User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 7/1/2017 10:01:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
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 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
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? I think I'll just repeat that test but try it with my eye close, then far from the sight to try to get a feel for whether the error increases with either setup. I didn't see anything of this nature in your report. Surely your guys must have wondered about this as well. Did anyone try to introduce this variable even informally or and/or discuss how it might play? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2017 7:36:50 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wordmahn:
I did take a very informal look by bagging the gun while aiming my red dot at a bullseye on a 100 yard target. Moved my eye around behind the sight and did seem to see some movement of the dot off the bull. It was slight as in your tests but I didn't try to quantify it. I think I'll just repeat that test but try it with my eye close, then far from the sight to try to get a feel for whether the error increases with either setup. I didn't see anything of this nature in your report. Surely your guys must have wondered about this as well. Did anyone try to introduce this variable even informally or and/or discuss how it might play? We did wonder- and we checked, but it wasn't part of the test and would have added more time to the testing, which was already an issue. I don't want to ruin it for you though, or perpetuated the "this guy said he saw this", so I'll look forward to your results. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2017 2:27:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2017 9:44:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperSet72:
I planned on tuning in for the parallax discussion but ended up staying to hear all the other stuff. I liked what I heard so I'm looking forward to taking one of your courses soon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperSet72:
Originally Posted By dopushups:
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. I live fire tested the Primary Arms T1 clone that's on my kids' training 22. It was hard to actually fire the gun with the dot all the way to the side. The stock prevented me from moving down and my head wanted to naturally center in the optic. The worst shift was when the dot was to the left and to the top. I'll be heading to the range to test out a CompM4. What I'm wondering is how much shift there is at distances past 100m. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2017 6:11:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
You can compare the standard deviation numbers on the results that indicate relative consistency between the testers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
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? I think what is being asked is if the large (M4, M3, M2) and small (T, T2) Aimpoints are both tested when the dot is at the edge of the optic, you head is further off center axis on the large optics, since the FOV (diameter) is larger. In fact, this would be true for all optics. A more perfect test would require it be performed with the subjects head in the same relative position (distance of eye from optic and degrees off center axis) for all optics and all tests. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2017 11:55:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom:
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom:
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. *Boom* ... *clank!* Hit right where it was supposed to, just above where I was aiming. Went through the rest of the 20 round magazine, all shots right on target in a nice tight group. 60 degree swing, 10+ mount/unmounts, 4 months passed, hundreds of rounds of .308 fired, rough handling, and it was still dead on target. I don't see the problem. If I evaluate it just based on what it does for me rather than considering internet drama, it seems like there really isn't one. The only problem I had was I have their LBC2 laser battery cap and after all that beating the laser was slightly low and right at 25 yards when previously it had been aligned with the holographic dot. So the laser did need adjustment. The sight itself was right where it was supposed to be, though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2017 9:51:18 AM EDT
[#7]
No executive summary for the tl:Dr crowd?
Actually look fwd to reading, but have been on my cell browser mostly/recently. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2017 10:29:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: joglee]
[#8]
Will give this a once over.
|
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 7/8/2017 12:28:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MS556]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
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 While not complete and certainly not scientific, it does appear that the FF3 is essentially parallax free at 25 and 100 yards. At least within 1 MOA. On the other hand the DP Pro appears to be showing no measurable horizontal shift, but is showing about 3 MOA vertical shift at both distances. It does, however have a much wider screen, permitting a wider angle view of the dot at the extreme edges. Deviation appears to increase with angle. The deviation does not seem to be dependent on mounting eye relief distance. More testing is needed to feel comfortable with this observation. I was hoping the duty grade DP Pro would be as free of parallax as the little, much less expensive, but less rugged Burris. But, if the 3 MOA from center deviation holds true, I can live with this at the distances the DPP will be used, given its robust protection, larger screen, and always ready motion-activation, important to me for HD. This two reflex sight comparison is not to be taken as a scientifically valid test and merely reflects personal limited anecdotal observation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2017 12:33:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MS556:
Your excellent report and request to take the protocol prompted me to try. I have two MRDS micro reflex sights: Burris FF3 and Leupold Deltapoint Pro. I'm running your test on these samples of one each and one observer, me, so my results are merely anecdotal. While not complete and certainly not scientific, it does appear that the FF3 is essentially parallax free at 25 and 100 yards. At least within 1 MOA. On the other hand the DP Pro appears to be showing no measurable horizontal shift, but is showing about 3 MOA vertical shift at both distances. It does, however have a much wider screen, permitting a wider angle view of the dot at the extreme edges. Deviation appears to increase with angle. The deviation does not seem to be dependent on mounting distance from my eye. More testing is needed to feel comfortable with this observation. I was hoping the duty grade DP Pro would be as free of parallax as the little, much less expensive, but less rugged Burris. But, if the 3 MOA from center deviation holds true, I can live with this at the distances the DPP will be used, given its robust protection, larger screen, and always ready motion-activation, important to me for HD. This two reflex sight comparison not a scientifically valid test |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2017 11:23:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Looking forward to reading this, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2017 12:34:25 PM EDT
[#12]
For those who have had issues viewing the Dropbox file- I finally got the Red Dot parallax test up on the website. Enjoy.
https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2017 2:42:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
For those who have had issues viewing the Dropbox file- I finally got the Red Dot parallax test up on the website. Enjoy. https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2017 2:43:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DefenderAO]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
For those who have had issues viewing the Dropbox file- I finally got the Red Dot parallax test up on the website. Enjoy. https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2017 2:45:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DefenderAO:
What has been general feedback from other sites? You're not banning enough optics? Any decisions you're reinforcing or changing based upon results and time to mull them over? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2017 11:12:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
I've only been watching a couple sites. Seems not to be much response at all. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
Originally Posted By DefenderAO:
What has been general feedback from other sites? You're not banning enough optics? Any decisions you're reinforcing or changing based upon results and time to mull them over? |
|
|
|
VT, USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 11:49:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Hivemind, folks who've bought in, and retailers don't like change. Tests like this push us forward, but lots of folks don't like to be pushed :(.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 5:21:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DefenderAO:
Excellent job with the testing whether well received, commented against, or not. LINK |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 9:28:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
Originally Posted By DefenderAO:
Excellent job with the testing whether well received, commented against, or not. LINK |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 9:29:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DefenderAO:
Nice. Have you heard anything from any manufacturers on results? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2017 12:56:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dopushups]
[#21]
I finally got all my IT issues straightened out and got my video/photo libraries back up. Just got a quick cut of some of the movement I videoed:
 Red Dot Parallax Comparison https://youtu.be/81X4dWcIM5c |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2017 7:34:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Outstanding work. Science can make marketing campaigns irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2017 7:35:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Navyguns45:
Outstanding work. Science can make marketing campaigns irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 12:23:48 AM EDT
[#24]
Wow the MRO looked bad
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 1:37:30 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DefenderAO:
Wow the MRO looked bad |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 7:10:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alpha0815:
Yes, unfortunately. Assume this is an effect due to slight magnification? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 7:22:51 AM EDT
[#27]
I know I'm late to the party, but, "9.678492518"?
Ever hear of significant figures bro? 
Thanks for all the effort. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 7:27:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fatalerror113:
I know I'm late to the party, but, "9.678492518"? Ever hear of significant figures bro?
Thanks for all the effort. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 10:36:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
All the testers were really surprised by the MRO. They also had a hard time describing what they saw when the dot crossed the center line. If you slow the video down, you can see it. When you cross over the center of the viewing window, the dot does a weird "squiggle" movement before continuing on its diagonal path. You can see the effect right at 0:38 in the video. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
Originally Posted By alpha0815:
Yes, unfortunately. Assume this is an effect due to slight magnification? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 10:57:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DefenderAO:
Would the MRO, given the results, be given consideration to be added to the ban list with the T1 for that one class? That video showed it as very bad I have not noticed the same lack of observed performance with the MRO. The test used extreme movement in order to make the controls easy to replicate. A more realistic protocol would be to restrict the view angle to 25% and 50%, comparatively. However, that would be very difficult to do in a manner that the average person could easily replicate. If you watch the video, though, you get some indications as to why the observed performance doesn't necessarily equate to the test results. Specifically, go back and watch the video of the 4 optics and look at what point of the viewing angle change they start moving and to what degree. All 4 are different in that respect, however, that aspect of the optics was not tested. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 11:25:22 AM EDT
[#31]
Thank you for publishing the results of your testing. This is a significant contribution to the overall knowledge base. As such, I have toggled "Non-Archive" status for this thread. This means that while it might drop to the bottom of the forum, it will never be "lost" in the archives.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 11:32:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frost7:
FWIW, I'm no professional shooter by any means, but based on my own experiences with it I think it's pretty overblown. I last zeroed my EOTech 558 on my Colt 901 at about 40 degrees F in March doing a quick and dirty zero at 25 yards because I didn't have a chance to get it rezeroed prior to an event. It's been on and off the rifle probably about 10-15 times since then, been dropped twice, jostled in a vehicle innumerable times including driving across broken terrain at 60 MPH in an SVT Raptor, seen quite a bit of .308 fire since then including mag dumps for shits and grins... two days ago I did some prone shooting with a bipod on a small head-sized steel target at about 100 yards with a 3x magnifier using the same ammo I zeroed with, but in 100 degrees F. Didn't bother to check my zero beforehand, just decided to hold a bit under where I wanted to hit considering the 25 yard zero and pull the trigger and see whether my EOTech actually held true after all it had been through since the last check. *Boom* ... *clank!* Hit right where it was supposed to, just above where I was aiming. Went through the rest of the 20 round magazine, all shots right on target in a nice tight group. 60 degree swing, 10+ mount/unmounts, 4 months passed, hundreds of rounds of .308 fired, rough handling, and it was still dead on target. I don't see the problem. If I evaluate it just based on what it does for me rather than considering internet drama, it seems like there really isn't one. The only problem I had was I have their LBC2 laser battery cap and after all that beating the laser was slightly low and right at 25 yards when previously it had been aligned with the holographic dot. So the laser did need adjustment. The sight itself was right where it was supposed to be, though. I never had any of the troubles that caused all the stink and I can hit my target with it so it stays until it shows its ass. It's my favorite sight. (with a 3x) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 12:00:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Thanks for the detailed report, clicking over to read it right now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 2:54:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Great work, dopushups. Very much appreciated.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By raf:
Thank you for publishing the results of your testing. This is a significant contribution to the overall knowledge base. As such, I have toggled "Non-Archive" status for this thread. This means that while it might drop to the bottom of the forum, it will never be "lost" in the archives. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2017 7:21:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JJREA]
[#35]
btt
Lot of people should read your intro and then apply it to talking about stuff on here. Although I'm sure I've gotten my undies in a bunch a time or two on here. But it just doesn't prove or accomplish anything. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2017 9:53:39 PM EDT
[#36]
If you do another round of this at some point, I'd love if you could throw in Steiner's MRS, their RMR-sized holographic. I'm wondering if, being holographic instead of red dot, it does similarly well with parallax as EOTech. I recently got it zeroed in on my ARX-100 at one of those fancy Olympic zeroing facilities, and once zeroed I tried shooting groups with my eye as far to the left and to the right as I could manage plus some head tilt and while far from scientific, I was happy that POI remained POA as far as I could tell just as when looking directly through the center of the optic with a proper cheekweld. Gave me a nice confidence boost in it.
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 9/3/2017 10:10:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Sorry math is not my strong point. What is the factor that all the optics that peformed terribly seem to have in common? Is the window larger is the distance the emitter is from the glass longer. In my mind the wider glass would allow for far more movement but also if the emitter is reflecting off the glass at an angle the steeper the angle or the less steep the angle is effecting how it shifts in the window.
Basically what seems to be the common denominator between the optics that did real bad. The wrench in this question is whats the difference between the T1 and T2 that change those numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2017 10:28:26 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nanashi:
Sorry math is not my strong point. What is the factor that all the optics that peformed terribly seem to have in common? Is the window larger is the distance the emitter is from the glass longer. In my mind the wider glass would allow for far more movement but also if the emitter is reflecting off the glass at an angle the steeper the angle or the less steep the angle is effecting how it shifts in the window. Basically what seems to be the common denominator between the optics that did real bad. The wrench in this question is whats the difference between the T1 and T2 that change those numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2017 1:57:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JJREA]
[#39]
Along with everyone else, and / or other models. I did an informal test on my AP PRO and it seemed to show parallax shift. It might not be as bad as the T-1 but from what I could tell it was there.
I actually did a test on my Leupy scope yesterday and from what I can tell, it did shifted at about 30 yards but not at 100. Approx distances. Which I think is normal for a magnified scope. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2017 8:34:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Philmore]
[#40]
I learned M-16s on iron sights only. Was taught in close quarters to index off the front sight -short range. Never had to use it in real life. RDS's are great gear.
Edited to add: I've got astigmatism so the dots are never crisp. I figure I can still hit what I can see with it for now. Can I take this away safely: -My Aimpoint Pro has parallax issues if I move my head around behind it. Not as much maybe as my Leupold scope but it does exist. -It varies as distance increases (as evidenced in your tables) but within 25-50 yards I can still make those critical hits on targets. COM out to 50 +/- -Beyond that, I am likely to assume a better cheek weld and the parallax will be less of an issue (my thoughts). -Shouldn't advertise it as parallax free across the board if the sights are truly not. This is misinformation The RDS sights are a boon to shooters but we've learned that they don't make up for lack of basic shooting fundamentals. If you're using gas masks, NVG, armor, shooting in combat under/around barriers, train to know how it affects your POA. Again interesting info. Thanks. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 9/6/2017 9:32:33 PM EDT
[#41]
very good report, I had wondered what had happened to the results after the original thread. I scanned the report, and I was surprised at the MRO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2017 6:33:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Good run down. Especially considering how many good units are using the T2. Of course the results are mitigated by people taking more care with cheekweld on longer shots so the parallax should be reduced on long shots.
I would assume that prism optics are largely immune due to their reliance on eye relief. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 11:25:36 PM EDT
[#43]
my aimpoint M2 has about a 1.25" shift at 50yds.
found that out when i was zeroing and dropped down to the irons to make the dot more crisp. have to test out my rx30 now! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2017 1:39:12 PM EDT
[#44]
Bumping for newer visitors
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 9/26/2017 8:05:50 AM EDT
[#45]
This was outstanding.
Thanks for doing this. (Gotta sticky this. Mods?) |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 4:07:25 AM EDT
[#46]
I realize that parallax is the topic of discussion here. Having said that, I'm wondering if there is a relationship between parallax and a shift in zero for your BUIS should that optic be removed. Something to be considered in the event you switch back to irons for whatever reason, especially if you have a QD mount.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 10:32:17 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Torch-36:
I realize that parallax is the topic of discussion here. Having said that, I'm wondering if there is a relationship between parallax and a shift in zero for your BUIS should that optic be removed. Something to be considered in the event you switch back to irons for whatever reason, especially if you have a QD mount. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 11:26:32 AM EDT
[#48]
I'm all for science and learning and I have immense respect for the warrior scholar as exemplified by dopushups.
But after paging through the 84 page Doctoral Dissertation level report, I keep asking myself...what's the catch. I understand that dopushups is the consummate professional and takes his training and instructing of students deadly serious. But I'm finding it hard to believe that he did this study and compiled the extensive results, just to justify why he banned a certain optic from his class. I'm not questioning his results or even his methods. But dopushups is either way to smart to be wasting his time teaching trigger pulling and he is letting us peek at his Doctorate Dissertation at MIT, or he is being sponsored by someone in the industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 12:09:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER:
I'm all for science and learning and I have immense respect for the warrior scholar as exemplified by dopushups. But after paging through the 84 page Doctoral Dissertation level report, I keep asking myself...what's the catch. I understand that dopushups is the consummate professional and takes his training and instructing of students deadly serious. But I'm finding it hard to believe that he did this study and compiled the extensive results, just to justify why he banned a certain optic from his class. I'm not questioning his results or even his methods. But dopushups is either way to smart to be wasting his time teaching trigger pulling and he is letting us peek at his Doctorate Dissertation at MIT, or he is being sponsored by someone in the industry. I mentioned the purpose of the report in previous posts and in the opening of the report itself. It was purely to attempt to correct a deficiency in the community that I perceived- a lack of data driven analysis in evaluation and a reliance on emotional attachments and/or fan-dom. I received zero endorsements or compensation for the report. I have zero connections with any manufacturer in the report (I don’t do brand ambassadorship anyways- I do have distributor deals for One NVG company and two breaching equipment companies, but mainly to facilitate training). No optic tested was supplied by any company (all were privately owned by volunteers). There were no communications with any company featured before, during, or even after this report. No company featured received a copy of this report (several very well know instructors in the industry did have limited consultations). This was solely to attempt to set an example for our community/industry and give us a nudge in a more productive direction. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 12:37:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dopushups:
No catch- you’re just looking at the wrong angle. I’ve mentioned this previously but the purpose of this report wasn’t to justify the T1 ban from one of my courses. I didn’t need community justification for that- instructors are free to make rescissions as to what equipment is appropriate for their training courses. My desision was based on three years of observed performance. I mentioned the purpose of the report in previous posts and in the opening of the report itself. It was purely to attempt to correct a deficiency in the community that I perceived- a lack of data driven analysis in evaluation and a reliance on emotional attachments and/or fan-dom. I received zero endorsements or compensation for the report. I have zero connections with any manufacturer in the report (I don’t do brand ambassadorship anyways- I do have distributor deals for One NVG company and two breaching equipment companies, but mainly to facilitate training). No optic tested was supplied by any company (all were privately owned by volunteers). There were no communications with any company featured before, during, or even after this report. No company featured received a copy of this report (several very well know instructors in the industry did have limited consultations). This was solely to attempt to set an example for our community/industry and give us a nudge in a more productive direction. Your example sets a pretty high bar. I just wish it was a little less technical, for us lowly grunts. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
