Collimator sights: critical eye

92
The problem of tuning year after year all the more captures the minds of most owners weapons. Handles, butts, designators, sights, innumerable additions and accessories. Having plunged into this world, you involuntarily recall a brilliant marketing trick with a Barbie doll. They started making and selling dolls hundreds of years ago, but the idea to force them to buy a house for them, a horse and a life partner really turned the industry around.

Collimator sights: critical eye
Thrust to the tuning of weapons is international and knows no boundaries




Naturally, gun tuning is not just toys. Most of the items have a clear, clear purpose, but this fact often disappears under a hail of arguments "so much cooler!", "I saw it with Alpha!", "And suddenly it will come in handy" and "well, I don't know, it seems to me more comfortable."

It’s impossible to describe the whole variety of tuning in one article, so today I would like to touch on just one point - collimator sights. Opinions on this issue are particularly polar. One group of experts says that without a collimator sight, modern weapons are unthinkable, and that only with it you can shoot quickly and accurately. Another group, with no less enthusiasm, asserts that the collimator-aim is the creation of the devil or, at least, of the American special services, created solely to break the combat readiness of our army in the coming confrontation with the spiritless west.

One of the leading specialists of the second group, a brilliant speaker and a gifted writer, went further in his rhetoric. In a personal conversation, he argued that “it’s impossible to get anywhere with a collimator sight,” since the collimator sight is nothing other than a front sight and a rear sight, brought together and painted red ... The logical thing in that situation was to invite the speaker to stand up to the targets and undergo fire from an automatic machine, but I restrained myself, since I was visiting and on important business.

Of course, the opinion of such recognized authorities should not be questioned.



But I still, on the basis of personal experience, will express my non-expert opinion.

First you need to understand why you need a collimator sight and what are its real advantages. Usually, the question "why do we need a collimator?" people respond "you can shoot faster with him." This is not quite true. Competitive practice of the sport "practical shooting" is an excellent measure of speed and accuracy of shooting. If we analyze the protocols of the karabiner competition, look at how the arrows of the “standard” and “open” classes go through the exercise, shoot yourself in both classes, it will become obvious that the difference in shooting speed, especially at short distances, is quite small.

Why, then, need a collimator sight? The answer to this question comes when you have to shoot away from a clean and beautiful, well-lit army shooting range, with neat trenches and slender rows of elevators stretching into the horizon.

1) Shooting under reduced visibility.



I remember my first “moment of awareness” on this topic many years ago, when I first had to shoot a machine gun at night. Seven years of bullet shooting, the Moscow team, a bunch of medals - all this ceased to matter at one moment, when I realized that I don’t see the fly, and that the target is barely visible, and only if you don’t take your eyes off it.

Of course, you can tie a fly with a whole white thread, smear aiming devices with luminous nail polish, look for the notorious radioactive nozzles or, as recommended by the instruction, look for bright spots on the battlefield, so that, as recommended by the official instruction, on a light background and take a straight fly, then, moving the machine gun, lead the aiming line to the middle of the silhouette and open fire. "

But the collimator scope solves this problem more effectively. Focusing on the target, a simple aiming mark is clearly visible in the dark. Control shots over and over again show that with a collimator sight, trainees are much more effective at hitting all types of targets in conditions of limited visibility - and you do not need to be an academic to understand why. Of course, in complete darkness, infrared laser and night vision devices will be more effective, but this is a topic for another conversation.

2) Shooting at moving targets.



All experienced instructors know how difficult it is to organize shooting classes at moving targets. There are few engines with lifts on the shooting ranges, they are far away and work poorly. Homemade designs from matches and acorns are unreliable and often fail. A radio controlled robots, as usual, they didn’t deliver, and the authorities twist their fingers at their temples to offer such a purchase. In the course are radio-controlled cars taken from sappers, caterpillar robots and the oldest mechanism - a target on a stick, which is waved by an instructor or an unfortunate employee.

Several years ago, in small competitions for regional special forces, we managed to build one moving target. And again I remember a moment of sudden realization of the scale of the problem, when both I and well-trained employees missed time after time, not believing in their own mistakes. It is clear that after a small workout, everyone began to fall, but one cannot ignore the fact that at our moving targets we are inadmissibly little fired.

But here the collimator again makes the task easier. We cling to the target, instantly let down the aiming mark - the result usually does not keep itself waiting. Of course, with mechanics you can get, the question is in the amount of time spent on training.

3) Shooting from awkward positions.

Combat shooting, as you know, is characterized by the fact that the shooter also wants to live. And therefore it is necessary to shoot from behind cover. Breaks in the walls, from under the car, between the wheels of armored personnel carriers. It is not always possible to provide the perfect tab and clearly see the mechanical sighting. A few years ago there was an opportunity to learn from American instructors. I went to a distant country on a tactical course, and now ... We work in pairs, we cover each other, we move away, the command sounds — shoot from behind the car. I smirk inwardly, thinking - “right now, I’ll show them how to, I did it a thousand times,” I fall on my side, hide behind the wheel and suddenly realize that I am aiming exactly at the threshold of the car. And again, "the moment of awareness" - every time before that in Russia, I shot from under the SUV, and here a rotten sedan with sagging shock absorbers, whose clearance is less than two times. I had to wriggle out - the machine gun on the concrete, arched, stretched its neck, I saw a point on the very edge of the sight, I was shooting.

In such conditions, the presence or absence of a collimator sight determines whether, in principle, you will be able to make an aimed shot or not.


In the photo - the author of the article before the meeting with the rotten sedan. The weapon is too high for shooting from a normal car, even if you change the shoulder.


4) Training beginner shooters.

The analogy here is very simple. Collimator - like an automatic transmission, facilitates the process of initial training at times. Instead of pulling gears, squeezing the clutch, you simply turn on the “drive” and turn the steering wheel. The same with shooting. Instead of the mysterious pillar and fly, the recruit generation call of duty sees a red dot and can safely learn to work with the descent and other aspects of the initial shooting training. Then, of course, it is imperative to teach a person to work with mechanics, without this he simply will not be a shooter, but the collimator simplifies the initial training.

The same in work. I remember that during the first business trip as part of the PMC we were given four machine guns, only one of which was with a collimator. After deliberation, the most fashionable machine gun was given to the least experienced employee, because the others will cope with this, and the collimator will obviously help to compensate for the lack of skill.



The same machine

It is because of the many "moments of awareness" that I had the impression that the collimator sight is a necessary and important thing to use. “What kind of crap is that?”, An attentive reader will ask. Why then is the article called “Collimator sights - a critical eye?” After all, this is just another traitor who podpoddosnik advertises enemy toys that will be disconnected from the satellite, but will not be switched off by electromagnetic radiation !!! ”“ Wait a minute, wait a minute ”- can I respond to an attentive reader. We have not yet reached the most important point, namely, the moment when dreams of collimators often tragically break about reality. And here is why.

In order for the collimator sight to be effective, three factors must be observed.
a) The sight must be of high quality.
b) Attachment of the sight must ensure the preservation of the STP (midpoint of hit) in any conditions.
c) The shooter must know the ballistics of the ammunition and understand where he needs to aim at each of the distances.


And the sight is the best, and the mount seems to be reliable. One problem - the collimator is backwards


Let us examine each item in more detail.

a) The sight must be of high quality.

By the will of fate, I had to use a lot of different sights. In my understanding, a high-quality sight works on a single battery for several years, it endures all the same tests for survivability as a weapon (throws from a height, + 50, -50, shooting a full weapon resource in extreme modes and much more). Therefore, my rating of quality sights looks like this:
1) Aimpoint
2) ...
3) ...

It so happened that for eight months I watched the passage of Aimpoint sights through full, qualified tests with a weapon. Deserts, mountains, snow, mud, frost, shooting for a resource and much more. There was an opportunity to talk with representatives of the company, work together and learn more deeply how sights are created, manufactured and tested. The approach to each of the stages is impressive. For example, Aimpoint will soon launch a new sight. But they do not carry it on exhibitions. They carry it through trials all over the world, test it in an atmosphere of complete secrecy to see to the end that the thing turned out without flaws.

But there are drawbacks with Aimpoint. More than once, my batteries died much earlier than the promised five years. In the case of the Micro T-1, the STP takes seriously depending on the position of the point of the sight relative to the edge. This effect is beautifully described by M. Degtyarev in the Kalashnikov magazine 11 / 2015 of the year. The following model, T-2, does not already have this effect.

Trijicon MRO has appeared recently and while statistics are not enough. RMR on the machines I have not tried.

EOtech I do not like for a long time. Especially strongly after the new EXPS2 with a fresh battery just picked up and was cut off from me on AK 103 when firing a queue. It was fun. Athletes have always complained that the brand will fade with time. For a few people, it just broke down: http://karden.livejournal.com/38405.html#comments

And then for EOtech, the hour of reckoning came: http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/30/ussocom-issues-safety-use-message-eotech-enhanced-combat-optical-sights-plus-goings/

On the Russian Internet, this miraculous phenomenon was not particularly noticed, so I’ll tell you about the details. First, the US Special Operations Command issued an official warning about the problems of these scopes. With a serious change in temperature, the STP went to 5-6 MOA. The company manufacturer struggled with this very interesting way - they removed from the instruction manual information about what temperatures the sight was designed for. As a result, the manufacturer paid 25,6 millions of fines to the state, and ordinary civilian people send their sights to the manufacturer in cars for a refund.

All details here: http://www.eotechlawsuit.com/



And even if this did not happen, the Eotech itself is relatively heavy, while working on one battery is insufficient, it is extremely difficult to ensure alignment with the mechanical sights.

The Holosun products have been showing themselves very well lately, but they have not yet gained the necessary credit of trust. So far, the tests show excellent work time, excellent reliability, but it is psychologically difficult to gain confidence in the Chinese sight.

b) Mount the sight.
Welcome to the unique and wonderful world of hundreds of ingenious devices designed to mount optics on AK. By itself, this topic pulls into a separate dissertation, so we consider only the most general points. The issue of mounting optics is not really unique. The same problems are experienced by the owners of Czech VZ 58, old G-3, FN FAL, and in general, all weapons of the Cold War era.

The realistic options for rifled weapons are as follows:
1) To gas tube (stem pad)
2) Instead of the aiming bar
3) On the receiver cover
4) On the side bracket

1) To gas tube (stem pad)

The most deserved option here, of course, is a gas tube from the company "Ultimak". A small company with an awkward site, from barely visible on the map of Moscow in Idaho, has created one of the most effective ways of attaching collimators to a Kalashnikov assault rifle.



The advantages are known to all - the STF does not go away, the weight of the weapon practically does not increase. When the collimator fails, in its lower part, the mechanical sights remain visible, which makes it possible to continue aimed shooting.



The cons are also obvious. Not every sight can be comfortably mounted on a gas tube, it will have to be cleaned without removing it. "Scout" mount sight far from the eye, it is convenient not for everyone. And most importantly - the gas tube inevitably heats up, heating the collimator. Depending on various factors, this can lead to the failure of the sight.

Various handguards - thousands of them, have the same set of problems. Not all have sufficient rigidity, and almost all of them are a bit higher than the "ultimak" and its copies, so the sight with the front sight through the installed collimator is no longer visible.

2) Instead of the aiming bar

We are talking about slats such as "Nomad". Very interesting and logical solution. Mounting the sight on the block of the aiming bar makes sense - this part is not removed when disassembling and fixed on the trunk and front insert of the receiver. Sights are fastened securely, STP does not go away.




The problem of such an attachment is obvious - the shooter deprives himself of the opportunity to use regular aiming devices. For sport, this is not a problem, for other situations - at least a very serious reason to think.

3) On the receiver cover



The most logical installation of the sight looks somewhere around the receiver cover. But, as we remember, AK has a removable cover, and often has a backlash. I met a group of specialists at one VPK enterprise, who claimed that this was not a problem at all, and just welded the picatini bar onto a regular cover. This is an interesting concept, but in general, most people want something more reliable.

So far, there is no universal, uniquely proven solution in this area. The lid of the “Zenith” shows itself well, but for its installation it is necessary to put the handguard, which I, for example, absolutely do not need. The cover from FAB Defense looks interesting, but no one has yet seen the results of full-fledged long-term trial operation. New variants of kits from CAA look promising, but the price stops many.

Polar opinions are expressed about the Texan Dog Leg. In some, it doesn’t hold a shooting at all, others swear that the human mind has not yet created anything better. But if you look at things objectively - by installing this cover, we again completely lose our staff pillar. Is it not easier then to install one of the variants of the "Nomad", which costs six times cheaper?

4) On the side bracket


Actually, the only option provided by the manufacturer. This is his main plus. No modifications, file hours, or boss frowns trying to understand what you did with the standard weapon.

The drawbacks of the side bracket are obvious - the weight of the weapon increases, the butt cannot be folded, the side slats on the machines often play, and not all machines have them. Now there are many manufacturers of brackets on the market, there is no point in listing all.

In general, the meaning is very simple - if you do not have a reliable and proven attachment of a sight to a weapon, the best collimator will not only be useless, but harmful. The sudden withdrawal of STP is a very unpleasant event, akin to unexpected sexual impotence.

c) The shooter should know the ballistics of the ammunition perfectly and clearly understand where he needs to aim at each of the distances.



Suppose that the stars were formed so that you got a high-quality sight in your hands, you reliably installed it on a weapon, shot it, tested it according to your program and were completely satisfied. Fine. The last thing left is to shoot the sight at all distances and understand where you need to aim at each of the possible distances.

Ballistics and zeroing - the topic of at least a separate article. Just remember that until all your colleagues have figured out where they need to aim at 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450 and 500 meters, the set of arrows-weapons with a collimator will be less effective than shooter with a conventional machine.

Only if all three factors are observed, namely: a high-quality sight, reliable mounting and full knowledge of the ballistics of ammunition, you will achieve an increase in the effectiveness of the fire. And if you ignore any of these points, the collimator on your weapon will not even be a useless, but simply a dangerous toy.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    15 October 2016 07: 45
    As I understand it, the collimator gives the advantage of shooting at targets in the dark, and tell me this banter: - "which the enemies disconnect from the satellite, and not disconnect - so they will burn out with electromagnetic radiation !!!" ???
    1. +19
      15 October 2016 08: 04
      Not only an advantage at dusk. The collimator makes it possible to shoot looking with both eyes at the target, and not with one, focusing on the front sight, not the target. Aiming time is significantly less.
      And they will "burn it out" - while in the infantry it will reach the collimators, the Chinese will already use glasses with tactical target designation to turn the bugs ...
      1. jjj
        +6
        15 October 2016 08: 16
        I now look at the Syrian war and see that the sides somehow manage without collimators. And in Afghanistan, one side has a weapon - you can't dig, with all the bells and whistles, and the other - the old Soviet model. Which of them is fighting whom? In general, run for half a year with the "slats" as you want a smooth, rounded machine. About the collimator of night vision - generally cool. Guys don't know
        1. +14
          15 October 2016 11: 04
          Quote: jjj
          I now look at the Syrian war and see that the sides somehow manage without collimators. And in Afghanistan, one side has a weapon - you can't dig, with all the bells and whistles, and the other - the old Soviet model. Which of them is fighting whom? In general, run for half a year with the "slats" as you want a smooth, rounded machine. About the collimator of night vision - generally cool. Guys don't know


          It is possible to kill from Lee Enfield and from the musket. You can even swing clubs. Only a question of efficiency
          1. +7
            15 October 2016 16: 52
            about night vision collimator ..

            Holographic collimators are compatible with NVD.
            I found a more or less sane video about the advantages of K. There, at first, not in Russian)), but then the norms.
            The minuses are clear: the device is gentle, littered with, the working range to 250m .. but on these already in general, snipers work.
            1. +1
              15 October 2016 18: 50
              Not snipers, but police Marxmanns
              1. +8
                16 October 2016 06: 28
                I'm glad that you know such words, but, according to the state, we still have snipers wink
            2. 0
              16 October 2016 09: 52
              Quote: Thor
              The minuses are clear: the device is gentle, littered with, the working range to 250m .. but on these already in general, snipers work.

              About tenderness greatly exaggerated
              1. +1
                16 October 2016 17: 32
                At caliber 12, when babaching, it is not rare ...
        2. +2
          15 October 2016 15: 13
          Quote: jjj
          smooth, rounded machine

          Only if cut from plywood. In reality, the soldier’s equipment is full of clinging and collimator bars are far from the first roles here.
        3. +7
          15 October 2016 19: 01
          Get by. Have you seen how they shoot? They will stick out the trunk because of some angle of the structure or ruins, or they will raise it above the parapet and scorch it without looking. In where ammunition plants provide a profit for themselves. Only at whose expense?
          1. 0
            23 March 2017 23: 27
            didn’t hear about the suppression fire? but about fire for distraction?
        4. 0
          17 October 2016 18: 35
          Jjj

          Yes picatini is only for civilian weapons. Therefore, a sleek AK with a good collimator on the side bracket and the right pouch for it is the best for anyone, including conscripts.

          Shooting at night, well, if you see the target, then shoot.

          Just keep in mind that the collimator is not suitable for firing further than 400m, I would even lower the requirements to 300m.
      2. +7
        15 October 2016 10: 14
        Quote: Thor
        And they will "burn out"

        And "burned out" - there are models that, even without power supply, give an aiming mark. Example - PK-01 and PKS-07
    2. 0
      17 October 2016 17: 49
      As I understand it, the collimator gives the advantage of firing at targets in the dark
      Quote: Serge Boss
      As I understand it, the collimator gives the advantage of firing at targets in the dark

      even at this time - not a fact. for example, a too bright mark interrupts the eye of everything, including the goal. So I think the taste and color. the convenience of aiming precisely increases, but they probably correctly said that an experienced shooter no longer needs it. It works more for the inexperienced.
  2. +5
    15 October 2016 08: 02
    Excellent article, thank you!
    1. +3
      15 October 2016 08: 28
      And how is it great?
      The last thing left is to shoot the sight at all distances and understand where you need to aim at each of the possible distances.

      Well, what is the difference from the front sight entirely?
      1. +1
        17 October 2016 18: 39
        Mordvin

        Advantage as between Mercedes and Zaporozhets. Zaporozhets strong and reliable, dirt and bad roads. Mercedes is lucky for long distances, but requires attention.

        The collimator is an exceptionally effective sight. Just a fairy tale. It's a song.
  3. +10
    15 October 2016 08: 35
    And why the author does not tell what will happen to the collimator if you crawl through the mud with it. Or jumping to hit the sight on a concrete wall, I know that this can’t be done with optics.
    Such experts always justify the proverb "a specialist is like a gumboil" with their opinions. In my opinion, the author is an employee of a PMC, not a downtime infantryman, but PMCs, like athletes, can hang different pribluds.
    If he draws analogies on cars, then anyone with mechanics will go by machine, but from a machine by mechanics it is more difficult.
    Reading the article, the idea that many conclusions were far-fetched did not leave. It’s easier for me to have an ordinary sight and learn how to shoot, quickly, and not look for a bright point while trying to introduce corrections for range and wind.
    I’m not saying that a collimator is not a necessary thing, it’s just not so simple, as the author writes and evidence of this is a large number of warriors without it
    1. +19
      15 October 2016 09: 51
      Quote: Kostya Andreev
      Or jumping to hit the sight on a concrete wall

      I wouldn’t recommend to beat a regular sight of the machine gun against a concrete wall. And the scope of the grenade launcher, by the way, bends once with such a blow. You just need to be more careful with your weapons.

      There is nothing more harmful than the legend of the "super-speed", shooting in any mud, allowing any blows and lack of constant maintenance.
      1. +1
        15 October 2016 12: 48
        About Kalash, it’s not a legend, but BE. .. Well, I tested the collimator on a hunting SCS .., a good thing, but not for work. And give recommendations to your wife, if you haven’t been in battle, your brother is there only about a regular sight and you think that you wouldn’t hit his native wall with concrete ... Here is the weight of the weapon and ammunition, this is very important.
        1. +9
          15 October 2016 13: 42
          Quote: Rom14
          About Kalash is not a legend but BEEN ..

          Yeah, "Byl" ... Did you ever hit the bolt handle with your boots? This is how such an opportunity will happen, and you will be "told". If this does not happen in battle.

          Quote: Rom14
          And give recommendations to your wife, if you haven’t been in battle, your brother is there only about a regular sight and you think - how would you not hit his own concrete wall ...

          Aha ..... And what else interesting you write to me here? WAS another one? ..
      2. 0
        9 January 2017 10: 41
        although not a legend but harmful enough
    2. 0
      16 October 2016 19: 48
      There will be nothing with him if this is a high-quality sight. Throw against the wall, crawl through the mud, no problem.
      It’s possible and necessary to shoot mechanics quickly and accurately, but how do you plan to do this in the dark?
      1. +2
        16 October 2016 21: 21
        Of course I will not argue, but I can advise you to conduct an experiment, take a PSO (without plugs), put it in the mud and get it and look at the target through it. here I think it will be the same.

        I didn’t talk about throwing, I talked about a random hit, for example, when landing with an infantry fighting vehicle, you can touch both the armor and the curb, or, for example, while hitting a protruding piece of iron while running.
        And what in the dark with this sight will I be like an owl? And at night I shot a little, but I think the whole thing is in training.
        I myself didn’t fight, but my colleagues, friends told me, some hung pso, or from a grenade launcher (three risks, I won’t lie, I forgot the name) so there was no time aiming when the battle was in the city or in green. (but there were some, that is, there was no polished kit)
        Yes, and that confuses. what if with a regular sight, for example, at position P, I will orient in range and wind without moving the whole thing, and make amendments, then how to do it here?
        My opinion is that this thing is interesting, but does it need a question (most likely it is needed, but only as an addition to the main scope, this is for infantrymen, but in PMCs this will be common to me, although I think it's better to spend several thousand rounds of ammunition, but learns to shoot without any newfangled stray.)
        1. -1
          16 October 2016 22: 29
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          take pso

          Correctly in the furnace optics - to select snipers from the Chukchi hunters! they’re always a squirrel in the eye with 500 steps without aiming laughing
          Quote: Kostya Andreev
          I didn’t talk about throwing, I talked about a random hit, for example, when landing with an BMP,

          And if the machine will move the tank? Ali the owner? :) In general, do not write nonsense. Kalik Pribluda is useful and most importantly an order of magnitude cheaper than optics, and nobody is going to abolish regular sighting devices - so if the Kalik is dead, nothing prevents it from being thrown off.
    3. 0
      17 October 2016 18: 48
      Kostya Andreev

      I will answer you instead of the author.

      If you need to jump in the mud. Carry the machine behind. Put the machine in the gun room. You remove the collimator along with the side bracket and put it in the pouch. Which should be such as to protect the collimator from the outside world.

      Therefore, your collimator also needs the right good pouch.

      The likelihood that the collimator wins the scope is present. And it can be high. Then if you need to shoot, then you make the first shot at a random target at a distance of 30 meters and look with two eyes where the bullet hit and where was the red dot of the calimator. And you boldly put the second bullet in the bullseye after determining the aiming point for the first shot.

      Checked, min no.
    4. 0
      24 February 2020 09: 59
      And in Soviet times, for hitting a machine gun without any hinge even on the ground, a butt blow flew into the chest. So they taught them to love their weapons, and explained that from a good blow, sung by stupid romantics, "Kalash" turns into a caramultuk.
      Secondly, you do not need to look for a bright point, it is not lost anywhere ... and if someone needs to look for it, then he will not find a fly ...
      Third, adjustments for range and wind ?? so also on the number of smoked jambs (in an unchanged state no one will write such nonsense) what are the corrections for short distances? At 200+ meters, it makes no sense to use a collimator (for a bright dot, you will not see the goal, unless of course someone stands upright with his arms spread)
      Fourth, at short distances and without a collimator, now the course of shooting involves shooting with binocular vision (without closing your eyes), with a collimator it is more convenient. And this is done so that the shooter has a wider view, and he can respond more quickly to the dynamics of the battle.
      And at the end - there’s a lot of war without him, and it's true! Yes, from what has been said and follows that the vast majority do not need it, especially for a trench warfare.
      And those who like to shoot a la "somewhere" from behind the fence or over the breastwork of the trench should not only be deprived of collimators, but also cartridges. Let them put up their submachine guns and shout "bang-tara-bang" - the same result!
  4. Cat
    0
    15 October 2016 09: 09
    The opinion of the author has the right to live.
  5. +8
    15 October 2016 10: 09
    This is one of the most striking examples when it is better to try and shoot yourself 1 time than to watch and listen to all sorts of opinions from sofa couches.
    And the reality of extreme growth — having received the opportunity to use the shooter collimator, will NEVER return to mechanics.
    And the point is not even to improve the effectiveness of shooting in conditions of poor visibility, with a collimator a better overview, because it does not close the lower part of the target; there is no need to compare the aiming bar with the front sight, which saves a lot of time.
    1. +1
      15 October 2016 10: 13
      ...
      It is not clear why the author of the article mentions melee weapons, because they usually shoot at him, they look at the vskidka on the trunk and the collimator will be like a goat's button accordion.
      1. +2
        15 October 2016 11: 05
        If you have to fight, then with an adversary of a different mentality, who is well aware of the Russians’ addiction to close combat. The West long ago solved fire missions remotely, observing the principles of personal security of its military. From afar, the defeated Yugoslavia is a vivid example of this. Well, of course, that the fashion for collimators is also part of a hidden and ongoing war with us. When you shoot from all kinds of different things, the ability to see your bullet flying during the day comes, and at night the inexplicable ability to conduct a tip on the trunk. Especially effective shooting with a tip on the trunk with machine guns. In this sense, I simply admire the SGBM!
        1. +5
          15 October 2016 11: 19
          And here you are wrong.
          Maybe we have a "fondness for close combat," only this is not reflected in the combat training program.
          But for the same Americans, everything is exactly the opposite. Great attention. Including fire training. Of regular weapons with regular ammunition, a range of two to five meters is the development of fire indoors.
          1. +4
            15 October 2016 11: 31
            We will leave it to the gods to judge whether someone is right or not, and we exchange opinions. I expressed my. I was taught this way - before you go into the room, throw two grenades there. One in the far corner, the other with a delay under the windowsill. And the games in Zarnitsa we will leave to the Americans they did not fight in Stalingrad and did not storm Berlin, which is probably why they are training and training.
            1. +10
              15 October 2016 12: 37
              Quote: cunning
              I was taught this way - before you go into the room, throw two grenades there. One in the far corner, the other with a delay under the windowsill.

              Could be so. But remind me how many grenades the maneuverable group of the motorized rifle squad drags on themselves and how much they can clean up the premises without returning to their infantry fighting vehicles for replenishment? Therefore, training in indoor shooting is a must. Especially considering the fact that there is such an unpleasant thing as a rebound.
              By the way, training in throwing grenades is also essentially no. Continuous formalism. The standard exercise on fire training plus with a fraction of a large assumption is the passing of the CMC on physical training, there are three blanks to be thrown into the wall. And that’s all ...

              Quote: cunning
              And the games in Zarnitsa we leave to the Americans they did not fight in Stalingrad and did not storm Berlin

              They got a bunch of storms of cities without Stalingrad and Berlin. And by no means suckers opposed them. And the war in the Pacific Islands gave the Americans a lot of experience in terms of close combat. Do you have any idea what a "banzai attack" is in a jungle with visibility of several meters?
              Maybe that's why they "play lightning" and do not hope for some kind of "mentality"?
          2. 0
            15 October 2016 17: 13
            It is unclear why the author of the article mentions melee weapons, because as a rule they shoot at him in hunting — offhand on the barrel

            Well, shoot something with an AK-or M-16 -shaped "along the trunk" laughing
        2. 0
          15 October 2016 12: 59
          I agree with you on all service stations ..! ... and I watched where the bullet flew, and even the one that flew into me .. Comrade poems ..
      2. 0
        17 October 2016 19: 26
        Grober

        Just exactly what you need. Kalimator is a fairy tale.

        Only in wet weather does the glass fill a little.
      3. +1
        16 January 2017 10: 18
        Quote: Großer Feldherr
        It is unclear why the author of the article mentions melee weapons, because in it they usually shoot at hunting


        Horseradish who gets from 50 m without aiming - and this is just melee.
    2. 0
      17 October 2016 21: 29
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      And the point is not even to improve the effectiveness of shooting in conditions of poor visibility, with a collimator a better overview, because it does not close the lower part of the target; there is no need to compare the aiming bar with the front sight, which saves a lot of time.

      Dear Großer Feldherr! Your statement is correct only at distances of up to 100 meters. But the collimator will bother you for 200-400 meters. Although I personally like the simple and practical Racurs-A.
      1. +1
        16 January 2017 10: 25
        Quote: AndreyS
        But the collimator will bother you for 200-400 meters.


        People from the collimator at 500-600 m from Kalash confidently fall - ammunition ballistics are known, wasp
        competent sighting of the weapon + sight complex remains.
        1. 0
          16 January 2017 14: 44
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          People from a collimator at 500-600 m from Kalash confidently fall - the ammunition ballistics are known, there remains a competent sighting of the weapon + sight complex.

          I want to disappoint you a little dear DimerVladimer, most of the reflex sights have ONE TIME magnification. What kind of sighting are you talking about ?! At such distances, it is useless to bring the weapon under the collimator sight to a normal battle, especially since: "... Checking the combat of a weapon consists in the practical determination of the accuracy of the combat of a given sample and the accuracy of shooting from it by shooting. The probability of deflection of holes from the STP (center of dispersion) in any direction is more than two median (probable) deviations (Vv, Vb) is insignificant (18%), therefore, the accuracy of the weapon's combat is considered normal if the size of dispersion when firing from machine guns, machine guns, pistols does not exceed 15 cm, a sniper rifle - 8 cm, machine guns - when firing automatic fire - 20 cm. The values ​​of the permissible dispersion follow from the established norms specified in the "Tables of dispersion characteristics" of the Manual on Small Arms, Manuals for the respective types of weapons ..."What is said in this article - https://topwar.ru/23488-rasseivanie-vystrelov-neg
          odnyy-sposob-kompensirovat-oshibki-pricelivaniya.
          html
          The ability to shoot with a collimator sight at distances you are talking about is possible only with a special magnifying nozzle, such as this:
          1. 0
            26 August 2017 08: 03
            Magnifir naturally allows you to "see further." But even with the usual 2MOA point, with a unit view, you can successfully shoot at height up to 600 m, the main thing to remember is the excess at this distance and it is desirable to know this distance exactly)
            The collimator at dusk is actually bad, because it has a low light transmission coefficient through the reflector (this is a mirror) - you will see the mark, but the goal is unlikely (well, although of course, due to the nuances of lighting, options are possible).
            Best of all is 1 / 4x (or 1-4, 1-6) optics, which universally displace collimators. At 1x it is a collimator, at 4x you can successfully shoot at far and it is better to SEE the target and identify it
            1. 0
              26 August 2017 10: 17
              Quote: Michael HORNET
              The collimator at dusk is actually bad, because it has a low light transmission coefficient through the reflector (this is a mirror) - you will see the mark, but the goal is unlikely (well, although of course, due to the nuances of lighting, options are possible).

              Well, so I tried the respected DimerVladimer to explain that collimators are effective at distances up to 200 meters. And their mission is high-speed shooting, not sniper.
  6. +3
    15 October 2016 12: 09
    The collimator as equipment is suitable for special forces professionals but not for line infantry. And yet, athletes and PMC employees are not conscripted soldiers.
  7. +1
    15 October 2016 12: 41
    From the article it is clear that AK is not for KP and therefore should be sent for re-melting.
    1. 0
      15 October 2016 15: 26
      An-94 with a collimator would be the most. True, he also has a lid on top. Well, yes, it would be possible to modify, only in the present realities neither the concern nor the warriors are interested.
      1. 0
        23 October 2016 21: 41
        The creators of the AN-94 went crazy, setting a diopter sight on it instead of the open one.
        1. 0
          26 August 2017 08: 05
          The aperture sight is no worse than the open one) you just need to have a habit for it. Please do not tell tales
  8. +6
    15 October 2016 12: 41
    Finally, for once, a competent, justified and reasoned analysis of the topic!
    I will add that a high-quality collimator solves the problem of accommodation once again - there is no need to reduce the front sight, rear sight and target, well, the eye is so arranged that one object can clearly see and the second object is slightly defocused ("keep the front sight on the target, bl ***, front sight! "), so it is enough to bring the mark to the target, the color and illumination of which make it clearly distinguishable against the target background and" work ". So, subject to the indicated uv. By the author of the conditions, the speed of aimed fire and the total percentage of hits do increase (albeit a little, but still).
    From SW. hi
    PS
    And yes, do not forget about the wide field of view - it is no longer necessary to squint the second eye.
    1. +5
      15 October 2016 13: 16
      Hedgehog it is clear that the collimator is an order of magnitude more effective than a mechanical sight:
      - firing accuracy in combat conditions (stress and dynamics) is increased by an order of magnitude;
      - there is an opportunity to accurately shoot in low light and moving targets;
      - the number of conscripts in the infantry unit is sharply increasing, striking targets at a good level, and not at a satisfactory one.

      In the final analysis, it is the last massive circumstance that matters, and not the issues of equipping small special forces.

      A mechanical sight is a rudiment of the last century, it is needed only for a rare case - collimator failure.

      Critics of the collimator by default come from the fact that a specific model of small arms (AK) is not properly equipped for installing optics, except with the help of a clumsy side bar. Those. RA in this issue came to the full.

      Moreover, it is necessary to accelerate the re-equipment of Russian infantry with new small arms for modern sights, and not under the archaic of 500 years ago.
      1. 0
        17 October 2016 19: 43
        Operator

        All is correct. Only I for the clumsy side bar bracket.

        Because the collimator is not worn on the machine, but is set in a couple of tens of seconds before the battle. The collimator should be worn in a pouch.

        I'm on airsoft with a collimator just impudent. Distances on airsoft 75 m. So I just go out in the middle of the field and manage to shoot targets before they aim at me. And I admit that I shoot several at once against myself. Usually such impudence happens when a dozen opponents have already been shot and cleared the sector in front of them.

        Without a collimator, at a distance of 25 I aim through the front sight, without embedding the line. Efficiency is low, but faster sight. The collimator is of course tin.
        1. +1
          17 October 2016 20: 53
          Please do not take the previous statement for boasting, although not without it.
          I would like to give an example of the superiority of weapons with collimators and rented weapons, and even not capable arrows without tactical thinking.

          Just notice it again. The collimator is worn in a pouch in everyday life. And you need to handle it with extreme care.

          When quickly installing the collimator on the machine, the side bracket is best suited.

          The forearm on the forearm is not suitable for quick installation. The saddle trims will usually always be contaminated or dusty. Installation will not be accurate. When installed on the side bracket, the bracket seat cleans itself. And this is the advantage.
    2. 0
      15 October 2016 14: 07
      Oh! I remember youth! When on the director after firing, while the fighters of the cartridge case use the cartridge case, you grab the first PCT that comes from the ammunition left from the shooting, put a pair of soldier’s gloves on your left hand and start cackling with bursts on stones, poles, parapets and signs from your belt! Without collimators, without Lenin's squint and even breathing, from 50 to 300 meters while the results of the fire are visible! From the machine, too, from the belt is interesting, but that buzz is not there. Wintpatron is a vintpatron!
      1. +4
        15 October 2016 14: 26
        "Eh! I remember my youth! When on the headmistress after the shooting, while the soldiers are collecting the shells from the shell collectors, you grab the first PKT with a tape from all the ammunition left from the shooting, put on a pair of soldier's mittens on your left hand and start from the belt to crap in bursts over stones, posts, parapets and signs! "

        Well, the mess was on your director. And shooting from the PKT from the hand is generally beyond reason. Our PCTs stood on the equipment and did not remove them unnecessarily. And shooting from a weapon that is not suitable for this type of shooting is a stupid translation of good in g ... but.
        1. 0
          15 October 2016 15: 00
          On our headmistress, we trained gunners for the troops - infantry fighting vehicles operators. In addition to everything provided by the training program, I taught my fighters to shoot from the PKT in the absence of power supply, which means the reticle. In this case, the weapon was guided manually, and the observation of the results of the shooting not only through the sight eyepiece, but also through the triplex. There was such a Russian admiral, Makarov, who said "Remember the war." That is why I had to teach what was not in the program. If you can't do something, try to learn ....... well, you will burn a few gloves on your left hand, but you will be confident in your abilities and convinced of your abilities.
      2. +4
        15 October 2016 14: 36
        Quote: cunning
        you grab the first PKT that came across with a tape from all the ammunition left from the shooting, put a pair of mittens on your left hand and start with a belt to crap in bursts

        Let me doubt the technical feasibility of the above:
        - hold the FCT in your hands when shooting ... not constantly inconvenient, but extremely uncomfortable
        - the electric trigger is not suitable for pressing with one hand, and the second (in mittens) you hold it ... by the barrel, apparently wink You octopus eight-armed?

        Quote: cunning
        to burst in bursts on stones, columns, parapets and pointers!

        - and this is already sheer wrecking... and what kind of "pointers" do you have on your directis?

        In general, IMHO you have bent ... if you, of course, are not an ambal under two meters tall, oblique fathoms in your shoulders and under one hundred and twenty weight. But I remember that they tried not to take such tankers.

        In general, the collar does not interfere. IMHO Yes
        1. +1
          15 October 2016 21: 40
          You can and PKT (tried, without buzz), you can just from a PC. But if he didn’t set one foot back, a firm landing on the fifth point is ensured. The accuracy is minimal. The main task is to resist-hold ....
          1. 0
            16 October 2016 00: 27
            A weak arrow from a PC when shooting while standing with a short stop, does not knock down with its return. It just turns to the side, and even back. As for accuracy, in the line of weapons for the vintpatron, on the top, Maxim is right, followed by the SGM, followed by the FCT, then the SVD is modestly and the PC weaves in the circuit,
            1. +1
              16 October 2016 07: 30
              Quote: cunning
              As for accuracy, then in the line of weapons under the vintpatron, on the top, Maxim is rightfully ...

              - from which you did not shoot ...

              Quote: cunning
              ... followed by the SGM ...

              - same...

              Quote: cunning
              ... next to the PCT ...

              - yeah ... when shooting "from the hands" especially ... accuracy - well, just what a wink

              Quote: cunning
              ... then modestly SVD ...

              - yah??? belay
              - with machine guns accuracy (!!!) higher than a sniper rifle? Don't ... I can't drink so much request

              Quote: cunning
              ... and the PC weaves in the circuit

              - You do not confuse PC with RPK, by chance?

              Kar-roche:

              - there is a comparison of warm with round and soft (machine guns with a rifle, for example)
              - about shooting "with hands" from a PCТ (which is tank) - extremely unconvincing
              - in general - correct the collar ... it interferes, obviously Yes
              1. 0
                16 October 2016 08: 25
                My dear, it’s at Westpoint that they teach you to shoot through diopters and collimators, apparently understanding that it is impossible to teach otherwise. And in the Russian Army, infantry was first taught to make, then to use, followed by uniformity of aiming in order to achieve accuracy, then speed in operations with weapons, and then they were allowed to shoot offhand, immediately, from a belt, from bottom to top and top to bottom. If a person does not understand why the machine gun Maxim is more accurate than SVD, then attempts to admonish him sit in the smoking room of the director and poison the jokes.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. +1
                  16 October 2016 08: 43
                  Quote: cunning
                  My dear, it’s you who are taught at West Point to shoot through diopters and collimators, apparently realizing that it’s impossible to teach otherwise


                  - about West Points - by. Don’t get so pointed at the flag, it accidentally cluttered there laughing
                  - with a diopter shot at school (long ago), from TOZ-8 and MTs-12. Shot in the second category, before the first a little was not enough request
                  - the collimator only saw in the pictures, well, it’s not lucky that he personally introduced him.

                  Quote: cunning
                  If a person does not understand why the machine gun Maxim more precisely SVD, then attempts to admonish him sit in the smoking room of the director and poison the jokes

                  - To get your headmaster there ... signs, smoking rooms ... cool, however. Where is it so beautiful?
                  - and the truth - why Maxim (from whom you, I repeat, did NOT shoot any time) more precisely SVD? That's true - I never understand.
                  - IMHO, to compare a machine gun with a rifle somehow ... not quite right, no? Correct, if I am mistaken.

                  PS: Your "darlings" are standing along the road, waiting for a friend ... impatiently. Something like this Yes
                  1. 0
                    16 October 2016 09: 11
                    Correcting ..... The length of the rifled part of the PKT barrel is more than that of the PC, and much more than that of the SVD. That is why from the PKT at a distance of 250-300 meters it is possible to kill the steel corner of "thirty with three bullets with a single fire, but from the SVD it is much more difficult to achieve this. Just do not need to say that the machine gun does not shoot single - easily. In general, I have a stable opinion that that talented Russian designers create an excellent weapon to defend the Motherland, and officials suffering from servility towards Western "partners", by means of constant improvements, nullify the characteristics of weapons. The same AK-74 is a big step back from the AKM.
                    1. +1
                      16 October 2016 10: 23
                      Quote: cunning
                      Correcting ..... The length of the rifled part of the PKT barrel is more than that of the PC, and much more than that of the SVD. That is why from the PKT at a distance of 250-300 meters it is possible to kill the steel corner of "thirty" with three bullets with a single fire, but from the SVD it is much more difficult to achieve this

                      - (censorship), (censorship), (censorship) fool
                      - PCT, if sclerosis does not change me, has no sights. From the word "in general". Will you aim at the trunk? 300 meters to the corner-thirty? Nu-nu ...

                      And in general, it was not about that:

                      Quote: cunning
                      ... Maxim machine gun more precisely SVD ...

                      - I remind - in your opinion, PCT is also more accurate than SVD was
                      - that’s truly - we confuse warm with soft, soft with round ... gas with a brake laughing

                      Quote: cunning
                      Just do not need to argue that the machine gun does not shoot solo - easily

                      - you see ... you can teach (force) a hare to hit the drum, ride a bear on a bicycle ... and shoot a machine gun single
                      - the trick is that all of them (a hare, a bear ... a machine gun) are not originally intended for this
                      - Forcing a machine gun to shoot solitary is a form of masturbation. IMHO.

                      Quote: cunning
                      In general, I have a strong opinion that talented Russian designers create excellent weapons to defend the Motherland, and officials suffering from admiration for Western "partners", by means of constant improvements, reduce to naught the characteristics of weapons. The same AK-74, this is a big step back from AKM

                      - AK-74 was created (and adopted) under the Union
                      - Where have you found the "suffering officials"? Surely nothing was beguiled?

                      Kar-roche: correct the collar more often ... special, (censorship) negative
                      1. +1
                        16 October 2016 10: 50
                        Quote: Cat Man Null
                        - PCT, if sclerosis does not change me, has no sights. From the word "in general". Will you aim at the trunk? 300 meters to the corner-thirty? Nu-nu ...

                        But why? If he is in a regular place, the sighting was verified by a knowledgeable person, a gunner is knowledgeable, then spending N ammunition can get there.

                        But, of course, you cannot compare with SVD. Even when shooting with an "average sniper" at 300 meters, the dispersion of the rifle is more than an order of magnitude less than that of the standard PKT. That's why she's a sniper 8)))
                      2. 0
                        16 October 2016 13: 41
                        I darling, I can fix a lot, but I don’t presume to correct your brains. Apparently they are sharpened only on a primitive banter and no more.
                    2. +1
                      16 January 2017 10: 49
                      Quote: cunning
                      The same AK-74, this is a big step back from the AKM.


                      Sorry - I have the exact opposite opinion.

                      The accuracy and efficiency of the fire is much higher with the AK-74.
                      The low-impulse cartridge almost does not knock down the sight and allows you to conduct twice as dense aimed fire.

                      The advantage of AKM is only in power - for the forest, that's it.
                      The AK-74, compared to the AKM, is like a high-precision sports rifle with a shotgun.

                      In the AK-74, I lacked only a collimator sight + x3-5 optics

                      And power is not the most important thing for small arms, ease of aiming and accuracy are a priority.
                  2. 0
                    15 March 2017 08: 03
                    Quote: Cat Man Null
                    with a diopter shot at school (long ago), from TOZ-8 and MTs-12. Shot in the second category, before the first a little was not enough

                    MTs12 is an arbitrary rifle, vryatli shooting from it is available to 2 arrester, there are no such standards for young men. Shooting just like that is the problem, they usually fired from SM2 and the Urals, beginning with the eyes starting up to the first adult, inclusive, but above it is a great sports rifle and exercises for 60 shots from three positions wink
                3. 0
                  16 October 2016 08: 54
                  If a person does not understand why the Maxim machine gun is more accurate than the SVD, then attempts to admonish him sit in the smoking room of the director and poison the jokes.

                  Hmm, however ..
  9. +4
    15 October 2016 14: 04
    The article is good ... and certainly written by a practitioner with good shooting training ...
    I will comment on the comments as a psychologist)) ... and you are right ... and another point of view has the right to life ...
    More than once I had the opportunity to train in shooting with a collimator sight ... the efficiency really improved dramatically in practical shooting ... BUT ... in a city battle ... or in conditions of a sudden shelling of a column ... I always shot at a vantage point and is also quite good ...
    The collimator is a development path ... you just need to pay more attention to its use and the development of firing skills in combat conditions (including close combat) ...
  10. +3
    15 October 2016 17: 18
    Not to the topic, but to the article.
    Soul and heart was stroked by a photograph of "that very machine gun"! Good old Czech Vz.58
  11. +3
    16 October 2016 07: 38
    The photo of the "independent" warrior smiled ..
    And the sight is the best, and the mount seems to be reliable. One problem - the collimator is backwards
  12. 0
    16 October 2016 13: 29
    Okay, then at least tell me why the PCT trunk is longer than the PC and much thicker?
    1. 0
      16 October 2016 14: 06
      Because the trunk of a PC is much easier to change in battle than with a PCT
    2. +1
      16 October 2016 15: 21
      The specifics of the application and the possibility of conducting more intense fire.
  13. 0
    16 October 2016 16: 02
    Well, of course, I don’t know about the use of a collimator sight in the dark - so I had a question, this sight means "a luminous aiming point on a high-quality lens fixed in a frame", the glow of the point suggests that if a person is shone in the eye at night, that does he see behind the beam?
    Maybe there is a special backlight with a minimum brightness and this is the whole point - I do not understand.
    1. +2
      16 October 2016 22: 35
      The brightness is adjustable, and the point does not shine in the eye but is projected onto the glass - i.e. the diode does not shine in the eye, but has a special coating on the front glass (there are no lenses there, as well as magnification); in general, it does not blind.
      1. 0
        16 October 2016 23: 35
        Thank you, in principle, I thought so, but I doubted that they are always painted bright.
        1. +1
          26 August 2017 08: 14
          Here is precisely the question - is there a night mode at the collimator) if not - the lowest brightness will “clog” for the eye and nothing will be visible except for the luminous point. Plus low light transmission.
          Night mode in the collimator - this brand is NOT visible during the day. There is an advanced night mode for NVD glasses (the glow is even weaker, you can only see the NVD glasses), although this is pampering, as practice has shown that glasses do not aim at the sight (very uncomfortable), but shoot at the laser marker from the belt
  14. 0
    16 October 2016 22: 28
    Quote: Kostya Andrei
    And why the author does not tell what will happen to the collimator if you crawl through the mud with it.

    There are three possible answers - wipe it, or by striking the heel it dismantles it, well, if at all the sophisticated one gets the hexagon and unscrews it and puts it in the factory box for return under warranty.
  15. -1
    16 October 2016 22: 32
    The author is right in the main thing - people are divided into those who are very positive about kaliks and those who consider it unnecessary, just forgot to mention it, or kept silent - usually the supporters of kaliks are those who actually used them, and opponents are those who have never had them in their hands did not hold but "has an opinion" laughing
    1. 0
      17 October 2016 14: 48
      Commentators are also right. If in fact the main combat mission is to keep the territory and create fire density in this direction, then an open sight is enough for this. The main thing here is not effective shooting, but survival. An additional fragile and expensive body kit on the machine is unusual and only interferes. Effective shooting in difficult conditions - why? There are machine guns, mortars, artillery, snipers, aviation, special forces — that is who should solve the main tasks of an offensive nature. PMCs or spn is another matter, no one will do his job for the shooter, and this is his vocation, otherwise he would not have signed up for this work.
  16. 0
    17 October 2016 18: 00
    Thanks to the author.

    Good topic.

    The calimator is designed for shooting at short and medium distances. Expect aimed fire at long distances is from the rubric of sadomasochism. The reason is that neither the mount of the calimator, nor its physical strength allows you to keep the sight at long distances. On long, it is better to use ordinary sights. Moreover, on long, farther than 300 m time to aim happens.

    Shooting with calimators is similar to shooting in a computer game. The feeling is absolutely identical. He threw up the gun, found a red dot. The bullet will be where the red dot is. Aiming speed, half a second into the chest target per 100m. The probability of defeat is close to 100%, for a person holding a machine gun for two weeks. The main thing is to get used to the weight of the machine. For a regular sight, you need training, to be able to combine all these aiming points.

    For AK, the best mount is the side bracket. It is easy to put on it and remove the sight. Moreover, it is not always needed. Mechanics drivers, gunners. But if you suddenly need it, then set a couple of seconds. You need to wear it in a pouch.

    The choice of a calimator, I would not pick up a collimator, but would take a holographic one. The author in the photo is very good. And a strong sight. Why is the pipe bad? Because it closes part of the review for the shooter. You need to shoot with collimators with two eyes open.

    There are options, but this is already very specific when a sniper scope is set, and a collimator is mounted on top. The machine is too heavy. Maybe for someone it makes sense. Hard to judge.

    Such a collimator sight like the author’s best put on the side bracket. Very comfortably. The tubular collimator must be placed on the forearm. Away from the eyes. There he will close the review less.

    Recommendations for choosing a kalimator are fully on the Internet on YouTube. There are comparisons of different types of five about more characteristics.
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 10: 57
      Quote: gladcu2
      The calimator is designed for shooting at short and medium distances


      Did it show you airsoft practice?
      or did the airsoft players in the fields of 600x600 meters indulge in military trunks?
    2. 0
      26 August 2017 08: 17
      If you put on the side bar - it is better to put optics 1-4, the sense will be much more
  17. 0
    30 November 2016 12: 14
    My experience with the collimator scope, both open and closed, is clearly negative. In the open, dirt, grass, and other rubbish constantly filled up. The indoor one is polluted, although less, but it still needs to be cleaned, and whether there will be time for this ... Well and most importantly: there is no reliable fastening system. Everything is fine when you are at a shooting range, and when you are being chased through the mountains, everything is so-so-everything is different ... And so, yes, if you shoot at a shooting range, the collimator is much better there when hunting ...
  18. +1
    16 January 2017 11: 04
    Good article.
    Based on my shooting practice, I support the opinion of the author.
    Improving the effectiveness of weapons, including the AK-74 due to collimator sights and optics, has prospects and is justified by an increase in practical rate of fire, aiming fire, and effective firing range.
    1. 0
      26 August 2017 08: 18
      Even better improves the efficiency of fire optics of variable multiplicity with an honest unit. 1-4x24 is it

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"