Dubbed the Project Rifle Squad Variable Power Optic, 2nd Marine Division Gunner, Christian Wade has been taking a look at new optics for Marines and has been posting his progress on social media. Initially, he's conducting his own testing in order to gain a baseline knowledge and then plans to outfit his so-called "Über-Squad" at 1st Bn, 6th Marines with Variable Power Optics, mounted to suppressed M27 IARs.
The weapon he is currently using features a M4A1 SOPMOD RIS II URG, Trigger: Geissele. Bolt group: Fail Zero. Suppressor: Gemtech TREK-T. He also plans to employ an HK416 14.5" URG with a Geissele rail system. So far, the optics he is working with are the Trijicon VCOG 1-6×24 and a 1-8×28 AccuPower. However, he quickly realized that he had set up the optic mount bridging both the upper receiver and rail in order to get proper eye relief with the mount he had.
This led him to post this update to his project.
Issue: I do not want to "bridge the gap". Thanks to a couple contributors for pointing that out. I had the optics mounted across the gap between the receiver and the rail (I don't want to do that if I don't have to….and I don't believe I have to).
So dilemma: To achieve the optimal balance of eye relief, butt-stock extension vs. overall length and portability, and height over bore. Rifle Combat Optic eye relief is ~1.5-2" whereas these optics are ~4". I don't want to pull the stock out from where every Infantryman has been trained for years to have them (and they won't do that anyway…no matter what I want).
My solution for now is a riser attached to only the Upper Receiver (and not the rail) that raises the optic HoB to M27 IAR height while allowing me to "push the optic" farther forward. I have also slipped the optic as far forward in the mount as possible. This might be good for now.
Now, dont get confused. Gunner Wade is doing this on a micro scale at 2nd MarDiv, so this isnt a Marine Corps wide project, at least not yet. It always takes one person with vision to kickstart change. In fact, one of the things I admire about Gunner Wade is his passion for his job. He not only cares about Marines, but he wants them to be the best equipped. He takes time to learn about the equipment and challenges preconceived notions. He also works to inform his Marines, and others. What's more, he effectively uses social media to do it. That's what an expert looks like, and that's what a leader looks like.
I look forward to seeing how this project progresses.
If you want to keep up with Gunner Wade, he has a Facebook page.
Gunner Wade needs to read the Defoor articles about working a LPVO.
It’s super cool that he’s exploring LPVO’s, but why’s he learning things on his own when there’s already a plethora of knowledge in many disciplines on LPVO’s and mounts. His solution is put a mount on a mount on a rail? LaRue and Geissele make 1.93″ optic mounts.
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t because he wanted more height, he just wanted a way to bridge the gap without actually mounting anything to the rail.
He could be trying to replicate the M27 rail height.
He says that in the article…
Aaaahhh, yes. So it does. That makes sense. I somehow missed that sentence.
Missed it on first skim too!
I second the Defoor recommendation.
Also, I think it’s interesting how he dismisses extending a stock so casually while exploring a new piece of equipment. Proctor has several articles here on SSD explaining why it’s preferable to keep the stock extended, if possible (and Defoor also endorses that).
While extending the stock helps with leverage and controlling the gun. I don’t think extending the stock is optimal if they are wearing body armor. Might be what he is thinking.
Maybe he is trying to introduce a new tread pattern and not re-invent the wheel all in one swoop.
I know of no one position for the buttstock that is being taught to the USMC to be utilized for marksmanship. It’s not being taught at the USMC’s CQT course to keep the butt stock fully retracted so where is this doctrine and why would it be? Many factors can influence optimal buttstock length and I don’t think having an extreme long eye relief mount as a wholesale option for LPVO would be the best move for the USMC. But this is just one man’s setup and his opinions on such. Many more details would hopefully be found through proper testing/training/implementation. I do appreciate Gunner Wade’s passion on finding better solutions for Marine Corps Small Arms and believe that should be the real focus on the above article more so than the specific optic, mount, height or cantilever of the system.
To extend or not to extend? I think it’s shooter’s preference. I found that with the M4’s issue buttstock I fired better with it fully extended and with the SOPMOD buttstock I only extended the buttstock halfway.
Hmmmm….odd findings regarding the VCOG optic and it’s mounting across “the gap”.
I use two VCOGs….one for 300 BLK and one for 5.56mm, 77 grain. Both sit astride “the gap” of the barrel/receiver rail of their respective AR-malites. Such mountings have not created a single issue of accuracy or function when firing either weapon.
Regarding the telescoping buttstock….their is a REASON for such. It alllows the shooter to adjust for arm length and/or the wearing of body armor. pbr549 stated it perfectly, “….shooter’s preference.” Guess ol’ Wade doesn’t understand that. Hell, why not just go back to fixed buttstocks ?
Here, let me be so brash as to simply say….Wade doesn’t know what he is doing !