Aimpoint M3 or T-1?

[jp0319]

Buckeye, thanks for that post that put me over the edge, I'll go T-1 I am going to wait a little though I'm really interested in this Daniel Defense T-1 mount. If it comes out soon I may go with that.

[Submariner]

In a thread on LF, rgrgordo wrote the following:

Here's a few things to consider:
...
* Any type of small RDS--with the exception of the T-1--has over 80% inherent parallax in the eye box (viewing field) which is severely increased when a good/consistent cheek to stock weld cannot be repetitively replicated by the shooter.
...
Parallax is a natural phenomenon that indicates the apparent, artificial and inherent shift of the aiming point in reference to the target--it exists in all optics and iron sights. There are only two aiming devices that don't exhibit parallax--a passive or active laser and a digital reticle. This means that if the "shooter" doesn't take into account his 6 fundamentals of shooting,
stance/position
grip
sight alignment/sight picture
trigger control/trigger squeeze
follow through
recovery
and attempt to always center the RD in the viewing field, then he'll induce a shooting error--parallax. Therefore, if a sight. like the RDS I talked about which already has factory induced parallax in 80% of it's viewing field, then there is already a hard to control shooting error inherent to the sight that the shooter has to work that much harder to overcome. That's what that means...

Should I find that I can't optimally maximize my 6 fundamentals, the T-1 is less [sic] forgiving and allows me to more easily accurately engage targets...

Sorry again...I mean MORE forgiving...

[Buckeye67]

Buckeye, get out and do some shooting with it. My bet is that you'll never notice the rear sight. I have a carbine with FSB, T-1 in LT mount, and LT rear sight and I've never given the rear sight a second thought.

I'm going to get it sighted in and run through some drills this weekend and see how it goes, and then I'm going to shoot it in a local 3-Gun match at the end of the month.

And for jp0319, here's how it looks on the rifle





ETA: All I need now is my BCM lower and a Magpul ACS stock. :-D

[mjpsyr]

I have both and prefer the T-1. The T-1 took some getting used to but I like it. I had an ML2 with the 4moa dot and didn't like it, which is why I went with the ML3. there doesn't seem to be as much of a difference in the dot size between the ML3 and T-1. The lighter weight and ability to do everything the ML3 does puts the T-1 in the top spot for me.

[ballsout]

Besides the weight i would be concerned about a 20mm vs 30mm tube. Might have to keep the T-1 a little closer to your eye to pick up the dot quicker.

I wonder if somebody could tell me how close you would have to mount a t-1 to the back vs a M3 mounted all the way to the front of your upper to where the 20mm vs 30mm tube appear to be same size.

[DRich]

Besides the weight i would be concerned about a 20mm vs 30mm tube. Might have to keep the T-1 a little closer to your eye to pick up the dot quicker.

I've found the difference in tube diameter to be a non-issue. Once you pull the stock up to your cheek and focus on the target, the dot appears in same place regardless of tube size. The tube basically disappears.

I mount my full-size and micro Aimpoints at the front of the receiver.

[ballsout]

I've found the difference in tube diameter to be a non-issue. Once you pull the stock up to your cheek and focus on the target, the dot appears in same place regardless of tube size. The tube basically disappears.

I mount my full-size and micro Aimpoints at the front of the receiver.

what about when running a magnifier. does the t-1 tube appear when looking through the magnifier?

[Mark21]

I have ML2s on all my carbines and have never handled the micros, so here is my additional question: how sturdy is are the H1/T1s? One thing that has me worried is that in competitions, carbine courses, etc, I've occasionally smacked my rifle on things like cement pipes used as cover pretty hard, most of the time also hitting the optic. The M2s take that abuse like a champ. A Burris Fastfire I once had exploded like a plastic grenade however (it was mounted atop a nightforce). Are the T1s built "field tough"?

[DRich]

I have ML2s on all my carbines and have never handled the micros, so here is my additional question: how sturdy is are the H1/T1s?

In my experience, the micros are just as sturdy as the M-series optics. My primary training rifle has been wearing a T1 for over a year and has gone through several carbine classes without a hitch. It's been dropped on concrete, tumbled down a set of metal stairs after I tripped over my dog, fallen off my workbench a few times and still works like a charm. One of my 2yo boys picked up my newest H1 last week and tossed it down my concrete driveway. Scuffed all to hell, but it still works.

If they can survive a year with a clumsy bastard like myself, they are GTG.

[Mark21]

In my experience, the micros are just as sturdy as the M-series optics. My primary training rifle has been wearing a T1 for over a year and has gone through several carbine classes without a hitch. It's been dropped on concrete, tumbled down a set of metal stairs after I tripped over my dog, fallen off my workbench a few times and still works like a charm. One of my 2yo boys picked up my newest H1 last week and tossed it down my concrete driveway. Scuffed all to hell, but it still works.

If they can survive a year with a clumsy bastard like myself, they are GTG.

Exactly what I needed to know. Thanks a lot. And my 6yo always is doing stuff like that, and when when I ask why, he just shrugs and says, I dunno, thought it would be fun!