this was posted to the AR15 list:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The September - December issue of Infantry Magazine came today. One of
the more interesting articles is: "The Case for Squad Sharpshooters" by
LTC Michael R. Harris (Ret)
LTC Harris has this to say about scopes on Infantry rifles:
"We've tried scopes before. In the past 30 years the infantry has looked
at telescopic and reflex sights several times without demonstrating a
significant increase in capability. The advanced combat rifle (ACR)
program had weapons with optical sights, and after it's failure, the
idea of equipping the M16 with a telescopic sight was tested. When the
optical sight test showed no significant improvement, the Army tested
and adopted a reflex collimator sight called the aimpoint close combat
optic. A review of these past efforts provides several important
insights that relate to the sharpshooter concept.
The SALVO, special purpose individual weapon (SPIW) and advanced combat
rifle (ACR) all tried to compensate for individual aiming errors by
using a controlled dispersion of multi-projectiles or a burst instead of
single well-aimed shots at partially concealed targets. The optical
sight test showed no significant increase in hits over iron sights out
to 300 meters. The close combat optic showed only a slight increase in
average hits, very similar to the reflex sight tests in the 1960s and
1970s.
So why have a sharpshooter with a telescopic sight?
We must remember that these programs were trying to improve the average
soldiers marksmanship with an equipment solution (many of the test
subjects were not even infantrymen). But there are no gadget solutions
to marksmanship training. A marginal shooter with a sniper rifle is
still a marginal shooter. If a soldiers position is wobbly and he jerks
the trigger, he's lucky if he hits the 50 meter target. In all of these
tests, average shooters produced only average scores, while sniper level
shooters could hit all the targets with iron sights, and could probably
do so even if they were on muskets.
The sharpshooter concept is intended to provide the scoped weapons only
to expert markmen. While the optical sight test showed little
improvement out to 300 meters, the data from an early version of the DOS
[Daylight Optical Sight 4x32 ACOG] showed significant improvement in
hits beyond 300 meters. Once again, the marginal shooters shot poorly
and the excellent shooters hit targets out to 300 meters. Averaging
scores yields average results. For targets beyond 300 meters, and even
head shots at 100 meters, the shooter must allow for the bullets arched
trajectory. The DOS has a ballistic compensating reticle that enables
the shooter to estimate range and correct for bullet drop, all in one
step. The keys to hitting targets at 300 to 600 meters are a high level
of skill in the marksmanship fundamentals and a fast way to compensate
for bullet drop. Hits beyond 600 meters require a more accurate rifle,
match ammunition, precise range estimation, a highly developed ability
to read and hold off for wind, and precise shooting skills-in other
words, a trained sniper.
Both scopes and reflex sights eliminate the errors caused by misaligning
the front iron sight in the rear peep. Most shooters who make this
error also have problems with steady hold and trigger control. The
individual's shooting skill limited these previous tests and masked the
systems true potential. The targets in the tests--E-type for the most
part were fully exposed for three to five seconds. The DOS is faster
then iron sights in target detection and identification, sight
alignment, and range estimation or correction. The tests did not
measure any increase in the speed of engagement. A significant tactical
advantage can be obtained in combat by making an enemy accustomed to
making 5 second rushes to make 1.5-second rushes. The close combat
optics main advantage, as shown in testing, was speed in engaging
multiple targets (2 to 30) out to about 200 meters. The reflex sights
have a major advantage in close quarters battle or in close terrain from
3-50 meters as well as during firing while moving --running, from
vehicles or from helicopters--and while engaging moving targets. During
the test very few targets were hit at 250 to 300 meters. In all tests
the targets were primarily full E-types, exposed in the open. In
combat, the targets would be camouflaged and would often briefly expose
only the head and shoulders to fire or crawl forward. The biggest
advantage of scopes was not tested or scored: The scope lets you see
better, not shoot better."
The Col. advocates placing one or two ACOGs in each squad to supplement
the M68 CCOs. I think those of us on the list can draw from this
experience when we decide whether to put an aimpoint or ACOG on our ARs.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The September - December issue of Infantry Magazine came today. One of
the more interesting articles is: "The Case for Squad Sharpshooters" by
LTC Michael R. Harris (Ret)
LTC Harris has this to say about scopes on Infantry rifles:
"We've tried scopes before. In the past 30 years the infantry has looked
at telescopic and reflex sights several times without demonstrating a
significant increase in capability. The advanced combat rifle (ACR)
program had weapons with optical sights, and after it's failure, the
idea of equipping the M16 with a telescopic sight was tested. When the
optical sight test showed no significant improvement, the Army tested
and adopted a reflex collimator sight called the aimpoint close combat
optic. A review of these past efforts provides several important
insights that relate to the sharpshooter concept.
The SALVO, special purpose individual weapon (SPIW) and advanced combat
rifle (ACR) all tried to compensate for individual aiming errors by
using a controlled dispersion of multi-projectiles or a burst instead of
single well-aimed shots at partially concealed targets. The optical
sight test showed no significant increase in hits over iron sights out
to 300 meters. The close combat optic showed only a slight increase in
average hits, very similar to the reflex sight tests in the 1960s and
1970s.
So why have a sharpshooter with a telescopic sight?
We must remember that these programs were trying to improve the average
soldiers marksmanship with an equipment solution (many of the test
subjects were not even infantrymen). But there are no gadget solutions
to marksmanship training. A marginal shooter with a sniper rifle is
still a marginal shooter. If a soldiers position is wobbly and he jerks
the trigger, he's lucky if he hits the 50 meter target. In all of these
tests, average shooters produced only average scores, while sniper level
shooters could hit all the targets with iron sights, and could probably
do so even if they were on muskets.
The sharpshooter concept is intended to provide the scoped weapons only
to expert markmen. While the optical sight test showed little
improvement out to 300 meters, the data from an early version of the DOS
[Daylight Optical Sight 4x32 ACOG] showed significant improvement in
hits beyond 300 meters. Once again, the marginal shooters shot poorly
and the excellent shooters hit targets out to 300 meters. Averaging
scores yields average results. For targets beyond 300 meters, and even
head shots at 100 meters, the shooter must allow for the bullets arched
trajectory. The DOS has a ballistic compensating reticle that enables
the shooter to estimate range and correct for bullet drop, all in one
step. The keys to hitting targets at 300 to 600 meters are a high level
of skill in the marksmanship fundamentals and a fast way to compensate
for bullet drop. Hits beyond 600 meters require a more accurate rifle,
match ammunition, precise range estimation, a highly developed ability
to read and hold off for wind, and precise shooting skills-in other
words, a trained sniper.
Both scopes and reflex sights eliminate the errors caused by misaligning
the front iron sight in the rear peep. Most shooters who make this
error also have problems with steady hold and trigger control. The
individual's shooting skill limited these previous tests and masked the
systems true potential. The targets in the tests--E-type for the most
part were fully exposed for three to five seconds. The DOS is faster
then iron sights in target detection and identification, sight
alignment, and range estimation or correction. The tests did not
measure any increase in the speed of engagement. A significant tactical
advantage can be obtained in combat by making an enemy accustomed to
making 5 second rushes to make 1.5-second rushes. The close combat
optics main advantage, as shown in testing, was speed in engaging
multiple targets (2 to 30) out to about 200 meters. The reflex sights
have a major advantage in close quarters battle or in close terrain from
3-50 meters as well as during firing while moving --running, from
vehicles or from helicopters--and while engaging moving targets. During
the test very few targets were hit at 250 to 300 meters. In all tests
the targets were primarily full E-types, exposed in the open. In
combat, the targets would be camouflaged and would often briefly expose
only the head and shoulders to fire or crawl forward. The biggest
advantage of scopes was not tested or scored: The scope lets you see
better, not shoot better."
The Col. advocates placing one or two ACOGs in each squad to supplement
the M68 CCOs. I think those of us on the list can draw from this
experience when we decide whether to put an aimpoint or ACOG on our ARs.[/quote]