User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/14/2022 3:22:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Different "irons" or "red dots" certainly have different accuracy potentials, but the usability by the individual shooter varies wildly It’s almost as if that’s something that I was examining with this ballistic exercise. Quoted: How a red dot reacts to a person's eyes . . . It’s almost as if that’s what this controlled ballistic exercise demonstrated, for my eyes, with the sights used, under the described conditions. …. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2022 7:38:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Nothing wrong with discussing the limitations. I enjoyed the post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2022 4:33:16 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 9:12:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Good stuff Molon.
I have found that I am more precise with a red dot lately than with a 1-6x scope, even with a slight astigmatism and corrective lenses. I have an easier time using kentucky windage at 1x than using the mil reticle at 6x even though I know my drops. That's out to 400 yards on steel. I'm not a precision shooter. Your info is helping me make up my mind on dumping the pig of an lpvo for another simple 2 moa dot on my main rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 10:32:29 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good stuff Molon. I have found that I am more precise with a red dot lately than with a 1-6x scope, even with a slight astigmatism and corrective lenses. I have an easier time using kentucky windage at 1x than using the mil reticle at 6x even though I know my drops. That's out to 400 yards on steel. I'm not a precision shooter. Your info is helping me make up my mind on dumping the pig of an lpvo for another simple 2 moa dot on my main rifle. That's where I am at, the LPVO isn't optimal enough for me over a dot for almost all of my needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2022 10:49:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's where I am at, the LPVO isn't optimal enough for me over a dot for almost all of my needs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good stuff Molon. I have found that I am more precise with a red dot lately than with a 1-6x scope, even with a slight astigmatism and corrective lenses. I have an easier time using kentucky windage at 1x than using the mil reticle at 6x even though I know my drops. That's out to 400 yards on steel. I'm not a precision shooter. Your info is helping me make up my mind on dumping the pig of an lpvo for another simple 2 moa dot on my main rifle. That's where I am at, the LPVO isn't optimal enough for me over a dot for almost all of my needs. And judging by this thread, if I had to, head shots at range would be doable. Or at least small targets. Though kentucky windage will put the dot above the target anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 12:27:05 AM EDT
[#7]
The hardest part of those kind of shots with just a red dot is applying the correct holdover. I like to zero 2 MOA dot sights with the top of the dot at 50 yards. This puts the bottom of the dot at about 300 yards. This is with 55gr 5.56 and is probably close enough for .gov work with m855
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 1:05:53 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The hardest part of those kind of shots with just a red dot is applying the correct holdover. I like to zero 2 MOA dot sights with the top of the dot at 50 yards. This puts the bottom of the dot at about 300 yards. This is with 55gr 5.56 and is probably close enough for .gov work with m855 My range only has steel disc's after 250, but with a little imagination, the top of the plate is on at 300 and at 400 the aiming point is the crossbar of the rack. Not sure on the plate sizes, we aren't allowed to walk past the 200 yard section. I can't get a fine reading on my Viper's reticle but the largest in the 3-500 is under 18 inches for sure perhaps possibly 12... I can consistently hit the 3 and 400 yard plates with those holds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 1:18:05 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is fairly close for .gov work. I personally zero dead on at 50 whitch puts 300 at a chin/neck height hold. And about top of head height at 400. My range only has steel disc's after 250, but with a little imagination, the top of the plate is on at 300 and at 400 the aiming point is the crossbar of the rack. Not sure on the plate sizes, we aren't allowed to walk past the 200 yard section. I can't get a fine reading on my Viper's reticle but the largest in the 3-500 is under 18 inches for sure perhaps possibly 12... I can consistently hit the 3 and 400 yard plates with those holds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 1:53:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My theory in my zero is that I won't ever have a nice isolated standing target at 300 yards so I'd rather minimize the holdover needed to get decent hits. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is fairly close for .gov work. I personally zero dead on at 50 whitch puts 300 at a chin/neck height hold. And about top of head height at 400. My range only has steel disc's after 250, but with a little imagination, the top of the plate is on at 300 and at 400 the aiming point is the crossbar of the rack. Not sure on the plate sizes, we aren't allowed to walk past the 200 yard section. I can't get a fine reading on my Viper's reticle but the largest in the 3-500 is under 18 inches for sure perhaps possibly 12... I can consistently hit the 3 and 400 yard plates with those holds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 2:20:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://i.imgur.com/8NOXSGn.jpg Agree, experience is the best teacher. Get out and shoot and see what you're capable of along with your set up. https://i.imgur.com/8OY5DVH.jpg Push yourself... If you had to make a 300 yard shot with a Red dot, could you.? Shoot outside your comfort zone. We all like to do the easy stuff that we feel your good at. Do the stuff your not good at. On this note if you are going to the range and walking up to the target pulling your pistol and firing a magazine at 7m and making a baseball size group, switching over to rifle and shooting it at 25-50m and shooting a 1" group how are you having fun? I see guys do this exact scenario all the time. One of my shooting buddies this used to be his entire range trip till I came along. Then we started shooting a steel torso at 50m and 100m to see who could get the most hits on 1 magazine. Staple up a deck of cards and played poker at 200m or have minute of man mad minutes who could get the most hits on a man size target with an AR and unlimited amount of ammo you could shoot in 1 minute. Range days cannot be only repetitive training and cannot be just the easiest possible shots it has to be fun. I shoot guns as a hobby to have fun and I collect guns because many of them I think look cool or are just fun to shoot. Who here has ever taken a 22lr pistol and tried to make hits on a target at 50 and 100m? I have and it is a lot of fun once you start making the target ting. @molon Thanks for posting this screw the haters whining how unscientific it is some of us appreciate your 1 data point for what it is. We also appreciate the time and ammo cost it took to do your test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 3:26:02 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On this note if you are going to the range and walking up to the target pulling your pistol and firing a magazine at 7m and making a baseball size group, switching over to rifle and shooting it at 25-50m and shooting a 1" group how are you having fun? I see guys do this exact scenario all the time. One of my shooting buddies this used to be his entire range trip till I came along. Then we started shooting a steel torso at 50m and 100m to see who could get the most hits on 1 magazine. Staple up a deck of cards and played poker at 200m or have minute of man mad minutes who could get the most hits on a man size target with an AR and unlimited amount of ammo you could shoot in 1 minute. Range days cannot be only repetitive training and cannot be just the easiest possible shots it has to be fun. I shoot guns as a hobby to have fun and I collect guns because many of them I think look cool or are just fun to shoot. Who here has ever taken a 22lr pistol and tried to make hits on a target at 50 and 100m? I have and it is a lot of fun once you start making the target ting. @molon Thanks for posting this screw the haters whining how unscientific it is some of us appreciate your 1 data point for what it is. We also appreciate the time and ammo cost it took to do your test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 3:41:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On this note if you are going to the range and walking up to the target pulling your pistol and firing a magazine at 7m and making a baseball size group, switching over to rifle and shooting it at 25-50m and shooting a 1" group how are you having fun? I see guys do this exact scenario all the time. One of my shooting buddies this used to be his entire range trip till I came along. Then we started shooting a steel torso at 50m and 100m to see who could get the most hits on 1 magazine. Staple up a deck of cards and played poker at 200m or have minute of man mad minutes who could get the most hits on a man size target with an AR and unlimited amount of ammo you could shoot in 1 minute. Range days cannot be only repetitive training and cannot be just the easiest possible shots it has to be fun. I shoot guns as a hobby to have fun and I collect guns because many of them I think look cool or are just fun to shoot. Who here has ever taken a 22lr pistol and tried to make hits on a target at 50 and 100m? I have and it is a lot of fun once you start making the target ting. @molon Thanks for posting this screw the haters whining how unscientific it is some of us appreciate your 1 data point for what it is. We also appreciate the time and ammo cost it took to do your test. They have venues for this that offer target variety at different distances and most importantly, all under timer and compared to others’ performances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 4:02:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree with all of this. I've been laughed at on other forums because I like to start handgun training at 15 yards then 25 and then 50. My opinion is if I can nail a clay pigeon with a G19 at 50 yards with irons it makes all the closer stuff easier just focus more on speed. I guess they've never heard of aim small, miss small. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2022 7:07:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They have venues for this that offer target variety at different distances and most importantly, all under timer and compared to others’ performances. Quote HistoryQuoted: They have venues for this that offer target variety at different distances and most importantly, all under timer and compared to others’ performances. I would be in for something like that but I do it for fun and to mix things up when I take people shooting with me. I spent all this money on cool rifles and pistols and what fun is it to line up on a piece of paper at 7m and poke holes in it. Even a game of horse is better than boring square range shooting. My range has private individuals 180° ranges and one that is almost complete 360° that they use for competition on sundays. It is fun to setup steel all over and have some challenges. Quoted: Agree with all of this. I've been laughed at on other forums because I like to start handgun training at 15 yards then 25 and then 50. My opinion is if I can nail a clay pigeon with a G19 at 50 yards with irons it makes all the closer stuff easier just focus more on speed. They can laugh all they want they laugh most likely because they cannot do it and do not believe you can. All that matters is are you having fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2022 12:17:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Great thread!
It really comes down to your eyes and your needs. Middle age sucks and I can see my eyesight starting to go. I just picked up my first pair of bifocals...and I refuse to wear them. For my area and usage, a red dot is great. Actually, I've started going with circle plex's along with 3x magnifiers. I have a 4H, and just ordered a 4T, which will allow me to choose from the below options. (1 MOA dot, 1/2 MOA ballistic dots, and 65 MOA circle) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2022 10:44:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Does match my non expert thoughts. I had a strike firel 4 MOA RDS and was upgrading all my rifles and optics. Vortex was nice enough to swap my old unused strike fire with the side buttons for their newer model strike fire ll with the buttons at the side facing rearward.
The ll model had less tint to the glass as was brighter. That being said it seems fairly obvious that the size of the dot could obscure smaller objects at longer distances. So i looked around and settled on the vortex holo sight with the 65 MOA lazer circle with the apparently 1 MOA sized center dot. As I hoped any optic selected could also be mounted on my HK911 which with its set trigger and match handloads is a sub MOA rifle. I also purchased a vortex 6x flip magnifier. Turns out if you 3 or 6 time magnifiy the 4 MOA dot six times it becomes a much larger dot obscuring any smaller objects. Totally different six times magnifying the holo dots does not result in a 6 MOA center dot. Seems the center dot was actually much smaller than MOA. At least thats what I understand is true. So putting the magnifier behind the vortex holo still allows a very good distance accuracy result. In other words a both eye open better more accurate shooting solution without magnification. And the 6 time flip should allow better distance shots. And maybe have enough distance accuracy to be useable past the 400 yard .223 normal max range. Testing will tell coming up. Thanks to Molon for taking the time to show us his results Love to a see how a magnified holo laser generated dot sight which is not solid but tiny pixels would do in this test? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2022 9:46:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does match my non expert thoughts. I had a strike firel 4 MOA RDS and was upgrading all my rifles and optics. Vortex was nice enough to swap my old unused strike fire with the side buttons for their newer model strike fire ll with the buttons at the side facing rearward. The ll model had less tint to the glass as was brighter. That being said it seems fairly obvious that the size of the dot could obscure smaller objects at longer distances. So i looked around and settled on the vortex holo sight with the 65 MOA lazer circle with the apparently 1 MOA sized center dot. As I hoped any optic selected could also be mounted on my HK911 which with its set trigger and match handloads is a sub MOA rifle. I also purchased a vortex 6x flip magnifier. Turns out if you 3 or 6 time magnifiy the 4 MOA dot six times it becomes a much larger dot obscuring any smaller objects. Totally different six times magnifying the holo dots does not result in a 6 MOA center dot. Seems the center dot was actually much smaller than MOA. At least thats what I understand is true. So putting the magnifier behind the vortex holo still allows a very good distance accuracy result. In other words a both eye open better more accurate shooting solution without magnification. And the 6 time flip should allow better distance shots. And maybe have enough distance accuracy to be useable past the 400 yard .223 normal max range. Testing will tell coming up. Thanks to Molon for taking the time to show us his results Love to a see how a magnified holo laser generated dot sight which is not solid but tiny pixels would do in this test? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2022 8:01:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess they've never heard of aim small, miss small. One of my favorite scenes.  .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2022 8:11:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For this test to be meaningful, you would have to repeat it multiple times. Preferably, with multiple shooters. In its current form, it is useless. Most of his posts are. He isn’t even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn’t stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out…… The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I’m sure I’ll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2022 8:41:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most of his posts are. He isn't even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn't stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I'm sure I'll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: For this test to be meaningful, you would have to repeat it multiple times. Preferably, with multiple shooters. In its current form, it is useless. Most of his posts are. He isn't even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn't stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I'm sure I'll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. Be nice if fellow Arfcommers would followup in a similar manner to add data - affirming or contradicting. But no one ever does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2022 8:41:18 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most of his posts are. He isn’t even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn’t stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out…… The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I’m sure I’ll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: For this test to be meaningful, you would have to repeat it multiple times. Preferably, with multiple shooters. In its current form, it is useless. Most of his posts are. He isn’t even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn’t stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out…… The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I’m sure I’ll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. Your "hero" was a known troll, a retread actually. And nah, no hate from me. But I will report as your post was meant to incite and get a reaction for an outcome that you certainly do want to see. I do find it funny that anyone who wants to be a troll and dismissive at his results of a sample size, have yet to produce their own results as a counter and would rather instead argue because that's all they have to use. It's almost, as if there's something about his tests that triggers those whom are either emotionally attached to the object he's shown as defective such as the MRO for an example, or like now because the person's were vehemently opposed to it and when their narrative is being exposed as space shuttle door gunnery they start mouthing off which is what persons on the defensive do by the way. So which is it with you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2022 10:38:52 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most of his posts are. He isn’t even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn’t stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out…… The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I’m sure I’ll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: For this test to be meaningful, you would have to repeat it multiple times. Preferably, with multiple shooters. In its current form, it is useless. Most of his posts are. He isn’t even starting to sniff a scientific research process but that doesn’t stop the crotch slobbering. And God forbid you point this out…… The last time he threw a fit and left for a while. This is ego, not science. All he has to do is state it as such and no problem. I’m sure I’ll get all sorts of hate for starting the obvious. So if this is so horrid, Why don't either one of you put the time and effort in to do it the way you both think it should be done? Or is just sitting anonymously behind your keyboard, degrading some one else's effort just that appealing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2022 2:21:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree with all of this. I've been laughed at on other forums because I like to start handgun training at 15 yards then 25 and then 50. My opinion is if I can nail a clay pigeon with a G19 at 50 yards with irons it makes all the closer stuff easier just focus more on speed. I also agree with this and do it all the time. It's like when a baseball player is on deck swinging a weighted bat so his regular bat feels lighter and easier to swing when he goes up to bat. Allot of my pistol range sessions with start out at 15-25-50, and then the closer range practice will be a walk in the park and I can concentrate on speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2022 8:33:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snip . . Your avatar is great! ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2022 9:06:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your avatar is great! ... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 5:50:55 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s almost as if that’s something that I was examining with this ballistic exercise. It’s almost as if that’s what this controlled ballistic exercise demonstrated, for my eyes, with the sights used, under the described conditions. …. Understood, but your highly technical and well documented posts are often taken as the gospel authority for "everyone" because often they are... in this instance I simply reiterated that for MOST people your results will be better than what THEY will experience. You are an excellent, experienced shooter with excellent eyesight using quality barrels and quality optics. Most people fall short in one or more of those areas. Also, reduced size target shooting at reduced ranges yields better results than shooting at the actual full sized targets and full distances because of lighting, mirage, wind, velocity dispersion, etc. Consistent 300-400 yard head shots might be a technical possibility, but for 90% of shooters, it is not a realistic thing. Many can't even see the head to shoot at those distances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 8:12:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the original post of this thread . . . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I like the idea behind it, but there is no consideration of holdovers From the original post of this thread . . . Quoted: The testing was conducted at 50 yards in order to mitigate the variable of wind-drift that would have been significant if testing had been conducted at actual distances and to remove the vertical variation of the points of impact that would have occurred due to bullet drop at actual distances. The objective here was to determine what the limitation on accuracy was, due to aiming with the various red-dot sights, not how well I could dope the wind and distance. But this test does not determine the limitation on accuracy. Determining that, since you’re trying to simulate out to range, would need to include wind and distance holds. You’ve tested the limitations on precision with various red dot sizes. Worthwhile info, but actual accuracy with a red dot is much more difficult as range goes out, due to the necessary vertical and horizontal holds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 8:17:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But this test does not determine the limitation on accuracy. Determining that, since you’re trying to simulate out to range, would need to include wind and distance holds.  ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 8:24:50 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: But this test does not determine the limitation on accuracy. Determining that, since you’re trying to simulate out to range, would need to include wind and distance holds. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/the-point-over-your-head-2374967.gif ... No, that wasn’t your point. You said your objective was to test accuracy limitations of dot size. You did not do that. You tested precision limitations. This is being pedantic, but the two terms have separate meanings and should be delineated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 8:47:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m sure there is a free range somewhere near you, and the EE is full of barrels, ammo, and red dots. I, and the rest of arfcom, look forward to your unflawed, scientific results. This! Thanks OP, neat test and now I want a NF 1x4 optic 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 8:56:00 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, that wasn’t your point. You said your objective was to test accuracy limitations of dot size. You did not do that. You tested precision limitations. You shouldn't use words that you fail to comprehend the meaning of. Accuracy versus Precision Low level of precision and low level of accuracy . . .  High level of precision and low level of accuracy . . .  Low level of precision and high level of accuracy . . .  High level of precision and high level of accuracy . . .  …. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 9:01:04 AM EDT
[#33]
Awesome shooting.
I love my red dots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 10:14:55 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You shouldn't use words that you fail to comprehend the meaning of. Accuracy versus Precision Low level of precision and low level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/low_level_of_precision_and_low_level_of_-2375011.jpg High level of precision and low level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/high_level_of_precision_and_low_level_of-2375014.jpg Low level of precision and high level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/low_level_of_precision_and_high__level_o-2375005.jpg High level of precision and high level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/high_level_of_precision_and_high__level_-2375003.jpg …. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, that wasn’t your point. You said your objective was to test accuracy limitations of dot size. You did not do that. You tested precision limitations. You shouldn't use words that you fail to comprehend the meaning of. Accuracy versus Precision Low level of precision and low level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/low_level_of_precision_and_low_level_of_-2375011.jpg High level of precision and low level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/high_level_of_precision_and_low_level_of-2375014.jpg Low level of precision and high level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/low_level_of_precision_and_high__level_o-2375005.jpg High level of precision and high level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/high_level_of_precision_and_high__level_-2375003.jpg …. You’re supporting what I’m saying. You were testing whether the size of the dot affects precision when the target gets smaller. You did not test whether the dot size changes the accuracy, which is mostly affected by external factors. Sure, sight picture changes can change accuracy, and those are not external. But those are user errors mostly experienced with iron sights. And why do you have to take it to personal insults? You’ve done it many times before when people merely provide technical feedback. I didn’t even knock your test. I said it was valuable information. But you seem to take any feedback as some sort of knock against your dignity or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 10:42:50 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: herp . . . derp . . . and more herp. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, that wasn’t your point. You said your objective was to test accuracy limitations of dot size. You did not do that. You tested precision limitations. You shouldn't use words that you fail to comprehend the meaning of. Accuracy versus Precision Low level of precision and low level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/low_level_of_precision_and_low_level_of_-2375011.jpg High level of precision and low level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/high_level_of_precision_and_low_level_of-2375014.jpg Low level of precision and high level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/low_level_of_precision_and_high__level_o-2375005.jpg High level of precision and high level of accuracy . . . https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/high_level_of_precision_and_high__level_-2375003.jpg …. herp . . . derp . . . and more herp. Instead of just sitting there typing on your keyboard, let's see you pony-up some of your time, your money, your optics and your ammunition and post your first-hand data on the subject matter. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 1:02:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Instead of just sitting there typing on your keyboard, let's see you pony-up some of your time, your money, your optics and your ammunition and post your first-hand data on the subject matter. ... Sweet Jesus man. That’s your response when I correct a term you used? When you post things on the internet, expect public peer review. It’s going to happen. No need to immediately go to personal attacks or challenge people to a metaphorical experiment dual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 1:08:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s your response when I correct a term you used? You didn't correct me on anything. You continued to regurgitate your false BS. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 1:12:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: No, that wasn't your point. You said your objective was to test accuracy limitations of dot size. You did not do that. You tested precision limitations. This is being pedantic, but the two terms have separate meanings and should be delineated. Accuracy: the ability to hit the target with a general consistency of point of aim and area of impact. I.e. accurate shot placement will be within a circle surrounding the center point of where you are aiming. For example. I can hit a target at 100 yards, with the center point of the group on the bullseye. Precision: the repeatability and consistency as related to accuracy. I.e. how tight or loose shot placement is within the group. For example: within the same 100 yard target, I can place each shot within a 1 inch diameter. These are just examples, I'm not a precision shooter. Molon's test, at least what I took from it, was about seeing if he could hit a target at a simulated distance, while limiting as many variables as possible other than dot type optics. His rifle and ammo selection was as precise as possible to reduce any variation one would get with a standard barrel and M193 type loads. A consistent rifle and load is needed for this kind of test. I take it that one can hit a head shot with a dot obscuring the target (accuracy), but the consistency (precision) was not tested. I'm sure if Molon tested precision, it would show how difficult these kinds of shots become, even with a precision rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 1:19:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've always understood it as (in simple terms as related to firearms) Accuracy: the ability to hit the target with a general consistency of point of aim and area of impact. I.e. accurate shot placement will be within a circle surrounding the center point of where you are aiming. For example. I can hit a target at 100 yards, with the center of the group on the bullseye. Precision: the repeatability and consistency as related to accuracy. I.e. how tight or loose shot placement is within the group. For example: within the same 100 yard target, I can place each shot within a 1 inch diameter. Molon's test, at least what I took from it, was about seeing if he could hit a target at a simulated distance, while limiting as many variables as possible other than dot type optics. His rifle and ammo selection was as precise as possible to reduce any variation one would get with a standard barrel and M193 type loads. A consistent rifle and load is needed for this kind of test. I take it that one can hit a head shot with a dot obscuring the target (accuracy), but the consistency (precision) was not tested. I'm sure if Molon tested precision, it would show how difficult these kinds of shots become, even with a precision rifle. Would you look at that. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about.  ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2022 2:12:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you look at that. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about. ... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I've always understood it as (in simple terms as related to firearms) Accuracy: the ability to hit the target with a general consistency of point of aim and area of impact. I.e. accurate shot placement will be within a circle surrounding the center point of where you are aiming. For example. I can hit a target at 100 yards, with the center of the group on the bullseye. Precision: the repeatability and consistency as related to accuracy. I.e. how tight or loose shot placement is within the group. For example: within the same 100 yard target, I can place each shot within a 1 inch diameter. Molon's test, at least what I took from it, was about seeing if he could hit a target at a simulated distance, while limiting as many variables as possible other than dot type optics. His rifle and ammo selection was as precise as possible to reduce any variation one would get with a standard barrel and M193 type loads. A consistent rifle and load is needed for this kind of test. I take it that one can hit a head shot with a dot obscuring the target (accuracy), but the consistency (precision) was not tested. I'm sure if Molon tested precision, it would show how difficult these kinds of shots become, even with a precision rifle. Would you look at that. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about. ... I just enjoy reading on the subject. I'm no precision shooter, I love lightweight combat/hunting effective builds too much. Though I do have to say its fun to try and print tight groups with a sub 6 pound pencil barreled rifle. And yes, I shoot for more than a three shot group  A good chunk of the stuff I learned on the subject comes from reading your threads, getting intrigued, and then researching for hours to find other info to compare and contrast, then dive down the rabbit hole of knowledge. No one data set is absolute, but if enough data sets are comparable, then one can get at least a general understanding of a subject. I have yet to be disappointed. Since you state your equipment, test methods, and other relevant info; I can generally find something comparable out there. Or I can compare to your previous testing and come to reasonable conclusions with a reasonable amount of trust. If I had the funds and facilities I would love to do the testing you do, but I have another expensive and time consuming hobby. Sometimes its tough to decide between $250 of ammo or $250 to re-skin a drum set, or to spend $1,200+ on a rifle or guitar
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2022 7:27:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've always understood it as (in simple terms as related to firearms) Accuracy: the ability to hit the target with a general consistency of point of aim and area of impact. I.e. accurate shot placement will be within a circle surrounding the center point of where you are aiming. For example. I can hit a target at 100 yards, with the center point of the group on the bullseye. Precision: the repeatability and consistency as related to accuracy. I.e. how tight or loose shot placement is within the group. For example: within the same 100 yard target, I can place each shot within a 1 inch diameter. These are just examples, I'm not a precision shooter. Molon's test, at least what I took from it, was about seeing if he could hit a target at a simulated distance, while limiting as many variables as possible other than dot type optics. His rifle and ammo selection was as precise as possible to reduce any variation one would get with a standard barrel and M193 type loads. A consistent rifle and load is needed for this kind of test. I take it that one can hit a head shot with a dot obscuring the target (accuracy), but the consistency (precision) was not tested. I'm sure if Molon tested precision, it would show how difficult these kinds of shots become, even with a precision rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, that wasn't your point. You said your objective was to test accuracy limitations of dot size. You did not do that. You tested precision limitations. This is being pedantic, but the two terms have separate meanings and should be delineated. Accuracy: the ability to hit the target with a general consistency of point of aim and area of impact. I.e. accurate shot placement will be within a circle surrounding the center point of where you are aiming. For example. I can hit a target at 100 yards, with the center point of the group on the bullseye. Precision: the repeatability and consistency as related to accuracy. I.e. how tight or loose shot placement is within the group. For example: within the same 100 yard target, I can place each shot within a 1 inch diameter. These are just examples, I'm not a precision shooter. Molon's test, at least what I took from it, was about seeing if he could hit a target at a simulated distance, while limiting as many variables as possible other than dot type optics. His rifle and ammo selection was as precise as possible to reduce any variation one would get with a standard barrel and M193 type loads. A consistent rifle and load is needed for this kind of test. I take it that one can hit a head shot with a dot obscuring the target (accuracy), but the consistency (precision) was not tested. I'm sure if Molon tested precision, it would show how difficult these kinds of shots become, even with a precision rifle. I can see your logic. And I appreciate you explaining your point of view rationally. It’s refreshing, compared to immediate personal insults that seem to occur often here. I still disagree, and think it’s measuring the precision possible with different dot sizes. Precision isn’t limited to mechanical precision, but can be affected by optical imprecision. Accuracy fluctuations at the gun (rather than external) are due to user error such as improper sight alignment. Not really just a vague sight. But, like I said, I see your logic and acknowledge that this case is grey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2022 7:14:32 AM EDT
[#42]
So take the target size out of the equation and just shoot for groups with a reddot at 50 yards. There would be less bickering and the same would hold true. Molon's rifle and ammo is capable of holding tight ten shot groups and the reddot does not hold him back at 50 yards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2022 10:20:37 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sweet Jesus man. That’s your response when I correct a term you used? When you post things on the internet, expect public peer review. It’s going to happen. No need to immediately go to personal attacks or challenge people to a metaphorical experiment dual. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Instead of just sitting there typing on your keyboard, let's see you pony-up some of your time, your money, your optics and your ammunition and post your first-hand data on the subject matter. ... Sweet Jesus man. That’s your response when I correct a term you used? When you post things on the internet, expect public peer review. It’s going to happen. No need to immediately go to personal attacks or challenge people to a metaphorical experiment dual. If you're a peer, show your tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2022 12:32:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryPush yourself... If you had to make a 300 yard shot with a Red dot, could you.? Shoot outside your comfort zone. We all like to do the easy stuff that we feel your good at. Do the stuff your not good at. Great point! This reminds me of being a musician and how the vast majority "practice" what they're already good at because it's more fun. The best players actually practice what they're bad at when they're sheddin', and therefore actually getting better. Seems obvious of course, yet most of us are not like that, whether it's an instrument or a firearm the principle is the same. Thank you for making that point and illustrating that the "obvious" principle is applicable to so many areas of our lives. I'm all for getting/doing better! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2022 7:45:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're a peer, show your tests. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Instead of just sitting there typing on your keyboard, let's see you pony-up some of your time, your money, your optics and your ammunition and post your first-hand data on the subject matter. ... Sweet Jesus man. That’s your response when I correct a term you used? When you post things on the internet, expect public peer review. It’s going to happen. No need to immediately go to personal attacks or challenge people to a metaphorical experiment dual. If you're a peer, show your tests. Show my tests for what? Duplicate his test? I said he provided good data. I’m not disputing his data. Just that it measured precision and not accuracy. Should I do my own test for red dot accuracy out to distance, with external factors at play? Why? I’m not curious about those results. But if I did do an experiment, I’d accept reasoned criticism and provide counter arguments if I disagreed with the criticism. I wouldn’t immediately personally attack the person. But for the record, I do sometimes present data I’ve measured when it could be useful to other people. I’m just rarely on this site. Really, though, I just don’t understand why there can’t be a reasoned discussion about issues or perceived issues with presented experiments or data. There’s this supreme defensiveness in the culture on this website, and it’s antithetical to continued education in the topic of firearms, for everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2022 8:35:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sometimes its tough to decide between $250 of ammo or $250 to re-skin a drum set, or to spend $1,200+ on a rifle or guitar I know what you mean!  ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2022 8:48:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sometimes its tough to decide between $250 of ammo or $250 to re-skin a drum set, or to spend $1,200+ on a rifle or guitar I know what you mean! https://i.ibb.co/7WQ1y8N/Hutnik37.jpg ...  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2022 11:57:23 AM EDT
[#48]
OP nice shooting. Red dots apparently are viable out to a few hundred yards with a competent shooter at the wheel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2022 12:14:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As always, a nice write up. Thank you for your work. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2022 1:03:32 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryNever thought I'd see a Hutnik here. |
|
|
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.
