First AR build, and custom 590A1

[gsarg]

Looks great! If you don't mind me asking, where did you get the +2 for the 590?

Gun Connection in SC. Craig's pretty well known on the Shotgun forums. Fit/finish is top-notch. The +2 would be flush with the 18.5" barrel if I didn't have the sling attachment on it. I prefer a sling, so I'm okay with it being a little long. I was just glad that I found someone that made flush +2 extensions for the 18.5" 590A1. IMO, the +1's (Vang Comp) look weird on the 18.5" guns.
Thanks for all the compliments guys!

 

[gsarg]

That is a great looking AR Glen!

Thanks! Now sell me your Noveske

 

[hd_rider13]

The army disagrees with you. From FM 3-22.9 (RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP M16A1, M16A2/3, M16A4 and M4 CARBINE), section 2-5 b.:

The M68 mounts directly to the integrated rail on top of the M16A4 and M4-series weapons (in place of the carrying handle). The half-moon spacer (1) should be installed to raise the M68 above the front sight post but the M68 can still be fired without the spacer. The soldier's preference dictates exactly which notch the M68 is mounted to. Although any notch is acceptable, testing has shown that the farther away the M68 is from the soldier's eyes, the better his field of view.

Car, I know you of all people will understand this..............That statement is in the process of being changed.

The new assault rifle instructors course called CAT-C (combat applications training course) teaches exactly the opposite and that's how everyone from Basic training to BOLC II are being told to teach placement of the M68. (At least that's what the CG and all the Brigade CO's at FT. Sill are putting out.)

It's really simple logic though.......make a circle with your thumb and index finger......now hold it as far away from your eye as you can, look through it and pick an object about 50 yards away to look at. Now, move it half that distance closer to your eye.......which one gives you a better FOV?

I'm not really sure how "testing" showed there was a better FOV with it farther away, but anyone can test it out for themselves and see that the statement is incorrect.


Sorry for hijacking the thread.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

Car, I know you of all people will understand this..............That statement is in the process of being changed.

The new assault rifle instructors course called CAT-C (combat applications training course) teaches exactly the opposite and that's how everyone from Basic training to BOLC II are being told to teach placement of the M68. (At least that's what the CG and all the Brigade CO's at FT. Sill are putting out.)

It's really simple logic though.......make a circle with your thumb and index finger......now hold it as far away from your eye as you can, look through it and pick an object about 50 yards away to look at. Now, move it half that distance closer to your eye.......which one gives you a better FOV?

I'm not really sure how "testing" showed there was a better FOV with it farther away, but anyone can test it out for themselves and see that the statement is incorrect.


Sorry for hijacking the thread.

I agree with you that mounting an optic closer to the eye gives a better field of view THRU the optic, but it blocks your view around the optic. Using your example of making a circle with your hand and holding it at arms length I can see a small amount inside the circle, but still see everything outside of the circle. When I move it close to my eye the amount I see inside of the circle increases, but my hand (the body of the scope) begins to block my view outside of the circle (most notably at the 1-2 o'clock position). An M68 has no magnification (just like the circle of my hand) and is meant to be used with both eyes open. If I mount it close to my eyes the body of the scope begins to block my peripheral vision. I just tried mounting my Aimpoint closer on my rifle and it does block some of my peripheral vision. That is why they made the cantilever mounts for the Aimpoint so that you could mount the optic farther forward. They do the same thing for the EOTech. These mounts were out long before they came out with the 3x magnifiers that everyone mounts behind them nowadays.

Now if you are taking about a magnified optic such as an ACOG, then I agree that it needs to be mounted close because I wanted to see as much of the magnified image as possible.

As for the close mounting of the M68 being taught in the courses you mentioned, I have not heard of that and it is contradictory to the way 99% of miliatry, LE and civilians have been using them for years. We will have to see how that works out.

 

[Josh-L]

CAR makes a point I think you are missing. It is technically by definition less FOV only when looking through the optic. But it really isn't. Stick with me... If the optic is zero magnification and is being used with both eyes open then it doesn't make sense that it would have a "better" FOV either way. At distance will you see less of the target inside the tube with it mounted further out? Yes and I guess that is technically FOV but really it's not because the size of the object hasn't changed it's just being blocked by the tube and controls on the outside of the optic. Make sense?

Now to the comment about being faster.... The further out you have it the faster the dot will appear in the tube and on target. Try it out if you don't believe me. So even if I sacrifice a tiny bit of so called FOV I'd rather be on target and scoring hits faster.

 

[hd_rider13]

As for the close mounting of the M68 being taught in the courses you mentioned, I have not heard of that and it is contradictory to the way 99% of miliatry, LE and civilians have been using them for years. We will have to see how that works out.

Assymetric Warfare Group (Special Missions Unit) is currently going to each each post (they were at Sill from January to May) teaching this course and it is being implemented into the BRM program. So the idea of this being diffeent from 99% of the military is a little off. Maybe more like 50%, but eventually everyone will have received this training. There are many other things involved other than how to set the M68 like using the second pad on your finger for trigger pull, setting the magazine on the ground when firing from the prone, having your entire body behind the weapon instead of laying to the side, natural point of aim, hand position on the weapon, and many other things.

SOCOM units have used all these methods that are taught in this course since the inception of SOCOM. They teach these methods at schools like Griffin Group.

The problem has been that the Big Army have taught "sniper" rifle marksmanship because in all the non-war time service years we had prior to OEF, we were only focussed on qualification.

Now, we are seeing that what we have been teaching is not working in real life and real fire fights.

So who best to share their knowledge? SOCOM. Why? Because they never have non-wartime years. They are fighting the "unknown" fight all the time.

I'm no operator, and will never claim to have anything close to their abilities, but I just left one of those units, and after seeing what they are capable of, I trust what they say.

Now to the comment about being faster.... The further out you have it the faster the dot will appear in the tube and on target. Try it out if you don't believe me. So even if I sacrifice a tiny bit of so called FOV I'd rather be on target and scoring hits faster.

Actually, we're both wrong I just got off the phone with one of the operators I know. This is the way he explained it........

The red dot on a rifle is basically on a canneleaver (sp?). No matter if you have the red-dot at 3 or 6 inches, if you move the weapon at the same pivot rate, the site will line up at the same time. However, the farther out the site is, the faster and farther it is travelling, even though your pivot rate is the same.

The reason putting it closer is taught now, is because of more fights being CQB (close quarters battle) type. If you are only 20 feet from someone you are shooting, not being able to seeing the corner of their right shoulder is of no consequense. However, if you have the site mounted out farther, then you can get site picture/site alignment at the same time, however the instability factor comes into play. It is minutly different, and almost imperceptable, but it is stabilized a fraction of a second faster with it mounted closer.

His main point was that your initial movement should be for you to see the dot, then your subliminal mind takes over and the dot is aligned on the target. So, having the dot closer to your eye meets those requirements better than having it farther out.

In regards to shooting long distance (over 150 meters) he says that he does not reccomend shooting a zero magnification site with both eyes open, especially with an of the shelf M4 since they are likely no better than 4 minute weapons. He said that your concentration level should go up a little on longer distance shots, and therfore having both eyes open is going to put you at a disadvantage.

Of course, all this is succeptable to an individual's ability and situation.

I'm no expert, by any means, I'm only a dumb Alabama boy that looks for the experts and follows their instruciton until I find that there is something else that works better for me.

 

[Josh-L]

Actually, we're both wrong I just got off the phone with one of the operators I know. This is the way he explained it........

The red dot on a rifle is basically on a canneleaver (sp?). No matter if you have the red-dot at 3 or 6 inches, if you move the weapon at the same pivot rate, the site will line up at the same time.

They will not line up at the same time. Please try it for yourself. If you mount it out further the dot will appear sooner. Since these are paralax free sights you do not need to "line them up".

The reason putting it closer is taught now, is because of more fights being CQB (close quarters battle) type. If you are only 20 feet from someone you are shooting, not being able to seeing the corner of their right shoulder is of no consequense. However, if you have the site mounted out farther, then you can get site picture/site alignment at the same time, however the instability factor comes into play. It is minutly different, and almost imperceptable, but it is stabilized a fraction of a second faster with it mounted closer.

Instability factor? That makes absolutely no sense to me but maybe I'm mis-understanding what you are trying to say.

He said that your concentration level should go up a little on longer distance shots, and therfore having both eyes open is going to put you at a disadvantage.

That's a training issue. Whether I'm shooting a red dot at 5 yards or my sniper rifle on 20x at 1000 yards, both my eyes are open.
Of course, all this is succeptable to an individual's ability and situation.

I'm no expert, by any means, I'm only a dumb Alabama boy that looks for the experts and follows their instruciton until I find that there is something else that works better for me.

I'm no expert either and I appreciate your comments and you seem to have a good grasp on things. We just seem to disagree on the dynamics. We should also start our own thread and stop jacking Glens thread!

 

[gsarg]

[Broken External Image]

I've actually been learning quite a bit from the discussion.

 

[4wheelphil]

I don't care where you have it mounted
thats a damn good looking AR-!!!

 

[gsarg]

I'll add one thing to this conversation:
FWIW - mounting the optic that far forward helps my eyes acquire the reticle must clearer/quicker - astigmatism