![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "Evan
Williams" wrote: One question that I have is why did they go with red dot sight? "The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even after the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered." This seems like a liability to me. I guess that the designers at HK don't realize the amount of abuse a rifle goes through during its service life. Things like battery powered, IR laser aimer, laser illuminator, factory zeroed, are enough to give me the willies. There is a lot to go wrong with one of the most important parts of the weapon. Batteries die and their connections get corroded, lasers if visible work both ways if invisible require another sensitive piece of gear to use, lenses shatter or crack and get covered with dust, dirt, film from smoke, water drops, and fog over. All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your peripheral vision. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are probably others out there as well. In my opinion this is a perfect example of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed adjustments are the way to go. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. This is a perfect example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is really needed in the field. Please give the engineers the benefit of the doubt. They did not develop this sight in isolation, they did it with the full cooperation and knowledge of the US Army. USA has been using red dot sights for over a decade in very trying conditions, and I think they know what they want and what the reliability is under the proposed service conditions. If it wasn't for forward thinking government and private engineers, the Army would still be using Trapdoor Springfields and .45-70 ammunition. Arguably, the push for better weapons has never come from the tip of the spear, it's always come from the labs and their desire to support those men. Fire away... -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-102 pilot kicks sailors ass | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 22 | March 26th 04 05:03 AM |