Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Gear Discussion / Reviews ...
Post Reply
hkfan
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 pm
City: Spokane
State: WA
Favorite Firearm: HK P30 LEM
SGT Supporter: Yes
Location: north spokane

Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by hkfan » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:38 pm

I was curious if anybody uses a Aimpoint comp c3 w 2moa dot. What are your thoughts on it. Likes and dislikes

thanks

User avatar
dlhutch822
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:41 am
City: Post Falls
State: ID
Favorite Firearm: 50BMG
Next Firearm: Psalm 144:1
Location: Worldwide

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by dlhutch822 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:45 am

SO I LIKE THE AIMPOINT BECAUSE OF THE BATTERY LIFE, EASY TO USE, 2MOA DOT IS GREAT FOR LONG RANGE TARGET. HOWEVER I MUCH PREFER THE EOTECH 512. BIGGER SCREEN ON THE EOTECH. LESS BULKY SO EASIER TO SHOOT BOTH EYES OPEN. TARGET AQUISITION IS SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER WITH THE EOTECH CIRCLE DOT THAN AIMPOINT 2MOA DOT. ALSO I DON'T LIKE THAT YOU CAN SEE LIGHT OUT OF THE FRONT OF THE AIMPOINT IN TOTAL DARKNESS. YOU CANT ON THE EOTECH. I THINK EOTECH IS A BETTER COMBAT SIGHT AND AIMPOINT IS GOOD RANGE SIGHT. HOWEVER BOTH ARE COMBAT PROVEN. IMHO
INVISIBLE SOLES LEAVE .50 HOLES.........SUPPORT SGT!!!!

User avatar
thumpar
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 5118
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:40 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
Favorite Firearm: All of them
Next Firearm: The next good deal.
SGT Supporter: Yes
Location: Whitworth

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by thumpar » Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:57 am

I have a clone that looks the same just not as heavy duty. It is a nice sight but the dot can get lost with rapid shooting. I prefer my EOtech 554 but mainly because of the reticle. When rapid firing with the EOtech if you loose the dot you still have the ring very visible. If aimpoint had something like an EOtech reticle I would say it is a choice of style only.
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time, But always enough time to do it again? - Don S RIP
2/3rds of the worlds surface would be wasted if it wasn't for boating.

User avatar
dlhutch822
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:41 am
City: Post Falls
State: ID
Favorite Firearm: 50BMG
Next Firearm: Psalm 144:1
Location: Worldwide

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by dlhutch822 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:09 pm

YA AN AIMPOINT WITH A CIRCLE -DOT RETICLE WOULD BE SWEET! ALTHOUGH THEN THE SCREEN WOULD HAVE TO BE EVEN BIGGER AND THEN IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE BULKY! LOL I STILL THINK YOU LOOSE MORE PERIPHERAL VISION WITH THE AIMPOINT. I THINK YOU NEED TO GET SOME TRIGGER TIME BEHIND BOTH BEFORE YOU CAN DECIDE.
INVISIBLE SOLES LEAVE .50 HOLES.........SUPPORT SGT!!!!

hkfan
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 pm
City: Spokane
State: WA
Favorite Firearm: HK P30 LEM
SGT Supporter: Yes
Location: north spokane

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by hkfan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:19 pm

Thanks Guys. I have tried the aimpoint micro before. It was okay. If I go with an Aimpoint, I will go with the bigger model. I am definitely going to try an Eotech before I decide. A lot of people prefer the Eotech. The only thing they complain about is the battery life. I have heard good things about the XPS line of Eotechs.

User avatar
nrose8989
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:46 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
SGT Supporter: Yes

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by nrose8989 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:51 pm

Have you considered a good 1-4x?

If I had to do it over again I'd go with a 1-4x.

The versatility of them is amazing. I think at this point of the market, they limit the role of RDSs, and render ACOGs obsolete.

BTW Aimpoint vs. Eotech....

Neither is faster than the other. The FOV of the Eotech is a misconception. The only choice relevant is if you prefer a single dot or the circle/dot. Neither is more precise than the other. Both emit light from the front if they are turned on too bright. Just wanted to set those things straight.

hkfan
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 pm
City: Spokane
State: WA
Favorite Firearm: HK P30 LEM
SGT Supporter: Yes
Location: north spokane

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by hkfan » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:27 pm

Nrose, Do the 1-4x's work if you have a fixed front sight? I know you were looking at the Trijicon 1-4x, is that still the one you would choose? I was thinking of going with the Aimpoint c3 or new Aimpoint Patrol Rifle Optic. Mostly because of the price. With the mount they can be had for about 400-450.

Dave

User avatar
nrose8989
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:46 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
SGT Supporter: Yes

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by nrose8989 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:35 pm

Ya they work with a FSB. You get a slight shadow, but you only notice it if you stare at it. When you shoot, it disappears (or at least it should disappear... or else you're doing something wrong). I could barely see my FSB when I used a 4x ACOG.

The Trijicon is awesome, but now I'd rather have the new SWFA SS 1-4x because it has better features.

I would rather go with the Aimpoint PRO than the C3. The PRO is based off of the M2/ML2 I think. The only thing I hate about it is the stupid factory Aimpoint mount with the mounting bolt sticking 10 feet out the side. Larue mounts are the only way to go IMO. ADM seem to be gaining ground and the DD micro mount is pretty good too but in the land of AR mounts, Larue is king.

User avatar
ttventures
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:10 am
City: E WA

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by ttventures » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:33 am

If you want the largest objective (42mm), no batteries (tritium & fiber optic), and light weight (11oz), go with the Trijicon RX30-23 with an ARMS mount. But you will need to buy a flashkill for it and it has no magnification.

Image

User avatar
nrose8989
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:46 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
SGT Supporter: Yes

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by nrose8989 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:37 pm

Eeew.

Skip the Trijicon Reflex.

The reticle washes out with white light and when you are in a dark area but your target is in a lighted area.

In this day and age, there is no reason not to go with a RDS. The battery argument went way out the window when Aimpoint figured out have to get 5 years of battery life.

User avatar
ttventures
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:10 am
City: E WA

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by ttventures » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:50 pm

nrose8989 wrote:
The reticle washes out with white light and when you are in a dark area but your target is in a lighted area.
Not true. The only fade I've experienced is in pitch black nighttime when a white target is lit up by a mounted flashlight at close range. But at those ranges, 15' or less, no sights are needed for center mass hits so it's irrelevant.

Batteries die, electronics fail, and Murphy always finds those that don't KISS.

User avatar
nrose8989
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:46 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
SGT Supporter: Yes

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by nrose8989 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:36 pm

ttventures wrote:
nrose8989 wrote:
The reticle washes out with white light and when you are in a dark area but your target is in a lighted area.
Not true. The only fade I've experienced is in pitch black nighttime when a white target is lit up by a mounted flashlight at close range. But at those ranges, 15' or less, no sights are needed for center mass hits so it's irrelevant.
What? :lol: :lol:

So it does wash out? At least from what you just said.

White light is only one of the issues. What about when you are standing in a dark room or shaded area, and looking at a well lit area? Like standing inside a room and looking outside a window, or under a shaded overhead cover looking out onto a sunny range. It's just the nature of fiber optics, and I had the same problem with my ACOG. Except the ACOG still has a useable blackened reticle.

Another problem is moving from a well lit area into a dark area. The tritium isn't bright enough to compensate for your eyes not being able to dilate fast enough.

Trying to use a Reflex is like wearing sunglasses at night.
ttventures wrote:Batteries die, electronics fail, and Murphy always finds those that don't KISS.
If this is a concern to you, then you have a poor maintenance routine and are overly paranoid.

Battery life on newer Aimpoints are around 5 years on setting 8. It's been two years since I've turned off my T-1. It would be ideal to change out the battery (which cost $2.50/per) every couple years as preventative maintenance.

On top of that, anything short of a hammer isn't going to break an Aimpoint. If anything did happen, we still have BUIS.

Let's face it, Murphy has a hard time finding Aimpoints and KISS is a good idea until it becomes detrimental to performance.

User avatar
ttventures
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:10 am
City: E WA

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by ttventures » Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:54 pm

Cool, another lively forum discussion. :)

I've been fortunate to use the Aimpoint, Eotech, and Trijicons for the past 15 years. And, guess what I have on my main self-defense rifle...yep, the Trijicon. I take nothing away from Aimpoint, other than the 30mm tubes are too small for a proper field of view when addressing targets at close range, - like interiors of houses, where all they are is an obstruction. Oh yeah, they suck for NV attachments too. But they are well made and getting better every year. Better than a Trijicon? Nope. Better than the Eotech? Definitely. If I were solely using the rifle for longer range distances instead of all distances (close and far), I might even go with the Aimpoint. But I don't so I won't.

So you seem to think the Trijicon has washout issues. I mentioned the bright illuminated light at close range, I'm glad you got all excited about that, but as I already stated, it's irrelevant. Did you spend all day Googling for some complaints or have you ever experienced any of the so called problems you mention, that ironically I have never experienced in two years and 10 to 20k+ rounds later. Train like you play and you'll know whether issues exist. Have you used one? Do you own one? Have you had one for the past two years?

So, the philosophy of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) only applies to those that have "poor routinue maintenance or are overly paranoid?" Interesting opinion, says more about you than those that apply it. Some of us that have "been there, done that", understand that relying upon your mindest, training, and equipment to prevail over those that want to take your life certainly means more than having the latest, greatest gadget. I've seen a lot of cool toys, including Eotechs and Aimpoints, fail.

I'm aware that Aimpoint has extended the battery life of their products, but keep in mind that is under labratory conditions. And I'm thrilled your T-1 hasn't been turned off while it's sits in your nice warm household, but those rifles that actually spend nights outside in the bitter cold, rain, snow, heat, and all other less than ideal conditions, don't quite have the reliability and endurance that your batteries do. Ask those fine men coming back from AIK how well batteries and equipment hold up in extremes. BTW, you might not want to turn it off, some of them have issues turning back on.

Explain to us again how KISS is "detrimental to performance"? I love having guys on the range with that kind of philosophy, with their 12 pound rifles, parts falling off, and nothing working including their own complex tactics. Oh yeah, did you forget the part about the larger objective, less weight, and no batteries? I call those performance issues. But only for moving targets and shooting on the move, otherwise iron sights kick the crap out of all the fancy optics at moderate ranges.

I guess I would ask, if you're so smitten on the Aimpont, why do you have back up iron sights? And I'm also betting you have a spare pair of batteries near that optic as well... :lol:

User avatar
nrose8989
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:46 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
SGT Supporter: Yes

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by nrose8989 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:17 am

ttventures wrote: I take nothing away from Aimpoint, other than the 30mm tubes are too small for a proper field of view when addressing targets at close range, - like interiors of houses, where all they are is an obstruction.


I disagree.

What is a proper field of view? Should I be able to see the entire target from within the tube?

If you use a RDS like it was designed too i.e. both eyes open; you would figure out that tube size or lens size is irrelevant. The main purpose of the RDS is to become target focused. Meaning all of your attention can be focused on the target and not the optic. Your non-dominate eye is what removes any obstruction, leaving only an aiming point.
ttventures wrote:Oh yeah, they suck for NV attachments too.
Care to elaborate?

NOD model?

Why is this even an issue when there is a better option for NV targeting. Yes, I've done shoot houses with NODs. I'd like to hear a better way of doing it than using a IR aiming device.
ttventures wrote: So you seem to think the Trijicon has washout issues. I mentioned the bright illuminated light at close range, I'm glad you got all excited about that, but as I already stated, it's irrelevant.
I said that there are washout issues. You said "Not True" then began stating a circumstance in which the reticle does wash out, proving that it was in fact true.

Sure, it may be irrelevant to you, but not in my book. The last thing I want is to lose my reticle and be forced to shoot the tube.
ttventures wrote: Some of us that have "been there, done that", understand that relying upon your mindest, training, and equipment to prevail over those that want to take your life certainly means more than having the latest, greatest gadget. I've seen a lot of cool toys, including Eotechs and Aimpoints, fail.
Where did this come from? Please point to where I said that mindset or tactic were not more important than equipment. Please keep the argument within context.
ttventures wrote: Explain to us again how KISS is "detrimental to performance"? I love having guys on the range with that kind of philosophy, with their 12 pound rifles, parts falling off, and nothing working including their own complex tactics. Oh yeah, did you forget the part about the larger objective, less weight, and no batteries? I call those performance issues. But only for moving targets and shooting on the move, otherwise iron sights kick the crap out of all the fancy optics at moderate ranges.
The idea that KISS is detrimental is when someone refuses a clear and proven benefit but chooses not to use that benefit because of a minor increase in complexity. The people who subscribe to KISS refuse to put a weapon light or optics on their gun. The reasoning behind this is irrational.

For sake of argument and brevity, let consider optics. The reason WHY optics are better compared to iron sights is that they help the user SEE better. The RDS in this case lets the user become more target focused and not have a constant shift in focal points. Think about what happens during an engagement.

WIth iron sights:
1. You have to ID your target.
2. Orientate onto the target.
3. Shift focus back onto the front sight.
4. Perform the engagement.
5. Rinse & Repeat.

With RDS:
1. You have to ID your target.
2. Orientate onto the target.
3. Perform the engagement.
4. Rinse & Repeat.

With optics you can effectively remove one cognitive step. Removing steps increases speed, period.

No one said anything about tactic in regards to KISS. I know simple plans work better. Please keep the argument in context.
ttventures wrote: Oh yeah, did you forget the part about the larger objective, less weight, and no batteries? I call those performance issues.
I addressed the larger objective above.

Weight? An Aimpoint T-1 w/ Larue mount weighs in at a whopping 3.7oz. Now if my understanding of numbers is correct; 3.7oz < 11oz

Batteries? Cool, you win. Replacing a $2.50 battery every five years is too hard. We are professionals right? I guess PCC/PCIs don't apply to us.
ttventures wrote: I'm aware that Aimpoint has extended the battery life of their products, but keep in mind that is under labratory conditions. And I'm thrilled your T-1 hasn't been turned off while it's sits in your nice warm household, but those rifles that actually spend nights outside in the bitter cold, rain, snow, heat, and all other less than ideal conditions, don't quite have the reliability and endurance that your batteries do. Ask those fine men coming back from AIK how well batteries and equipment hold up in extremes. BTW, you might not want to turn it off, some of them have issues turning back on.
Funny, I guess all those time out at YTC & Ft. Lewis were a figment of my imagination. My CCO didn't seem to fail, even after being banged around the hell hole of a BFV or being thrown into the back of a HMMWV.
ttventures wrote: I guess I would ask, if you're so smitten on the Aimpont, why do you have back up iron sights? And I'm also betting you have a spare pair of batteries near that optic as well... :lol:
Well, sh*t happens. You of all people should know that. BUIS don't weigh much either so I'll stay on the safe side.

As a matter of fact, I do have batteries. Along with spare AR15 parts, oil, and CR123 batteries.

Not having spare parts around is probably the stupidest idea ever and not wanting to carry spare batteries for you optic and weapon light is even worst.
ttventures wrote: Did you spend all day Googling for some complaints or have you ever experienced any of the so called problems you mention
ttventures wrote: Train like you play and you'll know whether issues exist. Have you used one? Do you own one? Have you had one for the past two years?
ttventures wrote: Interesting opinion, says more about you than those that apply it.
Ad hominem. Quit attacking me and address my arguments.

FYI, you are not the only one with experience. Yet, you act as if your word is the word of god.

Yes, I've used all of the optics in question for a considerable amount of time. No, I don't own a Reflex because of reasons that I stated. I do not have to own a Reflex to formulate an opinion on it. I've used it in the circumstances that I provided and found those issues. I'm not talking out of my ass or google.

You assume that because this is the internet that I'm just some couch commando. Quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed that you took this argument into this direction. It's a direct reflection on your professionalism, and judging by this discussion it shows that you are not willing to evolve into our chosen craft.

I stated other issues with the optic, and you have yet to address them. How about the lighting issues?

In case you missed it:
nrose8989 wrote: White light is only one of the issues. What about when you are standing in a dark room or shaded area, and looking at a well lit area? Like standing inside a room and looking outside a window, or under a shaded overhead cover looking out onto a sunny range. It's just the nature of fiber optics, and I had the same problem with my ACOG. Except the ACOG still has a useable blackened reticle.

Another problem is moving from a well lit area into a dark area. The tritium isn't bright enough to compensate for your eyes not being able to dilate fast enough.

User avatar
ttventures
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:10 am
City: E WA

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by ttventures » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:54 am

nrose8989 wrote: I disagree.

What is a proper field of view? Should I be able to see the entire target from within the tube?

If you use a RDS like it was designed too i.e. both eyes open; you would figure out that tube size or lens size is irrelevant. The main purpose of the RDS is to become target focused. Meaning all of your attention can be focused on the target and not the optic. Your non-dominate eye is what removes any obstruction, leaving only an aiming point.


Are you saying I don't know how to us a sight? You are correct that both eyes should be open, however you fail to address the fact that your dominant eye actually has to look through the sight to acquire the proper aiming point. Certainly you would agree that a 42mm objective allows for a larger sight picture vs a 30mm tube. Explain how your non-dominant eye "removes any obstruction"? The only time you should be focused on the target instead of the sight (whether iron, electronic, or any other) is when you are performing unsighted fire.
ttventures wrote:Oh yeah, they suck for NV attachments too.
nrose8989 wrote: Care to elaborate?

NOD model?


Nope. Do your own research about the inadequacies of the Aimpoint and NV equipment issues.
nrose8989 wrote:
I said that there are washout issues. You said "Not True" then began stating a circumstance in which the reticle does wash out, proving that it was in fact true.

Sure, it may be irrelevant to you, but not in my book. The last thing I want is to lose my reticle and be forced to shoot the tube.
The circumstance I was referring too would washout all but the brightest red dot sight (think Eotech on its brightest setting!). Again, irrelevant at the ranges and conditions I have experienced.
nrose8989 wrote: The idea that KISS is detrimental is when someone refuses a clear and proven benefit but chooses not to use that benefit because of a minor increase in complexity. The people who subscribe to KISS refuse to put a weapon light or optics on their gun. The reasoning behind this is irrational.
Did you really say that people that keep it simple refuse to put lights or optics on their gun? If so, you do not understand the meaning of the term or are applying it incoorectly to try and support you argument.
nrose8989 wrote: For sake of argument and brevity, let consider optics. The reason WHY optics are better compared to iron sights is that they help the user SEE better.
Optics do not help you "see" better. They assist you in acquiring your point of aim, nothing more. The physical obstruction of their configuration can actually hinder acquiring the target unless it is a large objective.
nrose8989 wrote: WIth iron sights:
1. You have to ID your target.
2. Orientate onto the target.
3. Shift focus back onto the front sight.
4. Perform the engagement.
5. Rinse & Repeat.

With RDS:
1. You have to ID your target.
2. Orientate onto the target.
3. Perform the engagement.
4. Rinse & Repeat.

With optics you can effectively remove one cognitive step. Removing steps increases speed, period.
You missed a critical step. Even with a dot sight you have to look through the tube to acquire your target and place the red dot on the point of aim. If you are not doing so, you are using unsighted firing. The steps are the same for both sighting systems. The illuminated dot systems are simply faster to find compared to a front post. Again, it is only faster on moving targets and shooting on the move. An iron sight shooter can address a target just as fast as a red dot shooter on a stationary target from a stationary platform, and many times they can do it faster. If and when someone comes up with an illuminated front post, the red dot sights (non-magnified) will be obsolete.

nrose8989 wrote: I know simple plans work better.
And I would add...simple equipment works better. :)

nrose8989 wrote: Well, sh*t happens. You of all people should know that. BUIS don't weigh much either so I'll stay on the safe side.

As a matter of fact, I do have batteries. Along with spare AR15 parts, oil, and CR123 batteries.

Not having spare parts around is probably the stupidest idea ever and not wanting to carry spare batteries for you optic and weapon light is even worst.
I agree. It’s just that Trijicon users don't have to worry about spare batteries or electronics like the Aimpoint and Eotech guys.

nrose8989 wrote: I stated other issues with the optic, and you have yet to address them. How about the lighting issues?
I didn't miss it because they aren't issues. I have trained and operated in all conditions and it has never been an issue.
nrose8989 wrote: Yes, I've used all of the optics in question for a considerable amount of time. No, I don't own a Reflex because of reasons that I stated. I do not have to own a Reflex to formulate an opinion on it. I've used it in the circumstances that I provided and found those issues. I'm not talking out of my ass or google.
I believe this is your quote from another thread;
nrose8989 wrote: One thing I won't do is talk about something that I'm not intimately familiar with and offer up a BS opinion.
However, you have just said that you do not own the sight we are talking about, yet you claim to have "used it in the circumstances that I provided and found those issues" without a supporting basis of fact. Perhaps you're experiences are referring to an older model since the one we are talking about has only been on the market since 2009. I appreciate that you are passionate about the Aimpoint but the Trijicon is not one you should not be commenting on based upon your own previous statement.

User avatar
nrose8989
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:46 am
City: Spokane
State: WA
SGT Supporter: Yes

Re: Does anybody use Aimpoint comp c3

Post by nrose8989 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:11 am

ttventures wrote: Are you saying I don't know how to us a sight? You are correct that both eyes should be open, however you fail to address the fact that your dominant eye actually has to look through the sight to acquire the proper aiming point. Certainly you would agree that a 42mm objective allows for a larger sight picture vs a 30mm tube. Explain how your non-dominant eye "removes any obstruction"? The only time you should be focused on the target instead of the sight (whether iron, electronic, or any other) is when you are performing unsighted fire.
This is where we disagree. People seem to think that your FOV is dictated by the size of the lens on your optic. In reality, your FOV is your total vision space.

All your brain needs is a bright dot to detect. Your brain will piece together an image consisting of you non-dominate eye and dominate eye (with the dot). From there, you will have a complete FOV with a single dot as your aiming point. It doesn't matter if you have a larger objective lens or not, because the big picture (i.e. both you eyes) will still have obstruction of some sort. Going by this, I could even argue that a larger objective lens is worst because the T-1 takes up less physical space compared to others.

I know this for a fact because I switched from an Eotech to an Aimpoint T-1. Arguably, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet, I didn't see any loss of performance because of it. I didn't even notice the decrease in size when shooting.

Sighting with a RDS is completely different from iron sights. You do not focus on the dot, period. The dot is supposed to be bright enough for your eye to see without having to change focal planes and give you the ability to super impose the dot on a clear target.

If you don't agree, then it is ok. I've got multiple overall and stage wins in 2-gun matches, so I'm pretty sure I'm doing something right.
ttventures wrote: Nope. Do your own research about the inadequacies of the Aimpoint and NV equipment issues.
I don't see this as any type of issue. Weapon mounted NV doesn't belong on a close-medium range carbine. Why would you want to take your only source of vision at night and limit it to what your carbine is pointed at? Use an IR device and call it a day.

ttventures wrote:The circumstance I was referring too would washout all but the brightest red dot sight (think Eotech on its brightest setting!). Again, irrelevant at the ranges and conditions I have experienced.


I can see my dot on setting 9 (total of 12) while shining my X300 (170 lumens) on a white wall in my house in complete darkness. I also only get minor blooming effects in complete darkness on this setting without the light.

If it works for you then that's fine. I personally do not want to lose my reticle under any circumstances.
ttventures wrote: Did you really say that people that keep it simple refuse to put lights or optics on their gun? If so, you do not understand the meaning of the term or are applying it incoorectly to try and support you argument.
No, you are miss understanding me. it's the logic involved that is the problem. Would you not use NODs because they require batteries? Not use comms?

It's the act of not choosing to use something because of a minor increase in maintenance even though it offers a significant advantage. The advantage in a RDS vs. Reflex is the ability to change brightness level depending on the situation. This can be tied into the lighting issue.

It's the stupidity of not wanting to perform preventative maintenance on your equipment before moving out. I tied in the maintenance idea because batteries can be replaced on a regular bases. For instance, when you replace other high wear parts such as extractors, gas rings, etc. Is it really that much of a hassle to change out the battery on you optic during this time? I don't think so.
nrose8989 wrote: For sake of argument and brevity, let consider optics. The reason WHY optics are better compared to iron sights is that they help the user SEE better.
ttventures wrote: Optics do not help you "see" better. They assist you in acquiring your point of aim, nothing more. The physical obstruction of their configuration can actually hinder acquiring the target unless it is a large objective.
Do you see the error in your logic? I'll help you out.
ttventures wrote: 1. Optics do not help you "see" better.
2. They assist you in acquiring your point of aim, nothing more.
What in particular assists you in acquiring a point of aim? An unobstructed sight picture? A clear aiming point? How a RDS is easier to use with both eyes open?

See the pattern? All of those involve sight. Hence, they help you see better.
nrose8989 wrote: WIth iron sights:
1. You have to ID your target.
2. Orientate onto the target.
3. Shift focus back onto the front sight.
4. Perform the engagement.
5. Rinse & Repeat.

With RDS:
1. You have to ID your target.
2. Orientate onto the target.
3. Perform the engagement.
4. Rinse & Repeat.

With optics you can effectively remove one cognitive step. Removing steps increases speed, period.
ttventures wrote: You missed a critical step. Even with a dot sight you have to look through the tube to acquire your target and place the red dot on the point of aim. If you are not doing so, you are using unsighted firing. The steps are the same for both sighting systems. The illuminated dot systems are simply faster to find compared to a front post. Again, it is only faster on moving targets and shooting on the move. An iron sight shooter can address a target just as fast as a red dot shooter on a stationary target from a stationary platform, and many times they can do it faster. If and when someone comes up with an illuminated front post, the red dot sights (non-magnified) will be obsolete.
[Issues highlighted in bold]

First, I do not advocated "unsighted fire". Refer back to what I said above about FOV and your brain. Look at your first statement that I highlighted in bold. They are faster because you do not have to shift focus. Focusing on the front sight is a cognitive step, thus if you remove it then you are faster. They are faster because they help you see faster.

Second, look at the second statement highlighted in bold. Does that really happen in real life? Do people stand perfectly still, fully upright, while you are shooting at them? No, they don't.

Third, are you really going to argue with me that lining up two planes (iron sights) is faster than using a single dot as an aiming point? Even if you had an illuminated front sight post, the time complexity doesn't match up. In simplistic terms, three operations (orientate on target, aligning front and rear sight, and fire) is always going to be slower than two operations (orientating on target, then firing).
nrose8989 wrote: I know simple plans work better.
ttventures wrote: And I would add...simple equipment works better. :)
I agree to an extent.

Is changing batteries on a regular bases really that hard? Is learning a more advanced fire control system not worth it because of the complexity?

This is the problem I have. Something gives you a significant advantage, and you choose not to use it because it may be complex. Would you not use a GPS that can instantly give you a 10 digit grid because it's electronic and complicated? Hopefully you wouldn't.

I'm not saying that it's worth it to jump through hoops just to get something working every time. But if something gives a distinct advantage but requires the user to have more training, another item to maintain, then so be it. It's our job to evolve in this field. It does us no good to plateau and become comfortable because we don't want to learn more.
nrose8989 wrote: I stated other issues with the optic, and you have yet to address them. How about the lighting issues?
ttventures wrote: I didn't miss it because they aren't issues. I have trained and operated in all conditions and it has never been an issue.
Ok, well agree to disagree. I had problems finding the reticle under those conditions.
ttventures wrote:
nrose8989 wrote: Yes, I've used all of the optics in question for a considerable amount of time. No, I don't own a Reflex because of reasons that I stated. I do not have to own a Reflex to formulate an opinion on it. I've used it in the circumstances that I provided and found those issues. I'm not talking out of my ass or google.
I believe this is your quote from another thread;
nrose8989 wrote: One thing I won't do is talk about something that I'm not intimately familiar with and offer up a BS opinion.
However, you have just said that you do not own the sight we are talking about, yet you claim to have "used it in the circumstances that I provided and found those issues" without a supporting basis of fact. Perhaps you're experiences are referring to an older model since the one we are talking about has only been on the market since 2009. I appreciate that you are passionate about the Aimpoint but the Trijicon is not one you should not be commenting on based upon your own previous statement.
You are conducting a fallacy. I do not have to personally own or possess an item to form an opinion on it. Having enough exposure to something is sufficient and I've had more than a familiarization fire with the Reflex.

I've used the Reflex in the situations I described but they were not the newest models that you pointed out. However, how has that technology changed from the previous models? They still use the same tritium/fiber optic system under a very dark lens. My problem in those situation is that fiber optics don't light up indoors under typical lighting and tritium isn't bright enough to compensate for my eyes to dilate fast enough when moving outdoor to indoor structures. Tritium works fine in low/no light situations but not in between.

--------------------------------------------------------

It's apparent that we disagree on a fundamental and philosophical level. It is ok, there is no "true" way to skin a cat. I don't know what your experience is but I'm sure it has developed you into what you are today, and the same could be said about me. Shall we agree to disagree?

Post Reply