Red Dot site placed more forward?

[Byron]

For whatever it's worth (not a whole lot), I also prefer to mount my dot forward

Originally Posted by gotm4

My way is "A way, not the way" Eriks also is "A way, not the way".

That's why I was a bit confused by his statement in the article that part of his evaluation of a new student is where he mounts his RDS. It seems strong to say that he can evaluate what experience a student has based on the location of his RDS.

[YVK]

Originally Posted by Byron

Here you go:

FIGHTING THROUGH THE RING
By Erik Lund, Senior Instructor
United States Shooting Academy

The starting premise is "a larger field of view" with closer position of optic. A lot of folks question concept of FOV with nonmagnified optic, given that both eyes are open.

I also mount mine at the end of receiver with AR.

Recently I've started an experiment with mounting Aimpoint even farther out. This was driven by hitting my hand against the optic when working charging handle on my SCAR. So far it has worked OK, but I've not run any timed drills and not gone through class with this set-up yet.

[Pappabear]

I now prefer the forward position in every aspect of using it. Better field of view, faster acquisition and less interference from the non optical portion of the Aimpoint. It certainly makes sense, the further you push that metal tube away from your eye, the less obstruction will occur.

[the_fallguy]

I read Lund's article, and it sounds like he is shooting with one eye only, or I am simply unaware of what I don't know....?

I played with the closer red dot position with both eyes open, and it actually seemed like the only noticeable difference for me was that the blind spot on the lower right was actually larger with a closer mounted optic (I'm talking about the spot where the hand guard seen through your left eye superimposes over the tube of the red dot you see through your right eye and makes a "solid" opaque image).

I did notice that with the RDS closer to my eye, the rear buis aperture did not appear oblong like it can sometimes with the higher 1/3 co-witness mounts. That was a bonus I had not considered before trying out the new position. I plan to try out a po' boy pretty soon so I will continue to run my RDS forward, but I might consider a more rear ward position otherwise, simply for the rounder appearance of the aperture.

[Savior 6]

Originally Posted by Pappabear

I now prefer the forward position in every aspect of using it. Better field of view, faster acquisition and less interference from the non optical portion of the Aimpoint. It certainly makes sense, the further you push that metal tube away from your eye, the less obstruction will occur.

I agree with the FOV. I always think about the sight radius aspect when I see HGs w/ RDSs on top and how they would better off near the front sight mount. It's just not that pratical with holsters and all and better left on the rear sight. I could see it happening with the Docters more than the Aimpoints though.

Remember the guy from Remo Williams; The Adventure Begins?

[ra2bach]

Originally Posted by rob_s

When I started using an RDS about the time the ban ended I initially used a cantilever mount under my ML2 and put it on the far forward edge of the upper which put it out about as far forward as it could go....

When I went to the T-1, I instinctively pushed it all the way forward as well. I actually found that I started having problems finding the dot in unconventional positions. So I thought about it objectively and decided that instead of lining it up at the same forward position I'd line it up at the rear-most edge of where the 30mm Aimpoint lives. This worked out so well that I thought about it some more, and realized that the tube was a little smaller, moving it back even just one more notch would make it APPEAR to be about the same size as the 30mm tube, which would also mean that it would ghost out the same way. This is where the T-1 works best for me.

Rob, I think you may be onto something here - it seems likely that the way the eye sees through/around that optic may have as much to with ocular size as well as placement fore/aft.

in fact, that may be exactly the component we are changing without realizing the secondary effect.

I started a thread in Optics asking for differences between the Aimpoint M4 and T1. the discussion began on the basis of cost, weight, and dot size.

I was also interested in the affect of the different size tube and issues arising from that, such as your thread asking about using the T1 as a "ghost ring" should you suffer a failure in the RDS.

from what I can tell after reading all the discussion in the links provided, it's possible that the utility of the T1 is not as great when paired with the magnifier as is one of the M2/3/4, and from your post, it also seems like it could benefit from experimenting with the fore/aft placement.

this would make a distinction to me beyond the cost/size/weight factors in choosing one over the other.

thanks for the insight....

[GrumpyM4]

Rob S hit the nail on the head when he brought up unconventional shooting positions.

It does appear to be quicker to pick up the dot whith the sight mounted further away from the eye until you find yourself in some funky, uncomfortable position where you can't get a proper shoulder or cheek weld and your shooting platform is more a house of cards then a stable platform.

I personally mount my Aimpoings a couple of spaces to the rear of the forward end of the upper reciever. Pretty much exactly like this setup......

Originally Posted by rob_s

With the exception that i'm running M2s instead of Micros.

Sure it "blocks" my view to some extent when eyes are on sight, but as has already been pointed out, I get a larger field of view through the sight and i'm not ever stuck "chasing the dot".

Everything else is debateable and up for personal preference.

[tnolley]

YMMV, but, the farther the red dot is away from your "aiming" eye, the easier it is to see naturally superimposed on the target with both eyes open. The downside is that you have a smaller field of view THROUGH the scope and the red dot is less noticeable.

The closer the Aimpoint is to your eye, the larger field of view you have through it. The dot is more obvious but you need to train/acclimate your eyes to get used to it because it is harder to shoot both eyes open when the scope is close.

There is also the temptation when the sight is mounted to the rear of your rifle to close your non-sighting eye and treat the red dot as a scope and "sight in" the dot on the target. That is NOT what these sights are for. They are meant for immediate target acquisition in a fluid environment.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by tnolley

YMMV, but, the farther the red dot is away from your "aiming" eye, the easier it is to see naturally superimposed on the target with both eyes open. The downside is that you have a smaller field of view THROUGH the scope and the red dot is less noticeable.

The closer the Aimpoint is to your eye, the larger field of view you have through it. The dot is more obvious but you need to train/acclimate your eyes to get used to it because it is harder to shoot both eyes open when the scope is close.

There is also the temptation when the sight is mounted to the rear of your rifle to close your non-sighting eye and treat the red dot as a scope and "sight in" the dot on the target. That is NOT what these sights are for. They are meant for immediate target acquisition in a fluid environment.

Your post seems contradictory to me. On the one hand you're talking about field of view, which is a non-issue with both eyes open. On the other hand you say that shooting with one eye closed is not what these sights are for.

[Savior 6]

Originally Posted by rob_s

Your post seems contradictory to me. On the one hand you're talking about field of view, which is a non-issue with both eyes open. On the other hand you say that shooting with one eye closed is not what these sights are for.

?????

[Shamdawg]

As of yet, I am on the fence between making the T-1 or the M4 my first and primary optic (I have always used Iron sights). Would the placement fore or aft of the upper receiver also affect the addition of a magnifier? I would imagine you would want a magnifier as far aft as possible for one eye shooting.

[edwin907]

I like the 3X Aimpoint magnifier mounted where I can use a NTCH cheekweld.
This is easy on the MRP (or any other continous rail upper) but requires some experimentation with the regular flat top receiver.
A setup that works is the stock Aimpoint M4S with the cantilever factory mount and the 3X mounted in a Samson flip. The LaRue flip sets the 3X pretty far back, and there may not be room depending on your Aimpoint and mount.

As far as the Aimpoint alone, I like it mounted about 1/2 way out over the front edge of the receiver.

[patriot_man]

IMO I found that having red dots placed to close too the charging handle and towards the rear of the receiver gave me a lesser FOV (or so it made me feel and which grew my hate for large rear sights) I have mounted all the way up close to the FSP which I found was fast when using a VFG directly underneath the RDS which gave me faster movement and control of where I wanted my red dot (and barrel to point). Now lately I red dots mount it in between the rail space on the upper receiver and on my railed fore end. I have stopped using a VFG and started to place my hand against the lower receiver which gets my reticle lined up with the target. Try it out and see what works best for you.

[BushmasterFanBoy]

Originally Posted by rob_s

Your post seems contradictory to me. On the one hand you're talking about field of view, which is a non-issue with both eyes open. On the other hand you say that shooting with one eye closed is not what these sights are for.

Even with both eyes open, the dot is only visible in the area of your view that you can see through the glass of the optic. Ergo, the optics dimmensions, its placement away from you, etc. will play a role in how much of your field of view is spent looking though the tube/window.

People describing it as limiting your overall field of view is a misnomer here, as it is really only pertaining to the portion of your FOV that is looking through the optic. I find that these issues are more cheekweld related than anything, with optic size/placement to be a way to get a more lenient cheekweld.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by BushmasterFanBoy

Even with both eyes open, the dot is only visible in the area of your view that you can see through the glass of the optic. Ergo, the optics dimmensions, its placement away from you, etc. will play a role in how much of your field of view is spent looking though the tube/window.

People describing it as limiting your overall field of view is a misnomer here, as it is really only pertaining to the portion of your FOV that is looking through the optic. I find that these issues are more cheekweld related than anything, with optic size/placement to be a way to get a more lenient cheekweld.

If what you are describing is what's meant then you are correct that this is not "field of view".

The field of view (also field of vision) is the angular extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.

[epf]

Another factor is the position of the cheek-weld on the stock, that affects frame of reference. If you are a nose-to-charging handle shooter or say .... a guy who runs your stock extended yet welds on the slope of your SOPMOD. I have seen guys argue about dot postion without taking eye relief distance (if that is the right term) into account.

[variablebinary]

An optic in the forward position creates some challenges during carbine class where a shooter will be in sucky positions, trying to shoot weak sided at weird angles. If the dot has a habit of walking out of objective range because it is sensitive to how the rifle is shouldered, you'll be hating life

I prefer a center/rear position on my XCR, and always have my optics mounted to the upper on AR15's, never beyond

Shoot both eyes open; you'll get plenty of visual information about the target's surroundings

Best advice I can give is lay on your side with your rifle shouldered in your off hand, arms and neck unsupported, legs curled up in near fetal position because you are trying to not break concealment from behind something small. Now how long does it take you to acquire and maintain a dot on a still target at 50 meters if the optic is far forward. If you are hunting for it, that's a problem, and you need to reconsider what you are doing.

Like an instructor once said, "I don't care what gear you run. Do whatever the hell makes you happy, but remember, bad guys don't give a shit about your problems."

[Failure2Stop]

When reading Erik's essay I thought that he was more referencing placement of the optic on the HG rail versus back on the receiver.
ETA- I was wrong here, see next post for clarification.

Back in the day when the Trijicon Reflex dominated the military markey for RDSs they were usually employed (or encouraged to be) near the front sight, with an absolute cowitness. The application at the time was almost strictly CQB, where slight wobble of the HG wasn't really all that detrimental to the needed degree of precision. We then figured out that most HGs were simply not structurally rigid enough to eliminate HG flex, causing POA/POI shift at even intermediate ranges. Those that only use the HG mounted optic/sights at close range are not significantly affected by HG flex, even though it may be present. The further toward the end of the HG you place the optic, the more the HG flex will affect POA/POI.

In my experience a more generous exit pupil (with magnified optics) or larger tube (with non-magnified optics) will result in faster acquistition of the dot, especially in unconventional positions. Also, the perceived size of the dot/reticle in optics such as Aimpoints and EoTechs will remain fairly constant as the optic is pushed further from the eye, which will result in the reticle/dot occupying more space within the field of view through the optic.

There is also a balance issue. Placing the weight of the optic between the hands will make the gun feel lighter than with the optic in front of the hands (see "lever") due to the mechanical advantage of the weight in relation to the fulcrum of the hand.

Different tube sizes make a difference in how much angular deviation you have available in regard to head/eye placement. The smaller the tube, the less angular deviation available. Bringing the tube rearward opens up more angle if the tube size remains constant.

With an M4/M3/EoTech alone I prefer a straight mount at the end of the upper receiver. If used in conjunction with a magnifier I prefer to use a cantilever due to eye-relief needs of the magnifier (M4/M3, no change with an Eo). If I am using a T1 I prefer to have the optic just in front of my rear sight, as it gives a more generous eye placement (rapid presentation and unconventional positions) and ghosts out the optic body better.

[the_fallguy]

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

When reading Erik's essay I thought that he was more referencing placement of the optic on the HG rail versus back on the receiver.

I hope that's the case. I have plans to go to USSA this spring and this article shook my confidence in them a little bit.

[Failure2Stop]

I just re-read the article and my recollection was incorrect.

He is very clearly talking about moving the optic rearward toward the rear sight, actually as close as feasable. I will, however, take a few quotes from the article that I think might be pertinent and give a better perspective on what Erik is saying.

Among the many things I look for when making my initial evaluation of my prospective students is what type of sighting system is on the student’s rifles. If the student chooses to use some type of optic, and most do, what are they using? Did they choose some type of magnified optic or did they go the electronic route? If they choose to use an electronic sight (i.e. - Aimpoint, EOTech, Trijicon, etc,) I tend to observe how, and more importantly where they mount the sight. So why is this important to me as an Instructor? Because it tells me whether or not the student has any experience Fighting Through the Ring.

Reading that tells me that Mr. Lund is not saying that those with forward mounted optics are inexperienced, but rather inexperienced in the technique/concept of "Fighting Through the Ring".

He then goes on to give an explaination and example, ending with this:

What if, by simply repositioning your optic, you reduce your threat engagement times by 50%? Is that worth the time it takes to move the optic? What if it’s only 40% or 30% or even 20%, is it still worth the slight effort? Only you can make that judgment, but the answer seems pretty clear. Any reduction in threat engagement times that is gained without hours and hours of practice, by a simple repositioning of the optic is at least worth a try. Next time you go to the range, try Fighting Through the Ring and not around it.

What that says to me is that Erik wants to help you be better (publishing this for free access and use), and explains a technique that makes it easier to engage real threats within an envelope. He even finishes with pointing out that it's worth a try, not that if you don't do it his way you are a n00b and will get shot in the face.

At leaast that's how I read it.