I have been eyeballing the TA02/RMR06 combo for quite some time. But my dislike for big purchases has stopped me. Came home today and found one on my desk. Turns out my SO got tired of my grumbling about it and ordered one.

Zeroing the RMR from probe was a little bit of a feat. I can’t get a bit of cheek weld from the prone. But man the set up is slick. It’s really neat for a GP optic rifle set up

And now you can hang out in the cool kids CQB club with all their ultra-tall red dot mounts, without having to drop a couple benjamins on acquiring a 3" Unity/Goobers mount.

All these years, piggybacked RMRs weren't "too tall" after all, they were just ahead of their time...

Well my work gun has an Aimpoint on a Unity 2.26 mount. I like it under a pro mask or NODS.

Meanwhile my guys are about an even split between:
“I want the coolest new InstaThingy™️ mount I saw the other day with a supercool 87X Hubble scope because tactical acquisition at the initial phase of contact” and…

“can I still wedge my 62 oz MonsterBangCreatine™️ energy drink can on top of it in our one size fits most vehicle mount?
Cause I don’t know, I guess… caffeine?

Bill R

I have a Meprolight M21 on a gooseneck carry handle mount arriving today.

I wanted the Trijicon RX10, but this is half the price.

I used to have that setup. I zeroed the rmr off a rest using a couch pillow as a riser. It worked ok. I eventually switched the Rmr to an SRO and accepted the breakage risk (much better reticle)

I found that the whole setup was way too complex to use under pressure. I bolted it to a sims gun a few times to test it. While using it in FOF scenarios, I would introduce a hesitation in choosing the “correct” sight.

So I went back to an aimpoint pro on a standard mount. (Keep in mind I am not issued NVDs in my present gig, so the height issue is non existent for me).

Given that, at anything past 25 yds, the ACOG is awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by car541:
While using it in FOF scenarios, I would introduce a hesitation in choosing the “correct” sight.

A nice example of Hick’s Law about how the number of choices we have affects our ability to decide and act quickly.

With enough practice we humans can learn to perform very complex tasks, but that’s a big “if.” If a sighting system is only intended for nonserious purposes then at worst it can affect standings in this or that competition, but if it’s, “No, this is about important stuff,” it’s something we should be evaluating and judging as a practical matter. I’ve never worked with using two different sighting systems under stress myself, but I can certainly understand how becoming able to do it as effectively as possible would require some serious time and effort.

Cool SO!

I have limited experience with them. ACOG with the Doctr RMR. The original Doctrs weren’t that durable, and if banged around would lose zero. Still an awesome setup!

They are great! But they do take a little getting used to.
Cheek weld for the ACOG. That’s easy because that’s what you’ve been doing for God knows how long.
Chin weld for the RMR. You’re more “heads up” on the RMR. (Ill rant about that later)

Not a bad setup for a GP weapon. But it takes getting used to!
As stated, under stress, you’ve been doing “X” for soo long, now you have “Y” as an option.
Im used to face down, nose on charging handle. Eye picks up the sight immediately because my head is “right there”. Thousands of times.

Now option “Y” comes along and 2 inches higher is my new sight. - chin weld
But Im so used to cheek weld. I’m not used to it.

And as Rogue said- all the cool kids today are using them.
I’ll preface this by saying- all the respect in the world to the Tier 2 and Tier 1 teams in the Military. Tier 1 guys have damn near unlimited resources, and are able to have access to some amazing stuff. They train, and train, and train all day to get it right.
“Hey, does this work?”
“Hmmm, does this work better?”

So now, and again, all the respect in the world- there’s a few former Tier 1 guys who have their own training company, post good stuff on YouTube. They put their products on their website, show it on YouTube. Now a taller mount is all the rage!
I’m not saying it is, I’m not saying it isn’t. I dont have enough time on them to make a valid point. Maybe the 45 degree mount is quicker. Maybe you’re gonna smoke me with your 45 degree mount because you have a shit-load of hours rotating that AR just a little to the left, and I don’t have a lot of time picking my head up.

If I remember correctly, the ACOG & Doctr came out first. RMR is basically on a taller mount.
Then the 45 Degree offset became the rage.
Now we’re back to the taller mount.
I don’t know why.

What I will say is- and as you, and a whole lot of others here already know is-
To get good at what you’re doing takes a lot of time, effort and practice. Knowing and being comfortable with your gear is also key.

I much prefer the offset mount next to the ACOG over the super high mount on the top. The transition feels quicker, too.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
I much prefer the offset mount next to the ACOG over the super high mount on the top. The transition feels quicker, too.

Bingo.
Rumor has it that optics manufacturers may soon debut a new type of device. I believe the acronym is something like LPVO. Could be interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Bingo.
Rumor has it that optics manufacturers may soon debut a new type of device. I believe the acronym is something like LPVO. Could be interesting.

Besides the obvious factor of personal preference, rotating my rifle slightly is still faster than reaching up to turn down an LPVO with my off hand. There are also plenty of setups that have both an LPVO and offset red dot.

I also feel an offset mount is better than vertically stacked optics. When set up correctly for the user, with the right stock & mounts, it's pretty easy to rotate the rifle 45-ish degrees to the red dot.

If you want to extol the virtues of 45 degree mounts start your own thread and stop crapping on mine.

For those with the high mount on top of an ACOG, are you lifting to the higher sight or tilting the rifle and using the left eye for that? I tried the high mount and didn’t like the awkwardly high appearance. I also didn’t like having my right eye exposed to the ejection port when tilted left.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
If you want to extol the virtues of 45 degree mounts start your own thread and stop crapping on mine.

I was just going to say that.
Let the guy enjoy his present for a day or so.
Jones is squared away and will figure out all the faster slower higher lower better worse for his own use case.

quote:

Originally posted by ss9961:
I was just going to say that.
Let the guy enjoy his present for a day or so.
Jones is squared away and will figure out all the faster slower higher lower better worse for his own use case.

Seriously. Guy gets a gift from his wife and it's a whole page of guys talking about how 45 degree mounts are superior and tall mounts are only for guys who want to look cool. What the fuck. You guys are acting like a buncha Boomer Fudds.

Please don’t think that my post was crapping on yours JLJ!

I can't speak from experience, when it comes to the "optics stack". I have never had a setup with two optical sights available simultaneously.

I can speak on the high-mount dot though.

It is non-negotiable, if someone wants to have full functionality in passive NV aiming.

I wonder if it's possible that the setup originated out of NV necessity, and was then applied otherwise due to the perceived impracticality of switching optic setups back-and-forth.

As previously discussed in other threads, I find the back-and-forth actually quite doable, and have employed it with success for the past couple years.

When it comes to the tall mounts in a CQB application, I find the upright posture they enable to be a boon. It's comfortable. I wouldn't care for a high-mount dot or dot/mag combo on a GP rifle.

In the circumstance of the ACOG/RMR stack specifically, I have always wondered about passive NVG use. I am used to an Eotech, and the window is both clear and generous. In my setup, it is also uncluttered. As in there is nothing for the NVG to bump into. Considering an ACOG is often mounted very far back, I wonder about interference with the NVG tube, when aiming passively through the RMR. Perhaps Jones can speak on this when he gets more time with the setup.

When it comes to in-the-moment optic selection when we have two options simultaneously available, I suppose it's a matter of training. I do think there's a real difference between the context of many match stages and a real "surprise" moment. Yes, a 45 degree dot is quite slick when we know we're going to use it here, here, and here, while employing the magnified option here and here.

In the context of a disciplined team that practices a lot, like JLJ, I think the dot mentality can be applied in the right contexts, and the magnified optic as the default in others. It's the "surprise!" circumstance that is the unknown, I suppose. But, even in a surprise near engagement, a well-trained and practiced shooter is going to put the rounds where they need to be, regardless of the optic he centers behind. Even if my magnification is inappropriate for the confines of the room, my presentation has me lined up.

jljones,
Any new feedback on the setup?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
jljones,
Any new feedback on the setup?

A while back, we discussed a do-all type optic set up. I think that this does a pretty good job.

I haven’t experienced the whole “wrong optic” thing. Even at closer distances, the ACOG is usable. There isn’t enough scope shadowing to throw the round left or right at closer distances. The RMR has a bit of a mechanical offset. That has taken some getting used to.

But the T2 in a 1.93 mount is still faster.