Question about aimpoint and co-witness

[Creeky73]

two part question here. First is about the Aimpoint ML2. I know that the M3 and M4 series are supposed to be very rugged units, can I assume the same toughness from the M2's?

so after I decide which aimpoint to use, I have to decide what co-witness setup to use. I have narrowed it down to using a Bobro mount, obviously either the 150 or the 180, with the 180 being the lower third setup. Just so I understand correctly, in a true co-witness setup, you see the red dot in line with your iron sights, but where exactly is the dot? does it sit on the tip of the front sight if you are lined up perfectly, or just above it? Or can you set it up to your preference? Also, once you have the red dot set up properly, can you use it to fine tune the iron sights?

I know these are probably dumb questions but I have never used a red dot before and I would love to know what to expect. I am leaning towards the lower third setup as it would probably provide a better field of view, but I do like the idea of a true co-witness for some reason. Front sight is standard fixed, and the rear is a folding unit, if this should make any difference in my decision. As always, I appreciate any help you guys can provide. [:)]

[Paulo_Santos]

The ML2 is just as tough as the others. The main difference is the battery life. In a true co-witness the dot will sit right on top of the front sight post. As far as which one you should get, it is ip to you. Check out this thread:

http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?2497-UNDERSTANDING-CO-WITNESS

[Quib]

Also, once you have the red dot set up properly, can you use it to fine tune the iron sights?

The opposite seems to be the standard- Zero irons, adjust red dot to irons for rough zero. I've used this procedure with good results.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/5067731749_b36da21e48_b.jpg

[Paulo_Santos]

You can zero your irons and use the irons to rough zero the aimpoint and/or vice versa.

[TehLlama]

I've found that making the irons and dot look cowitnessed keeps it within 2" at 50yd, which makes life much easier getting a good zero.

[Quib]

You can zero your irons and use the irons to rough zero the aimpoint and/or vice versa.


I’ve never had much luck with the “vice-versa” method, simply because of the effort required to move the rear sight while trying to maintain a constant cheek weld and sight picture, and especially the same with adjustments for the front sight.

Zeroing irons first allows the shooter to maintain a pretty constant cheek weld and sight picture while simply reaching up to make optic adjustments, all the while watching red dot movement as the adjustments are being made.

This has been my experience…..

[Paulo_Santos]

I’ve never had much luck with the “vice-versa” method, simply because of the effort required to move the rear sight while trying to maintain a constant cheek weld and sight picture, and especially the same with adjustments for the front sight.

Zeroing irons first allows the shooter to maintain a pretty constant cheek weld and sight picture while simply reaching up to make optic adjustments, all the while watching red dot movement as the adjustments are being made.

This has been my experience…..

It isn't ideal and it only gets me "close enough" at 50 yards. Just look through the irons and see where the dot is and adjust the windage a few clicks at a time and re-check and repeat until the windage is set and move to the front sight and do the same. It isn't ideal, but it worked pretty well for me when I got the ARMS BUIS and in the past with the Magpul BUIS.

[Quib]

It isn't ideal and it only gets me "close enough" at 50 yards. Just look through the irons and see where the dot is and adjust the windage a few clicks at a time and re-check and repeat until the windage is set and move to the front sight and do the same. It isn't ideal, but it worked pretty well for me when I got the ARMS BUIS and in the past with the Magpul BUIS.

Yes Sir.......To me though, it seems more of a pain than what it's worth. I'd rather zero irons independently like I always have.

What's nice about the method outlined above, is the expediency of getting the red dot to a rough zero. Within a matter of seconds the rough zero is dialed in. Vice versa, I really see no expedience.

[2ATA]

I have always used an absolute co-witness. Part of the reasoning for me is this; I run with the front site deployed, in the event of an optic failure I use the Aimpoint as a ghost ring and it is much easier when you know that as long as the front site is centered your shot will be level.

I also zero irons and then dial down the the RDS as needed. YMMV

[Creeky73]

thanks to everyone for the input. I am not sure how I missed that thread about co-witness, that was exactly what I was looking for. I guess my thought process on the absolute co-witness, and please correct me if my theory is wrong, is this: I figure that, if you are already used to having that front sight in your picture, and you are already getting used to setting your cheek to line up perfectly down the natural line of sights, then it would naturally be easier to go to strictly iron sights if your optic fails. Assuming this to be true, even if only to a very minimal degree, I would probably take that option over the lower third setup even if it only helped me develop a better overall technique. My first instinct, which is to do things the easy way, says go with the lower third. But on second thought, if the absolute setup will help me with basic sighting fundamentals, I would lean that route. Does any of that seem like sound theory, or am I way overthinking this?