User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 8:14:21 AM EDT
[#1]
I mount mine as far forward on the receiver as I can. Some mounts put the optic even farther forward for the use of magnification. With the red dot being farther forward, it helps for faster target acquisition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 8:16:49 AM EDT
[#2]
I am on a straight vertical mount, not cantilevered, and it is as far forward on the receiver as I can get it. That leaves room for the rear lens cover to flip down and still have room for my flip up back up iron site.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 8:20:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Mine is currently positioned to when my covers flip down they just miss the rear sights.
I thought of going forward more but don't know if re sighting would be worth any benefit of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 8:43:10 AM EDT
[#4]
there is no right or wrong. personal preference and your own setup dictate positioning on your rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 8:47:45 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I see different pics of rifles with Aimpoints on them at different positions on the rail. Is there a correct distance down the rail to mount them? If so, is there a reason for it? If you are using a magnifier or NV it will have to be all the way forward or use a cantilever mount. If not, you can put it wherever you want. Closer to your eye, you will have a larger field of view through the sight, but won't be able to see around it easily.. Farther from your eye you will have a smaller field of view through the sight, but will be able to see around it easier. As long as it is mounted solid and it, the mount, or the flip covers aren't in the way of anything you'll be fine. Dustin |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 11:15:35 AM EDT
[#6]
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not)
 .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 12:17:01 PM EDT
[#7]
the Aimpoint rep puts the m-4 all the way to the front. shows that in a video. don't know if that is correct or not.
I own 1 & it sits right in front of my rear sight. 
works for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 12:30:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Yup, and here's a great article that expands on this concept: http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 12:32:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
there is no right or wrong. personal preference and your own setup dictate positioning on your rifle. This. If you have a solid railed handguard you could mount it at the very end of that, right behind the front sight if you have one, or at the very rearmost slot on the receiver, or anywhere in between. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 12:42:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Mine damn near touches the Magpul BUIS. I think i like it there because it's in a similar position to the rear sight then. The further forward it goes the more it seems I have to tuck down in there to see the dot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 12:52:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Yup, and here's a great article that expands on this concept: http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 1:41:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Yup, and here's a great article that expands on this concept: http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf You mean like the expert who judges whether or not someone has been through the fire based on where their aimpoint is mounted? That somehow mounting it up against the BUIS is the correct way to go? On my service M4 I had it as far back as I could get it. On my new AR, I'm going to try and push it out a bit. As others said, it comes down to personal preference. Move it around, see what works for you. For some having it as far out is best. For others they like it up close. Judging someone based on where they mount it is just plain silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:06:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Like many others, I mount mine as forward as possible on the upper receiver. Here's a pic of mine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:08:51 PM EDT
[#14]
Smells like BS to me. I just keep my support side eye open. I call it "fighting through the eyes." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:11:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:19:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Yup, and here's a great article that expands on this concept: http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf The author of that article doesn't get it either. I dont know why so many people struggle with this simple concept. Leave both eyes open! look at the target, not the dot! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:20:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. +1 The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. I like them mounted wherever it helps balances the rifle out the most.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:30:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
I am on a straight vertical mount, not cantilevered, and it is as far forward on the receiver as I can get it. That leaves room for the rear lens cover to flip down and still have room for my flip up back up iron site. +1 Also, when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 2:50:24 PM EDT
[#19]
I use an A2 type rear sight so my Aimpoint is mounted forward enough to open the lens cap. That puts it at the end of the receiver.
I was taught to shoot with both eyes open, so the field of vision is maximized. Dave |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 3:51:18 PM EDT
[#20]
No Aimpoint here. I do have an EOTech however, and mine is just forward of the rear sight. Its mounted on a SBR, lower 1/3 co-witness with fixed front and rear BUIS. When mounted to the fowardmost position of the reciever I could only see the very top of the front sight pin. It was more like lower 1/5 co-witness.
Moved it back against the rear sight and now I can see the front sight pin much better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 4:21:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 4:38:00 PM EDT
[#22]
I keep mine tt he rear, because it is easier for me to see the dot without my glasses on if it ever comes to that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 4:44:06 PM EDT
[#23]
So basically you are saying that these guys are wrong?
even though that they do this for a living and seek training to further thier skills. A few of them are members here, they may chime in, they may not. All I know is what works for me, to each their own. ETA: I mount mine forward on the reciever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 4:46:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. How much time do you spend shooting from your support side sholder? I spend quite a bit of time doing so. I would say I am half/half at this point. The RDS at the front point of the rec. works just fine. In the red - 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 5:02:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Aimpoint forward for many, many reasons... 
guess i must not know what i'm doing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 5:05:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Pluses and minuses to both. (weight distribution, sight picture, etc)
Mostly personal preference. I have my COMP M4s just far enough forward for my Troy Rear BUIS and my Larue mounted Aimpoint 3x on the pivoting mount to be on the rail. I find it to be a good distance... not too far forward, not too close to my eye. I like it there, it's just what feels right for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 5:18:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 6:31:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Exactly what is your experience with a Red Dot? Have you tried one out with the front lense-cover closed? You know you can use one that way right? So if the front lense cover is down, how does looking down the tube for a FOV help you out?
After reading the article, I did an unscientific experiment. I popped bother covers, and holding my CompM2 in my hand moved it closer to my eye and then further away. And yes, I did have a bigger FOV when it was closer to my eye. Of course that was with one eye closed. Opening both eyes, it was hard to really see a difference. You're not looking down the tube with an Aimpoint. If you're doing that, you're doing something wrong. But to each his own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2010 9:45:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. On good quality red-dots (like Aimpoint) you dont HAVE to line up the dot into the center of the lens for it to be "on target". If your shooting at a target 50 yards away, and the dot is on the far left of the lens, its still going to be within 1/8th of an inch of where you're actually aiming at. Now is your rifle that accurate that it even notices 1/8th of an inch at 50 yards, or 1/4 at 100? The only thing you HAVE to line up is the red-dot and the target. Position on the lens/screen and dot has no effect on Aimpoints/Eotechs etc. As long as you can see the dot, thats where the bullets going. unless you're shooting at under 25 yards and you might find the shots being off by 1/4 inch or something (with the dot being as far off the center as it can be). Past 50 yards the movement of the dot is LESS than the "general inaccuracy" of the rifle itself (AKA on a machine rest under ideal conditions) Here is a pic to clarify all this stuff
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 4:52:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. On good quality red-dots (like Aimpoint) you dont HAVE to line up the dot into the center of the lens for it to be "on target". If your shooting at a target 50 yards away, and the dot is on the far left of the lens, its still going to be within 1/8th of an inch of where you're actually aiming at. Now is your rifle that accurate that it even notices 1/8th of an inch at 50 yards, or 1/4 at 100? The only thing you HAVE to line up is the red-dot and the target. Position on the lens/screen and dot has no effect on Aimpoints/Eotechs etc. As long as you can see the dot, thats where the bullets going. unless you're shooting at under 25 yards and you might find the shots being off by 1/4 inch or something (with the dot being as far off the center as it can be). Past 50 yards the movement of the dot is LESS than the "general inaccuracy" of the rifle itself (AKA on a machine rest under ideal conditions) Here is a pic to clarify all this stuff
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2783/parallaxerror.jpg I understand that, and I never said the dot had to be centered in the lens. My point is that your eye, the dot, and the target have to be in alignment, and there's only one position that will allow you to do that. The rear aperture comment was related to the fact that the FOV through the aperture (whether it's a tube or an iron sight) doesn't really matter. Regardless of how much you can see through the tube itself, you still need to have your eye in a position where it's capable of being in line with the dot and your target. For a given tube size, that gives you the raduis of the tube where you can position your head. It doesn't matter what you can see through the tube or not, your eye can't be off the tube's centerline by more than the radius of the tube. Now, if you could get a BIGGER tube you would have more leeway in where you can place your head, but that's not the issue here. This is the last time I care to explain this. If people still don't get it, then it's not my business or problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 6:37:49 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. On good quality red-dots (like Aimpoint) you dont HAVE to line up the dot into the center of the lens for it to be "on target". If your shooting at a target 50 yards away, and the dot is on the far left of the lens, its still going to be within 1/8th of an inch of where you're actually aiming at. Now is your rifle that accurate that it even notices 1/8th of an inch at 50 yards, or 1/4 at 100? The only thing you HAVE to line up is the red-dot and the target. Position on the lens/screen and dot has no effect on Aimpoints/Eotechs etc. As long as you can see the dot, thats where the bullets going. unless you're shooting at under 25 yards and you might find the shots being off by 1/4 inch or something (with the dot being as far off the center as it can be). Past 50 yards the movement of the dot is LESS than the "general inaccuracy" of the rifle itself (AKA on a machine rest under ideal conditions) Here is a pic to clarify all this stuff
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2783/parallaxerror.jpg I understand that, and I never said the dot had to be centered in the lens. My point is that your eye, the dot, and the target have to be in alignment, and there's only one position that will allow you to do that. The rear aperture comment was related to the fact that the FOV through the aperture (whether it's a tube or an iron sight) doesn't really matter. Regardless of how much you can see through the tube itself, you still need to have your eye in a position where it's capable of being in line with the dot and your target. For a given tube size, that gives you the raduis of the tube where you can position your head. It doesn't matter what you can see through the tube or not, your eye can't be off the tube's centerline by more than the radius of the tube. Now, if you could get a BIGGER tube you would have more leeway in where you can place your head, but that's not the issue here. This is the last time I care to explain this. If people still don't get it, then it's not my business or problem. Yes, please stop trying to make us "Get" your flawed logic. Saying you prefer something different because it works for you is one thing, Insisiting that your method is correct while calling the way the vast majority of people do it (with clearly explained, sound reasoning behind it) "Tacticool" is just ignoranant and childish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 6:47:30 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. On good quality red-dots (like Aimpoint) you dont HAVE to line up the dot into the center of the lens for it to be "on target". If your shooting at a target 50 yards away, and the dot is on the far left of the lens, its still going to be within 1/8th of an inch of where you're actually aiming at. Now is your rifle that accurate that it even notices 1/8th of an inch at 50 yards, or 1/4 at 100? The only thing you HAVE to line up is the red-dot and the target. Position on the lens/screen and dot has no effect on Aimpoints/Eotechs etc. As long as you can see the dot, thats where the bullets going. unless you're shooting at under 25 yards and you might find the shots being off by 1/4 inch or something (with the dot being as far off the center as it can be). Past 50 yards the movement of the dot is LESS than the "general inaccuracy" of the rifle itself (AKA on a machine rest under ideal conditions) Here is a pic to clarify all this stuff
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2783/parallaxerror.jpg I understand that, and I never said the dot had to be centered in the lens. My point is that your eye, the dot, and the target have to be in alignment, and there's only one position that will allow you to do that. The rear aperture comment was related to the fact that the FOV through the aperture (whether it's a tube or an iron sight) doesn't really matter. Regardless of how much you can see through the tube itself, you still need to have your eye in a position where it's capable of being in line with the dot and your target. For a given tube size, that gives you the raduis of the tube where you can position your head. It doesn't matter what you can see through the tube or not, your eye can't be off the tube's centerline by more than the radius of the tube. Now, if you could get a BIGGER tube you would have more leeway in where you can place your head, but that's not the issue here. This is the last time I care to explain this. If people still don't get it, then it's not my business or problem. Yes, please stop trying to make us "Get" your flawed logic. Saying you prefer something different because it works for you is one thing, Insisiting that your method is correct while calling the way the vast majority of people do it (with clearly explained, sound reasoning behind it) "Tacticool" is just ignoranant and childish. The poster you have quoted is not the one who made the "tacticool" comment and I'm pretty sure he has his Aimpoint towards the front like most do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 6:59:02 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. On good quality red-dots (like Aimpoint) you dont HAVE to line up the dot into the center of the lens for it to be "on target". If your shooting at a target 50 yards away, and the dot is on the far left of the lens, its still going to be within 1/8th of an inch of where you're actually aiming at. Now is your rifle that accurate that it even notices 1/8th of an inch at 50 yards, or 1/4 at 100? The only thing you HAVE to line up is the red-dot and the target. Position on the lens/screen and dot has no effect on Aimpoints/Eotechs etc. As long as you can see the dot, thats where the bullets going. unless you're shooting at under 25 yards and you might find the shots being off by 1/4 inch or something (with the dot being as far off the center as it can be). Past 50 yards the movement of the dot is LESS than the "general inaccuracy" of the rifle itself (AKA on a machine rest under ideal conditions) Here is a pic to clarify all this stuff
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2783/parallaxerror.jpg I understand that, and I never said the dot had to be centered in the lens. My point is that your eye, the dot, and the target have to be in alignment, and there's only one position that will allow you to do that. The rear aperture comment was related to the fact that the FOV through the aperture (whether it's a tube or an iron sight) doesn't really matter. Regardless of how much you can see through the tube itself, you still need to have your eye in a position where it's capable of being in line with the dot and your target. For a given tube size, that gives you the raduis of the tube where you can position your head. It doesn't matter what you can see through the tube or not, your eye can't be off the tube's centerline by more than the radius of the tube. Now, if you could get a BIGGER tube you would have more leeway in where you can place your head, but that's not the issue here. This is the last time I care to explain this. If people still don't get it, then it's not my business or problem. Yes, please stop trying to make us "Get" your flawed logic. Saying you prefer something different because it works for you is one thing, Insisiting that your method is correct while calling the way the vast majority of people do it (with clearly explained, sound reasoning behind it) "Tacticool" is just ignoranant and childish. The poster you have quoted is not the one who made the "tacticool" comment and I'm pretty sure he has his Aimpoint towards the front like most do. You are correct. Mine is forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:01:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The point being ignored there is that just because you can see something through the tube doesn't mean you're in a position to align the target, the dot, and your eye. You still have to be able to get your head into a position where you can actually align all those things, and moving the Aimpoint really far back isn't going to help with that. Quoted:
Are you shooting with both eyes open? If you mount the sight forward and use both eyes the field of view is limited only by your eyes natural field of view versus "LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTIC". Sounds like you are treating it like a magnified optic, i.e. you are doing it wrong. Quoted:
...when I shoot with my Aimpoint, I typically have both eyes open, so the field of view argument isn't valid. You guys clearly do not understand what "field of view" is. The fact that you have both eyes open has nothing to do with it - you can only put the dot on something after you get it inside the optic's tube - you do understand that, right ? The closer that tube is to your eye, the more of the down-range area you can see through that tube and so the easier and quicker it is to put the dot on the target, especially if your cheek weld is imperfect (such as shooting from an unusual position, off the weak shoulder etc.). Sticking the scope out in the tacticool position just makes target acquisition slower and less tolerant of imperfection. As for this gem: Quoted:
The whole advantage of red dots is that there is not field of view limitation. For me I just see a slightly blurred tube that I can ignore really easily, and a red dot everywhere I look. ... I can only respond with a
Think this through... you have to have your eye, the red dot, and the target in alignment in order to be aiming properly. There is only 1 head position that will allow that for a given scenario. Just because you can see more through the tube itself doesn't mean that you're any closer to having everything aligned properly. It's like if you had iron sights with an enormous rear aperture. You could see a lot more through the aperture, but you still have to have the front sight post centered in that aperture in order to aim accurately. This isn't rocket science. On good quality red-dots (like Aimpoint) you dont HAVE to line up the dot into the center of the lens for it to be "on target". If your shooting at a target 50 yards away, and the dot is on the far left of the lens, its still going to be within 1/8th of an inch of where you're actually aiming at. Now is your rifle that accurate that it even notices 1/8th of an inch at 50 yards, or 1/4 at 100? The only thing you HAVE to line up is the red-dot and the target. Position on the lens/screen and dot has no effect on Aimpoints/Eotechs etc. As long as you can see the dot, thats where the bullets going. unless you're shooting at under 25 yards and you might find the shots being off by 1/4 inch or something (with the dot being as far off the center as it can be). Past 50 yards the movement of the dot is LESS than the "general inaccuracy" of the rifle itself (AKA on a machine rest under ideal conditions) Here is a pic to clarify all this stuff
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2783/parallaxerror.jpg I understand that, and I never said the dot had to be centered in the lens. My point is that your eye, the dot, and the target have to be in alignment, and there's only one position that will allow you to do that. The rear aperture comment was related to the fact that the FOV through the aperture (whether it's a tube or an iron sight) doesn't really matter. Regardless of how much you can see through the tube itself, you still need to have your eye in a position where it's capable of being in line with the dot and your target. For a given tube size, that gives you the raduis of the tube where you can position your head. It doesn't matter what you can see through the tube or not, your eye can't be off the tube's centerline by more than the radius of the tube. Now, if you could get a BIGGER tube you would have more leeway in where you can place your head, but that's not the issue here. This is the last time I care to explain this. If people still don't get it, then it's not my business or problem. Yes, please stop trying to make us "Get" your flawed logic. Saying you prefer something different because it works for you is one thing, Insisiting that your method is correct while calling the way the vast majority of people do it (with clearly explained, sound reasoning behind it) "Tacticool" is just ignoranant and childish. The poster you have quoted is not the one who made the "tacticool" comment and I'm pretty sure he has his Aimpoint towards the front like most do. You are correct. Mine is forward. hmmm, Coffee failure. My bad. Move along...nothing to see here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 12:16:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Put the Aimpoint in whatever position works best for YOU. Ask many people, get many different answers. Experiment with different positions until you derive your ideal mounting location.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 12:17:51 PM EDT
[#36]
For me I have it mounted right above where the brass is ejected on a cant. mount
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 5:52:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Yup, and here's a great article that expands on this concept: http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf It still boggles my mind that people don't get this. With both eyes open, the sight housing is a ghost image. It does not impede your downrange FOV whatsoever. If you see a distinct sight housing that actually blocks some of your view downrange, you are WRONG. The scenario Mr. Lund sets up doesn't make any sense. You will still have both targets in your FOV with both eyes open, you will still have to drive the rifle from target 1 to target 2 the same distance. There is no difference in the time it takes to engage both targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 6:06:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
I am on a straight vertical mount, not cantilevered, and it is as far forward on the receiver as I can get it. That leaves room for the rear lens cover to flip down and still have room for my flip up back up iron site. This is what I do with a LT-150, ML2, and MBUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 7:43:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mount my red dot sights as close to my eye as possible (subject to BUIS location etc.) - this gives the greatest possible field of view (i.e. largest amount of downrange real estate you can still see THROUGH THE OPTIC). This means, if you are forced into an unconventional position, you will have a better chance of still seeing the dot and acquiring your target. Personally, I think all the "mount the scope down towards the muzzle" stuff is just tacticool nonsense, but I'm sure there will be numerous experts posting here as to why mounting the scope far from their eye is somehow faster (which it is not) .Yup, and here's a great article that expands on this concept: http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf that couch looks familiar in the picture for figure 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 4:09:11 AM EDT
[#40]
My CompM2 on a QRPII is at the front of the receiver. I don't think I would ever want it any closer than that. I have fixed BUIS front and back.
I have thought about moving it further forward on my railed fore end (DD OmegaX). Starting at the T15 position (rearmost position) on the handguard. It seems to "feel" much faster to get the dot into my sight plane. It would not bridge the gap, but rather start right at the handguard, rather than end right before it. (I'm not worried about my co-witness. It is lower 1/3 now. If I can see the front post, it will cowitness on it's own anyways.) Is there anything "wrong" with this setup that I am not anticipating? I am not running any magnification nor NV and do not intend to with this setup. Please poke holes in this idea for me.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 4:54:26 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
My CompM2 on a QRPII is at the front of the receiver. I don't think I would ever want it any closer than that. I have fixed BUIS front and back. I have thought about moving it further forward on my railed fore end (DD OmegaX). Starting at the T15 position (rearmost position) on the handguard. It seems to "feel" much faster to get the dot into my sight plane. It would not bridge the gap, but rather start right at the handguard, rather than end right before it. (I'm not worried about my co-witness. It is lower 1/3 now. If I can see the front post, it will cowitness on it's own anyways.) Is there anything "wrong" with this setup that I am not anticipating? I am not running any magnification nor NV and do not intend to with this setup. Please poke holes in this idea for me. The only problem I see with that is if your rail even shifts slightly it will throw off your zero. I have seen people mounts optics on rails though and 99% of the time I would guess they're fine as long as they have a quality rail. ETA: thinking about it a little further, those who run the Mega truly monolithic rail wouldn't encounter the "shifting" problem and could put it as far forward as they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 4:48:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: My CompM2 on a QRPII is at the front of the receiver. I don't think I would ever want it any closer than that. I have fixed BUIS front and back. I have thought about moving it further forward on my railed fore end (DD OmegaX). Starting at the T15 position (rearmost position) on the handguard. It seems to "feel" much faster to get the dot into my sight plane. It would not bridge the gap, but rather start right at the handguard, rather than end right before it. (I'm not worried about my co-witness. It is lower 1/3 now. If I can see the front post, it will cowitness on it's own anyways.) Is there anything "wrong" with this setup that I am not anticipating? I am not running any magnification nor NV and do not intend to with this setup. Please poke holes in this idea for me. The only problem I see with that is if your rail even shifts slightly it will throw off your zero. I have seen people mounts optics on rails though and 99% of the time I would guess they're fine as long as they have a quality rail. ETA: thinking about it a little further, those who run the Mega truly monolithic rail wouldn't encounter the "shifting" problem and could put it as far forward as they want. Good advice. I don't see my rail moving much, but I'm sure it wouldn't be something that I could observe without tools anyways and under conditions I wouldn't normally be in. I had thought of going monolithic. Colt 6940 uppers were around, but didn't offer enough grip. The mega was out of my $ range by a lot. Any other success/failure stories from this setup that anyone could relate?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 5:50:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My CompM2 on a QRPII is at the front of the receiver. I don't think I would ever want it any closer than that. I have fixed BUIS front and back. I have thought about moving it further forward on my railed fore end (DD OmegaX). Starting at the T15 position (rearmost position) on the handguard. It seems to "feel" much faster to get the dot into my sight plane. It would not bridge the gap, but rather start right at the handguard, rather than end right before it. (I'm not worried about my co-witness. It is lower 1/3 now. If I can see the front post, it will cowitness on it's own anyways.) Is there anything "wrong" with this setup that I am not anticipating? I am not running any magnification nor NV and do not intend to with this setup. Please poke holes in this idea for me. The only problem I see with that is if your rail even shifts slightly it will throw off your zero. I have seen people mounts optics on rails though and 99% of the time I would guess they're fine as long as they have a quality rail. ETA: thinking about it a little further, those who run the Mega truly monolithic rail wouldn't encounter the "shifting" problem and could put it as far forward as they want. Good advice. I don't see my rail moving much, but I'm sure it wouldn't be something that I could observe without tools anyways and under conditions I wouldn't normally be in. I had thought of going monolithic. Colt 6940 uppers were around, but didn't offer enough grip. The mega was out of my $ range by a lot. Any other success/failure stories from this setup that anyone could relate? Poor balance in exchange for no real benifits. |
|
|
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.
