https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...Early%20Bird%20Brief

Here’s what your next, more powerful Marine Corps rifle optic will look like

By: Shawn Snow   19 hours ago

The Corps’ next rifle optic will be more powerful and allow Marines to acquire targets at further distances.

It is known as the squad common optic, or SCO, and the Corps may order between 18,000 and 30,000 of them, according to a recent request for information posted on the government’s business opportunities website.

The Corps’ information request laid out some of the details the Corps is seeking in its new optic, which include up to eight times magnification and the ability to engage targets between 600–900 meters.

That’s slightly more powerful than the four times magnification and 800 meter range of the Corps’ currently fielded Trijicon manufactured rifle combat optic, or RCO.

The Corps also wants its new optic to weigh less than 2.1 pounds and come with an eye relief of 3.1 inches to 3.7 inches. Eye relief is the distance a shooter needs to keep their eye from the lens of the optic to maintain a proper field of view.

The Marines also are requesting backup iron sights with the squad common optic. Should an optic become impaired, run out of battery power or be damaged, backup iron sights will allow a Marine to stay in the fight and engage targets with precision.

“Front and rear iron sights shall be immediately usable upon removal of the squad common optic,” the posting reads.

In its latest budget request, the Corps is sinking nearly $19 million into its new higher powered replacement for the Trijicon-manufactured rifle combat optic.

Procurement of the squad common optic is expected to begin fourth quarter of 2020, and fielding will commence by second quarter of 2021, Maj. Ken Kunze, a spokesman for Marine Corps Systems Command, told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement.

“[T]he Corps is seeking in its new optic, which include up to eight times magnification ….
“That’s slightly more powerful than the four times magnification ….”

Eight is slightly more than four—? Gosh; who knew? Is that Marine Corps math in action?

Thanks as always for posting. Nice to see more recognition of the fact that optical sights are superior to irons for hitting small targets at distance.

Less than 2.1 pounds? I would think you would want it to weigh a lot less.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“[T]he Corps is seeking in its new optic, which include up to eight times magnification ….
“That’s slightly more powerful than the four times magnification ….”

Eight is slightly more than four—? Gosh; who knew? Is that Marine Corps math in action?

Thanks as always for posting. Nice to see more recognition of the fact that optical sights are superior to irons for hitting small targets at distance.

So, it's not just me. Phew, good to know.

Seriously why? The 4X and 3.5X do very well at normal engagement ranges. Maybe for the DMR but not per capita.

It does kinda sound like they're more interested in information than expanded range.

quote:

Originally posted by Citadel:
Seriously why? The 4X and 3.5X do very well at normal engagement ranges. Maybe for the DMR but not per capita.

I'd guess the number of busted ACOGs is starting to concern someone, and they'd rather not just go buy more when a viable variable optic might be available at the same, or similar price, and meet the needs better?

The article seems to be written for a person with relatively limited experience with rifles. In other words, not for the average person who reads the Mason' Rifle Room section of SF.com. But since the scope search is still in its infancy, information is quite limited.

For my non-military use, a 1-8x scope is more useful than a 1-4x or a fixed 4x optic. I'll let those who serve to weigh in on their needs.

The 2.1 pound weight limit should be easy if the scope is a 1-8x -- Nightforce's models make this in spades. With this weight limit, a scope with a top magnification of 16x or even 20x might be possible.

IMO a big challenge with a 1-8x zoom scope is its reticle design. A SFP design allows for an simple reticle, but with subtensions which have limited use. A FFP design provides useful subtentions through much of the zoom range, but the reticle needs a dual-size design -- similar to the new Nightforce design.

Time will tell.

quote:

The Corps’ information request laid out some of the details the Corps is seeking in its new optic, which include up to eight times magnification and the ability to engage targets between 600–900 meters.

Here's my question;
What weapon are they putting it on?
Not the M-4's. At best, the M-27 is working out to 600M.

Designated marksman weapons? Sniper Rifles?

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
similar to the new Nightforce design.

What are you referring to? Can you provide a link to a description?

I too wonder what the intended purpose of a 1-8× scope for infantrymen might be and what weapon(s) it might be mounted on. Was that specification dreamed up by some avid 3-gun competitor? As stated, the fanciest, most powerful scope in the world won’t turn an M4 into a 900 meter killer. Unless, of course, like the ladder sights on broom handle Mausers the intended targets are horse cavalry formations maneuvering in the open. Such a sight might be suitable for designated marksmen with the proper weapons, but not for true snipers either.

As for the 2.1 pound (1 kg?) weight, if the Marines are destroying ACOG sights at a faster-than-can-be-replaced rate, what will they do with a (presumably) 1-8× variable? I suspect that any manufacturer attempting to meet the contract specifications will be using every gram of weight permitted to make the sight as robust as possible.

The NX-8 and ATCAR 1-8x.

Both have FFP reticles where at 1x it is essentially a RDS but as the magnification increases, a useable reticle emerges.

Many LPV optics with FFP have failed to make a usable reticle through the power range - typically because they don’t have daylight bright reticles - which isn’t a huge issue with SFP, but with FFP it seems to be the requirement because at 1x, the reticle is too small to be seen.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
The NX-8

Thank you; I understand now.
That reticle is very similar to the one in the Leupold Mark 6 1-6×20mm that has been around for a few years.

Added: Many more details about specifications here.

Yes, same general concept as the MK6 1-6x.

This shows the difference from 1x and 8x, highlighting the need to have the reticle usable throughout the power range.

At 1x you need some bold stadia and or daylight visible illum to make it useful.

The NX-8 is VERY daylight visible throughout the top 1/2 of it's illumination range, while not as mindnumbingly easy to get behinds as a Vortex Razor / Viper 1-6 or Aimpoint RDS, it is very easy to use as a Red Dot a 1x and even without illum, the 3 bold stadia lines allow you to use it just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
similar to the new Nightforce design.

What are you referring to? Can you provide a link to a description?

I too wonder what the intended purpose of a 1-8× scope for infantrymen might be and what weapon(s) it might be mounted on. Was that specification dreamed up by some avid 3-gun competitor? As stated, the fanciest, most powerful scope in the world won’t turn an M4 into a 900 meter killer. Unless, of course, like the ladder sights on broom handle Mausers the intended targets are horse cavalry formations maneuvering in the open. Such a sight might be suitable for designated marksmen with the proper weapons, but not for true snipers either.

As for the 2.1 pound (1 kg?) weight, if the Marines are destroying ACOG sights at a faster-than-can-be-replaced rate, what will they do with a (presumably) 1-8× variable? I suspect that any manufacturer attempting to meet the contract specifications will be using every gram of weight permitted to make the sight as robust as possible.

Is this perhaps anticipating conversion to the 6.8mm? That cartridge will have the reach, but in the hands of the average infrantryman?

quote:

Originally posted by Citadel:
Seriously why? The 4X and 3.5X do very well at normal engagement ranges. Maybe for the DMR but not per capita.

i agree. i am no expert in this area but IMO the 4x fixed is about the 'perfect' magnification for a standard rifleman

enough of a good thing but not too much...

--------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by muzzleloader:
Is this perhaps anticipating conversion to the 6.8mm?

That will be interesting to see.
I am of course only speculating like the rest of us, but some additional thoughts.

If it’s simply a matter of seeing and being able to aim at a man-sized target at 900 meters, 8× is not necessary. Even 4-power magnification makes 900m equivalent to naked eye viewing at 225 meters, and back when we transitioned from spears to M14 rifles, we Army basic trainees were expected to see—and hit—silhouette targets out to 350 meters with iron sights. And although a cartridge like the 6.8mm SPC loaded with 115 grain FMJ bullets may (I haven’t checked the ballistics) have more energy at 900 meters than the 5.56mm NATO, that’s not the issue in my opinion.

The question is whether shooters using that round in common military weapons will be capable of hitting targets at such distances even if they are very skilled. I can see and hit full sized silhouette targets at 225 meters (~250 yards) the proverbial “all day long” shooting Lake City military grade ammo from a garden variety AR equipped with an Aimpoint sight. On the other hand, hitting a similar target at 900 yards, much less 900 meters (984 yards), is no simple matter for me—and that’s as an above average marksman with premium quality 308 Winchester ammunition using a high quality rifle equipped with a scopesight whose magnification is much higher than 8×.

Moreover, a cartridge like the 6.8mm SPC is no champ for engaging long range targets. Again, when using the 7.62 in an M14, getting hits at 300-350 meters was tricky because of the need for precisely adjusting one’s point of aim due to the round’s steeply-dropping trajectory at such distances. When we switched to flat-shooting 50 grain 5.56 loads in the M16, that was suddenly not nearly as difficult.

Even with a scopesight reticle calibrated for the 6.8 load, shooters would be regressing back to the days of trying to qualify as expert on 300+ meter targets with the M14—only probably more so. According to Applied Ballistics and using one set of data for the 6.8, with a 100 meter zero, the bullet will drop over 12 inches from 300 to 350 meters, and over 50 inches from 700 to 750 meters. All that means range determinations and elevation adjustments become very critical. The 5.56 cartridge is hardly ideal for long range engagements, but neither is the 6.8mm SPC.

If the Marine Corps is truly serious about extending infantrymen’s hit capabilities to 900 meters, I hope someone there understands that they should be doing more than changing their scopesights.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by muzzleloader:
Is this perhaps anticipating conversion to the 6.8mm?

a cartridge like the 6.8mm SPC...

It has been discussed previously that the potential 6.8 cartridge is almost certainly not the existing 6.8 SPC, but more likely a cartridge which cannot be shoe horned into an AR-15 platform. The potential new cartridge's case may be in the ballpark capacity of the 308, or it may be somewhere between a 223 and a 308.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
[B]ut more likely a cartridge which cannot be shoe horned into an AR-15 platform.

And therefore a project involving much more than boosting the available magnification of the sights.

Then there is the fascinating question of what conceivable cartridge would give the average military shooter the capability of achieving the 900 meter hits that the 1-8× scopesight is intended to make possible while also being suitable for all the other demands of military combat: flat trajectory for engagements at different ranges, low recoil for automatic fire* and rapid follow-up shots, the ability to carry large ammunition loads comparable to what’s possible today, good weapon life, etc.
(I agree, BTW, about the SPC; that was an example to discuss a couple of points.)

* I sometimes wonder how many of us who remember the lesson of select fire M14 rifles are still around to ask such questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:

quote:

Originally posted by Citadel:
Seriously why? The 4X and 3.5X do very well at normal engagement ranges. Maybe for the DMR but not per capita.

i agree. i am no expert in this area but IMO the 4x fixed is about the 'perfect' magnification for a standard rifleman

enough of a good thing but not too much...

--------------------------------------------------

The push for 6x to 8x on everything is about target identification.

This is an issue of field conditions vs range conditions.

I have hit targets on known distance ranges out to 900 yards with a 4x ACOG. Cartridge issues aside, seeing a person who doesn’t want to be seen at that distance, or even half that distance, is a very different matter.

You have to see something to hit it and in the real world, you must positively ID your target/ opponent.

On the other end of the spectrum, while you can make a fixed 4x work at close range / indoor distances it is not optimal. This is why you see an RMR on the latest USMC ACOG as fielded on the M27IAR. A 2 optic solution is also sub optimal - hence the 1-8 requirement and SOCOMs extensive use of 1-6 optics such as the Vortex Razor II.

“Normal engagement ranges” in Afghanistan may, or may not be “normal engagement ranges” in what ever the next conflict is.

To quote Scott Jedlinski, “you need to train all the ranges.”

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:
The push for 6x to 8x on everything is about target identification.

quote:

eight times magnification and the ability to engage targets between 600–900 meters.

Based on the article, I thought it was about engaging targets out to 900 meters. Or are you saying that that’s already possible on a reasonably consistent basis with a 4-power optic on common infantry weapons, and the only problem is identifying valid targets at that distance?