Why has the military moved to 3x scopes?

Hokie,
As mentioned, yes. And not just by gamers... The Aimpoint T-1 is very popular with folks in harm's way who need a high quality, robust, NVG compatible optic.

Folks CAN have nearly the best of both worlds these days, as it turns out. All three worlds, if you consider the various BUIS options.
 
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...

Yes it can be done. They are sometimes called "tri-rings"

mnt-168r25-m.jpg


It's kinda looked upon as a ghetto setup. However, if you do it right it works and at a fraction of the price of a ACOG. You are going to sacrifice durability and weight of course vs a ACOG.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I doubt it to be the case. Marines and infantry still know how to use the iron sights in my experience. However, any soldier with a 3x scope is both quicker and more accurate at medium ranges. Head shots, or shots at whatever target presents itself, are much easier to make with a scope.

Frankly, I'm well impressed with modern combat units, their tactics and their gear. SOF personnel are much better trained and equipped than would have been the case 20 years ago. There really isn't a comparison, IMO.

Support units are a different story. Too many Jessica Lynch stories. Those NCOs should have been court-martialed rather than treated like heroes.
 
nemoaz said:
Support units are a different story.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. The amount of training in shooting fundamentals greatly improved in support units in the last ten years. I just left an STB back in July and the last thing I did before starting clearing post was three weeks of intensive shooting exercises. Soldiers were not allowed to leave the qualificaqtion range unless they were making a 75% hit rate. CCOs and BUISes were both zeroed. Quals were done day and night. A vehicle gunnery range was run. A live-fire assault course was also run where the troops moved as teams through it. All of this was done quarterly unless a training center rotation was scheduled, and while there the support troops went through the same training events that the combat troops did prior to the force-on-force exercise.

If you're basing your opinion on the 507th Maintenance Company, things have changed and you need to update your thinking. If you're basing your opinion on what you have seen recently, that's the commander's fault because the opportunities are there to train the same as the combat arms guys.
 
I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing many more advancments in this segment of optical sights. Think all in one. Most likely to be nightvision compatable, with variable zoom starting at 1x or none up to and beyond 10x, multiple reticals (including bullet drop compensator with range estimation for long range and halo sight for close up). There are some really good optics that offer some of the above but none in one package...yet!

Ultimately I think we'll end up with less of an optic and more of a digital camera sight that has IR maybe even Thermal imaging capablities with laser rangefinder that will display the images via lcd with output feed to HUD or goggles. They've been working this for some time but for now systems are too power hungry and heavy.
 
Iron sights?!

While I love the old school feel of looking through some AR iron sights it's impractical. I used an aimpoint and an EOtech (both with a 3x magnifier) and the illumination saved my life. In low light situations (for instance around 7pm in my situation) the ability to line a red or green target on a moving object is paramount. The need for 3x magnification is a bit extreme in CQM but with a flip to side magnifier there's no problem. Also the 3x magnifier helps when you are outside of city limits or if you just need to see a target area in better detail.
 
The chiefs buy the scalping knives...

The old saw horse of the Indian Braves feet dragging on the ground, just because some one else bought the horses.

Whatever you use, it must work with both eyes open! And be of a rapid, up mount/cheek/fire, just like that.

My own favorite, especially for light gathering, the Steyr AUG, with the standard 1.5 power scope, the one that takes a 6 ft drop on the scope and keeps on working.

Mine has just a circle as a reticle, real quick. Good for 100 yard head shots.
 
If your scope is shot off your gun...wouldn't that mean you probably just got shot in the face?
Click to expand...
Depends, if the person shooting you is in front of you. Yea, probably. If you've been flanked and they are shooting off to your side, not necessarily.
 
Personal preference i guess

I suppose that's what it always comes down to. I prefer to use either an aimpoint or a similar scope that's adjustable from 1x-3.5x (such as the leupold version). Not only does it make it easier for a less experienced person to keep both eyes open for target acquisition, it helps me personally with a slightly overpowering scope because I'm left eye dominant shooting a rifle right handed! the slight magnification of a 1.5x-2.5x isn't enough to mess up my depth perception or vision but it makes sure that I'm shooting right eye dominant when I'm shooting right handed. Its force of habit for me to shoot left eye dominant with my pistol because my left eye is much more dominant than my right but the scope makes all the difference when using a carbine.
 
If your scope is shot off your gun...wouldn't that mean you probably just got shot in the face?
Click to expand...

Mythbusters did an episode where they tested that very thing. Remember th movie "Sniper"? They were not able to make a bullet go front to back through a scope, too much "stuff" in the way. That said, I'd not want to be the guy on the backside.
 
I read Carlos Hathcock's book many many years ago, but I seem to recall that he shot an NVA or VietCong sniper either through the enemy's scope, or perhaps just took the shot at the reflection of the enemy's scope and thus killed him; the bullet might not have gone through the scope Hollywood style though. Anyway that was a very interesting book.
 
Mythbusters did an episode where they tested that very thing. Remember th movie "Sniper"? They were not able to make a bullet go front to back through a scope, too much "stuff" in the way. That said, I'd not want to be the guy on the backside.
Click to expand...
They used a modern, high magnification hunting scope. Using SP ammo too IIRC. Completely wrong for the myth. A 3x is going to have MUCH less glass separating things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top