Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: extremesgs

I know this has come up quite a bit, but I've got specific questions that I couldn't find answers to yet....


I'd like to know, from those who have experience in the area, if an Aimpoint/EOTech type sight or iron factory sights will be better for new officers (who've never shot a patrol-type rifle in a LE environment) to learn on. That is, with what its going to be used for (quick target aquisition, for instance), has anyone found one to be more "user-friendly" than the other? Mainly iron sights vs. optical/dot sights.

I've only shot with the post/aperture set up.

Second part to that is, which of the sight options have others found to be better, and why?

Next, I'd like departmental ammo choices and why.

Lastly, I'd like to know what departments are using for storage and transport for the rifles- where and how.

Post or PM

thanks

---

Posted by: SOT

I can give you some info from the supply side:

1. Heads up optical sights are basically easy to use, seem to increase first round hit probability, and are prolly easier for even the most novice of shooters to use.
That being said, every officer should have to go though iron and optical sight qualification...the bad guys don't give a shit if your batteries are dead.

2. Many shooters here seem to prefer the Eotech, over the Aimpoint...I will differ to their real world expertise.

3. There are a variety of rounds available to LE and in 5.56. Some considerations, if you plan to suppress the weapon, frangible ammo is NOT ok.
What is your primary shooting engagement distance and target. If it's CQB and not longer range shooting, your ammo choice might be different.

http://www.remingtonle.com/ammo/cr.htm

A minor study on the subject
http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads...%20Carbine.pdf

---

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

I'd like to know, from those who have experience in the area, if an Aimpoint/EOTech type sight or iron factory sights will be better for new officers (who've never shot a patrol-type rifle in a LE environment) to learn on. That is, with what its going to be used for (quick target aquisition, for instance), has anyone found one to be more "user-friendly" than the other? Mainly iron sights vs. optical/dot sights.

I'm a firm believer in the "crawl before you walk" methodology, and you must teach a student iron sights before you teach them to shoot on a scope. Optics, especially EOtech and Aimpoints, have many advantages. For one, they don't require you to line up a rear sight apature with a front sight post, you only have to be concerned with a single aiming point. Also since the human eye is attracted to light, the glowing sight tends to draw the eye naturally. They make it easier to shoot with the "both eyes open" method. But there are some disadvantages; scopes break, they're rugged, they just aren't as tough as iron sights. They require batteries, and have a tendency to run out when you need them. They require special mounts to attach to your rifle, which can break, and increase the weight of your weapon. And, only a fool would attach optics to a patrol rifle without having the benefit of Backup Iron Sights (BUIS), just in case your scope goes down. Since this means you have to teach iron sights anyways, I say start out with traditional irons, and upgrade at some future date. If you can teach someone to become proficient with iron sights, then teaching them optics is a snap. The same can't be said for the reverse.

Quote:

Next, I'd like departmental ammo choices and why.

Different types of ammunition have their advantages and disadvantages. I would avoid FMJ, not because of "overpenetration", which is more often a fallacy with the .223 round, but mostly because it splinters when penetrating auto glass, turning it into a fragmentation round. Shoot a few rounds into a car and it looks like someone set off a grenade in the passenger compartment. Federal TAP (Tactical Application) has good penetration results versus people and body armor, but limited penetration versus hard targets (like cars). It holds up fairly well versus auto glass, doesn't shed a lot of its jacket, and still will penetrate. If you expect cars to be a concern, bonded-core ammo holds up very well versus hard targets. Some departments issue both, kind of like issuing buckshot and slugs for shotguns. Stay away from the military heavyweight rounds like 77 grain long range ammo..law enforcement doesn't need them, and they reduce the velocity of your bullets, which conversely increases the chance of overpenetration, especially in the 1-in-9 barrels that have become all the rage. Check the web, there are many good studies that are published.

Quote:

Lastly, I'd like to know what departments are using for storage and transport for the rifles- where and how.

I believe passenger compartment stowage is the only way to go. When the brown stuff hits the fan, it happens fast and you'll want your rifle as quickly as possible. There are many excellent center compartment and roof mounts, it will all depend on the configuration of your cruisers. This being said, many departments prefer trunk mounts, because it reduces the visibility of the rifle...more a public relations concern then a real safety concern. Most mounts are so well made you couldn't possibly pry a rifle out without some heavy tools and probably ruining the rifle. Still, with practice, a trunk mount can be accessed nearly as fast as a cabin mount, and is easier for public-relations obsessed chiefs and politicians to swallow. It all depends on the needs of your department.

Good luck and keep safe.

---

Posted by: pahapoika

anything you ever wanted to know about the .223 round

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

---

Posted by: BB-59

I agree train with both "iron sights" and "optical sights". I am paranoid in the area of batteries. My own Bushmaster is equipped with Trijicon sight.

As far as what the best sight is depends on user preference. Some areas to keep in mind when choosing is price, and battery life. Also how will you mount it to the weapon is an issue.

Ammunition is another subject that has as many opinions as the issue of sights. I belive all the major producers of ammunition market some type of "tactical police" ammunition. A good source of ammo information can be had from the FBI who compare real world shootouts and results that include ammo performance.

I am sorry that I did not give a definitive answer, the truth is you have to do your own testing and evaluation of the different equipment available.

The last area I will address is "exotic items" such as slings. What works with a spec ops team that trains all the time is different from your line staff that may, if they are luck shoot twice a year. 3 point slings can be a nightmare if you do not train with them.

And how to carry them wether in racks or cases should be included in the training. One area I have found is that under stress just getting the rifle into action from the stored condition is sometimes as hard as the situation itself.

---

Posted by: extremesgs

thanks for all the input.

Some points that have been brought up to me elsewhere with the questions regarding sights refer to "cop-proofing" them.... iron sights can take getting banged around better than optics, especially by guys who don't hold much stock in the weapon (i.e. its not theirs, its just in the cruiser). Makes sense.

I also agree with the crawl-before-walk idea... do it the "factory" way, then use enhancements (optics). That way, you can fall back on the sights if need be. According to Mr. Murphy, the batteries will die the one time you need them to work. batteries don't die on iron sights. Again, try to cop-proof the matter.

one of my previous dept's used the Hornady TAP round- similar to the ballistic tip hunting rounds I use. Been around a while, have good reviews, etc.
Def. got to look at more...

thanks again

---

Posted by: POPCOP

not every officer will have the same sight picturer / alignment with electronic sights. Unless the officer is assigned the weapon system then I would suggest sticking with iron sights, they are much more forgiving. This is why tactical officers normally have assigned weapon systems.

---

Posted by: SOT

A lot of the sights like the eotech are sort of universal once zeroed for the gun and ammo.

By this I mean that anyone picking them up and using them should have a very close zero to the last person. As well the real benefit of the eotech is that dot on the target, that's where it's going to hit. The reticle could be up in the left hand corner of the screen and as long as that reticle is on target, you have a hit. That's the one MAJOR advantage of the holographic sight.

---

Posted by: extremesgs

I think its going to be the iron sights. I'd prefer Eotech, but I'm not the only one who will be shooting!

As we all do, I've got some guys that would f**k up a free lunch and ask for change.... I think the optics have potential for disaster! lol

Seriously though, I think iron sights are better suited for our needs.

---

Posted by: SOT

Yeah I was just saying that due to the design of the sight and it being parallax free and holographic...they are not as finicky as some other optics.

That being said if you need demos of guns, let me know. We have a bunch of different M4 style guns.

---

Posted by: SOT

Doing a little checking, I've sold 3x the number of EOtech's as I have almost all other heads up sights combined. And we are not talking about small numbers of each.

---

Posted by: Pacman

My assigned rig is the following;

Colt M4, .223 full auto, (all three round burst were going to Iraq) collapsable stock, 14 inch barrel, EOTech display (Lithium batt's), Federal Tactical 55 grain hollowpoints, Sling (bungie sort), flip up rear iron sights from GG&G.

We train on both iron (primary) and the EOTech sights. We did test two other sights as well aimpoint and a japanese model. Neither really thrilled us. Each of our ten team member is assigned thier own weapon. We have no patrol rifles per se. Hope this helps.

---

Posted by: xxafspxx

I like how we have out M-68 red dots mounted on our M-4's still has the iron sights on the rail. Don't think it's that much more weight. And no if I take one of my guys weapons fire it with the 68 on it's going to still be off just like iron sights not saying thats 100% accurate because there could be that 10 ppl that have the same aim sight as me. Ok ammo use frangible ammo for target practice and nothing else and if you can don't use it that much. I've found that they are dirtier plus have a higher rate of jamming. I'll spend the extra money for different ammo. Thats about all I have. Everyone else has filled you in on all the other things.

---

Posted by: Killjoy

Dude...do you speak, or more appropriately, write english? Your post makes my eyes bleed...

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser