Marines issuing suppressors?

[insanebikerboy]

I had a regular EOTech and a backup flip up rear sight on my M4. Still had the regular front sight post. Worked really well.

Only reason I can think of having elevated sights is for NVGs. In that picture the optic looks like it is mounted as far forward in the receiver as possible. With the older (aka larger) EOTechs, it was tough getting a good cheek weld and having enough room for the NVG tube to fit.

 

[Griz882]

Raised optics is a “learned re-adaptation” to the rifle’s original design. The first variant, Stoner’s A-10, and all since, utilize that nice, symmetric straight line movement of the operating systems designed to reduce recoil. Legacy combat rifles have a slight drop ergonomically shaped as a hand-to-trigger hold that rises to cheek to create a sight line. The (A-10) M-16, and all that followed, there is a straight line from muzzle/gas line to butt plate. Traditional sights forced the Stoner system user to twist their head too far to get a nice line that was made worse with a helmet. So, Stoner lifted the aiming mechanism and made it stronger (and ergonomically better) by adding the “carrying handle.” That had the added benefit of offering the largest sight picture in the business at the time. fast forward, and during the long war, the trend was to look slick, light and fast so the carrying handle changed to a rail while newer optics improved the rifle quite a lot. But…the optics (with the slight exception of the ACOG) kept pulling the shooters head further down toward that straight line operating system to get a sight picture. Eventually people realized that raising the optics had several benefits, especially setting the shooters head at the designs intended angle.

 

[ChuckMK23]

DD RIS III upper is cool!

 

[ChuckMK23]

Raised optics is a “learned re-adaptation” to the rifle’s original design. The first variant, Stoner’s A-10, and all since, utilize that nice, symmetric straight line movement of the operating systems designed to reduce recoil. Legacy combat rifles have a slight drop ergonomically shaped as a hand-to-trigger hold that rises to cheek to create a sight line. The (A-10) M-16, and all that followed, there is a straight line from muzzle/gas line to butt plate. Traditional sights forced the Stoner system user to twist their head too far to get a nice line that was made worse with a helmet. So, Stoner lifted the aiming mechanism and made it stronger (and ergonomically better) by adding the “carrying handle.” That had the added benefit of offering the largest sight picture in the business at the time. fast forward, and during the long war, the trend was to look slick, light and fast so the carrying handle changed to a rail while newer optics improved the rifle quite a lot. But…the optics (with the slight exception of the ACOG) kept pulling the shooters head further down toward that straight line operating system to get a sight picture. Eventually people realized that raising the optics had several benefits, especially setting the shooters head at the designs intended angle.

Wasn't there a Trijicon reflex sight from late 90's - 2000's that Army deployed that sat very tall like that?

It seems the LPVO's are winning out - more complex than a ACOG - and higher mounts.

 

[BigRed389]

???

I mean I'm a high-drag low-speed old dude who will almost certainly never use a weapon in anger, but that just seems weird.

Yeah. But it’s not any weirder than the itty bitty “pistol sights” that sat on my issues rifle’s ACOG. Which were also “oh shit” sights only.

Any option if you need backup sights right the F now aren’t ever going to do a whole lot more than good enough for in close “oh shit” moments.
If you want real irons, the best you can do is to put on flip ups, with a QD mount for the optic.

 

[Gatordev]

Only reason I can think of having elevated sights is for NVGs.

That's exactly what they're for. I was being a smart ass about the LARPers. The original 1.93 optic mounts were to clear a PEQ with a magnified optic, but that height, and eventually the 2.x" "Ultra High" mounts took the idea further for red dots in order to integrate with NODs.

For non-PEQ and NOD-related activities, I find the 1.7" (1/3 co-witness height) the sweet spot for both LPVO and RDS for my body type.

Wasn't there a Trijicon reflex sight from late 90's - 2000's that Army deployed that sat very tall like that?

It was even before that. The SInglePoint was adopted by SF in Vietnam and it would sit on the carry handle. The SP was an occluded sight that generated a dot in the strong side eye. You can still buy them today.

Later there were several reflex sights, including the Trijicon, that started life on the carry handle, but eventually moved down to the A4 style top rail.