Old School, you cant cowitt through a magnified optic.

Old School, you cant cowitt through a magnified optic.

 

I don't understand... No optics involved. Just A2 sights.

 

Please explain.

Old School, you cant cowitt through a magnified optic.

Shane he means NO optic, just the irons.

OIC Something for your consideration OS. Even though I can hit at 2 or 300 yards with irons or a red dot. What I cant do is ID a target friend or foe! So just accurate fire is not the only reason for the magnification. I run a 1 to 4 X optic on my AR making it a broad scectrum capable AR from 0 to 7/800 yards. Aside from SHTF, I can tell you that my times on a coarse of fire tend to be significantly faster with the optic especially if there are longer shots involved.

 

Shane

waiting for the king of mall ninja's (vladtepes) to respond to this thread

Bipod = means having two attached to the rifle.

waiting for the king of mall ninja's (vladtepes) to respond to this thread

 

 

I prefer one light with EACH filter this way no matter what light I need (red.. blue.. infrared..) I am good to go.. lol

Not complete without the Tactical Spork!

The 45 degree cant does have a practical purpose, notably for those involved with vehicle operations. Being mobile around a vehicle is important, as a good deal of rounds can shred through most vehicles/parts of a vehicle (excluding the engine block for the most part)-- so, the whole hiding behind the wheel thing is so 1980's, ha. The same applies to any low type of cover where a person needs to be mobile, as silhouetting one's self kind of destroys the purpose of cover.

 

With that said, the above applies to a very, very, very small percentage of people-- and those who just do it because they saw it in a training video or whatever are probably chuckle heads.

 

ETA: I find "tacticool" pretty hard to swallow as well. As Eric pointed out, there are a good number of people who will either buy the super expensive stuff because they saw renown trainers or operators using them (or in some movie or video game). There are also those who resort to buying the really cheap stuff that mimics the expensive stuff-- and pile it on in bunches. I'm not saying it's wrong, as everybody has a right to do whatever they want. But man, as I always seem to say, and as Ken would always say, "it's the Indian, not the arrow."

 

 

SBU Prone allows you to use your standard 1200 Optic around low cover.

 

Personally I don't see the validity for using a 45 degree optic other an for competition purposes.

In some 3-gun or Multigun matches you have to transition from Long-range targets to Closer targets sometimes during the same course of fire. With your Optic sighted in at 75-100 yards, your POI will be significantly off, nevermind focus at say 5-10 yards. While it can goofy at times it actually DOES have a practical use to it

 

 

So a rifle with a 50/200 battle zero is what? 1.5inches high as your move closes? In all practicality it's a moot difference. When bullets are flying that 1.5" makes little to no difference when stopping the threat. Not knowing and not automatically compensating is a training issue, not a gear issue.

 

However, if this is for competition purposes only... disregard.

waiting for the king of mall ninja's (vladtepes) to respond to this thread

 

 

That's the pot calling is kettle black!

 

 

Ray You're the tacticool/ blactical god of NJGF! lol

So a rifle with a 50/200 battle zero is what? 1.5inches high as your move closes? In all practicality it's a moot difference. When bullets are flying that 1.5" makes little to no difference when stopping the threat. Not knowing and not automatically compensating is a training issue, not a gear issue.

 

However, if this is for competition purposes only... disregard.

Considering i Specifically said 3-gun, what do you think??

Considering i Specifically said 3-gun, what do you think??

 

 

Don't want there to be confusion for other people reading the thread.

 

 

While it can goofy at times it actually DOES have a practical use to it

 

 

You speak of practical use, which to me means true self defense needs, not competition only.

Don't want there to be confusion for other people reading the thread.

 

 

 

 

 

You speak of practical use, which to me means true self defense needs, not competition only.

 

 

Here is food for thought...

 

What is more practical... and likely to happen, shooting it in gun games/competitions/3guns.... or some zombie apocolypse and/or self defense/practical shooting situation.

Here is food for thought...

 

What is more practical... and likely to happen, shooting it in gun games/competitions/3guns.... or some zombie apocolypse and/or self defense/practical shooting situation.

 

some might argue the "zombie Apocalypse" has already begun.. and they are already out roaming the streets.. hmm... LMAO..

 

zom·bie

   [zom-bee] Show IPA

noun

1.

(in voodoo)

a.

the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

b.

the supernatural force itself.

2.

Informal.

a.

a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton.

b.

an eccentric or peculiar person.

3.

a snake god worshiped in West Indian and Brazilian religious practices of African origin.

4.

a tall drink made typically with several kinds of rum, citrus juice, and often apricot liqueur.

5.

Canadian Slang. an army conscript assigned to home defense during World War II.

some might argue the "zombie Apocalypse" has already begun.. and they are already out roaming the streets.. hmm... LMAO..

 

Yup

 

I think some of the competition people need to realize that a "zombie apocalypse" CAN happen. Just look at history.

Yup

 

I think some of the competition people need to realize that a "zombie apocalypse" CAN happen. Just look at history.

 

 

I think some of the competition people think when the reference is made to the "zombie apocalypse" it truly means Zombies like The Walking Dead; and not total social breakdown.

Just for clarity, when the term practical is applied I take that mean it would be "real world" effective. Not that it would work well in a gun game. So I dont wnat to get hung up in "practical" for gun games .

 

Here is my issues with the 45* mounting solution. IT SUCKS for firing from cover weak side. I could also see an issue loosing the dot when firing from less than ideal positions. But I have never run one so these are just my speculations from handling them.

 

Something else to consider. In my opinion there is no universaly right answer. What works well for some may not work at all for another. Another forum member and I have put a fair amount of time into testing various optics. I would say we are about even as far as shooting ability is concerned. Im a little faster, he is a little more accurate, but they are close enough to be a moot point. Our collected data is not big enough for a detailed analysis yet. We need a big enough sample so that anomolies dont skew the data. AT any rate we did come across a few points I feel comfortable talking about with the current data sample size. That is what I will call the "individual" factor. The data suggested that as an individual, I was considerably better at shooting magnified optics. Conversely the other shooters times and accuracy were almost always better for red dot sights. The tests conducted centered around close distance speed an accuracy. What was also interesting was the difference between us in the distance that we could maintain speed and accuracy in magnified optics. I was able to stay fractions of a second away from my red dot speed with magnified optics to a much closer in distance than the other testor. It was only at 4x @ 25yds did my speed deteriorate significantly. So armed with a bag of theories as to why this was, I went to see an absolute authority on the subject matter. When he gave me his thoughts on the subject, it made a ton of sense and I believe it is correct. Basically he suggested that what our brains are programed to see is what we will perform better with. So my brain is more accepting of a reticle and magnification where the other testors brain is more "programed" to see and accept the red dot. So next we brought out a crash test dummy. Someone that had never fired a rifle with a red dot sight. The interesting comment from the CTD was that he couldnt understand how we could hit anything with the red dot. He had a terrible time trying to see it and super impose it on a target. This seemed to support the theory about what the brain is programmed for and expecting to see.

 

For those of you screeming at your screen right now "what about iron sites", we did do some iron site testing but not enough to really extrapolate a lot of information from. Some of our anomolies came from the iron sight runs so we need more data to form an opinion.

I should probably pull this paragraph and put it in its own thread as this thread was really just for the funnies

There's nothing funny about just a Monkey, so yeah - I'm Tactical

My comment, Tosser, was in reference to the position of canting a rifle 45, and not the use of sights mounted on the 45.

 

In practical situations, a vehicle is not my cover of choice, nor are combatants stationary targets (though people do tend to get sucked into cover, but that's a different discussion). I want to make myself small/silhouette less as possible while still being able to move easily-- hence the position of squatting and canting.

Disregard..snarky answer

Shane, I wonder how your CTD would have done with something like an Eotech, where it shoots to POA no matter the position of the reticle. Dot sights can be picky as to standoff and head position.

My comment, Tosser, was in reference to the position of canting a rifle 45, and not the use of sights mounted on the 45.

 

In practical situations, a vehicle is not my cover of choice, nor are combatants stationary targets (though people do tend to get sucked into cover, but that's a different discussion). I want to make myself small/silhouette less as possible while still being able to move easily-- hence the position of squatting and canting.

BBK, I am having trouble picturing what you are describing as far as canting the rifle 45 degrees. Are you talking about doing so when breaking horizontal cover, vertical cover, or maybe when you have diagonal cover?

 

As far as the original video is concerned I thought it was very funny.

In order

 

Kpd, the dot sights were an Aimpoint M4 2 moa dot and a T1 Micro 4 moa dot. Both of which operate the same as a Eotech in that regard.

 

Joel, what I am invisioning from BBK's description would be the same as angling the bottom of the rifle to the right to clear the mag in a super low prone position, but doing it over cover to keep the profile small. At least thats what I took him to mean.

Havent really used either of them so I wasn't sure Shane, Thanks

No problem brother The linup of sights in our testing are the following:

 

Irons

Triji Acog TA33H-G 3x

Two Aimpoint T1 Micro's

Aimpoint M4

Elcan Specter Dr 1 to 4 power.

US Optics 1.8-10(on the docket for testing)

Shane, you described what I was trying to infer-- sorry, Joel, that I couldn't quite paint the right picture with thy words.

Shane, you described what I was trying to infer-- sorry, Joel, that I couldn't quite paint the right picture with thy words.

I can see your point now, and canting the rifle in that situation does somewhat minimize your exposure.

 

However, I look at breaking cover in that manner as a last resort as it still exposes a lot of your head as you beak cover.