Red Dot site placed more forward?

[Byron]

Reading that tells me that Mr. Lund is not saying that those with forward mounted optics are inexperienced, but rather inexperienced in the technique/concept of "Fighting Through the Ring".

Yes, that's how I took it, but it still seems like he is jumping to conclusions.

If you, as an instructor, saw a student employing technique A, for example, would you assume that he is therefore inexperienced with technique B? Maybe he gave B a fair shake and decided on A. (Assuming two sound, yet contradictory techniques)

If a student shows up to a class with a completely jacked up setup (POS items bolted on in goofy positions, gear that isn't compatible, etc) then it seems fair to make assumptions about that student's experience. But just because a student isn't using the chosen technique of the instructor does not necessarily indicate a lack of experience (as evidenced by the images of SME's in this thread).

Keep in mind, F2S, I'm not disagreeing with you or saying that you are making this argument. I think it's a good distinction to make in regards to what Erik is saying, but I still think he is unfairly jumping to conclusions. The underlying assumption of the article seems to be, "I know whether someone has tried my advocated technique because if they had tried it, they would be running it right now." That seems like a leap to me.

[rob_s]

If you, as an instructor, saw a student employing technique A, for example, would you assume that he is therefore inexperienced with technique B? Maybe he gave B a fair shake and decided on A. (Assuming two sound, yet contradictory techniques)

If a student shows up to a class with a completely jacked up setup (POS items bolted on in goofy positions, gear that isn't compatible, etc) then it seems fair to make assumptions about that student's experience. But just because a student isn't using the chosen technique of the instructor does not necessarily indicate a lack of experience (as evidenced by the images of SME's in this thread).

Not to continue this hijack too much further, but that's how I read it. That if you showed up to one of his classes with your optic mounted even with the front of the upper receiver he would automatically assume you didn't know what you were doing.

[Cameron]

So Lund is arguing that times will be faster with an optic mounted closer to the rear sight rather than closer to the front of the receiver? I tried mounting my RDS right back up against the rear BUIS and then tried mounting it forward on the receiver, without the mounts going on to the rail. I much preferred the optic mounted more forward than more to the rear, and using a timer seemed to show my preference to be correct, and counter to Mr. Lund's assertion.

It also appears looking at Vicker's, Lamb, Haley and Costa, they all like running them like I do mounted very close to the front on the receiver.

Cameron

[glocktogo]

I think Erik is pointing out that all other things being equal, transitioning from one target to the next within the FOV of the optic will be faster than having to locate the next target outside the optic and then acquiring it in the optic after transitioning.

The flaw I see here is that all other things are not equal.

When you look at where the optics are located on the two rifles in Erik's article, the one with the optic mounted forward leaves room to open the caps down, the second rifle has them in a flip up orientation. Most initial targets are going to be acquired from a low ready position. Flipping the caps up gives you more visual clutter to work through as you bring the muzzle up. If you tried to deploy the BUIS on the 2nd rifle with the caps flipped down, the rear cap would be in the way.

With the zero magnification optics, I think working too close to them reduces your peripheral vision. Situational awareness is critical to survival. You may be able to transition from one forward target to the next faster if you're working within the FOV, but what about a threat that's just outside your FOV that you didn't see?
The more things I have close to my eye that obscure my FOV downrange, the more likely I am to miss something important.

A lot of high speed handgun shooters are moving away from large blocky rear target sights to ones with shaved down ears that occlude less of the target. They find it faster to transition from one target to the next with less metal to sight through. Running your optic as far to the rear as possible runs counter to that.

Speed within the sight to me is less critical than speed and FOV outside the sight. It's a big world out there and you can't get all of it inside the ring at one time.

[Failure2Stop]

I think it's a good distinction to make in regards to what Erik is saying, but I still think he is unfairly jumping to conclusions. The underlying assumption of the article seems to be, "I know whether someone has tried my advocated technique because if they had tried it, they would be running it right now." That seems like a leap to me.

Good post B.
The paragraph I quote makes a lot of sense, and since I am not Erik Lund and did not pen the article, I can't/won't defend it against your point (which is entirely valid).
Hopefully Erik can drop in an let us know exactly what he meant.

Speed within the sight to me is less critical than speed and FOV outside the sight. It's a big world out there and you can't get all of it inside the ring at one time.

This is also a thought that resonates with me.

[d90king]

A bit forward works well for me.

[USSA-1]

Guys,

First off, I apologize for the very slow reply. I haven't been on the site in a while and I did not realize my article had generated such a discussion (which I think is great BTW.)

Where to start? I'll try to take the issues/questions as they arose in the thread.

I'm not sure if Beavo451 was referring to me or my article in this statement,

*Note: There are some advocates that are very passionate about having the dot to the rear. I even read an article about a firearms instructor that regarded everybody that places the optic forward to be "newbie’s" and "know nothing about shooting."

If he was, then he certainly took some liberties with my article as I never made either of the statements he quoted me as saying. If not, then okay, my bad.

What I did make reference to is that Instructor's make partial initial judgments about students based on what gear they choose and how they position it on their kit or their weapon. I specifically stated that optic placement is an indicator to me as to whether or not a student is familiar with the Fighting Through the Ring (FTR) Concept. I did not say this indicated the student was a newbie, inexperienced, knows nothing about shooting, or any other derogatory comment. It did not say anything other than what it said with respect to this particular technique.

*FWIW, I did mean mounting the optics on the upper receiver as opposed to all the way forward against the front sight tower, but I should have elaborated a bit more on this in the article.

The next issues seem to be the Field of View (FOV) concepts and I think two meanings are being used interchangeable and I think they might be confusing the discussion. There is the FOV within the body of the optic and the Field of Vision using your eyesight and peripheral vision. For the purposes of the article, FOV refers to the FOV you can physically see through the body of the scope.

The FOV within an unmagnified optic increases the closer you position it to your eye. This is simple enough to prove. Hold your optic at arm’s length and then slowly move it closer to your eye. The FOV you can see through the scope body will increase as the scope moves closer to your eye. More on how this information can help us decrease our transition times between threats later.

With respect to your visual awareness/FOV, the positioning of the scope will have no real affect on your FOV as I imagine most shooters will have the rifle in some high/low ready position and be scanning for threats, either in pre or post engagements, with the rifle positioned in such a way as to not physically block our scanning techniques.

The whole concept of FTR is really a very micro technique. The discussion seems to have broadened out a bit so I'll try to redefine exactly what the technique can do for you. First, let me clear out some of the variables. Let's start with two threats. If you have the rifle mounted and you are looking through the optic and both of the threats are outside the physical body of the optic, then I don't think the positioning of the optic will have any appreciable difference in your engagement or transition times (all other factors being equal.) Likewise if you have the optic centered up on one threat and your next threat is outside the scope body in some other direction then I don't think optic positioning has any affect on the transition/engagement times to your second threat.

Here is where I think the FTR technique has merit. Are you faster engaging two threats when you can see both threats within the body of the scope at the same time or when one is inside the scope and the other is outside the scope? I would submit that you can engage the second threat quicker when you can see it inside the scope as opposed to outside the scope. If this holds true, then by shifting the scope more to the rear on the rifle will increase the FOV we can see through the scope, potentially allowing us to position multiple threats within the physical body of the scope, which in turn will reduce our transition/engagement times, which allows us to get faster hits on our second threats.

While this may be an option for some shooters, other factors are going to limit our placement of the optic on the receiver. If you intend on using magnifier's or night vision scopes, then your optic placement will be dictated by how much space your other scopes require.

When you look at where the optics are located on the two rifles in Erik's article, the one with the optic mounted forward leaves room to open the caps down, the second rifle has them in a flip up orientation. Most initial targets are going to be acquired from a low ready position. Flipping the caps up gives you more visual clutter to work through as you bring the muzzle up. If you tried to deploy the BUIS on the 2nd rifle with the caps flipped down, the rear cap would be in the way.

Glocktogo, you are correct in your assessment of the pictures and the scope cap issue. I use EOTechs so I don't have the scope cap issue you brought up, but when I do use Aimpoints or other optics, I don't use rear scope caps for this reason. I only use front caps.

While I may favor the rearward position of the scope, I’m certainly not a “my way or the highway” kinda guy. A fact I reiterate at the end of the article when I suggested you give the technique a try and see if it works for you. My ultimate goal as an instructor is to help the students become better shooters. I will offer up techniques that I have found to be effective in improving your performance, but if it doesn’t work for you, then we’ll take the one that does and help you develop it.

I appreciate the comments and I’m glad my article stirred some discussion. We all must strive to improve our skills. Sharing our thoughts and techniques for peer review and/or validation is a key to developing and improving our skills. Thanks for all your contributions. If anyone wants to discuss this topic or any other topics further, feel free to PM me and I’ll give you my phone number. I’m always available.

Good Shooting,
USSA-1

[glocktogo]

Erik,

Thanks for responding and clearing things up. It's always best to hear it direct from the source!

[globeguy]

I am experimenting with my red dot position. Assuming quality QD mount, can moving the location of my redot on my top rail change POI?

I will of course go out and rezero after moving my dot, this is just for my curiosity sake.

[Failure2Stop]

You should rezero after moving your optic. You may or may not see POI shift, and it may or may not be drastic. The only way to know is to shoot.