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

[tylerw02]

Responding to the poster above me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[militarymoron]

I was under the impression they are advertised "parallax-free at xx yards".

That doesn't seem to be the case.

By the way, this reminds me of a discussion we had on magnifiers and POI shift 8 years ago:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...aws-of-physics

[hotrodder636]

MilitaryMoron hit on a key point here. This study did one thing for me: brought me awareness. I have no desire to stop using my Aimpoint nor sell them off. I likely will not end up with an EoTech either. As an end user, I purchased the Aimpoint for what it does for me; which is provide an RDS in a small, light, rugged and battle proven package.

As for the inherent parallax in the Aimpoint? Well I have always (well before this thread) trained to keep the red dot as close to the center as possible. Why? Because I had experienced POA/POI shift when the dot was far off center.

I will continue to buy Aimpoint products but I do hope that they see some level off issue with the parallax and do what they can to remedy WITHOUT changing what the T-1/T-2 is good at.

Lastly, I have not seen any opinions of other SMEs or trainers on this subject. In fact it seems like there has been silence but I haven't gone out of my way to look.

I would like to hear opinions from the likes of Vickers, Haley, Proctor, Rogers, etc.

[tylerw02]

There have been threads for years on parallax of RDS. If there is a lens, there is parallax. I really don't understand the point of "banning" them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jwfuhrman]

Hell I just thought this was common knowledge? If the dot isn't in the center your not going to be hitting exactly where you are zero'd..... at least thats always been in my head and taught by the instructors I've taken courses from (Haley x 7 courses, soon to be 9 after this coming week).

This subject to me at least has just been common knowledge. I guess I never realized others didn't see the correlation between not having dot centered and rounds not matching zero.

[militarymoron]

This subject to me at least has just been common knowledge. I guess I never realized others didn't see the correlation between not having dot centered and rounds not matching zero.

It's not common knowledge; when people read things on manufacturers' websites that state to the contrary:

"When the dot is on target, so are you. Since all Aimpoint® sights are parallax free, you never have to worry about centering the red dot inside the sight."
https://us.aimpoint.com/support/hand...your-shooting/

To the new shooter who may not visit forums or hasn't been exposed to classes or is new to RDS, manufacturer info is typically taken at face value. Let's be honest; when Aimpoint red dot sights first came out, just about all of us thought they were parallax free; we were told that they were. My first one was an Aimpoint 1000 in the late 80's and that's what I believed.

[theorangecat]

Let's be honest; when Aimpoint red dot sights first came out, just about all of us thought they were parallax free; we were told that they were.

I had picked up the notion that my first Aimpoint micro was going to be parallax-free (or at least close to it), but once I started playing around with where best to place it on my carbine, I thought to myself, "Parallax-free? I don't think so." I was a bit disappointed, but not particularly surprised, since I had already gone through a similar learning experience with an UltraDot on a Ruger MkIII.

That being said, I have run that particular H-1 for about five years now - mounted as far to the rear as the mount and CH allow - and have not had any serious issues with it. Like not changing out the quad rail for something newer, I have not changed out the H-1 because it worked out pretty well... its "(non)-parallax-freeness" notwithstanding.

toc

[Doc Safari]

I always thought it was just common sense to center the dot in the optic before firing. Like others in this thread, I think that's why having a fixed FSB is best because you can center the reticle over the front sight post for at least a reasonable level of consistency.

[Green Eye Tactical]

I always thought it was just common sense to center the dot in the optic before firing. Like others in this thread, I think that's why having a fixed FSB is best because you can center the reticle over the front sight post for at least a reasonable level of consistency.

Completely agree with you that it is common sense, or better phrased as best practices. It is a consideration that the optics of this type are designed for rapid aquisition. Additional layers of tasks needed for consistent engagement slow down your engagement time. So that is a consideration.

I would offer that the data represented in the testing results are nothing more than a consideration. To effectively employ your eqipment, it is neccessary to understand the capabilities AND the limitations of your equipment. Hopefully those considerations take into account the possible environments and conditions you may employ the equipment. Such as under low light and night vision. Consider how different equipment you may use may affect the controls you are considering implementing to ensure consistency such as: body armor, protective masks, night vision ect. Consider what positions you may find yourself employing the equipment from: standing, low prone, rollover prone, etc. Then ask yourself if the control measures you are considering implementing to ensure consistency are valid (do they work when all possible factors are combined?).

I would propose that an important factor of efficient training is that, whenever possible and practical, your techniques practiced in ideal conditions (standing upright at 10yds in daylight in favorable conditions) are compatible with more complex conditions (full kit, pro-mask, night-time, in the rain, while engaging under a vehicle)- if those complex conditions and parameters fall within the scope and probability of your employment.

Maybe the diffences in these optics do not affect you and the controls you use and your equipment choice is valid. Maybe you assess that the limitations are unreasonable and you have to weigh the other factors not represented in the report (weight, size, battery life, etc) to decide if you are using equipment that is a proper fit for your desired end state. That is how you ensure you are using equipment that meets your requirements, rather than your personal feelings or preference- not to say those considerations do not play a role in equipment selection. There is no "one optic is better than another" blanket statement that is valid. It is entirely based on your specific requirements.

[Doc Safari]

I think another consideration is to decide once and for all if you want to co-witness with iron sights and STICK TO IT.

Here's my reasoning:

I employee the Meprolight M21 as my CQB optic. The triangle reticle to me is optimum for both placing the "whole" reticle on close-up targets or using just the tip for objects further away.

When I employ the optic with no cowitness, the reticle actually sits slightly above the front sight post in the most comfortable position. When I use a co-witness, the reticle actually appears to be touching the front sight post when lined up perfectly. Common sense says that this is introducing some error into the target acquisition versus zero (albeit maybe a small one).

I've never compared the difference in POA vs. POI when using the Meprolight with or without irons co-witness, but I'm guessing there must be some. There would almost have to be.