Red Dot site placed more forward?

[Byron]

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

Reading that tells me that Mr. Lund is not saying that those with forward mounted optics are inexperienced, but rather inexperienced in the technique/concept of "Fighting Through the Ring".

Yes, that's how I took it, but it still seems like he is jumping to conclusions.

If you, as an instructor, saw a student employing technique A, for example, would you assume that he is therefore inexperienced with technique B? Maybe he gave B a fair shake and decided on A. (Assuming two sound, yet contradictory techniques)

If a student shows up to a class with a completely jacked up setup (POS items bolted on in goofy positions, gear that isn't compatible, etc) then it seems fair to make assumptions about that student's experience. But just because a student isn't using the chosen technique of the instructor does not necessarily indicate a lack of experience (as evidenced by the images of SME's in this thread).

Keep in mind, F2S, I'm not disagreeing with you or saying that you are making this argument. I think it's a good distinction to make in regards to what Erik is saying, but I still think he is unfairly jumping to conclusions. The underlying assumption of the article seems to be, "I know whether someone has tried my advocated technique because if they had tried it, they would be running it right now." That seems like a leap to me.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by Byron

If you, as an instructor, saw a student employing technique A, for example, would you assume that he is therefore inexperienced with technique B? Maybe he gave B a fair shake and decided on A. (Assuming two sound, yet contradictory techniques)

If a student shows up to a class with a completely jacked up setup (POS items bolted on in goofy positions, gear that isn't compatible, etc) then it seems fair to make assumptions about that student's experience. But just because a student isn't using the chosen technique of the instructor does not necessarily indicate a lack of experience (as evidenced by the images of SME's in this thread).

Not to continue this hijack too much further, but that's how I read it. That if you showed up to one of his classes with your optic mounted even with the front of the upper receiver he would automatically assume you didn't know what you were doing.

[Cameron]

So Lund is arguing that times will be faster with an optic mounted closer to the rear sight rather than closer to the front of the receiver? I tried mounting my RDS right back up against the rear BUIS and then tried mounting it forward on the receiver, without the mounts going on to the rail. I much preferred the optic mounted more forward than more to the rear, and using a timer seemed to show my preference to be correct, and counter to Mr. Lund's assertion.

It also appears looking at Vicker's, Lamb, Haley and Costa, they all like running them like I do mounted very close to the front on the receiver.

Cameron

[glocktogo]

I think Erik is pointing out that all other things being equal, transitioning from one target to the next within the FOV of the optic will be faster than having to locate the next target outside the optic and then acquiring it in the optic after transitioning.

The flaw I see here is that all other things are not equal.

When you look at where the optics are located on the two rifles in Erik's article, the one with the optic mounted forward leaves room to open the caps down, the second rifle has them in a flip up orientation. Most initial targets are going to be acquired from a low ready position. Flipping the caps up gives you more visual clutter to work through as you bring the muzzle up. If you tried to deploy the BUIS on the 2nd rifle with the caps flipped down, the rear cap would be in the way.

With the zero magnification optics, I think working too close to them reduces your peripheral vision. Situational awareness is critical to survival. You may be able to transition from one forward target to the next faster if you're working within the FOV, but what about a threat that's just outside your FOV that you didn't see?
The more things I have close to my eye that obscure my FOV downrange, the more likely I am to miss something important.

A lot of high speed handgun shooters are moving away from large blocky rear target sights to ones with shaved down ears that occlude less of the target. They find it faster to transition from one target to the next with less metal to sight through. Running your optic as far to the rear as possible runs counter to that.

Speed within the sight to me is less critical than speed and FOV outside the sight. It's a big world out there and you can't get all of it inside the ring at one time.

[Failure2Stop]

Originally Posted by Byron

I think it's a good distinction to make in regards to what Erik is saying, but I still think he is unfairly jumping to conclusions. The underlying assumption of the article seems to be, "I know whether someone has tried my advocated technique because if they had tried it, they would be running it right now." That seems like a leap to me.

Good post B.
The paragraph I quote makes a lot of sense, and since I am not Erik Lund and did not pen the article, I can't/won't defend it against your point (which is entirely valid).
Hopefully Erik can drop in an let us know exactly what he meant.

Originally Posted by glocktogo

Speed within the sight to me is less critical than speed and FOV outside the sight. It's a big world out there and you can't get all of it inside the ring at one time.

This is also a thought that resonates with me.

[d90king]

A bit forward works well for me.