Aimpoint Announces the T2 Optic

[gatordev]

It's not so much of a field of view issue as it is an angle of view. The larger tube allows me to see the dot from a less-perfect angle than the T1.

I'm very much all about weight savings, but for me in the case of the T1 it comes at a cost I'm not willing to pay. shooting something like the 9-hole wall drill makes the 30mm tube preferable to me.

I completely understand what you're saying. I think we have similar builds and I've found similar issues with RDS in general if I don't make the effort to bring the gun to my head rather than the other way around, resulting in contorting my neck. Not saying that's what you're doing, but that I understand how angles can be a consideration.

[FortTom]

I completely understand what you're saying. I think we have similar builds and I've found similar issues with RDS in general if I don't make the effort to bring the gun to my head rather than the other way around, resulting in contorting my neck. Not saying that's what you're doing, but that I understand how angles can be a consideration.

Gator, build size be damned. I can shoot a T1 about as well as I can a P.R.O. Therefore, with the impending and inevitable tanking of the value of the T1, I am more than willing to offer you any lowball price I can think of, for your, soon to be "cheap" T1. That's the least I can do, and I'm glad to stand up like a man and do it. You can thank me after I receive and take possession of it. er.. you are paying shipping, right?

FT

[GOST]

FT don't you be trying to buy up all the used micros!

[gatordev]

For now, I think I'm good...

Seriously, though, I was bored at work today and perusing the classifieds on calguns.net. There were at least 3 different T-1 2 MOA RDS with 1/3 mounts for at or under $600. I'm tellin' ya people, the deals are out there.

[FortTom]

For now, I think I'm good...

Seriously, though, I was bored at work today and perusing the classifieds on calguns.net. There were at least 3 different T-1 2 MOA RDS with 1/3 mounts for at or under $600. I'm tellin' ya people, the deals are out there.

Yeah, I knew that, you have to look but there are deals to be had, for sure. I certainly wasn't going to pay $700 MSRP for one, GD. But since I'm going to be hung up on this rifle for a while, awaiting cerekote and then scheduling and waiting for ATAC camo dipping, I'm not in a real hurry. So, I've got some breathing room to either pull the trigger on a good deal I come upon, or wait and see if the new T2 will knock the prices back pretty good on a new T1 or H1. Plus, I bought a new safe today, so there went this weeks allowance.

And then there's the ridiculously lowball price I was going to pay you for yours when the T2 comes out, because I know you won't quit fidgeting around all day, like a craving drug addict, until you get a new T2....

FT "I'm FT and I approve this message"..

[rob_s]

I completely understand what you're saying. I think we have similar builds and I've found similar issues with RDS in general if I don't make the effort to bring the gun to my head rather than the other way around, resulting in contorting my neck. Not saying that's what you're doing, but that I understand how angles can be a consideration.

All of which is well and good when standing on your hind legs, banging away at line-dancing class or the public range, or plinking. Same applies anytime you're upright, not under a time pressure, and shooting un-encumbered.

Add a timer, a 9-hole wall, and targets downrange that are partially obscured, and all the "bring the gun to the head" in the world just doesn't help the fact that the micros are less forgiving.

In those scenarios, you can't even bring the head to the gun fully, let alone do it the "right"way. This comes from not only my own experience but watching other shooters of various skill levels spend more time hunting for the dot/target than they should be with the little optics.


My usual go-to optic is a TA33, which is extremely unforgiving of head placement but at least it comes with a clear benefit in the form of magnification. The on,y benefit to the micro is weight and bulk reduction, which I'm all in favor of until it affects performance.

Once upon a time I would structure my next practice session around this and come back with times and scores from multiple shooters to prove my point, but now I just don't care. I'm only concerned with my own performance, which I know suffers with a micro vs a 30mm, and which I'm confident the vast majority of shooters will never experience because their definition of "shooting" differs from my own. I only offer my take here because there may be one or two that get something from it or resist the urge for "new hotness" because they realize their old isn't really busted.

I'd still like a PRO with a non-QD mount, at $350 MAP.

[GOST]

Rob_S has brought up some very good points. Don't get me wrong I like my H1 and do well with it, I also do very well with a PRO. In my opinion the PRO may be the best buy for a RDS. I myself often have to fight off the urge for the "new hotness", and I think I am already over the T2 even before it's been released. Since I've seen used SRS02's at roughly $600 I may try one of those next, but who knows I've playing around with my irons a lot lately.

[GOST]

Who am I kidding I'll probably buy a PRO, Form 1 and the girls swimming lessons have ate into the RDS funds. And the RDS fund can't borrow from the ammo fund.

[gatordev]

All of which is well and good when standing on your hind legs, banging away at line-dancing class or the public range, or plinking. Same applies anytime you're upright, not under a time pressure, and shooting un-encumbered.

Add a timer, a 9-hole wall, and targets downrange that are partially obscured, and all the "bring the gun to the head" in the world just doesn't help the fact that the micros are less forgiving.

In those scenarios, you can't even bring the head to the gun fully, let alone do it the "right"way. This comes from not only my own experience but watching other shooters of various skill levels spend more time hunting for the dot/target than they should be with the little optics.


My usual go-to optic is a TA33, which is extremely unforgiving of head placement but at least it comes with a clear benefit in the form of magnification. The on,y benefit to the micro is weight and bulk reduction, which I'm all in favor of until it affects performance.

Once upon a time I would structure my next practice session around this and come back with times and scores from multiple shooters to prove my point, but now I just don't care. I'm only concerned with my own performance, which I know suffers with a micro vs a 30mm, and which I'm confident the vast majority of shooters will never experience because their definition of "shooting" differs from my own. I only offer my take here because there may be one or two that get something from it or resist the urge for "new hotness" because they realize their old isn't really busted.

I'd still like a PRO with a non-QD mount, at $350 MAP.

Good grief, Rob, I'm thinking the internet gets in the way of comms with you sometimes. Believe it or not, you're not the only one here who does something more than plink from a bench. I have no doubt that there's a world of people out there that are better and faster than I am (and I'm sure you're one of them), but that doesn't mean I don't subscribe to a similar mantra.

The point of my post that you quoted was to say that I AGREE with you on the T-1. Yes, I simplified my response to a single example, but the basic premise is still true that "managing the angle" is "harder" with the T-1.

[UWone77]

I ran some drills this week engaging targets at 50 yards in various positions with barricades to simulate shooting around walls, under cars, ect. The drills consisted of 5 stations of 3 hits each. The first 4 times I ran the drill I used my T1. The last 4 times at the end of the week, I used a PRO.

My times averaged 15 seconds faster with the PRO than the T1.

I could definitely find the dot faster in the PRO compared to the T1. Most of the stations had me and my gun in odd angles and the larger tube definitely helped.

I've never paid for an Aimpoint Micro as I've received all mine in trades. I run ML3's or PRO's in my duty/HD/serious use guns. Having said that, I'm surprised the H1 is not more popular, as I would guess a very very very small percentage of T1 users are needing the NV compatibility.

[rob_s]

Good grief, Rob, I'm thinking the internet gets in the way of comms with you sometimes. Believe it or not, you're not the only one here who does something more than plink from a bench. I have no doubt that there's a world of people out there that are better and faster than I am (and I'm sure you're one of them), but that doesn't mean I don't subscribe to a similar mantra.

The point of my post that you quoted was to say that I AGREE with you on the T-1. Yes, I simplified my response to a single example, but the basic premise is still true that "managing the angle" is "harder" with the T-1.

Yes, the internet does seem to get in the way. I used your post as a launching point for a larger discussion, not strictly as a response or criticism towards you.

[rob_s]

I'm surprised the H1 is not more popular, as I would guess a very very very small percentage of T1 users are needing the NV compatibility.

In the beginning, the h1 was gloss and the T1 was matte, so everyone needed the T1 so as no go undetected in night operations (it reflected the glow of the commuter screens when posting on the internet, evidently). I just recently sold it, but I liked my R1 best because it was silver.

The popularity of the micros on ARs clearly surprised Aimpoint. I was at shot the year they were introduced and they had them mounted on bows, bolt-actions, and shotguns IIRC but no ARs. I stood at the booth and watched as one person after another asked them about a riser for the AR, TO WHICH MOST OF THE Aimpoint reps responded with guppie face. I think the gloss and silver colors were holdovers from that initial marketing gap.

At one point the T1 was <$50 more than the H1, I think, so a lot of people just bought the "better" optic.

[gatordev]

Yes, the internet does seem to get in the way. I used your post as a launching point for a larger discussion, not strictly as a response or criticism towards you.

Gotcha.

[FortTom]

I ran some drills this week engaging targets at 50 yards in various positions with barricades to simulate shooting around walls, under cars, ect. The drills consisted of 5 stations of 3 hits each. The first 4 times I ran the drill I used my T1. The last 4 times at the end of the week, I used a PRO.

My times averaged 15 seconds faster with the PRO than the T1.

I could definitely find the dot faster in the PRO compared to the T1. Most of the stations had me and my gun in odd angles and the larger tube definitely helped.

I've never paid for an Aimpoint Micro as I've received all mine in trades. I run ML3's or PRO's in my duty/HD/serious use guns. Having said that, I'm surprised the H1 is not more popular, as I would guess a very very very small percentage of T1 users are needing the NV compatibility.

UW, you, as well as the forum "guru" should know, as a LEO, with ongoing training, that "courses" or IPSC or whatever, is not combat, and those static targets that you can pre-solve won't go pew...pew...pew.. unless you have a speaker system set up to do that and "fire back" at you....

Seriously, I'm not poking at you, just the poster with the same old b.s as to how everyone is a keyboard commando, and said poster's monitor must glow war figher red, with his bud's blood. Too much time playing war games on the keyboard, I think.

But really, I'd like to see your times, under a super stressful situation that mimics real combat, and see if that 15 seconds shrinks or even grows a bit.

When shooting IPSC and other "training" courses and the "foe" doesn't think, or hunt you as hard as you're hunting him, when said foe, might even have more training than yourself, or experience, these hypothetical's as to how one optic over another, seem to blur a bit.

I'm not saying that your training isn't as good or better than myself or others, i'm just trying to state, that when people start comparing other's experiences with their "courses" and don't have a clue what real combat is like, and how it can make even the best of plans and training go to hell in a hand basket, it's really hard to make a definitive opinion on something that one doesn't understand or know.

Respectfully, as always,

FT

[UWone77]

UW, you, as well as the forum "guru" should know, as a LEO, with ongoing training, that "courses" or IPSC or whatever, is not combat, and those static targets that you can pre-solve won't go pew...pew...pew.. unless you have a speaker system set up to do that and "fire back" at you....

Seriously, I'm not poking at you, just the poster with the same old b.s as to how everyone is a keyboard commando, and said poster's monitor must glow war figher red, with his bud's blood. Too much time playing war games on the keyboard, I think.

But really, I'd like to see your times, under a super stressful situation that mimics real combat, and see if that 15 seconds shrinks or even grows a bit.

When shooting IPSC and other "training" courses and the "foe" doesn't think, or hunt you as hard as you're hunting him, when said foe, might even have more training than yourself, or experience, these hypothetical's as to how one optic over another, seem to blur a bit.

I'm not saying that your training isn't as good or better than myself or others, i'm just trying to state, that when people start comparing other's experiences with their "courses" and don't have a clue what real combat is like, and how it can make even the best of plans and training go to hell in a hand basket, it's really hard to make a definitive opinion on something that one doesn't understand or know.

Respectfully, as always,

FT

FT,

I'm not sure by my post how you got that we were trying to simulate combat conditions.

We're not soldiers and definitely don't have the same mission, so our tactics and training will be different. For the most part, we punch paper a few times a year on quals which is all that is required. A small number of us keep up or try to keep up our skills on a more consistent basis. Engagements for LEO will likely be 1 on 1, 2 on 1, for the majority. We don't shoot and move in squads, or use cover fire.

All you can do in training is simulate having a little stress on you, whether that be a time limit, or number of hits on a target, moving, ect. All we're trying to do is have officers work through the stress and stay in the fight. A lot of LEO don't like guns, and dread going to the range. Many of them have a hard time working through basic malfunction drills and often get frustrated if they can't hit the target the first few shots.

I have no delusions of what my job is, and simulating combat like a soldier is not one of them.