Yes. Parallax.Originally Posted by DLWinner
Yes. Parallax.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Hadn’t seen the thread you mentioned but that makes sense.
When the USMC was still using irons in the initial training flow a lot of guys didn’t play with an ACOG until they got to their first real unit.
The ACOG training was usually terrible so you could always spot the dudes who maxed out their adjustments trying to get the reticle to align with the front sight post.
It makes sense. I’m not new to shooting handguns, but I am new to RDS on a pistol. I figured it was time.
One other question…. Not that I’m going to, but would putting higher sights on allow the dot to line up with the irons? Thanks again for the responses.
Higher sights get in the way. I prefer the lowest possible front/rear sight to still get a usable sight picture. Stop being hung up on the absolute co-witness.
Yes, but I personally wouldn't do that. For me, BUIS are not for shooting bullseye, and low irons with an offset POI are sufficient for me to easily make A-zone hits at 20 yards. Alternatively, a lower 1/10 co-witness does the same thing as long as the irons and dot are zeroed separately.
Dawson Precision offers a wide range of front sight heights. You can try using their sight height calculator, and hopefully do it right the first time. But I've often had to buy more than one to get the right height
Note how low the BUIS are on my carry guns:
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Apologies if I'm reading too deep into this and making an incorrect assumption on the part I bolded. One of the misconceptions I've encountered with people just transitioning to dots is the concept of "lining up the dot." There should be nothing to "line up" if using the dot effectively. Wherever the dot is, is where the bullet goes (ignoring mechanical bore offset and parallax). Parallax tend to be less towards the center of the objective in many optics, so there is a greater likelihood of co-aligned points of aim between irons and dot, but it still is not a guarantee. Further, any time the irons are fully co-witnessed, it means the lower half of the optic's objective is obscured by the irons. The portion obscured is basically useless and people pay good money to have the biggest objective possible.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
I will just ignore the irons and only use as needed. I was just worried that something I installed was “off”. I’ve heard stories about the c&h mounts and was worried. Thanks again for everyones help.
Just for fun I installed a higher set of Ameriglo iron sights and the dot it still in the same spot. I think the glass on this optic is messing with me. Seems slightly magnified.
I'm puzzled by this post. Do you mean that the dot is in the same place when your new irons are aligned? That is more or less as expected, assuming your irons and dot are zeroed to the same distance.
Here's a better way to approach this.
Zero your dot without looking at the irons.
Turn the dot off.
Verify zero for your irons, and adjust windage or sight height as needed.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
I guess what I’m getting at is that the irons are distracting me when using the dot. Both heights. Only with this 509t for some reason. Never noticed it with other optics.
Reply With Quote