M68 Reflex site, I would agree. However, the EO Tech works great in wet/triple canopy environments. Fort Lewis reservation has many most of it's training areas that are double and triple canopy rain forest and the EO Tech had absolutely no issues for me, the M68 however is a different story. Also, when stationed in Panama not so long ago, we had the M68's and they fared ok, though you are right in that we generally preferred the Back up Iron Sight instead. I guess my point in all of this is technology has advanced and certainly enhanced the Soldier's on the ground.

Trooper, as an addition, the EO Tech imposes a holographic type image that looks as though it's floating, whereas the M68 and ACOG have a fixed reticle, forcing you to actually focus on the dot/pip versus the holographic display looks more like a bullseye and just naturally lends itself to ease of focus and keep both eyes open while sweeping. Finally, the EO Tech has a much larger aperture, like a small HUD, so very difficult for water to effect. I am not saying you are totally wrong, there are many optics with smaller openings, where moisture would affect clarity of vision, but again, engineers are finally listening to the executors of policy and weapon design.

Matt

Just talking from my experience mate is all.. I'll bow to your experience and remarks on the EO Tech though as I've never used it
We always find that we have to keep reminding our lads not to get 'lost' or 'tunnel visioned' when using optic sights as it's easy to just concentrate on your own little world when viewing the target.

Trooper, you are right about the "tunnel vision effect", which was very difficult to break when we first employed the M68. It is also the reason most optics are not magnified, so as to present a more natural affect when sighting. When I was deployed and only had either the M68, EO Tech or ACOG, the 68 was ruled out as too basic, in my taste. Since most missions involved building clearence or close quarters, the EO Tech was terrific. However, there were times when I really wanted the magnification to ID a target before engaging and the ACOG wins hands down. I look forward to getting use of the newest sight which combines the best of both worlds, but being a First Sergeant now, will ensure my company is taken care of before I pick up mine, going back to swallowing my ego for betterment of a subordinate. Afterall, if I'm kicking in the door as the 1SG, it's a byproduct of an ambush, not as a purposeful #1 man in a stack.

I apologize for jumping on a soapbox, about my experiences versus yours or anyone, but the beauty of Fort Lewis is that we do indeed have some great training environments that prepare us well for deployment. Besides, it wasn't so long ago, as a new Soldier, remembering it was much more of a pray and spray mentality versus precision and positive engagements now.

Matt

lol.. no drama mate.
My job at the moment is to prepare and train guys for Afghan, so I'm involved to the hilt in making sure I can impart the best knowledge available to them before they go... I teach weapons, run ranges, battlefield first aid, and counter IED etc so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just bumping my gums when I make comment on the forums..

LOL, absolutely doesn't sound like you're just bumping your gums! You providing your country's finest troops with current tactics, techniques and procedures is extremly valuable and irreplaceable, making you a combat multiplier. You certainly lost no points with me in your counter arguement, as all are valid points. Anyway, always like sparring with other current or former military. Allows me to see other techniques and viewpoints that we often arrogantly discount because we think our fight is different than their fight is. Have a great day and talk to you later.

Matt

Haha.. yep, always good to have a bit of 'banter' with other forces.. and you know how we in the UK love to wind people up! Good for morale.. I've spent quite a bit of time with US airborne forces on exchange tours.. Was with your guys out in Italy, and then again at Rhode Island.. oh what fun!

Never made it to Italy, but much time in Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, which is why Fort Lewis was a nice break. Absolutely thought a vehicle would destroy my light infantry soul, but found my previous experiences more suited to the new Stryker Brigades. We absolutley do not live off the vehicles, but fight with them. It's a great unit and very tight knit. We have only had a company of Irish Rangers appear in the Pacific Northwest, talk about fun, between language barriers and alcohol tolerances, was also a great time.

Anyway, have a great weekend. It's a four day weekend, so off to enjoy the nice weather.

Matt

I rarely saw any soldiers that carried M16/M4 leave the FOB without optics, with a few exceptions (occasional support troops) in 2005. Many Marines I encountered still had rifles with fixed carry handle sights, and none of their SAWs had optics. For those that had optics it was mostly M68, then ACOGs, followed by EoTech and the piece of crap ELCAN for the SAWS/240s (240s often went without optic). I didn't see optics on many mounted crew served's.

By 2008 I think all National Guard and Reserve units were getting brand new M4s, 240s, 50 cals, even pogue units that had absolutely no need for them.

On my first tour I was pissed that most of us had M16A4s and SAWs w/out picatinny rails until I ran into a California Reserve unit that had the original Vietnam M16s - with half the blueing worn off.

Btw I haven't gotten the game (looks great!) yet but I'm really getting a kick out of the 240 gunner character model, firing the gun with his support hand right underneath the ejection port.

Many non-combat arms units regularly leave their bases and deploy without optics, it's not a necessity, but a nicety. I saw better than half without them, because again they are low priority to field and fill. I would disagree the Elcan is not good kit. It's strictly depends on how well zeroed the optic is, for that matter, any optic. We regularly used them on the 240 and when available the first deployment, the 249 as well. On the second trip, most 249's were equipped and the crews spent many hours on the zero and qual range ensuring accuracy of their sight.




The M16A4 is only a recent addition to the US inventory and is meant to compliment the M4's being fielded to Combat arms and Combat Support units. Many stateside guard and reserve units still have in their armories M16A1/A2's and M60's. There are some that do have M4's and M240's, but most of them are left in Iraq or Afghanistan for follow on guard/reserve forces that relieve the existing guard/reserve units. Also, it's the Picatinny rails that make the M16A4 an M16A4. Without it, it's another M16A2. There's no difference in the barrel twists, or anythigng else that distinguishes the M16A2 from the M16A4 except the rails. Here's a link from Colt: http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp.

Not sure how you qualify "pogue" units as not needing upgraded weapons, but they are combat multipliers in their own right, and they have a right to defend themselves, beit with new or older weapons. I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be a pecking order in who has priority, but much of that also plays into what sort of priority that unit has and who they are supporting. As for the .50 cal, it's been around since WWII and a staple in all units, regardless of active, reserve or guard status. My point is there are absolutely no shortages of the Ma Duece, it's a fantastic weapon for anti personnel/material and light vehicles.

Matt

My NG unit was issued new M4's with M68's just before deploying. I have seen lots of M16A2 junk, but only in the hands of Air Force security forces.