03-20-2011, 12:19 AM
Bill Alexander Wrote:Thank you LR for starting off this topic. I urge all those who have an opinion in this area to participate.
I find that my selection of sighting system leans towards an optic but I evolve in my selection as time goes on. I find that BDC's have a place based upon lazyness in low magnification scopes but that I step to a simple mildot in anything else. That said I am finding I am using scopes with less magnification than I have in years based upon the practicality of moving targets and find myself looking at red dots for anything out to 300. Equally I become more concerned with the ability to hit than the ability to print tiny groups.
I note that the Horus reticle is becoming the desired system for military requirements but cannot currently justify the complexity of the grid with the lack of clarity until the magnification levels become what I view to be impractical.
I think sights are like slings. I have an idea of where I want to be but am never satified with the result when I am there.
Bill Alexander
Bill / Guys:
This is pretty interesting as I have followed a very similar path in terms of military applications. I haven't hunted in years but I also believe Bill's comments are sound for hunting purposes.
The problem with magnification is evident. The higher you go, the less field of view and more you see your own movement. This gets to be a problem mostly because your attention becomes focused on the wrong things such as how much a guy really moves that rifle when he is pointing it. Cluttered reticles tend to distract attentional focus which is why guys either love the Horus design or hate it. It is great if you are stationary and your target is stationary. If you miss with the first shot, my bets are that you won't with the second. Start moving it around with a moving target and things become more complex. We can argue the thought process of the military and never figure it out but my guess is that guys are more likely to pass a sniper course using the Horus reticle than the mil dot because it is more precise in terms of estimating range and wind holds. Look through one for any amount of time and your eyes get fried from all those lines. So, there is more to it than just a good idea.
I am not real fond of BDC's either but they serve what I view as an auxiliary purpose in terms of military applications. They allow a guy to put a decent elevation on a rifle if he has the time and can actually read the elevation dial. Otherwise, most guys use holds via the TMR or Mil Dot reticle. The problem with holds and mil dots or the TMR is that once you start getting into holds over one mil both in elevation and windage, it becomes pretty hard for a guy to see the hold precisely enough.
I have tended towards viewing a vari-X up to 10 power as a pretty good choice for military applications. This is because I believe guys are more able to push the limits of the issued systems now than five or ten plus years ago.
I have also tended towards non magnified dots as opposed to magnified optics over irons and fully believe that a 68 sight is pretty much ideal for military purposes to 300 and with some confidence can put decent fire onto something at 500. Either way, the dot sights are way better than irons. Why? Easy -- you don't have to attend to sight alignment or what I now consider a misdirected attention on a front sight post at the expense of seeing the target.
Speed vs precision becomes a major training focus for confident military marksmen and guys who get involved in sports like Three Gun or IPSC. Note the word 'confident'. My observations over the years are that this level of shooter already trusts a-lot of things he is doing so doesn't have to pay attention to them anymore and can focus on shooting as quickly as he knows he can be effective. Big difference between that and guys who shoot conventional High Power. In the more conventional shooting sports, you know how much time you will have and can pace yourself accordingly. Two different sets of conditions requiring attention on different things to be effective.
As for slings. I simply have not found one that I believe is ideal for military purposes. They are generally a PITA that are very specific to one application. Mostly, they get in the way. If adjusted right -- they do a decent job of stabilizing a rifle or carbine. Of all of them I think the V Tac sling is about the best for stand up type of blasting because you can get into a position and quickly tension the sling without a lot of screwing around.
LR55