Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/15/2006 10:21:04 AM EDT
Alot of marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 10:22:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 10:24:13 AM EDT by Stickman]
They are correct, however rounds on target is whats important, and there is no denying that Aimpoints/ ACOGs/ Eotechs take the fight to the enemy faster, and with better hits.

Optics make a marginal shooter good, and a good shooter great. HOWEVER, there is no excuse for not being as squared away as possible with iron sights.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 12:56:29 PM EDT
I hate them because I can't afford them. Does that count???

I have no problem shooting a target with irons. I'm saving up for an Eotech, just to jump on the optic bandwagon...
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:46:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 1:47:38 PM EDT by metalsaber]

Originally Posted By Stickman:
They are correct, however rounds on target is whats important, and there is no denying that Aimpoints/ ACOGs/ Eotechs take the fight to the enemy faster, and with better hits.

Optics make a marginal shooter good, and a good shooter great. HOWEVER, there is no excuse for not being as squared away as possible with iron sights.


Perfectly said right there. Also with the magnified optics (Acog), it allow for better target identification which could be the difference in a dead enemy or an innocent.

Remember our troops are not there to play "fair". We don't want an even playing field out there.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:48:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:
They are correct, however rounds on target is whats important, and there is no denying that Aimpoints/ ACOGs/ Eotechs take the fight to the enemy faster, and with better hits.

Optics make a marginal shooter good, and a good shooter great. HOWEVER, there is no excuse for not being as squared away as possible with iron sights.



+1
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:52:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chris157c:
I hate them because I can't afford them.




BIG +1
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:58:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chris157c:
I hate them because I can't afford them. Does that count???

I have no problem shooting a target with irons. I'm saving up for an Eotech, just to jump on the optic bandwagon...



No, you are saving up to help you and your rifle become more effective at their job.
If someone wants to run irons only, that's fine...but I'd rather have both!

(there's a reason they are called Back Up Iron Sights! )
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:59:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chris157c:
I hate them because I can't afford them.


I find that's the case more often than not. It also usually explains AK shooter's claims that their guns are better than ARs.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 2:04:41 PM EDT
Anyone that thinks AK's are superior to the AR platform need to lay off the crack pipe
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 3:05:19 PM EDT
I agree that you should first learn how to use your iron sights effectively then learn your optics.....stay proficient with both. Having said that, to make the statement "if you can't hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you don't need to be shootin" is a bit overboard and sounds like an "old man" statement. As Stickman stated it's about bringing the fight to the enemy faster. If you don't want to move on with technology then I say "if you can't throw a spear accurately or engage in a proper sword fight you have no business even moving on to a firearm with iron sights".
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 3:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:

Originally Posted By chris157c:
I hate them because I can't afford them.




BIG +1



+2


but i love the ones i do have
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 3:08:58 PM EDT
I believe using irons are very important and how to use them equally imortant.
With that being said the advatanges of those 2 optics in my opinion are superior to open sights. Faster target acquisition and more optic power make it a better choice. I can shoot irons fine. I can shoot faster and more accurate with Trij @ long ranges. Irons seem to be a back up system for me. Just my opinion, and we know how those are.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 3:26:42 PM EDT
I don't care for optics. They work and make the weapon more effective, I just have more fun shooting with irons.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 3:46:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 50bmgsnpr:
Alot of marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship



That's the attitude I've always hated - that optics make you more effective, but for that very reason you shouldn't use them. It's absurd. It's like saying I should throw sand in my lower because by God if I can't shoot with a crappy trigger, I shouldn't be shooting at all! Optics can help nearly anyone, but if you take a good shooter and a poor shooter, give them both ACOGs, the good shooter will still come out on top. There's more that goes into shooting than just the sights - a good marksman will have a command of things that optics can't teach you, like breathing, trigger control, stance, etc.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 4:08:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 4:13:22 PM EDT by fla556guy]
Here is what I believe. If you can't shoot with Iron's you shouldn't be practicing with optics. Iron's never run out of batteries, (well made) iron's are much more difficult to FUBAR than an optic, are completely water proof, and are always zero'd (as long as they were in the first place and you don't mess with them). What are you going to do if you are a great shot with an optic, but can't hit the broad side of a barn with your irons? Now....I'm not saying that an optic is a bad thing to practice with, but if your using your rifle for anything except plinking, then make sure you are at least compotent with your irons. I don't really see how you need to practice with an aimpoint....you can't mess it up. Put dot on target, pull trigger, repeat. Now, if you practice with irons, you will acquire every skill needed to shoot well with an aimpoint. If you practice with an aimpoint, you will not learn some of the skills required for irons.

Also, I agree that optics will provide some things that you can't achieve with irons. Faster and better target aquisition, ability to run at night (not including tritium inserts), and work with NVG devices. For that very reason, I will be running an optic, but I know how to shoot well with irons. If you
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 5:51:02 PM EDT
I can shoot pretty damn well with irons (GI or NM, take your pick), but on a fighting rifle I want every advantage I can think of. Optical sights would be right at the top of the list for me.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 5:56:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 6:01:17 PM EDT by CDJ]

Originally Posted By 50bmgsnpr:
Alot of marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship



Ever since I helped the US Army Infantry Board test optics on M-16A2s (with the carrying handles cut off and weaver bases mounted), I was not abig fan of thiss idea. What was determined back then (1985) was that the optics were too fragile and dthe batteries' life was too short. Although, we found that the red-dots were superior to the other optics and iron sights.

I became a believer of red dot optics like my Aimpoint when I participated in a 3-gun match at the NRA Indoor Range using iron sights. In one of the strings the targets were at 50-yards and sat in the shadows. The target, background, and my iron sights blended in so well that I could not take up a good sight picture. I just started shooting and I used the muzzle flash to obtain my iron sight's sillouhette and then make a guess where the target was (Pepper popper).

It was then I realized the advantage of optics provide. Also, up until last year I was happy with my 1x Aimpoint red-dot. But then I read an AAR of a SWAT mission where one of the Tactical Officers located the BG with his binoculars and switched to his Aimpoint to engage said BG (they had the green light to engage when able). But when he got on target, he could not positively identify the target due to the low light; so he did not pull the trigger - a lost opportunity. I have since ordered a 3x optic for my setup.

The problem with some of these old-timers is that they tend to live in the past. Just because it made sense 60 years ago, it doesn't mean it'll be just as effective in today's environment. Specially in light of today's technological advances. Why not make full use of these advantages? These are probably the same individuals who laugh at pictures of our guys carrying M-4s with laser designators and NVGs attached to their helmets.

FWIW, I still believe that it is very important to have a solid foundation of the fundamentals. JM2CW.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:29:39 PM EDT
Well, first of all, as a Marine 0311, (when I was young and bulletproof) I can tell you that there is a whole pisspot full of difference between marksmanship, and tactical shooting.

Dont see too many shooting coats or slings in use in tactical shooting. The Corps teaches marksmanship, using the sights, sling, breathing, trigger squeeze, and proper body position, all of which combine to build a belief within the Marine that the Corps way is the right way.

If the Marine applies all he/she has been taught, they will put rounds in the black.

All of which takes place on a nice safe range, with rounds loaded as singles, or in mags holding no more then 5 rounds, and the only pressure on the Marine is to shoot well, and within the time limits during the "rapid fire" portion.

In the end, it teaches a Marine that well aimed rounds will put a serious amount of hurt upon the enemy.

Time however, may not be on your side. Snap shots are more the rule than the exception in combat. I doubt seriously that you will have the luxury of assuming a good sitting position, adjusting your sling, and obtaining a good sight picture.

No, in the tactical world it is more like "OH Shit, Bang, Next. In the heartbeat to heartbeat reality that is modern infantry combat, any tool that assists the Marine (or Soldier) in completing the ultimate mission (getting you ass out alive) is worth its weight in gold.

And since when is an Aimpoint an Optic? Ive always considered optics to be image magnifiers, like scopes, or binoculars.

The Aimpoint M2 is simply an electronic sight. It has no magnification. It does not improve marksmanship, it merely speeds the process.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:40:34 PM EDT
I dont like optics... Irons for me...
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:00:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 7:01:33 PM EDT by mongo001]

Originally Posted By 50bmgsnpr:
Alot of marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship



One drawback to old timers is their resistance to change, to accept newer, better technologies that make things better. I see it at work, where old timers use antiquated tools and practices to get a job done that a newer tool can do in half the time and half the bloody knuckles.

CNC machining is a perfect example. The old timers at work "don't want nothin' to do with a dang commmmmmmmmputer".
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:06:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By metalsaber:

Originally Posted By Stickman:
They are correct, however rounds on target is whats important, and there is no denying that Aimpoints/ ACOGs/ Eotechs take the fight to the enemy faster, and with better hits.

Optics make a marginal shooter good, and a good shooter great. HOWEVER, there is no excuse for not being as squared away as possible with iron sights.


Perfectly said right there. Also with the magnified optics (Acog), it allow for better target identification which could be the difference in a dead enemy or an innocent.

Remember our troops are not there to play "fair". We don't want an even playing field out there.


I agree with both of the above statements
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:10:52 PM EDT
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:51:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...





You would if bullets were being fired both directions.....
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 12:03:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...




I guess that depends on how much you paid for your rifle...my ACOG cost a lot less than my rifle.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 12:47:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 12:47:56 AM EDT by danhits]
All sighting devices are tools for a job. Handsaw, Hacksaw, Chainsaw, they all have a different purpose. I wouldn't want to clear a building with a fixed 10 power magnified optic and I wouldn't want to take a headshot at a hostage taker at 300 yards with a front bead sight.

That said, the better you are with your iron sights, the better you will be with any optic, magnified or not. It all starts with knowing your rifle, your iron sights, your barrel, your ammo and your target.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 1:10:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STG77:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...




This is all very true...but you have to understand that the name ACOG is much like NIKE....you are also paying for the name, and of course...the FAD....hence why a year or so ago some other company tried making a very similar design to the ACOG...and Trijicon flipped their lid...when they might be in danger because someone else could make thier very same product for a THIRD of the cost...Take a look at the Aimpoint clone. Essentially the same thing...just as tough, reliable...etc, etc....but you just flamed as a Mall Ninja airsoft wanna-be. OBTW, I have aimpoints and ACOGs...I just wish I had known about the cheaper ones...
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 2:04:31 AM EDT
A nuclear airburst will make your Eotech completely useless.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 2:21:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USNTopGun378:
A nuclear airburst will make your Eotech completely useless.


And the liklihood of that happening is....?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 2:50:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...


What goes into making a quality optical sight is far different and far more costly than what goes into making a quality rifle.

Your statement shows a high degree of ignorance about optics. I bet you think a chink-made Tasco is swell, don't you?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:49:15 AM EDT
What about the BAC? If your dug in and have a decent elevated position sure the irons should produce the expected results, however in modern day combat, typically an urban scenerio, I honestly believe that a sight designed to be used with both eyes open maintaining maximum field of view and great accuracy, magnified or not, would be considered the superior option.

With that said, my only gripe on my comp ml2 is that the red dot does not appear to be a precision mil-dot, its more like a miniature starburst that becomes more distorted as the intensity is increased near max. I appreciated my local gunstore employees point of view (ex ranger sf) the Reflex is simple and reliable, no batteries needed and the trusted tritium illumination when needed, I prefer my reflex II
over the comp ml2 for both those reasons and less bulky = less fov clutter.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:00:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mongo001:

Originally Posted By 50bmgsnpr:
Alot of marine old timer say if you can t hit shit with irons at 0 - 400 yds fast you dont need to be shootin. Optics make up for poor marksminship



One drawback to old timers is their resistance to change, to accept newer, better technologies that make things better. I see it at work, where old timers use antiquated tools and practices to get a job done that a newer tool can do in half the time and half the bloody knuckles.

CNC machining is a perfect example. The old timers at work "don't want nothin' to do with a dang commmmmmmmmputer".



This is the reason that the Springfield 1903's had the magazine lock, so that soldiers wouldn't waste ammo by firing too fast and were supposed to load in one round at a time. It's the reason that rifles took so long to take over from smoothbores.
Possible words from some real old timers on change.
I don't need no fancy sling, my arm is all I need to throw this rock. That string will just break and then where will you be?
Tie a rock to my club?!? Heresy! Good solid wood is enough. That rock on the end will just get you killed.
An iron/steel sword? That will just rust on you unless you spend all your time cleaning it. What you want is good trusty bronze.
What, hide behind a tree? No by God we'll fight the way God intended us to. We will line up in straight lines and fire directly at them as they do the same to us. (Thank God the Civil War finaly put a stop to that nonsense.)
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:08:31 AM EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By STG77:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You haven't played in the Select Fire field Yet... Have You
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:16:35 AM EDT
There is a place for both. I have ACOGs and EOTechs, however, I am a firm believer in learning to shoot correctly first with iron sights. Then you can fall back to them if something happens to the optics. 100% reliance on either iron sights or optics does make a well rounded shooter.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:23:47 AM EDT
Agree with both. When my primary sight failed, I flipped up my BUIS and, sure enough, my shot was right on target. That tangent rear on my old Sharps put that .45-70 slug right square where I was aiming.

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:55:08 AM EDT
I am not a fan of the ACOG in either size but I do have to admit I ahve reluctantly become an enthusiastic fan of a goosenecked Aimpoint co-witnessed between irons......that is some fun shootin'!!!
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:59:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USSUncleSam:
my only gripe on my comp ml2 is that the red dot does not appear to be a precision mil-dot, its more like a miniature starburst that becomes more distorted as the intensity is increased near max.


Ever had your eyes checked for astygmatism? You might want to.

I appreciated my local gunstore employees point of view (ex ranger sf) the Reflex is simple and reliable, no batteries needed and the trusted tritium illumination when needed, I prefer my reflex II
over the comp ml2 for both those reasons and less bulky = less fov clutter.


There are lots of good reasons why very few people use those now. Have you gotten the optional toilet-paper-tube accesory yet?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:07:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...





You would if bullets were being fired both directions.....



Yeah, I suppose your right. The ACOG from what I've read on this site is by far the most durable magnified optic avaliable. As many have said before, if someone thinks something is worth it, buy it. If not, don't. Irons come standard with the gun (most of the time), are very hard to screw up, work very well (if you practice), and don't need batteries, tritium, etc. If I had the money, I would probably get an aimpoint or an eotech just to see what a good optic is like, but I have other priorities, and that's pretty much out of the question for the time being.

I'm not an idiot who thinks chicom optics are better than US optics, I'm just cheap...
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:12:48 AM EDT
Just use both. A lot of the time when I shoot, I use my EOtech while co witnessing through my ARMS#40L. Sometimes I just turn off the dot and shoot with Irons. Nothing really changes all that much.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:15:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
If I had the money, I would probably get an aimpoint or an eotech just to see what a good optic is like, but I have other priorities, and that's pretty much out of the question for the time being.

I'm not an idiot who thinks chicom optics are better than US optics, I'm just cheap...


At least you bought an AR with irons instead of an AK with some craptastic Kobra or some other POS. Better to have a good gun with no optics than garbage with garbage riding on the top.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:17:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By excist_and_reflect:
Just use both. A lot of the time when I shoot, I use my EOtech while co witnessing through my ARMS#40L. Sometimes I just turn off the dot and shoot with Irons. Nothing really changes all that much.



I've sometimes thought a flat top upper with the EOtech and the LMT BUIS would be the way to go. The thing I don't like about some BUISs is that they aren't adjustable for elevation, but the LMT is build like a chopped carry handle, and would work like an A2. Do any of you have this kind of set up? How do you like it?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:18:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STG77:

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...




I guess that depends on how much you paid for your rifle...my ACOG cost a lot less than my rifle.



+1 My Rifle is double the value of my ACOG. The ACOG TA01NSN was the First accessory I got for my rifle, and I will never get rid of it. I Don't mean to brag, but my rifle wasn't built in a day either. I Spent alot of time and money testing different Accessories for my bushy rifle, selling the parts and taking losses on items but I would have to say it was worth it. Especially since I sold different parts & accessories to my fellow AR-15 brothers on the EE. I also Like the aimpoint and I've never gotten a chance to try the Eotech (But I will eventually). My opinion to other people is... If your alittle afraid about making the purchase of the ACOG, read all the reviews and try to get to look through and test one for yourself. I think you may be hooked on it afterwards.

Nathan
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:21:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By in_burrito:

Originally Posted By USNTopGun378:
A nuclear airburst will make your Eotech completely useless.


And the liklihood of that happening is....?



87 to 1
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:24:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USNTopGun378:
A nuclear airburst will make your Eotech completely useless.



And Would it make the ACOG Glow Brighter?

Nathan
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:05:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
The thing I don't like about some BUISs is that they aren't adjustable for elevation,


Elevation adjustments are made in the front sight post.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:17:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By in_burrito:

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
The thing I don't like about some BUISs is that they aren't adjustable for elevation,


Elevation adjustments are made in the front sight post.



Yes, but that's not as easy to change when you have to shoot at longer distances. One of my criteria for an SHTF (or 3-gun) rifle is that it be able to hit targets that are beyond 300 yards, and most of the buis are zeroed to hit the bulls eye at 300. It's one of those instances where I don't need it 90% of the time but it's sure nice to have it.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:33:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
as far as the ACOG goes, I don't believe in a weapon's system where the optic is worth more than the rifle...



This is an American handicap. In Europe, it is not uncommon to see 60 year old Mosin's with S&B optics. A stock M4 with a Short Dot is a good tool from contact to maybe 600 yards- I wouldn't want to get in the way of one.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:34:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Orion67:
Well, first of all, as a Marine 0311, (when I was young and bulletproof) I can tell you that there is a whole pisspot full of difference between marksmanship, and tactical shooting.



Bears repeating.

Take a class with Simunitions and you will realize that shooting is only a small part of what is going on.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:02:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By in_burrito:
Ever had your eyes checked for astygmatism? You might want to.


No symptoms of Astigmatism here, 20/10 in both. Are you an Ophthalmologist?


Originally Posted By in_burrito:
Have you gotten the optional toilet-paper-tube accesory yet?


Are you a Proctologist?

I am just firing my weapon to the best of my ability, dont need a medical exam, ty tho.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:06:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 9:07:13 AM EDT by in_burrito]

Originally Posted By USSUncleSam:

Originally Posted By in_burrito:
Ever had your eyes checked for astygmatism? You might want to.


No symptoms of Astigmatism here, 20/10 in both. Are you an Ophthalmologist?


Nope, but I believe you can have astigmatysm while still having otherwise good eyesight.



Originally Posted By in_burrito:
Have you gotten the optional toilet-paper-tube accesory yet?


Are you a Proctologist?
I am just firing my weapon to the best of my ability, dont need a medical exam, ty tho.


Don't need to be a proctologist to know a POS when I see one. Not really sure what and empty TP tube has to do with proctology anyway. Keep running that reflex, you'll figure it out eventually if you ever get it out from under the shade at the bench.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:41:53 AM EDT
Ive ran the reflex in all conditions, clear and sunny to snowing, with filter and without, never had a glare condition that stopped shooting ability, but then again I never aimed directly at the sun that could potentially cause some form of eye damage.

Maybe I got a comp ml2 from a bad batch or something, all I am saying is that I would like the aimpoint alot more if the reflected dot was precise, mine is a bit sloppy around the edges and tends to be a distraction especially at higher intensities. No disrespect intended there burrito, was light humor.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:18:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:

Originally Posted By in_burrito:

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
The thing I don't like about some BUISs is that they aren't adjustable for elevation,


Elevation adjustments are made in the front sight post.



Yes, but that's not as easy to change when you have to shoot at longer distances. One of my criteria for an SHTF (or 3-gun) rifle is that it be able to hit targets that are beyond 300 yards, and most of the buis are zeroed to hit the bulls eye at 300. It's one of those instances where I don't need it 90% of the time but it's sure nice to have it.



Yep, that is why I went away from the ARMS BUIS and got a Wilson version for a couple of my weapons. They are built like a tank, and other than the impossible to find Maytech (s?) and KAS versions, it is the only folding BUIS I can think of with an elevation adjustment.

As for optics, I strongly believe in them, and I also believe you need to be able to make effective hits with the irons to cya'. I was fortunate enough to be in line Infantry units for six years leading up to the mass adoption of the first version of the M68, and three years after they were aopted. So I got to see the contrast between the two sighting options very well, and am sold on them. I don't know the statistical numbers precisely, but it was more than obvious that a, MTOE strength at that time, 129 man Infantry Companys killing ability was dramaticaly increased.

That was also a time when we didn't have a standard BUIS, so a transition from the M68 to adding the carrying handle was your only choice.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top