Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Is this nuts? What I was told re. Micro v. CompM4s

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,114
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    The compm4 will have a rotten alkaline battery much sooner than that. This happened to Pappabears Comp M4. I caught it before the damage was serious.
    Yep. A high quality lithium MAY last 8 years. A micro is good for 5.

    I don't envision a scenario where that extra three years will make a diff for you, bud.

    The good news is that they are both good optics. I personally prefer the micro and the problems the gun store employee explained to you are imaginary. However, you may prefer the m4s for other reasons.

    My micro t1 with larue lt660 weighs less than the mount for a comp m3.

    Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    52
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyyr View Post
    If he's using it incorrectly, as a scope/with one eye closed, then yes, it would be true. The correct way is with both eyes open (as you probably know), which should not functionally affect field of vision or target acquisition.

    I only mention that because a lot of people (with good intentions) misunderstand how to use optics (and other weapon and optic systems in general) and relay bad information, even with the best of intentions.
    I agree completely.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    south texas
    Posts
    75
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    I would love to hear his take on iron sights

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In live in a fantasy land, but I'm dead honest about it!
    Posts
    16
    Feedback Score
    0

    Iron Sights?

    Those heavy old thangs?

    No, no, no, no...I said, "Now lookey here, boy, I said, lookey here! What you really want are some o' these fine, alū-min-ium peep sights, shaped like a matchstick."

    (Use your best Foghorn Leghorn voice)

    I had an Comp ML3 with LaRue Mount and now I have the T1 with a LaRue LT660 mount. I definitely think it is user preference.

    Decidedly bigger and more 'robust' (any) "Comp M" RD Scope would probably fare better in the hands of a soldier (God bless all of them/you) during their 'work day;' although a Vickers Video showed a T1 taking outrageous abuse on top of a BCM (?) M4! Seriously strong, too!

    I simply prefer the lighter T1 with the 2MOA dot on either an AD or an L-T mount (only experienced with these 2 brands).

    Then again, I'm just an idiot disguised as a Floridian Voter!
    FDFenn

    "In the land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King."

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    FOV is obviously not a concern with a RDS because both eyes are kept open, so he's dead wrong with that terminology, as well as with the recommendation to keep the Micros off rifles.

    But there is some truth to the idea that acquiring a sight picture, especially from awkward firing positions, can be somewhat more difficult with the smaller diameter Aimpoint Micro tubes. The CompM4 allows your eye to be further from the centerline of the optic while still seeing the red dot. This is not a major concern and can be overcome with training and a consistent cheek-weld.

    So while there is a small amount of truth in what he was trying and failing to convey, his conclusion about which sights go on which weapons is just bogus.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,858
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by a0cake View Post
    But there is some truth to the idea that acquiring a sight picture, especially from awkward firing positions, can be somewhat more difficult with the smaller diameter Aimpoint Micro tubes.
    That's literally the ONLY reason I manage to not fall the the floor, frothing at the mouth whenever I read somebody pissing and moaning about "FOV" with these devices.

    a0's got it: SOME truth, but it's blown way out of proportion in terms of application...

    Not unlike the idea of "parallax-free" taken as a stand-alone technical statement, when the reality is better described as "...as parallax-free as such a thing can be designed/made to be..." when talking about the same sort of device. It's easier to just abridge the statement for the sake of saving ink on a pamphlet or other advertisement, knowing that nobody'll want to actually look up what parallax actually IS, and learn how it works.

    PT, he's less wrong than he is looking at an elephant through a hole in a fence, is describing what he sees, and doesn't know know that there's more to see...
    Contractor scum, AAV

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    275
    Feedback Score
    0
    Jsantoro and aOcake speak of valid points. Coming from a PURE NV aspect, an EO FOV does come into play with less body housing obstruction when a PVS-14 is mounted behind it vs. AP's.

    There is also issues using a T1 with a PVS-14 3x magnifier screwed into it's lens causing some POA/POI issues stemming from F/Stops and lens size issues while looking through the T1. This does not happen with EO's. This is ONLY an issue with 3x PVS-14 magnifiers and NOT day magnifiers of AP or EO magnifiers.

    Obviously the most effective way to use the 14 is to mount the 14 to your melon, place an IR laser on your shooting stick and let your laser do all the talking. But some hunters and others who want to remain totally passive, take the 14 on the gun approach. :-)

    Vic
    Victor Di Cosola
    sales@tnvc.com
    http://www.tnvc.com
    "Eliminating our adversaries 940nm at a time"

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,206
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    I've tried them all. The T1s are nice, but the C3 is the best balance of bulk and tube diameter for me.

    The Comp M4 is nice, but the battery type and the fact that it's a ham hock on the top of your gun are the down sides.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,901
    Feedback Score
    27 (97%)
    Thanks for the thoughts and advice, I went with the Micro T-1.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    2,740
    Feedback Score
    52 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ptmccain View Post
    Thanks for the thoughts and advice, I went with the Micro T-1.
    Good choice, you won't regret it.

    I went from an M4s to a T-1 and have not looked back.

    The smaller size and noticeable weight difference are definitely worth any disadvantage in battery type/life to me.

    I have T-1s in 2 nad 4 MOA dots and like 'em both. I actually like the 4 MOA dot better because of how the 4 MOA dot works with the trajectory of a 5.56 out to 100 yards.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •