• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thoughts on the new army pistol to be

beerftw

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
19,711
Reaction score
5,946
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I am referring to the sig 320, a firearm I am worried about due to even now being unproven in military situations unlike it's older cousin the sig 229, vs it replacing a tried and true m9, which is aging but has time and time again proven itself in battle. Bow my concerns come from what I have researched on the armies tests, they only did 12500 rounds even though the army life for a handgun is 25000, there was no extreme testing, or even any real human testing on the range before this contract was awarded.

The army cut testing short and has refused to finish the testing, and the gao has admitted the glock 19 outperformed the sig in nearly every area. The tests done were at only half the rounds expected, in controlled environments, and no extreme durability testing, Which leaves one wondering how it will perform in the deserts of the middle east, or the freeing cold of alaska, or the jungles of africa and asia. The first real human testing not done controlled environment was earlier this year in august, months after the gun was already awarded the contract.

The is also the fiasco of sig being sued and many police departments banning it's use due to how easily they go off if dropped, they claim the army version has a different setup and does not suffer this problem. Sig is also being sued for blatent patent infringment by steyr over the modular frame they have patented, so if steyr wins both sig and the army could be in deep trouble. Also the glock 19 mhs has a manual safety, while the 320 has no safety.

This contract reeks of corruption, the gun awarded did poorly compared to it's competitor, the gun was chosen with very little proper testing, almost as if the gun was chosen before the contest began, and the 320 is a new design, one that is unproven, vs the glock 19 which is a modular version of a proven platform, as well as beretta's modular platform as well. It reminds me of the acu uniform that was chosen and was later admitted it performed poorly, causing the army to have it's shortest lived combat uniform.

In my opinion the glock, beretta, hk etc mhs systems should have been chosen over the sig, they all performed better in every area except cost.
 
I personally prefer the GLOCK-34/Gen4 and the HK45CT
 
I have not followed this process but don't understand why they are changing from the Beretta?
It is a proven weapon that has been in use for many years.


The Beretta M9, officially the Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9, is the designation for the Beretta 92 semi-automatic pistol by the United States Armed Forces as their service pistol. The M9 was adopted by the United States military in 1985.

The M9 won a competition in the 1980s to replace the M1911A1 as the primary sidearm of the U.S. military, beating many other contenders, and only narrowly defeating the SIG P226 for cost reasons.[1] It officially entered service in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9
 
No hammer and no manual safety...it's a pice of ****.
 
apdst said:
No hammer and no manual safety...it's a pice of ****.
Click to expand...
It may or may not be. Time will tell. That said the weapon not having either a safety or a hammer has zero to due with it being a good or a bad weapon. In fact it missing those two things is an indicator that it’s a move in the right direction.
 
beerftw said:
I am referring to the sig 320, a firearm I am worried about due to even now being unproven in military situations unlike it's older cousin the sig 229, vs it replacing a tried and true m9, which is aging but has time and time again proven itself in battle. Bow my concerns come from what I have researched on the armies tests, they only did 12500 rounds even though the army life for a handgun is 25000, there was no extreme testing, or even any real human testing on the range before this contract was awarded.

The army cut testing short and has refused to finish the testing, and the gao has admitted the glock 19 outperformed the sig in nearly every area. The tests done were at only half the rounds expected, in controlled environments, and no extreme durability testing, Which leaves one wondering how it will perform in the deserts of the middle east, or the freeing cold of alaska, or the jungles of africa and asia. The first real human testing not done controlled environment was earlier this year in august, months after the gun was already awarded the contract.

The is also the fiasco of sig being sued and many police departments banning it's use due to how easily they go off if dropped, they claim the army version has a different setup and does not suffer this problem. Sig is also being sued for blatent patent infringment by steyr over the modular frame they have patented, so if steyr wins both sig and the army could be in deep trouble. Also the glock 19 mhs has a manual safety, while the 320 has no safety.

This contract reeks of corruption, the gun awarded did poorly compared to it's competitor, the gun was chosen with very little proper testing, almost as if the gun was chosen before the contest began, and the 320 is a new design, one that is unproven, vs the glock 19 which is a modular version of a proven platform, as well as beretta's modular platform as well. It reminds me of the acu uniform that was chosen and was later admitted it performed poorly, causing the army to have it's shortest lived combat uniform.

In my opinion the glock, beretta, hk etc mhs systems should have been chosen over the sig, they all performed better in every area except cost.
Click to expand...

I have the Sig 320 Compact with a Romeo red dot optic. So far it's 100% reliable. I also had the full size 320 for a while (sold it) and it was 100% reliable also.

Other reliable sidearms I can recommend are the Springfield TRP Operator 1911, the Glock 19, the HK P30L, and the Sig 226 and 229. All those have also been 100% reliable for me so far.
 
Ha! I guessed Sig before I opened the thread.

Oops, how did I end up in Military sub-forum thread?
 
braindrain said:
It may or may not be. Time will tell. That said the weapon not having either a safety or a hammer has zero to due with it being a good or a bad weapon. In fact it missing those two things is an indicator that it’s a move in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I never was much for having to carry a pistol while in the infantry, just one more not very useful thing to keep track of. I did learn a bit more while working at a range after I got out. I have no use for an exposed hammer, but have found a manual safety to be very useful. I like the MP and XD series- rugged, and the manual safety an added level of protection from fumble fingering the trigger while presenting the pistol.

I do believe in K.I.S.S. but a military weapon without a positive safety just seems to buck a time honored and blood proven tradition. The so-called 'grease gun' was first issued without a positive safety. After a few deaths and injuries a new model was issued with a positive safety.

Justa thought... :peace
 
braindrain said:
It may or may not be. Time will tell. That said the weapon not having either a safety or a hammer has zero to due with it being a good or a bad weapon. In fact it missing those two things is an indicator that it’s a move in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Striker fired pistols are well known and have been proven, however the no safety is a bad idea, especially on a striker fire system. Glock has forever used a safety on the trigger due to the tendancy of striker fired pistols to fire on their own if bumped or dropped, which happens when the trigger moves and allows the striker to fire the round. The trigger safety pretty much eliminated that problem, other companies have found other ways or just copied glock. There was no failsafe in the p320, the companies fix was to adjust the trigger weight to make it harder to move on it's own if not pulled, which is a bad design by implementing a problem gunmakers aready had a solution for decades ago.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
I have not followed this process but don't understand why they are changing from the Beretta?
It is a proven weapon that has been in use for many years.


The Beretta M9, officially the Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9, is the designation for the Beretta 92 semi-automatic pistol by the United States Armed Forces as their service pistol. The M9 was adopted by the United States military in 1985.

The M9 won a competition in the 1980s to replace the M1911A1 as the primary sidearm of the U.S. military, beating many other contenders, and only narrowly defeating the SIG P226 for cost reasons.[1] It officially entered service in 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9
Click to expand...

The army wanted a modular system, they wanted a single pistol for regular issue, mp issue, undercover investigators etc. I really think the one size fits all approach is a bad idea, especially since I rarely saw mp's with anything other than the m9, and undercover investigators in the army are too small a size to justify changing an entire design. Special forces already have permission to use non standard issue, so it is surely not aimed at the.

The army wanted a composite modular striker fired pistol capable of attaching a red dot sight to, which for the life of me I can not understand, a pistol is meant for close range, and at close range iron sights are beyond effective, infact the time I finally got issued an m9 and got to qual with it, I barely used the sights at all, as most targets at that range were close enough to hit just by pointing in it's direction.

In my opinion I think the changeover was made because officers griped about the m9 being too heavy, and it being too hard to qual with so they wanted red dots and whatever else could be attached.
 
notquiteright said:
I never was much for having to carry a pistol while in the infantry, just one more not very useful thing to keep track of. I did learn a bit more while working at a range after I got out. I have no use for an exposed hammer, but have found a manual safety to be very useful. I like the MP and XD series- rugged, and the manual safety an added level of protection from fumble fingering the trigger while presenting the pistol.

I do believe in K.I.S.S. but a military weapon without a positive safety just seems to buck a time honored and blood proven tradition. The so-called 'grease gun' was first issued without a positive safety. After a few deaths and injuries a new model was issued with a positive safety.

Justa thought... :peace
Click to expand...
My thoughts on this.
First of there is a very real difference between a rifle with a trigger that is exposed and a pistol that should have its trigger covered by a holster unless it’s being drawn and fired. And if your concern is accidentally pressing the trigger while presenting and you are using a safety to prevent that it’s more of a training issue then a equipment issue. First your safety should be off well before your finger gets near the trigger and second you should already be taking the slack out of the trigger while presenting it.
Also quite a few militaries and multiple units within the US military as well as hundreds if not thousands of police units are doing just fine using pistols without a safety. The Army hasn’t issued me a pistol with a safety on it for a very long time.
 
beerftw said:
The army wanted a modular system, they wanted a single pistol for regular issue, mp issue, undercover investigators etc. I really think the one size fits all approach is a bad idea, especially since I rarely saw mp's with anything other than the m9, and undercover investigators in the army are too small a size to justify changing an entire design. Special forces already have permission to use non standard issue, so it is surely not aimed at the.

The army wanted a composite modular striker fired pistol capable of attaching a red dot sight to, which for the life of me I can not understand, a pistol is meant for close range, and at close range iron sights are beyond effective, infact the time I finally got issued an m9 and got to qual with it, I barely used the sights at all, as most targets at that range were close enough to hit just by pointing in it's direction.

In my opinion I think the changeover was made because officers griped about the m9 being too heavy, and it being too hard to qual with so they wanted red dots and whatever else could be attached.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to disagree with your last two paragraphs completely. If you are not using your sites while shooting then whoever taught you to shoot didn’t know what he was doing. And I am not talking about the stupid Army qual but actual combat marksmanship with a pistol. My unit shoots more pistol then all but maybe two or three units in the entire military and have trained multiple times with those units that do shoot more then us. No one ever shoots without using their sights. In fact a good percentage of folks in those units and mine use red dots. I have been using one on my issues Glock for about two years.

And finally I agree that the M9 was to heavy for what it was. For something that is carried far more then used and with all the other weight we already have to carry it’s simply to heavy for a 9mm pistol with a 15 round capacity.
 
braindrain said:
Sorry but I have to disagree with your last two paragraphs completely. If you are not using your sites while shooting then whoever taught you to shoot didn’t know what he was doing. And I am not talking about the stupid Army qual but actual combat marksmanship with a pistol. My unit shoots more pistol then all but maybe two or three units in the entire military and have trained multiple times with those units that do shoot more then us. No one ever shoots without using their sights. In fact a good percentage of folks in those units and mine use red dots. I have been using one on my issues Glock for about two years.

And finally I agree that the M9 was to heavy for what it was. For something that is carried far more then used and with all the other weight we already have to carry it’s simply to heavy for a 9mm pistol with a 15 round capacity.
Click to expand...

No one taught me to fire without sights, I merely ignored using sights, the army qual for the m9 is often a close enough range I could spit on the popup targets to knock them over without firing the gun, If I could miss that without sights at that range, I deserve not to use a gun, but in reality atleast in two different units I was in officers often could not hit the broad side of a barn even if it was 2 inches from their face, mainly fobbit officers. Infact I laughed that enlisted soldiers as well could not pass the qual, I passed it first time with no prior practice or training on it.

On the red dots they have their place, the only major advantage I can find for them over iron sights is for night time firing, where the dot is much more visible that black iron sights. However I usually pulled the red dots off any weapon issued to me,I thought it was the dumbest thing and especially on an m-4 at a qual range with the dot being bigger than the 300 meter target. They work where intended but sometimes the army rushes through ideas without thinking them out, like red dots for weapons qual or using iron sights while deployed where the red dots might have had an advantage, or issuing an entire company acog scopes because the company had less han a 20% success rate marksmenship, rather than improving the shooting of the people of that company.
 
Never shot a 320, never even seen one actually. However I have an earlier model Sig that is a fine piece of engineering, accurate and reliable and entirely satisfactory. I would have thought Sig could produce something the military would find acceptable.

I remember when the Beretta was adopted, there was much wailing and moaning about how it was a POS and the slide flies off and so on and so on. Seems ironic that I'm now hearing the Beretta m9 praised and the new gun denigrated in a similar manner.

I prefer no manual safety myself (single-action excluded) and see limited utility in external hammers.
 
beerftw said:
No one taught me to fire without sights, I merely ignored using sights, the army qual for the m9 is often a close enough range I could spit on the popup targets to knock them over without firing the gun, If I could miss that without sights at that range, I deserve not to use a gun, but in reality atleast in two different units I was in officers often could not hit the broad side of a barn even if it was 2 inches from their face, mainly fobbit officers. Infact I laughed that enlisted soldiers as well could not pass the qual, I passed it first time with no prior practice or training on it.

On the red dots they have their place, the only major advantage I can find for them over iron sights is for night time firing, where the dot is much more visible that black iron sights. However I usually pulled the red dots off any weapon issued to me,I thought it was the dumbest thing and especially on an m-4 at a qual range with the dot being bigger than the 300 meter target. They work where intended but sometimes the army rushes through ideas without thinking them out, like red dots for weapons qual or using iron sights while deployed where the red dots might have had an advantage, or issuing an entire company acog scopes because the company had less han a 20% success rate marksmenship, rather than improving the shooting of the people of that company.
Click to expand...

I suppose it could just be attributed to the difference in accuracy and speed of the shooting required between your unit and where I work and the difference in the type of training. If you are not using the sights to shoot with you would not remain in my company very long

As to red dots they do quite a bit more then simply being able to be seen well at night. Your eye can pick it up faster and you don’t need to worry about sight alignment allowing faster more accurate shots. Also why would you qual with a different setup then what you are going to deploy with. That makes zero sense.

I do agree with you that switching to Acogs as a way to improve score is like putting a bandaid on a chest would. Trying to use equipment to overcome a training shortfall is sad leadership.

A final note on red dots. Their is a reason that virtually every SOF unit in the world as well as top competition shooters all use red dots when able. They simple allow for faster more accurate shooting then iron sights. Not using them puts you at a disadvantage.
 
I remember when the Army began making the change over to the M9 in the 80's. Lot's of us younger troops thought it was cool, even though in my unit very few soldiers were issued a sidearm (this is when I was active duty Infantry).

I carried the M9 for several years as an MP in my Army Reserve unit. It was okay, odd though that when we were overseas and issued ammo they would give us a full compliment of 5.56mm for our M16's (yeah we didn't get the M4's for awhile), they only gave us 2 magazines, 10 rounds per mag for our M9's, never understood that.

As a cop I carried a Glock 19 for several years, then a Glock 22 and Glock 23 when my agency standardized all firearms (there was even a time when, as an investigator, I carried a Kimber 1911 - short lived though).

My personal opinion - they should have went with the Glock. The trigger pull is consistent, it's accurate enough for engaging targets at typical sidearm ranges, and the things can take a beating.

On the subject of point shooting, I think it's a necessary skill for close quarters shooting. My former agency taught it (in addition to using sights) and you had to the pass point shooting phase in order to successfully qualify with your sidearm.

For grins here's a cool video of the M9A3 suppressed.

 
Goshin said:
Never shot a 320, never even seen one actually. However I have an earlier model Sig that is a fine piece of engineering, accurate and reliable and entirely satisfactory. I would have thought Sig could produce something the military would find acceptable.

I remember when the Beretta was adopted, there was much wailing and moaning about how it was a POS and the slide flies off and so on and so on. Seems ironic that I'm now hearing the Beretta m9 praised and the new gun denigrated in a similar manner.

I prefer no manual safety myself (single-action excluded) and see limited utility in external hammers.
Click to expand...

There were some issues with the early M9s.

Slide failures/cracking, etc. It was traced to lots of ammo procured from the Israelis that were well outside of the CUP ratings for 9MM ammunition.

Supposedly UZI only ammo.
 
I would have said anything would be an improvement over the m9.


The D.o.D has proven me wrong.
 
beerftw said:
I am referring to the sig 320, ...the army cut testing short and has refused to finish the testing...in controlled environments...contract reeks of corruption...almost as if the gun was chosen before the contest began...
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the M16's introduction. The Army wanted the M14, but was forced to test the early M16 (AR-10 or 15). They tested it in extreme cold and concluded failure. The Air Force wound up liking it first as a good security weapon for airfields. In the mean time McNamara was still pushing the concept of "one weapon for all" so the Army still had to consider the M16 as the future. It's first introductions into Vietnam were a disaster, but this was because the Wiz Kids screwed up the powder (sticky versus ball). - Top of my head stuff.

Anyway, whatever the Army settles in on, the Marine Corps will probably follow soon after. Last I heard the Marines wanted to go back to the 1911. I guess that's not happening now.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Reminds me of the M16's introduction. The Army wanted the M14, but was forced to test the early M16 (AR-10 or 15). They tested it in extreme cold and concluded failure. The Air Force wound up liking it first as a good security weapon for airfields. In the mean time McNamara was still pushing the concept of "one weapon for all" so the Army still had to consider the M16 as the future. It's first introductions into Vietnam were a disaster, but this was because the Wiz Kids screwed up the powder (sticky versus ball). - Top of my head stuff.

Anyway, whatever the Army settles in on, the Marine Corps will probably follow soon after. Last I heard the Marines wanted to go back to the 1911. I guess that's not happening now.
Click to expand...

The m-16 a1 also originally had no chrome or nickel plating in the barrel causing rust issues and no cleaning kits issued, goes back to the wiz kids who thought the gun was so space aged that it would never rust and never need cleaning. They fixed the cleaning kit issue part way after a soldier defied military rule and wrote his senator about how bad the m-16 was, as then soldiers who even mentioned it's problems were to be punished, it was a bad mistake no one wanted to own up to.

After vietnam the m-16 a2 came out and it is the benchmark used for the m-4 and the later m-16 variants, because the 2 fixed all the problems the one had, albiet after the war.
 
Lerxst said:
I remember when the Army began making the change over to the M9 in the 80's. Lot's of us younger troops thought it was cool, even though in my unit very few soldiers were issued a sidearm (this is when I was active duty Infantry).

I carried the M9 for several years as an MP in my Army Reserve unit. It was okay, odd though that when we were overseas and issued ammo they would give us a full compliment of 5.56mm for our M16's (yeah we didn't get the M4's for awhile), they only gave us 2 magazines, 10 rounds per mag for our M9's, never understood that.

As a cop I carried a Glock 19 for several years, then a Glock 22 and Glock 23 when my agency standardized all firearms (there was even a time when, as an investigator, I carried a Kimber 1911 - short lived though).

My personal opinion - they should have went with the Glock. The trigger pull is consistent, it's accurate enough for engaging targets at typical sidearm ranges, and the things can take a beating.

On the subject of point shooting, I think it's a necessary skill for close quarters shooting. My former agency taught it (in addition to using sights) and you had to the pass point shooting phase in order to successfully qualify with your sidearm.

For grins here's a cool video of the M9A3 suppressed.

Click to expand...


In my opinion they should have atleast done extreme condition testing before selection, due to the fact the p320 is a p250 redesigned for a striker fire rather than a hammer, and the new design is untested in any combat or even simulated combat environment. The older sigs were well tested, and proven, bt this is kinda a new thing not an improvement of a tried and true thing.

Now on the glock, those have been tested in extreme environments, infact I have seen many glocks fired so much the plastic on them warped, yet they still hold the same accuracy and reliability which is amazing.
 
beerftw said:
The army wanted a modular system, they wanted a single pistol for regular issue, mp issue, undercover investigators etc. I really think the one size fits all approach is a bad idea, especially since I rarely saw mp's with anything other than the m9, and undercover investigators in the army are too small a size to justify changing an entire design. Special forces already have permission to use non standard issue, so it is surely not aimed at the.

The army wanted a composite modular striker fired pistol capable of attaching a red dot sight to, which for the life of me I can not understand, a pistol is meant for close range, and at close range iron sights are beyond effective, infact the time I finally got issued an m9 and got to qual with it, I barely used the sights at all, as most targets at that range were close enough to hit just by pointing in it's direction.

In my opinion I think the changeover was made because officers griped about the m9 being too heavy, and it being too hard to qual with so they wanted red dots and whatever else could be attached.
Click to expand...

Big fan of the 1858 Remington, new model Army:2wave:
 
braindrain said:
I suppose it could just be attributed to the difference in accuracy and speed of the shooting required between your unit and where I work and the difference in the type of training. If you are not using the sights to shoot with you would not remain in my company very long

As to red dots they do quite a bit more then simply being able to be seen well at night. Your eye can pick it up faster and you don’t need to worry about sight alignment allowing faster more accurate shots. Also why would you qual with a different setup then what you are going to deploy with. That makes zero sense.

I do agree with you that switching to Acogs as a way to improve score is like putting a bandaid on a chest would. Trying to use equipment to overcome a training shortfall is sad leadership.

A final note on red dots. Their is a reason that virtually every SOF unit in the world as well as top competition shooters all use red dots when able. They simple allow for faster more accurate shooting then iron sights. Not using them puts you at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

On the red dots it is incorrect about sight adjustment, red dots have what is parrallax which is where the site moves based off of alignment. The army m69 has no parallax at 50 meters, and at close range can actually have very bad parallax, usually within 5-10 meters. Also one concern with the red dot which is not too much a problem given how recent wars have been fought is that the m69 for the m-4 has a max effective range of 300 meters, meaning just army range qual is pushing the limits of them, while the dot is 2 moa, which I still do not understand since I usually associate moa with spread at 100 yards. Also on the military qualing with one and deploying with another, that is the army, we had a saying war is chaos and the army practices it daily.


But for red dots I still do not use them, I grew up using iron sights, I was taught in the army to use iron sights, iron sights never fail from bad batteries or cracked lenses, plus an m-16 and m-4 iron sight is effective to 500 meters, and I even have a rifle that has a sight that graduates to 2000 meters(though I doubt it ever would shoot accurate that far the russians were optimistic)
 
braindrain said:
My thoughts on this.
First of there is a very real difference between a rifle with a trigger that is exposed and a pistol that should have its trigger covered by a holster unless it’s being drawn and fired. And if your concern is accidentally pressing the trigger while presenting and you are using a safety to prevent that it’s more of a training issue then a equipment issue. First your safety should be off well before your finger gets near the trigger and second you should already be taking the slack out of the trigger while presenting it.
Also quite a few militaries and multiple units within the US military as well as hundreds if not thousands of police units are doing just fine using pistols without a safety. The Army hasn’t issued me a pistol with a safety on it for a very long time.
Click to expand...

And I'm of the opposite mind, I don't use my safety on any of my rifles, but truly appreciate the safety on a pistol. Training issue or cold, numb, sleepy fingers trying to win a race they start in second place from the git go?

First I'd rather have a bit of added safety as I remove the pistol from my holster, the training needed to flip the thumb safety off as the muzzle comes up in a nit compared to the very real possibility of a NG. I flip mine without even thinking about it.

Next compared to the rifle issued, few in the service use a pistol as often as their rifle. The number of times a pistol is presented under duress is minor compared to rifles or other weapons.

When I bought my XD45 I asked my Instructor boss if I should train 'glock' style or with the thumb safety. Now he is a long time LEO, Tactical team member, Desert Storm, yadda yadda yadda... he answer means something to me. He said better to learn how to use the safety than ignore it. It was a VERY simple process and one I appreciate.

I don't see an advantage to not having a thumb safety and some very good ones for... :peace
 
beerftw said:
On the red dots it is incorrect about sight adjustment, red dots have what is parrallax which is where the site moves based off of alignment. The army m69 has no parallax at 50 meters, and at close range can actually have very bad parallax, usually within 5-10 meters. Also one concern with the red dot which is not too much a problem given how recent wars have been fought is that the m69 for the m-4 has a max effective range of 300 meters, meaning just army range qual is pushing the limits of them, while the dot is 2 moa, which I still do not understand since I usually associate moa with spread at 100 yards. Also on the military qualing with one and deploying with another, that is the army, we had a saying war is chaos and the army practices it daily.


But for red dots I still do not use them, I grew up using iron sights, I was taught in the army to use iron sights, iron sights never fail from bad batteries or cracked lenses, plus an m-16 and m-4 iron sight is effective to 500 meters, and I even have a rifle that has a sight that graduates to 2000 meters(though I doubt it ever would shoot accurate that far the russians were optimistic)
Click to expand...

I understand parallax completely. Shooting guns is pretty much what I do for a living. As a sniper parallax is very important. We adjust our scopes for it everytime we shoot.
That said I have never incountered a red dot scope that has bad enough parallax to make much difference when shooting at close distances as long as you are mounting the gun correctly. If you are mounting the gun as you should but have your head not perfectly aligned you are still going to get good hits at CQB range.

While I have very little experience with an M68 I can tell you that an M4 with an Eotech is accurate to at least 500 meters in the right hands. If iron sights is what you are comfortable with then more power to you but there is a reason why virtually every SOF unit in the world uses one form of red dot or another. It simply allows you to shoot faster and be more accurate everything else being equal. That is pretty much an undeniable fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom