Posted: 6/4/2009 6:52:56 PM EDT
|
Behind or in front of the BUIS? I think behind, to give the greatest field of view possible.
What say you? Poll incoming. |
|
Quoted:
Behind? Never seen that before. What's the reason it's always put in front? It seems to me to make more sense to put it as close to your eye as possible, to give as large as possible viewing field. But I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'd like to see reasons why one way or the other. 
|
|
We talking about tube sights, or "open" sights?
Some people like it as far back so they get to see more in the optic. Some people like it far forward to see more of the environment. Find what works for the weapon, the optic, and for you. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
infront far forward Why? the school of thought is that you actually have a bigger field of view because the tube or frame of the optic is farther away from your eye eliminating "tunnel vision" remember that these are intended to be used with both eyes open so the apparant size of the window does not matter. |
|
Quoted:
We talking about tube sights, or "open" sights? Some people like it as far back so they get to see more in the optic. Some people like it far forward to see more of the environment. Find what works for the weapon, the optic, and for you. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Open sights, I guess, like this. As far as seeing more of the environment, isn't it best to use non-magnified reflex sights with both eyes open, anyhow? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We talking about tube sights, or "open" sights? Some people like it as far back so they get to see more in the optic. Some people like it far forward to see more of the environment. Find what works for the weapon, the optic, and for you. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Open sights, I guess, like this. As far as seeing more of the environment, isn't it best to use non-magnified reflex sights with both eyes open, anyhow? It is, but the farther forward the optic is mounted the more it seems to blend in with the rest of the environment. This way, your view feels almost unobstructed with a red dot that appears on your target. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We talking about tube sights, or "open" sights? Some people like it as far back so they get to see more in the optic. Some people like it far forward to see more of the environment. Find what works for the weapon, the optic, and for you. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Open sights, I guess, like this. As far as seeing more of the environment, isn't it best to use non-magnified reflex sights with both eyes open, anyhow? It is, but the farther forward the optic is mounted the more it seems to blend in with the rest of the environment. This way, your view feels almost unobstructed with a red dot that appears on your target. Mounting it far forward feels like I have less of a cushion for moving my head away from the stock. Like the dot has less room to 'float' inside the tube. So I keep mine back. ETA: By "far forward" I mean on the front rail and stuff like that. |
|
As was mentioned earlier, typically more forward.
I prefer my aimpoint & eotech as far forward as they will go. It gives me a wider field of view before the optic....if that makes sense. If it's too close, I get tunnel vision through the optic and don't feel like I'm paying attention to my immediate surroundings. Keep in mind, this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it  ...YMMV.
Do whatever works best for you. |
|
Quoted:
Optic as far forward on the upper receiver as possible. Remember, it's not a telescope. Both eyes open. Iron in front of the optic is just plain silly But why is it silly? What's the reason? Is it the (subjective?) tunnel vision thing? I understand that both eyes remain open, but the reflex sight being farther back doesn't change that. Is there an objective reason for placing it far forward? Less parallax? Here's another thing. Even though there's no magnification, the glass of the reflex sight still refracts the light coming through (unless its refractive index is equal to air), so... Theoretically, if the irons are sighted-in with the glass intervening, if the glass is moved or removed, the irons would be off. Maybe barely off, but still. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Optic as far forward on the upper receiver as possible. Remember, it's not a telescope. Both eyes open. Iron in front of the optic is just plain silly But why is it silly? What's the reason? Is it the (subjective?) tunnel vision thing? I understand that both eyes remain open, but the reflex sight being farther back doesn't change that. Is there an objective reason for placing it far forward? Less parallax? Here's another thing. Even though there's no magnification, the glass of the reflex sight still refracts the light coming through (unless its refractive index is equal to air), so... Theoretically, if the irons are sighted-in with the glass intervening, if the glass is moved or removed, the irons would be off. Maybe barely off, but still. Iron in front of the optic pushes the iron too far forward; the problem is your field of view through the peep of the BUIS becomes limited to nearly useless. Has more to do with the iron, and less to do with the optic. (Think about why 'nose to the charging handle' is important and drilled into us, and you'll understand) Or, better yet, try it; place the iron 4 notches forward on your AR, and see how good you can see through the peep WITHOUT anything like an optic obstructing your field of view. E. |
|
What rail is this? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Optic as far forward on the upper receiver as possible. Remember, it's not a telescope. Both eyes open. Iron in front of the optic is just plain silly But why is it silly? What's the reason? Is it the (subjective?) tunnel vision thing? I understand that both eyes remain open, but the reflex sight being farther back doesn't change that. Is there an objective reason for placing it far forward? Less parallax? Here's another thing. Even though there's no magnification, the glass of the reflex sight still refracts the light coming through (unless its refractive index is equal to air), so... Theoretically, if the irons are sighted-in with the glass intervening, if the glass is moved or removed, the irons would be off. Maybe barely off, but still. When the iron is set far back, the shooter has a tendency to fixate on the reticle rather than "superimposing" it on the target. Some shooters do fine with the optic a bit further back, but with many it creates the tunnel vision effect. Putting the irons in front of the optic is silly because you're losing a considerable amount of sight radius. Further, the rear sight is made the way it is for a reason. The circle helps your eyes automatically focus on the front sight. When you move the site forward, it becomes more difficult to properly line up the sights with efficiency and consistency. That's my opinion, at least |
|
I think I'm sold on putting the BUIS as far back as possible.
My only remaining question is about the glass interfering with the iron zero if the glass is move/removed. Anyone have input on this? The reason this seems like it might be an issue is that the glass, even though it's not a magnifier, still refracts the light coming through, and (theoretically) affects the zero. Maybe it affects it negligibly, but does anyone have anything certain one way or the other? |