Positive Identification

**Don Quijote** · 01-15-19, 17:21

I often read that 'PID" is an advantage of an LPVO over a non-magnifying optic.

Who here thinks it's a good idea to use a magnifying scope on a rifle to do "identification" of any kind on another human being?

I don't. For several reasons.

1. You're likely committing a felony by pointing a rifle at someone
2. You just committed what anyone with half a brain would consider an overtly hostile act. If he wasn't a threat before, he is now...
3. There are much better observation optics out there (rangefinders and binoculars for starters)

I've asked this question to a friend who is a police officer in Massachusetts and his reply was his dept policy forbids the use of weapon mounted optics and lights for observation in anything but extreme, exigent circumstances.

I don't get how some can use "PID" as one of the advantages of an LPVO. Sure, you can use it for that. The question is, should you?

Help me understand the other side

BTW, I'm a huge fan of LPVOs and am phasing out red dot sights from all my rifles that have them.

**Zane1844** · 01-15-19, 18:57

I'm not sure how I'd use one as a civilian in normal circumstances. I can't even imagine needing binoculars to find a threat, I don't live out in the country. I guess you could take out an active shooter at 300m+ with your truck gun.

I don't mount a light on my CCW, I figure I can already see my threat, determined it was a threat, and am ready to engage if I'm pulling my weapon out. I won't be scanning with my weapon light, unless I am in my home.

**mike_f** · 01-15-19, 19:08

My view on it is that if I'm pointing a weapon at some that is too far for me to positively ID w/o optics, it's because they've already starting shooting at me.

If that's the case, then I need to find out where they are - very quickly. And they might be relatively close to other people who aren't employing deadly force against me.

That's where I think a LPVO would really be really handy.

**Don Quijote** · 01-15-19, 19:17

Originally Posted by mike_f

My view on it is that if I'm pointing a weapon at some that is too far for me to positively ID w/o optics, it's because they've already starting shooting at me.

If that's the case, then I need to find out where they are - very quickly.

But do you really need to find out who they are? Haven't they shown you who they are (the enemy) by shooting at you?

I would say that in your example, you need to use your scope as a gunsight and not as an observation telescope.

Originally Posted by Zane1844

I'm not sure how I'd use one as a civilian in normal circumstances. I can't even imagine needing binoculars to find a threat, I don't live out in the country.

Well, that's a good point. I don't live in the country, but using google maps and my LRF I have measured the avenues of approach to my home and most of them are at least 150 yards long, some are in the 200 to 220 yard range, and some others are 300 yards plus.

I can definitely see the value of a small set of binos (I have an old pair of Burris 8X32) or a laser rangefinder with a monocular (mine is a 7X Leica)

But yea, pointing my rifle at random people to look at them, even in your typical SHTF situation; nope.

**mike_f** · 01-15-19, 19:22

Originally Posted by Don Quijote

But do you really need to find out who they are? Haven't they shown you who they are (the enemy) by shooting at you?

I would say that in your example, you need to use your scope as a gunsight and not as an observation telescope.

I see your point.

But if there are multiple people in a small area and only one of them is shooting at you, then I think you would need to find out which one is actually doing the shooting.

Or even be able to find the shooter if they’re shooting from concealment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Inkslinger** · 01-15-19, 19:24

If they’re far enough away that I need magnification to ID them they’re probably not an immediate threat. With that being said, if they’re at a distance that I can’t see them well, then they probably can’t see me well. This means they probably won’t know I’m looking at them through a rifle scope, and if they turn out to be a good guy I’m not going to tell them I was pointing a rifle at them. I don’t see a problem. Just because they’re in my sights doesn’t mean I’m going off safe and putting my finger on the trigger. Just like any situation where you’re firearms come into the equation, just be able to articulate your reasoning to any law enforcement or keep your mouth shut.

**crosseyedshooter** · 01-15-19, 20:00

Since we’re talking hypothetically anyway, what are the chances of escalation if two non-hostiles are looking at each other through their respective riflescopes? Let’s say you’re looking out your home window with a riflescope and find someone looking back at you?

**Don Quijote** · 01-15-19, 20:14

Originally Posted by mike_f

But if there are multiple people in a small area and only one of them is shooting at you

Guilty by association? Collateral damage? Things have really gone to shit then

Originally Posted by mike_f

Or even be able to find the shooter if they’re shooting from concealment.

I suppose there's that.

**RHINOWSO** · 01-15-19, 20:41

PID is an advantage because you actually know what you are shooting at, regardless if it a being, a deer, a coyote, or a pig.

Sure, you can hit those with a RDS at 100-200 yards, but you have to be able to see and ID them at that range, which depending on the vegetation / terrain can be tough.

"But I use binoculars for that!".

Ok great, but what happens in the 0.5-5 seconds it takes you to transition from binos to getting your rifle on 'target'. It could have moved, changed orientation, etc.

Hence what I see as "PID" or "Re-PID".

Back to your regularly scheduled mental wack-off.