I experienced a scenario yesterday that served as a wake-up call. It reminded me of match conditions fritz and offgrid mentioned in other discussions. A friend and I were exploring a piece of land owned by another friend; about fifty acres of wooded NE GA undulating terrain with a creek running through it. Our intent was to establish a general knowledge of the property, and install a couple targets, in an effort to create a scenario-based practice area. It wasn't until the end of our available time that we encountered what we thought was a good place to install a couple targets; about twenty meters apart from each other, each a six-inch painted black circle on a gray/brown paper, about two feet from the ground. After installing them, we decided to go back about 100 meters in the direction we had just come from, turn around, locate, and engage the targets. After only about 75 meters, we found ourselves on a small ridge that would obscure our view of the targets, had we gone the full 100. We opted to stop there. Upon turning around, the targets were not easily identifiable; they may as well have been invisible. We knew where they were, but they blended well-enough and there were enough tree trunks and other limbs that we couldn't see them. So we used our optics and moved around until we found them by hunting down loopholes. We determined one man would shoot one, and the other the other. We engaged, one shot each, and then moved laterally about 25 meters, and attempted to re-locate, and re-identify our targets; two more shots on each target after some time spent hunting them down. One more lateral move and two-shot engagement. Upon inspecting the targets, mine had two holes in it, and his had four. My second engagement had a line of sight, but not a clear path for the round, and both of those shots could have been derailed by limbs; my third engagement was potentially a hasty identification, and ended up being his target. Call them excuses, if you want; I assure you they are not; I am merely relaying points that I think are relevant to the discussion. Anyway, the point is these conditions create a hybrid scenario; almost "CQB" distances, when measured literally, but actually a climate that requires no less than 3x magnification readily available, and not inconsiderable time spent hunting the targets down, as if scanning a long-range arena. Another big take-away was the compromises made on cover, in favor of actually being able to engage your target. There may be a sweet piece of terrain or a big downed tree just feet away, but if you can't see your target from there, you ain't doing any shooting from there.

I spend a lot of time outside, and a lot of that is in the woods. I don't hunt. This experience reminded me that many folks that do hunt have an edge in this regard, so long as their hunt involves more than walking 100 meters into the treeline, to a stand, from their truck on the side of the road. Even still, if that stand is in the woods, and not a field overlook, the same skills are employed.

Depending on the intent of your training and practice, your targets aren't always bright paper or steel, and you're not always stationary. Also, a red dot with no magnifier really isn't worth squat in the environment I found myself in yesterday. Engagements were inside dot distance, but that magnification was essential in locating and identifying targets (and I still potentially mis-identified one).

It was a sobering and refreshing experience.

Everyone lives in different environments, and all those differing circumstances call for different gear and tactics. I promise I am never taking an unmagnified setup into the woods again, and I am going to make a conscious effort to incorporate more practice under these circumstances in the future. One thing we are definitely doing next time is making the targets more unique from each other, but still subtle; one green dot and one brown perhaps.

The magnification really is a crucial thing. I don't know that an unmagnified setup has any real justification outside a very purpose-driven, strictly-CQB indoor rig. If your circumstances have any possibility of you needing to locate and identify things past 50 meters, magnification is, in my opinion, required.

Something else worth mentioning is the current lack of vegetation. All hardships experienced will be that much worse come summer.

Another thing worth a mention, which was a recent topic in another thread, is an unmagnified alternative sighing method. I use an Elcan Specter, and the obtuse irons on top came in very handy; once a target was spotted, I easily put it in that sight picture, and then dropped my head down into the magnified view. I found that it was possible to lose the target if I went straight from a low-ready scanning posture to the 4x glass. Other members were recently discussing this as it applies to MRDS and scopes, in a long-range shooting application. Turns out is has an application at short ranges too, depending on the circumstances.

I've gotten misses and FTE's in rifle / 3 gun matches, shooting iron sight divisions, being colorblind and just not being able to pick out brown targets against a dirt berm. And this was when I could still see. Even with someone pointing them out to me and visually "walking me in" to them afterwards, I couldn't find them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cas,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Another thing worth a mention, which was a recent topic in another thread, is an unmagnified alternative sighing method. I use an Elcan Specter, and the obtuse irons on top came in very handy; once a target was spotted, I easily put it in that sight picture, and then dropped my head down into the magnified view. I found that it was possible to lose the target if I went straight from a low-ready scanning posture to the 4x glass. Other members were recently discussing this as it applies to MRDS and scopes, in a long-range shooting application. Turns out is has an application at short ranges too, depending on the circumstances.

It may not be as quick, I'm not sure, but with some practice you can look "through" a scope with both eyes open and kind of see the dot or crosshairs with the eye behind the scope and the unmagnified view with the eye not behind the scope and use the dot or crosshairs with your unmagnified view, then when you're lined up, just start looking through the scope as usual.

I've done it quite a bit hunting when there's a group of deer or turkeys and I want to make sure I shoot a specific one out of the group.

I shot a carbine match a few years ago using an Aimpoint T1 red dot. The course was set up to be multiple close paper targets and then transition to 10” plates at random distances out to 150yds.
The plates were painted white, and set on berms with foliage around them.

The problem I ran into was all the shooters before me hitting the plates the bullet splash turned them grey, and became tough to identify. The guys running LPVO’s had no issues and dominated.

The next time they ran the match the stages were set up very similarly. This time I brought my carbine with a TA31 ACOG on it, and target identification was no problem at all.
The combination of magnification, clear glass, and crisp chevron aiming point made the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
see the dot or crosshairs with the eye behind the scope and the unmagnified view with the eye not behind the scope and use the dot or crosshairs with your unmagnified view, then when you're lined up, just start looking through the scope as usual.

I think they call that the Bindon aiming concept. I am familiar with it, but I don't know that it would work for me in that scenario. I had to look friggen hard to find the target(s); if I was employing that technique, I think my non-multitasking self would be distracted and unable to focus well-enough with just the one eye. I'll try it next time though.

quote:

Originally posted by GCE61:
I shot a carbine match a few years ago using an Aimpoint T1 red dot.

I love the Aimpoint Micro. My eyes are good enough that I can use it to engage a torso-size target past 300 meters. This is on an open range though. Like you say, when target ID comes into play, it just doesn't cut the mustard.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
see the dot or crosshairs with the eye behind the scope and the unmagnified view with the eye not behind the scope and use the dot or crosshairs with your unmagnified view, then when you're lined up, just start looking through the scope as usual.

I think they call that the Bindon aiming concept. I am familiar with it, but I don't know that it would work for me in that scenario. I had to look friggen hard to find the target(s); if I was employing that technique, I think my non-multitasking self would be distracted and unable to focus well-enough with just the one eye. I'll try it next time though.

Trijicon called it that and made a big deal out of it. I think they were trying to convince people that ACOGs were the bee’s knees for everything and there was no need for red dots.

At some point there was an early red dot sight that you couldn’t actually see through at all, you saw the dot in the closed tube with the eye behind the sight and the target with the other eye. It apparently worked OK. I can’t remember what it was called and couldn’t find it with a cursory Google.

I’ve done it with hunting rifles since before I knew any of that stuff existed.

You're describing an occluded eye gunsight. Brand names most often associated are Armson and Single Point, and they were used by special military units as early as Vietnam. Though the OEG method can be employed with an ACOG, the Bindon concept, as I understand it, is more about situational awareness and target tracking, as you described in your first post. What Trijicon meant, in their literature, is anyone's guess.

The Single Point sight with its “occluded eye” operation was reportedly used by the Army Special Forces personnel during the Son Tay raid to free American POWs in North Vietnam. According to what I’ve read, it was the first experience the raiders (most, anyway) had with a dot reticle of that type. Despite the ground-breaking principle of its operation and its reported effectiveness at the time, it has long been superseded by the much more common illuminated dot reticle sights like the Aimpoint line.

An occluded vision sight would be unusable for someone like me who has poor distant vision in my nondominant (left) eye, and another significant disadvantage is how much of the shooter’s field of view it blocks even with perfect vision in both eyes. Also think of what would happen if the shooter had an injury or otherwise vision was blocked in one eye. Even with poor vision in my left eye, I have very good scanning ability across a wide arc if I can see through the sight.

Added: I don’t know how it applies to the thread topic, but when using a nonmagnifying sight like an Aimpoint my method is to locate and focus on the target (as I would do if someone were shooting at me), and use my peripheral vision to bring the reticle of the sight onto the target.

In thinking about the comments in the original post, I can understand how magnification would make it possible to find targets that can’t otherwise be seen, but having to do that is obviously a slow process. The videos I’ve seen of National Rifle League “hunter” matches demonstrate that scanning to locate a target is most effective at lower magnifications and then shooters must often note where the target is in relation to some obvious landmark in order to find it again with their higher-powered rifle scopes.

There is an old photo of an Army Special Forces member of the Studies and Observation Group with some sort of conventional rifle scope mounted on the carrying handle of his rifle, and I can only wonder what purpose that served in the jungles of Vietnam. I almost think that it was a posed photo with a setup that the soldier had been able to kludge together for effect rather than something that would have been used in combat.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In thinking about the comments in the original post, I can understand how magnification would make it possible to find targets that can’t otherwise be seen, but having to do that is obviously a slow process. The videos I’ve seen of National Rifle League “hunter” matches demonstrate that scanning to locate a target is most effective at lower magnifications and then shooters must often note where the target is in relation to some obvious landmark in order to find it again with their higher-powered rifle scopes.

In the OP, I intended to convey exactly the method you describe here. Scan-for and locate a potential target with the unaided eye, and then identify and confirm with magnification. I found myself using the landmark method you describe, but I'd do well to just bring the optic into my line of sight with my peripheral, as you suggest. The necessity of magnification was the biggest take-away from that day. The speed associated with dots, and the square/flat/open range most of us spend most of our time on has many feeling as though a red dot is all they need on their go-to, general purpose carbine; I think that's wrong. Everyone's use-case is different, and I already acknowledged the exemption of a dedicated indoor CQB setup, but I think folks without magnification on their general purpose gun are ill-equipped.

Thanks for reminding me about the details of occluded eye sights, KSGM and sigfreund.

I can't imagine there being any practical advantages of an occluded eye red dot sight over a look-through red dot sight, aside from (presumably) being easier to make with Vietnam war-era technology, and there are some significant drawbacks, as sigfreund mentioned.

As a hunter, I am a big fan of low magnification (3-4x) and both eyes open for scanning. I have ingrained checking and setting the power of my scope whenever I settle into a location, based on the likely distance of shooting and thickness of cover. I recently dropped a 1-4x20 Leupold onto a 7x57 for close quarters deer hunting.