Army ditching current optics for LVPO?

[Edwardteach72]

Looks like the military is evaluating 7 different optics and are looking for a 1-6x LVPO.

Hmm pretty sure some of us said it was just a matter of time until this was going to be the thing..


@Podmonkey


Army Wants to Replace Rifle Combat Optic with New Variable-Power Sight

 

[Podmonkey]

What is the current distribution of ACOGs among military units vs red dot sights?
A LPVO cannot replace a red dot so I assume that they are looking to swap out the ACOGs?

I think equal priority should be placed on procurement of free float Mlok hanguards as well. This would compliment the scope well.
In fact I see no reason at all, other than stubborn inertia, to have the plastic clamshells on the M4/M16. They advantages are manifold.

 

[Marine Cpl]

What is the current distribution of ACOGs among military units vs red dot sights?
A LPVO cannot replace a red dot so I assume that they are looking to swap out the ACOGs?

In the Guard our Staff Nco’s and above had Acogs.

 

[Podmonkey]

In the Guard our Staff Nco’s and above had Acogs.

That's kind of silly if you ask me. Why give optics to the ones that would be more involved with command and control than with shooting?
Should give the ACOGs to the best lower enlisted shooters.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Acog/rmr combo is amazing.

I wish the elcan was better

 

[Marine Cpl]

That's kind of silly if you ask me. Why give optics to the ones that would be more involved with command and control than with shooting?
Should give the ACOGs to the best lower enlisted shooters.

I’m guessing that their thought process was for squad leaders and above to use it for target ID and to get a better overall picture of the battlefield.

 

[Podmonkey]

Acog/rmr combo is amazing.

I wish the elcan was better

Look at the cost of that though. Combined cost of an ACOG and RMR puts you well into high end variable scope territory, in fact you would end up paying more than I paid for my Kahles 1-6.

 

[Podmonkey]

I’m guessing that their thought process was for squad leaders and above to use it for target ID and to get a better overall picture of the battlefield.

That's kind of my point though, looking through a scope your situational awareness is decreased, tunnel visioned. Binoculars are much better for observation and identification.
Give the scopes to the sharpshooters.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Look at the cost of that though. Combined cost of an ACOG and RMR puts you well into high end variable scope territory, in fact you would end up paying more than I paid for my Kahles 1-6.

And I believe that's why they are looking to go to a LVPO. Based on the article they are saying what they are already fielding size weight and cost they could have a LVPO and have more versatility

 

[Marine Cpl]

That's kind of my point though, looking through a scope your situational awareness is decreased, tunnel visioned. Binoculars are much better for observation and identification.
Give the scopes to the sharpshooters.

I don’t remember ever seeing squad leaders with binos. Maybe the Acog took it’s place. Our M240’s had the Specter too.

 

[Podmonkey]

I don’t remember ever seeing squad leaders with binos. Maybe the Acog took it’s place. Our M240’s had the Specter too.

Maybe they should? You get a lot better FOV with binos compared to a scope. Make up for the extra weight by sacrificing something else, single magazine maybe?