Squad Common Optic

[wild_wild_wes]

In this thread we will discuss the concept of the Squad Common Optic, and its implications.

Wether the SCO turns out to be 1-6 or 1-8, what will it mean for other optics? What weapons will it go on? Which weapons will it possibly displace?

[kmrtnsn]

Can you please reference some background on this proposed optic and usage?

[wild_wild_wes]

Basically, the Army is looking to replace many infantry weapons optics with a single variable magnification scope, in the range I listed. I was hoping our more knowlegeable members would fill in the details, and speculate how this will change the whole weapons/optics mix.

[Wake27]

Yeah I haven't heard about anything like that other than SDM stuff but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

[wild_wild_wes]

Found this:

Squad Common Optic Initial Concept

Variable Magnification, 1-6x, 1-8x

- Unity power desired for Close Range Effects

- High magnification desired for increased P(id)/P(h)

Reduced SWaP: ≤ 1.5 lbs

Delivery timeframe - late 2015

[jstone]

I think a 1-6 power optic with a true 1x on the low end with a simple, and intuitive reticle for ranging/ballistic compensation. The ranging part of the reticle would need to be very simple.

I would think with the new technology of adding the range finder in the optic would be ideal. one problem is the weight. Another option is to add something that could measure a part of the body that is of a known size. Like the torso. So if head to waist is 18 inches (numbers are theoretical). Like the cmr-w reticle at each stadia line there is a line with a dot above it. The measurement between the line and dot is 18 inches. So you put the line at the waist, and the dot would reference the head. So very fast you could range the target without having to teach everyone the mil-dot formula.

At 6-8 power for the high end of the magnification you would have more than the acog's. A true 1 power low end with a dot or something that will help maintain the speed of a red dot while still giving adequate precision. Daylight visible illumination.

If the uso idea of a dual focal plane could be implemented without problems. Imo would be th ideal option for where to put the reticle. I think if it was the same size as the nightforce 2-10x24 would be perfect.

Put the optic on a 16" free floated rifle, (upgrade the rail/barrel after they are burned out, and in for replacement) and this should be able to replace everything short of sniper systems/machine guns. I added a little about the rifle, but i think you could just put it on the m4/a4. The optic could five everyone DM like capabilities.

This is input from an enthusiast that was never mil so take what i say with a grain of salt. This optic might already be out there with a few changes, but i think that something very similar to what i have outlined could give our troops a great advantage. As a taxpayer i do not care what it costs as long as our troops get the best of the best no politics.

[rauchman]

I am not MIL or LEO and have never been in anything approaching combat.

I would guess that the ideal optic would have some kind of laser rangefinding ability, an easy to use reticle designed for CQB and for range estimation, redundant power sources (battery, fiber optic, solar, other?), light weight and of course a variable capability.

Would this optic be for every soldier that's currently using an Aimpoint, EoTech and ACOG?

I would venture to guess that the traditional idea of scope design would change somewhat to fit these requirements. Was the ACOG the 1st scope to use a prism mechanism? I kind of think of the ACOG as taking a somewhat radical step in it's design compared to contemporary designs of the time. Is it possible to do a variable prism type mechanism? I am not a scope designer by any stretch, but some theoretical design solutions would possibly be...
Multiple magnification switching capability - Have the scope be a 1x4, and also have an internal prism magnification doubler (IPM). Have something like a traditional variable control ring to control the 1x4 and then have a flip mechanism, sort of like an ElCan to switch the IPM between 1 power and 2 power. Power 1 would be 1x4, and when switched to 2 power, magnification would be between 2x8, or some other more ideal magnification combo. I would think this would negate the problem that I've read about of 1x8 scopes having a very small eye box. I'm probably wrong on this though.
Multiple reticle capability - Using the IPM to flip between 1 and 2 power, 1 power could contain a CQB type reticle, while 2 power could have a reticle geared to longer range shooting. I'm sure I'm off my understanding of scope construction, but when swiveling the IPM, would there be a different prism face the viewer would be looking through. Couldn't the different prism faces have different reticles?

Ultimately, I think however this scope winds up, it will be of a different design mold than the traditional variable scope in the same way the ACOG was different to what preceeded it.

[TehLlama]

If you look at a lot of the design elements present on the Leupold Mk6 and USO or March 1-Nx units, you'll see that this is already a goal, outside of the USA contract.

DoD is going to need an optic that can functionally replace the TA31RCO, and hopefully displace a lot of the M68CCO units (CompM2 and CompM4 varieties) on carbines. Pid/PH at range is too valuable to have only one or two patrol members with reasonable zoom, so it's going to happen even though the cost will be higher.

As far as ranging, Leupold is closest in my view, with the CMR-W reticle. Just borrow a bit more of the downward christmas tree from the Trijicon models (the ECOS TA01 would be fine), and run the other three stadia as simple mil-dot or mil-line reticle setups (the NF MLR-2 is one of the best examples of this). It doesn't need to be much, and should be barely visible below 3x zoom (if at all) since ranging only starts being useful at or above 3.5x in my experience.

All FFP or DFP is the answer for focal plane, the difference really comes down to how much of the reticle you plan to illuminate (how, and how brightly). If trijicon can pull a tritium/fiber luminsecent bunny out of the hat and make that work, they'll have a really winner, but as seen with the limitations of the TR24T design, it's a lot to work around. I'm a fan of illuminating just a simple red dot that is meant to be zeroed for 50/200m, then letting the more complex reticle dictate anything beyond or more precise than that. What I have no solid opinion on because my input isn't that helpful is how to handle the windage setup - again the Leupy CMR-W has a good approach to this, but I'd like something a touch simpler (but not nonexistant - kentucky windage through a TA31 at 500yd at K-Bay isn't as fun as it sounds).

And yes, virtually any 16" midlength CL/CHF unit with an NSN FF handguard is a better solution than what we're using now. That should be a given.

[Wake27]

Too be introduced at Benning later this month? Link (http://kitup.military.com/2013/09/army-show-newest-infantry-toys.html#comments)

[wild_wild_wes]

Hmm...wonder if the Trijicon 1-6X is a shoe-in...

[Koshinn]

Hmm...wonder if the Trijicon 1-6X is a shoe-in...

The VCOG was almost certainly developed to compete for the squad common optic contract whenever it's out for bid.

[R0N]

What is in the works as the replacement for the RCO is a system that brings M1 tank like fire control to the riflemen.

Right now they are still working to perfect and miniaturizing a combination range finding and a wind reading laser. This will be tied to a ballistic computer than will give the shooter a complete ballistic solution.

[wild_wild_wes]

Is such technology really that close? It seems to me an interim solution might be in order. As 1-6x scopes stand right now though, they seem a bit much for issue to all infanttymen, in regards to weight a d training needed. They would be great for DMs, though.

[wild_wild_wes]

The VCOG was almost certainly developed to compete for the squad common optic contract whenever it's out for bid.

But the VCOG has that high built-in mount. Not sure that would work on the M240 etc..

[sinister]

The US Army has a constant desire to find equipment that does a number of things and simplifies the supply system. This usually results in compromises across many areas and equipment that doesn't do ANYTHING particularly well or cheaper.

Example: the M14 rifle was supposed to replace the M1, BAR, M1 Carbine, and the M3 Grease Gun. The 2013 Force is equipped with M4s, M16s, M27s, M249s, and various other cats and dogs;

example: CLP is supposed to replace Rifle Bore Cleaner, LSA, and LAW -- in reality it is compromise in a bottle that does NOTHING particularly well;

example: the M9 pistol was to replace the M1911A1 and all other pistols and revolvers (with the exception of General Officer pistols) -- today the force has M9s, M11s, Sigs (NAVSPECWAR and the Coast Guard) and USASOC Glocks;

To get a 1X- to whatever power with a red dot, clear magnification with a rapid ranging reticle, and shock- and waterproofing it's going to be expensive and may be heavy. Gary Schott, a Nightforce optics designer, reinforced to me: "I can give you perfection -- how much are you willing to pay for it?"

[Failure2Stop]

The US Army has a constant desire to find equipment that does a number of things and simplifies the supply system. This usually results in compromises across many areas and equipment that doesn't do ANYTHING particularly well or cheaper.

Example: the M14 rifle was supposed to replace the M1, BAR, M1 Carbine, and the M3 Grease Gun. The 2013 Force is equipped with M4s, M16s, M27s, M249s, and various other cats and dogs;

example: CLP is supposed to replace Rifle Bore Cleaner, LSA, and LAW -- in reality it is compromise in a bottle that does NOTHING particularly well;

example: the M9 pistol was to replace the M1911A1 and all other pistols and revolvers (with the exception of General Officer pistols) -- today the force has M9s, M11s, Sigs (NAVSPECWAR and the Coast Guard) and USASOC Glocks;

To get a 1X- to whatever power with a red dot, clear magnification with a rapid ranging reticle, and shock- and waterproofing it's going to be expensive and may be heavy. Gary Schott, a Nightforce optics designer, reinforced to me: "I can give you perfection -- how much are you willing to pay for it?"

And bingo was his name-o.


Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[JohnnyC]

If Elcan could make the SpecterDR reliable in a 1-6 or 1-8 flip range with a daylight visible red dot and a Gen2XR-style reticle at 6 or 8 that would be ideal. Alternatively, if Leupold could crank out Mk8's at significant enough volume to drop the cost that would be sweetness.

[Koshinn]

Is such technology really that close? It seems to me an interim solution might be in order. As 1-6x scopes stand right now though, they seem a bit much for issue to all infanttymen, in regards to weight a d training needed. They would be great for DMs, though.

Yep, it pretty much exists in some form or another. See that new fangled smart rifle? Also, I think it was Nikon or Bushnell that has something a generation older in just a scope form.

Those aren't 1-6 and are made for hunting, but the individual components all exist and many have been combined in commercial products.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Too be introduced at Benning later this month? Link (http://kitup.military.com/2013/09/army-show-newest-infantry-toys.html#comments)

The link is a must-open for the photo of the MPLC crew wearing standard ACUs in what looks like a US woodland setting, and standing out almost as brightly as if they had lime green safety vests on.