Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/3/2002 12:58:04 PM EST
Is co-witnessing really that important? I understand that if your optic fails on you, just flip up the back up and your ready to go.

What if your optic is damaged to the point where you can't look through it? Is that not the point of having a QD release? If it fails it would take you 4-5 seconds to get it off right?

I would think that if someone did not co-witness, then their optic would be above the irons, so allow a more unhindered view through the optic.

I'm just trying to understand this better. I myself co-witness my optic to my irons.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks, SFG
Link Posted: 11/3/2002 1:16:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2002 1:25:20 PM EST by DaveS]
It sure is not a bad thing.....even if you're not in a FF.

Dave S

You're doing just fine, Carry on.
Link Posted: 11/3/2002 1:32:22 PM EST
I didn't mean to imply that it is bad. I think it is just personal preference.

Just trying to get a better angle on it. :)

Link Posted: 11/3/2002 4:17:27 PM EST
I think it is important from the standpoint that you will always be using the same cheak weld.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 1:07:49 AM EST
Actually the cheek weld isn't the same. You sight over the irons with a dot sight (better field of view/ faster reaction time) but should your dot fail all you do is lower your head a bit to line up the irons.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 6:04:38 AM EST
I think the question is more why not cowitness rather than why. It doesnt take much to get your rig to do so. My Eotech just popped right on my flattop and my ARMS40 popped on behind it. I can use both simultaneously, or cut off my Eotech and use my irons. This is a good thing sometimes with a taclight or if you are using a red taclight filter. More sight options, greater backup capability, reliability, and it usually doesnt cost any more to cowitness than it does not to. But why wouldn't you want to?
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 7:55:53 AM EST
I cowitnessed, for sighting in purposes.
I BZO'd my rifle's Irons, then I adjusted the dot of my Aimpoint to sit on top of the front sight post, when looking through the rear iron peep.
Very simple.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 9:01:57 AM EST
I feel it is a personal preference - somepeopel like the irons in the lower 1/3 of the Aimpoint so they can keep their head higher (better balance, quicker etc.)

While others like the co-witnessing for fact they can quicker double check the zero on the aimpoint/eotech - and keep the same cheekweld.


Link Posted: 11/11/2002 6:15:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/11/2002 6:18:07 AM EST by msh441]
Good question... I was just about to start a thread and ask this same thing...

I just mounted an Aimpoint ML on the flat top of my AR/M4gery using Aimpount's Rail Grabber QD mount. I sighted the ARMS #40 sight and co-witnessed the Aimpoint to the top of the sight post...


Everything seemed to work fine with the Aimpoint sitting lower on the reciever. I would just keep both eyes on target, and the front post seemed to fade away. The iron sights were in the upper 1/3 of the Aimpoint, but were still useable.

Now I've put the riser on... and get this: With no adjustment whatsoever, the Aimpoint's red dot seems to be in the same place as it was in the lower position... co-witnessed with the tip of the front sight post! Explain that!?!

I've got a little better field of view through the Aimpoint whey using the iron sights (as they are now in the lower 1/3 of the field of view), but otherwise, no noticable difference.

Is the added hight wort it?

Is there any benifit from having the sight plane closer/lower on the reciever, and closer to the plane of the barrel?

Any other benifits?
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 7:11:44 AM EST
If your red dot is too high then you begin to have your battel zero have a larger disparity from POA through its flight path. Its lower than the dot at first and much higher than the dot midway through its flight path.
Top Top