[Blain]

It seems that in all the shots I've seen of our troops in the paper and on TV, I always seem some type of optical device, like an aimpoint, mounted on our soldiers rifles. My question is why? Maybe I'm old fashoined but I'd prefere the iron sights.

However, since I've never used an aimpoint, I feel as if it's my duty to ask what's so special about them? Are they really that much better, if at all, from the standard irons? Which would you rather use if going to war, irons or an aimpoint (or reddot, or whatever it is they're using these days).

[dude]

because they work great!

[Marko Kloos]

Red dot sights are superior to iron sights for fast target acquisition at close range. I guess they use them because they work well for their intended purpose. I have a red dot on my AR for the same reason.

[ajacobs]

It is a hardware solution to a software problem. They don't spend enough time training people to shoot well and replace that with aimpoints.

[dude]

what kind of a crock is that??? Hey, if it makes you happy to think that way.

......they train them plenty with iron sights and yet some of them use the red-dot optics. Hell, why not use something that works even better??

[Gewehr98]

Whatever works to get the enemy body count higher, with fewer casualties on our own side, gets the nod. Aimpoint sights may very well give that advantage.

[Soap]

Having your aiming index and the target on the same focal plane is the HUGE advantage of optical sights. Ever try shifting your focus from your front sight to a target that is moving and then back again? It's rough... But the optics make this task (and many other aiming tasks) easier.

I generally hate gadgets but certain ones have proven themselves to the point that they are no longer gadgets and should be consided viable tools.

[Airwolf]

The simple answer is that the Aimpoint provides a parallax free sighting solution. You don’t have to worry about sight alignment. As long as the dot is on the target, that’s where your going to hit (compensating for wind and range, of course).

For rapid acquisition or close range situations it’s really amazing to find out just how fast you can put rounds on target (first and follow-up) and keep both eyes open and your situational awareness high.

For longer range the 4MOA dot is a bit too much and the iron sights come back into play.

I’ve got an Aimpoint on my M1A Scout and for man sized targets out to 300 yards it’s worth its weight in gold.

For M-16’s a lot of them are setup to co-witness the irons or view them under the optical sights, so for those longer shots (or optics failure) there’s no penalty for having the high-tech stuff. Best of both worlds.

[Blain]

So let me get this straight, I can set up my M14 so that I can switch between looking through the aimpoint scope, or through the irons just by moving my head?

[dude]

just by moving your eye

......I find myself favoring the irons under the red 'dot' with the C-More I have foward mounted if I want to hit a small targets (like orange clays)

[Blueduck]

I'm a bit behind on the millitary rifle stuff but what they are using (ACOG?) is not really a red dot is it?

[El Rojo]

The other huge thing I like I about red-dots is that they are superior in low light situations. For those of you who have looked through a set of iron sights when it is dark, you can't see jack. With the aimpoint, there is a nice red dot showing you right were to aim.

[PsyWarrior]

I hate to pop a bubble about the level of training, however, range time is quite limited. Some units only go to the range 1 or 2 times a year. With Socom, we would go more often, but in my opinion, not enough. That is why I would spend a lot of range time on my own. Our troops (non infantry MOS) are taught familiarity and go to qualify annually. This is not enough. Infantry units go more often, but not enough, IMHO. We are winning this war by firepower and motivation. We can put more rounds down range and have better support. Our tanks can out shoot theirs and they are severely weakened by bombing beforehand. If we were in a jungle or pure infantry type situation, the outcome might be a little different.

[444]

I have an Aimpoint on one of my ARs that is just like the one the GIs are using. It provides numerous advantages over iron sights. First of all it is much faster to aquire the dot than it is to aquire the sights. Along the same line, you don't have to align the sights, the sight is on the same plane as the target (or so it appears to your eye). Second, you can easily see the dot at night when you can't see iron sights at all. Third you can use the dot sight with night vision equipment if the dot sight is so equipped, which theirs are.
I recently attended the carbine class at Gunsite and had the value of the dot sight proven to me. Within the first couple days, the people shooting iron sights were telling each other that there was no way they could shoot with the speed that the dot sight users could. During the night shoot, they couldn't see their sights at all, while I was hitting the steel every time at 100 yards. Finally, I had no trouble at all hitting pepper poppers at 400 yards. I didn't find the dot to be too large to allow precise enough shooting to hit targets the size of a human torso out to the effective range of the rifle.
I think you would also agree that the sight has proven itself to be rugged and reliable under actual combat conditions. Another frequently mentioned topic is battery life with people saying that they don't want to depend on an electronic device. The battery life is 10,000 hours on the lowest setting and 1000 hours on the highest (brightest) setting. In addition I have the double battery module that has a spare battery mounted on the sight that would take me less than a second to change. Then if I have the sight turned on for several years at a time and those two batteries go dead, I have a spare battery compartment on my GG&G cantilever mount. If all that fails, I can use the iron sights without removing the electronic sight although the electronic sight can be removed in seconds. In addition, you could just use the sight tube as a giant ghost ring which is adequate for short range encounters.
Training is less of an issue because the electronic sight is easier to use and provides faster first shot hits.

[Destructo6]

I thought I read that you can replace the diode to get a 2, 4, or 8 MOA dot? 4MOA being the "standard." Yes/NO?

[Al Thompson]

Interesting historical note - when the SF guys went into Son Tay, they were using some of the first red dot sights.

Qual wise, when I was in an Infantry battalion, we qualified quarterly. Every six months or so we had a gunnery density where we had live fire exercises up to company level.

One of the mods is now with the 25th at Ft. Lewis and, in conversation, told me that things have changed since I was in. There are more pure bulllseye CoFs and much emphasis on the optical sights used with the M4s.

[444]

"So let me get this straight, I can set up my M14 so that I can switch between looking through the aimpoint scope, or through the irons just by moving my head?"

I don't know about the M14, but on the AR15/M16/M4 you can simply look through the optical sight using your iron sights. For me, I don't notice the iron sights at all when using the red dot. I can flip my rear sight down when not in use, but I have found that if I forget to fold the rear sight down, I don't even notice it is there. The dot appears right at the tip of the front sight. In fact, if your iron sights are zeroed, you can do a pretty close zero of the dot sight just by lining up the dot with your irons. Another thing that is nice about the dot sight is the ability to shoot with both eyes open allowing you to be more aware of what is going on around you. I personally have great difficulty shooting iron sights with both eyes open, but with the dot, it is no trouble at all.
By the way, my groups are always tighter with the dot sight than when using the irons.

[Braz]

I noticed that too Blain,

Competition shooters led the way, glad to see the military using what works best.

[cratz2]

Why anyone would want to knock the government trying to put good equipment into the hands of the folks defending our country.... knock yourself out.

I've been shooting with iron sights for a long long time and the first time I ever tried dot sights (Gilmore and C-More) I shot faster than ever with irons. Up close there's no comparison. There is no alignment, you just see the dot and pull the trigger. Much faster, esp up close.

Do they need them? I guess not. We got through WWII without them.

Would a hundred hours of training for each Fighter offset some of the need for them? Sure! More than likely.

Is there anything wrong with giving the guys fighting for us every possible advantage? It would be treasonous to think otherwise. :fire:

[ShaiVong]

When one of my buddies went through basic, and was told to sight in his M16, the instructions were to fire 3 shot groups, adjust sights, etc..

Unfortunately, because of lack of ammo, he was told to only fire one shot rather than three in zeroing.. His reply? "What kind of rag-tag army is this?!"

Sometimes range practice is logistically impossable, unfortunately.

[rick_reno]

Is it the Comp M2? That one is 4 MOA and mates up nicely with the ITT night vision scope.

[Turk]

Al,

You're totally right these raiders purchased the Aimpoints retail. It increased night hits during training by 50% on targets. These Petes were highly trained and most were E-6 and above even with highly trained troops the hits go up. Go to their web site www.sontayraider.com it has some great photo's.

Knowing what I know now I would given almost anything is I could of had one on my 16 back in 68.

I too have a red dot on my SP1 it gives fast target hits with both eyes open. Just yesterday I took out my L1A1 and the AR. The AR was quicker for follow up shots. I'm thinking about putting one on the L1A1. But the AR is still my first choice.

Pray for our troops fighting around the world.

Turk

[gun-fucious]

With both eyes open, you scan the terrain while looking at the red dot. It appears to track across the objects in your field of view. You do not have to be looking straight down the sight tube.

If you can see the "Red Dot of Death[TM]", your round can hit the dotted area.

At some point in the future, the land warrior sight will be transmiting to your monocle, the RDD from the weapon on your hip or around a corner.

[MarkDido]

So what do these beauty's go for?

[hps1]

Ooops! Decided this should be a new thread and couldn't delete.

[PATH]

I aggre with the majority. The red dot is great for quick target acquisituion and in low light use while allowing you to maintain focus on the scene before you. Make sure however that your little red dot is set to hit where it is pointing.

[SodaPop]

I have nothing to say.

You've all covered the grounds.
:D

[dude]

FWIW- we can that our friends in the IDF* for the introduction of red-dots & such things on combat rifles.









*as usual

[SodaPop]

I just don't like the idea of a dot completely disappearing when the battery dies.

Those Leupolds are absurdly priced.

[444]

"So what do these beauty's go for?"
"aimpoints - which one is it they're using?"

http://www.aimpoint.com/
http://www.riflescopes.com/riflescopes/aimpoint/index.html

[Blain]

Just how do you zero in these babies?

[444]

Zeroing:
http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/zeroingmethods.msnw

Basically; 1.5" low at 25. Right on at 50 giving you a zero of something like 220 yards (with an AR). You are like 1.5" high at 100 and like a couple inches low at 300 (these numbers are approximate, see link above). In other words you hold center mass from 0-300. I was hitting a pepper popper at 400 with a high head hold.

"I just don't like the idea of a dot completely disappearing when the battery dies."
Again, the battery will last for something like a year if you never shut it off. If the battery dies, you use your iron sights (assuming you can't take a minute to change the battery and have totally ignored preventitive maintainance by periodically changing out the battery like once a year). And again, you can simply look through the Aimpoint and use your front sight with the scope tube assuming the role of a large ghost ring.

One more thing that is cool about the dot sight is since it doesn't exhibit parallax, as long as you can put the dot on the target, you can hit it. I was going through a course where you had to crawl inside a long wooden box and hit a silhouette target some distance out the other end of the box. They warned us that shooting with the muzzle in the box would blow dust all over the place and totally obscure your vision. In an effort to cut my time, I simply stuck my shoulders into the box, held the rifle out the end of the box like a pistol, put the dot on the target and fired with the stock no where near my shoulder.

[c_yeager]

I love it when people talk about that new-fangled technology like it somehow puts us at a DISSADVANTAGE. Then they go on about how we did just fine with iron sights in world war two. Well, guess what, we lost over a QUARTER MILLION of our boys in that war. I for one am QUITE glad to see such improvments in place. And i think that the proof of their performance is obvious in how many caskets we are shipping home.

[Blain]

Yeager, are you saying that the M16 is better than the M14, or the great M1?

[gun-fucious]

The "M-16" is the longest actively deployed infantry rifle system in US history.
(i like to refer to it as a quaint antique design, That really pisses off the Bradyites)
;)
Despite its early start up issues, due to improper ammo and maintainence,
it remains a highly successful infantry rifle.

When HKs rumored G36 based upper appears, the rifle will remain an AR15

Yes, the Garand and the M14 were great, but like the Tyranosaur,
they have been replaced by a mouse!



:evil:

[Double Naught Spy]

I have seen a variety of optical devices being used by our soldiers in IRAQ including various ACOGs (not all NSN1s), Aimpoint, Trijicon Reflex, and I could have sworn there were some Elcans as well, but that may have been on troops other than US.

It was noted that the optics were a hardware solution to a software problem. Maybe so maybe not. It is the application of better technology to make the task easier for the soldier. The argument can be made that all sorts of technology is a hardware solution to a software problem, but that doesn't mean the solution is wrong or bad.

Way back a long time ago, the early firearms were simply barrels, rudimenary stocks, and no sights. Then somebody came up with a hardware solution to a software problem and put sights on those barrels and PRESTO things got a lot better.

Optics have some decided advantages such as quicker target aquisition and the slight magnification helps with seeing the intended targets better and placing shots better in a quicker manner.

[ajacobs]

It is a hardware solution to a software problem. They don't spend enough time training people to shoot well and replace that with aimpoints.

I do not argue that the aimpoint is not an improvement over standard sights in some situations. One of my ar's wears an Aimpoint and another a c-more and I have others with and without optics. The truth is that most soldiers are not very proficient with their firearms and qualify semi anually due to budget constraints. The aimpoints do make it easier to hit for people with less skills and cater well to the video game generation. If you veiw it like the army did and just want to improve hit ratio than, like many things in the goverment, you can throw money at it (purchase aimpoints) and get improvement. If you want to address a real problem you can restructure the way and interval of training and improve the soldier.

Do I want our soldiers have a higher hit percentage? Of course
and an aimpoint can do that.

But I would prefer to improve skills first, and they will carry over to the use of things like aimpoints for an even higher hit percentage.

I have ran millitary rifle qualifications for the infantry and 40 rnds twice a year is not enough. I wouldn't consider myself safe to carry concealed if that is all I shot.

[dude]

40 rounds twice a year seems to be just fine for the most powerful military force on the planet


.......Combat Arms troops shoot alot more

[ajacobs]

I am not wrong nor bitter(maybe I would have been bitter if I was a helocopter Mechanic). I was in the infantry active duty. Both as 11b and 11m. I have participated in running riffle qualification ranges. Admitidaly the 40 rounds twice a year leaves out rounds to zero. But it is true. Most of the focus is not on marksmanship but unit tactics and that is done with blanks and miles gear.

[Al Thompson]

Actuaally, to be qualified to STRAC standards, you have to not only shoot the 40 rounds at pop-up targets, but there's a night fire phase and qual in protective (gas) masks. Sounds like your S-3 and Commanders fell down on the job. :(

In the Ist Cav (82-86) and 1st AD (86-89) we fired a lot more than that, especially in 1st AD.

[dude]

hey, easy on the facts there!!

Hell, I was an leg-aviator and we ALL qualed on the M-16 (night/day), M-60 (ground/air), M203 and sidearm twice a year.............firing way more than the mininum ammount of rounds.

I guess some units are just alot more squared away than others.

[ajacobs]

I don't claim my experiance was the same in regards to the number of rounds fired. It may have to do that my time was served during the reduced budget years of Clinton as Commander in Cheif. I never fired at night or with a pro mask in 4 different duty assignments after basic training.

[zahc]

Just to be annoying, the correct spelling would be "Troops'"

BTW aimpoints are awesome.

[Turk]

Training what Training???

For basic and AIT I trained with a M-14. Then assigned to a basic training company. When I got my orders to RVN I had to qualify with the 16. Lets see a few hours in the mechanics and then to the range. I think I had two 20 mag. the instructor had a hot date that night so we moved right through qualification. Two mags. full auto I qualified as an marksman but I quess it didn't matter as I carried a 60 for the first 4 months after being a rifleman for a couple of days.

Turk

[355sigfan]

I can't say much more than has been said. My patrol rifle wears a Eotech and its amazing how they can improve your shooting. The aimpoint is also great.
PAT

[gun-fucious]

it seems like the "training" is basic familiarization of the weapon system

The real training is the "Welcome to 7734, here is your accordian" method

When you see battle footage, the on the job training of the shoulder launched missles is pretty obvious.
Did'ja hear the doods hoot & holler when that building was struck? I kinda doubt they had ever pulled the trigger on the real deal before.

Your average civilian at a weekend "Urban Carbine" class prolly shoots 1000 rounds. Promoting CMP rifle shoots would send alot more qualified recruits into the system.

Buy a Homeland Defense Rifle, It's good for America!

[dude]

I hope all you folks who think our fine Military is 'under trained' (see above) and need to get 'it ' OJT-- actually have some Miltary time. Because if not you don't know JACK.

[444]

I don't understand this whole hardware/software arguments. If there is a better way to do something, that acheives your goals, why would you decide to spend all kinds of time and money doing it another way, just for the sake of doing it the old way ? If time and money are limited, why not spend the training time and money on the primary sighting system instead of the back-up sighting system ?

As a side note. I took a female out shooting that had done very little shooting before. She told me that she knew the basics of using iron sights. I had a Hi-Point carbine lying around that I thought would be a good rifle for her to shoot. Lightweight/low recoil/inexpensive/cheap ammo. It so happens that I bought the carbine used and it had a laser on it. I personally never really used the laser, but I did check to see that it was zeroed when I first got the carbine. After firing a couple mags with mediocre results, she asked me why anyone would want that little flashlight on their gun ? I said, it isn't a flashlight, it is a laser. You turn it on and put that little red dot on the target and squeze the trigger. She tried it and was bouncing cans all over the desert. She thought it was terrific. I had to pry the carbine out of her hands when it was dark just to get her to leave. Now I realize we are not talking about lasers; but, the same principle applies. The learning curve is much shorter. You put the dot on the target and squeze the trigger. Very simple. Very easy for a novice to grasp. It improved her hit percentage immediately with no further training. And isn't that the goal ? Isn't putting hits on the target in the shortest period of time the goal ? To me, teaching someone to hit the target is what we are trying to acheive. If we have the time, money, and desire we can move on to more advanced skills of shooting, but in the short term, hitting the target will suffice.

[gun-fucious]

heres an interesting thread on training:
http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=61

[Onslaught]

Two quick points (I stopped reading the posts when you guys started arguing the M16/M14/M1 Garand thing, so I apologize if somebody already addressed this directly)...

Would a hundred hours of training for each Fighter offset some of the need for them?
I know that Cratz2 is "for" the red-dots, but I borrowed his question to add this... Yes, I suppose that 100 hours of rangetime on irons would make our guys better, but put that same effort into training on the Aimpoint, and they'd be even faster, right??? :D

I just don't like the idea of a dot completely disappearing when the battery dies.
I think it's funny when someone says "I'd never use one of those things because they run by batteries, and batteries can die, making it useless". (No, Mr. SodaPop, I know you didn't say that... again, I'm just borrowing the quote that made me think of it) Well, as has been said, you can see right through the red-dot sights on an AR to use the front and rear sights... so if the battery goes dead... use the iron sights you'd be forced to use if you never had an aimpoint in the first place! There's just no "negative".

Besides that, the battery life on these averages between 1,000 and 10,000 hours, depending on the setting you use... Just put in fresh batteries at deployment time, and if you put your sight on HIGH power, and forget to turn it off EVER, leaving it on 24 hours a day, the battery would be dead in approximately 41 days... longer than THIS war will last :D On low power, the average run time is 416 days... and according to www.aimpoint.com, the battery can last up to 10 YEARS on "night vision" setting.

You'd have to actually USE one to see and feel how these things work. They don't feel seperate from the iron sights. You don't do anything different with the position of the weapon, etc... You just focus past the sights, onto the target, and the red dot is sitting directly on top of the front sight post... It's the neatest thing!

Here's a pic of an EoTech co-witnessing with the front sight... The rear sight is an ARMS #40, and it's folded down in the picture, but if it were up, it would look just like the sight picture on your A2, plus the red reticle.
http://www.mattdoughty.homestead.com/files/P1010028a.JPG

[444]

One comment on the brightness setting for those that have never used one before. The brighter the ambient light, the brighter you need to have your red dot so you can see it. On the Aimpoint, I find that the brightest setting is too much even out in the desert during the summer. The problem with having the brightness set too high is that the dot starts to blur, or put another way, the dot doesn't appear to be nice and round and crisp. This makes real accurate shooting more difficult. Now if you were expecting to be making extremly fast, close shots this doesn't matter and having the dot brighter will make seeing it all the easier. But, most of my shooting is done two settings below the max. This gives me a dot that is still easy to see and easy to pick up, yet it is nice and round so you can make more precise shots. If I am shooting on paper, I set the sight for the lowest setting that still allows me to see the dot. The result is that the worst case senario battery life numbers are almost never needed since the sight on my rifle is basically never on the highest setting. At night, I use maybe the second or third lowest setting and it is plenty bright enough. Lastly, the batteries arn't expensive, so if I am doing something like taking a carbine class, I just put a new battery in even though the present battery would probably last for weeks on the brightest setting; but, for a couple bucks, why not just be sure ? I have never had a battery wear out in a dot sight. I have an older Aimpoint sight on a Ruger MKII that has been in the sight for years and I bought the gun used, so who knows how long it has been in that sight ? Put in very simple terms, the batteries are not an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if a GI joined the military on a four year hitch and could have the same battery in the sight when he is discharged.

[longspurr]

I too have an older Aimpoint that I just removed from a 22. The battery compartment has white flakes coming out of it and I can't open the battery compartment- the cap just keeps going round and round. Did I say that there is no red dot!! I am trying to decide weather to send it back for repair, rip the cap off with vice grips and try to jury-rig a battery replacement, or just throw the Aimpoint 1000 away. Any thoughts? Batteries do go bad and self-distruct leaving the powered device a mess. I have thrown away more than 1 flashlight because of battery structural failure.

:confused: :( :uhoh: I have an older Aimpoint sight on a Ruger MKII that has been in the sight for years and I bought the gun used, so who knows how long it has been in that sight ? Put in very simple terms, the batteries are not an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if a GI joined the military on a four year hitch and could have the same battery in the sight when he is discharged

[RustyHammer]

FWIW ... I saw a company of Marines (in Bagdad) on the news last night that had nothing but the iron sites on their M-16's.

Had to love it!

[buzz_knox]

Just because they only had iron sights doesn't mean it's a good thing. The Marines historically have put a heavy emphasis on marksmanship, which is an excellent thing. But that has also blinded them as to the benefits of optics. As said before, teach the basics and then give them every advantage.

[Art Eatman]

Training? I was on Occupation Duty in S. Korea from mid-1954 through November, 1955. I served in an ack-ack battalion, with M-19 light tanks with twin-40mm pom-poms and M-16 halftracks with quad-50s. Our personal weapons were M2 Carbines.

We received no, repeat no, personal weapons training. We went one time to the range for ack-ack firing on radio-controlled aerial targets. Ammo was very limited, and nobody got to shoot enough to develop any proficiency.

SFAIK, I was the only guy in the battalion who "liberated" the occasional canister of carbine ammo from the arms shack, and went to the beach to shoot "just for fun". Got chewed out for it; had to quit.

Art

[Onslaught]

I am trying to decide weather to send it back for repair, rip the cap off with vice grips and try to jury-rig a battery replacement, or just throw the Aimpoint 1000 away. Any thoughts?

What me? Thoughts? ;)

First off, I'd at least contact Aimpoint before ViceGrips got involved... but the Warranty for the 1000 was only 1 year, and parts are no longer available.

Second, the Aimpoint 1000 and the CompM2 are WAAAY different sights. The 1000 (discontinued in 1987 according to http://www.aimpoint.com/products/old/1000.htm )was an "Economy" model that was never ever intended for "adverse conditions" of any sort... I would bet my Tasco PDP3 was tougher.
http://www.aimpoint.com/products/old/1000.jpg

Batteries corrode because of moisture. If the 1000 had been water tight, the battery shouldn't have done what it did.

The CompM2 on the other hand is built like a a TANK, submersible to 80ft, and with a battery life probably at least 50x that of the 1000. Even the older CompM2's (pre XD) had a 250hr - 1000hr batter life, so technology advances in battery life have come a long way...

I can appreciate that all red dots don't last as long, aren't as durable, and can't be depended on like the CompM2 XD... But for that specific model, I would take one of those and a Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS) over a carry handle any day, and twice on Sunday.
:D

[QuarterBoreGunner]

I could have sworn there were some Elcans as well

I saw those also; wish I could find a picture online. They seem to be mounted exclusively on the M249, havn't seen them on any M16/M4 types.

One thing I know for sure, all this 'embedded' coverage is going to result in HUGE sales for Aimpoint and Knight's Manufacturing.

Perfect product placement.

[Blackhawk 6]

I believe the Elcans you are refering to are the M-145 Machine gun Optic.


Kevin

[QuarterBoreGunner]

BlackHawk 6- You are correct sir! After a quick google search I found out that the M-145 you referred to is the 6x version of the Elcan. I was not aware that the military had adopted and designated it.

OT- of all the pages I found when I googled 'M-145 optic' the most hits that came back were pages for Counter Strike players... CS players are really into the details I guess.