I'm planning my trip to the range for next Saturday and maybe find out how my 4x ACOG works out. I had not heard about the cross-dominant eye issue until this thread. That may or may not be an issue for me since several years ago I was left-eye dominant while being right handed. I was trying to learn to shot handgun with both eyes open and it took me a year or more of training to end up with a less dominant left eye. Now, when I do that triangle thing with my hands and bring it to my face they come back to my nose and neither eye. Maybe/hopefully that's why I have been able to make use of the BAC. However, I'll see if I can get some empirical data on that next weekend.MadMonkey wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:37 pm As far as the Bindon aiming concept, the original concept actually is for fast target acquisition, not necessarily shooting with both eyes open. It's hard to find (for me anyway) Bindon's original concept since there is so much misinformation, mainly thanks to the USMC who insisted on trying to use ACOGs as red dots which can be a big issue for someone who is cross dominant like myself (you'll be WAY off target at anything but very short ranges). The original idea was to keep both eyes open, acquire a target quickly by putting the lighted reticle over it, then transition to the scope view for firing. They're very fast this way.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Why setting up your rifle based on the mission is wrong”
- Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:57 pm
- Forum: Rifles & Shotguns
- Topic: Why setting up your rifle based on the mission is wrong
- Replies: 8
- Views: 16421
Re: Why setting up your rifle based on the mission is wrong
- Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:16 am
- Forum: Rifles & Shotguns
- Topic: Why setting up your rifle based on the mission is wrong
- Replies: 8
- Views: 16421
Re: Why setting up your rifle based on the mission is wrong
I'll have to give that a look see next time I can get out to the range. I have had a 4x ACOG on my M4 for a few years now. I have it zeroed for 100 yards and know where the POA/POI on the range marks on its reticle are at CQB distances. I've used it in only two 3-gun events and don't remember any problems. Next time I can get out I'll set up a few targets and see what the transitions are like at 25, 10, and 3-5 yards. Maybe even run my timer and compare the differences between the carbine and handgun. It sounds like spreadsheet time. I feel like Sheldon Cooper getting ready to write up some sort of contract agreement.Paladin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:58 amMy ACOG has the ACSS reticle which I find works just fine for close in shooting for me. The ACOG is slower with target transitions than the EOtech, but nothing beats and EOtech for transitions.
From 2009:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdfOne of the limiting factors of a magnified optic such as the ACOG, is that it is not ideal for close
quarters battle and multiple targets. To address this concern, one of the latest variants, the TA31F,
includes a red chevron aiming point, which uses the Bindon aiming concept. Under the Bindon aiming
concept the shooter keeps both eyes open and engages a target in a similar manner to the M68 red dot
sight. The red chevron is illuminated by tritium for nighttime use and fiber optic for daytime use. In
theory, the bright red chevron is similar to a red dot scope. At close distances, a shooter will
unconsciously transfer the red aiming point and unmagnified image presented by his non-dominate eye
into one picture to engage the target. One of the flaws of the Bindon aiming concept is that it relies on the shooter having the same
vision in both eyes. If not, the system does not work and the soldier is limited in using the optic in close
quarters battle. Additionally, the system works well for one target but is very slow if transitioning
between multiple targets, as the soldier will have to focus on the threat, un-focus, and re-focus on the
additional target.
