The One Gun Solution (GP Carbine) - Reality?

[Ironman8]

It sounds like he’s got the LPV at 12:00 and the offset MRDS, except he’s switching which one he calls the primary. I’ve got too many reps burned in shouldering the rifle straight vs canted for that to be a realistic use as a primary. I agree too, why go with the extra weight of the LPV/Mount if you’re not going to use the LPV as such. Or just go with a higher power top end.

[mig1nc]

It sounds like he’s got the LPV at 12:00 and the offset MRDS, except he’s switching which one he calls the primary. I’ve got too many reps burned in shouldering the rifle straight vs canted for that to be a realistic use as a primary. I agree too, why go with the extra weight of the LPV/Mount if you’re not going to use the LPV as such. Or just go with a higher power top end.

Indeed. I was chatting with a buddy about a similar topic and discussed using a 2-10 or 3-12 with offset or piggyback RDS. Especially since we are getting older and more mag is more better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Valhalla]

Can you post a picture of this set up?

Sure, here is my current setup:



It's not a new idea, many have run offset RDS. But most would never consider flipping the roles between the offset and the magnified, and thus most offset mounts were designed, naturally, as a "back-up" solution... tucking away the offset RDS and making it extremely hard to use.

I am curious why you would have a primary optic as the off-set. If you intended to use your Reflex sight as the primary then why not have it at the 12 o'clock?

There are two reasons for it. First, target acquisition with a offset red dot is fast, if not faster, than a RDS at 12 o'clock. Try this - hold up your fist in front of your chest like you are about ready to punch someone. Now look at your fist. If you were holding a stick, would that stick be pointing straight up? No... because your elbow/wrist doesn't naturally bend that way. Bringing your gun up from low-ready is the same way; traditionally you have to lift the gun AND rotate it so your primary optic, at 12 o'clock, lines up with your eye. With offset red dot, you only have to bring the gun up without rotating it much (if at all), and the red dot (provided it's setup at the right height) would line up naturally against your eye.

The second reason, is that I would prefer a wide-range of magnification outside of the reflex sight, and nobody makes a "variable" flip-to-side magnifier. So for me to have both, I have to rely on LPVO and they don't make offset mounts for LPVO...


VT

[Valhalla]

except he’s switching which one he calls the primary

Yes that is exactly right. The specific setup is not new, people have done it for ages. It's really more of a mindset change; that instead of bolting an expensive RDS to the side and rarely use it, put your money to work... especially when it works surprisingly well. By calling the offset my "primary" I am simply making a point that I will typically go to the offset RDS first, before I would engage the LPV.

As to rep, it's much easier to re-teach your muscle to go back to a more "natural" position. Plus you are not "wasting" the training you've already done, as you still need to hold the gun in a traditional manner when using the LPV. So think of it as learning a new skill. I am way past my 40s and if I can figure it out, you all could... lol


VT

[Valhalla]

Indeed. I was chatting with a buddy about a similar topic and discussed using a 2-10 or 3-12 with offset or piggyback RDS. Especially since we are getting older and more mag is more better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glad we think alike!! I've contemplated doing that too, as more magification (and more "range" I can dial around the magnification) would be preferred, provided the weight penalty is not excessive. Right now I am sticking with LPV mainly because I want the ability to have a backup CQB optic. If I banged the offset RDS so hard to crack the glass, I can still zoom the LPVO out to 1x and accurately engage close-range targets. Also, if money is no object, that shinny new 1-10 Razor is looking mighty attractive... Need to go look at one and see how big the eye-box is at 10x, but that will give me a lot of versatility when paired with an RDS.



VT

[RobertTheTexan]

Little late to the party but recently my preferred setup is as follow:

12.5" barrel
Offset 1.93-height RDS as primary optic
Matching-height 1.93 LPVO as secondary optic
Some sort of dual-output (visible + IR) aiming device
Medium-output white light with sufficient flood

Logic:

A good 12.5" barrels retains most of the velocity from a 14.5, and I felt it is the minimum to get accuracy out to ~400 yards. It also isn't as picky on suppressors.

For optic, I have been shooting primarily with an offset RDS due to internal product development, but the more I do it the more I realized I can acquire targets just as fast (if not faster) with an offset RDS, than traditional 12 o'clock RDS. Ergonomically I am far more comfortable holding the rifle at a slight angle, especially from low-ready. T1 or Acro style close-emitter RDS are compact and reliable, while 1.93 height allows NVG.

The LPVO, although is mounted at 12 o'clock, will be used as secondary. It will stay at ~3-4x to handle shots beyond CQB range. It also allows me to zoom out and PID distanced target, or take a precision shot when time is available. The LVPO is intended to never go to 1x unless the RDS fails (dead battery etc), but can act as make-shift CQB optic if needed. Since it will be used as secondary, I can use cheaper models if budget is tight. But always keep it lightweight.

Given the right ammo I will zero both optics at ~30 yards (which will also give me a roughly 200-yard zero). This provide a maximum +/- 3 inch vertical spread from point-blank to ~250 yards. Anywhere within this range I can hit vital by simply aiming center mass, without having to do any math, using either optic. This might be somewhat unorthodox but it works, while providing consistency between both optics. (A proficient shooter should be able to hit man-sized target past 200 yards with a RDS, very quickly.) Past 250 yard I would use the LVPO and compensate using the reticle. Ballistic chat says I would be ~7 MOA at 400 yards, well within most reticle's subtension range.

Aiming laser for obvious reasons. White light is geared towards CQB use, as super-high-candela "spot lights" are useless in real world situations if I have NVG. Long battery life, sufficient light for close-range threat identification, and wide-flood to enhance peripheral vision. ~300-500 lumen with a well-designed reflector (e.g. Surefire M300) is plenty. I also prefer the reliability for CR123A over rechargeable, especially for this type of setup. It let me keep the light compact. If I have to engage distanced target in low-light, I would use NVG exclusively to maintain concealment advantage anyway.

One last word about optic - I came from the RDS+magnifier camp and frankly I will never go back. After experiencing how fast I can nail multiple 50 yards + 300 yards targets, back-to-back-to-back, using this setup, the delay in deploying / stowing the magnifier, or to zoom LPVO out to 1x, is no longer acceptable. This includes the Elcan Spectra DR that I've owned since they first launched it. I will still take the Elcan if the world is ending tomorrow and I have to bug out... but for day-to-day defensive weapon against "intelligent" threats (aka things that will shoot back at you), having dual optic is a significant advantage. For any computer nerds out there, it's like discovering dual-monitor setup... once you've experienced it, you will never go back to "Alt-Tab" and switch between applications within a single monitor.



VT

What was the deficiency with the RDS mounted at 12 o'clock above the optic that led do your mount? I didn't think that setup was necessarily broken.

[Ironman8]

Valhalla,

Not sure if you saw my question below...curious on your experience under nods with the offset RDS:

Valhalla,

With the 1.93 offset MRDS, are you able to get your 14 behind it to aim passively? Seems the consensus in the thread is that it needs to be piggyback, so wondering if that’s a viable option...

I run my NX8 on a 1.93 mount and would prefer to have an offset MRDS vs piggyback due to the height I’m starting at as a baseline. The MRDS would serve as a backup and as a passive aiming option under nods. I think it’s more realistic to use it offset as a backup, but if it’s wholly unusable with NODs in the offset position, then it’s a no-go from the start.

[mig1nc]

I'll add one anecdote.

Before all this crap started, I used to shoot a good bit of 3 gun and tactical matches.

I did find that when required to shoot under barricades using an angled sight worked great since I was able to get low enough to use the sight at the correct angle without my magazine getting in the way. It felt better than just shooting gangster style.

Just my personal anecdote, which isn't very valuable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Valhalla]

What was the deficiency with the RDS mounted at 12 o'clock above the optic that led do your mount? I didn't think that setup was necessarily broken.

Good question! The main issue, at least for me, is breaking cheek weld. Even when shooting fast I want to retain some accuracy. Secondly, switching between them takes time. In a tactical environment I would want that transition to be quicker, and the only way is to ensure the height-over-bore between both optics are identical. Here is an example:



Notice how the shooter's head doesn't move at all. You can't do that with any piggy-back RDS that is designed as "backup", for example top-mounted (12 o-clock) or corner-mounted (2 o'clock). The change between the optic's distance to your bore axis, especially with AR platform where your stock is inline with the bore, requires you to learn two different shooting position. Consolidating them into one can make anyone a better shooter.

Currently I believe the Badger C1 is the only mount that really understand this principle. They even went to great length to ensure the optic mount plates are compensating the different in dot-height (e.g. the RMR plate is thicker than DPP plate), so that the height-over-bore is consistent with the magnified optic. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why they left the mount points at the same height for their 1.93 mount... I would've raised the accessory mount point higher so that an offset RDS matches the 1.93 height. Maybe someone can chime in?



VT

[Valhalla]

Valhalla,

Not sure if you saw my question below...curious on your experience under nods with the offset RDS:



I run my NX8 on a 1.93 mount and would prefer to have an offset MRDS vs piggyback due to the height I’m starting at as a baseline. The MRDS would serve as a backup and as a passive aiming option under nods. I think it’s more realistic to use it offset as a backup, but if it’s wholly unusable with NODs in the offset position, then it’s a no-go from the start.

Ah yes I did miss that. To be honest I haven't messed with that enough to really make a qualified statement; most of my time (and it's limited) shooting under NODs was with the DBAL. However, in theory if you tilt the offset mount far enough from the main optic, using it passively with NVD shouldn't be an issue. In the picture I posed, the offset is at roughly 30 degree angle. Bringing it to 45 degree, in conjunction with it's 1.93 height, would give it significantly more space to make aiming under NODs achievable.



VT