Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
6/25/2018 7:04:05 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/8/2018 9:45:04 PM EDT
How do well do LPVOs handle in force on force training ? I know protective gear can make difference vs a real world use. Anyone got experience ? Are there any videos on the topic ? I'm familiar with SuperSetCA YouTube video's comparing lpvos in a competition setting.
Link Posted: 7/8/2018 10:07:45 PM EDT
For those who don't know the secret handshake... LVPO Low Power Variable Optics.
Link Posted: 7/8/2018 10:15:22 PM EDT
What do you mean by force-on-force? Simunitions, blank fire exercises, airsoft? Force-on-force encompasses a lot of things.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 2:12:40 AM EDT
Garand Thumb on YouTube recommends a couple setups.

If close range is your primary concern... Red dot sight as a primary optic. And if intermediate ranges are a secondary possibility, add a 3x magnifier.

If you have an even mix of intermediate ranges and need for close work as well. ACOG... With an offset red dot.

He doesn't think LPVs are good for real world fighting. They are fine for intermediate ranges, but they are not a red dot substitute on 1x. So if you need both capabilities, ACOG and offset dot.

I agree with his recommendations.

As far as videos showing the difference or in use in some kind of simulated combat... I do not know of any. Most practical force on force training is limited to close range, and magnification just isn't needed for that.

Garand Thumb bases his recommendations based on his experience. He is active duty and does competition and training with many setups. Many thousands of rounds though them each.

A little practical thinking should land you in the same ballpark.

A LPV optic even on 1x is still a scope. It has eye relief and an eye box. If you do not have your head behind the optic properly, you are compromised. Even if you can see the reticle, there will be a lot of parallax error. I have seen up to 6-8 inches of error demonstrated.

Being behind the optic properly is easy on a static range, but it is less so in a dynamic situation. You may be shooting from awkward positions, or otherwise be compromised from being behind the optic properly.

If that is the case, then a red dot, which does not have these head position issues, is obviously better in such a situation. So you want a red dot for close work, where it shines.

If you also need to add magnification to make intermediate engagements more effective, then a lightweight fixed power is a good way to go. And 4x is plenty to make effective hits out to 500-600 yards/meters...

Hence the ACOG and offset red dot recommendation for a general purpose setup.

People will say that the military is beginning to issue LPVs... But the military isn't above chasing fads, or falling for hype and sales pitches of manufacturers.

And I do see a quality 6x or better an 8x as seeing a good DMR optic. Plenty of magnification to get some precision at 500-600yds. (If guys can use 10x scopes on sniper rifles at 1000yds, then 8x is plenty for half that distance) but the 1x would allow them to not be completely useless up close should the need arise. Though an offset would be good here as well.

Living where I live, with a lot of open hilly terrain, for my SHTF rifle, I ditched my LPV. At the range it was great, but it was lacking for practical shooting on 1x from any position that I could not square up behind it properly.

People often have the fallacious logic of thinking too idealistically. Imagining work arounds for shortcomings that are untenable, or ignoring those shortcomings all together. They compair apples and oranges and think that unrelated situations will somehow be good comparisons to their needs.

So I'm going to drum on this whenever I can... LPVs are cool, but not the do it all solutions that people think they are.

My only wish... Is that 6x prism scopes weren't so freaking impractically large and heavy for general use. (It's a physics thing, the nature of prism scopes is that they grow in size exponentially quickly with magnification, so a jump from 4x to 6x comes with a very large increase in scope size) I think 6x would be a very nice magnification level for 200-600yds. 4x works though, so I work with it, for size and weight reasons.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 3:25:51 AM EDT
OP does realize that LPVOs have been used successfully in combat for years now right?
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 4:43:52 AM EDT
I have knowledge of many people who have used 1 to 4s in combat and were happy with it.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 1:44:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marine6680:
Garand Thumb on YouTube recommends a couple setups.

If close range is your primary concern... Red dot sight as a primary optic. And if intermediate ranges are a secondary possibility, add a 3x magnifier.

If you have an even mix of intermediate ranges and need for close work as well. ACOG... With an offset red dot.

He doesn't think LPVs are good for real world fighting. They are fine for intermediate ranges, but they are not a red dot substitute on 1x. So if you need both capabilities, ACOG and offset dot.

I agree with his recommendations.

As far as videos showing the difference or in use in some kind of simulated combat... I do not know of any. Most practical force on force training is limited to close range, and magnification just isn't needed for that.

Garand Thumb bases his recommendations based on his experience. He is active duty and does competition and training with many setups. Many thousands of rounds though them each.

A little practical thinking should land you in the same ballpark.

A LPV optic even on 1x is still a scope. It has eye relief and an eye box. If you do not have your head behind the optic properly, you are compromised. Even if you can see the reticle, there will be a lot of parallax error. I have seen up to 6-8 inches of error demonstrated.

Being behind the optic properly is easy on a static range, but it is less so in a dynamic situation. You may be shooting from awkward positions, or otherwise be compromised from being behind the optic properly.

If that is the case, then a red dot, which does not have these head position issues, is obviously better in such a situation. So you want a red dot for close work, where it shines.

If you also need to add magnification to make intermediate engagements more effective, then a lightweight fixed power is a good way to go. And 4x is plenty to make effective hits out to 500-600 yards/meters...

Hence the ACOG and offset red dot recommendation for a general purpose setup.

People will say that the military is beginning to issue LPVs... But the military isn't above chasing fads, or falling for hype and sales pitches of manufacturers.
And I do see a quality 6x or better an 8x as seeing a good DMR optic. Plenty of magnification to get some precision at 500-600yds. (If guys can use 10x scopes on sniper rifles at 1000yds, then 8x is plenty for half that distance) but the 1x would allow them to not be completely useless up close should the need arise. Though an offset would be good here as well.
Living where I live, with a lot of open hilly terrain, for my SHTF rifle, I ditched my LPV. At the range it was great, but it was lacking for practical shooting on 1x from any position that I could not square up behind it properly.

People often have the fallacious logic of thinking too idealistically. Imagining work arounds for shortcomings that are untenable, or ignoring those shortcomings all together. They compair apples and oranges and think that unrelated situations will somehow be good comparisons to their needs.

So I'm going to drum on this whenever I can... LPVs are cool, but not the do it all solutions that people think they are.

My only wish... Is that 6x prism scopes weren't so freaking impractically large and heavy for general use. (It's a physics thing, the nature of prism scopes is that they grow in size exponentially quickly with magnification, so a jump from 4x to 6x comes with a very large increase in scope size) I think 6x would be a very nice magnification level for 200-600yds. 4x works though, so I work with it, for size and weight reasons.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 1:48:15 PM EDT
Good luck getting behind the scope properly with a protective mask on while someone's shooting sim rounds at you from across a dark room that may or may not be full of smoke lol. You can try it but I suspect you're going to end up just point-shooting with the rifle the whole time. At simunition distances that's really all you need anyway unless you've gotta take a headshot in some hostage/bomb scenario. LPVOs are awesome for their purpose but maybe not the most optimal choice for door-kicking.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 2:09:27 PM EDT
Thanks for all the feedback, I want to make the jump from a MRO+3x mag to a Nightforce NX8 on my on my SBR'ed HD gun, but I don't want to die because of it. I watched garand thumb's video . I figured with the amount of experienced dudes on YouTube + the amount of LPVOs out and about, this topic would come up or be debated more often. I know Elcans have been putting people in the dirt for a while now, so I know the idea is feasible.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 2:20:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By othersmaydie:
Thanks for all the feedback, I want to make the jump from a MRO+3x mag to a Nightforce NX8 on my on my SBR'ed HD gun, but I don't want to die because of it. I watched garand thumb's video . I figured with the amount of experienced dudes on YouTube + the amount of LPVOs out and about, this topic would come up or be debated more often. I know Elcans have been putting people in the dirt for a while now, so I know the idea is feasible.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By othersmaydie:
Thanks for all the feedback, I want to make the jump from a MRO+3x mag to a Nightforce NX8 on my on my SBR'ed HD gun, but I don't want to die because of it. I watched garand thumb's video . I figured with the amount of experienced dudes on YouTube + the amount of LPVOs out and about, this topic would come up or be debated more often. I know Elcans have been putting people in the dirt for a while now, so I know the idea is feasible.
Honestly, door-kicking is such an unlikely scenario for the average person I wouldn't overthink it that much. If you prefer the added capability over open terrain that an LPVO provides and aren't going to have a second rifle with the MRO then you should take the NX8 to the simunition class so you can see where the wheels fall off should you be forced into doing that. Just be aware that it is gonna be a disadvantage. Elcan's a little different since it's a prism optic like an ACOG, they're easier to get a working sight picture with than a normal scope.

Originally Posted By NoKimberDave:

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.
FWIW a major reason you don't see the ACOG/RMR combo in 3-gun much is because having two optics bumps you up into open division. The sort of guy that might want to run an ACOG/RMR combo probably fits better in Tac Ops or something.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 4:08:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoKimberDave:

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.
View Quote
Have you not see any modern pictures of the US Miliitary? They are either running an Aimpoint, Acog, or an Acog w/ an RMR.

I just googled "US Military", I see a picture with 6 dudes with Acogs, another with all Aimpoints, a couple with rmr/ acog, and one has an Elcan.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 4:09:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By othersmaydie:
Thanks for all the feedback, I want to make the jump from a MRO+3x mag to a Nightforce NX8 on my on my SBR'ed HD gun, but I don't want to die because of it. I watched garand thumb's video . I figured with the amount of experienced dudes on YouTube + the amount of LPVOs out and about, this topic would come up or be debated more often. I know Elcans have been putting people in the dirt for a while now, so I know the idea is feasible.
View Quote
If it's for HD, why do you even need a 3x mag? I would just leave the MRO on.

I had an MRO and G33 magnifier setup but ditched it because the G33 is really meant to go on an Eotech and it shines with one.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 5:16:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marine6680:
Garand Thumb on YouTube recommends a couple setups.

If close range is your primary concern... Red dot sight as a primary optic. And if intermediate ranges are a secondary possibility, add a 3x magnifier.

If you have an even mix of intermediate ranges and need for close work as well. ACOG... With an offset red dot.

He doesn't think LPVs are good for real world fighting. They are fine for intermediate ranges, but they are not a red dot substitute on 1x. So if you need both capabilities, ACOG and offset dot.

I agree with his recommendations.

As far as videos showing the difference or in use in some kind of simulated combat... I do not know of any. Most practical force on force training is limited to close range, and magnification just isn't needed for that.

Garand Thumb bases his recommendations based on his experience. He is active duty and does competition and training with many setups. Many thousands of rounds though them each.

A little practical thinking should land you in the same ballpark.

A LPV optic even on 1x is still a scope. It has eye relief and an eye box. If you do not have your head behind the optic properly, you are compromised. Even if you can see the reticle, there will be a lot of parallax error. I have seen up to 6-8 inches of error demonstrated.

Being behind the optic properly is easy on a static range, but it is less so in a dynamic situation. You may be shooting from awkward positions, or otherwise be compromised from being behind the optic properly.

If that is the case, then a red dot, which does not have these head position issues, is obviously better in such a situation. So you want a red dot for close work, where it shines.

If you also need to add magnification to make intermediate engagements more effective, then a lightweight fixed power is a good way to go. And 4x is plenty to make effective hits out to 500-600 yards/meters...

Hence the ACOG and offset red dot recommendation for a general purpose setup.

People will say that the military is beginning to issue LPVs... But the military isn't above chasing fads, or falling for hype and sales pitches of manufacturers.

And I do see a quality 6x or better an 8x as seeing a good DMR optic. Plenty of magnification to get some precision at 500-600yds. (If guys can use 10x scopes on sniper rifles at 1000yds, then 8x is plenty for half that distance) but the 1x would allow them to not be completely useless up close should the need arise. Though an offset would be good here as well.

Living where I live, with a lot of open hilly terrain, for my SHTF rifle, I ditched my LPV. At the range it was great, but it was lacking for practical shooting on 1x from any position that I could not square up behind it properly.

People often have the fallacious logic of thinking too idealistically. Imagining work arounds for shortcomings that are untenable, or ignoring those shortcomings all together. They compair apples and oranges and think that unrelated situations will somehow be good comparisons to their needs.

So I'm going to drum on this whenever I can... LPVs are cool, but not the do it all solutions that people think they are.

My only wish... Is that 6x prism scopes weren't so freaking impractically large and heavy for general use. (It's a physics thing, the nature of prism scopes is that they grow in size exponentially quickly with magnification, so a jump from 4x to 6x comes with a very large increase in scope size) I think 6x would be a very nice magnification level for 200-600yds. 4x works though, so I work with it, for size and weight reasons.
View Quote
Pretty much all of this is a legit LOL.

Go shoot 3-Gun for a year or so... then come back and let's talk.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 5:19:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spengo:

FWIW a major reason you don't see the ACOG/RMR combo in 3-gun much is because having two optics bumps you up into open division. The sort of guy that might want to run an ACOG/RMR combo probably fits better in Tac Ops or something.
View Quote
No... Mostly you don't see it because it sucks.

If it worked worth a shit, you'd see it in Open... and you don't.... because it sucks.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 6:27:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:

No... Mostly you don't see it because it sucks.

If it worked worth a shit, you'd see it in Open... and you don't.... because it sucks.
View Quote
It's not my preferred 3-gun setup but I'd still put money on seeing a lot more ACOG/RMR shooters if it was allowed in Tac Ops. Lately I've been really enjoying just keeping it simple with a TA44 by itself. Works surprisingly well even though it's pretty uncommon. An NX8 is pretty much the worst optic choice for shooting in the dark indoors at targets in dark clothing that move and shoot back while wearing a bulky mask too haha. Maybe you should try it and see how much you end up actually looking through the optic before shooting. Force on force simunition stuff is not the same as 3-gun, though 3-gun experience will definitely help with accurate instinctive point-shooting that you'll be doing a lot of. With optic choices, everything's a compromise.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 7:44:39 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 7:54:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By -WhiteFang-:
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
View Quote
Of course they have, they're awesome and getting better every year.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 9:32:03 PM EDT
A LPVO might be hard to use with a paintball mask but the VCOG, razor, mk6, TR21, short dot and other LPVO optics have been used by special operations guys. Even some regular army scout units use mk6’s and some line companies have bought VCOG’s. 3gun has been used as a proving ground for a lot of our now tactical items like red dots on pistols, battle belts becoming more like competition belts, offset red dots, compensators on pistols and rifles. Are they exact cross overs all the time? No, but they get an idea and or product and tweak it. I promise you won’t die in the skreets if you use something that isn’t the almighty aim point.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 9:56:47 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spengo:

It's not my preferred 3-gun setup but I'd still put money on seeing a lot more ACOG/RMR shooters if it was allowed in Tac Ops. Lately I've been really enjoying just keeping it simple with a TA44 by itself. Works surprisingly well even though it's pretty uncommon. An NX8 is pretty much the worst optic choice for shooting in the dark indoors at targets in dark clothing that move and shoot back while wearing a bulky mask too haha. Maybe you should try it and see how much you end up actually looking through the optic before shooting. Force on force simunition stuff is not the same as 3-gun, though 3-gun experience will definitely help with accurate instinctive point-shooting that you'll be doing a lot of. With optic choices, everything's a compromise.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 10:07:41 PM EDT
I had about 15 red dot guns a couple years ago.

I now have 12 lpvo guns and 3 red dot guns

Lpvos are awesome.
Link Posted: 7/9/2018 10:54:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoKimberDave:

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.
View Quote
The targets don't shoot back... So... No.

Now 3 gun does teach you some things. It's good for speed and instinctive shooting.

What it is not...Is combat... And it doesn't even give you any kind of accurate simulation of actual combat. At best the close range stages might be somewhat like room entry. But it doesn't simulate bullets flying both directions.

Competition and 3 gun... LPV all day. They work in that environment. The shortcomings are easy (or easier) to deal with, or simply don't come into play.

I recommend the ACOG and Offset combo for practical "I'm getting shot at" situations. In an environment where open terrain and close quarters are both high possibilities.

If you can't recognize that "practical" shooting sports are not combat... You are just kookydooks.
Airsoft and paintball are closer to combat than 3 gun... At least with those, you are getting shot at, and getting hit comes with a penalty and possible pain.

Red dots are the king of close range inside 50yds. If I'm in a life risking situation, I want a red dot for 50yds and in. If I need magnification as well, saving weight is a good thing. So is having rugged optics. ACOGs work for combat use.

A lot of people are hard into some logical fallacies... Like back in WWII where the military we're looking at the bombers after missions and adding armor to all the places that seemed to get the most bullet holes... Only to wonder why survival rates were not increasing.

Because they got stuck in a logical falacy where they focused only on the planes that made it back. Obviously bullet holes in those parts didn't matter, as the planes made it back. It took a scientist to tell them to armor the places that didn't have bullet holes... And then survival rates increased.

It's similar here... People are focusing on the wrong things. Comparing different things like they are equivalent. Thinking the new and shiny must be better. Justifying spending $2500 on an optic...

Once you stop thinking that new equipment is the answer to all of life's issues... And start really looking at what you need in a real world combat situation, then you par it down to pretty simple gear that is easy to use and effective. Fixed power optics, red dots, BDC not mil hash (for general infantry use anyway)...

Like I said LPVs have a place, and competition is one where they shine. And I'm not saying they can't have a use in a combat role... But not as a primary general issue optic.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 3:11:02 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marine6680:

The targets don't shoot back... So... No.

Now 3 gun does teach you some things. It's good for speed and instinctive shooting.

What it is not...Is combat... And it doesn't even give you any kind of accurate simulation of actual combat. At best the close range stages might be somewhat like room entry. But it doesn't simulate bullets flying both directions.

Competition and 3 gun... LPV all day. They work in that environment. The shortcomings are easy (or easier) to deal with, or simply don't come into play.

I recommend the ACOG and Offset combo for practical "I'm getting shot at" situations. In an environment where open terrain and close quarters are both high possibilities.

If you can't recognize that "practical" shooting sports are not combat... You are just kookydooks.
Airsoft and paintball are closer to combat than 3 gun... At least with those, you are getting shot at, and getting hit comes with a penalty and possible pain.

Red dots are the king of close range inside 50yds. If I'm in a life risking situation, I want a red dot for 50yds and in. If I need magnification as well, saving weight is a good thing. So is having rugged optics. ACOGs work for combat use.

A lot of people are hard into some logical fallacies... Like back in WWII where the military we're looking at the bombers after missions and adding armor to all the places that seemed to get the most bullet holes... Only to wonder why survival rates were not increasing.

Because they got stuck in a logical falacy where they focused only on the planes that made it back. Obviously bullet holes in those parts didn't matter, as the planes made it back. It took a scientist to tell them to armor the places that didn't have bullet holes... And then survival rates increased.

It's similar here... People are focusing on the wrong things. Comparing different things like they are equivalent. Thinking the new and shiny must be better. Justifying spending $2500 on an optic...

Once you stop thinking that new equipment is the answer to all of life's issues... And start really looking at what you need in a real world combat situation, then you par it down to pretty simple gear that is easy to use and effective. Fixed power optics, red dots, BDC not mil hash (for general infantry use anyway)...

Like I said LPVs have a place, and competition is one where they shine. And I'm not saying they can't have a use in a combat role... But not as a primary general issue optic.
View Quote
Right so just ignore the fact that units do issue them and they have been proven effective on the two way range for years now.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 9:56:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By -WhiteFang-:

Right so just ignore the fact that units do issue them and they have been proven effective on the two way range for years now.
View Quote
He is stating he doesn't think they're good for a general issue optic.

The individuals using them right now are not on the receiving end of your typical issue optics, and they also have other options available to fit the mission.

I think they have their place in combat, but I would not want to have my Vortex 1-6 all the time for every scenario, period.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 11:00:15 AM EDT
Also remember guys, this thread isn't even about the requirements of the military where things like prism optics really shine, it's about what happens when you go shoot your friends with simunitions. It's the one situation where literally none of the advantages of an LPVO come into play and every single disadvantage does. I don't think LPVOs are bad or anything, quite the contrary, I have two and I love them, all I'm sayin is it's not what I would choose for this purpose unless I just specifically wanted to learn how to work it in that situation should I be forced to. This is why we all have lots of the same gun in slightly different configurations.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 12:24:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 12:25:22 PM EDT by Jozsi]
Here is what I know from 6 PMC's who are using it in Iraq.

2 love their Leupold 1.5-4 firefot. 2 are using the other Leupold 1 to 5 whatever thingy.....or they go back and forth on the 1 to 4 and 1 to 5 whatever

1 is using a Vortex Strike Eagle....1-6 and he adores his and one last guy is using a Steiner 1 to 4.

There was a South African and also some queer AF limey using an Eotech with 3x magnifier.

No complaints and it works for them.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 1:38:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jozsi:
Here is what I know from 6 PMC's who are using it in Iraq.

2 love their Leupold 1.5-4 firefot. 2 are using the other Leupold 1 to 5 whatever thingy.....or they go back and forth on the 1 to 4 and 1 to 5 whatever

1 is using a Vortex Strike Eagle....1-6 and he adores his and one last guy is using a Steiner 1 to 4.

There was a South African and also some queer AF limey using an Eotech with 3x magnifier.

No complaints and it works for them.
View Quote
I ran a Steiner Military 1-4X... After the first day I never wanted to touch an ACOG again.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 4:29:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 4:31:18 PM EDT by mr_h]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jozsi:
Here is what I know from 6 PMC's who are using it in Iraq.

2 love their Leupold 1.5-4 firefot. 2 are using the other Leupold 1 to 5 whatever thingy.....or they go back and forth on the 1 to 4 and 1 to 5 whatever

1 is using a Vortex Strike Eagle....1-6 and he adores his and one last guy is using a Steiner 1 to 4.

There was a South African and also some queer AF limey using an Eotech with 3x magnifier.

No complaints and it works for them.
View Quote
and that is the kind of info that is useful, first person shooter stuff.

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.

are i correct? if so, my other assumptions is that this what a civi would encounter given a WROL situation. for normal peace time defense, i'll use irons or RDS. WROL, LVP or ACOG/RMR combo.

would love to hear more from guys that have seen combat and what work and doesnt given the situations.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 5:47:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marksman14:

He is stating he doesn't think they're good for a general issue optic.

The individuals using them right now are not on the receiving end of your typical issue optics, and they also have other options available to fit the mission.

I think they have their place in combat, but I would not want to have my Vortex 1-6 all the time for every scenario, period.
View Quote
This...

Most people are served by more simple setups. Gun enthusiasts can be better weapon handlers than the average soldier, if they get training and practice a lot. Not all of course, and vice versa.

I am also talking patrols and guys vulnerable to ambush and other attacks outside of their initiative. Guys who may be on a defensive until they can oriente and press a counter.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 5:49:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spengo:
Also remember guys, this thread isn't even about the requirements of the military where things like prism optics really shine, it's about what happens when you go shoot your friends with simunitions. It's the one situation where literally none of the advantages of an LPVO come into play and every single disadvantage does. I don't think LPVOs are bad or anything, quite the contrary, I have two and I love them, all I'm sayin is it's not what I would choose for this purpose unless I just specifically wanted to learn how to work it in that situation should I be forced to. This is why we all have lots of the same gun in slightly different configurations.
View Quote
Also this...

Close range and you know it's close range, red dot... Why compromise when you know the use case and needs.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 6:00:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 6:02:50 PM EDT by Marine6680]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mr_h:

and that is the kind of info that is useful, first person shooter stuff.

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.

are i correct? if so, my other assumptions is that this what a civi would encounter given a WROL situation. for normal peace time defense, i'll use irons or RDS. WROL, LVP or ACOG/RMR combo.

would love to hear more from guys that have seen combat and what work and doesnt given the situations.
View Quote
This too.

When you are choosing the fight location and time, and how to position your people... You have more ability to be on the offensive and be behind the optic.

In WROL situations, I think worse case.

Tired, hungry, injured, not as trained as you really would like to be...on the defensive... ETC. The simpler the better. Too much magnification is a hindrance, complicated reticles are a hindrance, limitations of a 1x scope vs a red dot is a hindrance.

A lot of this applies to the average grunt as well.

Like I said, in competition or in the right scenario and roles, an LPV works well. Just not all, and not for any dire situation a civilian would find themselves in.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 7:56:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 7:57:05 PM EDT by nihilsum]
Linked from SSD:

Link Posted: 7/10/2018 9:01:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 10:11:22 PM EDT by GS5414]
Originally Posted By othersmaydie:
How do well do LPVOs handle in force on force training ? I know protective gear can make difference vs a real world use. Anyone got experience ? Are there any videos on the topic ? I'm familiar with SuperSetCA YouTube video's comparing lpvos in a competition setting.
View Quote
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.

Attachment Attached File


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.

Attachment Attached File


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
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 10:35:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 10:39:29 PM EDT by Marine6680]
You want old school talk... My CQB training was with an A2 with 20in barrel and irons.

So I ain't going backwards... I never owned or used an ACOG until a month ago. (Outside occasional use here and there with other people's rifles)

I ditched LPV after several years of use. I started thinking about reality and not idealistic thought process. (This is on a SHTF rifle, not a competition or special use rifle)

I was about to buy a Mk6 1-6x... Changed my mind.

Room entry... You are on the initiative, you are behind the gun, the issues don't crop up.

That pic of you... How cute, that's an odd shooting position?

Lay on your back and shoot at a target 15yds in the direction of your feet... Tell me how useful the LPV is for that.

Stand in a way that let's you hit the badguys... Yeah, that's important... What about an ambush situation where they have fire superiority? You want cover and the ability to lay down fire quickly. Stance becomes less important.

When combat goes perfectly all the time, then maybe an LPV is a good general issue optic.

Honestly I haven't gotten though the whole post, because I am busy ATM, I will come back to it later.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 11:11:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marine6680:
You want old school talk... My CQB training was with an A2 with 20in barrel and irons.

So I ain't going backwards... I never owned or used an ACOG until a month ago. (Outside occasional use here and there with other people's rifles)

I ditched LPV after several years of use. I started thinking about reality and not idealistic thought process. (This is on a SHTF rifle, not a competition or special use rifle)

I was about to buy a Mk6 1-6x... Changed my mind.

Room entry... You are on the initiative, you are behind the gun, the issues don't crop up.

That pic of you... How cute, that's an odd shooting position?

Lay on your back and shoot at a target 15yds in the direction of your feet... Tell me how useful the LPV is for that.

Stand in a way that let's you hit the badguys... Yeah, that's important... What about an ambush situation where they have fire superiority? You want cover and the ability to lay down fire quickly. Stance becomes less important.

When combat goes perfectly all the time, then maybe an LPV is a good general issue optic.

Honestly I haven't gotten though the whole post, because I am busy ATM, I will come back to it later.
View Quote
Jesus Christ... You're hopeless.
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 11:22:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2018 11:28:15 PM EDT by GS5414]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marine6680:
You want old school talk... My CQB training was with an A2 with 20in barrel and irons.

This isn't a good indicator of where things are today, or relevant to the discussion. All that means is that your frame of reference is more likely to be frozen in the past.

So I ain't going backwards... I never owned or used an ACOG until a month ago. (Outside occasional use here and there with other people's rifles)

This, in all relativity, is taking a step backwards (or standing still, perhaps) when the entire rest of the shooting community has moved on. This completely okay for your personal circumstances, as perhaps you do have a compelling reason to stick with an ACOG. I can think of one case (CBRN) where it can be beneficial. The OP, however, asked about opposition based constructs. This automatically renders the slower, less capable system obsolete.

I ditched LPV after several years of use. I started thinking about reality and not idealistic thought process. (This is on a SHTF rifle, not a competition or special use rifle)

Nothing I've stated is ideal. The reality is, with large numbers of people possessing various levels of experience, various branches, employment, under dynamic CQB or exterior movement (all phases), sleep deprivation, degraded communications, limited visibility (induced through residual smoke from breaching charges and gunfire, non induced through nighttime operations), small and large form factor targets, and opposition based (simulated or real) shooters have higher hit percentages with LPVOs from 0-600M. You can't come up with a conditions set less ideal (SHTF, some say) than that.

I was about to buy a Mk6 1-6x... Changed my mind.

This is okay, and in some cases a sound decision. Loss of illumination occurs far easier than more modern offerings (by being off center to the eyebox), and they do not stand up to side impact very well (zero shifts)

Room entry... You are on the initiative, you are behind the gun, the issues don't crop up.

Plenty of issues crop up, such as people bumping into you, incoming fire once compromised, sealed doors, etc. Those that do it still fare just fine with LPVOs. If you do CQB with any regularity, you will learn this.

That pic of you... How cute, that's an odd shooting position?

That is one of several. What you don't see are the VTAC barricades, the vehicle used for a stress test (shooting from vehicle window at odd angle as the opening salvo), etc. There is no need to quip about something being 'cute' or not. That's unwarranted. All it is, is an unemotional photo of a person who has spent significant time with just about every legitimate sighting system available, and does have proof of its use. That person, myself in this case, opts for a 1-8 LPVO for just about everything. I do have a 10.3" gun used exclusively for CQB, with an Aimpoint T2 on top. That gun will receive an Aimpoint M5 and MAWL at the first available opportunity. The first moment I have an indication it may be used to shoot beyond 50M, believe that an NX8, a magnifier at WORST case, is going on top instead of the Aimpoint. There is a reason the primary DoD user of the HK416 (for now) uses, in many occasions, Vortex 1-6 HDs on 10.4" guns. 14.5" guns DoD wide are all starting to see use with increasing numbers of variable optics, be it 1/4 Elcans, 1-6s of various flavors, and now 1-8s. This is the reality - end users are seeing the capabilities and wanting more of it, not less.

Lay on your back and shoot at a target 15yds in the direction of your feet... Tell me how useful the LPV is for that.

Done it, not fun, and I have a laser or offset T2 for that, hits aplenty to be had, and no eyebox or tube constrains me. You're picking an extremely low probability shooting position and opting to use that low probability outcome to steer a materiel solution ordinarily meant to satisfy the extremely high probability cases of use - defaulting to a low probability situation literally increases odds you will end up there because you are no longer optimized for the high probability fight. This isn't logical

Stand in a way that let's you hit the badguys... Yeah, that's important... What about an ambush situation where they have fire superiority? You want cover and the ability to lay down fire quickly. Stance becomes less important.

Firing position is always important. Helmet camera footage collected from seriously well trained shooters has shown their ability to do so, even in a reactionary manner. Being caught off guard does not mean one should opt to maintain a poor posture and slave the materiel solution to be optimized for that. I will always opt for achieving fire superiority through suppression by death, as fast as humanly possible. Collapsing and owning your battlespace is the best security. The best way to do this, at the individual level, is to shoot fast and accurate. The best way to do that is to not rely on enemy marksmanship to drive all your reactions.

When combat goes perfectly all the time, then maybe an LPV is a good general issue optic.

This is your personal opinion, which is okay, but it does contradict the realities and experiences, whether in competition, opposition based training, or active combat, of those who have done the job with LPVOs. One could make the same argument for other materiel solutions - when combat goes perfectly, why do I even need a magnified optic at all when I can simply sit back and call for IDF/CAS or rely on supporting arms? The very nature of combat is exactly why the LPVO works so well, because it allows the user to do everything from 0-600M (99.9% of his small arms engagements) very well.

Honestly I haven't gotten though the whole post, because I am busy ATM, I will come back to it later.

I suggest Googling DOTMLPF. Many of the issues you speak of aren't materiel issues per say, they are issues caused by the other domains.
View Quote
S/F
Link Posted: 7/10/2018 11:28:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By othersmaydie:
How do well do LPVOs handle in force on force training ? I know protective gear can make difference vs a real world use. Anyone got experience ? Are there any videos on the topic ? I'm familiar with SuperSetCA YouTube video's comparing lpvos in a competition setting.
View Quote
I've only got one LVPO but on my airsoft training replicas (gas blowback rifles) that I use for FoF and playing the occasional game of airsoft I will run my real optics on these replicas or replica optics that function the same way. One of those is an ACOG, one is a 1-3 LVPO, the others are Holosun RDS. When wearing protective gear (goggles and a mesh lower face mask) I have no issues getting behind the optics. I do like having some magnification because even at the close range airsoft guns are used at, in thick woods or when trying to see if that person I'm shooting at is really the OPFOR when they're popping up behind and around cars and what not it helps in identification and to spot your shots.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 1:19:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:

No... Mostly you don't see it because it sucks.

If it worked worth a shit, you'd see it in Open... and you don't.... because it sucks.
View Quote
I see people opting for an offset in the open class even if they have an LPV
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 10:38:57 AM EDT
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.

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BarrettBoy:

I see people opting for an offset in the open class even if they have an LPV
View Quote
I think he was talking about fixed power acog style optics with an offset RDS. If you can use two in open.... why not?
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 11:50:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2018 11:51:53 AM EDT by mr_h]
well i guess that's it then. nothing else to discuss on this topic, the boss has spoken....

except i can't wait to see how a variable scope holds up to infantry level abuse. if acog's get trashed, just wait for the failure in zoomables.

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GS5414:

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
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 1:18:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2018 1:36:54 PM EDT by Burnsy87]
LPVO's are the future, IMO.

Having said that, my SHTF rifle is a suppressed 12.5" with TA33 and RMR on top. There's something to be said about durability when it comes down to it, and I'm not reaching out with a 12.5" 5.56 anyways.

It is about to be my ONLY 5.56 rifle, the girlfriend still has hers with a PST Gen 2 1-6x. My other 5.56 is about to be a 6.5 Grendel with a 3-15x on it. Working on another 12.5", 6.5G with a 2-10x.

The only issue I've experienced - and maybe its a Vortex thing - is that if you REALLY needed to go from 1x to max magnification, it's not a quick turn, and you likely can damage the optic if you try to move it too fast. Maybe I just suck at it too. But that's the one issue in very rare, specific situations that may be a problem.

ETA - I carry an AR for a living. After reading other replies, shooting an LPVO with a gas mask is difficult enough with just an Aimpoint, that is a massive issue. Maybe an offset RMR or micro red dot of some type will have to be used by units that have gas masks and such as regular items.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 1:21:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BarrettBoy:

I see people opting for an offset in the open class even if they have an LPV
View Quote
Of course... With LPVOs, not ACOGs.

Hell, i run an offset red dot on my PCC even though I have a C-More as my primary. It’s good for hard lefthand leans.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 1:29:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2018 1:50:49 PM EDT by Spengo]
Originally Posted By GS5414:
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.
View Quote
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. I'm no SWAT expert or anything but using speed and aggression to kill the bad guys before they can even react properly while moving yourself through and out of the death zones they know you have to come through as quickly as possible is the only strategy I found that works, everything else just ends up with you getting shot in the face.

I would never say competition is detrimental even if it's not exactly like doing force on force scenarios. Just having all that trigger time and making shooting as natural as breathing helps a lot. Even if you aren't using a sight picture all the other fundamentals still apply and your body mechanics all default towards putting rounds center of mass. Just like boxing, hitting a bag is not exactly the same as sparring but you better be spending a lot of time doing it if you want to git gud. Don't anyone infer that I'm trying to say barrier work isn't realistic or something dumb like that either lol, simunition force on force training is just a very specific sort of thing to do. Worth doing for sure, in no small part precisely because it's so different from what you usually do.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 2:13:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2018 2:17:28 PM EDT by Houlds]
This thread makes me want to ditch my Aimpoint H1 and get LPVO immediately.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 4:33:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:

Of course... With LPVOs, not ACOGs.

Hell, i run an offset red dot on my PCC even though I have a C-More as my primary. It’s good for hard lefthand leans.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 5:23:37 PM EDT
Here's a secret, you can use an offset mrds for when it's needed and have a 1-6 for close and mid range when needed.

Doesn't matter what people think SOCOM had acogs for 2 decades while general forces bragged about shooting paper at 500m with a2s. Cool now qualify for your 50h of kill house training.

Guess who wins that argument? The ones who get a choice and have far more combat experience.

It's not a debate really it's about procurement. But shooting the shit is fun.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 6:17:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spengo:

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. I'm no SWAT expert or anything but using speed and aggression to kill the bad guys before they can even react properly while moving yourself through and out of the death zones they know you have to come through as quickly as possible is the only strategy I found that works, everything else just ends up with you getting shot in the face.

I would never say competition is detrimental even if it's not exactly like doing force on force scenarios. Just having all that trigger time and making shooting as natural as breathing helps a lot. Even if you aren't using a sight picture all the other fundamentals still apply and your body mechanics all default towards putting rounds center of mass. Just like boxing, hitting a bag is not exactly the same as sparring but you better be spending a lot of time doing it if you want to git gud. Don't anyone infer that I'm trying to say barrier work isn't realistic or something dumb like that either lol, simunition force on force training is just a very specific sort of thing to do. Worth doing for sure, in no small part precisely because it's so different from what you usually do.
View Quote
Wherever you are doing this training do they mandate what PPE you will use or do they allow some leeway? There are other options out there for full face pro instead of going full on paintball mask. There are also options to trim away the section of the paintball mask you need to get a good cheekweld.
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 10:42:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jeepinbanditrider:

Wherever you are doing this training do they mandate what PPE you will use or do they allow some leeway? There are other options out there for full face pro instead of going full on paintball mask. There are also options to trim away the section of the paintball mask you need to get a good cheekweld.
View Quote
I'm sure they allow goggles only if you don't care about getting shot in the teeth lol. I did get shot in the teeth through the mask though, glad it was there to break the sim round up. They are powerful enough to break through t-shirts so just wearing a soft skull mask under goggles or something won't help. Modifying a paintball mask is a good idea, or maybe even just shopping around for one that is more optimal for using with a real rifle. I don't play paintball so I don't have my own. I think I will give that a try before the next time I go do it, it will help even when using just a red dot.
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 10:57:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Houlds:
This thread makes me want to ditch my Aimpoint H1 and get LPVO immediately.
View Quote
Nothing wrong with that, just try one first and see if you like it.

They do take a little more finesse than a RDS, but once you get acclimated they're solid!
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 4:07:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/12/2018 4:09:05 PM EDT by jeepinbanditrider]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spengo:

I'm sure they allow goggles only if you don't care about getting shot in the teeth lol. I did get shot in the teeth through the mask though, glad it was there to break the sim round up. They are powerful enough to break through t-shirts so just wearing a soft skull mask under goggles or something won't help. Modifying a paintball mask is a good idea, or maybe even just shopping around for one that is more optimal for using with a real rifle. I don't play paintball so I don't have my own. I think I will give that a try before the next time I go do it, it will help even when using just a red dot.
View Quote
Here are some options I've found lets me still get a decent enough cheekweld behind a LVPO or ACOG while keeping my teeth from getting knocked out by BBs. I've taken sim rounds in other parts of my body and I wouldn't not want to take one in the face. BBs knock enough teeth out as it is.

Metal mesh lower face pieces combined with goggles. This fits close enough to the face to get behind your optic. It may cause some bleeding from a sim round but should protect you good enough. I've integrated these and a set of goggles into a OPS-CORE CLONE bump helmet using the arcrails.



Many people have had good luck with the DYE I5 mask. It has a higher cut lower face piece so it leavesyour throat a bit exposed.

I honestly think for max protection while still getting a cheek weld your best bet will be modifying a paintball mask or something along those lines to allow for it. You'll lose some coverage obviously but it'll make it easier to get behind the optic.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 12:41:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marine6680:
You want old school talk... My CQB training was with an A2 with 20in barrel and irons.

So I ain't going backwards... I never owned or used an ACOG until a month ago. (Outside occasional use here and there with other people's rifles)

I ditched LPV after several years of use. I started thinking about reality and not idealistic thought process. (This is on a SHTF rifle, not a competition or special use rifle)

I was about to buy a Mk6 1-6x... Changed my mind.

Room entry... You are on the initiative, you are behind the gun, the issues don't crop up.

That pic of you... How cute, that's an odd shooting position?

Lay on your back and shoot at a target 15yds in the direction of your feet... Tell me how useful the LPV is for that.

Stand in a way that let's you hit the badguys... Yeah, that's important... What about an ambush situation where they have fire superiority? You want cover and the ability to lay down fire quickly. Stance becomes less important.

When combat goes perfectly all the time, then maybe an LPV is a good general issue optic.

Honestly I haven't gotten though the whole post, because I am busy ATM, I will come back to it later.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 12:45:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mr_h:
well i guess that's it then. nothing else to discuss on this topic, the boss has spoken....

except i can't wait to see how a variable scope holds up to infantry level abuse. if acog's get trashed, just wait for the failure in zoomables.
View Quote
My Razor has been rock solid. That includes a trip into the dump barrel that was sufficient to break off the MGM aluminum throw lever.

I don't do stupid shit to deliberately abuse my gear but it has been doing exactly what it is supposed to do for, if I recall correctly, 4 years now.

I had a TA33 ACOG that never tracked properly and never wanted to retain zero. That was incredibly frustrating.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top