ACOGs are so out classed in competition, that they had to make specific rules that bump them into open class, when best configured in the most common modern way (with piggyback rds).

A similar reality exists with RDS / Magnifiers.

LVPOs are the undisputed heavyweight kings and winner of competitions where the rules and course of fire are deliberately manipulated toward doing the exact thing that LPVO do best or second best or whatever.

I wonder if that was Delta34.

You can run piggyback dots and offset sights under PCSL rules in both Practical and Competition division. Also, red dots + magnifier setups have always been allowed in the same class as LPVOs since the magnifier is not a separate optic since it doesn't have a reticle.

I'm not sure what you mean by COFs manipulated to make LPVOs the best choice.



He was an older guy that I saw shooting at Superstition so maybe he was West Coast.

I think we’re I’m struggling, is that I have to focus on the reticle vs the target at close range, and magnification at long range exasperates any wobble I might have.

With my eotech Iseem to be as fast on a USPSA target out to 200 yards, with the same amount of hits as my buddies shooting magnified after we run 200 yards then drop to prone.  I’m also outta shape and have terrible eye sight. If I only could take head shots off a supported position, I’d 100% take an lpvo over just a reddot. I’m just not sure a lpvo is it for me.

Yeah I only know rules and layouts I've seen for some local matches. I explained the common COFs we see here previously in the thread. They clearly benefit LVPO or scope shooters most of the time... Which the vast majority of people are. Groupthink is a thing. There was one match where 80% of targets were at pistol ranges, and RDS guys did very well.

The way match scoring works, having magnification when you need it, is a giant benefit. Being a little faster up close barely matters... I would submit, that in a real life fight, the opposite is typically true.

Scopes have been around forever. Which is one reason why it's kinda hard for me to not believe it's just a stupid fad. No matter how you slice it, 5.56 is still an intermediate cartridge that is most often, and most important use, is at very close range (which does not require magnification for effective accuracy).

So ALL those dudes from the 50s to 2015 or so who could have been using a scope, but instead chose... Iron sights for 40 years?!?!?!?... RDS or ACOG for 20+ years...They were all THAT clueless? The Army M68 was just dumb? Marines and ACOG were clueless? Apparently the answer was right in front of 2.5 generations of clowns the entire time, and they just couldn't see it.

If you wanna make up games and scenarios where scopes and 8X is the required and practical thing for your AR, cool. Have fun. Just don't get all defensive if someone points out that it probably isn't all that practical for the majority of people and circumstances.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/-That-s-a-nice-group-from-the-bench-Now-let-s-see-you-hit-a-grapefruit-at-50-yards-offhand-/118-348400/

I spiced it up by adding a par time and a sprint from placement to firing line.

If you can see a coyote in the brush at 200 yards at night well enough to hit 'em in the vitals with your RDS or an LPVO at 1x, well, then that works!

As I said before-its ok not to like something.

An interesting observation-
I've never seen someone who could run an lpvo or magnified optic well be bad with a rds. I have seen tons of guys who only like rds suck with the other optics.

I think it comes down to fundamentals. If you have a solid stance and fundamentals, you're fine with either. If you don't, well, RDS is only letting you get away with sloppy behaviors. Conversely, RDS will let solid shooters get away with sub-optimal situations, as well, so it's not a bad thing, unless you're using it as a crutch, and then it's not doing you any favors.

That last part is the only plausible explanation and my conclusion as well

Which reticle?






 

Just joking!

As a as a stage designer, how are the courses of fire deliberately manipulated towards LPVO’s?

Be specific, please.

So your opinion is that a mix of long and short range targets with penalties for misses is completely contrived to benefit LPVOs?

Because that’s pretty absurd.

That, too.

I’m not that dude, but I have to say, I’ve never seen a course of fire that alternates close and far targets multiple times.  They are all a series of targets at short range, then a series of targets at long range, or vice versa.  There are always exceptions of course, but that’s just my experience.

If you have close arrays and far arrays how do you intend upon forcing shooters to shoot close and far alternatively?

Even then how is that favoring an LPVO, exactly?

There’s a lot of variance in 3gun courses. Most of the ones local to me I can’t think of any real world application. Maybe if you signed up for service under Biden and wanted to run house to house shooting people through their windows.

Then add a 300 yard single target at the end and you got yourself a typical course for my area.

Have you ever been to a place like Afghanistan, or had someone try to really hide from you while shooting at you?


You also very clearly haven't been around long enough to have seen the evolution optics have taken since the days when the ACOG and Aimpoints were being adopted. People chose them because scopes were too fragile (hell, most of them are still too fragile to be quite frank) and hadn't evolved the features of a modern LPVO.

I think there's a misunderstanding about what a competition course of fire is actually trying to do as I've seen several posts with the word 'scenario' being used.
Mike Pannone wrote an article about this on soldier systems several years back that encapsulates the issue.  
https://soldiersystems.net/2014/06/28/gunfighter-moment-mike-pannone-20/

Competition COFs are not scenarios, they're interconnected drills designed to surface and test hard skills. For some reason, when people take a class or dudes are wearing kit standing in the open with a known target location for a bill drill or el prez under Travis Haley's direction, they understand that it's a drill.  But when you put up some mesh walls and you're going against other people, it becomes a scenario that has to exactly match real life.  

Exactly correct.

Shooting under the pressure of a timer, offhand in awkward positions, around or through various barricades / obstacles, out of breath after movement, at targets of unknown distance, and at partially obscured targets challenge the shooter and shooter's equipment.   Standing on a static line and shooting 6 rounds into a silhouette  at 7 known yards ... not so much.  The mind-connected with body and machine of the dynamic environment causes people to make mistakes.  I remember a sub-gun match about 24 years ago.  We had a round where we drew names out of an ammo can.  You ran the next round using the gun from the guy you drew.  I drew a Bridgeport Thompson. I was pretty stoked.  Ran the course of fire in record time (first time I had fired a TSMG).  I'm standing there staring at the guy holding a the timer ... he's looking at me with this silly grin. I'm wondering why my time is running.  Then I hear the peanut gallery behind the line yelling to clear the weapon.  I was so enthused about drawing the Thompson I tuned out the instruction that the timer stopped when the SMG was cleared of live ammo.  I came in last even though my run was lightning.  Mental midget mistake.

ETA: I felt bad for the guy that drew my MK Arms MK760.  It was my first SMG and it was a POS.  I had several other "better" SMGs but I had heard about the gun-swap in advance of the match ... didn't want anyone shooting my other $3000+ SMGs (remember we're talking 1999/2000 dollars...).  A year later I was out of the Class 3 game forever.  I was shooting W A Y too much.  It was not financially sustainable.  Those were the only guns I've sold that I didn't lose a huge amount of money.  They sold for basically what I had paid (even though some were new when I bought them / sold them used).  Can't imagine what some of them are worth now.

We're all in different places with regards to our experience, shooting and gear preferences, anticipated "needed skill set", reason for shooting, et. al.

Oh, and regarding the El Presidente ... if anyone ever has a IRL experience wherein three hostiles are exactly 10 yards away and of exact same height and exactly 36" apart ... let me know.  The only "drill" I used was the Failure Drill (Mozambique), but I started getting away from it because over time I found myself only firing 2 to COM and 1 to HEAD when working with a new handgun. I had performed the safety-round drill so many times my gun was headed back to the holster automatically after that 3rd round.  Reminded me of a story I read wherein a LEO drew his revolver, fired 2 rounds, and reholstered.  He missed both times and ended up getting wounded by the criminal as a result.  His Dept trained to draw, fire 2, holster.

So you’re running competitive events without a shot timer?

I haven't been competing (except with myself ) for some time.

I have my own PACT ... try different things to see impact on my first & splits.


EDIT: if you were asking about the SMG match from years ago ... they ran shot clocks, but the run with someone else's gun included a stop watch since it had post last-shot action.  You had to remove mag, set it on the barrel in front of you at the last shooting position, make clear (almost all of the guns were open bolt so that just meant making sure the bolt was locked back). We shot that round for overall time.  You just had to clear the COF, get the gun unloaded. Moment you demonstrated it was done to the RO holding the stop watch next to you the timer stopped.  Rest of rounds were started with the SC beep and obviously ended when you stopped firing.

The range has a sub-gun match in March. If I can coordinate one of my range trips with that match I'll see what has changed in 24 years.

Already explained

Yes I have a decent amount of military training and experience... More than most, and far less than others (some of whom are seemingly in this thread).

There have been plenty of scopes deemed plenty good for hunting and military uses for the last 80+ years.

I do agree that modern illuminated scopes and reticles are significantly better than Grandpa's old duplex 3-9X... But still the main advantage over dots and prisms is the increase in magnification, which was always an option.

Scopes are great, but not the best answer for everything. Like anything else, there are tradeoffs. Are they the best combat optic? Well I guess it depends on what sort of combat you're expecting, and what you are going to train for. For example, a lot of people think the Army's giant new 6.8 Fury rifle with the giant scope on it is stupid... IIRC they say they want a Soldier to shoot Chinamen, through body armor, from 1,000 meters. Seems like a logical setup for that purpose, and if that's what you need to do, a modern scope helps a lot.

There have been none durable enough for use outside specialized roles until very recently, and even the ones that are seeing adoption break at a higher rate than aimpoints and ACOGs from everything I've seen. That has been the biggest factor behind the lack of acceptance. That's what has kept me personally owning ACOGs over LPVOs, too.

I don't see how you can fail to see the advantage of 6 or 8x magnification in any scenario if you've used an optic off a white target range. For my experience, 4x is great but it does struggle in comparison to higher magnification at being able to PID people (I deployed with ACOGs and have owned a half dozen of them in the mean time, so I can tell you I have no real bias against them). The extra magnification is not something you can get with a high end prism scope without going absurdly big like the 6x and 5.5x ACOGs are. And either way, with the prism you're now going to have to use a secondary optic to get the 1x performance you seem to be interested in. Hell, the first LPVOs were fielded/invented/whatever in response to the experiences of SOF guys in Mogadishu in an urban environment.

I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you on prism vs LPVOs, I just frankly don't see the validity in what you're saying about them being gamed towards competitions. If you want to argue durability and lighter I would agree that prisms and red dots are clearly better.

Not really.  The attempt at explanations in this thread are either nonsensical, unrealistic, or otherwise untethered from reality.

They were only used for special roles, mainly because the benefits of increased magnification was considered a specialty thing not commonly needed (additional range and more accuracy at closer ranges). It's also a huge pain in the ass to train the average Soldier to use a scope. That's why they have some of the new tech built into the newly issued Vortex.

I'm sure durability was a consideration, but the fact that they were issued for DMR and sniper roles kinda negates most of the too fragile arguments.

Edit: perhaps you didn't see my explanation of the limitations of the stages on the matches I've seen here. Post 32 on page #2 of the thread.

False. You disagree, fine. But your lack of a real response using logic and facts suggests that you don't have good counter points.

If you think optics don't have performance tradeoffs, you are wrong. If you think drills can't and aren't setup in a manner where some gear is better than others... Well that's clearly wrong too.

It's not even worth debating really. Who really cares if a lot of competitions or stages don't make a great format to evaluate overall optic performance? It's still good to do the drills with whatever equipment. But people who think that they can draw conclusions on equipment from simple timed drills are oversimplifying things, and wrong.

No, I read that. I fail to understand how a mix of target ranges is somehow specifically tailored to an LPVO.

The alternative would be to have a tightly controlled set of targets that only favor one specific type of sighting system. Now that sounds like specifically tailoring a COF to one type of optic.

Now, if your argument is, “it’s not fair because my preferred optic isn’t terribly flexible and only shines in a specific set of conditions” that’s fine, I just think it’s a horrible argument.

That's pretty much exactly what I described. Stages with either: 5-15 yards silhouettes or 200-350 8"-12" closely spaced static plates is a very limited setup. It's basically the same two drills over and over from the different shooting positions. LVPO do these two tasks well. RDS or ACOG are more challenging to use for one or both.

I've seen matches go basically like this:
3 stages that are essentially USPSA pistol stages. Guy with RDS smokes those stages and gets first place by 1-2 seconds on each stage.

2 stages that are a row of 8" steel at 250 yards and a row of 12" steel at 350. Same guy gets dead last on those stages, and dead last in the competition. It took him and anyone else who shot an RDS way longer and more shots to clear the distance stages, because magnification. So the guy who won the majority of stages, gets dead last in the competition. Perhaps not by intention, but the scoring is an extremely poor reflection of what is happening.

The above doesn't mean the RDS or ACOG are inferior optics overall. 15-200 yards is arguably more important than 200+. Moving targets and changing target presentation / locations are common in fights. Engaging targets across a wider depth and breadth of area is an important task that untested. While smaller targets at distance can be an important skill, so can hitting full silhouettes quickly.

ACOG isn't very flexible. But the one trick it does well, is an important one to infantry combat. And it's annoying to pay money and go to a competition where there's very little replication of that. .

You tell me, you’re the stage designer.

You've made several posts regarding stage design.  The only conclusion I have drawn from them is that the competitions you go to are somewhat stale.  That is not to say that you are wrong about the matches you have been to, but rather that it is entirely possible to make competition stages that test a variety of skills in creative ways that will expose the strengths and weaknesses of any setup.

All of the characteristics that you mention the matches lacking are things I have seen many times.  Moving targets, changing presentations, alternating between near and far targets in a stage, physical challenges (running, carrying heavy objects, riding a stationary bike, wobbling platforms), and mental challenges (target order determined by rolling dice, or pulling colored/numbered blocks from a bag on the clock, for example), unfamiliar weapons (having to shoot a couple of targets with a provided BUG) etc.  We have even run mystery stages where the only thing you know going into it is the par time (if there is one); can't look around the walls or open the door until the beep.

I usually shoot LPVO, sometimes RDS + mag, and have experienced benefits and drawbacks of both.  I give that credit to the stage designers for putting us in a wide variety of circumstances.

The new M7 rifle is chambered in a very capable caliber of 6.8x51 (277 Fury).  And based on the Optic that is scheduled to be fielded with it (a very advanced LPVO), at least some folks in Big Government/Big Military now understand that a rifle chambered in a capable and flexible caliber needs a capable and flexible optic.

So...

They are volunteers and put work into it, so I don't want to criticize too much. And there's some very good experienced competitors. But yeah you are right. I don't think it's deliberate, I think the guys who do the designs don't have the experience to see the limitations. And they don't seem interested in listening to "new guys" or outsiders.

The optic is laughably heavy and will be outdated in short order. It’s like the old combo TV/VCR/DVD of the 90s, Jack of all trades, master of none.

And then there are the glaring deficiencies in the design of the Spear. A ridiculously expensive new cartridge that has stout recoil and crazy high chamber pressure. A handguard with terrible tolerances. A terrible handguard to receiver interface, allowing for a handguard that absolutely will not allow a laser to hold zero.

The whole project is a total goat fuck.

Great explanation, thank you.

Thats a frustrating problem

For better or for worse, stage design comes down to the experience level of the volunteer creating the stage, and bay size/design at the range.  Most clubs that host a 3-/2-gun match are pistol ranges, with maybe a rifle range or two.  So what you end up with is most of the stages that incorporate a rifle are shot at pistol distances--out to maybe 35-45 yards--because that's what the pistol bays allow.  Then you'll have one or two stages with targets out at rifle distances.

For someone who has shot USPSA and 3/2-gun for a long time now, I am really enjoying run and gun matches now.  And, while still just a game obviously, it forces you to shoot a stage where you can't come up with a stage plan, you don't know how far away the rifle targets are, and you don't know what equipment you'll need beforehand.  It's still a game, but it's a better test of your gear in quasi-field conditions than USPSA/3-gun/multigun.

Like the tactical games, I think it attracts a different crowd that’s also really into wearing gear, lest I say LARPing.  I find it similar to shooting armored or trooper class at the majors.
There’s no fast shredder paper or shooting on the move so your transition times don’t matter and there’s also no stage strategy so it’s more similar to IDPA as you’re told exactly how to shoot a stage so everybody has to shoot it the same way.
Having said that, it’s great fun, I’ve done 3 and since I’m a trail runner, I really enjoy the running portion.  It’s also improved my long range shooting for 3gun majors.

You do you man, but I'm going to have to say I think you're incorrect. The fact that the ACOG/Aimpoint dropped on the scene in the 90s and took over almost completely by the early 2000s goes to show that the utility of optics is so apparent that even the conservative DOD couldn't argue against them when the rubber meets the road. The same clear increase in capability is what we're seeing with the shift to LPVOs with the Marines and Army now. The test of time is going to be if the VCOG and whatever that SIG abomination the Army bought will actually survive some PFC over the course of a few years.

That's been my biggest reason for sticking with ACOGs personally (I've got my own reasons for it that are not relevant here, but it's a concern at the front of my mind for equipment). I've seen broken ACOGs but not nearly as often as variable powered scopes. The reality of the situation though is an optic that is more flexible is better in reality, and LPVOs are more flexible than a fixed powered scope or a red dot.

Brought to you by the people who gave us …

The 7.62mm M14 over the original 7mm (280 British … 140gr @ 2550fps with 40k chamber pressure) FAL design
*note the 277 fury has to double the chamber pressure to add 400fps to a 140gr projectile of very similar diameter.  The 280 Intermediate or British also only produced 7.4FP of recoil energy but could penetrate a steel helmet at 1000 yards.

The Beretta 92 over the Sig P226

Non OEM M9 mags that rendered the guns partially inoperable in Sandy environments

Universal Grandma’s Sofa camo

A rifle (Scar-H)  for SOF that has issues when suppressed

The P320 over Glock

The only way you can really do that is to force a position change.  That’s fine and a common technique.  People running LPVOs will go from high to low mag or back while under movement which costs no time.

I guess people will cry about it and say it’s an example of designing stages specifically to benefit LPVOs again.

I gotta say, the first time I’ve ever heard that complaint in my life was right here in this thread.

So you basically want a match with just mid-range, large targets.

Sounds awesome.

Some things to consider:

If you look at the results of major matches where you have high level shooters, you’ll see that in bay stages, the times are very close.  A red dot shooter’s time at 28s does not make much difference vs an LPVO guy at 30s.  Since stage points are awarded proportionally to the winner, you’re not gaining much. If I was the LPVO shooter with that time, I wouldn’t sweat it.
However, what I’ve seen time and again is that if you can shoot mid to long range well and I mean 1-2 shot hits per target, you can gain a lot of points on someone who’s taking 4-5 shots and taking 20s per target. At run n gun events, if you see someone 30s ahead of you, it’s hard to make up that pace with just running. But if you shoot well, you can make it up.
I’ve also seen what you’ve mentioned where RDS shooters struggle at long range. Despite what you read on forums about 500 yards all day long, I’ve seen red dot guys even have trouble finding and hitting 100 yd targets in mixed brush once they’ve been shot up. That’s why at majors, we let the red dot shooters go first in the squad to minimize this effect.

This exactly.

Besides, I still beat lots of guys running RDSs with a LPVO in bay stages. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone come in dead last in bay stages and first on the long range barring an equipment failure.

No, but mixing some in can change things considerably. Along with adding some movement.

It's also weird to me, because I did a ton of quals in the Army. And it's real sad when the government can design better ranges.

I agree with this and have made the same observations. This is another big reason that I say competitions often favor LVPO by design. There's gotta be a better way to score it. What often happens is that whoever wins is primarily based off of who gets the faster hits on the longer range targets. Then by it's very nature, the game is heavily decided by who best uses a scope with the right magnification.

LVPO are simply the best tool for the part of the competition with the biggest impact on scoring. Should hitting small targets at 300m be the most important task where 80-90% of the game is decided? Not if you ask me.

I considered myself a 300 yard RDS all day long guy... But that's with a silhouette, not with a 12" plate. When I or anyone else for that matter, run an RDS at the matches here, they get smoked by 30s+ on the longer stages and are at the bottom of the results page. Just as you described seeing. Practically speaking, by the design and scoring, the game greatly benefits LVPO over ACOG or RDS. I've not seen someone try RDS with a 6x magnifier, they might do better.

So to circle back around to where this started... Games can be a poor arena for general evaluation of optics performance. The fact that guys who compete and win are pretty much all lvpo... That's not convincing me to change out the aimpoint on my home defense sbr or the ACOG on one of my other ARs.

All the matches I design and shoot have had plenty of mid-range targets. Essentially it’s contact distance to 600 yards.

Sounds like you have issues with a particular range.

Umm… yeah. Speed and accuracy is pretty important.

So… ACOGs would be fully competitive if we had matches that didn’t have so many close targets… or long range targets… and the scoring didn’t reward fast, accurate hits.

Yeah, these matches are super biased.