![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted:
Let me be forward thinking for a moment. Today we have the technology to improve troop safety by giving them a remote view optic option. Imagine being able to set up a rifle or machinegun on a small, lightweight, portable turret, that can be either manually or remotely controlled, with a camera mounted on the rifle and a (wirelessly connected) display on your helmet. Even better, the system is multispectral, covering visible, IR, and thermal in a single package. You can drop your rifle in a good spot for covering the enemy or target, while you hunker down in a place of greater safety from small arms fire nearby. This would not be the solution for every soldier all the time, but I can see plenty of ways that it would find use provided that it works well and doesn't complicate the lives of those who have to carry and maintain this system too much. We all (well, most of us) saw Aliens. The sentry turret is very much a viable concept today. I predict it's going to become a practical reality in just a few years. As far as I'm concerned, we should have it already. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Why do you want a 1-10 in SFP? That doesnt make a lot of sense to me. There may be a situation that demands 5x mag and holdover (300 yards) where you wouldn't want to be on max mag. View Quote It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles. For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway. Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get. For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale. Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards. In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic |
|
Quoted:
It already exists. Google CROWS. View Quote I simply think that there's room for innovation in this category. Imagine being able to toss your rifle up on top of the foxhole you're dug into and be able to aim and fire your weapon while in a completely head down position, with no part of your body exposed to enemy fire, but you can see THEM just fine via the remote optical system. |
|
Yeah, but if my head is down I cant see people trying to maneuver/flank my ass... So now I need cameras in 360 degrees.
|
|
|
Quoted: The main advantage I see for 2FP is that they are often close to 10 oz less than their FFP counterparts, and for that weight you could practically add a second scope. It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles. For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway. Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get. For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale. Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards. In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic View Quote I compete out to 600 yards with 6x easily and have done it with 4x. Hits on MOA size targets at 500 yards with 4x isn’t difficult at all if the glass is halfway decent. |
|
Quoted: The main advantage I see for 2FP is that they are often close to 10 oz less than their FFP counterparts, and for that weight you could practically add a second scope. It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles. For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway. Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get. For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale. Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards. In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic View Quote |
|
1st MK12s came with fixed 10 powers, we hated them, way too much scope for at best a 750m gun.
A lot of guys went to ACOGs or purchased own scopes. I think max magnification, 8x perfect for 5.56 Plenty are happy with 6x, good balance of field of view and magnification for long/hard shots. Speed counts and 10x maybe good for spotting targets seeing far but for shooting bad guys slow. |
|
Quoted:
1st MK12s came with fixed 10 powers, we hated them, way too much scope for at best a 750m gun. A lot of guys went to ACOGs or purchased own scopes. I think max magnification, 8x perfect for 5.56 Plenty are happy with 6x, good balance of field of view and magnification for long/hard shots. Speed counts and 10x maybe good for spotting targets seeing far but for shooting bad guys slow. View Quote It has been a long time. Hope you are doing well. If you would like to try our new 1.1- 10x30 FSO ( Full Spectrum Optic) give me a call. I can get you one for T&E. I would value your opinion on our FSO. Stay Safe De Oppresso Liber Ed Verdugo GRSC 951 845 9838 |
|
Quoted:
Let me be forward thinking for a moment. Today we have the technology to improve troop safety by giving them a remote view optic option. Imagine being able to set up a rifle or machinegun on a small, lightweight, portable turret, that can be either manually or remotely controlled, with a camera mounted on the rifle and a (wirelessly connected) display on your helmet. Even better, the system is multispectral, covering visible, IR, and thermal in a single package. You can drop your rifle in a good spot for covering the enemy or target, while you hunker down in a place of greater safety from small arms fire nearby. This would not be the solution for every soldier all the time, but I can see plenty of ways that it would find use provided that it works well and doesn't complicate the lives of those who have to carry and maintain this system too much. We all (well, most of us) saw Aliens. The sentry turret is very much a viable concept today. I predict it's going to become a practical reality in just a few years. As far as I'm concerned, we should have it already. View Quote ILya www.darklordofoptics.com |
|
Quoted: The main advantage I see for 2FP is that they are often close to 10 oz less than their FFP counterparts, and for that weight you could practically add a second scope. It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles. For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway. Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get. For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale. Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards. In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic View Quote If you are looking for a top notch SFP 1-10x scope, March has had their SFP 1-10x24 out for quite a long time and it is still the best optimized of 10x erector ratio designs I have seen yet. I am moderately certain they even have a version with bright illuminated dot reticle: FD-1, which is their name for a flash dot reticle. https://marchscopes.com/scopes/d10v24timl/ It is not quite 15 ounces, but at 20 ounces it is fairly light for a scope with 10x erector ratio. ILya www.darklordofoptics.com |
|
Quoted:
There is no compelling reason why a FFP scope has to be 10 ounce heavier than a comparable SFP scope. All else being equal, FFP and SFP designs weigh almost the same. FFP tends to be a touch heavier, but I do not know where you came up with the 10 ounce number. View Quote It's hard to compare apples to apples because most manufacturers don't make a FFP scope and a FFP scope in the same size. Primary Arms does, and the FFP is exactly 10 oz heavier: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24 FFP, 26.9 oz Out of curiosity, I tabulated the weights of all the SFP and FFP 1-8 scopes I could find: 1-8x 2FP options: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Atibal 1-8x24 2FP is 17.4 oz Swampfox Tomahawk 1-8x24, 19 oz Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24, 16.5 oz Minox ZP 8 1-8x24, 24.5 oz VUDU 1-8x24, ? 1-8x FFP options: Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24, 26.9 oz Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm at 23.5 oz Burris Optics 1-8x24 XTR II, 24.4 oz Bushnell ET SRMS 1-8.5, 23 oz Trijicon Accupower 1-8x, 25 oz Minox ZP8 1-8x, 24.5 oz Nightforce NX8, 17 oz Nightforce ATACR 1-8, 21 oz GPO 1-8x, 19 oz 1-8x24 PMII ShortDot, 21.4 oz HiLux CMR8, 22 oz Overall, it does seem like the FFP scopes are notably heavier. I was surprised to see that the average across all scopes is about 4 oz heavier, I expected more. However, it's worth noting that the lighter weight FFP scopes are VERY expensive. To get down to 17 oz in FFP, you have to spend over $2000 for a Nightforce, whereas in the FFP category, you could get 17oz with a $300 Atibal scope. If we restrict ourselves to scopes under $1000, the disparity grows a little wider. |
|
Quoted: I just pulled that number out of my ass based on my memory from various comparisons in the past. It's hard to compare apples to apples because most manufacturers don't make a FFP scope and a FFP scope in the same size. Primary Arms does, and the FFP is exactly 10 oz heavier: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24 FFP, 26.9 oz Out of curiosity, I tabulated the weights of all the SFP and FFP 1-8 scopes I could find: 1-8x 2FP options: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Atibal 1-8x24 2FP is 17.4 oz Swampfox Tomahawk 1-8x24, 19 oz Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24, 16.5 oz Minox ZP 8 1-8x24, 24.5 oz VUDU 1-8x24, ? 1-8x FFP options: Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24, 26.9 oz Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm at 23.5 oz Burris Optics 1-8x24 XTR II, 24.4 oz Bushnell ET SRMS 1-8.5, 23 oz Trijicon Accupower 1-8x, 25 oz Minox ZP8 1-8x, 24.5 oz Nightforce NX8, 17 oz Nightforce ATACR 1-8, 21 oz GPO 1-8x, 19 oz 1-8x24 PMII ShortDot, 21.4 oz HiLux CMR8, 22 oz Overall, it does seem like the FFP scopes are notably heavier. I was surprised to see that the average across all scopes is about 4 oz heavier, I expected more. However, it's worth noting that the lighter weight FFP scopes are VERY expensive. To get down to 17 oz in FFP, you have to spend over $2000 for a Nightforce, whereas in the FFP category, you could get 17oz with a $300 Atibal scope. If we restrict ourselves to scopes under $1000, the disparity grows a little wider. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I just pulled that number out of my ass based on my memory from various comparisons in the past. It's hard to compare apples to apples because most manufacturers don't make a FFP scope and a FFP scope in the same size. Primary Arms does, and the FFP is exactly 10 oz heavier: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24 FFP, 26.9 oz Out of curiosity, I tabulated the weights of all the SFP and FFP 1-8 scopes I could find: 1-8x 2FP options: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Atibal 1-8x24 2FP is 17.4 oz Swampfox Tomahawk 1-8x24, 19 oz Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24, 16.5 oz Minox ZP 8 1-8x24, 24.5 oz VUDU 1-8x24, ? 1-8x FFP options: Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24, 26.9 oz Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm at 23.5 oz Burris Optics 1-8x24 XTR II, 24.4 oz Bushnell ET SRMS 1-8.5, 23 oz Trijicon Accupower 1-8x, 25 oz Minox ZP8 1-8x, 24.5 oz Nightforce NX8, 17 oz Nightforce ATACR 1-8, 21 oz GPO 1-8x, 19 oz 1-8x24 PMII ShortDot, 21.4 oz HiLux CMR8, 22 oz Overall, it does seem like the FFP scopes are notably heavier. I was surprised to see that the average across all scopes is about 4 oz heavier, I expected more. However, it's worth noting that the lighter weight FFP scopes are VERY expensive. To get down to 17 oz in FFP, you have to spend over $2000 for a Nightforce, whereas in the FFP category, you could get 17oz with a $300 Atibal scope. If we restrict ourselves to scopes under $1000, the disparity grows a little wider. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
There is no compelling reason why a FFP scope has to be 10 ounce heavier than a comparable SFP scope. All else being equal, FFP and SFP designs weigh almost the same. FFP tends to be a touch heavier, but I do not know where you came up with the 10 ounce number. It's hard to compare apples to apples because most manufacturers don't make a FFP scope and a FFP scope in the same size. Primary Arms does, and the FFP is exactly 10 oz heavier: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24 FFP, 26.9 oz Out of curiosity, I tabulated the weights of all the SFP and FFP 1-8 scopes I could find: 1-8x 2FP options: Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz Atibal 1-8x24 2FP is 17.4 oz Swampfox Tomahawk 1-8x24, 19 oz Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24, 16.5 oz Minox ZP 8 1-8x24, 24.5 oz VUDU 1-8x24, ? 1-8x FFP options: Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24, 26.9 oz Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm at 23.5 oz Burris Optics 1-8x24 XTR II, 24.4 oz Bushnell ET SRMS 1-8.5, 23 oz Trijicon Accupower 1-8x, 25 oz Minox ZP8 1-8x, 24.5 oz Nightforce NX8, 17 oz Nightforce ATACR 1-8, 21 oz GPO 1-8x, 19 oz 1-8x24 PMII ShortDot, 21.4 oz HiLux CMR8, 22 oz Overall, it does seem like the FFP scopes are notably heavier. I was surprised to see that the average across all scopes is about 4 oz heavier, I expected more. However, it's worth noting that the lighter weight FFP scopes are VERY expensive. To get down to 17 oz in FFP, you have to spend over $2000 for a Nightforce, whereas in the FFP category, you could get 17oz with a $300 Atibal scope. If we restrict ourselves to scopes under $1000, the disparity grows a little wider. Primary Arms Platinum is effectively the same scope and a couple of ounces of weight difference are mostly due to different turrets. Comparing vastly different designs from vastly different OEMs/manufacturers really does not give you much in this case. Closest you can get is try to compare scopes of the same basic configuration and with similar price tags. With LPVOs, one of the things to keep tabs of is exit pupil on 1x. If it is large and well corrected, there will be some sort of a weight penalty. Same thing for wide FOV. Most top end 1-8x scopes, for example, are FFP, but if you search you can find some SFP options like the new Steiner M8Xi which clocks in at a bit over 26 ounces. Swarovski Z8i 1-8x24 is a little lighter at 18 ounces, but has a pretty small exit pupil on 1x which is one of the compromises of lighter weight. Zeiss V8 1-8x30 is, I think, a hair over 21 ounces. March 1-10x24 SFP is 20 ounces and March's 1-8x24FFP is the same weight (these are related designs). March 1-8x24 Shorty is right at 17 ounces, like NX8. S&B Exos 1-8x24 SFP is 19 ounces. GPO Passion 8x is 18 ounces (not too dissimilar from GPOTAC) Fundamentally, if you build SPF and FFP scopes to the same spec they will be within an ounce or two of each other. ILya www.darklordofoptics.com |
|
Amendment 3 was posted yesterday. It included some new questions and answers, none of them pertaining to technical requirements of the optics, and a business status certification document.
|
|
I just can't get over the weight
![]() ![]() |
|
Quoted:
I just can't get over the weight ![]() ![]() View Quote There are lots of places in a warfighting load that the weight can be made up, but yes, knowing the military, they’ll just add it to the existing load. This is how we got to carrying 100+lb of gear up mountains. ![]() |
|
Quoted: The way currently available scopes go, a $300 1-8x24 is going to be crap regardless of whether it is SFP or FFP. If you want to have an apples to apples comparison, you View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: The way currently available scopes go, a $300 1-8x24 is going to be crap regardless of whether it is SFP or FFP. If you want to have an apples to apples comparison, you |
|
Quoted:
I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap? View Quote At max magnification (7.6 according to Recoil) it sucks. And that's especially bad because it's SFP. |
|
Quoted: I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap? View Quote If it works for you, great. But I’ve looked at them in person and seen the specs. Other than mediocre glass clarity, it’s nothing to write home about. |
|
|
Love the guys chiming in about their 'great' <$500 LVPO.
The Army wants to buy $hit that WORKs, not only today but in 5-10-15 years from now. Illumination, hold a solid zero, etc, etc. They don't want great customer service on 10,15,50% of the optics. Chinese made junk that is good for finger banging on the range a couple times a year tops won't cut it. |
|
Quoted:
Love the guys chiming in about their 'great' <$500 LVPO. The Army wants to buy $hit that WORKs, not only today but in 5-10-15 years from now. Illumination, hold a solid zero, etc, etc. They don't want great customer service on 10,15,50% of the optics. Chinese made junk that is good for finger banging on the range a couple times a year tops won't cut it. View Quote I'll be interested to see how the LPVO fairs once it's fielded in larger numbers and goes through lots of Airborne ops, FTXs, and deployments. I'm guessing the USMCs IAR Squad Day Optic ACOG will hold up a lot better. |
|
Quoted: Outside of VCOGs and ELCANs I'm not sure there's many LPVOs that will. Military use, in combat arms oriented MOSs, is TOUGH on optics. Especially tough if they have long erector sets, exposed turrets, or other features many LPVOs tend to have. I'll be interested to see how the LPVO fairs once it's fielded in larger numbers and goes through lots of Airborne ops, FTXs, and deployments. I'm guessing the USMCs IAR Squad Day Optic ACOG will hold up a lot better. View Quote |
|
The army is finally catching on to what competition shooters figured out over a decade ago
![]() Funny thing is half of Arfcom will now rush out and trade in their Aimpoints and Eotechs for a LPVO now just because "that's what the military uses!". I've been looking at a Trijicon Accupower 1-8 to put on my newest 3-gun rifle. My others have a Leupold MK4 1.5-5 and a Burris Signature 1.5-6 that I've been using for a long time. I've recently decided that I really don't need a scope with magnification below about 2.5x though. I've discovered that anything close enough to require lower magnification can be engaged effectively by point shooting anyway if one is a practiced shooter. ETA-. I personally think the average army infantryman would be better served with a fixed 2.5x or 3x scope. I seriously doubt that the average grunt is going to be noticibly more accurate with a variable. Maybe 1 in 100 have enough marksmanship skill to gain a miniscule better accuracy. |
|
Quoted: I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap? View Quote This is sort of like saying you just dropped $2000 on a car you intend to use as-is for track day and demanding to know why it's not up to the same standards as something that cost 10-20x as much. |
|
Quoted: Steiner Military, Vortex Razor, Kahles K16i, etc. seem to be doing fine. View Quote I mentioned this in a video a while back so some may have heard it but... I had the additional duty of being a unit armorer for portion of my military years and we had ACOGs, M68s, and EOTech 553s. The 553s would frequently break, get sent in, and be replaced. One M68 broke. No ACOGs broke. I realize it's not a huge sample size but it's telling. Flash forward to this year and EOTech just got another huge military contract. I'd be willing to bet many are still breaking and being replaced. I'm not bashing EOTech and actually like the new models but just because the military continues to use something doesn't mean they're holding up. It may mean that a contract is in place and they (big Army and USASOC/SOCOM in this case) may just not care about breakages as getting a new one isn't an issue with taxpayer dollars. |
|
Quoted: I'm not being a smart ass but are they? I mentioned this in a video a while back so some may have heard it but... I had the additional duty of being a unit armorer for portion of my military years and we had ACOGs, M68s, and EOTech 553s. The 553s would frequently break, get sent in, and be replaced. One M68 broke. No ACOGs broke. I realize it's not a huge sample size but it's telling. Flash forward to this year and EOTech just got another huge military contract. I'd be willing to bet many are still breaking and being replaced. I'm not bashing EOTech and actually like the new models but just because the military continues to use something doesn't mean they're holding up. It may mean that a contract is in place and they (big Army and USASOC/SOCOM in this case) may just not care about breakages as getting a new one isn't an issue with taxpayer dollars. View Quote ETA: I mean dont get me wrong I do believe a pile of Razors were bought with unit funds and I suppose they could have purchased 2 for every soldier using them in case. But user Stukas87 even pointed out in his combat to competition crossover articles that most of the LPVOs were individual purchases. He's seen individual purchased Vipers, Strike Eagles even. |
|
I’m aware of the info above. Really no way to really know how they’re doing on a macro scale though.
|
|
Quoted:
I’m aware of the info above. Really no way to really know how they’re doing on a macro scale though. View Quote Uncle Sugar has a tendency to keep using stuff even if it breaks a lot. The ACOG is as successful as it is due to its simple and robust design being a fixed power. Give some Grunts and Gyrenes a $2k short dot and they will break them. Private purchase stuff is going to be cared for a bit more as the owner has skin in that game. |
|
Whats causing the optics to go TU? Is the actual shooting of the rifles(recoil) or breaking getting to the gunfight? I went through two aimpoints & neither time was it the optics fault...
|
|
Quoted:
Whats causing the optics to go TU? Is the actual shooting of the rifles(recoil) or breaking getting to the gunfight? I went through two aimpoints & neither time was it the optics fault... View Quote I watched a M1911A1 getting dragged down highway 144 at Ft Stewart back in 84 by it's lanyard. fell out of the passengers Holster while riding in a jeep... Heat/cold, sand , mud, salt water/spray, atmosphere changes from varying altitude. and on and on... A lot of SOCCOM units still liked to use the EOTech's even thought they had issues and ate batteries... but these units could have cases of CR123's in there team room/Arms rooms, so changing to a fresh set before every mission (which lasted hours in most cases,vs. day/weeks) was an easy fix. I remember the Arms room pics SMGLee took back in the day of some SEAL Armory. Drawers full of Aimpoint and other optics... good ones, broken ones, who knows... and they turn them in like you're DX'ing a pair of gloves. LPVO's have a lot more going on in the internals then a fixed magnification scope... the way to toughen them up is to overbuilt, and that usually means weight. Larry Vickers helped develop the S&B Short dot, arguably the grand daddy of LPVO with a day light visible dot. a $2k scope easy, and I guarantee you that there were some broken ones that got turned in.... A Military environment destroys everything eventually.... |
|
Rifle Carbine qualification
Watch this video (about the 1:31Min Mark) to illustrate my point. Pay attention to the ACOG being shot by one of the soldiers.... beat to fuck.... that's what a LVPO will look like after a year or two of issue. If it is not DX'd. |
|
In regards to durability of ACOGs:
Member GS5414 made a couple of the most influential posts I ever read about military use of LPVOs in this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/LPVOs-in-force-on-force-training-/18-729365/?page=1 (Posts made on 7/10/2018) Embedded among many gems in there that surprised me: There is a completely antiquated way of thinking in that a fixed 4X optic is somehow simpler and better for most jobs. I hear 'durability' tossed around a whole lot. Most are referring to the ACOG family of optics. Here's the truth about them : - The internals break more often than any other optic I've seen, in greater numbers, in greater frequency. Durability of the housings is assumed to transfer to the adjusters and prisms. This is incorrect. - Put one on a gunner's quadrant some day to do a tracking and repeatability test. You'll see areas of dead clicks, so the adjusters are not actually giving the shooter what they say they are. Also, the elevation and windage components track about as straight as Freddy Mercurie's sexuality. The optics do not hold zero under impact. So if the optic doesn't track and can't hold zero... how are you ever going to achieve a true zero and fire the weapon at another human being, guaranteeing a hit? - The eye reliefs and eye box of these optics are criminally short and small. To those saying you can get sight alignment in these optics easier than in most LPVOs, your assumed knowledge exceeds your actual capability. I just helped run an event testing this exact thing, among other things. Out of 21 shooters (4 cadre, 17 students of all ground combat backgrounds), all performed better from 0-600 yards with LPVOs (Nightforce, Vortex, Trijicon) than ACOGs 100% of the time. Inside of 50M, the ability to go to 1X (mandatory prior to assuming movement in event of a critical short range engagement) dominated fixed 3.5/4X shooters, and the ability to zoom in further dominated all RDS (Aimpoint M4 and T1) and fixed 3.5/4X shooters. It wasn't even close. Training to use MILs took about 15 minutes for all (GASP! Impossibru they say!!). …. View Quote |
|
Sounds like the criteria were written for the vcog. S&B short dot 1-8 would have been the correct answer.
|
|
Quoted:
In regards to durability of ACOGs: Member GS5414 made a couple of the most influential posts I ever read about military use of LPVOs in this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/LPVOs-in-force-on-force-training-/18-729365/?page=1 (Posts made on 7/10/2018) Embedded among many gems in there that surprised me: View Quote ![]() |
|
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.