Interesting essay on optical sights

Status
Not open for further replies.

SMLE

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
1,398
Location
Albuquerque New Mexico
Rifle Combat Optic
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/oif/rifle combat optic.htm
by Gunner J.L. Eby

Marines in the combat arms are being fielded Rifle Combat Optics in an effort to enhance our combat capability. This is a four-power scope, currently made by Trijicon, mounted on an M16A4. The primary difference from M16A2 to M16A4 is that the A4 has 1913 Military Standard mounting rails in place of handguards (with handguard covers available) and the carrying handle can be removed to be replaced with a variety of optics.

This item was a major combat multiplier during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Regimental Combat Team-7 was issued eighty-one of these weapons during our stay in Kuwait three weeks prior to crossing the line of departure. Where the rest of us had to identify potential targets with binoculars, then transfer to the rifle for the engagement, the individuals armed with the rifle combat optic had the benefit of identifying targets and the weapons they carried followed by the simplicity of pulling the trigger as their cross hair remained on the newly identified target.

Another advantage was clarity of the target in relation to the old “ghost ring and post†system on the M16A2. Instead of having to align the front post in the center of a ghost ring, and then center it on a blurry target, the shooters with optics simply located their targets with enhanced vision, placed the chevron aiming system on the target and pulled the trigger. No longer is the target blurry while focusing on the aiming system. Future Marines will be able to locate their target while he is blending into his background. Marines will be able to clearly see the surroundings of the target, and will have no doubt that their crosshair is on the target they’ve selected. Peripheral vision may be reduced in relation to the naked eye view, but this is lost when focusing on the front sight tip anyway. Instead, due to the clarity of the target area, maneuver elements approaching the gun target line will be safer, now that the Marine armed with enhanced vision can see and identify the elements maneuvering.

Many shoot/no-shoot engagements were based on the enhanced ability of the shooter with a rifle combat optic to see and identify the target. Those not equipped with magnified optics were reliant on information provided by those who were. Not only did the optic enhance marksmanship, reduce enemy positions faster and save Marine lives, it reinforced the rules of engagement by allowing only combatants to come under fire by those equipped with this ability to discern what was in the hands of the civilian dressed individuals near Marine positions.

The days of our opponents wearing distinctive uniforms to assist us in identifying him may well be long gone. Everyone looks alike at ranges beyond 150 meters and weapons are not nearly as distinctive in urban environments as you would expect. Had every Marine had the ability to focus in on the hands of the individual in civilian attire, far fewer non-combatants would have been engaged. The distance, however slight, was too far to identify which civilian clad individuals were armed and which were not.

It is the intent of the Marine Corps to arm every rifleman in combat arms units with the rifle combat optic. The next step would be to conduct annual qualification while using this magnified optic, followed by fielding the weapon to every Marine currently armed with an M16A2.

Some concern for the near range engagement has been expressed due to the four power magnification causing a loss of “field of viewâ€, but the trijicon sight is a sight that uses a two eye open technique, allowing the shooter to maintain peripheral vision at all times. During those really rapid engagements, the technique of “flash, front sight, press†would still be as valid with the Rifle Combat Optic as it is with iron sights. This is a truly magnificent concept, but one that flies in the face of Marine Corps tradition, so therefore will be difficult to infuse into our minds.

We speak often of leveraging technology, yet we keep limiting ourselves to the most basic of sighting systems, preventing our enhanced combat ability, forcing rules of engagement challenges and making life difficult for the combat Marine not armed with optics.

We not only have to accept the advantages technology has to offer, but we have to let go of the old ways when those ways no longer work or are not needed. We will have to separate our marksmanship training in preparation for war from our marksmanship attempting to win medals and glory. The medals and glory have been awesome, but they cannot continue to be the focus of our efforts towards marksmanship if we are truly to gain a fighting edge from technology.
 
Another Essay by Gunner Eby...

Combat Marksmanship
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/oif/combat marksmanship.htm
by Gunner J.L Eby

The original purpose of the competition in arms program was to develop marksmanship techniques and weapons that would enhance our combat ability. The techniques tried and lessons learned would transfer from the competition in arms to the combat forces by way of the annual re-qualification on known distance ranges. At one point in time, we were successful in this endeavor. That was at a time when the way we dressed for war, along with the way we fought the war were very similar to the techniques and methods fired on known distance ranges. Today, our instruction falls short of where it would really be useful. The culminating point of our marksmanship program should be with full combat gear on, firing unknown distances courses of fire, both day and night, and with the full spectrum of night optic capability both in and out of NBC environments. A course of this nature would re-focus our efforts towards fighting battles instead of winning medals in competitions.

The current program is focused on putting a bullet into an X ring, without culminating with the ability to put a bullet into an enemy’s chest in combat conditions. The Competition in Arms program wins medals and brings glory to the name of the Marine Corps, but turns us into great PAPER FIGHTERS, falling short of making us the PEOPLE FIGHTERS that we need to become.

Marine Corps Order 3591.2J with Ch. 1, Competition in Arms Program lists as objectives “To enhance the marksmanship proficiency and combat readiness of the Marine Corps by:

(a) Developing and maintaining a population base of Marines with high skills in rifle and pistol marksmanship to serve as marksmanship instructors, scout snipers, coaches and range operation personnel.



(b) To establish a vehicle for the development and exchange of ideas resulting in improvements to equipment and shooting techniques.



This is a great idea, but is flawed in that the marksmanship instructors, coaches and range operation personnel developed in paragraph (a) above are teaching competition style of marksmanship, with little experience in the combat style necessary to identify which improvements to equipment and shooting techniques will help us in enhancing the marksmanship proficiency and combat readiness, which is the stated purpose of the program.

Marines have prided themselves for their marksmanship prowess throughout our history, yet we kid ourselves at the same time. When was the last time we were attacked by 40 inch tall black men who stood perfectly still in front of 6 foot tall white background while holding a large red wind flag? When was the last time this opponent gave us four days to practice our marksmanship before attacking us with his EXTREMELY slow movement? How dare we call ourselves “expert†rifleman following this engagement?

It is well beyond the time when we quit pretending that our combat engagements match the competitions at Division matches and Intramurals and start requiring our Marines to know combat engagement techniques of fire. This instruction has to be followed with evaluation. We have to evaluate our Marines for their ability to fire in combat style courses of fire for the instruction to be worth the time. The current evaluation of known distance skills indicates very little to a Marines ability to engage opponents in combat. Even combat engagement courses of fire fail to indicate the stresses of combat. How can we possibly duplicate the fear of being run over by our own AAV’s, Tanks and HMMWV’s? How do we duplicate the constant rain of friendly fire situations, enemy fire, mortar and artillery fire, fear of our own air striking us, and worry that we’re shooting the correct targets? The slow deliberate firing of known distance is necessary to lay the foundation of marksmanship skills, yet we cannot allow ourselves to believe it is any measure of effectiveness towards fighting future battles.

There are too many differences between known distance firing and combat engagements. The sitting and off-hand positions of known distance are seldom seen in combat. The kneeling, squatting, modified prone and snap shot off-hands are the most common. The prone is modified due to the helmet squashing into the collar of the interceptor vest, preventing the shooter from lifting his head. Not that it matters too much, as the shooter in the prone can’t see due to his helmet falling into his eyes as the helmet band won’t hold the helmet in place. This matter is unknown to the majority of the Marine Corps that only fires one week annually during the re-qualification week.

At close range engagements, a smooth slow trigger pull is impossible. The physiological response to stress forces the body to square onto the target. Blood is centered on the vital organs, restricting blood flow to the appendages. The fingers feel like clubs and the trigger is smashed as fast as possible with enough pressure to cave in a submarine. Only time to think, distance from the target to offer a modicum of safety or cover to protect the body can over-ride these physiological responses to stress.

We have to train Marines to open both eyes during engagements in order to maintain awareness of other enemy activity and pay attention to the location of friendly forces.

Focusing clearly on a front sight tip is again impossible if the physiological responses to stress occur. Blood flow is lost to the outer portion of the eye, preventing near range vision, and the body will automatically focus on the threat. No amount of training can overcome this natural reaction. Only time, distance and cover from fire can prevent or eliminate this body's natural response to a life-threatening situation. The addition of a magnified scope will also over ride this natural reaction, allowing the body to focus on the enemy as it intends to, while putting a simple aimpoint onto the target.

Breathing and relaxing don’t fit well at this point in time either. The body surges with adrenaline and the heart are racing at 150 beats a minute.

Stock weld may well be one of the few transferable skills from known distance firing to combat engagement firing.

The influence of the marksmanship-training unit on weapons design and marksmanship techniques no longer match requirements of combat Marines. These Marines are not afforded the opportunity to join the war, therefore have no baseline to form their opinions from other than rifle competitions. The techniques of competition marksmanship are not always transferred to combat firing techniques and need re-evaluated to ensure the baseline of the techniques we teach end up at an end-state engagement technique. Too many training days are lost if the skills taught are not being utilized by Marines in Combat. Marines should be taught the fundamentals of marksmanship, but be evaluated on combat style shooting courses as the end state of marksmanship.

The Marine Corps Order on re-qualification should be re-visited once again following Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Marksmanship Training Unit should be staffed by personnel from the combat arms elements in order to provide input on how we really engage enemy with our service rifle in order to develop a course of fire representative of the skills we need during war. Personnel currently manning the marksmanship training unit should be re-titled to become the Competition Training Unit and allow them to focus on the known distance style of shooting they have perfected so well. Their influence on weapons design or qualification course design should be minimized as much as possible.

I propose a complete overhaul to both the program and the marksmanship paradigm. I would maintain the five days of firing, but would qualify in several different areas relating to skills required in combat. The standard to be achieved would be a realistic first time engagement standard by “any†Marine, especially those who do not fire a weapon as a primary daily function.

Our PMI’s would have to be taught in an entirely new course, getting them out of their comfort zone of competition shooting and teaching them combat skills like off-set aimpoint methods of fire (more precise than the old Kentucky windage version). Quick kill techniques, stabilization techniques, use of equipment, ground and surroundings to barricade and stabilize and use of wind reading to determine offset aimpoint.

Firing positions would be modified to have off-hand shots at short ranges only, maintaining the kneeling, introducing the squatting and modifying the prone to account for the fighting load.

The combat patrol sling would replace the parade sling, with instruction modified to support this change.

The first day of qualification would commence with the verification of understanding the fundamentals of marksmanship, by being required to fire 3 rounds at 300 meters while holding a 7-minute of angle group. That is the same standard we require today. Those who fail this standard would be sent back to their unit to be scheduled for remedial instruction by unit primary marksmanship instructors.

The second stage of fire would be to immediately fire the entry-level qualification course for score. Wind flags would be removed, as there are none on the field of battle. There are plenty of indicators of wind direction, provided Marines are taught to see them. This standard for this stage of fire would likely have to be re-done, since the current standard is based on three days of practice before being scored. Marines entering combat do not get to practice for several days before each engagement; therefore, we need a realistic measure of marksmanship capability.

The combat arms personnel staffing the new Marksmanship Training Unit would determine follow on stages. The end of the week would provide an aggregate score for the purpose of composite score. Every Marine would truly be a rifleman prepared to engage enemy during war at the end of this evaluation.

Today we spend three weeks minimum on the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program and only one week on marksmanship. I’d venture to guess that marksmanship skills were in higher demand over martial arts skills during Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet the disparity in mandatory training time in amazing.
 
Speaking about the first article: I'm not sure I'd have wanted a 4x power scope when I was in Iraq. We are talking about engagements that occur in urban environments, nearly always under 100yds and often well under that distance. I think 4x might be a bit high on the magnification.

If I had an optical sight, I would have felt much more comfortable with 2x power.
 
I'm still having a hard time finding a situation where my 50mm 3x-12x adjustable scope with illuminated reticle is inappropriate. Of course, I don't shoot at people shooting back at me and my go-to gun is a .308 FAL, so that might have something to do with my choice.

For an "assault rifle" round (.223, 7.62x39mm etc...) an ACOG or Eotech is the way to go, though I do like my adjustable scope for the FAL. Perhaps there's something I'm missing?


Did I mention that ACOGs, Aimpoints and Eotechs (and the decent qulaity copies or other "red dots") do indeed rule though? Maybe the ACOG on the FAL with the 4x magnification is worth a shot, but I find that dialing down to 3x I can pretty much do everything they say the ACOG is capable of.

Cheers.
 
I think 4x might be a bit high on the magnification.

The Rifle Combat Optic (TA31F ACOG) uses an always illuminated chevron so that at close range you can just keep both eyes open and the chevron will float over an unmagnified view of the target (same principle as the occluded eye gunsight). It is quite usable at ranges as close as contact - though I like the Aimpoints and EOtechs better close-in, the optic they picked is still faster than irons even at room-length distances.
 
Both "dot" sights and magnifying sights have their place in the same squad. Not everybody will have the perfect tool for a given situation, but the team as a whole will.

Even non shooters I have taken shooting prefer optical sights of any sort to iron sights. I still prefer to teach the basics with irons before moving on to them.
 
This has to be an old idea, but I just thought of it. How about a scout-type scope with long eye relief mounted ultimak-style in an AK? Any experience with that kind of setup, anyone?
 
Never tried it on an AK, but I used to have a Springfield M1A Scout rifle with a long eye relief "scout" scope on it. It worked very well during the day, fast and accurate, gave me a better picture of the target. The objective was small, however, and in low light the scope did not work well at all.

Hope that helps. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top