Effect on POI when occluding red dot sights

[MegademiC]

A few posts recently have brought up how phoria will negatively impact POI when shooting with occlused RDS'. Some of the benefits of shooting with a covered RDS include the inability to wash out the dot when using a weapon light or changes in ambient lighting, maintaining a target focus vs dot focus, and allowing the use of an IR light along with an RDS when aiming under NODs (especially useful with pistols).

Molon did testing with a TA11 3.5x ACOG and documented a significant POI shift at 25y. For today, I only had access to a 25y indoor range. With an 11.5" rifle topped with a T2 in LaRue LT660 mount, I fired a quick 10-round group offhand with the RDS uncovered (left target), then closed the solid cover and fired another quick offhand 10rd group (right target). The rifle is zeroed at 200y and POA remained consistent at the center of the B8.



While there is some shift in POI, it is insignificant within CQB distances. I will have access to a 200y range next week and will test on paper and steel at various distances to continue gathering data.

Additionally, I repeated this with a Glock 19 and Holosun HS507c X2. Both were 5 round groups at 25y shooting 124gr Geco 9mm. The top target is with the RDS taped, the bottom is uncovered.



Interestingly, there was no perceptible difference in POI. This could be attributed to the fact that I normally zero my pistols offhand with both eyes open, so I'm already accounting for any effects of phoria.

I'm planning to also test this with a 4x ACOG, 1-6x Razor at 1x/3x/6x, and to stretch the RDS' legs to see how far it can effectively be used while covered.

The best way to test this is to look at the target, and only get behind the optic for a quick sight picture.IME the longer you sit occluded the more phoria impacts you.

People do this in uspsa comps while training themselves and still place top 5 or win. I would not do it for precision work (sitting behind the sight), but for reactive- mid or fast paced shooting it should be fine for a/c zone hits to decent distsnce... hell ive hit 8" targets consistently at 60 with no sights on a rifle, occluded would be much better.

[GTF425]

The best way to test this is to look at the target, and only get behind the optic for a quick sight picture.IME the longer you sit occluded the more phoria impacts you.

People do this in uspsa comps while training themselves and still place top 5 or win. I would not do it for precision work (sitting behind the sight), but for reactive- mid or fast paced shooting it should be fine for a/c zone hits to decent distsnce... hell ive hit 8" targets consistently at 60 with no sights on a rifle, occluded would be much better.

I'm doing it because there were tenured members claiming that you'll be 12" plus off target at 25y if you use an occluded sight.

I am 100% confident that's not true, but am gathering the necessary target data to support the hypothesis. I'm mostly curious to see how far it can be pushed more than anything. Magnified optics are coming later this week.

[Defaultmp3]

I'm doing it because there were tenured members claiming that you'll be 12" plus off target at 25y if you use an occluded sight.

I am 100% confident that's not true, but am gathering the necessary target data to support the hypothesis. I'm mostly curious to see how far it can be pushed more than anything. Magnified optics are coming later this week.

I don't think anyone has said that everyone would be 12" off target at 25 yards if you use an occluded sight, but instead that it is possible for some individuals to be that far off. Some folks can absolutely do good work using occluded sights. Others will struggle. While I applaud your attempts to gather data, they're nothing more than n = 1, and thus don't really say anything outside of the fact that occluded sights work pretty well for an unknown percentage of folks.

[GTF425]

Saves me the hassle of possibly encouraging others to try something new. Carry on with our regularly programmed budget LPVO threads.

[markm]

Meh. I still would like to try it. I actually was glassing small objects in my house the other day to try to simulate a sight pic on a 300-400 yard target since we haven't been out to the range in a few weeks. Looks like it's doable at distance if you slow down and focus.

[Uncas47]

For CQB use, if you want the benefit of a constant brightness setting of a red dot and occluded is a good solution for you, just zero with the sight occluded and leave it that way. You now have the ability to move through different lighting and leave the dot alone. Verify at range in case the situation changes. Or forget it and move on.

[gaijin]

I'm doing it because there were tenured members claiming that you'll be 12" plus off target at 25y if you use an occluded sight.

I am 100% confident that's not true, but am gathering the necessary target data to support the hypothesis. I'm mostly curious to see how far it can be pushed more than anything. Magnified optics are coming later this week.

I ran an Armsen OEG onna (.223) Galil in (very) early 3 gun for a while.
Was not difficult to keep hits in A/C zone at 200 yds.
This under Field/Timed conditions. 12” @ 25 yds margin of error at 25 yds is ridiculous.

[militarymoron]

I'm doing it because there were tenured members claiming that you'll be 12" plus off target at 25y if you use an occluded sight.
I am 100% confident that's not true, but am gathering the necessary target data to support the hypothesis.

It's shooter dependent, and depends on the amount of phoria that person has. So, what your own results will only prove is what's true for you. In the old thread, what people were discussing was the POI change when you switch back and forth from occluding and looking through the same sight. If you zero occluded and use it that way, like an OEG, that will lessen the effect of a phoria if you have one. Note that phoria can change on the same person as the eye gets fatigued.

If you zero looking through the sight, then use it occluded, that's when you'll see a difference, if you have a phoria. If you don't, then you may not see the effect.
I think that a poll would be a good idea, with many people trying the SAME test, then chiming in with their results. Set up a rifle with red dot (this can be done at home) so that it's pointing out a window at a fixed point. Make sure it's in a rest or on a bipod and you don't move it. Look through the red dot, and confirm it's on the target. Flip the lens cover closed so you're using it occluded and see if the dot changes position on that target. If not, great. Your POI using the optic may be the same. If so, then you can see how much you'll be off.

For me, it's at least a foot at 25 yds difference in the dot shift. Note that I am left handed and shoot rifles using my left eye looking through sights or optics. However I am right eye dominant, so when I occlude the sight I'm now using my right eye to look at the target while the left eye sees the dot and superimposes it. So, this may also be a factor why I'm seeing such a big shift.
When I shoot pistol, I use my right eye (both eyes open). For me, the test is always the same - I see a significant difference in the position of the dot, every single time. YMMV.

[markm]

In the old thread, what people were discussing was the POI change when you switch back and forth from occluding and looking through the same sight.

I still can't wrap my head around that massive of a POI difference. I didn't have my Aimpoint out this weekend to even mess with this.

[Uncas47]

If this technique is a distraction for anyone for whatever reason I would advise against it. The small benefit is not worth any sacrifice in speed or accuracy. It's only useful if it provides you with an advantage.