Red Dot site placed more forward?

[Byron]

For whatever it's worth (not a whole lot), I also prefer to mount my dot forward

My way is "A way, not the way" Eriks also is "A way, not the way".

That's why I was a bit confused by his statement in the article that part of his evaluation of a new student is where he mounts his RDS. It seems strong to say that he can evaluate what experience a student has based on the location of his RDS.

[YVK]

Here you go:

FIGHTING THROUGH THE RING
By Erik Lund, Senior Instructor
United States Shooting Academy

The starting premise is "a larger field of view" with closer position of optic. A lot of folks question concept of FOV with nonmagnified optic, given that both eyes are open.

I also mount mine at the end of receiver with AR.

Recently I've started an experiment with mounting Aimpoint even farther out. This was driven by hitting my hand against the optic when working charging handle on my SCAR. So far it has worked OK, but I've not run any timed drills and not gone through class with this set-up yet.

[Pappabear]

I now prefer the forward position in every aspect of using it. Better field of view, faster acquisition and less interference from the non optical portion of the Aimpoint. It certainly makes sense, the further you push that metal tube away from your eye, the less obstruction will occur.

[the_fallguy]

I read Lund's article, and it sounds like he is shooting with one eye only, or I am simply unaware of what I don't know....?

I played with the closer red dot position with both eyes open, and it actually seemed like the only noticeable difference for me was that the blind spot on the lower right was actually larger with a closer mounted optic (I'm talking about the spot where the hand guard seen through your left eye superimposes over the tube of the red dot you see through your right eye and makes a "solid" opaque image).

I did notice that with the RDS closer to my eye, the rear buis aperture did not appear oblong like it can sometimes with the higher 1/3 co-witness mounts. That was a bonus I had not considered before trying out the new position. I plan to try out a po' boy pretty soon so I will continue to run my RDS forward, but I might consider a more rear ward position otherwise, simply for the rounder appearance of the aperture.

[Savior 6]

I now prefer the forward position in every aspect of using it. Better field of view, faster acquisition and less interference from the non optical portion of the Aimpoint. It certainly makes sense, the further you push that metal tube away from your eye, the less obstruction will occur.

I agree with the FOV. I always think about the sight radius aspect when I see HGs w/ RDSs on top and how they would better off near the front sight mount. It's just not that pratical with holsters and all and better left on the rear sight. I could see it happening with the Docters more than the Aimpoints though.

Remember the guy from Remo Williams; The Adventure Begins?

[ra2bach]

When I started using an RDS about the time the ban ended I initially used a cantilever mount under my ML2 and put it on the far forward edge of the upper which put it out about as far forward as it could go....

When I went to the T-1, I instinctively pushed it all the way forward as well. I actually found that I started having problems finding the dot in unconventional positions. So I thought about it objectively and decided that instead of lining it up at the same forward position I'd line it up at the rear-most edge of where the 30mm Aimpoint lives. This worked out so well that I thought about it some more, and realized that the tube was a little smaller, moving it back even just one more notch would make it APPEAR to be about the same size as the 30mm tube, which would also mean that it would ghost out the same way. This is where the T-1 works best for me.

Rob, I think you may be onto something here - it seems likely that the way the eye sees through/around that optic may have as much to with ocular size as well as placement fore/aft.

in fact, that may be exactly the component we are changing without realizing the secondary effect.

I started a thread in Optics asking for differences between the Aimpoint M4 and T1. the discussion began on the basis of cost, weight, and dot size.

I was also interested in the affect of the different size tube and issues arising from that, such as your thread asking about using the T1 as a "ghost ring" should you suffer a failure in the RDS.

from what I can tell after reading all the discussion in the links provided, it's possible that the utility of the T1 is not as great when paired with the magnifier as is one of the M2/3/4, and from your post, it also seems like it could benefit from experimenting with the fore/aft placement.

this would make a distinction to me beyond the cost/size/weight factors in choosing one over the other.

thanks for the insight....

[GrumpyM4]

Rob S hit the nail on the head when he brought up unconventional shooting positions.

It does appear to be quicker to pick up the dot whith the sight mounted further away from the eye until you find yourself in some funky, uncomfortable position where you can't get a proper shoulder or cheek weld and your shooting platform is more a house of cards then a stable platform.

I personally mount my Aimpoings a couple of spaces to the rear of the forward end of the upper reciever. Pretty much exactly like this setup......

With the exception that i'm running M2s instead of Micros.

Sure it "blocks" my view to some extent when eyes are on sight, but as has already been pointed out, I get a larger field of view through the sight and i'm not ever stuck "chasing the dot".

Everything else is debateable and up for personal preference.

[tnolley]

YMMV, but, the farther the red dot is away from your "aiming" eye, the easier it is to see naturally superimposed on the target with both eyes open. The downside is that you have a smaller field of view THROUGH the scope and the red dot is less noticeable.

The closer the Aimpoint is to your eye, the larger field of view you have through it. The dot is more obvious but you need to train/acclimate your eyes to get used to it because it is harder to shoot both eyes open when the scope is close.

There is also the temptation when the sight is mounted to the rear of your rifle to close your non-sighting eye and treat the red dot as a scope and "sight in" the dot on the target. That is NOT what these sights are for. They are meant for immediate target acquisition in a fluid environment.

[rob_s]

YMMV, but, the farther the red dot is away from your "aiming" eye, the easier it is to see naturally superimposed on the target with both eyes open. The downside is that you have a smaller field of view THROUGH the scope and the red dot is less noticeable.

The closer the Aimpoint is to your eye, the larger field of view you have through it. The dot is more obvious but you need to train/acclimate your eyes to get used to it because it is harder to shoot both eyes open when the scope is close.

There is also the temptation when the sight is mounted to the rear of your rifle to close your non-sighting eye and treat the red dot as a scope and "sight in" the dot on the target. That is NOT what these sights are for. They are meant for immediate target acquisition in a fluid environment.

Your post seems contradictory to me. On the one hand you're talking about field of view, which is a non-issue with both eyes open. On the other hand you say that shooting with one eye closed is not what these sights are for.

[Savior 6]

Your post seems contradictory to me. On the one hand you're talking about field of view, which is a non-issue with both eyes open. On the other hand you say that shooting with one eye closed is not what these sights are for.

?????