Quoted:

Well it's important to go back to focus of the LPV vs ACOG comparison.

The main argument of favoring the LPV over the ACOG is the ability to drop down to x1 mag.

The pro-ACOG response is to offset a reddot to supplement the ACOG.
The pro-LPV rebuttal is that the ACOG/offset is not as good, which people support by mentioning the lack of ACOG/reddots in competitive shooting. This misses the point of the discussion because people still supplement the LPVs with offsets in the open.
The emphasis is on the x1 performance comparison between an offset and a LPV at x1 mag, which in competitive shooting people still opt for an offset when given the opportunity.

Quoted:

I believe I see what you're trying to ask. This isn't about force on force training per say, but more a dynamic, opposition based environment.
~cut~
Goodness! Rant off.

If you need anything, give me a shout.

S/F

Quoted:

You would see a lot of them in use by people that just decided to pick up 3-Gun and already had them because they bought them on sale from Optics Planet because that's what they see .mil types use on YouTube.

They would run it for 3-4 months at club level matches and then they would shit can them for a LPVO like anyone that actually shoots a lot.

Quoted:
Great posts above; hearing from a SME who actually touches this is a good break from the echo chamber of low context parroting going on.

As a side note, interesting comments on the MK6.

I think he was talking about fixed power acog style optics with an offset RDS. If you can use two in open.... why not?

Quoted:

I believe I see what you're trying to ask. This isn't about force on force training per say, but more a dynamic, opposition based environment.

In that reality, even mediocre LPVOs dominate all other offerings for the vast majority of uses you may encounter. You will not get killed from using the NX8 or other LPVOs.

Let's rewind a bit. Force on force training with rifles is difficult when using UTM-type rounds due to the level of PPE required. At times, this is such a hindrance to firing a rifle that it becomes detrimental, and encourages 'point shooting', probably the worst thing you can possibly do in close proximity engagements. If a CBRN environment is your concern, simply raising the optic in question generally works well.

Here's a couple truths :

1. The fastest way to prevent injury or death is to kill an opponent faster than he can kill you. The probability of injury or death increases with reduced proximity - find emotional control by accepting this, and function in the best way possible : as an unemotional machine. Again, the fastest way to prevent injury or death is to shoot a bad guy in the face or high center chest as distance increases past your ability to do so. The best way to do this is to level sights on the target and move the trigger to the rear without exceeding your ability to hold within an acceptable area. How is that any different from any kind of shooting, competitive or otherwise? How does this allow for blind point shooting? Is that not extremely dangerous and irresponsible?

2. Its 2018, bro. Competitive shooting has been shown to have a direct correlation with marksmanship ability and skill in an opposition based environment. The ability to think ahead and game a 'stage' (or target...), the ability to see and cover dead space quickly to fill gaps and weapon downtime, the ability to push speed of weapon handling and manipulations, the ability to function under great pressure (self imposed), a deeply emotional and personal attachment to performance such as seeing sights and moving the trigger correctly (technical skills), etc... all this is learned in competitive shooting. Is anyone seriously going to argue at this point that these things don't help? Are we seriously going to argue at this point that the potential of incoming fire is supposed to dictate how I stand (example, the stupid concept of standing square to present plates... how about this - stand in a way that allows you to shoot bad dudes as fast and accurate as possible. Maybe?)?

Folks have GOT to get over this fallacy that competitive shooting is so different from combative shooting. If it truly was so, competitive shooters wouldn't be called upon time and again to fix DoD units' shooting and weapon handling ability. Having lived it in training and combat, I can unequivocally state that every competitive shooter I know that went to combat (even the 'okay' ones) outperformed those around him when the moment came. This applies to USPSA shooters, CMP rifle and pistol shooters, Multi-gun shooters (although shotgun is pointless in many ways) etc.

3. There is also a fallacy that 'special' people have some kind of special weapon requirements (and equipment, ammunition, etc.). Really? What is the difference in need between a Marine (non 03XX) with a truck bearing down on his checkpoint in Ramadi, a civilian in fear for his life during a nighttime burglary attempt, a DEVGRU assaulter sneaking through a house prior to compromise after a 15K foot movement on the outskirts of a city, or a gate guard defending an Air Force base? Once they raise a weapon to their shoulder, all differences go away in terms of basic weapon functionality and need. What changes is the assigned mission, the level of funding, the training given to them, and their mode of transportation to the target. All have a need for a weapon that hits what they aim at. All have a need for a weapon that doesn't fight them in that moment. All have a need for ammunition that performs terminally.

There is a completely antiquated way of thinking in that a fixed 4X optic is somehow simpler and better for most jobs. I hear 'durability' tossed around a whole lot. Most are referring to the ACOG family of optics.

Here's the truth about them :
- The internals break more often than any other optic I've seen, in greater numbers, in greater frequency. Durability of the housings is assumed to transfer to the adjusters and prisms. This is incorrect.
- Put one on a gunner's quadrant some day to do a tracking and repeatability test. You'll see areas of dead clicks, so the adjusters are not actually giving the shooter what they say they are. Also, the elevation and windage components track about as straight as Freddy Mercurie's sexuality. The optics do not hold zero under impact. So if the optic doesn't track and can't hold zero... how are you ever going to achieve a true zero and fire the weapon at another human being, guaranteeing a hit?
- The eye reliefs and eye box of these optics are criminally short and small. To those saying you can get sight alignment in these optics easier than in most LPVOs, your assumed knowledge exceeds your actual capability.

I just helped run an event testing this exact thing, among other things. Out of 21 shooters (4 cadre, 17 students of all ground combat backgrounds), all performed better from 0-600 yards with LPVOs (Nightforce, Vortex, Trijicon) than ACOGs 100% of the time. Inside of 50M, the ability to go to 1X (mandatory prior to assuming movement in event of a critical short range engagement) dominated fixed 3.5/4X shooters, and the ability to zoom in further dominated all RDS (Aimpoint M4 and T1) and fixed 3.5/4X shooters. It wasn't even close. Training to use MILs took about 15 minutes for all (GASP! Impossibru they say!!). Shooting most marksmanship standards at 7M with red dot illumination was no issue. If a shooter has a massive issue finding his eyeball even moderately behind the optic, an RDS acts as a bandaid in a training environment, masking the fact that they are mounting the rifle incorrectly.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/317179/IMG_3044-603845.JPG

Above - Dudes doing CQB having zero problems with a 1-6 and 1-8 LPVO

So what about the times the shooter could not shoulder the rifle? This is why we have other sighting systems such as daylight visible lasers (MAWL, NGAL, etc.). Simplicity for the sake of simplicity creates a one trick shooter that runs into SERIOUS trouble the moment they are put into a situation they are now ill equipped for. The 95% range of operations is best suited to a LPVO in the 1-8 range, with a 30-34mm tube, a cat tail/throw lever, and is a MIL based system (no math required to zero or convert figures. How's that for simplicity? Aimpoint T-Xs are in what again? 1/2 minutes? TA31F RCOs? 1/3 minutes and now in 1/10 MIL with neither an MOA or MIL reticle? See the point?)

I've even had to use magnification to see inside of buildings before (the only thing worse than risking my own death is killing an innocent. PID before you shoot, even if you eat it! Know your line of work..) Think about it - what's the longest shot a civilian shooter may take? 3-7M based on the FBI average you say? Well, newsflash, gunfights normally END there, they don't START there most times. Ever look down a Wal Mart aisle? A parking lot? What's the longest distance in your house? I guarantee its more than 3M. I am not saying you will need magnification in your house. I am saying that if you were to pick one tool, you pick the one that isn't going to hinder your performance from 0-600M.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/317179/IMG_2717-603847.JPG

A rare picture of yours truly. Again, having zero issues with a mini 1-8 in weird positions. That little optic has been used in CQB, at speed, without issues. Clearing closet spaces or shooting out of the shoulder, the VIS laser goes on. When NODs go down, the PEQ15 or MAWL take over completely.

So here's reality. If you will ONLY shoot this optic at 50M and in, an RDS may be for you - some Conventional, SOCOM and JSOC guys can get away with it due to their availability of external security (ie, other dudes with long guns and magnified optics). The moment (because force on force presumably isn't what you're buying an optic for per say) you have to shoot further, you want a MIL based 1-8X LPVO with daylight bright illumination. If you can, stick a T2/H2 forward of the 1-8 and 45 degrees offset. Let your mission drive the gear train. If you can, get dual tube NODs and a VIS/IR laser... this changes the entire discussion - the laser BECOMES your RDS, and in some cases can be faster than an enclosed optic. Can't see the laser dot in a room or in the open? Then you are in fact Ray Charles and may want to seek a different line of work.

That being said, I urge you to not buy into the baloney that competitive shooting is somehow detrimental to your survival in a fight, and contradictory to the rational development of combat capabilities. The exact opposite is normally true, with few exceptions (except for shotguns. They are stupid. Highly stupid.)

ACOGs are decade plus old technology and architecture. Elcans were a good step forward, but have their associated issues too (mounting, weight, bulk, tracking, etc.). RDS are great for 100% compromised shooting positions inside of 50M, but if you are planning to default towards compromised shooting positions, you already have a losing mentality and will pay for it during... well, Force on Force.

Some folks just need to get with the times and go train with folks that take them well beyond their decade old comfort zones...

Goodness! Rant off.

If you need anything, give me a shout.

S/F

Quoted:
This is a part of what I was describing. That stupid paintball mask makes it very difficult to get a sight picture through an LPVO so I just ended up looking over the top of it for a lot of the first day I ever did it. Brought a T-2 instead ever since. Maybe raising the scope would help, I dunno, maybe a red dot is a bandaid but maybe I just am not really that good and a bandaid is what's needed. I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert HSLD ninja but I have done this training and found the LPVO to be a disadvantage. It's really nothing like doing a 3-gun barrier squat and engaging a close target ten yards away that you know the position of, more like shooting a guy ten feet away at an unknown angle as you bust through a door at top speed.

Quoted:

Well it's important to go back to focus of the LPV vs ACOG comparison.

The main argument of favoring the LPV over the ACOG is the ability to drop down to x1 mag.

The pro-ACOG response is to offset a reddot to supplement the ACOG.
The pro-LPV rebuttal is that the ACOG/offset is not as good, which people support by mentioning the lack of ACOG/reddots in competitive shooting. This misses the point of the discussion because people still supplement the LPVs with offsets in the open.
The emphasis is on the x1 performance comparison between an offset and a LPV at x1 mag, which in competitive shooting people still opt for an offset when given the opportunity.

Quoted:

I believe I see what you're trying to ask. This isn't about force on force training per say, but more a dynamic, opposition based environment.

In that reality, even mediocre LPVOs dominate all other offerings for the vast majority of uses you may encounter. You will not get killed from using the NX8 or other LPVOs.

Let's rewind a bit. Force on force training with rifles is difficult when using UTM-type rounds due to the level of PPE required. At times, this is such a hindrance to firing a rifle that it becomes detrimental, and encourages 'point shooting', probably the worst thing you can possibly do in close proximity engagements. If a CBRN environment is your concern, simply raising the optic in question generally works well.

Here's a couple truths :

1. The fastest way to prevent injury or death is to kill an opponent faster than he can kill you. The probability of injury or death increases with reduced proximity - find emotional control by accepting this, and function in the best way possible : as an unemotional machine. Again, the fastest way to prevent injury or death is to shoot a bad guy in the face or high center chest as distance increases past your ability to do so. The best way to do this is to level sights on the target and move the trigger to the rear without exceeding your ability to hold within an acceptable area. How is that any different from any kind of shooting, competitive or otherwise? How does this allow for blind point shooting? Is that not extremely dangerous and irresponsible?

2. Its 2018, bro. Competitive shooting has been shown to have a direct correlation with marksmanship ability and skill in an opposition based environment. The ability to think ahead and game a 'stage' (or target...), the ability to see and cover dead space quickly to fill gaps and weapon downtime, the ability to push speed of weapon handling and manipulations, the ability to function under great pressure (self imposed), a deeply emotional and personal attachment to performance such as seeing sights and moving the trigger correctly (technical skills), etc... all this is learned in competitive shooting. Is anyone seriously going to argue at this point that these things don't help? Are we seriously going to argue at this point that the potential of incoming fire is supposed to dictate how I stand (example, the stupid concept of standing square to present plates... how about this - stand in a way that allows you to shoot bad dudes as fast and accurate as possible. Maybe?)?

Folks have GOT to get over this fallacy that competitive shooting is so different from combative shooting. If it truly was so, competitive shooters wouldn't be called upon time and again to fix DoD units' shooting and weapon handling ability. Having lived it in training and combat, I can unequivocally state that every competitive shooter I know that went to combat (even the 'okay' ones) outperformed those around him when the moment came. This applies to USPSA shooters, CMP rifle and pistol shooters, Multi-gun shooters (although shotgun is pointless in many ways) etc.

3. There is also a fallacy that 'special' people have some kind of special weapon requirements (and equipment, ammunition, etc.). Really? What is the difference in need between a Marine (non 03XX) with a truck bearing down on his checkpoint in Ramadi, a civilian in fear for his life during a nighttime burglary attempt, a DEVGRU assaulter sneaking through a house prior to compromise after a 15K foot movement on the outskirts of a city, or a gate guard defending an Air Force base? Once they raise a weapon to their shoulder, all differences go away in terms of basic weapon functionality and need. What changes is the assigned mission, the level of funding, the training given to them, and their mode of transportation to the target. All have a need for a weapon that hits what they aim at. All have a need for a weapon that doesn't fight them in that moment. All have a need for ammunition that performs terminally.

There is a completely antiquated way of thinking in that a fixed 4X optic is somehow simpler and better for most jobs. I hear 'durability' tossed around a whole lot. Most are referring to the ACOG family of optics.

Here's the truth about them :
- The internals break more often than any other optic I've seen, in greater numbers, in greater frequency. Durability of the housings is assumed to transfer to the adjusters and prisms. This is incorrect.
- Put one on a gunner's quadrant some day to do a tracking and repeatability test. You'll see areas of dead clicks, so the adjusters are not actually giving the shooter what they say they are. Also, the elevation and windage components track about as straight as Freddy Mercurie's sexuality. The optics do not hold zero under impact. So if the optic doesn't track and can't hold zero... how are you ever going to achieve a true zero and fire the weapon at another human being, guaranteeing a hit?
- The eye reliefs and eye box of these optics are criminally short and small. To those saying you can get sight alignment in these optics easier than in most LPVOs, your assumed knowledge exceeds your actual capability.

I just helped run an event testing this exact thing, among other things. Out of 21 shooters (4 cadre, 17 students of all ground combat backgrounds), all performed better from 0-600 yards with LPVOs (Nightforce, Vortex, Trijicon) than ACOGs 100% of the time. Inside of 50M, the ability to go to 1X (mandatory prior to assuming movement in event of a critical short range engagement) dominated fixed 3.5/4X shooters, and the ability to zoom in further dominated all RDS (Aimpoint M4 and T1) and fixed 3.5/4X shooters. It wasn't even close. Training to use MILs took about 15 minutes for all (GASP! Impossibru they say!!). Shooting most marksmanship standards at 7M with red dot illumination was no issue. If a shooter has a massive issue finding his eyeball even moderately behind the optic, an RDS acts as a bandaid in a training environment, masking the fact that they are mounting the rifle incorrectly.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/317179/IMG_3044-603845.JPG

Above - Dudes doing CQB having zero problems with a 1-6 and 1-8 LPVO

So what about the times the shooter could not shoulder the rifle? This is why we have other sighting systems such as daylight visible lasers (MAWL, NGAL, etc.). Simplicity for the sake of simplicity creates a one trick shooter that runs into SERIOUS trouble the moment they are put into a situation they are now ill equipped for. The 95% range of operations is best suited to a LPVO in the 1-8 range, with a 30-34mm tube, a cat tail/throw lever, and is a MIL based system (no math required to zero or convert figures. How's that for simplicity? Aimpoint T-Xs are in what again? 1/2 minutes? TA31F RCOs? 1/3 minutes and now in 1/10 MIL with neither an MOA or MIL reticle? See the point?)

I've even had to use magnification to see inside of buildings before (the only thing worse than risking my own death is killing an innocent. PID before you shoot, even if you eat it! Know your line of work..) Think about it - what's the longest shot a civilian shooter may take? 3-7M based on the FBI average you say? Well, newsflash, gunfights normally END there, they don't START there most times. Ever look down a Wal Mart aisle? A parking lot? What's the longest distance in your house? I guarantee its more than 3M. I am not saying you will need magnification in your house. I am saying that if you were to pick one tool, you pick the one that isn't going to hinder your performance from 0-600M.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/317179/IMG_2717-603847.JPG

A rare picture of yours truly. Again, having zero issues with a mini 1-8 in weird positions. That little optic has been used in CQB, at speed, without issues. Clearing closet spaces or shooting out of the shoulder, the VIS laser goes on. When NODs go down, the PEQ15 or MAWL take over completely.

So here's reality. If you will ONLY shoot this optic at 50M and in, an RDS may be for you - some Conventional, SOCOM and JSOC guys can get away with it due to their availability of external security (ie, other dudes with long guns and magnified optics). The moment (because force on force presumably isn't what you're buying an optic for per say) you have to shoot further, you want a MIL based 1-8X LPVO with daylight bright illumination. If you can, stick a T2/H2 forward of the 1-8 and 45 degrees offset. Let your mission drive the gear train. If you can, get dual tube NODs and a VIS/IR laser... this changes the entire discussion - the laser BECOMES your RDS, and in some cases can be faster than an enclosed optic. Can't see the laser dot in a room or in the open? Then you are in fact Ray Charles and may want to seek a different line of work.

That being said, I urge you to not buy into the baloney that competitive shooting is somehow detrimental to your survival in a fight, and contradictory to the rational development of combat capabilities. The exact opposite is normally true, with few exceptions (except for shotguns. They are stupid. Highly stupid.)

ACOGs are decade plus old technology and architecture. Elcans were a good step forward, but have their associated issues too (mounting, weight, bulk, tracking, etc.). RDS are great for 100% compromised shooting positions inside of 50M, but if you are planning to default towards compromised shooting positions, you already have a losing mentality and will pay for it during... well, Force on Force.

Some folks just need to get with the times and go train with folks that take them well beyond their decade old comfort zones...

Goodness! Rant off.

If you need anything, give me a shout.

S/F

Quoted:
I'm sure a whole lot of folks do force on force training with their LPVO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yReIGUV9UE

Quoted:

I believe I see what you're trying to ask. This isn't about force on force training per say, but more a dynamic, opposition based environment.

In that reality, even mediocre LPVOs dominate all other offerings for the vast majority of uses you may encounter. You will not get killed from using the NX8 or other LPVOs.

Let's rewind a bit. Force on force training with rifles is difficult when using UTM-type rounds due to the level of PPE required. At times, this is such a hindrance to firing a rifle that it becomes detrimental, and encourages 'point shooting', probably the worst thing you can possibly do in close proximity engagements. If a CBRN environment is your concern, simply raising the optic in question generally works well.

Here's a couple truths :

1. The fastest way to prevent injury or death is to kill an opponent faster than he can kill you. The probability of injury or death increases with reduced proximity - find emotional control by accepting this, and function in the best way possible : as an unemotional machine. Again, the fastest way to prevent injury or death is to shoot a bad guy in the face or high center chest as distance increases past your ability to do so. The best way to do this is to level sights on the target and move the trigger to the rear without exceeding your ability to hold within an acceptable area. How is that any different from any kind of shooting, competitive or otherwise? How does this allow for blind point shooting? Is that not extremely dangerous and irresponsible?

2. Its 2018, bro. Competitive shooting has been shown to have a direct correlation with marksmanship ability and skill in an opposition based environment. The ability to think ahead and game a 'stage' (or target...), the ability to see and cover dead space quickly to fill gaps and weapon downtime, the ability to push speed of weapon handling and manipulations, the ability to function under great pressure (self imposed), a deeply emotional and personal attachment to performance such as seeing sights and moving the trigger correctly (technical skills), etc... all this is learned in competitive shooting. Is anyone seriously going to argue at this point that these things don't help? Are we seriously going to argue at this point that the potential of incoming fire is supposed to dictate how I stand (example, the stupid concept of standing square to present plates... how about this - stand in a way that allows you to shoot bad dudes as fast and accurate as possible. Maybe?)?

Folks have GOT to get over this fallacy that competitive shooting is so different from combative shooting. If it truly was so, competitive shooters wouldn't be called upon time and again to fix DoD units' shooting and weapon handling ability. Having lived it in training and combat, I can unequivocally state that every competitive shooter I know that went to combat (even the 'okay' ones) outperformed those around him when the moment came. This applies to USPSA shooters, CMP rifle and pistol shooters, Multi-gun shooters (although shotgun is pointless in many ways) etc.

3. There is also a fallacy that 'special' people have some kind of special weapon requirements (and equipment, ammunition, etc.). Really? What is the difference in need between a Marine (non 03XX) with a truck bearing down on his checkpoint in Ramadi, a civilian in fear for his life during a nighttime burglary attempt, a DEVGRU assaulter sneaking through a house prior to compromise after a 15K foot movement on the outskirts of a city, or a gate guard defending an Air Force base? Once they raise a weapon to their shoulder, all differences go away in terms of basic weapon functionality and need. What changes is the assigned mission, the level of funding, the training given to them, and their mode of transportation to the target. All have a need for a weapon that hits what they aim at. All have a need for a weapon that doesn't fight them in that moment. All have a need for ammunition that performs terminally.

There is a completely antiquated way of thinking in that a fixed 4X optic is somehow simpler and better for most jobs. I hear 'durability' tossed around a whole lot. Most are referring to the ACOG family of optics.

Here's the truth about them :
- The internals break more often than any other optic I've seen, in greater numbers, in greater frequency. Durability of the housings is assumed to transfer to the adjusters and prisms. This is incorrect.
- Put one on a gunner's quadrant some day to do a tracking and repeatability test. You'll see areas of dead clicks, so the adjusters are not actually giving the shooter what they say they are. Also, the elevation and windage components track about as straight as Freddy Mercurie's sexuality. The optics do not hold zero under impact. So if the optic doesn't track and can't hold zero... how are you ever going to achieve a true zero and fire the weapon at another human being, guaranteeing a hit?
- The eye reliefs and eye box of these optics are criminally short and small. To those saying you can get sight alignment in these optics easier than in most LPVOs, your assumed knowledge exceeds your actual capability.

I just helped run an event testing this exact thing, among other things. Out of 21 shooters (4 cadre, 17 students of all ground combat backgrounds), all performed better from 0-600 yards with LPVOs (Nightforce, Vortex, Trijicon) than ACOGs 100% of the time. Inside of 50M, the ability to go to 1X (mandatory prior to assuming movement in event of a critical short range engagement) dominated fixed 3.5/4X shooters, and the ability to zoom in further dominated all RDS (Aimpoint M4 and T1) and fixed 3.5/4X shooters. It wasn't even close. Training to use MILs took about 15 minutes for all (GASP! Impossibru they say!!). Shooting most marksmanship standards at 7M with red dot illumination was no issue. If a shooter has a massive issue finding his eyeball even moderately behind the optic, an RDS acts as a bandaid in a training environment, masking the fact that they are mounting the rifle incorrectly.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/317179/IMG_3044-603845.JPG

Above - Dudes doing CQB having zero problems with a 1-6 and 1-8 LPVO

So what about the times the shooter could not shoulder the rifle? This is why we have other sighting systems such as daylight visible lasers (MAWL, NGAL, etc.). Simplicity for the sake of simplicity creates a one trick shooter that runs into SERIOUS trouble the moment they are put into a situation they are now ill equipped for. The 95% range of operations is best suited to a LPVO in the 1-8 range, with a 30-34mm tube, a cat tail/throw lever, and is a MIL based system (no math required to zero or convert figures. How's that for simplicity? Aimpoint T-Xs are in what again? 1/2 minutes? TA31F RCOs? 1/3 minutes and now in 1/10 MIL with neither an MOA or MIL reticle? See the point?)

I've even had to use magnification to see inside of buildings before (the only thing worse than risking my own death is killing an innocent. PID before you shoot, even if you eat it! Know your line of work..) Think about it - what's the longest shot a civilian shooter may take? 3-7M based on the FBI average you say? Well, newsflash, gunfights normally END there, they don't START there most times. Ever look down a Wal Mart aisle? A parking lot? What's the longest distance in your house? I guarantee its more than 3M. I am not saying you will need magnification in your house. I am saying that if you were to pick one tool, you pick the one that isn't going to hinder your performance from 0-600M.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/317179/IMG_2717-603847.JPG

A rare picture of yours truly. Again, having zero issues with a mini 1-8 in weird positions. That little optic has been used in CQB, at speed, without issues. Clearing closet spaces or shooting out of the shoulder, the VIS laser goes on. When NODs go down, the PEQ15 or MAWL take over completely.

So here's reality. If you will ONLY shoot this optic at 50M and in, an RDS may be for you - some Conventional, SOCOM and JSOC guys can get away with it due to their availability of external security (ie, other dudes with long guns and magnified optics). The moment (because force on force presumably isn't what you're buying an optic for per say) you have to shoot further, you want a MIL based 1-8X LPVO with daylight bright illumination. If you can, stick a T2/H2 forward of the 1-8 and 45 degrees offset. Let your mission drive the gear train. If you can, get dual tube NODs and a VIS/IR laser... this changes the entire discussion - the laser BECOMES your RDS, and in some cases can be faster than an enclosed optic. Can't see the laser dot in a room or in the open? Then you are in fact Ray Charles and may want to seek a different line of work.

That being said, I urge you to not buy into the baloney that competitive shooting is somehow detrimental to your survival in a fight, and contradictory to the rational development of combat capabilities. The exact opposite is normally true, with few exceptions (except for shotguns. They are stupid. Highly stupid.)

ACOGs are decade plus old technology and architecture. Elcans were a good step forward, but have their associated issues too (mounting, weight, bulk, tracking, etc.). RDS are great for 100% compromised shooting positions inside of 50M, but if you are planning to default towards compromised shooting positions, you already have a losing mentality and will pay for it during... well, Force on Force.

Some folks just need to get with the times and go train with folks that take them well beyond their decade old comfort zones...

Goodness! Rant off.

If you need anything, give me a shout.

S/F

Quoted:
I would like to point out that Garand Thumb never said LPVO are not suitable for combat and actually loves them..... So?

Quoted:
I would like to point out that Garand Thumb never said LPVO are not suitable for combat and actually loves them..... So?

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

Quoted:
I'm looking for an optic that'll make me look cool like the SF guys and make it seem like I know what I'm doing. What do you guys suggest? Lpvo, red dot, acog? Budget is not an issue. Thanks

Quoted:
Linked from SSD:

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/img_2661.jpg

Quoted:

"SNIP"
If you need anything, give me a shout.

S/F

Quoted:

Do you want to base your argument off of the regular grunts?   You should look at what optics are chosen when the individual unit decides, not some overarching group.   The answer is LPVO and an aimpoint on the short gun.    Plain and simple.

Quoted:

Yeah I wouldn't take Garand Thumb too seriously.  He's a SERE specialist not an SF/door kicker type.  He says a lot of good things but they're not gospel and even he admits that

Quoted:

so here is a question;

assuming one take the LPV route for a main rifle.....do you run a switch view/cattail to quickly adjust zoom?

i always feel like it sticks out too far and i dont like that.

Quoted:

i am guessing SF types have a much different role in combat. my assumptions are;

their missions are more stealthy and being able to glass from distance helps. they are more on the offense and can chose the magnification needed before the shooting starts. more access to cover.

Quoted:
For the users of the lpvo. Do you prefer taking the time and adjusting the power? Or using an offset RDS?

If you're using a RDS anyways then would you prefer a non adjustable 6-8x scope that was lighter?

Quoted:
For the users of the lpvo. Do you prefer taking the time and adjusting the power? Or using an offset RDS?

If you're using a RDS anyways then would you prefer a non adjustable 6-8x scope that was lighter?

Quoted:
For the users of the lpvo. Do you prefer taking the time and adjusting the power? Or using an offset RDS?

If you're using a RDS anyways then would you prefer a non adjustable 6-8x scope that was lighter?

Quoted:

+1, and not to discredit him but a lot of his material is very basic, and I find it more entertainment, gear porn than technical. Being active duty AF doesn't really make someone an expert on the subject. It was pretty apparent he was not very familiar with the AR platform to me during the video of his Roscoe and SMR upper being built.

Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics (vet, contractor, SRT trainer and civilian trainer) is pretty big on LPVOs, and he's obviously not competition oriented.

Quoted:
So many big name instructors use and swear by lpvos.
Look up Steve fisher or Aaron Cowan just to name a few.  
I get it Garandthumb is a good shooter/ social media personality.
But if you can’t even quote them by any other name then their social media tag line. I’d suggest looking for other sources of information to compare.

Ymmv.

Quoted:

There's a pretty significant trend right now with people putting offset Micros beside 1-6 and 1-8 scopes.

Absolutely retarded as you could have lighter weight, more magnification, and much better optical quality with a mid range variable.  

Quoted:

so here is a question;

assuming one take the LPV route for a main rifle.....do you run a switch view/cattail to quickly adjust zoom?

i always feel like it sticks out too far and i dont like that.

Quoted:

Just for sake of argument:

Do you consider 3 gun "dynamic" or "practical" shooting?
Having to shoot from any position imaginable, from distances varying from 5 yards to 500 yards, from bus windows, roof tops, under and over cars, though various ports at various heights and angles, with varying conditions, at static and moving targets, daylight and no light, etc etc? Targets from large paper to tiny plates, both strong hand and weak hand.

Never see any of the optics you listed at any 3gun matches by anybody that is doing well. Many military and private operators shooting, using guns that are "work" guns. Haven't seen a magnifier in a loooong time. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't see them. Haven't seen an Acog, except in videos from years ago, before LPVO were readily available.

Sure there are plenty of exceptions, but all I see are LPVO's everywhere by the truck load.

Just wonder why all these "work arounds and shortcomings" don't manifest themselves in matches where the nature and reason for them is to test and find these sorts of things? And, how would any of these things change if there was force added?

Just curious your take on that.

Quoted:
Once again

LPVOs are literally in use by SOCOM and other special forces groups

SWAT

Police

A 1-6 SIG was just adopted by the US Army for the new DMR optic

Bunch of the comments in here are pure

Quoted:

Jesus Christ... You're hopeless.