Is Military Arms Channel author a hipster or just giving out bad advice?

[SeriousStudent]

Not my thread, it does not really matter to me if you PM him or not. If you wish to, by all means go ahead.

I'm with F2S, just wanting everyone to understand who you were referring to.

[Surf]

"MAC" or Military Arms Channel is indeed the member linked in the profile here.

He was one of my subscribers from pretty early on and I first took note of his channel as I liked his style of reviews from his perspective. Life experiences, personal, professional, military, LE, etc shape our own views. So everyone has an opinion, even MAC. As has been mentioned in a protracted engagement I would have a wide variety of grips on a rifle. Saying that any one style is better than another or discounting a certain style or technique definitely shows ignorance. This is not meant to be a negative thing, just pointing out that lack of understanding of certain things, techniques, SOP, etc, leaves ones perspective perhaps limited to what they indeed do understand. Also as mentioned what the "grunts" do is not necessarily indicative of what is "the" best method or the scale to which we hold as the standard.

As F2S mentions there are many players in the upper echelons of the training world be it Military, LE or civilian who have opinions that may be contrary to those expressed in MAC's article. Not that my opinion means anything but for the style of real world encounters that I deal with, my opinion on technique differs also from what his article speaks towards. I have also had differing opinions on other things he has talked about or weapons reviews and there are those who undoubtedly disagree with things I say or do. Knowing that, I will echo what Koshinn mentions in which having a differing opinion and discussion on the matter is healthy provided it remains relevant to the topic and professional as opposed to personal.

I will add that in the early youtube days, I was invited to join MAC's forum, which I did and had the opportunity to interact with him and some of their membership. While I haven't visited them in quite some time, MAC seems to be a genuinely good dude and who I believe to be providing information in good faith in support of what we all hold as important. So while we all might have differing opinions, at the core we are all very similar. Despite not watching much youtube or interacting online as much anymore, it appears that his blog and channel are doing well and I am glad to see it.

[JSantoro]

Yes that is correct. Would you like me to send him a PM informing him of this thread so he can better explain the article?

I vapor-locked on the "MAC" in the original title, and not taking the thought far enough to figure out who you really meant. That's on me, but somebody edited the title so that other dullards like me won't...check that, make it are less likely to...make my mistake.

"....invent a more capable fool, and all that.....

Your call. My suggestion, made in error, is still just a suggestion regardless of whom it is.

Were it me, I'd not pass up the opportunity for direct inquiry. Just because one doesn't have subpoena authority and can't make them show up/answer doesn't mean they won't answer....

...but they absolutely won't answer if they don't know the question exists.

[C4IGrant]

Most have covered the arms extended thing. The MAC guy talks about clearing rooms and that they had everything tucked in as tight as possible. True. In that environment, you keep things in so they don't get shot.

As Surf pointed out though, you need to have several grips based on what you are doing AND the type of weapon you have. M4 with a 7" hand guard? You aren't extending your arm. I think this, more than any thing is why don't see more .Mil folks shooting arms forward (as they simply can't). There is also the low quality of training as well.
Some of the HSLD crowd has longer rails, but they are still typically pretty short and once you start adding IR lasers, white lights, etc, it gets pretty hard to extend your arm (as all the gadgets are in the way).

I read the entire story in the link. MAC goes on to talk about the need (or lack their of) for co-witness. His argument is that quality RDS's are so reliable that that this isn't needed. I do agree with him that RDS's are the most reliable they have ever been. What I struggle with is the fact that they are made by man.

Certain Tier 1 units get the HK 416. Arguably one of the most reliable guns made to date. The men that carry them also carry a secondary weapon (pistol). Why? In certain instances a pistol is a better choice when you need to move in a very confined space or look into a window that is head height or above. The main purpose though is as a back up in the event that the 416 goes down.

So the need for co-witnessed back up irons is there and I simply look at them as cheap insurance against a battery or electronic failure. This follows the old adage, "it is better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it."


YMMV.


C4

[HackerF15E]

MAC goes on to talk about the need (or lack their of) for co-witness. His argument is that quality RDS's are so reliable that that this isn't needed. I do agree with him that RDS's are the most reliable they have ever been. What I struggle with is the fact that they are made by man.

Certain Tier 1 units get the HK 416. Arguably one of the most reliable guns made to date. The men that carry them also carry a secondary weapon (pistol). Why? In certain instances a pistol is a better choice when you need to move in a very confined space or look into a window that is head height or above. The main purpose though is as a back up in the event that the 416 goes down.

So the need for co-witnessed back up irons is there and I simply look at them as cheap insurance against a battery or electronic failure. This follows the old adage, "it is better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it."

I think there are two different arguments being discussed here; one is the need for back-up irons, and the second is a need for the optic to be co-witnessed with the irons.

I don't think anyone is arguing that optics are so reliable that folks using carbines for operational purposes don't need irons. As you say, optics are man made and failure can happen at any time...often at very inconveient times.

The argument at hand, though, is if they need to be co-witnessed or not...and that is an entirely different discussion.

[C4IGrant]

I think there are two different arguments being discussed here; one is the need for back-up irons, and the second is a need for the optic to be co-witnessed with the irons.

As I have been taught by people that shoot other people in the face for a living, a BUIS that is NOT usable (either in the down position or not able to be co-witnessed) is virtually the same thing.



C4

[scooter22]

Hipster? Really?

[Koshinn]

As I have been taught by people that shoot other people in the face for a living, a BUIS that is NOT usable (either in the down position or not able to be co-witnessed) is virtually the same thing.



C4

Just to clarify, you mean that BUIS stuck in the down position (e.g. they're underneath an ACOG or other optic) and BUIS that, even when flipped up can't be used, are the same thing, right?

Or are you saying that any BUIS that is in the down position, even if it has nothing stopping it from being flipped up, is the same thing as a BUIS that cannot be used without removing the optic?

It seems to me that MAC is arguing flip vs fixed BUIS with a red dot.

[C4IGrant]

Just to clarify, you mean that BUIS stuck in the down position (e.g. they're underneath an ACOG or other optic) and BUIS that, even when flipped up can't be used, are the same thing, right?

Or are you saying that any BUIS that is in the down position, even if it has nothing stopping it from being flipped up, is the same thing as a BUIS that cannot be used without removing the optic?

It seems to me that MAC is arguing flip vs fixed BUIS with a red dot.

Yes stuck down. When dealing with optics that have an etched reticle (making them virtually bomb proof) and that cannot be co-witnessed (as they are magnified) is not what I am referring to. I was specifically speaking about having an electronic (non-magnified) RDS.

So to be clear, if running a RDS (EOTech, Aimpoint) and your BUIS's do not co-witness, that is an error in judgement. If you are running BUIS's with a RDS, but keep them DOWN, that is also an error in judgement IMHO.



C4

[Redhat]

If you aren't going to have the BUIS co-witnessed, what does he think you're going to do with it?

I don't get that at all.