Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Jeff Gurwitch and The Competition-to-Combat Crossover, Part 3

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11
    Feedback Score
    0

    Jeff Gurwitch and The Competition-to-Combat Crossover, Part 3

    I've always been interested to hear from Jeff Gurwitch and his experiences while deployed. It's interesting to see how guys are setting up their rifles "over there". There was a fairly spirited discussion on his part 2 series so I thought it would be interesting to hear more discussion on his newest entry.

    http://www.defensereview.com/tactica...over-part-iii/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    950
    Feedback Score
    0
    He's cool. I had only ever read the first one so thanks for the heads up.
    Last edited by nml; 01-31-16 at 20:01.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,207
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    This ought to be great-- searching for the first two parts to read first, in case I don't find them, got any links?

    Found them! Edit-- part 1:
    http://www.defensereview.com/tactica...bat-crossover/

    Part 2:

    http://www.defensereview.com/tactica...sover-part-ii/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11
    Feedback Score
    0
    What surprises me most is that the Elcan spectre and eotech are still used with such frequency. You hardly ever see aimpoint micro's

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,207
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Indeed it was good reading. Of course, when I got to part 3 I found links to 1 and 2... :-)

    I sure didn't know guys had so much latitude in rifle set-up. Some more than others I'm sure and depending on "who's looking".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    134
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Christiansen View Post
    I sure didn't know guys had so much latitude in rifle set-up. Some more than others I'm sure and depending on "who's looking".
    If there internet had been around during WWII, I wonder how many "How I set up my Garand" posts there would have been?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    TDY
    Posts
    219
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Elcans and Eotechs are "in the system", not so much for Aimpoint micro's. CCO's are available too. Most guys want some magnification and the Elcan provides that, sub-optimally IMHO. I've run CCO with 3x magnifier, S&B 1-4 shortdot. Next time around I'm thinking a 1-6 or 1-8.

    Modifications that don't alter the innards such as grip, stocks, slings, etc. are GTG. Our philosophy is it has to be quality components (Magpul, BCM, Blue Force, etc.) and has to be reversible to as issued condition (you have to have all the USGI parts to put back on when turned in). Once you get to rails, triggers, etc. that's where it gets touchy. Although with the latest SOPMOD, those components are pretty much GTG (extended FSB rail, Geiselle trigger, etc.)

    Can't speak as to the lack of BUIS, I know there is a line of thought that it's become redundant with the reliability of optics these days. Me personally, I'll take the weight and rail space hit and run BUIS.
    SF

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,253
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Interesting read. Thanks for posting.
    Steve

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    10,442
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by USMC_Anglico View Post
    Elcans and Eotechs are "in the system", not so much for Aimpoint micro's. CCO's are available too. Most guys want some magnification and the Elcan provides that, sub-optimally IMHO. I've run CCO with 3x magnifier, S&B 1-4 shortdot. Next time around I'm thinking a 1-6 or 1-8.

    Modifications that don't alter the innards such as grip, stocks, slings, etc. are GTG. Our philosophy is it has to be quality components (Magpul, BCM, Blue Force, etc.) and has to be reversible to as issued condition (you have to have all the USGI parts to put back on when turned in). Once you get to rails, triggers, etc. that's where it gets touchy. Although with the latest SOPMOD, those components are pretty much GTG (extended FSB rail, Geiselle trigger, etc.)

    Can't speak as to the lack of BUIS, I know there is a line of thought that it's become redundant with the reliability of optics these days. Me personally, I'll take the weight and rail space hit and run BUIS.
    Do you think the no BUIS needed line of thinking is more prevalent in the gun oriented users or the less gun enthusiast user with respect to .MIL fielding? I'd assume the latter but I'm just spit balling.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    “Answer The Bell...” J.W.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Just spitballing myself, but the guys not using BUIS are probably in the same category of WWII GIs who ditched their gas masks to rid themselves of the weight of an uneeded item
    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

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •