M16/M4 question for the military guys

Status
Not open for further replies.

RNB65

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
4,056
Location
Richmond, VA
What percentage of infantry soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan use some type of tele/red dot sight vs iron sights on their M16's/M4's?

Also, what type of sights do they use? I know ACOG's are popular. What else?

Thanks.
 
A mishmash of everything. Like you said, ACOG's are popular. I saw several different types of commercial scopes, depending on what the unit allowed. Some guys bought their own Aimpoints. Lots of PAC4 lasers.

The Army has allowed a lot of flexibility in individual unit purchases of extra gear. Don't know much about the rest of the services. SOCOM uses pretty much whatever they feel like, the marines I saw were mostly equipped with ACOGS.
 
Eotechs were fairly popular with the unit that I was with. Not too many front line combat units using iron sights.
 
EOTechs with the Marines I've been with. I swear by them too.

ACOGS are great, but I prefer EOTechs for being a little bit quicker on the draw in CQB (100 yards and under).

Semper Fidelis
 
When I was in 1-5 INF a few years ago, we had the M68 CCO (Aimpoint red dot).

I'm in 1-180 INF now, and we also have CCOs. I see other soldiers in or attached to the 41ST that have CCOs, iron sights, Eotechs, and ACOGs on M16s, M4s, and M249s. I've seen one ELCAN on a SAW.

Most soldiers I've seen here have CCOs.

John
 
The M68 CCO (Aimpoint) is, AFAIK, the only one that's been type standardized by the Army. That being said, ACOGs and EOTechs are widely used.

I saw a unit here at Ft Lewis, working with the LandWarrior kit, that was about a 50/50 mix of 68s and EOTech, to include the SAWs.

Elcans are primarily used on M240s and often SAWs as well.
 
Mixture of M68's (Aimpoint Comp M or M2's) or EO Tech. Both really work about the same.

Also ACOGS, which are pretty neat battle sights.
 
As a National Guard small arms trainer, I see a lot of variety in the units that come through for deployment.

It is still common to see units come through with iron sights, especially for support or supply elements. Most Infantry and MP types that come through are equipped with M4's with the M68 (Aimpoint M3) with some sort of back up iron sight or else with M16A2's with Aimpoints attached to carrying handle mounts that put the M68 just forward of the carrying handle.

Ironically, they usually dont receive the aimpoints until AFTER they've already zero'd and qualified with their rifles.:banghead:
 
For those who have experience...which is better the ACOG or EOTech? What is the range on the EOtech? Only 100yards?
 
ACOG's and EOTech's provide different roles, so there is not a "which is better". They do overlap roles some though.

For pure CQB stuff (100 yards and less), I prefer EOTech's (and can go out to 300 yards if needed but they have no magnification). ACOG's are great for 50-300 yards (but can go closer with training and practice). Beyond that, ACOG's and regular Mil-Dot scopes transition depending on mission.

I have an EOTech on my MP5, an EOTech on my CQB M16, and an ACOG on my MBR.

Hope that helps.

Semper Fidelis
 
Just a comment on the ACOGs--my understanding is the the issue ones overseas are the 4X32. So some of the comments about the Eotech being better for CQB stand up in that light.

However my M4gery carries an ACOG compact 1.5 X 24 which is a very fast, both-eyes-open unit. If it has a down side it only shows up out around 200 yards.

If my son were over there it would be there along with a box of cookie crumbs for him to bolt on his rifle.

When I was in we used Charlevilles with no sights at all.

To the guys now serving--THANK YOU.
 
Things will get really interesting once someone developes a unit that can bridge the gap between EOTech and ACOG, variable power for close up and long distance.
 
I believe ELCAN was exhibiting just such a sight at the last SHOT Show.

Not really a variable power, more like a multi-power, with 1x and 4x available, just flip a switch.

Expensive bugger, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top