Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Thoughts on RMR on carbine

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    750
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by T-TAC View Post
    Many questions about the RMR.

    1) Does it use a common battery?

    2) Is there a on/off switch or does it have"Sleep" mode?

    3) How long is the Battery life?

    4) Is there some type of "cover" for the lens when not in use?

    5) Do you lose the "DOT" if you not completely behind the gun?
    The Aimpoints, because they are a tube pretty much make you find the dot. I worked with a C More on a handgun some years back and I kept losing the dot.

    Thanks for helping the confused.
    1. Yes it uses the same batteries as the micros and many other red dots

    2. The adjustable models can be turned off and have the brightness adjusted, but there is no sleep mode

    3. I think this is somewhat model dependent but I think it is in the neighborhood of 2 years although I have heard most suggest changing every year to be safe.

    4. not that I have seen

    5. Mine is on a pistol so it is hard for me to say how it would be on a carbine but it does seem more sensative to loosing the dot then an aimpoint.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,085
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    I used a Primary Arms RMR-like red dot. I really liked it, much more than the TruGlo red dot (which is sorta like an Aimpoint T1 size), or the Primary Arms imitation of the PRO. Unfortunately, it has no off switch, and wore out in about a week.

    Real light, real easy to get on target. I may sell and ACOG for one, if it came with a slightly smaller dot.

    Any real work experience on how forgiving it is on accuracy, if your head position isn't perfect? I like that my Eotech shows the reticle no matter where my head lies.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    @MistWolf:

    With magnified scopes, eye relief will always be important. That is why they usually come with instructions regarding eye relief.
    Eye relief for an Aimpoint/red dot is unlimited, within realistic limits of course.

    I don't think that your test placing the Aimpoint on the other side of the room holds any relevance, seeing as that distance is outside it's intended use.

    As the test showed, at longer ranges, having the Aimpoint mounted on the handguard drastically improved target engagement times. The test also shows that times are faster with forward placed optics than optics closer to the shooters' eye.

    I'm not saying that it's the end all be all of optics placement tests, but the numbers the Dutch produced are pretty clear. Maybe, as Todd K. touched upon, forward optics placement has weaknesses with regards to unconventional or uncomfortable firing positions.

    I find that a good cheekweld, and correct LOP/optic mount location/eye relief is a lot more important when shooting magnified optics than with a red dot optic. I noticed that when I used my Short Dot. I have shot many rounds with my HK416 using an Aimpoint both mounted on the handguard and on the upper, and it has never felt more difficult having the optic mounted further forward on the gun.

    I could never figure out the whole nose to charging handle thing, and I shoot with my stock fully extended, so the distance from my eye to my optic is pretty long, prolly 20-25 cm. Doesn't negatively affect my times or accuracy.

    I will concede that the size of the optic can influence how easy/difficult it is to acquire the dot, but I disagree with that being the case on a general basis. Not advocating mounting your optic on the flash hider, but there is no reason having the optic smack you in the eye either.

    Not sure why the download isn't working for you, it works for me.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    168
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thanks jesuvuah. I was wondering about them.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    @MistWolf:

    With magnified scopes, eye relief will always be important. That is why they usually come with instructions regarding eye relief.
    Eye relief for an Aimpoint/red dot is unlimited, within realistic limits of course.
    I do understand the concept of eye relief, both with a scope and an RDS.

    Direct experience has taught me that a standard eye relief scope is easier to pick up the reticle than an intermediate eye relief scope (scout scope mounted ahead of the action of the rifle) and an extended eye relief scope (mounted to a pistol used with arms fully extended) is even harder still and why I don't like pistol scopes.

    I only mentioned setting the Aimpoint across the room as an extreme illustration of my point. I tested the Aimpoint at various distances mounted to my carbine. The further from my eye, the harder it was to pick up the red dot. The closer the Aimpoint to my eye, the less critical the angle. I could be much sloppier with my cheekweld. When placed all the way up by the FSB, it was much more difficult to pick up the dot quickly. It's all about geometry.

    I cannot speak against what the Dutch discovered in their study. But I also know what I discovered with my own experiments. At first, I did not test the various distances to see how easy it was to find the dot, but to see if it changed how much of the target it covered (it did not appear to do so). However, what I noticed was it has harder to find the dot. The further the dot was from my eye, the more critical aligning my eye with the screen became. My conclusion is that, like a magnified optic, the further Aimpoint was from my eye, the narrower the angle was where the dot was visible. I think some of the guys call it the "eye box". The further from my eye, the smaller the eye box.

    I don't advocate locating any optic too close to my eye. I learned much in the over 40 years of using optics on rifles, especially rifles with healthy recoil. One lesson I painfully learned involved using a high mounted scope which bopped me in the eyebrow. Now I keep my scopes mounted as low as practical and don't use scopes with large objectives. Nor am I an advocate of placing my nose to the charging handle.

    When I mounted my Aimpoint, it ended up at the forward end of the receiver. I played with it along the entire length and where it is now just felt the most natural. (I didn't shoot the rifle with the Aimpoint on the handguard as I use a MOE and didn't think it was worth doing so with the sight duct taped on!)

    Not sure why the download isn't working for you, it works for me.
    Because I don't have the log on information?
    Last edited by MistWolf; 03-03-13 at 20:39.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,895
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    While it may be subjective, Aimpoint H/T-1s, Comps, and Pros just seem like they could take more abuse than a RMR. But I've never seen a torture test on an RMR, so like I said it could very well be an unwarranted fear.

    I'd like to try one on my "novely" 9MM AR SBR, I guess I need to check into how much my dealer buddy can get me one for...
    Last edited by RHINOWSO; 03-04-13 at 00:26.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    @MistWolf:

    I still have to disagree. I think personal preference also plays a huge part when it comes to optics placement.

    I played around at work today, with my Micro T-1 (for my MP7), mounted all the way forward on my HK416 rail forearm. It's on an Aimpoint lever release mount and low spacer, so it sits quite low.

    Can't really say it increased the difficulty at all. Same experience with my Docter sight equipped M&P; it wasn't difficult, just unfamiliar. With a few reps, I now have no issue presenting the gun and acquiring a good sight Picture immediatly. That said, comparing an optic equipped handgun to an optic equipped rifle is like comparing apples to oranges. You have much more positive control over your rifle, ie more contact points, resulting in less movement. It doesn't take much movement of the pistol to also move the optic, and the dot, in relation to your eye.

    Trying to sort out the download issue.

    ETA:

    This link should work: http://rapidshare.com/files/23144366...ngavoptikk.pdf
    Last edited by Arctic1; 03-04-13 at 11:59.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    407
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    I briefly ran an Insight MRDS as the primary on my carbine. AFAIK only Botach makes an absolute cowitness mount for it (which I tried) but I found a 1/2" riser that put the dot slightly higher than that.

    Compared to an Aimpoint micro...
    PROS
    - lighter and more compact
    - thinner optic walls (less visual obstruction)
    - auto brightness (could be a con)
    - single polycarbonate lens, no fogging issues
    - slightly crisper dot

    CONS
    - no true lower 1/3 cowitness mount
    - limited mount options
    - mud/debris could block emitter
    - battery life (conservatively 1 year)
    - toughness (very durable, but Aimpoint is hard to beat here)
    - 3.5 MOA smallest dot size

    I switched to an 2 MOA H1 mostly because I wanted a true lower 1/3 cowitness, which isn't practical with a flat-bottom RDS since the irons would sit too low to be useful. The smaller dot size offsets any crispness advantage the MRDS has IMHO. I haven't tried the RMR though I understand its lens distorts more than the MRDS, and it's heavier.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    @MistWolf:

    I still have to disagree. I think personal preference also plays a huge part when it comes to optics placement.

    I played around at work today, with my Micro T-1 (for my MP7), mounted all the way forward on my HK416 rail forearm. It's on an Aimpoint lever release mount and low spacer, so it sits quite low.

    Can't really say it increased the difficulty at all. Same experience with my Docter sight equipped M&P; it wasn't difficult, just unfamiliar. With a few reps, I now have no issue presenting the gun and acquiring a good sight Picture immediatly. That said, comparing an optic equipped handgun to an optic equipped rifle is like comparing apples to oranges. You have much more positive control over your rifle, ie more contact points, resulting in less movement. It doesn't take much movement of the pistol to also move the optic, and the dot, in relation to your eye.

    Trying to sort out the download issue.

    ETA:

    This link should work: http://rapidshare.com/files/23144366...ngavoptikk.pdf
    Of course optic type and location is a personal choice. But personal choice doesn't change the geometry of the eye box. If someone mounts there optic all the way out to the muzzle and it works- it works.

    While comparing handgun optics to rifle optics may be apples & oranges, it does illustrate, when the optic is mounted way out there, how narrow the eye box gets and how important eye to sight alignment becomes.

    I'll try your new link

    ETA- Link worked, downloaded pdf

    PS- I may be remiss by neglecting to mention the Aimpoint I use is a Micro
    Last edited by MistWolf; 03-04-13 at 16:14.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    I had to do some searching to find out what the eye box is. The best explanation I found was:

    "the area between the closest position and the farthest position from eye to lens where you can still see the full-diameter view."

    In my opinion and experience, not an issue with red dot sights. Scopes with magnification, sure. My cheekweld and eye relief was more important with my Short Dot, than now with my Comp M4, even though the Short Dot has pretty deep/long eye relief.

    Red dot sights have extremely deep eye relief, as they have no magnification, resulting in great flexibility in where you mount them on the weapon. This goes for both handguns and rifles.

    A question for you; if using an optic on a pistol was more difficult than iron sights, why are optics only allowed in open divison competitions? On so-called race guns? Red dot optics are not allowed on production guns because they are seen as providing the shooter with an advantage over iron sights.

    Also, ref your example with the handgun with optic mounted. If you were to hold the pistol like you hold a rifle, gripping the frame with your support hand in front of the trigger guard, it is much easier than with a standard shooting grip. Grip stability, and overall greater stability when comparing a rifle vs handgun, is the most likely explanation for any initial difficulty experienced acquiring a proper sight picture when using a handgun with an optic.

    I think optics placement on the receiver is a result of habit; that's where the carrying handle was located; and mounting space; difficult to have a forward mounted sight with a PEQ in the way.

    As I stated, I mount my optic as far forward on the receiver as possible, a bit forward of the ejection port. I would have preferred to have a mount that pushed the sight further forward, but I am stuck using the QRP2 mount.

    The Dutch study is the only one of it's kind that I have seen. Is it the end-all be-all study on optics placement? No. But I do think their findings have merit. As the study shows, the differences are not huge at close ranges. Are the benefits such that they suggest a different approach to where optics are placed? Can't say anything conclusive. It would be interesting to see some really good shooters do some tests with optics placement, to see how it affects their accuracy and speed.
    Last edited by Arctic1; 03-05-13 at 09:03.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •