Tips to Deal with Offset

[Doc_Glock]

I have been messing around more with my AR style carbines. They pretty much all have a red dot with lower 1/3 co witness. My most probable use of one of these rifles is within 10 yards so I have focused on training within this range lately. Honestly, the offset thing just sucks.

I truly think that if I absolutely positively had to make a hit within a 1" circle and the range is within 7 yards I am better off with a pistol. No doubt a lot of this is simply due to a lot more rounds downrange from a pistol, but there is also the fact that having to "guess" how high to hold on targets, not to mention range estimation just seems a lot easier for me using pistol irons, or even a pistol dot due to much less offset. Also even when holding the correct vertical offset I find my windage wandering a bit. There just seems to be no consistent landmark I can use.

Don't even get me started about the PS90 with it's 1" more offset than an AR.

So are there any tricks of the trade in accounting for offset? Are there landmarks you can use on the optic? I use Aimpoint micros primarily, but I can see a real benefit to a donut type red dot in this application. I don't really want to swap sights but would consider it if that is the only answer.

[NH Shooter]

Yes, it's learning to hold high and then gradually come down to a "normal" POA as distance increases.

Otherwise within 10 yards if something with more oomph than a pistol is needed, something like this might make more sense;

https://i.ibb.co/QY8qgBD/1187wml-3.jpg

[msstate56]

It just takes practice. You’ll have to learn your “Kentucky Offset” as you go. Best thing to do is go to the range, get a small aiming point, say a target paster or 1” dot. Start at 3 yards, aim at your dot and mark your hit. Repeat at 5,7,10,15,25. That will give you a solid reference to visualize your holdover. Mostly you just learn, the closer you are, the higher you hold above the intended target.

[Andy T]

I always repeat to myself "offset, offset, offset" when shooting carbine at close range. You can try getting an optic that provides a second reticle.
Another option - use at your own discretion/risk - zero the rifle for 10 yards. Of course, you will have to learn the trajectory beyond that range, should you have to fire at distance.

[theJanitor]

I always repeat to myself "offset, offset, offset" when shooting carbine at close range.

I do the same...but I say it out loud:D

Also, just doing alot of dry fire will help your brain remember what the right sight picture should look like. Now a dot in the middle of the forehead looks like a "normal" headshot to me.

I'm also an Eotech user, and I still use the center dot, and offset it for close aiming. The ring is good for fast, mass application of fire, leads on movers, and shooting targets at distance, but I still use the center dot the way I use an aimpoint dot

[jeep45238]

Practice.

Observe the size of your dot vs. a known sized target at varying distance. You can use this as a range estimator, and with a little verbal talk (close, high; normal, center) you'll be on your way in no time.

A big part of this is honesty of the size of the target vs. your desired accuracy. Dot torture at 4 yards, it matters. Dot torture at 8, it doesn't (other things matter a lot more).

[GJM]

As a general observation, if you need to absolutely hit a one inch target, the AR is not your ideal firearm. If you need to dominate at pistol distances, the AR is your friend.

[TWR]

https://i.postimg.cc/prNJQtwc/670-BF5-B6-8-CF9-4012-9816-3-C4-C9-E2-F22-D4.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

If I could ever remember to use it...

[Norville]

As said above, practice.

With reps it becomes normal. And if you hit 2” low at 10 yards, does it matter?

[YVK]

As a general observation, if you need to absolutely hit a one inch target, the AR is not your ideal firearm.

Agree. I generally prefer a shotgun for that kind of stuff.






So are there any tricks of the trade in accounting for offset? Are there landmarks you can use on the optic? I use Aimpoint micros primarily, but I can see a real benefit to a donut type red dot in this application. I don't really want to swap sights but would consider it if that is the only answer.

On my PCC, which is a rifle that gets used at very close ranges the most, I use an Eotech. Other rifles, I use my first and second fingers as calipers to visualize the distance between center of the bore and center of the optic, which is an offset at a contact distance. Everything else will be less than that, so I look at the target and mentally apply those calipers and go from there. It works, sometimes.

[Doc_Glock]

Practice.

Observe the size of your dot vs. a known sized target at varying distance. You can use this as a range estimator, and with a little verbal talk (close, high; normal, center) you'll be on your way in no time.

A big part of this is honesty of the size of the target vs. your desired accuracy. Dot torture at 4 yards, it matters. Dot torture at 8, it doesn't (other things matter a lot more).


That is super helpful thanks.

[Mike C]

I have been messing around more with my AR style carbines. They pretty much all have a red dot with lower 1/3 co witness. My most probable use of one of these rifles is within 10 yards so I have focused on training within this range lately. Honestly, the offset thing just sucks.

I truly think that if I absolutely positively had to make a hit within a 1" circle and the range is within 7 yards I am better off with a pistol. No doubt a lot of this is simply due to a lot more rounds downrange from a pistol, but there is also the fact that having to "guess" how high to hold on targets, not to mention range estimation just seems a lot easier for me using pistol irons, or even a pistol dot due to much less offset. Also even when holding the correct vertical offset I find my windage wandering a bit. There just seems to be no consistent landmark I can use.

Don't even get me started about the PS90 with it's 1" more offset than an AR.

So are there any tricks of the trade in accounting for offset? Are there landmarks you can use on the optic? I use Aimpoint micros primarily, but I can see a real benefit to a donut type red dot in this application. I don't really want to swap sights but would consider it if that is the only answer.

Hold forehead depending on proximity. I can't for the life of me think of any time I ever needed to shoot a 1" circle for real. But military experience is greatly different, line vs DM vs Sniper role was different as is LE patrol work vs sniper vs Civvy life. In my personal experience the highest probability shot in controlled pairs or hammered was priority, (depending on proximity) in high thoracic then it was a transition to head box if there was a failure to incapacitate.

Personally I think that you are over thinking this. Train accordingly and focus on the skills that are in context with your highest probability problem but do not ignore the other 20% entirely. I would never pick a pistol over a rifle unless I am in a very confined space period, end of story. As far as windage is concerned I wouldn't be flipping out about it within 25 yards and certainly not 10. There is still plenty of room for error in the ocular cavity for that range if that is your intended targeted area but, still keep it within reason. I know its' a bit tongue & cheek. Try to keep things in perspective. A rifle or carbine is almost always better than a pistol but there is no reason to hash that out.

[Shawn Dodson]

Shift to your iron sights for CQB. Instead of using your front sight post, aim using the "shelf" on the front sight base between the dog ears. Center the shelf vertically in your rear aperture just like you do with the tip of the front sight post.

[andre3k]

Although it won't help the moment you get into a bind, I have a small dope chart taped to the stocks of my duty rifles. It helps if you ever forget. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201009/5169872f604c6b7b90d6bcbca4908bbe.jpg

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Doc_Glock]

Hold forehead depending on proximity. I can't for the life of me think of any time I ever needed to shoot a 1" circle for real. But military experience is greatly different, line vs DM vs Sniper role was different as is LE patrol work vs sniper vs Civvy life. In my personal experience the highest probability shot in controlled pairs or hammered was priority, (depending on proximity) in high thoracic then it was a transition to head box if there was a failure to incapacitate.

Personally I think that you are over thinking this. Train accordingly and focus on the skills that are in context with your highest probability problem but do not ignore the other 20% entirely. I would never pick a pistol over a rifle unless I am in a very confined space period, end of story. As far as windage is concerned I wouldn't be flipping out about it within 25 yards and certainly not 10. There is still plenty of room for error in the ocular cavity for that range if that is your intended targeted area but, still keep it within reason. I know its' a bit tongue & cheek. Try to keep things in perspective. A rifle or carbine is almost always better than a pistol but there is no reason to hash that out.

Thank you for the reality check. I truly don’t know what I don’t know with a long gun.

[GyroF-16]

Good stuff here.
I’m appreciating the vicarious experience.

[UNM1136]

Lots of good advice.

Our quals have lots of failure drills at 10 yards and in. Failure to offset will cause you to toss enough head shots to fail your qual. While I believe in giving shooters every opportunity to succeed, I disagree with reminding shooters about offset during the qual. But what does my opinion count, since I am no longer an instructor?

That is a practical reason for some to learn offset. One teaching tool I have used in nearly every carbine class I have taught is:

61480

I kept it my pocket on the line to show shooters very clearly mechanical offset. Tough on a tightly controlled range, but at 1 yard you can physically put your muzzle on the target and look through your sights to see roughly where you need to actually aim.

I like Shawn's iron sight technique, and I think I recall Paul Howe many moons ago using a dead on hold with the front sight but stacking it on top of the rear sight, instead of looking at it through the rear aperture. Another instructor (Gonzales?) advocated burying the base of the front sight into the base of the aperture while zeroing. All of which will lower the POI as they push the muzzle down in reference to the target. Only practice with your setup will determine if one works and provides enough offset for you on your setup. None of them work particularly well with a plain dot, hence the recommendation to switch to irons.

That said, looking at the occular target zone (the "scuba mask" in our state mandated qual targets) and commonly represented here on P-F as a 3x5 index card, a three inch target is an adequite goal. In some courses we used a business card for a tighter target. And as Uncle Pat used to say, if you make a headshot and forget your offset you may not switch the bad guy's lights off, but you will likely ruin his day, and may put him off his game long enough to rectify the situation.

A very good reference that I picked up recently from another, possibly better, but still credentialed Firearms Instructor, fits well with "aim small, miss small". When deciding to take a headshot ask yourself if you can see your target's eyes. That is where you want to shoot anyway. If you can make out your target's eyes as you bring the gun up you are close enough YOU NEED TO OFFSET.

My thoughts, and worth about what you paid for them.

pat

[JohnO]

It just takes practice. You’ll have to learn your “Kentucky Offset” as you go. Best thing to do is go to the range, get a small aiming point, say a target paster or 1” dot. Start at 3 yards, aim at your dot and mark your hit. Repeat at 5,7,10,15,25. That will give you a solid reference to visualize your holdover. Mostly you just learn, the closer you are, the higher you hold above the intended target.

Exactly what would have written.

With the experience of the exercise described above repeat the drill holding the appropriate offset and put your rounds in the paster.

[Beat Trash]

Up close, I taught to put the dot on the hairline if I want the rounds to go into the bridge of the nose. Would practice this by having a pad of the square (3”?) post it notes in my pocket. Put a post it note on the target where the rounds should go. Then have them put 3 rounds in the post it note on the command to fire.

They usually would forget everything about offset on the first run. I’d ask them to say, “hairline, hairline, hairline” to themselves as they do the next run on the drill. Usually worked out much better.

To the OP, short answer to your question In my opinion is to practice on a consistent basis.

[vcdgrips]

Late to the party-based on my direct training experience in both sleep away carbine classes, competition and with agencies, the preferred methods is simply practicing offset with your carbine zeroed at 50 etc. which means holding high 0-15 ish at least. When I get ready to shoot a carbine up close, I say out loud to myself, offset, offset, offset.

IIRC, I once had a conversation with a former tac guy at grand jury, he said at his prior local agency, he just zeroed the red dot for for 5-7 yrds given the dimension of the houses/apartments he was entering on a daily basis. Mission Drives the Gear I suppose.

[andre3k]

Up close, I taught to put the dot on the hairline if I want the rounds to go into the bridge of the nose. Would practice this by having a pad of the square (3”?) post it notes in my pocket. Put a post it note on the target where the rounds should go. Then have them put 3 rounds in the post it note on the command to fire.

They usually would forget everything about offset on the first run. I’d ask them to say, “hairline, hairline, hairline” to themselves as they do the next run on the drill. Usually worked out much better.

To the OP, short answer to your question In my opinion is to practice on a consistent basis.

This is very true. My squad had a shooting in the summer of 2019. One of my officers shot a suspect at 15 yards with his AR and put the dot even with the guys brow line. He didn't take into account for the offset and sent two rounds into the guys upper lip and mouth. It blew out what few teeth the suspect already had. If you're within shouting distance it's best to aim for the very top of the head if you're trying to turn his lights off.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[EricM]

I do think you'll adapt to it, but I've also never approached rifle shooting with the goal of hitting a 1" circle at close range. Sounds like a good challenge though. ;) The way I looked at it, a fist-sized group at any given distance would be fine for defensive purposes. Up close, that dispersion would be due to speed and not perfectly accounting for offset. As distance increased, the effect of offset would decrease while other things like a stable shooting platform became more important.

I shot a few 3 gun matches that used clays hanging from clips or placed in cutouts on cardboard for close-range rifle targets, so 4" targets generally between 5-25 yards. I just stuck with my usual 100 yard zero, but I recall someone telling me that the top shooters dialed in a close-range zero for those stages (other stages had 100-300 yard steel). It would be interesting to put it on a timer to see how much accounting for offset at close range makes a difference -- beyond evaluating the required offset, I imagine it's faster and more reliable to center a dot on something than place it a couple inches above. I also suspect it might be harder/slower to account for offset aiming at a small circle vs. aiming at the "forehead" of something like a USPSA target or Q-PT, even if you produce a comparable group both ways. Is using a reference point on the target faster than using a reference point in the reticle? Lots to experiment with to better understand the human factors and measure progress in training.

If range time is short and you feel like throwing some money at it, you might consider a SIRT STIC rifle (https://nextleveltraining.com/product/sirt-stic/) (these guys (https://lasrapp.com/store/sirt-stic) may ship faster than the 4-5 weeks mentioned by NLT). Insert a regular G17-style SIRT in there, put a cheap red dot on top, and dry fire all over your house/property with instant feedback on POA vs POI. You could use a picatinny riser to simulate the extra height over bore of the PS90, or set up the take-up laser with a different POI than the shot-break laser to approximate the different offset.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Seems like the case is closed already but I'll never forget the advice one experienced friend of mine gave me: "up close, I put the dot on the hairline and the bullet is right above the eyebrows."

Of course instead of having to compensate for mechanical offset, now you're stuck compensating for male pattern baldness. Still, I can't look at a photo target up close with an AR without hearing that advice in my head.

[theJanitor]

I've made the move to the 2.26" optic heights. It takes some readjusting to. It's only half an inch over the 1/3 co-witness, but it still matters

[ViniVidivici]

If you're zeroed at 50 yards, with most 14-16" ARs, you'll be about 2" low at 10 yards.

Just learn your holds, train, and rock on.

If we're talking practical defensive shooting, you're not trying to hit a 1" circle, you're trying to put down a threat.

Top of head for a face shot, base of neck for high COM. Train, repeat.

The real dumbassery is guys who zero dead nuts on at 10 yards, and can't hit crap at 100. Pure sad, but folks have done it for real.

[DMF13]

https://i.postimg.cc/prNJQtwc/670-BF5-B6-8-CF9-4012-9816-3-C4-C9-E2-F22-D4.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

If I could ever remember to use it...
You just have train for it. Inside 15 yards I always snap to the bottom of the circle. Fast and accurate.

[ViniVidivici]

I grant that would be one of the few true advantages of an Eotech.

[stomridertx]

Offset up close just something I try to train and ingrain into my muscle memory. With The Eotech reticle and some etched reticles on LPVOs you can usually find a corresponding holdover point in the reticle, but I'm not yet convinced that under stress in up close shooting one would think to use the reticle holdover hash mark and would be using the center of the reticle. Reticle hash marks tend to work better for distance holdover when you have time in my opinion. When I took on the project of designing my own training targets to print out at home last year, I purposefully put 2.5 inch height over bore aiming points on the target on the head and upper thoracic area to help ingrain this into my shooting. I now find myself doing it consistently when I switch to more obscure target without them. Funnily enough, now that I'm just starting to use red dots on pistols for the first time I find I'm having to learn a new offset for both the dot and suppressor height sights on my Glock 19, even though it is not as much.
61572

[DMF13]

. . .but I'm not yet convinced that under stress in up close shooting one would think to use the reticle holdover hash mark and would be using the center of the reticle.I'm convinced, because I've seen what happens with students at our academy with just the mild stress of "shooting for their job." Despite years of trying to get it changed, our syllabus doesn't include using the bottom of the EOTech circle for offset. So when they actually get to live fire all they've heard is "hold the dot two and a half inches high." On the line in live fire I will frequently see students struggle to make fast/accurate headshots at the 7 and 5 yard line. As soon as they are told about using the bottom of the reticle, suddenly they are quick and accurate. When I'm helping at the Academy I always let them try "holding high" then show them the bottom of the reticle "trick," and tell them to use whatever they like best.

Where things get really interesting is when we start shooting from "unusual" positions, such as leaning out from cover/concealment, so the shooter is at 30-45 degree angle to the target, or lying on their sides (90 degree angle to the target) shooting under an obstacle (like shooting under a car). Then the rare student who chose to stay with "holding high" (and was getting good hits), starts struggling. A reminder about the bottom of the reticle "trick" suddenly has them back to making fast/accurate hits.


Reticle hash marks tend to work better for distance holdover when you have time in my opinion.Have you run any tests on a timer? If so, have you done it when not "square up" to the target, such as in the "unusual" positions I mentioned above? I have, and several I work with have. The timer and targets don't lie, and using the bottom of the reticle yields faster and more accurate shots at short ranges, especially when doing shooting in unusual positions. The shooter doesn't have to worry about vertical and horizontal alignment, especially when at an odd angle to the target, they merely need to put the hash mark at the bottom of the circle where they want the rounds to go.

Both, methods require the shooter to think about their distance to the target. However, the bottom of the reticle "trick" eliminates having to process other aspects of the shooters relationship to the target.

If "holding high" is working for you, great, but I've seen enough evidence to show that under even a little bit of stress, and especially in situations where you're not "squared up" to the target, the bottom of the reticle on the EOTech style reticle is a much faster and more accurate method of accounting for offset at short distances.

[stomridertx]

I'm convinced, because I've seen what happens with students at our academy with just the mild stress of "shooting for their job." Despite years of trying to get it changed, our syllabus doesn't include using the bottom of the EOTech circle for offset. So when they actually get to live fire all they've heard is "hold the dot two and a half inches high." On the line in live fire I will frequently see students struggle to make fast/accurate headshots at the 7 and 5 yard line. As soon as they are told about using the bottom of the reticle, suddenly they are quick and accurate. When I'm helping at the Academy I always let them try "holding high" then show them the bottom of the reticle "trick," and tell them to use whatever they like best.

Where things get really interesting is when we start shooting from "unusual" positions, such as leaning out from cover/concealment, so the shooter is at 30-45 degree angle to the target, or lying on their sides (90 degree angle to the target) shooting under an obstacle (like shooting under a car). Then the rare student who chose to stay with "holding high" (and was getting good hits), starts struggling. A reminder about the bottom of the reticle "trick" suddenly has them back to making fast/accurate hits.

Have you run any tests on a timer? If so, have you done it when not "square up" to the target, such as in the "unusual" positions I mentioned above? I have, and several I work with have. The timer and targets don't lie, and using the bottom of the reticle yields faster and more accurate shots at short ranges, especially when doing shooting in unusual positions. The shooter doesn't have to worry about vertical and horizontal alignment, especially when at an odd angle to the target, they merely need to put the hash mark at the bottom of the circle where they want the rounds to go.

Both, methods require the shooter to think about their distance to the target. However, the bottom of the reticle "trick" eliminates having to process other aspects of the shooters relationship to the target.

If "holding high" is working for you, great, but I've seen enough evidence to show that under even a little bit of stress, and especially in situations where you're not "squared up" to the target, the bottom of the reticle on the EOTech style reticle is a much faster and more accurate method of accounting for offset at short distances.

I'll revisit the subject based on your experience. I've never used an Eotech type reticle and turned it off when I had it in a Holosun red dot. I'm now running an LPVO that has a horseshoe dot type reticle with MOA hash marks. I'll find the one that represents height over bore hold up close and start running it under time. The Swampfox optics bullet rise reticle in their 1x prism site may be tits if this holds true. I'm always open minded, hell I'm giving pistol red dots a try after having talked myself out of it a bunch of times.

[DMF13]

I'm now running an LPVO that has a horseshoe dot type reticle with MOA hash marks. I'll find the one that represents height over bore hold up close and start running it under time.I'd be very interested to see what you come up with on that. However, the issue I see with that type of reticle, assuming you're talking about something like an ACSS reticle, is they are very "busy." There is a lot to look at there, and it might slow you down, as your eyes/mind will have to sift through all that information to settle on the necessary aiming point. The beauty of the original EOTech style reticle (65MOA ring, and 1MOA dot only), for short range use, is it's a minimalist option. You don't have to process a lot of info. The downside is you get a lot less data if you have to start making long range shots.

However, for the OP the "most probable use of one of these rifles is within 10 yards," so optics that have greater utility for long range use should be less of priority than optimizing for short range use.

I should have added earlier, while I like the EOTech for it's original reticle, and wide field of view, I understand the drawback of a sight with a short battery life, and that isn't "always on," for "home defense" use. However, there are other options out there with the same type of reticle, including several offerings from HoloSun, SIG-Sauer, and Vortex. While my work rifle has an EOTech XPS3, I sacrificed the wide FOV, and the holographic sight, for my personal gun at home, which has a SIG XDR sight. That gun needs to be "always on." It has the same "original" EOTech reticle, but it's got a 50K hour battery life, and has the "shake awake" feature, although it's a 2MOA dot vs. the 1MOA dot with the EOTech.

If I wasn't such a cheapskate, I would have gotten a Holosun 510C. That has a nice big FOV, with the EOTech style reticle, but it's also not a holographic site.

[jlw]

The offset issue is the primary reason I decry the prevalence of the AR platform as the go to choice for LE and private citizen carbines, but alas, that horse is long out of the born.

I repeatedly see casual users of carbines with tall sights forget about mechanical offset when put under just a little bit of stress. It's not a big deal for full facing targets, but it is on obscured targets or when shooting from cover as evidenced by the number of rounds you'll see through the wood on a VTAC barricade.

The only real solution is frequent and recent training, training, and more training, or get a carbine with out offset.

[Doc_Glock]

Update:

With practice I am getting a lot better with the holds. I am still holding high with the dot though and need to explore what I see visually with the Aimpoint Micro to see if there is "bottom of the optic" hold that will also work for me. The sight picture will ultimately be the same, it is just a matter of attention to the dot, or the window. I expect the dot is easier to find with a "target focus" which is another work in progress for me.

[stomridertx]

I'd be very interested to see what you come up with on that. However, the issue I see with that type of reticle, assuming you're talking about something like an ACSS reticle, is they are very "busy." There is a lot to look at there, and it might slow you down, as your eyes/mind will have to sift through all that information to settle on the necessary aiming point. The beauty of the original EOTech style reticle (65MOA ring, and 1MOA dot only), for short range use, is it's a minimalist option. You don't have to process a lot of info. The downside is you get a lot less data if you have to start making long range shots.

However, for the OP the "most probable use of one of these rifles is within 10 yards," so optics that have greater utility for long range use should be less of priority than optimizing for short range use.

I should have added earlier, while I like the EOTech for it's original reticle, and wide field of view, I understand the drawback of a sight with a short battery life, and that isn't "always on," for "home defense" use. However, there are other options out there with the same type of reticle, including several offerings from HoloSun, SIG-Sauer, and Vortex. While my work rifle has an EOTech XPS3, I sacrificed the wide FOV, and the holographic sight, for my personal gun at home, which has a SIG XDR sight. That gun needs to be "always on." It has the same "original" EOTech reticle, but it's got a 50K hour battery life, and has the "shake awake" feature, although it's a 2MOA dot vs. the 1MOA dot with the EOTech.

If I wasn't such a cheapskate, I would have gotten a Holosun 510C. That has a nice big FOV, with the EOTech style reticle, but it's also not a holographic site.

It looks like the 10 MOA hashmark is the offset mark when I look at my target at 1x up close. It's roughly the bottom of the circle if you were to visually attempt to complete the circle. This entire reticle illuminates red. It seems to be manageable visually. I'll see if there is a noticeable difference in dry fire between holding the dot over vs using the reticle (ammo prices are a bitch).
On the Holosun 510c, I really liked mine and that's what I used to run on this gun, but in my hard headedness I never ran the circle dot. I've recently decided I don't want a rifle without magnification for target ID.
62019

[Rex G]

The offset issue is the primary reason I decry the prevalence of the AR platform as the go to choice for LE and private citizen carbines, but alas, that horse is long out of the born.

I repeatedly see casual users of carbines with tall sights forget about mechanical offset when put under just a little bit of stress. It's not a big deal for full facing targets, but it is on obscured targets or when shooting from cover as evidenced by the number of rounds you'll see through the wood on a VTAC barricade.

The only real solution is frequent and recent training, training, and more training, or get a carbine with out offset.

This offset factor is one of several reasons I decided to let my “carbine unit” status lapse, after two or three years, and be content with a shotgun, as my only long gun, on night shift patrol. Had I worked in the daylight, when longer range would be a more-likely factor, I might well have wanted to continue having a rifle/carbine. (Another factor was the limitations on when we could un-case a patrol carbine. Otherwise, the carbines had to stay cased, in the trunks of our patrol vehicles. I could lay hands on my shotgun, at my discretion, and the shotgun could be up-front, with me.)

“Frequent training,” at CQB distance, with the AR15, at the time, was difficult to find. Patrol officers could only go to the SWAT range, for the annual qual. The main PD range was not set-up to accommodate rifle training.

My Colt AR15A2’s front sight was starting to grow fuzzy hair, anyway, so I sold it to a colleague with younger eyes. I later assembled an AR with a Colt HBAR upper, and some time later, bought a BCM Lightweight Middy upper, which put the front sights far-enough out there, but never re-qual’ed to carry a carbine/rifle on patrol. There were enough young bucks, with patrol carbines, by then. A shotgun, in the hand, beats any number of weapons, in the trunk, at least in the night-shift world. I should add, that I had FFC 00, and slugs, for the shotgun.

To be clear, I am not preaching against rifles with high sight lines, for those willing to train, diligently, for the event of CQB shooting.

I still consider my several shotguns to be the go-to home-defense long guns. My AR15/M4 rifles are more for longer-distance problems, or for the event of needing mass quantities of ammo.

[stomridertx]

I honestly didn't realize the offset was this daunting to some folks, but my first rifle was an AR so I've never known anything different. I do run a Warne XSKEL mount that puts the scope at exact iron sight height. I have a funny visual in my head of Steve Fisher or others who like the super high 1.93 optic mounts spitting out their drinks reading this thread.

[Wake27]

From personal, non-quantified performance: I like the EXPS 3-2 more and more as it give an additional reference point without being over-busy like the 3-4. I can use the various parts of the EOTech reticle for holds without issue but attempting to use the stadia on my Razor for the same reason tends to be slower, I assume because of the illum and thin lines on the Razor’s reticle. So second dot or circle for Eotech, illuminated center dot and high hold for Razor or similar style LPVO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rex G]

I honestly didn't realize the offset was this daunting to some folks, but my first rifle was an AR so I've never known anything different. I do run a Warne XSKEL mount that puts the scope at exact iron sight height. I have a funny visual in my head of Steve Fisher or others who like the super high 1.93 optic mounts spitting out their drinks reading this thread.

I first dealt with this offset at age 40. I had never used such high iron sights, and none of my rifles, at the time, were ‘scoped. So, yes, that could influence my thinking. I might never have bought into the AR15/M4 system, had it not been in order to carry a patrol rifle, while on duty*. It did not help, that the 32-hour patrol rifle certification course did not adequately address this offset, at close range, in the live-fire training portion. I was totally on my own, to learn to deal with it.

We surely spent a lot of time, however, learning to compensate for the then-mandated 25-yard zero, when engaging at 50 and 100 yards. Deep. Sigh. IIRC, I had to allow more than EIGHT inches, at 100 yards. No other carbine, in that class, required that much compensation. The instructors recommended that I write it, on a piece of paper, and tape it to the stock. I am not kidding. This planted the first seed of a plan to switch to a 20” rifle. (Though I later assembled such a rifle, using a 20” Colt HBAR upper, I never did use the resulting rifle on-duty.)

I am trying to remember exactly what we were told to do at the very-close-range part of our run-and-gun drills. (This was 18 years ago.) IIRC, we were to shoot very-rapid center-mass at close range targets, with head shots only being used at longer range.

It is possible that I am mis-remembering, but my training may well have avoided the whole idea of precision shots at CQB distance. Of course, the circumstances under which PD policy allow us to un-case our rifles were so limited, I doubt that the policy-makers anticipated much CQB use, by patrol officers with rifles, anyway.

It is possible that the curriculum significantly changed, later. I only attended the initial training/certification, when the patrol rifle program was started, in 2002. (Actually, it was a re-start, as patrol rifles/carbines had been allowed, until early 1983. I started the academy in late 1983.)

*The Mini-14 was also authorized, but as I remember it, we had to attend a cert class specific to either the AR15 or the Mini-14, and the only available classes I saw posted were for the AR15. Either system would be a new one, for me, so I went with the available cert/training.

[ViniVidivici]

Offset is no big deal if you train.

I shot low light, last night it so happens, with my 11.5" AR. 50 yard target, 8" circle, on up drills, standing, put dot on target.

At 10 yards, multiples were 3x5s. Put dot on top of card, hit card every time.

Really not a big deal. For me, anyway.

[helothar]

Offset is no big deal if you train.

I shot low light, last night it so happens, with my 11.5" AR. 50 yard target, 8" circle, on up drills, standing, put dot on target.

At 10 yards, multiples were 3x5s. Put dot on top of card, hit card every time.

Really not a big deal. For me, anyway.

I think this is what it comes down to, i previously had no formal training on an AR and didn't really even know about the offset. I took a carbine course with Steve Fisher where he explained it and by the end of the class I was pretty dialed in on it, as others said at these close distances actually saying "offset" to myself when aiming.

[MistWolf]

This is why I want a two dot Aimpoint