Why has the military moved to 3x scopes?

J

JohnH1963

Moderator
I see a lot of soldiers carrying rifles with just optical sights versus iron sights. I dont know how you guys feel, but I think iron sights is the best all-around option. The scopes can easily be hit, smashed, fogged, etc.

Why has the military chosen the optical sight route? Are more targets at longer ranges now?
 
irons are okay for jihadists but when we fight real military forces well need extra accuracy for headshots against body armor
 
The optics in theater are pretty versatile for both longe-range accuracy and fast close-in target aquisition. You can also train a soldier to be more proficient with these faster than you can with iron sights.

While not infallible, I think you'd really be surprised how durable these units are.
 
I held out as long as they would let me, but eventually they made me use a red dot. Boy was I wrong. Red dots are much better than iron sights. Especially at long range where the target becomes smaller than the front sight post. Once that happens, and your front sight entirely covers the target, your accuracy goes way down. With a red dot you just adjust the size of the dot to a smaller setting. We also had "flip up" iron sights that could be used if your red dot goes down. But that rarely happens with the good ones.
 
Well, I can only speak for me-on my last tour over there (I got back in March of this year), I had the option of using iron sights, a Trijicon ACOG, and a Aimpoint CompM3 on my M4 Carbine. I was on a training team and we had little US/coalition support due to our location.
Depending on the mission and anticipated threat, I would use different sights. If I were gunning on a hummer, I'd use a sight that gave me magnification so I could check out suspicious stuff (ACOG), if I were going into a building, then I would use my non-magnified optics (M3). I ALWAYS carried back up Iron sights-that's just prudent.
I can say that I was initially suspicious of optics-I joined the Marines in '87 and have seen too much technology let people down. Once I used the optics in a shooting training package (sorta like gunsite or thunder ranch), I changed my mind. I will use optics on my AR's from here on out, but I will always have a backup of iron sights available.

Your mileage may vary.
Scott
MSgt USMC infantry (retired)
 
Why has the military moved to 3x scopes?
Click to expand...

Surely if you have ever hunted you would see telescopic sights are a boon and definatly ahead of iron sights. In war it's even more a boon, but up to now the ruggedness of scopes left alot to be desired as for general use by the miliary (deer don't shoot back, terrorist do.)

One also finds the higher the optical power the lower the field of view. So there are tradeoffs for higher magnification with the higher the magnification the harder it is to pick up moving targets at close range. This is not supprising as such as Jack O'Connor wrote along time ago about how lower magnifiation is quite fine for most shooting.

The military have found lower magnifcation to be superior to iron sights and still give a good field of view. So the lower magnifications rule in all but longer range sharp shooting.

I've used ACOG and EOT and while the EOT is a fine shorter range snap shootng sight, the ACOG lends itself to some real precision and still give a good field of view. My only complaint is the cost. For us civilians they aint cheep!
 
The military went to optics because the hit ratio, particularly on the range, improved dramatically. That is what several shooting instrucors told me.

When I shot the HKG36, I was surprised how easy it was to shoot it well, much unlike the G3 which needed much more training.
 
The debates been settled, from a practical point of view: optics are better than irons, in training, in the field, period; to the point that irons have been relegated to the role of back-up devises.

Oh sure, there are "hanger-oners" for the iron sights. They usually, imo, don't know what they don't know. Put them behind quality optics for a while and they frequently change their tune. I know, it happened to me. ;)
 
Don't forget that an ACOG or a red-dot is much easier to acquire at night than iron sights.

I imagine this is particularly true in an artificially-lit urban setting when the ambient light level prevents your eyes from adjusting to the darkness, but you may have to shoot at a target standing in the shadows.
 
The debates been settled, from a practical point of view: optics are better than irons, in training, in the field, period; to the point that irons have been relegated to the role of back-up devises.
Click to expand...

Whilst optics may be better, 3x scopes aren't necessarily. I love my ACOGs, but they are not very useful inside 50 yards because they provide too much magnification if you are trying to find a threat quickly. The FOV is just too small. Magnification causes a greater hinderance for clearing buildings.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. The right tool for the right job, and all of that. Which is why the military has moved to a variety of optics, with the mission driving the issue, as it should be.
 
Because people have gotten lazy. Its kind of sad when you have people hitting the berm at 50-100 yards instead of the mansized target.

The optics are better suited for todays combat, but only by a hair especially in Iraq. In afghanistan where ranges are longer its understandable. But it shouldnt require a magnified scope to hit someone and hit them accurately. Dont get me wrong, because I love my acog, and love the aimpoint as well, but I still have love for iron sights.

While on the subject, I read in the Marine Corps Times that if your unit issued optics, you can use it on qual. That is complete BS in my opinion. I havent been in near as long as the MSgt. above, but to me the 200-500 yard qualifying shoot is where you exercise the fundementals, and the EMPs and such are where you exercise the type of shooting you'd be doing in theater.

-Max.
 
It is worth noting that when you have iron sights, you have to line up the rear and front and your eye behind the rear sight. When you have optics, you only need to worry about your eye and the optics. This takes one element out of the equation and thus helps in target acquisition. With reflex sights, however, you now have to worry about mounting and batteries. And with magnified scopes, you have to worry about mounting and field of view. With all of these elements in mind, the decision of which one is better would depend on specific elements of where you are and what you are trying to accomplish.
 
It is one thing to hang with the iron sights, single-shots, blackpowder acartridges and what all for hunting but you need every advantage you can get in combat. Most of my hunting guns don't have optics. I had a personal 3x Colt scope sight on my M16 and that was back in 1985...
 
As was mentioned before, the military is moving toward a combination of 3x power and 1x power optics. Having used a 4x scope in some wargaming, I do not think that range is useful for close engagements. Too much time is lost if the target leaves the field of view. For close range work, non-magnifying sights, like aimpoints, eotechs, etc. work great. Target aquisition is faster for relatively new/stressed-out shooters. (I don't know about experienced shooters, as I am not one).

The local AF Security Forces personnel carry M4s with Aimpoints (M68s) and back-up irons.
 
I dont know how you guys feel, but I think iron sights is the best all-around option. The scopes can easily be hit, smashed, fogged, etc.
Click to expand...

If it breaks you've still got a back up iron sight on rifle. If it doesn't break, you've got a much more effective weapon. ACOGs are quite durable -- I've never seen one take a round (and am sure that would deadline it), but I've seen them dropped and abused and keep running just fine.

Why has the military chosen the optical sight route? Are more targets at longer ranges now?
Click to expand...

Improved hit percentages at pretty much all ranges is one reason. Improved ability to acquire targets and discriminate between bad guys and civilians are also big considerations.
 
Because people have gotten lazy. Its kind of sad when you have people hitting the berm at 50-100 yards instead of the mansized target.

The optics are better suited for todays combat, but only by a hair especially in Iraq. In afghanistan where ranges are longer its understandable. But it shouldnt require a magnified scope to hit someone and hit them accurately. Dont get me wrong, because I love my acog, and love the aimpoint as well, but I still have love for iron sights.

While on the subject, I read in the Marine Corps Times that if your unit issued optics, you can use it on qual. That is complete BS in my opinion. I havent been in near as long as the MSgt. above, but to me the 200-500 yard qualifying shoot is where you exercise the fundementals, and the EMPs and such are where you exercise the type of shooting you'd be doing in theater.

-Max.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a matter of laziness, as many of the gunners (infantry weapons officers) will point out even in grunt units many Marines cannot use the ACO/RCO, let alone to its full capability. Many Marines don't know how to mount it, zero it or to apply correct range or hold offs. And this truelly goes back to a massive training issue that much of the Marine Corps does a hand waive that by merely issuing it and the small amount of training given will suffice to deploying units. When the gunner from 3rd Marines started have the Rgt shoot with the RCO on Tables 1, he got a lot of push back from the rifle range mafia, but by doing this he was able to ID the shortcomings of current training when it came from transition from Irons to RCOs.

Also as it stands right now the ACOG has a higher MBF between total failure than the weapons it is mounted on.
 
This may be overkill, but would it be feasible to mount a 3x (or 10x, or whatever) to the top of your rifle and a 1x red-dot at about a 45 or 135 degree angle, perhaps on the handguard?

scottz0369, thank you for your service.
 
This may be overkill, but would it be feasible to mount a 3x (or 10x, or whatever) to the top of your rifle and a 1x red-dot at about a 45 or 135 degree angle, perhaps on the handguard?
Click to expand...
Certainly. Lots of gamers do. Or you can mount the 1x on top of your magnified sight - like ACOG.

TA31ECOSweb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top