Results 21 to 24 of 24
-
Moderator
Achievements:- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 6,835
- Points
- 11,453
Posted On:
12/14/2010 9:23pm -
Featherweight
Achievements:- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 17
- Points
- 87
Posted On:
12/16/2010 3:43pm
Style: TKD--
Ok, I don't know that much about rifles, but to me a sight or a scope mounted that far forward doesn't make a lot of sense to me. To me it would make more sense to have the sight further back, closer to my eyeball. A scope that far forward looks like it would cause a lot of strain on my eyes.
To me, this picture below makes more sense:
-
Watch and Shoot !
Achievements:- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Posts
- 10,003
- Points
- 28,082
Posted On:
12/16/2010 5:12pm
--
There isn't any that I can understand.
Originally Posted by BadUglyMagic
What is the rational to this?
That aimpoint has no magnification but still requires eye relief for the optics to present the widest field of view which I think is around 150mm and, for the shooter to be confident the dot he's seeing is actually 'on' where he thinks he's aiming.
Additionally, if you take a close look at the height of the aimpoint over the height of the rear iron sight and where the roll of the cheek would be on the rifle, the two are quite miss-matched."To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men".
~Ella Wheeler
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
United States Marine.
Posted On:
12/14/2010 8:20pm
Style: RJJA Jujitsu, MCMAP