Aimpoint T-1 POI shift?? (Green Eye Tactical Bans T1 RDS)

[pinzgauer]

Quick question: was anything done to exclude potential parallax impact of the shooting glasses or prescription glasses used during the test?

If not, that can explain the result anomolies.

Likewise, Aimpoints are normally only "parallax free" past 50 yards. And from memory they used to state that on their website or FAQs.

Also from memory, it was not "zero parallax", it was the parallax was about that of the 2 moa dot. IE: within acceptable accuracy levels for the intended purpose of the sight.

[Green Eye Tactical]

Quick question: was anything done to exclude potential parallax impact of the shooting glasses or prescription glasses used during the test?

If not, that can explain the result anomolies.

Likewise, Aimpoints are normally only "parallax free" past 50 yards. And from memory they used to state that on their website or FAQs.

Also from memory, it was not "zero parallax", it was the parallax was about that of the 2 moa dot. IE: within acceptable accuracy levels for the intended purpose of the sight.

That's a really good question and one that I was concerned with, as that will definitely cause issues. Only 2 testers wore prescription glasses during testing. Most testers removed shooting glasses during the testing since it made seeing the dots a bit easier. I didn't include that in the report after looking at the standard deviation of results between the shooters that did and didn't. When I saw that there was no difference, I left that part out. I think that the lack of deviation was due to the consistent head angle that the testers had throughout the tests (generally upright). Often the shift you get from glasses is due to changing the angle you look through your lenses. Most probably since the shooters kept the same angle, if there was shift induced, it was consistent shift that did not throw their results out of norm.

edit- have a look at the report. The "parallax free" distance didn't hold up for ANY optic.

[Mysteryman]

I don't take it as you calling me out. I read that whole thing, I found it pretty interesting. I'm more talking about wanting to see the specific details of the data behind the testing. I still have a lot of questions about it and I hope EoTech releases everything about it. It seems that there was a specific year group of models that were heavily affected and others were less so. Perhaps someone might consider taking the time to do a test on that aspect themselves. I never had any time on the models that the SOCOM units had major issues with. I only used the old 551 n-types at the unit and then went right to the EXPS 3.0 in civilian life and never saw the drastic effects that the community who used the middle year group saw. I mean, you do really intensive grouping work with the models we had there and I hadn't heard of anyone having issues.

I'm not an EoTechgate denier by any stretch, nor do I hate Aimpoint- I dig the T-2. But I just have a lot of unanswered questions about that specific defect. I'd like to see everyone getting away from general statements when it comes to gear and seek out data to support things. And as a community, decrease some of the toxicity when it comes to brand fandom. It is a little alarming that the minute someone observes something and says it publicly that there is the tendency to criticize and personally attack to defend a viewpoint. Especially since- if it is settled science, then we should be confident with just saying "ok cool story, show me some hard data". Either that or go test it and show your own data.

I hear what you're saying. I trust NSW Crane's conclusions as well as the admissions from Eotech/L3 themselves. Their sights have defects and have had since 2007. Aside from that there's the morally bankrupt decision to continue to sell defective products to serving members, putting profit ahead of safety. That puts them in the sh*t house permanently for me.

MM

[Green Eye Tactical]

I hear what you're saying. I trust NSW Crane's conclusions as well as the admissions from Eotech/L3 themselves. Their sights have defects and have had since 2007. Aside from that there's the morally bankrupt decision to continue to sell defective products to serving members, putting profit ahead of safety. That puts them in the sh*t house permanently for me.

MM

No arguments from me here. They have quite a bit of explaining to do. On the note of manufacturer integrity- I'm curious what your thoughts were on pages 55-57 and 82-83 of the report?

[Mysteryman]

No arguments from me here. They have quite a bit of explaining to do. On the note of manufacturer integrity- I'm curious what your thoughts were on pages 55-57 and 82-83 of the report?

Lemons exist from every manufacturer. I am in no position to comment one way or another on the validity of the data you and your testers collected. I have no reason to disbelieve what your report indicates. That being said I still put more weight into what NSW Crane and Eotech themselves have tested and confirmed. I don't see Eotech/L3 deliberately sh*t talking their optics, paying the US mil $25.6 million in damages and who knows how many more millions in public returns if the data they admitted to and that of NSW Crane was faulty. The results of your parallax testing with the Eotech line of sights shows less deviation than others, what it doesn't demonstrate is the parallax experienced via temperature change(not thermal drift, parallax). That issue along with the list of other known issues is what makes Eotech a very questionable entity. When we add in their shady business practices it's a simple decision to pass on all things Eotech/L3.

As you pointed out in your report the characteristics for which the manufacturers made their claims of "parallax free" has yet to be determined. I would suspect they made that claim based on the shooter using the centre 1/3 of the viewing window as that is the normal/standard portion of the optic being used when the rifle is properly mounted. Grossly misaligned head position or compromised positional shooting is not the norm and is not a repeatable or quantifiable standard that can be used. I also suspect manufacturers make their claims on the centre 1/3 of the viewing window because they know that parallax free is not achievable when lenses/optics are involved. Some perceived positional shift/parallax will occur.

MM

[Green Eye Tactical]

Lemons exist from every manufacturer. I am in no position to comment one way or another on the validity of the data you and your testers collected. I have no reason to disbelieve what your report indicates. That being said I still put more weight into what NSW Crane and Eotech themselves have tested and confirmed. I don't see Eotech/L3 deliberately sh*t talking their optics, paying the US mil $25.6 million in damages and who knows how many more millions in public returns if the data they admitted to and that of NSW Crane was faulty. The results of your parallax testing with the Eotech line of sights shows less deviation than others, what it doesn't demonstrate is the parallax experienced via temperature change(not thermal drift, parallax). That issue along with the list of other known issues is what makes Eotech a very questionable entity. When we add in their shady business practices it's a simple decision to pass on all things Eotech/L3.

This report or the whole banning T-1's from one course isn't an Aimpoint vs EoTech thing and it seems like the discussion seems to keep coming back to this for some reason. Eotech is one optic that was in this test, plenty of other results here. So, no real comment on this since it is getting off topic.

As you pointed out in your report the characteristics for which the manufacturers made their claims of "parallax free" has yet to be determined. I would suspect they made that claim based on the shooter using the centre 1/3 of the viewing window as that is the normal/standard portion of the optic being used when the rifle is properly mounted. Grossly misaligned head position or compromised positional shooting is not the norm and is not a repeatable or quantifiable standard that can be used. I also suspect manufacturers make their claims on the centre 1/3 of the viewing window because they know that parallax free is not achievable when lenses/optics are involved. Some perceived positional shift/parallax will occur.
MM

Now on this.....
It seems like you're peeling the onion a bit here. First you state that I point out that how manufacturers claim "parallax free" has yet to be determined (true, I said that), so I'm guessing that your point here is that any amount of parallax we see is ok- because we don't know what aspect of parallax they are talking about (dot movement, entire viewing area movement, etc). Then you comment that they probably use the center 1/3 of the window (so by that, any movement in the center 1/3 would disqualify their "parallax free" claim, right?). Then you close the comment with "parallax free is not achievable when lenses/optics are involved. Some perceived positional shift/parallax will occur." Wait, so you're admitting that there is movement with some optics in the center 1/3 (because there is). That's the crux that I was pointing you to in pages 82-83. Not one single company admits or makes any claims that their aiming dots move in the manner we found. None. It is almost like "parallax free" is some meaningless marketing buzzword and they all continue to use it because as consumers we rely on product ambassador's words, company/agency statements, and broad generalizations rather than data.

I looked around for any manuals or tech sheets on these products that actually states "you could miss a "C" zone if you reference our dot outside of the center 50% of the viewing window at 50yds". If this was a research error on my part- shoot me a link or copy and I will amend this report with it.

Grossly misaligned head position or compromised positional shooting is not the norm and is not a repeatable or quantifiable standard that can be used.
MM

I'm not sure if you read the whole report or not, to include the testing standards. This method was used specifically because it is repeatable and quantifiable. Literally anyone can repeat this with no special equipment or apparatus to restrict viewing angle.

Now is the extreme measurement representative of normal use? No. It is simply an easier method to control the test and allow its repeatability. If you can come up with an easy means of reproducing the test I did, while restricting movement to the center 1/3, and keeping it easy enough to do so that people will actually turn in results to you - I'd love to see the results (this is a challenge- I actually don't think I received a single test sheet from any of the followers here, even though one of the moderators in this thread asked people to do so).

edit- I would like to add that I do appreciate your discussion here, so thanks for that. Civil debate about things like this are a good thing.

[Mysteryman]

This report or the whole banning T-1's from one course isn't an Aimpoint vs EoTech thing and it seems like the discussion seems to keep coming back to this for some reason. Eotech is one optic that was in this test, plenty of other results here. So, no real comment on this since it is getting off topic.

I reference Eotech and their shady products and practices as their optics were included in the test. No offense but with the admitted problems and shady business practices I couldn't care less how their stuff performs and have no doubts about the findings from NSW Crane and Eotech/L3 themselves.

Now on this.....
It seems like you're peeling the onion a bit here. First you state that I point out that how manufacturers claim "parallax free" has yet to be determined (true, I said that), so I'm guessing that your point here is that any amount of parallax we see is ok- because we don't know what aspect of parallax they are talking about (dot movement, entire viewing area movement, etc). Then you comment that they probably use the center 1/3 of the window (so by that, any movement in the center 1/3 would disqualify their "parallax free" claim, right?). Then you close the comment with "parallax free is not achievable when lenses/optics are involved. Some perceived positional shift/parallax will occur." Wait, so you're admitting that there is movement with some optics in the center 1/3 (because there is). That's the crux that I was pointing you to in pages 82-83. Not one single company admits or makes any claims that their aiming dots move in the manner we found. None. It is almost like "parallax free" is some meaningless marketing buzzword and they all continue to use it because as consumers we rely on product ambassador's words,

Let me clarify a few things. There is no such thing as 100% parallax free. With that being said it is MY belief(and others) that the marketed claim of "parallax free" is derived or referenced to the use of the centre 1/3 or centre 50% of the viewing window. The sweet spot or "normal" area used when the rifle is properly mounted.

The observed amount of parallax in your testing is valid data but we do not know if your protocol(extreme edges of viewing window) are the same ones used by the manufacturers. That doesn't make your data invalid nor does it necessarily make the manufacturers liars. Much the same way auto makers claim XYZ mileage. That value is based on BEST CASE scenario and very specific conditions and was determined in a LAB not the street. Both the parallax free and mileage claims are a gauge or indicator of performance, not an absolute hard value. Furthermore the use of the extreme edges of viewing window are quite difficult to achieve when the rifle is mounted properly. A very poor cheek weld is needed to necessitate the use of the extreme edges. This leads me to the abnormal shooting positions problem. The more abstract/compromised the shooting position the less your chances are of using the sweet spot in the viewing window. This means you're left with the extreme edges. If you're shooting from an abstract/compromised position you aren't doing so by choice and likely have little time to improve on it. You likely have a poor cheek weld, poor body position, maybe even poor visual reference of the reticle. The reported parallax at the extremes is acceptable as shots will likely land on target at distances where one might use such positions under time constraints. There is no free lunch, the perfect optic doesn't exist much like the perfect anything doesn't exist. As I'm sure you're aware one of the great benefits of a reddot is that your cheek weld/head alignment need not be perfect to make hits. It does however need to be reasonably correct if you expect consistent POI. The same "margin of error" cannot be said for magnified optics or Irons.

I looked around for any manuals or tech sheets on these products that actually states "you could miss a "C" zone if you reference our dot outside of the center 50% of the viewing window at 50yds". If this was a research error on my part- shoot me a link or copy and I will amend this report with it.

Again, I respect the time and effort to collect the data but it is missing the crucial element and that is live fire testing. A perceived movement and a corresponding miss would provide for very hard evidence.

I'm not sure if you read the whole report or not, to include the testing standards. This method was used specifically because it is repeatable and quantifiable. Literally anyone can repeat this with no special equipment or apparatus to restrict viewing angle.

I suspect NSW Crane and Eotech/L3 have much more sophisticated equipment for testing these kinds of things. Not to mention more time, money and access to a larger test sample.

Now is the extreme measurement representative of normal use? No. It is simply an easier method to control the test and allow its repeatability. If you can come up with an easy means of reproducing the test I did, while restricting movement to the center 1/3, and keeping it easy enough to do so that people will actually turn in results to you - I'd love to see the results (this is a challenge- I actually don't think I received a single test sheet from any of the followers here, even though one of the moderators in this thread asked people to do so).

I would like the manufacturers to commit to a similar test under lab conditions and disclose the results. I like you would like to know just what parameters were used to validate their "parallax free" claims or if they're simply lying.

edit- I would like to add that I do appreciate your discussion here, so thanks for that. Civil debate about things like this are a good thing.

I'm in the BLUE

MM

[Green Eye Tactical]

I'm in the BLUE

MM

At this point we are discussing what we think manufacturer's mean by "parallax free", which is neither here nor there. We can probably just close it out by stating that a claim is a claim across the board unless they clarify it.

[Mysteryman]

At this point we are discussing what we think manufacturer's mean by "parallax free", which is neither here nor there. We can probably just close it out by stating that a claim is a claim across the board unless they clarify it.

I would agree, without clarification the claim is questionable based on prior knowledge and your testing.

MM

[Grunow]

Has anyone contacted Aimpoint and made them aware of this problem with their sights? I'm sure they would be concerned to learn about this. What has been their response?