The dot is for 200m, but the USMC is stuck on the 100m zero confirmation so you end up having to use the top of the dot.
To be honest I have no idea, that's just what we were told.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The dot is for 200m, but the USMC is stuck on the 100m zero confirmation so you end up having to use the top of the dot.
To be honest I have no idea, that's just what we were told.
0311
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Since the BDC is locked to the precision of the zero, I want to ensure that the bullets are going exactly where they are supposed to go in relation to the reticle.
If Trijicon made the top of the circle the 100 meter point of crossover, then they will continue to be plagued with precision issues due to varying reticle bloom based on illumination during zeroing and application.
If indeed the BDC is balanced for a 100 meter zero at the top of the circle (which I would not have chosen), then I would conduct fine zeroing at 300 meters with the fiberoptic covered using the 300 meter aiming point (top of the vertical scale below the dot).
Once zeroed, I would back up to 100 meters and see exactly where the bullets are going in relation to the center dot.
Am I the only Marine that is absolutely furious that replacing the huge, ineffective, and archaic M16A2/4 stock, and the weak and brittle M4 stock, are not on the tippy top of this list? Hell, they aren't even listed!
I would love to see the M16 with a VLTOR A5, UBR, or UBR-A5 (if it existed) stock. The M4 could be simply outfitted with a SOPMOD or similar stock, a cheap and valuable upgrade that's already in our inventory.
Not all Marines are the same size, and especially with armor, the A2/4 stock is too long for modern shooting techniques. The bottom only sling swivel makes it that much more unwieldy, unless you are one of the lucky few who actually get issued a stock adapter (they all mysteriously vanish).
The M4 stock rattles, provides inadequate purchase on gear when shouldering, and breaks easily from hard use. It's funny that General Conway said we should keep the A2/4 stock for its use in hand to hand combat (even though the stocks listed above are probably all stronger, especially the UBR) and yet we have the most delicate stock possible on our M4s.
I'm mad. really mad. Stocks are my number one complaint with our rifles.
Do I need to go haze some LCpls? It may be the only way to feel better now.
Last edited by masakari; 02-17-15 at 15:26.
The only problem with that is the KD ranges are still in yards for some reason, and most units have no means to measure out their own range in the field.
Add that to the fact that unit commanders love to insist that optics be removed during cleaning and you get stuck with the ineffective method we have now.
What we need more than anything is knowledgeable people like yourself to instruct leadership on how to conduct ranges, and to rewrite the marksmanship doctrine in general, but that's another topic.
0311
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
A 300 yard zero will be about 3 inches low at 300 meters with M855 or SOST, which will align the distance BDC much better than a weak/questionable 100 meter zero. A savvy user, if stuck on a yard range could add 2-3 clicks of elevation after zeroing at 300 yards, or zero 2-3 inches high at 300 yards.
Yeah, that's sad.Add that to the fact that unit commanders love to insist that optics be removed during cleaning and you get stuck with the ineffective method we have now.
The largest single issue I have seen with the RCO and SDO is that users, leaders, and instructors don't know how to properly attach them to the rifle/carbine.
Trijicon didn't do themselves any favors by using the TA51 mount. Something with repeatable, stated, obeyed torque would be good. Further, even the LaRue doesn't work well if not properly adjusted.
I appreciate the sentiment, but unfortunately after I left my position at Quantico, most of my late input to the Combat Marksmanship Program was changed, bastardized, or removed. When they closed SAWIS/SAWIC it robbed the program of further development for the trainers and instructors. But, again, that is indeed another topic.What we need more than anything is knowledgeable people like yourself to instruct leadership on how to conduct ranges, and to rewrite the marksmanship doctrine in general, but that's another topic.
Pretty much this - as one of those apex TA31 users, I'd be just as happy with the SDO Horseshoe type reticle anyway.
There are a LOT of bigger fish to try, I'd rather the press release have more justification for expenditures on offer - and it would look a LOT less like a me-too type deal.
[ETA]
If left to my own devices, I'm sure I could spec them what an M16A5 probably ought to be (A5 and ALG equipped lower receiver, spec virtually any 16" CMV tapered profile barrel and use a handguard that mount an UGL while remaining free floated) and it's handled. The VIS-KM system would be a fantastic answer (could probably just run existing Colt M4 hardware almost everywhere), put out an RFP for ambidextrous control systems that are drop-in, and start stacking Mk318Mod1 as contract money and ATF/Federal's production allows.
I'd rather wait for a Squad Combat Optic in the 1-6x variety (Leupold's Mk6 with the CMR-W Horseshoe reticle or Trijicon's VCOG with a similar one), spend money on new capability instead of minor quality of life update on an existing platform.
Last edited by TehLlama; 02-17-15 at 17:44.
عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
Semper Fi
"Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister
All the SDOs I saw were mounted in LaRue QD mounts, but they still had problems holding zero, probably because of the fact that they weren't used correctly.
As far as a 300m zero, unfortunately most of the shooters using the SDO are junior Marines, and many of them struggle just to zero at 36m, so expecting them to zero at 300m is out of the question.
0311
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Bookmarks