Sig Carbine
- Thread starter beltfed
- Start date
Spike is right the T-1 does cowitness but its too clutered of a veiw for me.
The DR optic is smaller but it`s sight picture is higher than a T-1 because looking through the diopter sight all you can see is the bottom of the Dr optic.
The drum sight is so much nicer than the flip-up peep sight you get with the flat-top models. The Picatinny adapter is more than adequate for your standard red-dot, though for telescopic sights, the flat-top is probably better suited.
Ya way too clutered, thats why a optic mount that puts the dot at the height of Larue M68/aimpoint but with a hollowed out center so you could use the diopter sights =perfect.
I can see why KevinB cut the hood off that front sight on his CQB.
Ok here are some photos of my setup.
Nice, thanks dude.
I think i'll try it without the hood on the front sight. Should open it up nicely.
jl
??? Oh ya baby...
I feel really dirty when I take my Restricted to the range and fold the stock....
I get such a huge advantage firing from the line...
Not only is a folding stock cool and something that you could never do with your HK, its also practical for working on it kinda like a built in kickstand
Of course it is...that's why the flip up is considered a backup to your primary.
The pic adapter is not more than adequate, I don't think it even rates adequate since only the T1 will co witness. Since you co witness a red dot it would seem that the railed top would be better in this role. For telescopic sights, since you don't co-witness your irons, the flat top only lowers your cheek weld and isn't really necessary.
I'm a fan of same plane...to each their own.
jl
IMHO, the co-witness thing is getitng dumb once you have permanently fixed rear site. The whole point of running reflex is to cut down the time need to line up the rear with the front - and by having a fixed rear, you force yourself to line up the sight even if you don't need to. So any time saving is lost. And if the rear is not lined up, the rear sight actually obstructs the view. you may as well just run iron......The co-witnessing makes sense if the rear sight can be flipped down to get out of the way, so the advantage of reflex sights in time saving and unobstructed field of view can be taken. With the standard diopter with front site hood and fix ed rear sight ( especially the chunky aperture drum), the point of co-witnessing is moot. Co-witness with a fixed rear sight is like repeating the task twice- it is like trying to jam two screw drivers into one slot.
The flattop model is the best for running any reflex sight.....as a matter of fact, any optics. The original configuration is not designed for optics mounting, and any optics mounting is just an after thought, Hence a parade of mounts and cheek piece to try to somehow make it work. On the other hand, people like to have diopters that they dont use - everyone is mounting optics and reflex on their rifles anywyas. Why get something that you don't use just to look pretty, and screw the otpics that it is actually used?
The flattop model is the best for running any reflex sight.....as a matter of fact, any optics. The original configuration is not designed for optics mounting, and any optics mounting is just an after thought, Hence a parade of mounts and cheek piece to try to somehow make it work. On the other hand, people like to have diopters that they dont use - everyone is mounting optics and reflex on their rifles anywyas. Why get something that you don't use just to look pretty, and screw the otpics that it is actually used?
Gotta disagree.
The fundamentals of aiming are sight picture and cheek weld. The whole point of co witnessing is so you only have one sight picture and one cheek weld. You are not wasting time lining anything up...the dot is where the dot is, it doesn't take longer to acquire. You are not using two screwdrivers in one slot or repeating anything...you are doing one thing one way, not having two different methods to achieve the same thing.
If you flip your rear site down it's not co witnessed any more is it? The whole reason for a flip down rear sight is so you can mount magnified optics. Worried about clutter...run a KAC 300 but leave the thing UP!
your instructors need to be doing a better job because the info you have is plain wrong.
jl
Last edited by a moderator:
..... on my way back to buy the carbine
Let us know how many weeks you have to wait before you can pick it up.... 3? 4....maybe 5 weeks.... LOL
I disagree.
Cheek weld and sight pictures are very important when iron sight is used because there must be a perfect alignment among the front, the rear and the iron. A consistent cheek weld is required to cut down the variable in the alignment between the front and the rear. With reflex sight, the variable between the front and rear is eliminated. A parallax free reflex sight such as aimpoint, will allow you to consistently hit targets without consistent cheek weld.
By putting up a fixed rear sight, the dot of the reflex sight could be easily obscured by the front sight post and the rim of the rear aperture if the cheek weld is not consistent. Because if you try to look through the rear aperture, you have basicly limited yourself to a relative small space where the dot can go without being obscured. Any imperfection in the cheek weld, the “empty” space for you to see the target and the dot are distorted. Basicly, you are forcing yourself to go through most of the steps of using the iron sight, just short of using the front sight point to aim..
If the rear aperture is removed, the empty space becomes the limit of the reflex sight diameter, which is much larger. Even without consistent cheek weld, the target and the dot will be less likely covered. Instead of spending the mini second to fix the cheek weld and to wiggle the dot out of obstruction, time could be spent on putting the dot on the target right the way.
And of course, consistent cheek weld is impractical in some situations. If the reflex can only used with your eyes peering through a smaller aperture, the whole advantage of a parallax free system is lost.
Consistent cheek weld and sight pictures are good practics, but they are not necessary with reflex sights. Of course these are good fundmentals, but if I can achieve the same result faster without the perfect pose, why should I care aobut doing the perfect pose?
YMMV
Cheek weld and sight pictures are very important when iron sight is used because there must be a perfect alignment among the front, the rear and the iron. A consistent cheek weld is required to cut down the variable in the alignment between the front and the rear. With reflex sight, the variable between the front and rear is eliminated. A parallax free reflex sight such as aimpoint, will allow you to consistently hit targets without consistent cheek weld.
By putting up a fixed rear sight, the dot of the reflex sight could be easily obscured by the front sight post and the rim of the rear aperture if the cheek weld is not consistent. Because if you try to look through the rear aperture, you have basicly limited yourself to a relative small space where the dot can go without being obscured. Any imperfection in the cheek weld, the “empty” space for you to see the target and the dot are distorted. Basicly, you are forcing yourself to go through most of the steps of using the iron sight, just short of using the front sight point to aim..
If the rear aperture is removed, the empty space becomes the limit of the reflex sight diameter, which is much larger. Even without consistent cheek weld, the target and the dot will be less likely covered. Instead of spending the mini second to fix the cheek weld and to wiggle the dot out of obstruction, time could be spent on putting the dot on the target right the way.
And of course, consistent cheek weld is impractical in some situations. If the reflex can only used with your eyes peering through a smaller aperture, the whole advantage of a parallax free system is lost.
Consistent cheek weld and sight pictures are good practics, but they are not necessary with reflex sights. Of course these are good fundmentals, but if I can achieve the same result faster without the perfect pose, why should I care aobut doing the perfect pose?
YMMV
...but your practice assumes that the reflex sight will never fail. Given that, why have irons at all?
jl
+1
Check out Kelly McCann’s Tactical Fighting Carbine DVD. The segment on deflected shooting techniques with an HDS sight is outstanding.
These sights free the shooter of the obligation to gain traditional sight alignment to make a rapid shot. This is what makes them so fast and versatile. If the dot is on the target, you can fire and strike it without having to have complete alignment. Meaning, you can cover one target with the dot out of the corner of your eye while scanning to observe another player, shooting the original threat with reasonable accuracy if required.
Don't take McCann's word for it. You owe it to yourself to try it on a deflected shooting drill and see how it works for increasing your SA and reaction speed under pressure. Double tap the deflected target and shift to the new for a double tap follow up. Its lightening fast.
It also confers advantages to not having to expose as much of your upper body to a threat.
The biggest trick is that if your sight goes down, you have to switch mindsets.
I've seen guys shoot both ways. What works for you?
Agreed. Remember the Armson OEG (Occluded Eye Gunsight)?
You don't "look" through the tube" as you do with modern optical sights. Instead your brain superimposes the dot in a black window over your target. Shooting rapidly yet accurately works just fine with that technique.
As you say. The dot is where it is. Clearly, it doesn't matter WHAT is "in the way".
As I say, seen it either way. Don't know that either is right or wrong. Depends on what works for you.
*edit: for any curious, found photos showing OEG concept.
Last edited:
- Location
- Port Perry/Toronto
I really don't get the point of co-witnessing in the first place. You'd get a better sight picture without the clumby irons in the way. Irons are only good for the novelty and for backup.
Can you please explain your statement I think I got lost after " I really don't get the point of co-witnessing in the first place"
