The Slippery Slope...

[Maddmax]

Simpler is better.

Very true. Keep it simple. Less to go wrong.

 

[blues7]

Very true. Keep it simple. Less to go wrong.

And less to have to think about when things do go tango uniform...as they always seem to do.

You don't want to end up like a qb with all the plays strapped to his forearm.

 

[Rastoff]

That said, I learned to use them on entries whether clearing homes, industrial sites or outdoor venues and they were at the very least a necessary evil.

Exactly, you make my point for me. For anyone doing those things, they are indeed a necessary part of the kit. However, as you well know, those things are things 99.999% of us will never, should never, do.

Tactical movement is an art unto itself. Tactical team movement is a dance reserved for the well practiced. It is beauty in motion when done correctly, but death when done wrong.

Most of us will never use our guns anywhere but at the range. For that, no sling is necessary. The second most common use will be for defense of home. For that, we are best off barricading and waiting for the bad guy to come to us. Again, no sling necessary.

The next most common use of an AR will be in competition. The necessity of a sling will depend on the match. Some require gun retention; sling necessary. Many require depositing the unused long gun in a barrel; no sling necessary.

Based on your training and history, I totally understand you wanting a sling. The Magpul MSx line is excellent (when necessary, I prefer the MS1). However, I still despise them and maintain that most don't need and shouldn't waste our money on them.

 

[blues7]

I think there are times, even inside your own home where you may need the use of one or both hands for any number of reasons while not wanting to put your rifle on the ground.

I say that not to be argumentative because I think we are on the same page but only because sometimes you just need your hands free while retaining your weapon.

It reminds me of the decidedly un-cinematic scenario when you're woken up in the middle of the night and need to use your nightstand gun to work your way back to your long gun, (shotgun or AR or whatever), and you haven't had the chance to put your skivvies on in the circumstances. (Now that may be enough in and of itself to disarm the intruder or get him to turn around and flee. )

But now when you get back to the long gun where do you stick the gun? (Please, don't say it. ) Even with skivvies the elastic won't hold that potato in your pants. If the missus is there she can at least take the handgun at that point.

I've gone over a plan with my wife as to what steps need to be taken in the event of an intruder and you are right, clearing the house from room to room is not a part of that plan. (Maybe if I weren't married I'd consider a Rambo style attack.)

She is to barricade herself in the walk-in closet off the master bath, call 911 via cell phone or landline and shoot anyone who isn't me or a deputy attempting to enter the closet.

My role will be to put down any threat that attempts to enter the bedroom. (Or if it's earlier in the day, to make it to the nearest firearm to engage the threat.)

Back to the sling...there's really no right or wrong answer. Just the one that works best for you and that you've thought out in advance. (I know you have, Doug, because you and I have a lot in common in that regard.)

 

[Rastoff]

Back to the sling...there's really no right or wrong answer.

Bingo! I don't like slings and I have a solid set of reasoning why. You like slings and have a solid set of reasoning why. Each has merit. We both post our thinking here and anyone reading it must then decide for themselves. By both of us discussing our reasoning, it helps others define their own.

This is why I come here.

What burns me is the person who does something just because he does it. He does it without any thought behind that decision. I find that kind of action baffling.

 

[blues7]

Bingo! I don't like slings and I have a solid set of reasoning why. You like slings and have a solid set of reasoning why. Each has merit. We both post our thinking here and anyone reading it must then decide for themselves. By both of us discussing our reasoning, it helps others define their own.

This is why I come here.

What burns me is the person who does something just because he does it. He does it without any thought behind that decision. I find that kind of action baffling.

Thanks, Doug. I owe a lot to you and Phil and a handful of others, (they know who they are), who have helped me immeasurably with becoming familiar and comfortable with the AR platform.

If I can give back an iota of what I have received I'll be only too happy to do so.

On a separate note, I just cracked up when I read the last line of your post, (the bolded section above), and pictured you thusly:

 

[Rastoff]

Hahahaha! Maybe not Spock, but I do like the way he thinks.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

you may need the use of one or both hands for any number of reasons while not wanting to put your rifle on the ground.

I say that not to be argumentative because I think we are on the same page but only because sometimes you just need your hands free while retaining your weapon.

Of course you're not being argumentative. You're simply looking at the rifle beyond the context of a range toy.

And your choice in optics, H2, reflects this context as well.

 

[blues7]

Of course you're not being argumentative. You're simply looking at the rifle beyond the context of a range toy.

And your choice in optics, H2, reflects this context as well.

Thanks, Phil. I feel almost as proud as I did in the 4th grade (or so) when The Principal made me his personal milk monitor and distributor (since I was always getting in trouble for one thing or another and sent to his office by Mrs. Mendoza).

Seriously though, the assistance received from you, Doug, John (aka JaPes), and a handful of other stalwart fellows here, (Max, Chief, Kadonny et al), has been a huge help in speeding up my education and familiarity with the AR.

Back when I had gov't issued long guns my concerns were strictly competence with the weapon in the field and keeping it clean and ready to be used when called upon.

It's a lot different when it comes to the care and feeding of one's own personally owned firearm, especially in this instance as the TS is the most expensive firearm I've ever owned by a considerable margin. (The 686+ being next in line. The Glocks and Remington 870 were obtained for a song by comparison.)

So, I'm trying to get it right the first time and keep the crying to a minimum. (And since Wilson Combat appears to offer a 10% LE and Military discount, you can probably guess that it won't be long before they get a phone call...so I can finally just say: "And that's all I need..." )

BTW, I always feel that Doug's often counterpoint positions provide the perfect anvil to the hammer employed during the forging of this ongoing dialectic.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The advantages of a 1x red dot is unlimited eye relief and field of view which translates to fast target acquisition. And the red dot is typically less than half the weight of a traditional magnified scope.

When using a magnifier, it cancels the advantages of a red dot.
When not using the magnifier, this is in the operator's face.

 

[blues7]

I certainly don't judge or begrudge how others choose to accouter their rifles but that setup would be too busy, distracting and obfuscating for me personally and I'm glad you demonstrated it, Phil.

I thought long and hard about where to put something as simple as the white light on the TS for exactly the same kinds of reasons. Keeping FOV open, not having one's head right behind the light, not having it interfere with a supported or supine position, ability to reach and deploy it easily with the support hand, (I don't like wires and remotes), and keeping it from getting entangled with the sling.

For all those reasons I chose the 3 o'clock position with the bezel as far forward as the leading edge of the Troy handguard. Others can argue reasonably for their own position of choice. Like Doug said, it's all about being able to provide a basis for your choices.

Thanks for the picture, Phil. It truly is worth 1,000 words.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

So, I'm trying to get it right the first time and keep the crying to a minimum.

And it looks like you have. Some of the names you've mentioned have bought a rifle in a configuration they weren't satisfied with and spent a small fortune afterward, or have gone through a series of red dot optics that were poorly designed, weren't satisfied with the operation or failed.

You're taking the shortcut buying a rifle in the configuration you wanted and now an optic that is properly designed and reliability second to none.

AR ownership.... you're taking the fun out of it!

 

[blues7]

Okay, I've got a question for you guys. But first a little setup...

When I got the TS back from S&W warranty service, I did a quick and dirty standing offhand "zero" with the MBUS because I was primarily concerned with ensuring that the rifle was working properly. I fired off a couple of magazines and did a rough zero from 25 yards trying to have the POI be about 1.5" below POA per this excellent article by Kenan Flasowski about zeroing the AR for home defense.

Now, when I get the H-2, I intend to zero the device via a supported position of some sort...prone, sitting whatever with the use of sandbag or backpack or reasonable facsimile. I've printed some of Aimpoint's targets to aid with this.

This brings me to my question. Assuming I properly dial in the H-2 from 25 yards with their target (and POI is 1.5" below POA)...

...Can I now turn around and use the zeroed red dot sight to adjust the zero of the lower 1/3 co-witnessing MBUS without even taking a shot?

I'm trying to see all of this in my head since I don't have an RDS to play with while waiting for the H-2 to be delivered, and am getting hung up on visualizing whether I will be able to adjust windage and elevation on the MBUS front and rear sights to take advantage of the data from the RDS when it's not an absolute co-witness.

I hope what I am asking makes sense. I'm still on my first cup of coffee this morning.

 

[blues7]

And it looks like you have. Some of the names you've mentioned have bought a rifle in a configuration they weren't satisfied with and spent a small fortune afterward, or have gone through a series of red dot optics that were poorly designed, weren't satisfied with the operation or failed.

You're taking the shortcut buying a rifle in the configuration you wanted and now an optic that is properly designed and reliability second to none.

AR ownership.... you're taking the fun out of it!

That's priceless, Phil.

 

[Rastoff]

...Can I now turn around and use the zeroed red dot sight to adjust the zero of the lower 1/3 co-witnessing MBUS without even taking a shot?

Trust but verify.

Yes, you can use the zeroed red dot to set your iron sights. Look through the iron sights. Assuming the red dot has been properly zeroed, you will adjust the irons until with the proper sight alignment, you have the red dot sitting on top of the front sight post.

Like this:

That said, I prefer an absolute co-witness when using folding BUIS. The reason for this is optic height. The absolute co-witness means the optic, which is what you'll use most, is closer to the bore. This will mean you won't need to have your head as high on the stock. This makes for an easier and better cheek weld. Also, should you need the BUIS, you won't have to change your cheek weld to use them.

This works with folding sights because they are not in the way when using your optic. With fixed sights the 1/3rd co-witness works because it puts the sights mostly out of the way.

 

[blues7]

Doug, thanks for the illustration. That's exactly what I was hoping for.
(And you should know that it goes without saying that I'd verify. )

It may not be very easy for me to do it via this method anyway since I don't have a gun vise or mount to hold the rifle in a static position. So I'd have to keep making incremental changes with the MBUS until I eventually got it lined up with the dot. (Sort of like having to do it the old fashioned way. )

I considered getting the lower mount originally for an absolute co-witness but the more I read here and online, (as well as by discussing the issue with LaRue), the more it seemed that most folks tended to opt for the higher mount. It seems it may be easier to acquire the dot visually and also seems to not require a cheek weld under circumstances which may be less than optimal (and perhaps dire).

Obviously, with no experience of my own either way, I deferred to the collective wisdom. I may or may not regret that decision and I suppose in a worst case scenario I could have LaRue swap it out for me if I find it unacceptable. I'm hoping that's not the case.

 

[Rastoff]

The proof is in the shooting.

This is why classes like Front Sight or similar are so valuable. They have you shoot a lot and under time pressure. This changes everything.

Anyone can go to the range and become happy with their set up when there's no pressure. I've done it myself. Had my gun set a certain way only to discover that it wasn't optimal for a pressure loaded situation.

For just range shooting that's fine. But, if you ever intend to use the gun for hunting, self-defense or competition, it's worth it to add some pressure. This is the only way to really know if that set up is really easy to acquire or not.

Also, what works for me may not work for you. So, the collective knowledge of the internet is great, but could lead us in the wrong direction.

I like your methodology. Read, study, then try. Be willing to change if it doesn't work. In the end, the only thing that matters is where the bullets go. If they go where you want, under the conditions you intend to use, then that's what's right for you.

 

[blues7]

You and I (and Phil via PM as well) have had this discussion, Doug, where I had an argument with a firearms instructor at our base in Marana, AZ.

I was always, over 20+ years, the fastest on the line to get a shot off and on target. (I wasn't the best shot. Just the fastest to break leather and get the shots off.)

The instructor bitched at me that I could have a higher score if I took more time. I bitched back that I could be dead with a near perfect score.
I told him to look at where my rounds were on the target. All but a very occasional flyer were in the vital zone with most near the bullseye. He wouldn't even acknowledge the point.

Frankly, I think the winner of the gunfight is the guy who gets off first and hits his target. The rest is way secondary. Now if you're taking a head shot in a hostage situation that's a whole other ball of wax.

Just my opinion.

That said, I'd like to hear from my brethren here why they chose co or absolute witness for their red dot sight mounts and whether they are happy with their choices.

Fellas?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

LaRue knows what they're talking about.

I used to subscribe to the consistent cheek weld theory argument... but as a practical matter I've found the cheek weld difference absolute vs 1/3... means little. If anything, more folks struggle to get low enough using irons on an AR platform. Still, the difference is negligeable at best. And most folks don't use their irons much once they get a red dot. That's why they are called BUIS. By choosing an Aimpint you've pretty much eliminated the need for "BU".

When you get your optic, you can look through the rear sight aperture and line up the red dot with the front sight post. Now if you want the red dot in the center of the glass you rotate your head back slightly. Of course that's not even required. The red dot can be used in the lower part of the glass just fine. Or center, upper, left or right or anywhere you happen to be looking though. That's why parallax error (lack of it) is such an important characteristic of a 1x red dot. All that said, if someone was going to use their irons a great deal then I would suggest a larger tube red dot and absolute co-witness mount.

Lower 1/3 was the right choice with a micro.

 

[blues7]

The proof is in the shooting.

This is why classes like Front Sight or similar are so valuable. They have you shoot a lot and under time pressure. This changes everything.

Anyone can go to the range and become happy with their set up when there's no pressure. I've done it myself. Had my gun set a certain way only to discover that it wasn't optimal for a pressure loaded situation.

For just range shooting that's fine. But, if you ever intend to use the gun for hunting, self-defense or competition, it's worth it to add some pressure. This is the only way to really know if that set up is really easy to acquire or not.

Also, what works for me may not work for you. So, the collective knowledge of the internet is great, but could lead us in the wrong direction.

I like your methodology. Read, study, then try. Be willing to change if it doesn't work. In the end, the only thing that matters is where the bullets go. If they go where you want, under the conditions you intend to use, then that's what's right for you.

Getting back to your post, Doug, I can't but agree.

I'm sure our training paled compared to a lot of what goes on in the military but at the various SWAT schools I've attended and graduated from, as well as our own in-house training, it's a whole 'nother ball game when you have to set up a shot after sprinting, diving and rolling with hand or long gun.

The pepper poppers, dynamic targets and decision making scenarios, let alone the noise of instructors or fellow agents yelling can be quite daunting. I could usually tune out a lot of the "noise" but nonetheless the pounding of your heart in your rib cage and chest heaving is quite a bit to overcome. Forget about all the "what if's".

I'm always amazed at how folks who have not "been there, done that" sit in judgment of military or law enforcement who have but a fraction of an instant to evaluate and make a life and death decision under much less than optimal circumstances.

My thoughts and heart will always be with those who fight that good fight regardless of the outcome.

 

[Rastoff]

...most folks don't use their irons much once they get a red dot.

If at all. The idea of back up sights is a good one, but most of us will never need them.

I'm actually going to remove mine. Yeah, I know, blasphemy. Nevertheless, they are almost completely useless to me. My eyes are such that the rear ring is almost completely invisible. If my optic fails, I'll actually be better off just sighting along the top.

I turned 50 a few days ago. My rifle is not my first line home defense tool. If the optic fails, meh, the worst that happens is it shortens my range day. If it fails during some competition or school, the worst that happens is I'm not able to finish the course. Not the end of the world for me.

About the cheek weld, I do think it's important. I'm not built like most people though. I have a long neck and very high cheek bones. If I mount a standard M16, and get a normal cheek weld, I'm looking squarely at the bottom of the handle. That's why I have an adjustable comb on my rifle:

You'll notice that I can't use my BUIS anyway without removing the scope (yes, they are zeroed properly). Not being on a quick release, this is not something you'd want to happen in the field. I could move the scope further forward. Unfortunately, that means I'd have to collapse the stock a little more to keep the proper eye relief. Remember that thing about being happy with a set up you use at the range? Yeah, if the stock is shorter, there are other aspects I don't care for.

So, the BUIS will be coming off once I stop procrastinating. Anyone want a MATECH rear and a Troy front?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

If that's the Vortex I think it is, and you're removing the iron sights anyway, then I'd think the way to go would be shorter scope rings than standard and then toss the cheek riser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rastoff]

If that's the Vortex I think it is, and you're removing the iron sights anyway, then I'd think the way to go would be shorter scope rings than standard and then toss the cheek riser.

What Vortex do you think it is?

Yeah, I'd like to go to shorter rings, but I need the cantilevered type and they just don't come that short.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

What Vortex do you think it is?

Yeah, I'd like to go to shorter rings, but I need the cantilevered type and they just don't come that short.

I figured is was a Vortex with a 24mm objective (no bell).

If you don't trust that new Juggernaught upper to push the front ring out a bit, an Areo Precision monolithic upper kit will solve that issue.

 

[Rastoff]

Yes, 24mm objective.

The Juggernaut is on my LR308, this is the AR15 5.56mm.

My free float forearm is solid, but I just believe it's better to keep the optic mounted on the receiver. Therefore, I've gone with a cantilever mount.

In the long run, considering my intended use, it may not matter. Still, I'm going to keep it on the receiver.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Maddmax]

I'm sure our training paled compared to a lot of what goes on in the military but at the various SWAT schools I've attended and graduated from, as well as our own in-house training, it's a whole 'nother ball game when you have to set up a shot after sprinting, diving and rolling with hand or long gun.

The pepper poppers, dynamic targets and decision making scenarios, let alone the noise of instructors or fellow agents yelling can be quite daunting. I could usually tune out a lot of the "noise" but nonetheless the pounding of your heart in your rib cage and chest heaving is quite a bit to overcome. Forget about all the "what if's".

I'm always amazed at how folks who have not "been there, done that" sit in judgment of military or law enforcement who have but a fraction of an instant to evaluate and make a life and death decision under much less than optimal circumstances.

My thoughts and heart will always be with those who fight that good fight regardless of the outcome.

I agree. It's a whole new ball game once you cross that line and are seasoned by actual fire. It's a life changing moment that stays with you forever.

 

[SeniorChief5352]

I agree. It's a whole new ball game once you cross that line and are seasoned by actual fire. It's a life changing moment that stays with you forever.

I concur. Once you've spent time on a two way range, it tends to put things into perspective for you. I know I don't take the little things for granted like I once did.

 

[blues7]

Confession Is Good For The Soul...

A couple of guys already know this...I won't say who, (Phil and Robert),...but despite near Herculean and dare I say Sisyphusian efforts on my part to ward off the ever-jabbering devils on my shoulders, I have ultimately succumbed to the lure of the Wilson Combat TTU trigger which should be here sometime this week.
(As will the Aimpoint H-2 a la LaRue.)

Needless to say, I have chosen the path of least resistance as espoused by learned friend Senior Chief by avoiding both disclosing or discussing the matter with the missus, who, in reality, couldn't care less what I order for or do with the rifle.

However, after 30 years together it's more the principle of the thing, (like the 2nd Amendment itself), to be able to pretend to keep a secret as if somehow getting away with a fast one. (Shhh, don't tell.) We have to take our small victories where opportunities present.

I throw myself on the mercy of my peers and freely admit that I am still an AR-aholic, denials and protestations notwithstanding. At least I now know firsthand what "we hold these truths to be self-evident" really means.

S&W..."Suggestible & Weak"

 

[Rastoff]

Welcome to the herd. Denial is the first symptom of an addict. Admission is the first step toward a cure.

 

[Kadonny]

And just think @blues7, this is your first AR, you really think it will be your last?