Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 6/22/2017 6:39:02 AM EST
Red Dot Parallax Test Results


So, this has taken quite some time. To be honest- the report is not as perfect as I would like. I got tired of waiting for proofreading, etc. But, I have other things to do and need to move on. As a result, you will most likely find some grammatical and spelling errors. If you see any massive errors, just let me know and I’ll fix them.

I apologize that the report will not be in a thread format. It is 84 pages and over 10k words, I do not have time to bbcode that size of a document with all the graphs and pictures.

I will not post a BLUF or summary, I ask that no one else do so either. I took a lot of time and effort to produce this, if you can’t put in the effort to read it- then it probably isn’t for you anyways.

I will not respond to any questions that are answered in the report.

As promised- I will only publish this report on this forum. I will wait 1 week before posting it on my website or social media (this was done because someone accused me of using this for self promotion).

Please read the testing protocol thread on this site to see how this process developed: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/710680_Red-Dot-Testing-planned-and-protocols-and-procedures--pre-test-peer-review-.html&page=1

To start this off, let’s define parallax since this stirs up some arguments.

Parallax: “Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. The term is derived from the Greek word pa????a??? (parallaxis), meaning "alternation". Due to foreshortening, nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions......... In optical sights parallax refers to the apparent movement of the reticle in relationship to the target when the user moves his/her head laterally behind the sight (up/down or left/right), i.e. it is an error where the reticle does not stay aligned with the sight's own optical axis” – Wikipedia, Parallax.

Yes, I did just quote Wikipedia, but it is a good definition. I think that the parallax discussion gets confusing at times because there are different ways that parallax effect can present. The perceived movement of the entire target area while varying the viewing angle is parallax, the perceived movement of a reticle while varying the viewing angle is parallax, and the perceived movement of a red dot while varying the viewing angle is parallax. The causes of this effect can be many- and the causes of this effect ARE NOT speculated in this report.

I would also like to state that the data in this report was compiled my me, but I did not collect it. All data that this report summarizes was collected by independent testers. I say again- I did not personally test any optic for the purpose of including its data in this report. I made sure of this because I knew there would be those that look to discredit the results on the grounds of bias- even though I am not sponsored by, do not receive compensation from, nor am I a product ambassador for any of the manufactures of optics.

It should also be said that this report does not establish a model that is predicative for optics not tested. In order to do that, you would need to have hundreds of testers and optics, thousands of test results to gain the statistical strength necessary. The report is only accurate for the specific models and items tested- period.

This report is not intended to be industry advice. It should be looked at as just one more data point to factor into your decisions, or something for you to consider with regards to how you utilize a certain optic- they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

The reason I undertook this effort is singular in nature. It is not to justify a position, promote a product, or disparage a product. It is to set an example. Too often we are driven by emotions or fan culture around our products. These emotional attachments contribute nothing to the discussion but emotional responses and I am sure we will see some in this thread. Personal attacks, insults, broad/general statements, strawman arguments, and unsubstantiated claims do nothing to improve our industry and only foster a toxic environment. Demonstrable and repeatable data is king.

The test data reports will all be published to the same dropbox folder that the test report below is in. It may take another week before they are there as I am re-wiring up the network in my office and I need to scan a couple hundred documents for it. I’ll update the thread here when it is done.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z5kw57y2y8zswx5/AADyyTlBwjGDgQfK7FPUnQhqa?dl=0

Enjoy
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 6:46:53 AM EST
In on one.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 6:47:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2017 6:49:20 AM EST by RDTCU]
Nice! You must have a lot of free time

TL/DR: Eotech is still the least affected by head position.

First thing I do when looking at any new style optic is test for parallax by setting the gun on a bench, and moving my head without touching the gun to see if the dot shifts on target.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 6:49:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2017 6:50:44 AM EST by dopushups]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
Nice! You must have a lot of free time

TL/DR: Eotech is still the least affected by head position.
View Quote
Please refrain from summarizing the results so thathat people will read the report.

Also- be specific. One EoTech model did not perform as well as the others.

Edit- also- I don't have a lot of free time, which is why this took so long to finish.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 6:52:14 AM EST
Sincerely, thank you for taking the time to do this. I am downloading it now and will be reading it shortly.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 6:54:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sycotik1:
Sincerely, thank you for taking the time to do this. I am downloading it now and will be reading it shortly.
View Quote
No worries. I have videos and some other results from live fire and laser borelight confirmation testing- but I'm going to wait a week or two before sharing because they would amount to a Cliff's notes to the report.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 6:58:27 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
Nice! You must have a lot of free time

TL/DR: Eotech is still the least affected by head position.

First thing I do when looking at any new style optic is test for parallax by setting the gun on a bench, and moving my head without touching the gun to see if the dot shifts on target.
View Quote
Maybe I can ask for my EoTech back? 
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 10:17:46 AM EST
Thanks for doing all the work to compile this. Just finished reading the whole report. Very interesting. Taking all known factors from previous information and now this data, I'm glad I got lucky with my choice.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 11:16:19 AM EST
Seriously, read this report, it is quite an eye opener. I plan to do these same tests myself. The OP did a damn good job on this IMHO.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 1:36:13 PM EST
Wow, thanks! This is impressive.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 1:46:51 PM EST
Excellent work
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 3:49:05 PM EST
Great write up.

I went through a few times looking for this but couldn't find it: Are the results of this test going to change what you allow and don't allow in your courses? Will more optics be added to the disallowed list?
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 4:24:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Lennyo3034:
Great write up.

I went through a few times looking for this but couldn't find it: Are the results of this test going to change what you allow and don't allow in your courses? Will more optics be added to the disallowed list?
View Quote
The decision to disallow one optic from one of my courses was based on observed performance over a span of three years. I don't want to go too deep down the rabbit hole on this topic in this thread because it will undoubtedly derail it. All I'll say is that the only optic that is not allowed in one of my courses is the T-1. I'll have my eyes on a few others but they are all good to go unless I see POI shift in courses.

This test did not evaluate at which point of the viewing angle shift did movement occur and at what rate- so there are a few more factors that feed into how usable the optics are.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 5:00:50 PM EST
I have to admit this is quite an excellent report Dopushups.

I am pretty sure I am the one that accused you of self-promotion unless there was someone else also.

I am the most interested in the data and video that you say you'll release later because it will basically be the cliff notes version of this report. I am interested in that because it in a sense takes the human element out of these tests. The only problem I have with the tests in this report is that you are relying on an individual's perception and for them to document that perception of what they see. I get why you did it like you did.. Not everyone has the equipment to make absolute control tests possible.

I am not very surprised at the results of the test either. I have no time behind a mro or an lco, but I have pretty well used all the others in your test. I own few of models tested .It is understandable that the EOTech has some of the best numbers in your test because of how the system works. It is basically a projection image rather than working on reflection like some of the other designs.

Red dots are great, some are better than others obviously. One thing that the 26 years of Rimfire and Centerfire experience has shown me is that Optics or any sights are only as good as how you use them. It still requires due diligence on the user's part. Especially in the world of magnified Optics. Magnified Scopes are extremely sensitive to having the reticle centered when using them. The vast majority of the shooting that I do is with magnified Optics because I just tend to shoot at much longer distance than 50-100 yards. I understand the majority of guys here from back east and the ranges tend to be shorter. It's not something I honestly ever think about when I'm shooting. But that's the difference, I've done it so much that it's completely second nature to me. to an individual that has not done it a long time I could see where the mistake of not having things lined up properly gets made.

Having said that, I do understand your perspective from the world of armed type Assualt, it's very hard to argue that having parralax is a good thing. In the perfect world a parallax free optic is obviously optimal. Speed and accuracy always wins the day in that element. Some of the Optics that were in the test show that when using a point of aim on the extreme edge of the optic, complete misses. are very possible even though the dot was on the target.

I have always felt that all of the claims of Parallax free from manufactures is always just something to make people feel good. Anyone that has done any real amount of shooting for any real amount of time, knows that that's just not the case. It still takes fundamentals to make all the things line up and work properly.

Having said all of that, I hope that all of your work in the report that you made, will do positive things. Maybe it'll make a few more people pay attention and what they're doing with head position and Markman ship fundamentals type stuff. I think the greatest thing your report can/may possibly accomplish is for the manufacturers to finally actually admit that their shit is not very parralax free and maybe they would actually make one that is someday. That would certainly make life a lot easier for everyone. Having more bad guys deaded isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

Sorry if I came across as an asshole initially back when this started. You and I just have different philosophies on how to accomplish the same goal.

My Philosophy is less equipment and more fundamentals. Your philosophy is the equipment shouldn't suck. (And honestly I don't disagree with you there either.) It's just that the perfect Red Dot doesn't seem to exist yet in my opinion. My opinion is that the perfect Red Dot would be an EOTech type reticle, with the EOTech Type window, EOTech field of view, AimPoint reliability and battery life, and slim like an AimPoint, with TO weight.Having one of those would be a great day.

Even if that day does come, the proliferation of Optics that do have Parallax are going to be around for quite some time.

I'm just happy I can start using my EOTech in public again without my buddies giving me as much shit now.
Link Posted: 6/22/2017 8:44:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sycotik1:
Sincerely, thank you for taking the time to do this.
View Quote
This... and I was watching the original thread so I'd add also thanks for putting up with the interwebz BS and sticking with the test.
Link Posted: 6/23/2017 2:09:44 PM EST
A- because you didn't use sig figs

All kidding aside great test and write up!
Link Posted: 6/24/2017 7:59:21 PM EST
Since the tube is larger on the CompM sights than the Ts, the dot is further away from center when at the edge. If they had the same shift per distance of head movement, the larger tube would show more total movement. Does this sound right?

I'm interested in hearing more about how the dot moves as the head moves. Are the users sure they are moving their heads along the axes?
Link Posted: 6/24/2017 8:04:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pezboytate:
Since the tube is larger on the CompM sights than the Ts, the dot is further away from center when at the edge. If they had the same shift per distance of head movement, the larger tube would show more total movement. Does this sound right?

I'm interested in hearing more about how the dot moves as the head moves. Are the users sure they are moving their heads along the axes?
View Quote
You can compare the standard deviation numbers on the results that indicate relative consistency between the testers.
Link Posted: 6/24/2017 8:19:13 PM EST
Thanks for the hard work. I look forward to reading it.
Link Posted: 6/25/2017 12:10:32 PM EST
Amazing test, thanks for putting it all together! I'd be extremely interested in someone doing a parallax and temperature shift test on the Vortex Razor AMG UH-1 to see if it really is competition for the EOtechs or not.
Link Posted: 6/26/2017 1:47:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/26/2017 1:51:12 AM EST by FullAutoHound]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JOEGUNNER:
Seriously, read this report, it is quite an eye opener. I plan to do these same tests myself. The OP did a damn good job on this IMHO.
View Quote
Why?

Has everyone lost their minds?

This wasn't done by people who actually know how to conduct scientific studies. He even admitted in the other thread they left out a testing protocol because it would be "too hard".

How many shooters took part in this? Is all if their data repeatable? Can all of those shooters really replicate how they shot and the results the same again and again? What was the control? This was all done indoors, correct, controlled climate, correct? What tools were used to measure everything? How where they calibrated? I could literally go on for hours. Hours.

I'm blown away at this entire event.

I'm sorry. Maybe it's just me but I'll never take anyone seriously who bans an Aimpoint but still allows the king of junk EOtech (with some of the worst POI shift known to man -as admitted in court documents by the manufacturer, and observed by multiple agencies both here in the US and abroad) in their classes. I don't care what he was in a prior profession.
Link Posted: 6/26/2017 2:06:19 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FullAutoHound:


Why?

Has everyone lost their minds?

This wasn't done by people who actually know how to conduct scientific studies. He even admitted in the other thread they left out a testing protocol because it would be "too hard".

How many shooters took part in this? Is all if their data repeatable? Can all of those shooters really replicate how they shot and the results the same again and again? What was the control? This was all done indoors, correct, controlled climate, correct? What tools were used to measure everything? How where they calibrated? I could literally go on for hours. Hours.

I'm blown away at this entire event.

I'm sorry. Maybe it's just me but I'll never take anyone seriously who bans an Aimpoint but still allows the king of junk EOtech (with some of the worst POI shift known to man -as admitted in court documents by the manufacturer, and observed by multiple agencies both here in the US and abroad) in their classes. I don't care what he was in a prior profession.
View Quote
How about keeping the GD BS in GD? This is a tech forum/thread.

It's obvious from your post that you didn't even bother to read the threads, protocols or the final report.
Link Posted: 6/26/2017 9:56:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FullAutoHound:
Why?

Has everyone lost their minds?

This wasn't done by people who actually know how to conduct scientific studies. He even admitted in the other thread they left out a testing protocol because it would be "too hard".

How many shooters took part in this? Is all if their data repeatable? Can all of those shooters really replicate how they shot and the results the same again and again? What was the control? This was all done indoors, correct, controlled climate, correct? What tools were used to measure everything? How where they calibrated? I could literally go on for hours. Hours.

I'm blown away at this entire event.

I'm sorry. Maybe it's just me but I'll never take anyone seriously who bans an Aimpoint but still allows the king of junk EOtech (with some of the worst POI shift known to man -as admitted in court documents by the manufacturer, and observed by multiple agencies both here in the US and abroad) in their classes. I don't care what he was in a prior profession.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FullAutoHound:
Originally Posted By JOEGUNNER:
Seriously, read this report, it is quite an eye opener. I plan to do these same tests myself. The OP did a damn good job on this IMHO.
Why?

Has everyone lost their minds?

This wasn't done by people who actually know how to conduct scientific studies. He even admitted in the other thread they left out a testing protocol because it would be "too hard".

How many shooters took part in this? Is all if their data repeatable? Can all of those shooters really replicate how they shot and the results the same again and again? What was the control? This was all done indoors, correct, controlled climate, correct? What tools were used to measure everything? How where they calibrated? I could literally go on for hours. Hours.

I'm blown away at this entire event.

I'm sorry. Maybe it's just me but I'll never take anyone seriously who bans an Aimpoint but still allows the king of junk EOtech (with some of the worst POI shift known to man -as admitted in court documents by the manufacturer, and observed by multiple agencies both here in the US and abroad) in their classes. I don't care what he was in a prior profession.
Less complaining and read the thread to understand more. And yes, I replicated weird parallax with my five t1's
Link Posted: 6/27/2017 5:41:54 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DefenderAO:


Less complaining and read the thread to understand more. And yes, I replicated weird parallax with my five t1's
View Quote
All 5 moved in a slightly different pattern didn't they?
Link Posted: 6/27/2017 7:22:50 AM EST
I was pleasantly stunned at how well the little, inexpensive Burris Fastfire III did in the tests. I wonder if the difference is the single plane versus a tube and whether other mini-reflex sights might perform similarly.
Link Posted: 6/27/2017 7:25:24 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:
I was pleasantly stunned at how well the little, inexpensive Burris Fastfire III did in the tests. I wonder if the difference is the single plane versus a tube and whether other mini-reflex sights might perform similarly.
View Quote
We were all stunned by it. I would love to see a similar test using MRDs
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 11:43:02 AM EST
Tag for reading the full report.

Thanks, dopushups.

~Augee
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 3:18:37 PM EST
So...recommendations?

Are we to therefore conclude that red dot sights in general are to be relegated to a specialty niche that requires extensive training to overcome their limitations?

My bias is that I never trusted that "floating dot" to be worth much as far as precision aiming in the heat of movement either in a competitive match or battlefield scenario.

I would be curious as to whether optics with etched reticles (like the ACOG) might have their optical quirks that affect POI as well.

(I phrased it that way on purpose; I have my own opinion of that).
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 3:46:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DocGlockster:
So...recommendations?

Are we to therefore conclude that red dot sights in general are to be relegated to a specialty niche that requires extensive training to overcome their limitations?

My bias is that I never trusted that "floating dot" to be worth much as far as precision aiming in the heat of movement either in a competitive match or battlefield scenario.

I would be curious as to whether optics with etched reticles (like the ACOG) might have their optical quirks that affect POI as well.

(I phrased it that way on purpose; I have my own opinion of that).
View Quote
If you read the report, you will see that not all red dot models have issues with dot movement.
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 3:52:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/28/2017 3:57:08 PM EST by DocGlockster]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:


If you read the report, you will see that not all red dot models have issues with dot movement.
View Quote
I did actually read the report. Some of it is frankly pretty hard to follow.

I also don't necessarily accept the fact that just because certain models performed a certain way in this test that they would necessarily 100% repeat that performance in another test.

I think your tests are valid, but I also believe this is a starting point.
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 4:10:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/28/2017 4:12:01 PM EST by dopushups]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DocGlockster:


I did actually read the report. Some of it is frankly pretty hard to follow.

I also don't necessarily accept the fact that just because certain models performed a certain way in this test that they would necessarily 100% repeat that performance in another test.

I think your tests are valid, but I also believe this is a starting point.
View Quote
Got it, sorry for the assumption.

Basically what it showed was that certain models displayed little to no dot movement when viewing angle was induced. You are absolutely correct in stating that the report does not establish a predictive model for the performance of specific optics that were not tested- and the report specifically states that. What it does do is give a bit of information and awareness when selecting optics. There are advantages and disadvantages in using different form factors of sighting devices, like the ACOG you mentioned. However many of the reasons that red dot optics remain a choice for professionals and regular users is their flexibility. I definitely would not want to be clearing a house with an ACOG. I used to run a Schmidt-Bender short dot on my 416 overseas for daylight VI's. That is until one daylight op turned bad and we found ourselves having to clear into a small town and inside structures. Then it turned into night.... So, a Red Dot and a 3x turned into my default. Many optics form factors, like LPV's, have serious strengths over other optics in situations that they perform well in. However, in situations they do not perform well in- they are significantly worse than the others. So, I tend to gear my choices for equipment that will perform well in a general sense and be able to perform acceptably in a worst case situation. I hope that explains my stance on your point.

You are also correct that this is a starting point.

-edit: many red dots work fine as a "precision" optic. Well, depending on what distance you shoot at.
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 4:17:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:
So, I tend to gear my choices for equipment that will perform well in a general sense and be able to perform acceptably in a worst case situation. I hope that explains my stance on your point.
View Quote
Gotcha, this indicates to me that you are willing to reject certain gear choices rather than recommend their limitations be overcome with training, correct?

(I'm not challenging you, just wanting clarification on your stance. I don't have a dog in this fight. I love my TA33 ACOG but as stated earlier I've never trusted the integrity of the "floating dot" on an RDS and your tests are actually ammunition for my dislike of red dots).
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 4:22:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DocGlockster:


Gotcha, this indicates to me that you are willing to reject certain gear choices rather than recommend their limitations be overcome with training, correct?

(I'm not challenging you, just wanting clarification on your stance. I don't have a dog in this fight. I love my TA33 ACOG but as stated earlier I've never trusted the integrity of the "floating dot" on an RDS and your tests are actually ammunition for my dislike of red dots).
View Quote
To an extent. I don't see the logic in training to overcome a limitation of a piece of equipment if there is a different piece of equipment that is a better choice. A lot of my stance is affected by my CQB background, and there isn't really any amount of training that can get you to a level where an ACOG would perform acceptably in a CQB environment (especially under NVG's)- at the level of missions I was involved in. I know that's a strong statement that might rub some the wrong way, but it just kind of is what it is. I ran an ACOG on my M14 in Afghanistan as a weapons squad leader and I loved it there. However with the advent of the LPV, I don't think I would pick an Acog now over, say a Vortex HD.
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 4:26:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:


To an extent. I don't see the logic in training to overcome a limitation of a piece of equipment if there is a different piece of equipment that is a better choice. A lot of my stance is affected by my CQB background, and there isn't really any amount of training that can get you to a level where an ACOG would perform acceptably in a CQB environment (especially under NVG's)- at the level of missions I was involved in. I know that's a strong statement that might rub some the wrong way, but it just kind of is what it is. I ran an ACOG on my M14 in Afghanistan as a weapons squad leader and I loved it there. However with the advent of the LPV, I don't think I would pick an Acog now over, say a Vortex HD.
View Quote
All right, I may look into the Vortex HD. I live on a ranch so the ACOG's capabilities are definitely appreciated in the Great Wide Open.

(I still prefer irons myself).
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 4:27:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DocGlockster:


All right, I may look into the Vortex HD. I live on a ranch so the ACOG's capabilities are definitely appreciated in the Great Wide Open.

(I still prefer irons myself).
View Quote
You'd love an LPV on the ranch. I think you'll notice a bit of a difference between the two
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 5:15:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/28/2017 5:15:36 PM EST by LoadedDrum]
Thank you for doing this. I now know which one of those tested that I will buy.

Too bad Vortex could not get the Huey out in time to be a part of this.
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 5:18:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LoadedDrum:
Thank you for doing this. I now know which one of those tested that I will buy.

Too bad Vortex could not get the Huey out in time to be a part of this.
View Quote
The dot movement can really be checked at the gun shop counter. If you stop by your local bass pro or whatever and they have it- you could just set it on the counter and point it across the store. Move your head and check it. It also shows up very clearly using your iPhone to record the movement.
Link Posted: 6/28/2017 5:26:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
Nice! You must have a lot of free time

TL/DR: Eotech is still the least affected by head position.

First thing I do when looking at any new style optic is test for parallax by setting the gun on a bench, and moving my head without touching the gun to see if the dot shifts on target.
View Quote
I don't even have time to read that post. Thanks.
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 12:25:42 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:
All 5 moved in a slightly different pattern didn't they?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:
Originally Posted By DefenderAO:


Less complaining and read the thread to understand more. And yes, I replicated weird parallax with my five t1's
All 5 moved in a slightly different pattern didn't they?
Yep, they did
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 2:49:08 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:


To an extent. I don't see the logic in training to overcome a limitation of a piece of equipment if there is a different piece of equipment that is a better choice. A lot of my stance is affected by my CQB background, and there isn't really any amount of training that can get you to a level where an ACOG would perform acceptably in a CQB environment (especially under NVG's)- at the level of missions I was involved in. I know that's a strong statement that might rub some the wrong way, but it just kind of is what it is. I ran an ACOG on my M14 in Afghanistan as a weapons squad leader and I loved it there. However with the advent of the LPV, I don't think I would pick an Acog now over, say a Vortex HD.
View Quote
If the gun was mainly going to be riding in a four wheeler or truck Vortex Razor is a great choice but if you're going to be carrying it for a good while I'd have a hard time recommending it. Then again I've never been in the military or been terribly strong for that matter maybe guys in the mil got used to lifting 10 lb rifles. 
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 5:34:34 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DefenderAO:


Yep, they did
View Quote
I have found that with every single one of those I've seen over the years.
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 5:43:49 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom:

If the gun was mainly going to be riding in a four wheeler or truck Vortex Razor is a great choice but if you're going to be carrying it for a good while I'd have a hard time recommending it. Then again I've never been in the military or been terribly strong for that matter maybe guys in the mil got used to lifting 10 lb rifles. 
View Quote
Guys from my former unit are running those on their rifles. So, when it comes to weight- the oz/lbs thing is a thing. So if there is a piece of equipment that is lighter and can do the job then guy's will switch. However function and capability is also a thing. For instance, many guys ran redi-mags on their rifles, and an extra loaded mag adds a significant amount of weight to the rifle. But, some guys felt having the extra mag in a position that was faster to reload from was worth the weight. So I would be willing to use a heavier optic, to an extent, if the benefit of it outweighs the weight. The mindset is a little different because that capability directly impacts your survivability in combat. If your environment and requirements are different, then the calculus behind the choice could definitely be different.
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 5:32:52 PM EST
Any plans to run temperature variation tests to see if you can replicate EoTech's drastic POI changes that the federal government and a private scientific test quality control lab were able to create with temperature change? I'd be curious to see how other manufacturers perform in that same test and then combine said info with the report you've created here.
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 5:38:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/29/2017 5:41:53 PM EST by dopushups]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Any plans to run temperature variation tests to see if you can replicate EoTech's drastic POI changes that the federal government and a private scientific test quality control lab were able to create with temperature change? I'd be curious to see how other manufacturers perform in that same test and then combine said info with the report you've created here.
View Quote
So, I would actually love to see some testing data on that across optics platforms. However, I'm not spending that kind of money out of my own pocket. Unless, you're offering to fund this? Regardless, I'd welcome it being done.

Edit: the other puzzling thing that I'd like to see is what EoTech optic models are affected. The models SOCOM fielded and had issues with we didn't use at the Unit. What I had there was the old 551 n-type battery unit. I never saw the temp shifts there and regularly shot it in drastically varying temps. Then I went right to the EXPS 3.0 and haven't seen it either in the same temp changes- and I do data collection in Zero Development courses that I purposefully list in the middle of summer and the middle of winter. So a big question that I have is what models are affected. All I've seen are pretty broad comments with no real data other than legal filing quotes.
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 6:42:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 6:50:09 PM EST
after a quick glance, this is an in-depth and very complete assessment

thank you very much for taking time and energy to produce it

we need more people like you doing studies like these

it just makes us better
Link Posted: 6/29/2017 7:27:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dopushups:


So, I would actually love to see some testing data on that across optics platforms. However, I'm not spending that kind of money out of my own pocket. Unless, you're offering to fund this? Regardless, I'd welcome it being done.

Edit: the other puzzling thing that I'd like to see is what EoTech optic models are affected. The models SOCOM fielded and had issues with we didn't use at the Unit. What I had there was the old 551 n-type battery unit. I never saw the temp shifts there and regularly shot it in drastically varying temps. Then I went right to the EXPS 3.0 and haven't seen it either in the same temp changes- and I do data collection in Zero Development courses that I purposefully list in the middle of summer and the middle of winter. So a big question that I have is what models are affected. All I've seen are pretty broad comments with no real data other than legal filing quotes.
View Quote
I often times wonder just how bad the issue with the Eotechs is, especially with plenty of users that never experience any issues. When browsing the EE I see Eotechs for decent prices and am fairly tempted to buy one. 
Link Posted: 7/1/2017 4:38:06 AM EST
I always suspected there was error in these things but never took the time to check it for myself. I'm dying to hear how MRDS fare.

If anybody knows, one other thing I'm wondering is if the error is worse when one mounts an a MRDS way back behind the ejection port. I find it extremely fast and easy to pick up back there. Putting the little window almost next to the ocular of my scope makes it so easy to roll the weapon slightly and have the dot just APPEAR. A little voice keeps telling me that this SHOULD induce greater parallax, but I don't want to believe it. Should I? I mean, does anybody really KNOW it for a fact?
Link Posted: 7/1/2017 5:26:31 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wordmahn:
I always suspected there was error in these things but never took the time to check it for myself. I'm dying to hear how MRDS fare.

If anybody knows, one other thing I'm wondering is if the error is worse when one mounts an a MRDS way back behind the ejection port. I find it extremely fast and easy to pick up back there. Putting the little window almost next to the ocular of my scope makes it so easy to roll the weapon slightly and have the dot just APPEAR. A little voice keeps telling me that this SHOULD induce greater parallax, but I don't want to believe it. Should I? I mean, does anybody really KNOW it for a fact?
View Quote
Take the test protocol from the other thread and test your MRDS. Run the test 3 times, using different eye relief distances to see if there is a difference. Let us know your results, more data is never a bad thing
Link Posted: 7/1/2017 5:07:11 PM EST
Very cool, amazing work and glad to see people putting in the time for stuff like this that we all benefit from.

Out of curiosity did you consider doing this with cameras? Seems like you might be able to rig up an x-y-z mount for the camera behind the sight, and move the camera to extreme positions of the dot and quantitatively measure the point of aim?

If the makers would provide detailed, precise diagrams of the internals and design seems someone way, way smarter than me could mathematically calculate it perfectly, but I guess that's not bloody likely to happen.
Link Posted: 7/1/2017 5:58:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By plove:
Very cool, amazing work and glad to see people putting in the time for stuff like this that we all benefit from.

Out of curiosity did you consider doing this with cameras? Seems like you might be able to rig up an x-y-z mount for the camera behind the sight, and move the camera to extreme positions of the dot and quantitatively measure the point of aim?

If the makers would provide detailed, precise diagrams of the internals and design seems someone way, way smarter than me could mathematically calculate it perfectly, but I guess that's not bloody likely to happen.
View Quote
I'm going to answer this on the live stream that will be starting in a few mins on the Green Eye Tactical Facebook page. If you can't make it- it will show up there after I'm done and you can view it whenever.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top