View Full Version : Do you fight inside the ring or outside?
Training article for you guys.
http://www.usshootingacademy.com/content.aspx?id=26
How far forward is too far forward?? I mount my Aimpoint T-1 at the forward most portion of the upper receiver. Is this too far forward. The saying goes, mission drives the gear, but I was under the impression the standard mounting location was the front part of the upper receiver. I have a Larue Poboy Special that I leave room for, but I still mounted my old M2 at roughly the same location before I got the magnifier. I'm certainly not an advocate of mounting an optic on handguards. I just never thought about doing it "as far back as possible".
http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_Files/FIGHTING%20THROUGH%20THE%20RING%20by%20Erik%20Lund.pdf
that's the article he's directly referring to.
Good read, definitely something to get your mind moving. Can't wait to see some of the more experienced folks' thoughts on this.
I don't notice the "Ring" personally as I shoot with both eyes and this creats an "unlimited" field of view for me...but I can see merit in this.
I'm certainly not an advocate of mounting an optic on handguards.
I've been wondering about this lately. If you mount and Aimpoint at the rearmost position on a Free Float Handguard, would that be BAD? :confused:
I can see the downside of mounting something on a handguard that isn't fixed to the upper receiver, but I don't see any potential for shift on a FF system.
I've been wondering about this lately. If you mount and Aimpoint at the rearmost position on a Free Float Handguard, would that be BAD? :confused:
I can see the downside of mounting something on a handguard that isn't fixed to the upper receiver, but I don't see any potential for shift on a FF system.
I wouldn't want an optic on hadguards unless I had no choice (a1/a2 upper and no gooseneck mount etc). One issue is possibly zero, though with locking guards like larues this becomes less of an issue. Heat is the other issue that could crop up.
I've heard rumors of eotech optics being mounted straight above the chamber and the internals frying from the heat. Haven't heard the same from aimpoints mounted here though. (metal housing, and generally not being so low to the rail)
Everything goes in cycles. What was old is new, what is new was old.
Thanks for the link. Printing it out to read.
Iraq Ninja
01-14-09, 10:56
Maybe I am just crazy, but I always refer to aimpoints as sights, not scopes. Not sure why the author uses the term. To me, its a mindset issue. I think of looking down a scope, and looking thru a sight... but thats just me...
As for inside the ring or outside, I don't even notice the ring when shooting with both eyes open and focused on the target.
One issue is possibly zero, though with locking guards like larues this becomes less of an issue. Heat is the other issue that could crop up.
So removing zero as a problem since we've established that a FF is basically an extension of the upper.. I still don't see the down side. Everyone is always saying that the heat is in the upper receiver in a DI gun anyway. I noticed that Costa runs one of his Aimpoints way out front with a cantilever mount. If one wanted to run a dot way out front anyway, why not just mount it to the back of the FF rail?
I know Eotechs don't like heat, but I'm picturing an aimpoint in a mount just in front of the handguard. That's a long way for heat to transfer... through the top rail, through the mount, and to the optic.
Blake,
Don't think of placement in terms of "too far forward", it's more about how to position the scope to maximize its performance. I would submit that mounting it more to the rear accomplishes that goal.
I don't notice the "Ring" personally as I shoot with both eyes and this creats an "unlimited" field of view for me
As for inside the ring or outside, I don't even notice the ring when shooting with both eyes open and focused on the target.
The Fighting Through the Ring concept is not so much about the ring obscuring or blocking your vision as it is about not having to shift your visual focus outside of the ring to find your next threat, if possible. Having your threats inside the Ring translates to quicker transition times on multiple targets because you don't have to shift your vision outside of your scope to find the next threat.
Regardless if you shoot with one or both eyes open, your dominant eye will be guiding your focus through the Ring. Even with both eyes open, you will still need to shift your focus outside the scope to find the next threat. If you can get a larger field of view that allows more threats inside that field of view then you'll be able to transition to the next target without shifting your visual focus outside the scope, which saves engagement time and makes you faster.
Maybe I am just crazy, but I always refer to aimpoints as sights, not scopes. Not sure why the author uses the term. To me, its a mindset issue. I think of looking down a scope, and looking thru a sight... but thats just me...
Yeah, I can see that. I think its just semantics. I hear sights and I think iron sights. I hear scopes and I think optics.
On the EOTech heat issue, I run an EOTech on an 11.5" upper with a suppressor which generates a lot of heat. Never had an EOTech fail me. Just my experience.
I appreciate you guys taking time to read the article and participating in the discussion.
Thanks,
USSA-1
The Fighting Through the Ring concept is not so much about the ring obscuring or blocking your vision as it is about not having to shift your visual focus outside of the ring to find your next threat, if possible. Having your threats inside the Ring translates to quicker transition times on multiple targets because you don't have to shift your vision outside of your scope to find the next threat.
Regardless if you shoot with one or both eyes open, your dominant eye will be guiding your focus through the Ring. Even with both eyes open, you will still need to shift your focus outside the scope to find the next threat. If you can get a larger field of view that allows more threats inside that field of view then you'll be able to transition to the next target without shifting your visual focus outside the scope, which saves engagement time and makes you faster.
Interesting points. It almost seems like mounting your Aimpoint way far forward would accomplish something similar. It would keep focus shifted out of the scope in the first place. Then you would simply move the site/dot onto the targets one at a time. :confused:
Medicine Calf
01-16-09, 09:20
I have my micros mounted all the way forward on the AR, and on an ultimak rail on the AK. It had seemed to me that when sighting with both eyes opened, that the field of view became integrated between both eyes, one inside and one outside ("the ring"). The author seems to be indicating that this is not the complete truth and that subconsciously, there is an internal argument going on between the information being received from both eyes that will affect reaction time.
One thing I noticed a while back, is that FSB had his micro mounted all the way back on an 870 with a Vang Comp sight/w rail.
So removing zero as a problem since we've established that a FF is basically an extension of the upper.. I still don't see the down side. Everyone is always saying that the heat is in the upper receiver in a DI gun anyway. I noticed that Costa runs one of his Aimpoints way out front with a cantilever mount. If one wanted to run a dot way out front anyway, why not just mount it to the back of the FF rail?
I know Eotechs don't like heat, but I'm picturing an aimpoint in a mount just in front of the handguard. That's a long way for heat to transfer... through the top rail, through the mount, and to the optic.
I never thought aimpoints suffered from this at all. Mileage is going to vary with gear. I personally have always tried to line the front of my aimpoint tube up with the front or just ahead of the front of the end up the upper.
I can see how dominant eye could play a part. I noticed this myself a while ago, and now during dryfire CMP practice with my "dot on the wall" I do the full course of fire right handed, and left handed as well. Good practice and it keeps my non dominant eye used to focusing.
oregonshooter
01-16-09, 22:43
There is a reason a SCOUT scope works faster...
I run a T1 on an ultimak rail and because the tube is small and so far forward my eye is guided to the dot by the small "ring" which is not large enough to make transitions between threat and sight noticeable.
One advantage having it far forward gives you is ability to see the dot from awkward positions (not shouldered) while shooting around cover.
That makes sense to me... but takes me back to my original question. Is mounting an Aimpoint on a FF handguard a bad idea?
I've read a few posts that bash the idea. But I can't remember if they were made by anyone who knew shit about shit.
Sorry for not getting back to you guys sooner, I was at the SHOT show and I didn't have much time for getting online.
Interesting points. It almost seems like mounting your Aimpoint way far forward would accomplish something similar. It would keep focus shifted out of the scope in the first place. Then you would simply move the site/dot onto the targets one at a time
MarkM, you are quite right. Regardless of where you mount your scope, there will be a transition/acquisition delay as you acquire and re-focus on your next threat.
There is a reason a SCOUT scope works faster...
I run a T1 on an ultimak rail and because the tube is small and so far forward my eye is guided to the dot by the small "ring" which is not large enough to make transitions between threat and sight noticeable.
I agree (to some degree) with what you have noticed in your training.
Let me try to break this down a bit more. I think there are several constants when it comes to threat acquisition and transitions between threats regardless of where you choose to mount the scope.
This time spent on the initial acquisition and mounting of the rifle should be about the same as should the transition to a second target that is located outside the ring of the scope, regardless of where you choose the mount the scope. Now lets examine a situation where you have two threats. First one has one threat inside the ring and the second outside the ring. Irrespective of where the scope is mounted, both of these times should be about the same, as the shooter will have to shift focus from inside the ring to acquire the next threat which is positioned outdside the ring. Next you have both threats inside the ring. This transition will also be the same regardless of where you have the scopes mounted.
Now a brief question. You have two shooters, each with two threats. Shooter #1 can observe both threats inside the ring of his scope. Shooter #2 can only observe one threat inside the ring. The other threat is immediately outside his ring. Which of the two shooters will be able to transition to the second threat faster?
I would submit it will be shooter #1 (for various reasons) as both threats are inside the ring. If you agree with this position, then the more opportunity you have to create a situation whereby you can put multiple threats inside the ring, the faster you'll be (in those specific situations) able to engage those threats when compared to having other additional threats outside the ring. The easist way to create this situation is to enlarge your field of view through the scope. This is simply accomplished by moving the optic closer to your eye, or moving it further to the rear.
One advantage having it far forward gives you is ability to see the dot from awkward positions (not shouldered) while shooting around cover.
In my experience, I have not noticed that to be the case, but that really doesn't matter. It's what works better for you. My goal is to offer up some ideas to stir up discussion. Maybe some other shooters will "think" about the way they do things instead of doing them "just because" and in this process they will find a better way for them; making them better shooters.
USSA-1
oregonshooter
01-20-09, 20:33
USSA-1,
I see your point about transitioning the dot inside the tube from target to target being faster than moving the tube to the next target and seeing the dot through it, but how do you not see the outer tube with both eyes open?
I can't see how you get both eyes looking through the tube without seeing the ring?
The closer the ring is to my face (both eyes open) the more it gets in my way, unless I close an eye, then the FOV inside the ring is 180deg.
It's like trying to focus past your finger as you bring it to your nose. Touching your nose it has no affect, but the farther is gets away from your nose the less affect it has also.
Unless I can put the ring inside both eye's FOV it is going to divide isn't it?
if you are running a helmet mounted NVG, the optic mounted rearward could pose
an issue.
but how do you not see the outer tube with both eyes open?...I can't see how you get both eyes looking through the tube without seeing the ring?
It's not about whether or not you see the body of the scope (ring,) as there is no way it will not be visible. To some degree, you will see the scope body. Think about this, How do you see the front sight on your handgun without seeing the rear sight? This is how it works for me. I am aware of the ring, but I'm not focusing on it; much like the rear sight on a pistol.
Unless I can put the ring inside both eye's FOV it is going to divide isn't it?
I think that would only be a problem if you didn't have a dominant eye, i.e.- both your eyes were equally dominant. If that were the case, I could see a situation where you would have difficulty looking through the optic.
Most people have a clearly dominant eye. While bringing the optic closer to your face may create a situation whereby one eye may focus outside the ring, in my experience the dominant eye "pulls" the other eye with it when it focuses through the ring. Although you still have the power to switch eye dominance for a brief time at a conscious level. Think about using a scope with an occluded lens. The dominant eye superimposes the image of the occluded scope onto the downrange image from the non-dominant eye (NDE), but the reason the lens is occluded is so that the dominant eye does not have a downrange image to occupy it's focus. If it did it would overpower the NDE and pull the NDE into the scope with it.
if you are running a helmet mounted NVG, the optic mounted rearward could pose
an issue.
You are correct sir. The equipment you choose to use may restrict your mounting options. Night vision, magnifiers, BUIS', etc. They all may restrict your mounting options.
USSA-1
oregonshooter
01-22-09, 18:47
OK, I played with this a little last night.
I can only mount my T-1 up front on the Ultimak rail, but I did some experimenting with it, creating a "through the ring" (I could see both targets with dominant eye in ring with NDE closed) by moving the scope to about 2" from DE.
I then put one target outside by adding distance to say 4" from DE.
I then moved between both targets with the scope at SCOUT distance.
I just don't see a great deal of dwell time reduction. Granted this was just a "feeling" test with out a clock which would mean nothing anyway since I can't shoulder the gun with the scope all the way back, but what kind of reduced dwell time are we talking here?
What are your split differences using "through the ring" verses normal placement, verses SCOUT placement?
I agree, with the setup you have on the Ultimak rail, you probably aren't going to see much difference as the scope never really gets that much closer to your eye.
As I said before, it's about improving your performance. I wanted shooters to think about the placement of their optics and experiment with ways to improve their individual performance by moving the optic around. Find the way the works best for you. There is no "right" way.
Good shooting,
USSA-1
oregonshooter
01-26-09, 13:33
I take it you have not timed the difference?
Yes, I evaluated the technique over several training sessions and competitive shooting events and it would save me anywhere from 1/4 to 3/4 of a sec. per target (depending on the distance between the targets.) More importantly for me, it not only saved me time, but I had better hits on the targets. I won't say the technique made me more accurate, but I got a better, longer look at the secondary target and I was able to get better hits.
USSA-1
A slight, almost negligible, but in rare cases applicable point would be how much FOV the tube itself occludes - would mostly involve the firing side peripheral vision, and the crescent hidded by the tube.
With my primary optic all the way back, I have a slight amount covered up that isn't seen by my non-dominant eye.
So, I would want to move it forward until that area hidden by the tube is covered by my other eye, which only requires an inch or so of movement for the optic. For a non-NTCH shooter, this is much less noticeable.
I end up with a compromise - most of the way forward on the receiver, because it helps with some of these advantages, but doesn't give me a tiny blind spot that I dislike, and is a rough middle ground between the far-forward easy to acquire dots, and more weight-practical rear mounting options.
I think this reason is why the front 1/3 of the receiver are most commonly used rail slots.
Yep, I notice the same thing. This is one of the reasons I prefer EOTech's over Aimpoints. I can mount them further to the rear with less obstruction and they have a larger lens to fight through.
USSA-1
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.