PDA

View Full Version : This Will Terrify And Amaze Flattop Carbine Users...


SteyrAUG
08-12-11, 11:46
For those of you who think carry handle mounted optics are simply wrong, impractical and indicative of somebody who doesn't know what they are doing I give you Exhibit A.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7nw02HSE21qzw2tto1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1313253588&Signature=5qPiHl2J5383VwJgl1HO20XsGh4%3D

Those of us who were into military firearms back in the "good old days" had to deal with some seriously high mounted optics (especially if we wanted to back up option of iron sights which always meant a "see thru" mount) on rifles like the G3/91, FAL and M14.

Made shooting from a A2 carry handle mount pretty unextraordinary.
nfranco
08-12-11, 11:48
Cheekweld?
We don't need no stinking cheekweld!
nfranco
08-12-11, 11:49
Double tap.
Thanks tapatalk.
Todd.K
08-12-11, 13:02
It doesn't terrify me. It's still just as "wrong, impractical and indicative of somebody who doesn't know what they are doing" to use a scope on an AR, when flat tops are readily available.
VooDoo6Actual
08-12-11, 13:29
can you say scope bite Mr. Rogers....
Beat Trash
08-12-11, 13:40
Which weighed more, the scope or the G3?

When you see picture of the starlight scopes from Vietnam, they're not much smaller.
chadbag
08-12-11, 13:46
Which weighed more, the scope or the G3?

When you see picture of the starlight scopes from Vietnam, they're not much smaller.

I suspect that is a German NV "scope" as well.
SteyrAUG
08-12-11, 13:51
It doesn't terrify me. It's still just as "wrong, impractical and indicative of somebody who doesn't know what they are doing" to use a scope on an AR, when flat tops are readily available.

What's funny is after decades of shooting ARs with carry handle mounted optics a rail mounted scope is too low for me now. When running a flattop I have to use a riser when running a traditional scope. I can use Eotechs and Trijicons without issue but they sit a little higher.
SteyrAUG
08-12-11, 13:54
I suspect that is a German NV "scope" as well.

It is.
13MPG
08-12-11, 16:48
Cheekweld?
We don't need no stinking cheekweld!

Not when you have chinweld, lol.
Suwannee Tim
08-12-11, 16:58
I grew up in the era where "low mounted optics" were the ideal. How low? Low as you could get it. How's this for low mounted (http://missoulian.com/sports/article_307210b8-7129-11df-9529-001cc4c03286.html)? Fact is, if you understand the effect on zeros, low, high or in between works. I do want a cheekweld or a chinweld or some kind of attachment for my head.
Littlelebowski
08-12-11, 17:45
I might be amazed and terrified if someone won most of the drills using a carry handle setup at a respected instructor's class. Otherwise, it's just a reminder of how far we've come.
titsonritz
08-12-11, 17:53
Not when you have chinweld, lol.

Shit that's not a chinweld, more like upper chest weld.
Ed L.
08-12-11, 19:13
The gun in the photo represents that best that they had with the technology and ergoniomics of the time.

Its hardly anything to be venerated.

If you have a proper cheekweld on the stock a scope or red dot optic should line up naturally--unless you have a head shaped like the kid from the movie Mask.

Correct cheekweld is important as:

1. A point of contact to help control the gun during recoil.

2. Maintain the relationship between your eye and the sight.

Both of these are important to allow efficiency and quick & accurate follow-up shots.

I enjoy various old school guns like an M-1 Carbine. But I don't see any way I would take one over a modern firearm with a modern setup of optics if I ever had to go into harm's way.
Treehopr
08-12-11, 19:39
:rolleyes:

Posting photos out of context doesn't validate subjective opinions.

There are folks who use carry handle mounted optics because they choose to and they train with it for mission specific reasons.

Running a flat top mounted optic doesn't make anyone more high speed, a better shooter or wiser- it just means they're running an optic on a flat top receiver.
SteyrAUG
08-12-11, 20:01
:rolleyes:

Posting photos out of context doesn't validate subjective opinions.

Not sure how you post a photo "out of context." As far as if a photo validates a subjective opinion or not would be determined by the photo as they generally don't have a context.



There are folks who use carry handle mounted optics because they choose to and they train with it for mission specific reasons.

Running a flat top mounted optic doesn't make anyone more high speed, a better shooter or wiser- it just means they're running an optic on a flat top receiver.

And I happen to agree with that perspective. I also think a few people in this thread are taking the subject way more seriously than this post is intended to be.
Smuckatelli
08-12-11, 20:05
Our spotter had a PVS-4 as part of his equipment. This was the only 'night' precision optics that we carried. The M-40A1 did not have night vision devices at that time.

We were able to get cheekweld by using our non-dominant eye when using the PVS-4 on the M-16. It wasn't nearly as accurate as the Unertyl. You could only get a 'rough' BZO with it because it came off the weapon during daylight, but for engagement out to 350-400 yards it was good to go.
Moose-Knuckle
08-13-11, 03:11
Concerning the AR platform, the original intent of the carry handle was to protect the charging hangle in it's original location on top of the upper receiver.