Aimpoint T-1 POI shift?? (Green Eye Tactical Bans T1 RDS)

[sinlessorrow]

Saw this over on the other site.

Found it interesting. Some company named Green Eye Tactical.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z5kw57y2y...7FPUnQhqa?dl=0

Basic thing I'm seeing is Aimpoints show 4-11MOA of Parallax.
Eotechs see .3-2moa of Parallax.
Trijicon MRO sees 2.2-14MOA of Parallax.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around aimpoints showing such huge shifts in MOA just by head position.

[NongShim]

I've not measured it, but I've noticed it with EOTech and Aimpoint. I don't think I've noticed it to the extent shown, but the test was looking at extreme effects I think. All optics experience parallax with respect to head position. Some people notice it and some don't.

[nimdabew]

Easiest way to try to mitigate any parallax is to put the dot in the middle of the window. That is where Aimpoints and MRO's are slightly easier because its a dot in a circle, not a dot/circle in a square box. But, both are easy enough with enough practice and good form.

[Mysteryman]

Saw this over on the other site.

Found it interesting. Some company named Green Eye Tactical.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z5kw57y2y...7FPUnQhqa?dl=0

Basic thing I'm seeing is Aimpoints show 4-11MOA of Parallax.
Eotechs see .3-2moa of Parallax.
Trijicon MRO sees 2.2-14MOA of Parallax.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around aimpoints showing such huge shifts in MOA just by head position.

Hard to swallow the data as accurate when Eotech/L3 communications admitted to a parallax error of up to 20 MOA and that was mechanically not artificially produced by poor head/eye placement.. That's in addition to the thermal drift of around 6 MOA that also results in a failure to return to zero.

Reddot sights are all about speed with acceptable levels of accuracy. They can be very accurate but like any optic they require a consistent head position/cheek weld and need to be used within their sweet spot which is the centre of the optical window. Failing to use the sweet spot isn't the end of the world and good hits are likely to follow, hence the benefit/advantage of a reddot over irons or magnified optics(amongst other benefits). This is old news for many, not sure why the poster of the article(not the OP on M4C) feels this is something new.

MM

[ggammell]

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...l-Bans-T1-RDS)

[Green Eye Tactical]

Hard to swallow the data as accurate when Eotech/L3 communications admitted to a parallax error of up to 20 MOA and that was mechanically not artificially produced by poor head/eye placement.. That's in addition to the thermal drift of around 6 MOA that also results in a failure to return to zero.

Reddot sights are all about speed with acceptable levels of accuracy. They can be very accurate but like any optic they require a consistent head position/cheek weld and need to be used within their sweet spot which is the centre of the optical window. Failing to use the sweet spot isn't the end of the world and good hits are likely to follow, hence the benefit/advantage of a reddot over irons or magnified optics(amongst other benefits). This is old news for many, not sure why the poster of the article(not the OP on M4C) feels this is something new.

MM

This thread seems to have not devolved into a shitshow yet so I'll answer some comments.

You bring up a great point about EoTech's 20MOA claim. I referenced their claims, along with the other manufacturers in the report. However thermal drift or other errors weren't a subject of this test. It was pure viewing angle. I would love to see some detailed testing of the other errors that you are talking about though.

You are also completely correct about the criticality of keeping the dot centered to make accurate and repeatable shots- however, in this very limited test there were some models (not brands) that performed better than others with regards to this consideration.

As to the "new" part- this effect has obviously been there as long as the optics tested have been around. However I hadn't seen anything anywhere that breaks it out in any form of detail. I think people are getting emotional here because they feel like their favorite brand is being attacked. However, the two major brands both had models that performed well and less so.

[Green Eye Tactical]

I've not measured it, but I've noticed it with EOTech and Aimpoint. I don't think I've noticed it to the extent shown, but the test was looking at extreme effects I think. All optics experience parallax with respect to head position. Some people notice it and some don't.

This test was from center to extreme angle.

[Green Eye Tactical]

Saw this over on the other site.

Found it interesting. Some company named Green Eye Tactical.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z5kw57y2y...7FPUnQhqa?dl=0

Basic thing I'm seeing is Aimpoints show 4-11MOA of Parallax.
Eotechs see .3-2moa of Parallax.
Trijicon MRO sees 2.2-14MOA of Parallax.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around aimpoints showing such huge shifts in MOA just by head position.

Honestly all the testers were fairly surprised. Here is a link to the testing instructions, forms and a printable target to see if you can either replicate the results or show something different:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/obpot49wn...XjxXthzba?dl=0

[Mysteryman]

This thread seems to have not devolved into a shitshow yet so I'll answer some comments.

You bring up a great point about EoTech's 20MOA claim. I referenced their claims, along with the other manufacturers in the report. However thermal drift or other errors weren't a subject of this test. It was pure viewing angle. I would love to see some detailed testing of the other errors that you are talking about though.

You are also completely correct about the criticality of keeping the dot centered to make accurate and repeatable shots- however, in this very limited test there were some models (not brands) that performed better than others with regards to this consideration.

As to the "new" part- this effect has obviously been there as long as the optics tested have been around. However I hadn't seen anything anywhere that breaks it out in any form of detail. I think people are getting emotional here because they feel like their favorite brand is being attacked. However, the two major brands both had models that performed well and less so.

First let me say that I am in no way calling you out. Second, the data you posted and the subsequent research is impressive and honestly something many I'm sure weren't aware of so thank you for that. As for the 20 MOA parallax shift in Eotech sights, it's right in the lawsuit documents and was admitted to by Eotech/L3 communications. Letter H in the details, but honestly the entire document is worth a read.

http://www.eotechlawsuit.com/wp-cont...OTechOrder.pdf

MM

[Green Eye Tactical]

First let me say that I am in no way calling you out. Second, the data you posted and the subsequent research is impressive and honestly something many I'm sure weren't aware of so thank you for that. As for the 20 MOA parallax shift in Eotech sights, it's right in the lawsuit documents and was admitted to by Eotech/L3 communications. Letter H in the details, but honestly the entire document is worth a read.

http://www.eotechlawsuit.com/wp-cont...OTechOrder.pdf

MM

I don't take it as you calling me out. I read that whole thing, I found it pretty interesting. I'm more talking about wanting to see the specific details of the data behind the testing. I still have a lot of questions about it and I hope EoTech releases everything about it. It seems that there was a specific year group of models that were heavily affected and others were less so. Perhaps someone might consider taking the time to do a test on that aspect themselves. I never had any time on the models that the SOCOM units had major issues with. I only used the old 551 n-types at the unit and then went right to the EXPS 3.0 in civilian life and never saw the drastic effects that the community who used the middle year group saw. I mean, you do really intensive grouping work with the models we had there and I hadn't heard of anyone having issues.

I'm not an EoTechgate denier by any stretch, nor do I hate Aimpoint- I dig the T-2. But I just have a lot of unanswered questions about that specific defect. I'd like to see everyone getting away from general statements when it comes to gear and seek out data to support things. And as a community, decrease some of the toxicity when it comes to brand fandom. It is a little alarming that the minute someone observes something and says it publicly that there is the tendency to criticize and personally attack to defend a viewpoint. Especially since- if it is settled science, then we should be confident with just saying "ok cool story, show me some hard data". Either that or go test it and show your own data.