Page 5 of 5
Posted: 2003-03-30 07:11pm
by Kenny_10_Bellys
Rob Wilson wrote:
Which is why I've been saying incorporate it into the sight and have the sight a standard fit, to me, having it mounted on the side makes no sense at all (the only reason the semi-transparent mag exists is because there's no ay to make a round counter that works at the moment so you have to have some way of knowing).
That way, you never have to look away from the sight picture at any time (which is the best possible design for a weapon). Again it's your design so go with what you want, yo don't have to justify it to us, if it's what you really want.
Scopes like this are/will be expensive, you can be sure of that. I doubt the miltary would want every driver and cook kitted out with a gun and a sscope that costs as much as the gun as well. It can't hurt to have the backup of a counter, just like we have tranny mags today. There are also plenty of situations where it makes no sense to stick a humungous scope on a CQB weapon, but a counter is always handy. Once again however, the ins and outs of warfare boils down to cash...
Posted: 2003-03-30 07:41pm
by Beowulf
For a CQB weapon it might be nice to have a red-dot reflex sight on it. It's a lot easier to put a glowing red dot on target than trying to get the sights lined up properly.
Posted: 2003-03-30 07:46pm
by Rob Wilson
Beowulf wrote:For a CQB weapon it might be nice to have a red-dot reflex sight on it. It's a lot easier to put a glowing red dot on target than trying to get the sights lined up properly.
It has a laser dot built-in.
And Kenny went with a standard Iron sight over the Red-dot reflex sight, and to be honest there's no real difference to their performance as you don't use sights when doing CQB, you 'Shotgun' aim (both eyes open, looking over the barrel - whereever your eyes focus is where you 'll hit 90% of the time at ranges of less than 50m with a long barrel weapon), and for the medium range stuff Iron sights are just as effective as Reflex (more down to personal preference than anything else).
Posted: 2003-03-30 07:54pm
by Rob Wilson
Kenny_10_Bellys wrote: Rob Wilson wrote:
Which is why I've been saying incorporate it into the sight and have the sight a standard fit, to me, having it mounted on the side makes no sense at all (the only reason the semi-transparent mag exists is because there's no ay to make a round counter that works at the moment so you have to have some way of knowing).
That way, you never have to look away from the sight picture at any time (which is the best possible design for a weapon). Again it's your design so go with what you want, yo don't have to justify it to us, if it's what you really want.
Scopes like this are/will be expensive, you can be sure of that. I doubt the miltary would want every driver and cook kitted out with a gun and a sscope that costs as much as the gun as well.
SUSAT costs 3 times as much as the weapon it's mounted on.
Kenny_10_Bellys wrote: It can't hurt to have the backup of a counter, just like we have tranny mags today. There are also plenty of situations where it makes no sense to stick a humungous scope on a CQB weapon, but a counter is always handy. Once again however, the ins and outs of warfare boils down to cash...
For CQB you're right, no need for a scope, but then when you leave the building and have to shoot at targets across the town square, at the end of the road, in a window 100m away, moving between buildings, hiding behind vehicles, or hidden in the shadows of rubble you'll find a scope a blessing.
Again it's your design, put it on the side if that's where you want it.
Posted: 2003-03-30 09:21pm
by Pu-239
Well the mag counter is a liability in the dark, so there better be a way to turn it off. I don't see an off switch. If it's there label it.
Posted: 2003-03-30 09:29pm
by Sea Skimmer
Rob Wilson wrote:
SUSAT costs 3 times as much as the weapon it's mounted on.
That counting the great investment that was the why didn't we buy 400K M16's instead A2 upgrade?