With the Skyscraper you don't but with Geissele 1.93 and other riser I did. I also didn't like all the extra attach points for reliability, way too much monkey motion going on. Unfortunately no matter how much I tried the chin weld is to unstable and not repeatable for me especially for unconventional firing positions. I also tried to find the tallest stock to help stable the rifle against my collar bone, but it just didn't work out well for me.

Aimpoint T2

Light weight, small, never have to turn it off, cant be adjusted down for NV.

Perfect for a small, compact, lightweight SBR for home defense.

I don't actually look through it for NV use, its more of a backup in case my IR laser fails.

I have to say my own experiences back up what Augee is saying here.  Although some may not agree, I think going with a higher mount, and adjusting to a "chin weld" is a better shooting method, with both day and night optic.  Depends on what you're doing.  In highly mobile, fast-moving gunfight, this technique lends itself well to fast target acquisition and shooting.  In static, positional shooting, the classic cheek weld works well, just like old sarge taught us.  I think this is an important consideration that is often left out of the conversation.

I've had the opportunity to train with a good buddy who was both an assaulter, and a sniper.  So he understands both sides of this issue well.  When he is kicking in doors and clearing rooms, he is standing up, moving fast, and shooting faster.  He uses the taller riser and modified face contact point, i.e. lower down the jawline from traditional.  When he does precision, positional shooting, he will set that up for more traditional cheek weld placement.  What I think Augee is describing is the state of the art assaulter technique, while some of you may be thinking in terms of traditional, positional shooting, for hunting and what-not.

If you do try a higher riser and are having trouble adjusting to a new jawline contact point, what my buddy has said is that you have to be on the other strong side hand hard, into your shoulder pocket, to compensate for the lack of face support.  Kinda like the push-pull of a handgun.  If your "support" hand is driving the stock back hard into your shoulder pocket, the face can make contact where it needs to be, rather than using the traditional cheek bone down hard on the stock.  Yes, it's a big change.  You have to really rep it in.

As to passive NV.  Having a higher riser becomes critically important.  Because now you have to look through the center of your eye, through the NVD, and RDS.  As Augee's drawings illustrate.  And I would argue that this is also the position you should be using for day time shooting as well.  By looking straight through your eyeball, safety glasses, and RDS, you will keep any parallax or distortion to a minimum.

To the OP.  Well my answer is neither; I prefer the Holosun.  So I guess that means I like the micro sight format with a circle-dot reticle.  But I agree in theory; the EOTech should be superior, for better FOV, but if durability is still a concern, then an Aimpoint might be a better choice.  So for real-world use, the Aimpoint might have an edge, based on past performance.  However, things do change, and I know several serious guys that use new model EOTechs.    One thing I have observed over the years is that quality can vary; so it's not only the brand name but the model year you have to look at.  The new EOTechs might well be come the preferred optic in the coming years.  Especially for this (passive NV) application.

Diz more or less has got it--the high-rise optic is for fast, moving engagements, and works well for that both day/night/promask/oxygen mask/etc.

For NV engagement specifically, it helps with positioning the optic and aligning the NVD to the optic, but I've mentioned in other threads, though not this one--it does make zeroing a little bit more difficult, especially at first, as most of us are pretty conditioned to want to get in nice and deep behind the rifle when trying to shoot nice, little groups.

A precision rifle/DMR/hunting rifle, etc. should be set up to best suit the role the weapon is going to be used for.

That being said, if it's simply a matter of "cheek weld" versus "chin weld," it might be worthwhile to try out some sort of cheek rest or pad for the stock as well--something like the LaRue RISR if you're using a CTR, or even just a stick-on Kick-Eez pad. One's first thought might be to be worried about charging handle interference with AR-pattern rifles, which is, without a doubt, a possibility--but remember that the taller head position also often allows for stocks to be run further out, particularly since you disconnect yourself from "NTCH."

The natural criticism will be that now you're just wagging the dog, adding more and more things to the rifle to make it work--but if you can make it work, my personal feeling is that it can be of great benefit, but it also may just never work for some.

The only additional thing I have to add is that while for a "24/7 Fighting Gun" I would still recommend having both an IR LAM and an NV compatible optic, I realize that some that may have more limited budgets are looking at this technique as a way to possibly space out, reduce, or prioritize their NV related purchases.

~Augee

Good point on the zero thing.  I have found that when trying to emulate what my buddy has been showing me, concerning fast moving targeting and engagement, you have to really "let go" and let your training take over.  If you quit trying to "freeze frame" the shot, and just allow it to happen, it will go in on target.  As long as I rep it in enough, on my dry fire practice, the muscle memory will take over and the shots will be in there.  When you consciously try and control this process, as in zeroing, it starts to wobble.  It wasn't made for static, positional shooting, as a zero process may require, so as Augee pointed out, you may have to modify the process a little.  For zero with this kind of tall set up, I try to brace up against any kind of vertical post (versus horizontal, bench style support).  I might even use some kind of "C" clamp around the post (similar to a pool cue stick support).  I will lean into that support to tighten things up into the shoulder pocket.  The right arm and grip are as loose as possible, just a slight tension, to isolate the trigger pull.  Now the cheek weld support is no longer needed.  I can "float" the face contact to where it needed to be, to line up the eye.

If support is not available, then I will shoot to confirm zero like a "credit card shot"  into the cranium, taking just a little bit more time to line up and squeeze.  I still don't try and freeze the shot, just control the wobble in a tight light circle (or figure "8").  Yes, this is not quite as precise as bench rest guys and the like, but will get you in there.

When I had to "qualify" for my local range club, we all shot off bench rest supports.  I just tucked off hand into a cradle around buttstock, cranked the rest up until my eye naturally aligned with the red dot, and let er rip.  Got a nice tight group at 100m.  So it can be done without a classic cheek weld.  You just gotta work at it.

BTW my buddy shot a lot of skeet and trap as a youngster.  He said CQB style shooting is a lot like that.  Almost like a "snap shot" when everything is just lined up and you break the shot.  When he went through a certain specialized shooting course, he was impressive enough to be transferred to his group's CIF.  For guys looking to get into this line of work, something to consider.  He showed me this taller mount set up a couple of years ago.  I fought the idea until I tried it with NV.  Wasn't what I was used to.  Then I really liked it all-around.  It's just something you have to get around mentally as much as physically.

So I am currently using my SPR for IR laser use.  Is there a MRDS that supports NV use that I can mount up top?  I really am not a big fan of the dedicated night gun with a high riser on the primary optic.

Thanks!

For those of you using EOTechs for passive aiming, how do you think the EOTech E/XPS 3-2 would work (so you can also use it with a magnifier)? Or do you think it's preferable to go with the E/XPS 3-0?

RMRs, while not dedicated NV optics, work very well for this purpose. As long as you aren't hard mounting an NOD behind it, there won't be any damage to your tubes.

Same principle as using MRDS on pistols.

The 3-2 is fine for NV use, I know a couple guys that use them. However, using the magnifier is difficult with NODs. But I'm sure @Augee has a work around or will say to simply not use it when shooting under NODs.

Makes sense, thanks for the replies Doc_Hurley and Augee. I meant I wanted to use the magnifier for day shooting (to replace a 1-nx scope) but to flip it to the side for shooting passively at night. Apparently though it's even better to just remove it completely. My concern was mostly the two dots on the 3-2 reticle and how well it worked at night. It seems like it's no big deal though so I appreciate the responses.

When did we get a @TNVC_Augee

In 4 the TNVC celebration

Vortex UH1 could be the new gold std.

Dog pile on the celebration thing.

To the OP.  I've seen this kind of thing before.  A vendor will fuck up and then all these guys swear to never own them.  Then they get their shit together and some guys will forgive and forget, and some guys won't.  Bushmaster comes to mind here.  They were GTG, then demand pressure caused their QC to slip, then they got their shit back together, and were finally sold.  Kinda sounds familiar, eh?

I think the main take-away here is that a holographic sight offers the best passive viewing set up for night vision use.  So really the choice is between the legacy brand, or, the newer offerings from Holosun, Vortex, Sightmark, etc.

Aimpoints are great, but until they come out with a holo, it's apples n oranges.  At least in terms of passive NV use.

EOTechs have had issues, but professionals still use them, so that tells me they do work these days.  Even if all the arfcomers had one back in '05 and it sucked.

I'm glad I found this thread.  I know this may be an elementary question, but do you change your NV to your aiming eye?  I haven't tried this yet, but I normally run my 14 on my left eye and I'm a right handed shooter.

Heh, this stuff has been going on for a few threads.  To answer this question, again, yeah if you're like a lot of us and run left or non-dominate eye, then to go passive, you would swing the J-arm over to right side, (or whatever your set up requires) to line up with RDS.  To facilitate this, a taller riser is used to help line up your mark 1 mod 0 eyeball, NVD, and RDS reticle.  Usually an extra height of 1/2" to 5/8" above the "normal" sight plain.   Which is about 1.93" to 2.33" from reticle to rail.

Great, thanks for the info.

The Wilcox mount is QD?  Damn.  Even with my magnifier swiveled our of the way my 14’s, well, technically my right eyed 14 hits it during recoil.

Might need to look into QD.

PVS14 on standard mil mount is okay. Awkward otherwise. I've run my stock all the way back and made fine shots head-mounted, awkwardly.

I borrowed a friend's RDS on 45 mount to check out in the daylight, and might go that route after some more research into available RDS units to see what would be best for NV. The Elcan with 45 RDS was very comfortable with binos-in my living room.

Not a big fan of top-mounted setups. I've broken 2 Doctors top-mounted on Elcans.

Please bring back something comparable.  I think so many of us have range pistols that could use them for night time plinking.

I second this motion.

I know EO's magnify great using a regular magnifier during the daytime. What about when you weapons mount a PVS-14 with a 3x magnifier behind one? Could the magnifier handle the recoil OK? Just asking because I mounted a PVS-14 with the 3x magnifier behind an Aimpoint T-1 to see what it looked like and the sight picture was awful. The dot was a slash and there was ghosting. Is it better with an EO?

Makes sense, it does seem like the friction-fit is the biggest problem with the setup. I've magnified the T1 before and I had a problem consistently hitting targets 4 MOA because the slash would inconsistently bloom. I tried aiming with the middle of the slash, top, and bottom, and I never got consistent hits anywhere.

It does appear that the T1's ghosting problem with the 3x magnifier works better when the setup is collimated, so I'll experiment with some risers. I was wondering if there was also an issue with ghosting with the EO when the EO is setup for lower 1/3 cowitness but the magnifier/PVS-14 isn't. The T2 does look like a nice option but I'm still leaning towards trying another EO first (the first 2 I had problems with and haven't owned an EO since we got a PVS14). Thank you for your help though!

In trying to spec the best optic for a "24/7 Fighting Carbine," can we rule out all modern LPVOs in favor of holographic sights/RDS?

These past few years the AR-shooting cognoscenti seem to have settled on the modern LPVO as the best optic for all-around shooting. With proper training a quality modern LPVO seems to have little to no speed disadvantage to the holographic sight/RDS even at close range--with a decided advantage for longer range shooting and PID.

So are there quality modern LPVOs out there that work well in front of NVDs in a passive role?

I know many LPVOs have "night vision compatible" illumination settings, but do they let in enough light (especially at magnified settings) to work as well as say an Eotech or even a T2? I've read that the Khales K16i, with it's clear glass and generous eyebox might work in a passive role, but I have yet to test one in daylight, let alone at night under NVDs.

Anybody with experience using various LPVOs under NVDs care to share what they've learned?

Great info in this thread BTW.

That’s a great question. I’d like to hear from others. From personal experience, the Vortex Razor HD 1-6 doesn’t have a NVD setting so that popular choice isn’t an option

I've been a fan of 1-nx scopes for years for general purpose carbines, dating back to the Burris Tac 30 1-4x. We've owned the Burris MTAC 1-4x, Bushnell 1-6.5x, and Vortex Razor 2 1-6x. Right now we own a Burris XTR 2 1-5x and Leupold Mk6 1-6x (which I think is the best 1-6x). They both have NV settings and I've messed around with passive sighting with them, along with an Aimpoint T-1 as I mentioned earlier in this thread. The image does get darker under NODs. One quirk with the Mk6 that doesn't happen with the XTR2 is that I have to adjust the focus on the PVS-14 in order to have the target focused in the scope. As in, the target is in focus with the PVS-14 and when I bring the Mk6 up I have to adjust the focus on the PVS-14 to get the target in focus in the scope. With the XTR 2 1-5x I don't have that issue. This and the Aimpoint T-1 sight picture not being very good is what drove me to get an EOTech EXPS 3-2 and I'm glad I did because it is a better, brighter sight picture that's also more forgiving with a sloppy cheekweld. With a 3.25x magnifier for the day I believe it to be a versatile setup. You give up some weight and ability at distance but it'd be better at shooting from awkward positions/potentially faster and better at night as well. With our carbines that have 1-nx scopes on them I plan to get laser/illuminators for them. YMMV

californiasushi, the eotech/magnifier combo is the same conclusion I've come to as well, for now. But compared to LVPOs it's kind of clunky, doesn't give you longer magnification (like 6x or 8x) or any magnification levels between 1x and, say 3x.

Hey Augee, you're right Aimpoint does have a 6x magnifier (for some reason I thought they only went up to 5x). Totally agree CNVDs seem to be the best solution for passive/magnified. But with LPVOs becoming the optic type of choice for that all-around carbine, I just wondered if some variation of that very same config could excel with NVDs without having to add something on.

So are there really no LPVOs that you know of that work well alone with NVDs in a passive application?

L3 came in and cleaned up EOTech and fixed the delamination and loss of purge and shelled out to fix or replace and make good on the screwup of their subsidiary.

Meanwhile Aimpoints have massive parallax error despite claims of being parallax free if you don’t replicate your cheek weld just right. If it’s supposed to be a bench gun or you practice with that optic a lot that’s one thing, but I’d rather just rezero if I move from Phoenix to Antarctica to shoot and have minimal parallax error on an EOTech, not to mention a MUCH nicer sight picture.

So after gathering some info, I can add a few more data points:

L3/Eotech gives a transferrable 10 year warranty for all EXPS holosights made in 2017 and later (from date of manufacture or date of purchase depending on if you have the original receipt or not).

Chuck Pressburg of Pressburg Consulting knows more than a little about shooting with NODs in all kinds of conditions and he answered a question that touched on the passive LPVOs with head-mounted NODs issue in a recent live Q&A. While his Daytime rifles have/had LPVOs, generally his Night raid rifles did not have LPVOs and instead had something like an EOtech w/ IR laser and possibly either have a magnifier that could be clipped on behind the EOtech if need be or a 3x magnifier for his NODs to view the IR laser at distance. However, he said if you’re, say, a swat guy with a single patrol rifle and LPVO on it, it would be nice to have one that works well with NODs passively as a backup in case you run into opposition with NODs or your IR laser goes tits up for whatever reason. He loves his Vortex Razor 1-6 for daytime, but without dedicated NV settings it blooms too much under NODs and otherwise said he heard the Sig designated marksman optic works ok passively. Finally he thinks it’ll be the next generation of LPVOs that manufacturers make where we will start to see ones that work well with NODs to better cater to the Mil/Defensive market.

My own testing with a Steiner P4Xi (which has 2 night vision illumination settings) and Eotech EXPS3-0: The Eotech does indeed have a much nicer sight picture as it lets in much more light than the P4Xi (at 1x and more so at 4x). A clip on magnifier reduces the light comparably when viewing the Eotech sight picture (and is clunky with NODs sticking out in front of your face--you have to move your head back a good ways). Even with the NV illumination settings, the dot on the P4Xi still blooms too much for my taste, while the Eotech has a crystal clear illuminated reticle. Now when you turn off the dot and just use the crosshairs on the P4Xi it works ok, but like californiasushi's Mk6, you have to adjust focus on your NODs to see the target in focus (I used a Steiner Refocus Lens). Further, with the P4Xi's lower light transmission, even at 1x, you can really only see environmentally lit targets or you have to use IR illumination--which makes you no longer passive. IMO if you need PID you will almost certainly need IR illumination, at least with these setups. A quality CNVD might get you there, but as I've heard mentioned that's best in a static or overwatch role. So for short to intermediate work, I've come to the conclusion that the Eotech (or T2, which reportedly is much improved over the T1 for NV use) with IR laser/illuminator seems the best compromise setup with passive potential for now (unless you're in that subset of Mil/LE guys who can get SWIR hardware). With my limited experience and time on this subject I could certainly and happily be proven wrong.

Good info, thanks C3N4-1.

I just wanted to add that I tried the USGI 3x magnifier screwed into a PVS-14 in a USGI weapons mount behind an EOTech and it was much better than behind an Aimpoint or PA Micro. There was no real ghosting/double image going on and it was a really good sight picture. I also noticed this phenomenon going on when I tried to take zoomed-in reticle pics through the three optics with a camera in the daylight. The EO didn't really have any ghosting/double image but it was readily apparent with the Aimpoint and PA Micros.