Is this a terrible idea, or what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
shoobe01

shoobe01

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,809
Location
Kansas City
I could just be feeling very negative today, but I feel this is bad in every way. Even having it exist on the planet increases our move towards gimmick and away from just teaching and practicing marksmanship.

http://www.armaster.com/htm/stock_pivot_adaptorSPA1.htm

SPA.jpg


Don't miss the movie if you can't even understand their point.
 
Even having it exist on the planet increases our move towards gimmick and away from just teaching and practicing marksmanship.
Click to expand...

how so?

after watching the video i think it is a pretty neat idea myself. just because it is new does not mean it is bad.
 
I'd like to try it for a day before passing judgement, but I don't think I'd like it. Is it intended for CQB? I doubt it's worth the added complexity and weight.
 
Hmmm. . .maybe if it was about a 40 degree angle instead of a 90 degree angle I would be a little more interested in it as a combination of using sights and still doing the "spray and pray." Still, it seems like a gimmick.
 
Years ago, some brilliant inventor came up with a solution for training soldiers who can't read. It was a cartoon strip with a strip of audio tape pasted to the bottom edge. Played on a modified cassette recorder, the cartoon moved from right to left while the speaker provided the words.

Among the people watching the demonstration was Miss Bobby Locke, a Department of the Army GS 14 from Mississippi.

While the rest of us struggled for words to tell the inventor how impressed we were, Miss Bobby said it for us, "Oh, isn't that useless!":D
 
It's a gimick in my book too

I saw an AR-15 with a standard scope mounted and it also had a red-dot sight mounted forward on the handguard. This guy had the red-dot angled 45 degrees instead of 90 degrees as shown above. This, he said, allowed him to choose either optic for the task without having to swap them. Seemed reasonable to me.

I thing the twisting stock is a disadvantage. It seems like you would not be able to provide a stable mount to your shoulder. I'd rather go with the fixed stock.

That's my 2 cents.
 
Well, I do feel very judgmental today. I /might/ go ahead and shoot one if it was laying around, just to see.

Hadn't even thought of the gangsta angle. That's probably part of what rubs me the wrong way.

I've shot rifles in rollover prone, where you roll the rifle horizontal. It works fine for shooting under low cover and so on. I'm not anti-technology or anti-advancement at all, but it works fine just the way it is. People can be easily trained to shoot normal rifles that way. Adding things like this adds weight and complexity, is something else you need to train on, and must decrease reliability. Their site talks all about "instant" reactions. Well, how instant will it be if some part of the system suddenly breaks?

The XM 29 is another extreme example of this. Without the electronic fusing, the grenade launcher is largely valueless. Simpler: what if the optical sight fails on the XM8, or the new AK5s where they are taking off the irons? There are no backup irons, and these are battery-operated sights; they will fail at some time. A co-located dot and iron allows instant regression to a rugged, functional system.

Rolling a normal rifle, allows it to 'twist' without adding hardware, and all rifles do it equally well.
 
Plevniak, how did he get a 45 mount? I've seen all sorts of 90s -- mount things hanging off other scopes even -- but never a 45.

What did you think of cheekweld when he spun the rifle over? How about the cheekweld on the bi-level sighted G36s? They mount the dot above the scope (or is it the other way around). Not insurmountable, but it seems to me there is one best sight height for a good cheek weld.

If that system can be shown to have demonstrable value, the its a good example of a solution that is clearly superior to the twisty stock, just by being down one level in complexity. For multi-sighting, I like the BAC-style ACOG. Both eyes open you focus on the dot (or triangle, or whatever) and the image occludes so you get an aimpoint-like picture. Close an eye, or focus harder, and you are using a 3.5x scope. NO mechanical changes, No extra hardware. Its all about the operator. That's my sort of solution.
 
Great idea!!! Now marksmen can fire from "strange positions", laying on your side, etc, while keeping the action perpendicular to the ground.

I really like how this idea could pan out.
 
The more useless junk I see hanging off ARs, the more I wish I owned a bidness making cases that would hold the newly birthed monstrosities. I think I might get rich!

While the shooter of the fully accessorized AR flips and twists and tries to remember what sight picture works with what and where the switch is that turns all of it on or off, the bad guy with the rusty 25 shoots ARman and runs off.

S-
 
Well I've clearly exceeded my knowledge on the subject

shoobe01,

About the 45 degree mount...

I'm not an AR-15 owner yet so I wasn't paying attention to HOW he did it. I was more interested in the WHY at the time. It was the first time I saw any kind of 2 scope set up like that. I wasn't even aware to look closely at the 45 degree mount. It just looked so... natural. I do know that when he adjusted for shouldering the rifle for the red-dot. He looked as comfortable with the gun as he was with the top mounted sight.
 
I was watching a two man team military competition on Fit TV one day. (They seen to show quite a few of those and unit competitions on that channel I've noticed.) In one show, they had a segment were part of the shooting was done prone with the rifles (M16s) shot on their side (90°) to provide a very low profile. The problem with using the sights with the gun on its side is large estimations on both elevation and windage on targets at varying distances. Having the sight lined up with the bore as this device would do in the situation described would help the estimation in with the windage part greatly.
 
Anybody ever see that movie "Behind Enemy Lines?" I recall one of the enemy soldiers was using his AK like that, flipped 90 degrees and rifle butt horizontally on his shoulder. Thing was, he was standing up....Seemed fairly ridiculous to me.:rolleyes:
 
I don't think it looks like a stupid idea, but it would make more sense to set it up with a red dot sight on top (or just iron sights) and the telescopic sight on the side then two telescopic sights.

Not 100% sure I'd like the rotating stock though (unless you can lock it into place.
 
As stated above, it sounds like an okay idea...you could mount an aimpoint or eotech (or just use irons) and be able to quickly switch to a scope for some long-range precision.

would I get one? Probably not.
 
Right. Should prove exciting to shoot in an open collared shirt. Nothing like hot brass to keep you awake.
 
I saw a guy in 3 gun use a similar idea. Had a red dot sight mounted on the side, and a scope on top. IIRC, the course of fire had the shooter engage a series of targets up close (some were real close, practically arms length), then engage another set of targets at 100yds and a little beyond. The shooter didn't have the device pictured above, he just rolled the rifle over on its port side with the butt parallel to the deck. Seemed to work for the shooter.
 
I cannot believe that nobody has thought that this could potentially be useful for prone shooting.

I dunno much about rifles, but it seems like it could have an application.

Though I must admit that at first I thought it was a joke. :)
 
So.....it ejects straight up?

Does anybody else think that might be a bad idea? The original Bushmaster pistol also ejected straight up and we had a lot of complaints.

Might want to wear a Boonie style hat when shooting like that. I guess I could understand wanting to switch from one sight to another rapidly, but having the buttstock rotate? That's just gadgetry.

Of course, YMMV and IMHO, etc, etc.

Gene Stoner must be spinning in his grave about now...:banghead:
 
I'm not crazy. At least not based on previous notes.

Thanks for the picture artherd. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top