stages where leveraging high/low magnification are beneficial, use the variable power. There's really no stage design that leaves a quality daylight-bright-dot LPVO at a technical disadvantage compared to an ACOG. Period. Conversely, it would be very easy to design a stage that handicaps ACOGs: shooting positions from windows inside a shaded shoot house out into a sun lit target area (buh bye illumination) onto IPSC-zoned targets exclusively at <10yds or >400yds. While that's not a realistic stage design, point being is that it's not too hard to run into disadvantageous scenarios here and there for ACOGs. And that's why the best competition shooters consistently choose LPVOs; they're minimizing the change of disadvantageous engagements. Or lets look at it from a different perspective... What's the ACOG's greatest strengths in contrast to an LPVO or RDS+3X Flip magnifier? ACOGs are simple, rugged, lightweight, and don't require batteries. None of those strengths results in putting more bullets on target faster. And to get those strengths you've given up longer range PID & precision, some 1x speed at CQB range, diopter adjustments, dialable windage/elevation, NV compatibility, and manually controllable illumination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 1:01:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: PacNW5]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: I don't see why an LPVO wouldn't compete on equal footing, if not dominate, there too. The worst case scenario for an LPVO shooter would be requiring the shooter to engage targets in a specific sequence 50, 300, 50, 300, etc. with no opportunity to dial on the move... but even then, the savvy LPVO shooter would just dial the optic to 3X (or whatever) before the stage and just leave it. There's no rule that says an LPVO shooter MUST dial up/down for each target... they can run their LPVO at one ideal magnification just like an ACOG. And then for stages where leveraging high/low magnification are beneficial, use the variable power. There's really no stage design that leaves a quality daylight-bright-dot LPVO at a technical disadvantage compared to an ACOG. Period. Conversely, it would be very easy to design a stage that handicaps ACOGs: shooting positions from windows inside a shaded shoot house out into a sun lit target area (buh bye illumination) onto IPSC-zoned targets exclusively at <10yds or >400yds. While that's not a realistic stage design, point being is that it's not too hard to run into disadvantageous scenarios here and there for ACOGs. And that's why the best competition shooters consistently choose LPVOs; they're minimizing the change of disadvantageous Or lets look at it from a different perspective... What's the ACOG's greatest strengths in contrast to an LPVO or RDS+3X Flip magnifier? ACOGs are simple, rugged, lightweight, and don't require batteries. None of those strengths results in putting more bullets on target faster. And to get those strengths you've given up longer range PID & precision, some 1x speed at CQB range, dialable windage/elevation, NV compatibility, and manually controllable illumination. If a stage required me to switch between 1x and magnified and back to 1x, I’d leave it magnified and shoot occluded, if I didn’t have an offset red dot. I also try to stay away from matches with COF that dictate you must do it this way and any variance from that is a penalty. I don’t agree with that type of match design. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 1:29:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#49]
Also, lets not discount the fact that quality LPVOs have better FOV than most ACOGs, too. The only ACOG with more FOV is the 4x which unfortunately has the most punishing eye relief to get that FOV, giving it a love/hate relationship with many people... many people that shoot the 4X ACOGs just end up backing off of them, killing that FOV advantage anyways. The TA11/3.5x comes the next closest to LPVO FOV performance, and ironically it's the same size/weight as some LPVOs.
Razor Gen2 1-6x 1x 115.2ft 2x 57.6ft 3x 41.0ft 3.5x 33.8ft 4x 28.8ft 6x 20.5ft PA PLxC 1-8x 1x 121ft 2x 50.5ft 3x 39.1ft 3.5x 33.3ft 4x 29.2ft 6x 20.8ft 8x 14.6ft NF NX8 1-8x 1x 106ft 2x 53.0ft 3x 34.9ft 3.5x 30.1ft 4x 26.5ft 6x 18.9ft 8x 13.2ft ACOG 1.5x16 39.0ft 1.5x24 29.6ft 2x20 29.3ft 3x24 25.6ft 3x30 19.3ft 3.5x35 28.9ft 4x32 36.8ft 5.5x50 18.4ft 6x48 17ft |
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 1:43:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HawkinsID]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Coyotes are smaller and run a lot faster than people. They are way smaller than cars. All of the shots described are very doable with an RDS or LVPO on 1X. How do you know that you didn't have another 2 seconds to dial up for the second yote? How long do you think it takes to change magnification? I just figured it out. Most gamers are like the soccer moms that go to cardio kickboxing class and somehow think what they are doing has prepared them for a street fight. They can’t see beyond the limitations of their artificial construct. There is so much fail in the above comments, it is hard to know where to start. Why limit yourself to 1x when you can have magnification instantly at hand. The idea is to optimize your performance, not minimize it. Coyotes and people blend in. Good luck with your red dot in the early morning low light on a brown target. By the way, people blend in too. It’s called camo. You don’t know how much time you have in the real world before the target is gone. I’m not wasting time fiddling with a scope while I should be focusing on the threat. Bad guys in vehicles move faster than coyotes. Smart bad guys get behind cover. There is no such thing as a man size target after the shooting starts. You get a head, leg, or other small body part at best. So, the size comment is wrong too. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
