RDS mounting....more forward or more to the rear???

[duece71]

What is everyones opinion as far as mounting your RDS to your weapon?? More forward or more to the rear?? Reasons for your preference please.
Thank you!

[cop1211]

I like mine centered, but its a personal choice. Best thing you can do is go to the range and try it out until you find what works best for you.

[Tomac]

I prefer mine to the rear, greater FOV through the optic. Read "Fighting Through the Ring": http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_...rik%20Lund.pdf
Tomac

[rob_s]

There is no right answer. It's different for everyone. It's going to depend on the optic, the mount, the stance, the length of the stock, the position of the head, etc.

The goal is to place it where you're going to see most clearly through it. You want to minimize the size of the tube/frame in your field of view, when looking through the optic with both eyes open. Find the spot you like based on this, clamp it down, go zero it, and then go shoot it. Whatever you do don't get married to your fist choice because you don't want to be bothered to re-zero if you move it. It's worth the effort and time.

Don't get confused by "field of view" through a red dot optic. If you do you'll wind up with the optic right up next to your nose and the ring will be obstructive. Not the end state you want.

and don't get bogged down in the idea of one slot fore/aft. It doesn't matter.

[Crow Hunter]

I prefer mine to the rear, greater FOV through the optic. Read "Fighting Through the Ring": http://www.usshootingacademy.com/CM_...rik%20Lund.pdf
Tomac

Minor thread hijack.

Tomac, have you trained with these guys? I read through the article but I don't understand it. The explanation gave me the impression that they were shooting with the non dominant eye closed. Is that what they are advocating?

I don't shoot bad guys but I do shoot multiple targets. With both eyes open I don't have any target occlusion with the housing which seems to be their point. I could see that you would have less of an effect of a bad cheek weld with the optic closer to the eye, but I don't see how having it closer to the eye would allow you to be any faster on multiple targets. The gun still has to move from alignment on target A to alignment on target B, the speed of which would be dependent on your ability to drive the gun rather than field of veiw. Of course this is based on my very limited experience shooting paper and tree stumps in the woods.

To the OP. I have my M4s mounted so that the front edge of the Larue mount is flush with the front of my reciever. This gives me room to put on a magnifier with a flip mount if I want to.

[Tomac]

Minor thread hijack.

Tomac, have you trained with these guys? I read through the article but I don't understand it. The explanation gave me the impression that they were shooting with the non dominant eye closed. Is that what they are advocating?

I don't shoot bad guys but I do shoot multiple targets. With both eyes open I don't have any target occlusion with the housing which seems to be their point. I could see that you would have less of an effect of a bad cheek weld with the optic closer to the eye, but I don't see how having it closer to the eye would allow you to be any faster on multiple targets. The gun still has to move from alignment on target A to alignment on target B, the speed of which would be dependent on your ability to drive the gun rather than field of veiw. Of course this is based on my very limited experience shooting paper and tree stumps in the woods.

To the OP. I have my M4s mounted so that the front edge of the Larue mount is flush with the front of my reciever. This gives me room to put on a magnifier with a flip mount if I want to.

While I haven't trained w/these guys, what they advocate was taught by the instructors at the classes I've attended elsewhere.

Leaving out for the time being the advantage of being more forgiving of sloppy cheekweld, I'll try to paraphrase what I believe is the speed advantage of rearward-mounted RDS's (*opinion only*).

W/both eyes open, situational awareness (SA) remains the same regardless of FOV through the optic, that's not the issue here.

However, I've noticed a personal speed difference between optics w/significantly different FOV's when engaging multiple targets. It seems that the sooner the target(s) enters the optic's FOV, the sooner I'm able to engage my first target then switch to the next target. It's as though there's a slight time cost when my brain goes from "SA scanning" to "FOV targeting".

With multiple targets already within my optic's FOV it's simply "FOV targeting" to "FOV targeting" to "FOV targeting" instead of "FOV targeting" to "SA scanning" then back to "FOV targeting" then back to "SA scanning" then back to "FOV targeting".

I don't know if I explained it very well, but I did my best. This effect isn't as apparent to me when engaging single targets.

Apologies to the OP, now back to our regularly scheduled thread discussion...
Tomac

[Hmac]

I mount mine more toward the front of the rail, but primarily because I occasionally use a magnifier. I mount the magnifier to give the appropriate eye relief, then mount the RDS directly in front of it. That sets a consistent distance given my typical head position that happens to work well for me to allow picking up the red dot quickly with both eyes open.

[Supermoto]

The larger FOV allows you to pick up the dot sooner in your peripheral vision as the dot comes on to the target. So you may be able to pick up the dot 4' out instead of 2' (depending on distance) this allows you you to make corrections sooner. But at speed the difference is very very minimal if even noticeable and is really only a concern/issue when the dot leaves the lens during recoil, like when shooting a pistol.

But if this was a huge problem, small FOV Red dots like the micro would not be so popular

[Hmac]

The larger FOV allows you to pick up the dot sooner in your peripheral vision as the dot comes on to the target. So you may be able to pick up the dot 4' out instead of 2' (depending on distance) this allows you you to make corrections sooner. But at speed the difference is very very minimal if even noticeable and is really only a concern/issue when the dot leaves the lens during recoil, like when shooting a pistol.

But if this was a huge problem, small FOV Red dots like the micro would not be so popular

I agree with this. I suspect that the difference in time (I've never timed it) between sighting my rifle with EXPS 2 is probably negligible compared to sighting the same rifle with my T-1. For whatever reason though -- reticle, FOV, whatever -- sighting the Eotech just feels better to me. The more expensive T-1 doesn't offer me enough advantage to get on that particular bandwagon.

[Crow Hunter]

Thanks for the explanation!

Might have to try that next time I am out and see if it works for me.

Sorry for the hijack.