AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Red Dot Testing planned and protocols and procedures (pre-test peer review) (Page 2 of 5)
|
Quoted:
Whatever the results, I'd like to say that I definitely appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this project! No problem. I won't post my wall of words reply I just hung on the other thread here- but I just promised that I will upload the entire report on this forum first. It will be clean of any links to my website or social media (maybe youtube for the videos though). I will also not post or share the report on my website or any social media until 48 hours (2 days) after they are posted here. This is due to some accusing me of doing this for publicity. |
Got some tables coming together. Unfortunately- as you can see, I don't have 100yd data on all the models tested. When it got close to 4pm that day and angry wives were texting the testers, we had to prioritize the 50yd results over the 100yd (the 100yd was time consuming due to the level of precision needed to get the aiming dot perfectly in the center of the target). But, trends are forming within the sample group and testers.
|
|
Quoted:
Got some tables coming together. Unfortunately- as you can see, I don't have 100yd data on all the models tested. When it got close to 4pm that day and angry wives were texting the testers, we had to prioritize the 50yd results over the 100yd (the 100yd was time consuming due to the level of precision needed to get the aiming dot perfectly in the center of the target). But, trends are forming within the sample group and testers. http://i.imgur.com/Pg1XHLP.jpg Also assuming you're waiting for the 100 yd testing to unblur the optic brands? |
|
Quoted:
I think I need a legend for "HXA" vs "HXB" etc. I'm not sure what those 3 letters in each column signify, although I do understand the standard deviation part. Just not the standard deviation OF "XXX" part, if that makes sense. Also assuming you're waiting for the 100 yd testing to unblur the optic brands? I'm going to have to decide whether to throw out the 100yd results or to leave them in the result with the explanation that they are not comparative to the other models since we couldn't get that data on them. I doubt I could get the exact same testers and optics out there again- so using different testers, even if I got the same units, I don't think would be fair. It is interesting to see the 100yd results for the ones we did get data on (happened earlier in the day), but they are only informative, not comparative to the rest of the sample group. The optics are blurred because I won't release the unredacted results until they are released in the complete posted result. |
|
Quoted:
I will explain all of that in the report and change the database value fields (which those are) to a more reader friendly term. I'm going to have to decide whether to throw out the 100yd results or to leave them in the result with the explanation that they are not comparative to the other models since we couldn't get that data on them. I doubt I could get the exact same testers and optics out there again- so using different testers, even if I got the same units, I don't think would be fair. It is interesting to see the 100yd results for the ones we did get data on (happened earlier in the day), but they are only informative, not comparative to the rest of the sample group. The optics are blurred because I won't release the unredacted results until they are released in the complete posted result. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think I need a legend for "HXA" vs "HXB" etc. I'm not sure what those 3 letters in each column signify, although I do understand the standard deviation part. Just not the standard deviation OF "XXX" part, if that makes sense. Also assuming you're waiting for the 100 yd testing to unblur the optic brands? I'm going to have to decide whether to throw out the 100yd results or to leave them in the result with the explanation that they are not comparative to the other models since we couldn't get that data on them. I doubt I could get the exact same testers and optics out there again- so using different testers, even if I got the same units, I don't think would be fair. It is interesting to see the 100yd results for the ones we did get data on (happened earlier in the day), but they are only informative, not comparative to the rest of the sample group. The optics are blurred because I won't release the unredacted results until they are released in the complete posted result. But yeah my only request would be to try to make it legend heavy for me and my fellow window lickers. 
|
|
Quoted:
Alright I gotcha. Just a teaser until the full AAR is done/released. But yeah my only request would be to try to make it legend heavy for me and my fellow window lickers. |
|
This is cross posted in from the other thread- but I thought I should make sure it gets seen:
Just an update. I’ve started going through my sheets and double checking formulas and math for mistakes, individually re-comparing each test sheet to the master for accuracy, etc. I’ve already caught one mistake I made in my White Monster fueled spreadsheet session yesterday. It was shown on a sanitized teaser photo I posted and I’m surprised that nobody saw it and roasted me for it. Here it is for informational purposes: 
What you are looking at is a summary sheet, where all the tester’s data for each optic are averaged and then compared against each other. The results are broken out separately by deviation observed during vertical head movement testing, horizontal head movement testing, and then an average of the two. The sample average field is simply the average of all the optics result to establish a comparative median number and the results are then color coded for being either above or below that median. The top field “HORIZONTAL DEVIATION EXTREME SPREAD” is not correctly named, it is the average of the results- not the ES, I’ll change that later. I represented the results in two ways- one in inches, one in MOA since I thought some may find one or the other more meaningful. The column that has the average in inches was solved by plotting the two end points of the perceived movement and assigning them the appropriate (X1, Y1), (X2, Y2) locations. We then apply the Pythagorean Theorem to solve for linear distance, ex: =SQRT((X2-X1)^2+(Y2-Y1)^2). (If anyone was wondering, I didn’t use the “ABS” argument because the square of a negative number is always a positive). So, the column in inches is directly calculated. To make things easier for me, I calculated the MOA column from the inches column using a simple formula: =E10*(100/D10) where “E10” would be the field in the inches column and “D10” would be the distance field (there are other ways to normalize the subtension, but since the max distance tested was 100yds- I thought this was simpler). The error was- on the Horizontal Deviation in MOA, I have it calculating from the vertical deviation field instead. So, this threw off both the horizontal and total average summaries- but only the MOA results, not the inches. Here is a screenshot of the error after correction and then checking the work in an adjacent column: 
I’m going to do today what I should have done from the start and take the extra time to calculate the plotted linear distance for both the “Inches” and “MOA” column, individually, and then add a column that solves between those two columns to ensure the answer is “1”, so that the results are self-checking. Before anyone loses faith in my math skills, or attention to detail, after I have double and triple checked the data and summaries- I’ll be sending it to several people smarter than I to review it for errors. After a few phone calls I had yesterday, the report itself will now also be reviewed by several well-known and respected instructors before it is published (but after the testers concur with the draft). |
|
Quoted:
Such a tease!!! I'm ready to see the results. Will I want to toss my M2s? |
|
Quoted:
I would have brought my spare M2 out and let you test it but had to take wifey out on a weekend trip. Good work though, look forward to it. Can't imagine if M3/Pro/M4 are there that won't be super close to the M2 performance. |
|
Please post some feedback on the following changes when possible so I can send these packets out ASAP:
I have received offers from units, agencies, individuals to test and record results of their optics. I want to leverage these offers to expand the variety of optics in the test and ensure some of the optics that were unavailable the other weekend can be compared to. The results from these “remote” user tests will be recorded in a separate section of the report. I have modified the test form to make it simpler, more explanatory and fix some problems we identified. The changes are as follows to the Test Data Sheet: - Removed my company name “Green Eye Tactical” from the header to make the form friendlier for agencies or units to keep on file, submit to higher, or to also use for their own data collection. -Added instruction to not use real name on form and to ensure it is referenced separately -Added instruction for Units/Agencies where Serial Numbers cannot be released in a public environment, to assign it an ID/rack # for the test form and reference the ID/rack # to the S/N separately -Added reminder to use a separate form for the 25, 50, and 100yd tests -Deleted the Dot Size evaluation section as it was extremely time consuming at distance and, while interesting, the data was not as valuable for the time/effort expended -Bolded, italicized, adjusted text size, and underlined for emphasis and appearance -Renamed the “Color Legend” section for clarity -Added instructions to annotate line sketches to color used if color scanning is not available -Renamed the “Vertical” and “Horizontal” Movement Color field to be more descriptive -Changed the format and titles of the fields to record coordinates because they made zero sense previously -Added instruction to leave coordinate fields blank if they are confusing and that coordinates will be referenced to the sketch as the primary data point A simplified test instruction sheet was produced, using the previously reviewed protocols and procedures sheet as a reference. Modified Test and Eval Sheet: 
Revised Test Instructions: 
|
|
I apologize that I couldn't wait longer for feedback- I have a course Mon/Tue I have to prep for.
Cross posted from the other thread: I've gotten some Army SOF Units and LE tactical teams that are going to test their optics for me and send me the results. If you have some time this weekend, it would be of help if you could run the test. Try to have a buddy or two with you- 3 different people testing 1 optic gives better results than 1 person testing 3 devices. This is a very easy test to set up, no live ammo or even a range required. Optics do not need to be mounted. I have modified the test and evaluation form to make them more simple, self-explanatory, and removed unnecessary fields. I have also simplified the test setup and procedures to make them as easy to set up as possible, while maintaining some form of consistency. The testers don't need to be shooters, they just need eyeballs and the ability to write. I will be putting all the "remote" user testing in a separate section of the final result and comparing them to the original test. We especially need Aimpoint T-2's, pre-EXPS series EoTechs, Vortex, and Aimpont M68 evolutions (Comp, Pro, etc). But more of what we currently have is great as well. I will include all properly filled out submissions All files and instructions can be found in this shared Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/obpot49wnlitcql/AAC6XpeK8SZq9QLBXjxXthzba?dl=0 Feel free to share this information with anyone that may be interested. |
|
Quoted:
This test seems to be taking on a life of its own. I'm surprised more people are not clamoring for this information. I know I am.. |
|
Quoted:
However this has gained a bit of ....attention.. |
|
Quoted:
I bet it is only a matter of time before you have one of the big name manufacturers calling you. This sort of thing can rattle cages. I appreciate that you are taking the time to put a careful scientific approach to this. |
|
**This post contains sanitized result tables. You may notice trends or possible conclusions from what you see. Please refrain from posting observations of this nature or speculating as to what data belongs to what optic**
Update- Tomorrow (Sunday) is Church and family time and I’ll be out of the loop Monday and Tuesday teaching a course. So, when I woke up this morning, I completely reworked my master sheet and changed the summary tables a bit. Since I’m putting the “remote” user testing in a separate section, I’m working to get the report of the original test finished and then add the additional reports towards the end. So, I have sanitized one of the summary sheets for users in this thread (not posting this in the other thread). I have also included a DROPBOX LINK of the sanitized sheet, so those interested can look at the calculations and point out any errors. I left the Optic ID # in there so that if you sorted the data differently or found something, I could reference it to my sheet to find the mistake. What you are seeing is the first level of summary data that is sorted and combined from my master sheet. 
**I have removed most of the formulas from this sheet by pasting it as text, since they refer to cells not on this sheet** As I go through the results, I am intending to start with broader comparisons and then drill down to more specific comparisons. So, you are seeing A LOT of different data points on this sheet and it is busy. This specific sheet is a summary of each optic’s observed deviation, AVERAGED across all tester’s data on that optic and across all distances measured at. As I said before, I will be doing more specific breakouts as to comparisons at distances, consistency between testers, etc. I just want to see if there are any glaring issues with the broad picture first. As you can see, I have a legend on the right side as well as a glossary. Refer to that for definitions and descriptions for the terms and titles used there. I’ll probably re-title the columns in the final product to make it easier for everyone to read. The general format for this sheet is three different sorting/ranking. One by the Vertical Deviation averages, one by the Horizontal, and the other an average of the two. Below each column is a number associated with the “total sample average”. This field is a simple average of the column above for the purpose of establishing a sample mean number. The conditional formatting you see with the red and green colors, simply indicate whether that optic was above or below the average for that measurement. I’ll try to respond to any feedback posts over the next few days, but I may be away from the office where I can specifically answer questions that require me to access the master files. Thanks, and I’ll look forward to your feedback. |
|
Quoted:
Can you give us a time frame when the results will be posted already.........not being rude please don't take it as such but let's get this show going already. I did not anticipate how big of a deal this would turn into. There is a thread on this on many of the major forums and some social media groups. So, this has changed some of my concerns with the report. I am happy with the results I currently have, and it seems they serve MY specific concerns. However, the lack of some models of optics, sample size, etc will, at least in my assessment, open the door to too many questions or further accusations of impartiality due to older/newer model comparisons. I do not expect my results to answer all the questions that arise from it, I always have seen this as a starting point to have a higher quality discussion, and still do. I just want to plug some gaps I see first. Here is my current timeline: - Today: corrected master sheets and posted summary data for review (check above) - Tomorrow: Sunday, Church and family- priorities - Monday: Booked for training - Tuesday: Booked for training - Wednesday: Back to work on the report. Here are a few events that will happen before I publish the final results here: - Receive "remote" tests from some specific units, agencies, individuals and compile them - Submit draft report to a few proofreaders for spelling, grammar, and syntax - Submit draft report to all original testers for their concurrence on the data and summaries - Submit draft report to select pax, this group consists of some well known instructors, math people, testing professionals and possibly some mods here for feedback (maybe a lawyer or two) I don't want to lead you on, so that's the best I can project for my schedule. I will continue to work on it when I have time between work and family. I apologize for the delay- but I want to get this as right as I can. |
|
Quoted:
Looks like a lot of work I'm currently about 25% done on the report format and content. (Up to 5 word Doc pages so far) |
|
Quoted:
Did I miss it or when will we get optic names to assign to the data posted? |
|
Quoted:
I understand. The timeframe I had originally stated as my goal has passed, so I understand the the impatience and that this is dragging along. I did not anticipate how big of a deal this would turn into. There is a thread on this on many of the major forums and some social media groups. So, this has changed some of my concerns with the report. I am happy with the results I currently have, and it seems they serve MY specific concerns. However, the lack of some models of optics, sample size, etc will, at least in my assessment, open the door to too many questions or further accusations of impartiality due to older/newer model comparisons. I do not expect my results to answer all the questions that arise from it, I always have seen this as a starting point to have a higher quality discussion, and still do. I just want to plug some gaps I see first. Here is my current timeline: - Today: corrected master sheets and posted summary data for review (check above) - Tomorrow: Sunday, Church and family- priorities - Monday: Booked for training - Tuesday: Booked for training - Wednesday: Back to work on the report. Here are a few events that will happen before I publish the final results here: - Receive "remote" tests from some specific units, agencies, individuals and compile them - Submit draft report to a few proofreaders for spelling, grammar, and syntax - Submit draft report to all original testers for their concurrence on the data and summaries - Submit draft report to select pax, this group consists of some well known instructors, math people, testing professionals and possibly some mods here for feedback (maybe a lawyer or two) I don't want to lead you on, so that's the best I can project for my schedule. I will continue to work on it when I have time between work and family. I apologize for the delay- but I want to get this as right as I can. Of course your finding is a big deal. It show that Aimpoint is not as bomb-proof as people want to belief, even if they already corrected the problem with the T2/H2. |
|
Quoted:
Thank you! Of course your finding is a big deal. It show that Aimpoint is not as bomb-proof as people want to belief, even if they already corrected the problem with the T2/H2. Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand. The timeframe I had originally stated as my goal has passed, so I understand the the impatience and that this is dragging along. I did not anticipate how big of a deal this would turn into. There is a thread on this on many of the major forums and some social media groups. So, this has changed some of my concerns with the report. I am happy with the results I currently have, and it seems they serve MY specific concerns. However, the lack of some models of optics, sample size, etc will, at least in my assessment, open the door to too many questions or further accusations of impartiality due to older/newer model comparisons. I do not expect my results to answer all the questions that arise from it, I always have seen this as a starting point to have a higher quality discussion, and still do. I just want to plug some gaps I see first. Here is my current timeline: - Today: corrected master sheets and posted summary data for review (check above) - Tomorrow: Sunday, Church and family- priorities - Monday: Booked for training - Tuesday: Booked for training - Wednesday: Back to work on the report. Here are a few events that will happen before I publish the final results here: - Receive "remote" tests from some specific units, agencies, individuals and compile them - Submit draft report to a few proofreaders for spelling, grammar, and syntax - Submit draft report to all original testers for their concurrence on the data and summaries - Submit draft report to select pax, this group consists of some well known instructors, math people, testing professionals and possibly some mods here for feedback (maybe a lawyer or two) I don't want to lead you on, so that's the best I can project for my schedule. I will continue to work on it when I have time between work and family. I apologize for the delay- but I want to get this as right as I can. Of course your finding is a big deal. It show that Aimpoint is not as bomb-proof as people want to belief, even if they already corrected the problem with the T2/H2. ETA: Results still pending |
| Wondering if I wasted my money on this: Range Tactics P.M.D. Tru-Zero Device |
|
Quoted:
Wondering if I wasted my money on this: Range Tactics P.M.D. Tru-Zero Device |
|
Quoted:
First I've seen that- very interesting Quoted:
Quoted:
Wondering if I wasted my money on this: Range Tactics P.M.D. Tru-Zero Device |
| I don't follow the "if the red dot lines up with the irons both are zeroed" myself. I zero the irons with the optic off at distance (300m) and then zero the dot at distance (300m) using the device I linked to or a 3X magnifier. The red dot and irons never line up perfectly afterwards. This has been with an Aimpoint M4 in recent years. |
|
Quoted:
I don't follow the "if the red dot lines up with the irons both are zeroed" myself. I zero the irons with the optic off at distance (300m) and then zero the dot at distance (300m) using the device I linked to or a 3X magnifier. The red dot and irons never line up perfectly afterwards. This has been with an Aimpoint M4 in recent years. |
|
Quoted:
I've always zeroed both independently as well. I just find this thing you linked to be an interesting instruction tool. When I used to teach overseas, I ran a one week BRM and then a 1 week ARM. With the extended time, we were able to use laser bore lights in a hanger as a tool to identify iron sight alignment issues- similar to the old shadowbox method. I could see using this device on students by getting them to set the weapon on a rest/sled, have them point it to the target without the tool, then have them slide the tool on and use it as a reference to see if there were centering inconsistencies. If I get some time, I'll probably try it out in practice to see if it is viable for courses. Getting an idea of how a student references their sights is always a challenge since you can't always see what they are seeing. Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't follow the "if the red dot lines up with the irons both are zeroed" myself. I zero the irons with the optic off at distance (300m) and then zero the dot at distance (300m) using the device I linked to or a 3X magnifier. The red dot and irons never line up perfectly afterwards. This has been with an Aimpoint M4 in recent years. |
|
Quoted:
If you line it up right they should be able to see if they are canting the rifle as well. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W72HTS?tag=vglnk-c102-20 |
| Update- I woke up early this morning before I have to hit the road. I completed another check of the master data sheet and compared everything to each original test sheet. The sheet is good to go. I have completed all the various data breakouts (overall, overall by type, overall by individual optic, 25yd summary, 50yd summary, 100yd summary. The only breakout left is the standard deviations- I've found some very interesting trends when comparing individual tester standard deviations against the standard deviations of optic types, that may be in interesting statistic pointing to how user friendly an optic type is. I have also duplicated the original test master sheet and added all remote testing sheets I have received to date (last night I received 25). The remote testing sheets that I have received so far have ALL fallen within the tolerances from the original test conducted. We are now up to 160 individual data sheets across 12 different optic models. I am currently expecting an additional 100-200 test sheets by the end of this week. |
Ok I thought it was well known dot sights had parallax up to around 50 yards 
Once past that no parallax. As I remember you would only be off the distance between the center of the optic and the outer ring of the optic not MOA ,but only like .25 to .5 of an inch at 50 yards and in. |
|
Quoted:
Ok I thought it was well known dot sights had parallax up to around 50 yards
Once past that no parallax. As I remember you would only be off the distance between the center of the optic and the outer ring of the optic not MOA ,but only like .25 to .5 of an inch at 50 yards and in. |
|
Quoted:
Ok I thought it was well known dot sights had parallax up to around 50 yards
Once past that no parallax. As I remember you would only be off the distance between the center of the optic and the outer ring of the optic not MOA ,but only like .25 to .5 of an inch at 50 yards and in. |
|
All raw data, calculation spreadsheets, and user submitted forms will be published with the report. Unfortunately- I'm keeping the circle tight until then.
I have a database whiz working separately on this, who I thought was just building some charts, graphs, etc- turns out he actually built and interactive website.... just saw it this morning and it blew me away. |
|
When this first started, in a different thread, the immediate bickering made me quit paying attention. Just checked back in, and wow. Thank you for all the hard work. Putting something like this together and soliciting input from every level is a tasks I could not fathom with my limited knowledge base and limited schedule.
For me, regardless of the results, I would like to say this effort is tremendously appreciated. Just for going out deciding to either prove or disprove your own experience, it is something generally not seen on a scale such as this. I would like to offer a sincere thank you. |
Update- rough draft report of the original test complete and out for proofreading. 48 pages. At the end of next week I will compile the test reports from all the independent volunteers that conducted tests last weekend and will test this next week. They will be added to another section of the report and their results will be compared to the original test results.
|
| Allow me to suggest posting the final results in a different thread. I will be reading the thread, and all the responses, with great interest. It is possible that other Staff and Mods may be doing so as well, possibly as your upcoming thread might generate some contentious discussion. We'll see. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Red Dot Testing planned and protocols and procedures (pre-test peer review) (Page 2 of 5)
AR Sponsor