Red Dot on an M1 Carbine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now, which optic

Below is more information from Lyle at UltiMAK.com... what a great resource!

-

Yes, the mount will attach to the barrel. Take a good look at the Mini-14 with its UltiMAK mount installed, and imagine that it's a .30 carbine. That's about how it will look. It will replace the upper handguard, and give plenty of rail space. The rail will sit low enough to use irons when the optic is off (you can leave the irons in place too, and not risk dinging something while drifting out the rear iron). If one wants a see under set up, there are some see through scope rings that may work, or we may decide at some point to make some just for this application, depending on demand. Personally, I don't like see-under at all.

The decision of Trijicon Reflex or, say, a tube bodied diode powered sight, like an Aimpoint, will depend on your priorities. The Trijicon sight axis is higher. No problem there for M-16 users, because it still needs a pedestal to sit high enough on a flat top AR. The Trijicon will not co witness on an AK or a Mini-14/30. No problem there on a .30 carb, since you'll not get co witnessing anyway-- the irons are too low on the barrel for that. The Trijicon "always on" feature is very liberating in practice, because you're always ready to go, and you never have to wonder if you've left your sight on, running down the battery. (The Aimpoint, with its new CET diode, will run for hundreds of hours on a single 1/3 N lithium cell, so you'd have to leave it on as you put it away in the closet for weeks to have that problem. It is also brighter than before.)

To make an example; a SWAT team, which is the type of unit that will always know when it is going into action, I would go with the Aimpoint. They will have ample time to open the lens covers and turn on the sight, and there is no question that they can have any dot brightness they want, because it's manually adjustable. Another benefit that you will never hear about is that the Aimpoint with its flip up covers, can cope well with aiming directly into bright glare-- something iron sights or the Trijicon cannot do so well. You close the front cover on the Aimpoint, and you have yourself an Occluded Eye Gunsight. Your aiming eye will see the dot regardless of lighting conditions, because it's a glowing red dot on a black background. If your other eye can make out the target, you're good. Your brain can blend the images. I've tried this on an 8" round target at 100 yards, and it works. You can sort of approximate this on the Trijicon, using the polarizing filter with crossed polaroids, but it's more fiddley getting it set up. A note of caution; you must be absolutely sure of your target and what is beyond it.

For people who keep a carbine for home defense, or for area defense, such as a security guard, or for those hunting for targets of opportunity, I would slant to the Trijicon, because it's always ready, right now. I also like the triangle reticle a little bit better for more precise aiming. Other people prefer the 4 MOA dot. If you use a reflex with one eye closed, you will like the better light transmission of the Aimpoint. With two eyes open, as intended, it does not matter, because your non aiming eye is getting an unobstructed view of the world. It does take some practice to get used to this, however. Most people I've seen try a reflex type sight for the first time, do not know what to do with it, and so do not see the benefits. With either sight (Trijicon or Aimpoint) you're getting a very well though out and designed product-- The U.S., and other special forces use both.

-

Food for thought... the Triji is looking better and better.
 
More food for thought, a comparative review

I can get away with a battery-powered red dot on an AR15 as I always have the co-witnessed irons...so is the sight is broken or not turned on or too much glare washes out the dot, I have the irons for backup.

With an M1 carbine, always on is good. I am not sure I like the Ultimak mounts because they place the optics right over the hot gas tube or barrel.

At close range, learn to shoot without sights...it is amazing how accurate you can be that way.
 
I spent the extra $$$ for a Trijicon Reflex II. I kept it a week before it was for sale. The whole lense is tinted, (I don't remember what color now... blue, I think) and it washed out the color in that one eye. Also, the amber triangle wasn't as obvious as the red dot I was used to.

Even if the Trijicon is your thing, I can't imagine the triangle being functional on an M1C or AK. The triangle was designed specifically for the AR to compensate for the POA/POI difference at close range due to the tall sights. On the M1 Carbine, sighting in on the top of the triangle at 100 yards would put the impact high at 50 yards, rather than low like the AR...

Are we just100% sure that the Aimpoint wouldn't co-witness with the extremely low "x-wide" mount? It works with the 'Tactical Carry Handle", which is pretty close to the sight height.
25efa7e0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Alright, I've cooled off somewhat on the red dot/optics idea for the carbine, but still might give it a shot for the heck of it.

Despite this, I still am very fired up about the carbine in general. I held an M1A Scout and a Garand the other day and DARN are those babies heavy.

The carbine is so short and light, I love it! I can see why this was so popular with 'survivalists' in the 70s. Probably enough gun to take out small game if you needed to hunt, and the ability to shoulder and shoot pretty darn quickly in a CQB situation.

I know the ammo isn't the pick of the litter, ballistically speaking, but you can sure carry a large number of rounds without hauling too much luggage around. Heck, you could easily have 100 rounds on your person without realizing it - try that with .308, Arnold.

Iron sights sound just fine... would love to hear more from those who have forward-mounted optics on their carbine.

Help me keep the dream alive.
 
I know the ammo isn't the pick of the litter

I think that this is more a factor of the ammo companies just not putting any effort into it. If these companies were to wake up to the popularity of these rifles and the .30 ammo i bet we could see a big increase in the performance.
 
..which brings me to the idea of handloading for the .30 carbine.

S&B ball costs $8.35/50, whereas anything with soft points runs around $22.25/50.

Why such a huge price increase just for a different bullet?

I am saving my brass, and a Moderator (who shall remain nameless) here on the HighRoad is tempting me to get into handloading... anyone load for the carbine?

Maybe I should start a new thread.
 
Because the ball stuff is all military-spec mostly from Korea (PMC & others) and the S&B from Europe. If you get the .30 Carbine bug bad enough you will get the Ruger Blackhawk. While military ball will shoot in the revolver, the cyl will quickly foul and the rounds will be hard to load.............. reloading will help because it shoots better (cleaner) with pistol powder.


I use S&B for plinking (lots!) and have a box or two of the $$$ Winchester HPs only for self defence use, keeping three 15 round mags loaded up at all times.
 
I emailed a friend with a link to this thread, asking for his opinions. He swore off forums years ago because of the misinformation he finds...

Here's what he had to say about Onslaught's post (don't kill the messenger):

Whether you're using the tip of a triangle, a cross hair, a dot, post, or a silhouette of Marylin Monroe's left breast as a reticle, your point of aim is your point of aim, your zero is your zero, your sight height is your sight height, and your bullet's trajectory is your bullet's trajectory; http://www.modernballistics.com

...

Actually, getting the sight height up from the very low position of the Carb's irons, will put your "near zero" further out, and increase your "point blank range".
 
I've had a Millette 1" Red Dot mounted on my little Universal (NonUSGI) for over 3 ye

Accurate combo out to about 150 yds. FUN GUN!
As for the puny performance of the Carbine ball ammo -
For defensive purposes, load with HP's Or SP's = Way Better :D
I shoot ball at the range, but the carbine sleeps under the bed with a magazine full of SP's = the Red Dot works out real well as a night time defensive sight:what:
 
Whether you're using the tip of a triangle, a cross hair, a dot, post, or a silhouette of Marylin Monroe's left breast as a reticle, your point of aim is your point of aim, your zero is your zero, your sight height is your sight height, and your bullet's trajectory is your bullet's trajectory;
I'm not exactly sure what you're friend is trying to say here, other than being rude and condescending. (Read TROLL-ish) I have my doubts that he has any experience with AR's and especially with the trijicon 12.5 MOA triangle, or he would know what I meant. I think what he had to say (although devoid of actual content in this case) could have been said without the sarcasm, since I shared what I had to say with only a smile and good intent. I don't need to go to a BB to "show off how knowledgeable I am about all things guns, (and dead Movie Star anatomy) and insult anyone else who doesn't know as much as I do". If I had not owned one myself, and had personal experience with the benefits and drawbacks, I wouldn't have said a word... Spend your $350 and find out for yourself.

If you want to know why the 12.5 moa triangle is probably not the most practical reticle for the M1 Carbine, just go to the Maryland AR15 Shooter's site and read all about the "2.6" over bore" sights of the AR and it's effects on POA/POI, as well as a little info regarding the triangle reticle of the Trijicon Reflex that was designed specifically to work with the AR's unique sights.

And if that floats your boat, there's always the sights and optics forum on www.ar15.com, where you can search on the "covers 12.5" of your target at 100 yards" Reflex, and how some love it, some HATE it. Even our military (whom the reticle was designed for) seems to prefer the 4 moa dot of the Aimpoint, judging by news footage, # of Aimpoints at the range, and posts I've read.
 
Onslaught: I think his comments were offered in good humor, but without those smiley icons, its hard to read someone's 'tone'. Anyhow, he wrote back to me:

---

Correction. I went and checked my premises (always a good idea). I was
wrong about extending the Point Blank range. What raising the sight height
does is reduce the PB size. This is because it better centers your line of
sight within the arch of the trajectory. I ran some figures specifically for
the M1 .30 Carbine;

Muzzle Vel - 1930 fps
Standard Deviation - 10
Ballistic Coefficient - .179
Environmental conditions were kept constant.
==========================
For a sight height of 3/4 inch (an estimate of factory iron sight height);

100 yard Zero
PB size (inches) 2.31
PB range (yards) 117

150 yard zero
PB size 6.98"
PB range 176 yd

200 yard zero
PB size 15.05"
PB range 234
==========================
For a sight height of 2 inches (an estimate of where the Trijicon would be)

100 yard zero
PB size 1.39"
PB range 113 yd

150 yd zero
PB size 5.91"
PB range 174 yd

200 yd zero
PB size 13.97
PB range 232 yd
=========================
As you can see, the differences are not great. Your PB range will decrease
negligibly with increased sight height, but your PB group size will improve
noticeably. Very certainly, raising the sight height is not a bad thing.

Another thing I see in these figures-- A 150 yard zero on your M1C gets you
from the muzzle out to 174 yards, using the same setting, and aiming dead on,
with no more than a 3 inch deviation up or down, from point of aim (if you're
a perfect shot of course).
 
Onslaught: I think his comments were offered in good humor, but without those smiley icons, its hard to read someone's 'tone'.
True, text doesn't relay mood, so I got my "spin" from your comments.
"He swore off forums years ago because of the misinformation he finds... "
"don't kill the messenger"
And similar remarks from the PM you sent me... If you were just being overly cautious (as I frequently am), then I apologize for taking it the wrong way.

What your friend sent you this time is moving into the same ballpark of what I was referring to with the AR, but quite handy in that he uses the .30 Carbine ballistics.

Basically, the taller line of sight over bore (AR = 2.6") makes for, as your friend mentioned, a smaller deviation from line of sight on the way to your zero distance. The triangle is designed to extend that range even further, covering the pre-and post ranges (less than 50 and over 300 yards for the AR). But it does this at the price of having a 12.5 moa reticle, which, as I mentioned, means that you cover a full 12.5" of your target at 100 yards, or 6.25" at 50 yards.. That's a lot of target to be obscured, especially if you're not getting extra benefit of the greater sight/bore distance.

If you can get the Trijicon Reflex high enough over your bore, then, with some range time and your friend's figures, you could figure out where your bullet first crosses the line of site on the way up,(50 yards for AR) and again as it comes back down (250 for AR, 150 is your friend's figure for the .30 Carbine). But I still suggest that you take a look at a target you use frequently, and see what a 12 1/2" triangle would do to your view.

I make great effort never to add comment on subjects I have no information about, and I preface very strongly when I have limited or passing experience with. So when I read "because of the misinformation", I did take that as a direct comment on my input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top