Co-witness with red dot

[SavageSmoker]

Hi All,

I have a M&P 15-22 (811033) and have been practicing with then iron sites. I also occasionally use a 4x32 tactical scope for longer range. I do have a TruGlo red dot sight: Log On | TRUGLO, Inc.

I was wondering if it is possible to co-witness this with the iron sights. Might be good for fast target acquisition while keeping both eyes open.

Thx...Brian

 

[SavageSmoker]

Sorry for the bad link. Red dot model is DUAL COLOR OPEN RED•DOT SIGHT
SKU#  TG8370B   

 

[Kayback]

That one looks like it is the correct height to allow it to co witness already.

Just slap it on the rail.

The red dot and the iron sights should not all be in a row. You shouldn't be able to see the iron sights behind the red dot. That is set up wrong. (you should also have both eyes open anyway, regardless of using a red dot)


KBK

 

[Guy A]

I was wondering if it is possible to co-witness this with the iron sights.

You will need to mount the red dot on top of a riser. The height of the riser depends on whether you want a full co-witness or lower.

There's already a lot of info on this forum on co-witness sights--do a search. Here's one thread (if I have linked correctly!)

http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...t-co-witness-post136546372.html#post136546372

 

[mn_doggie]

That one looks like it is the correct height to allow it to co witness already.

Just slap it on the rail.

The red dot and the iron sights should not all be in a row. You shouldn't be able to see the iron sights behind the red dot. That is set up wrong. (you should also have both eyes open anyway, regardless of using a red dot)


KBK

Lots of people set up their rifles to cowitness by positioning the red dot right on the iron sights (or in a row as you say.)

Others raise the red dot sight up by using different height risers effectivelyu placing the sights in the lower part of the red dot viewing area..

It's purely a matter of personal preference. There is no right or wrong way.

 

[Kayback]

Yes there is. Absolute co witness is wrong in about 99% of cases. The idea is to use the red dot as your primary means of aiming and to have the irons available foe backup if needed. If you don't use lower 1/3 you are cluttering the field of view for no added benefit.

Even if you do absolute co witness you still aren't meant to line all three up. All you are meant to be doing is having the irons and the red dot on the same plane, they are still two independent sight systems that do not interact. THAT was what I Meant by not lining them up.

 

[mn_doggie]

Yes there is. Absolute co witness is wrong in about 99% of cases. The idea is to use the red dot as your primary means of aiming and to have the irons available foe backup if needed. If you don't use lower 1/3 you are cluttering the field of view for no added benefit.

Even if you do absolute co witness you still aren't meant to line all three up. All you are meant to be doing is having the irons and the red dot on the same plane, they are still two independent sight systems that do not interact. THAT was what I Meant by not lining them up.

If you do an online search you can find tons of different viewpoints with great explanations of each. Some of those who advocate absolute cowitnessing have some pretty impressive credentials.

I don't understand how you can make a judgement call about absolute cowitness being wrong 99% of the time..

It becomes an issue for each individual user to try and decide what works best for them..

(In my case I use folding sights, or a smaller red dot on a Blackhawk angled bracket. My choice. Neither right or wrong)

 

[Kayback]

If you do an online search you can find tons of different viewpoints with great explanations of each. Some of those who advocate absolute cowitnessing have some pretty impressive credentials.

Aye, and its from some of those exact people that have given my the opinion I have. On lower 1/3.

Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word to use, maybe superfluous is a better way of wording it.

KBK

 

[mn_doggie]

Aye, and its from some of those exact people that have given my the opinion I have. On lower 1/3.

Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word to use, maybe superfluous is a better way of wording it.

KBK

I just spent some time going thru several very long threads at AR15.xxx (I don't quite know all the rules on posting links here so I don't want to get into trouble.)

The consensus in those long threads was that most would use absolute cowitness because they wanted their cheek weld and sight picture to be the same time after time. They didn't want there to be any delay in sighting in a crisis situation.

If foldable sights were installed, absolute won hands down. If the sights were fixed, it appeared to be about 50-50 between 1/3 cowitness and absolute (again with those wanting a familiar cheekweld and sight picture thru the centerline axis.)

 

[rraisley]

The consensus in those long threads was that most would use absolute cowitness because they wanted their cheek weld and sight picture to be the same time after time.

With my Primary Arms M3, the difference between perfect and lower 1/3 co-witness is between 1/8" and 1/4". My check can't tell the difference between them. Now, I don't care much either way, as my irons fold down, but I don't think you're talking much height difference here.

 

[rraisley]

Sorry for the bad link. Red dot model is DUAL COLOR OPEN RED•DOT SIGHT
SKU#  TG8370B   

Just FYI, while the Tru-Glo is more expensive, Aimpoint, Sightmark, NcStar and others make a version of that sight with multiple reticules (most only a single color, though) in the $30 or so range. I'm wanting to buy a similar product for my .22 Buck Mark pistol, so am looking at them, and the Sightmark is rated higher on Amazon than the Tru-Glo.