Trijicon Tri-Power for soldier in Iraq

[MTMilitiaman]

My brother just wrote an email to us expressing interest in putting a Trijicon Tri-Power on his SAW. I have several questions regarding this:

1 a.) Is there any law against putting your own optics on your service weapon?
b.) Is there any particular purchasing route we have to go through to get our hands on one?

I am a little concerned that they are only fullfilling orders to troops or are backlogged enough to give them priority and I would like to make sure it ends up in my brother's hands and on his weapon where it does us all some good ASAP.

2.) Related to above, where would you recommend I go to purchase this optic?

3.) I heard about some issues that caused them to redesign the tube and maybe do some other things. Anybody hear anything about these problems, and if they existed, were they resolved?

 

[Jeff White]

1 a.) Is there any law against putting your own optics on your service weapon?

It depends on the command. In some units they are making all kinds of modifications to weapons (grips, collapsible stocks, slings, optics) and some units are forbidding it.

b.) Is there any particular purchasing route we have to go through to get our hands on one?

I would contact Trijicon directly and see what they say. Other then that any vendor who has them in stock should do.

3.) I heard about some issues that caused them to redesign the tube and maybe do some other things. Anybody hear anything about these problems, and if they existed, were they resolved?

I haven't heard anything about the new models. Just that some of the flaws in the early ones were fixed. If you're looking for an alternative, I'd like to suggest the Trijicon TA31 and the TA51 flattop mount. They were retrofitting the feed covers on the M249s to ones with picatinney rail on them when I retired in 2003. If your brother is Army he shouldn't have any problem mounting up any optic.

HTH Jeff

 

[Chuck R.]

I have one of the generation 3 Tripowers mounted on my DSA Para FAL.

I’ve had it for about 8 months, and shot with about 10 times so far. IMHO it is a really good sight. I like it better than the Eotech or the Aimpoint. The chevron is both fast to use for CQB, and it allows some precision for distance. It also has some limited range finding ability using the chevron to subtense. Making hits on a reduced silhouette (2/3rds) is no problem at 200 & 300 meters. With the new aluminum body it should be just as tough as the Aimpoint. It uses the same batteries as the Aimpoint, so supporting it in country shouldn’t be a problem.

The only Cons are:

1. The battery life, which is lower than the Aimpoint by far (110 hrs on “high”). This may be a non-issue, since I haven’t had to use the batteries yet while shooting.

2. When you’re in a shaded area sighting into a more lit area the reticle can/will wash out when using the fiber optics. Using the batter back-up in these situations will prevent this. The battery mode has plenty of settings, and is bright enough to prevent any washout.

3. The tritium lamp is visible once your eyes have adjusted to the dark, but it really is better suited for using NV. Again, the battery mode can adjust for this.

I’ve got about 800 rounds through my FAL using the Tripower and its held zero well. Getting it zero’d is a breeze.

Chuck

 

[RTFM]

3.) I heard about some issues that caused them to redesign the tube and maybe do some other things. Anybody hear anything about these problems, and if they existed, were they resolved?

I believe they went from Plastic tube to an Aluminum one.

 

[chopinbloc]

as with many things in the army, if they don't tell you not to, you're best off not asking and just doing it. that's what i did, anyway. i brought a trijicon reflex II from home to mount on my m16. no one had any problems with it. but like mr white said it will depend on the command.

if your brother is currently deployed, it could complicate things because i'm pretty sure there are restrictions on exporting tritium but that only counts if you mention it on the customs form when you mail it.

my recommendation is that you just go ahead and do it and if it doesn't work out, put in on a privately owned firearm. i also suggest that you don't get too stuck on the tri-power. i've heard nothing but good stuff about it but if you can't get one, the aimpoint and the eotech are good sights too and it's more important that he have a robust, fast, accurate sight NOW than exactly what he wants six months down the road if he's kickin' doors. if he's just sitting around at the fob, then there is no rush.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Trijicon Tripower still has a problem where whenever battery power is activated the fiber optic donut on top of the sight glows visibly. The new design's cover is better than the old design; but viewed through Gen III night vision, there will still be a significant signature associated with the sight even with the cover on.

I probably wouldn't use the sight in a military environment for that reason; but if he decides he really wants it anyway, make sure you make him aware of that issue.

 

[Langenator]

I haven't seen any official messages barring the use of privately procured optics of any sort (unlike body armor, or, for the Marines, Underarmor-type stuff). And I've seen a ton of pictures of GIs with EOTechs, which are not a standard item-big .mil uses the M68 CCO, aka the Aimpoint M2.

However, individual unit chains of command sometimes get a bug up their butts about things like that.

However, the glowing bit might be a bit worrisome. Not sure about Iraq, but I do know that some A-Q fighters in Afghanistan have been found (killed) with night vision devices.

 

[Correia]

I've got some in stock if you want one.

 

[Outlaws]

I don't keep up on all the hi-tech stuff for M16s, but my friend was in Iraq and I know he said he spend $600 of his own money buying an optic for his rifle.

Your brother should be able to find out. He can ask around to some of the other enlisted men and probably find out 99% of how to go about obtaining it properly...or improperly if the case warrents.

 

[perdurabo93]

Why would anyone need to use an optic on a light machine gun (or any machine gun for that matter)? At the engagement ranges involved, iron sights would be faster and easier. FN designed them with irons for a reason.

 

[Correia]

perdura, you mean the FNs that all come with picatinny rails on top so that you can mount optics?

Sorry dude, a non-magnifying optic like an EO, Aimpoint, or Tri Power is faster and easier to use than iron sights.

 

[Langenator]

Having done SRM with a SAW earlier this week (it's a bitch, let me tell you...big, heavy machineguns are far from optimal for this task), iron sights are far from the best solution for the task. Any sort of CCO (Aimpoint, EOTech, TriPower, whatever) would give you much more rapid sight/target acquisition.

Probably the optimum for a weapon like the SAW, IMHO, would be something like ELCAN's new 1x/4x switchable sight. 1x for room clearing (if necessary-it's better to avoid putting the SAW gunners in the clearing teams if you can) and other short range stuff, and 4x for longer range. But the dang thing's pretty expensive.

 

[perdurabo93]

Faster and easier for a CQB poodle shooter like an M4, but an LMG like the M249? LMGs are meant to be supressive fire weapons, an optic would be pointless. Hell, if youre going to do that why not just mount a damn Swaraovski on a Ma Deuce.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

He's in the 101st Airborne so I think they are issued a more compact version of the M249, which should make room clearing a little easier.

And perdurabo, the M249 is still a poodle shooter. According to my brother it is capable of decent accuracy and I, like him, see no reason why he shouldn't be able to take advantage of it in the means that best suits him. Additionally, with all due respect, it doesn't matter what you think about someone else's optics choice when you are comfortable and safe in your house and he is the one bogged down by IBAs and web gear and surrounded by nothing by sand and Syntex.

To everyone else, thank you for your input. It is appreciated. Bartholomew, I'll make him aware of that issue. Thanks again guys.

 

[Delobius]

When I was deployed, I had an ELCAN M145 Machine Gun Optic (MGO) on my M249. It's a 3.4x fixed scope with an illuminated ranging reticle, graduated out to 1200 (!) meters. While I was a REMF and thus never got to use it "for real," on the range it was certainly handy - indeed, hitting pop-ups at 400 meters and beyond were virtually impossible without it.

I can definitely see the utility of a low-powered combat optic on a LMG - it allows better target identification and gives a better idea of where your fire is going, even if you're just walking the rounds to the target.

 

[Langenator]

Actually, you only need to change out two parts to make a standard M249 into the 'compact' version.

1-the barrel. Swap out the standard barrel for the shorter CQB version. The barrel's designed for quick change, so you just have to requisition some through supply. For most units going into the Box, this is done at battalion or brigade level.

2-the stock. Replace the standard fixed stock with the airborne (ie, originally designed to help fit the SAW into the M1950 weapons bag) collapsable version, which is also shorter when extended than the standard version. Again, battalion supply would probably order these.

The rest of the gun is the same.

SAW gunners will end up on clearing teams, but you try to avoid it when possible (big, heavy, full auto-only open bolt weapon-not optimal)

Good on him for thinking outside the box on optics, though.

 

[AZTOY]

1-the barrel. Swap out the standard barrel for the shorter CQB version. The barrel's designed for quick change, so you just have to requisition some through supply. For most units going into the Box, this is done at battalion or brigade level

Langenator

I have a M-248 in Iraq and was told that you can't change barrel with other m-249 because of different head spacing .

 

[355sigfan]

QUOTE
Faster and easier for a CQB poodle shooter like an M4, but an LMG like the M249? LMGs are meant to be supressive fire weapons, an optic would be pointless. Hell, if youre going to do that why not just mount a damn Swaraovski on a Ma Deuce.
END QUOTE

THey make everything faster from M4's to bolt action 50's mounted in coast guard choppers for taking down speed boats.
Pat

 

[Jeff White]

AZTOY,
Your Direct Support maintenance unit will be able to adjust headsspace for a new barrel. After all they don't just throw the whole weapon away when a barrel is shot out...

perdurabo93,
How long did you serve as an automatic rifleman or a machine gunner? They have mounted optics on machine guns since they had optics and machine guns. Besides direct fire optics, they used to mount a mortar sight so they could fire them indirect using aiming stakes.

Jeff

 

[Langenator]

I haven't seen any Safety of Use Messages (SOUM) concerning non-interchangibility of the short and standard barrels. But the TM should have the definitive word. Unfortunately, I don't have one available at the moment.

And on today's battlefield, even suppresive weapons need precision. You can't just go spraying bullets all over the place-you have to put them where the enemy IS, and nowhere else. You kill/maim someone who had nothing to do with the insurgency/Taliban, and guess what? You've just made enemies of his whole family. Oops.

 

[AndyC]

This pic show the reality of being a convoy rear-gunner in Iraq - anything to enhance accuracy would have been welcome so as to avoid unnecessary casualties:

 

[Correia]

perdurabo93, mount a Swavorski on a Ma Duece? Like Carlos Hathcock did in Vietnam?

Sorry dude, regardless of what you think about it, people who actually do this stuff for a living put optics on machine guns.

 

[pcf]

perdurabo93,

You're in Afghanistan, and some unfriendly type of people, on a steep hill, about 700 meters away start shooting at you. Time for "suppressive fire," right? The poodle shooting M249 is going to have a beaten zone about 2 meters wide and 4 meters in length. If you misjudge the distance by 4m (.5%) you'll completely miss the target. If you misjudge the distance by 2m (.25%) you'll reduce the effectiveness of you fire by over 50%. If your windage is off by 2m, you'll completely miss the target, and if your windage if off by 1m (.125%) you'll reduce your effectiveness over 50%.

Optics can certainly improve the effectiveness of machine guns in all roles.

 

[Langenator]

I'm wondering what kind of vehicle that SAW gunner was riding in. Looks like one of those ubiquitous white Toyota pickups. Only folks who use those are spec ops (who'd have optics) and Blackwater-type contractors (who generally also have optics.) And of course, the UN.

Whoever it is, the locals definitely know not to get too close.

 

[Correia]

Langenator, I don't know about Iraq, but lots of our guys ride around in Toyotas in Afghanistan. It is really common.