Bad idea or good idea for a military?
It's an OK idea
>>65053452Bad, which is why you don't see them anymore. Sight technology has improved at a very different pace then guns themselves. Coupling them tightly also brings no benefits with current tech. Maybe with some sort of more advanced smart gun that had a degree of autoaiming/firing tighter integration would have a point (though even there a good standard protocol/APIs would be better) but not now. And the same gun can be used in different roles for different purposes, some soldiers might have thermals or nv or whatever sights or clip ons or different mags for a DMR vs suppression or a lot of other stuff. Modularity is helpful.Won't deny that integral can sure look cool however.
>>65053452It was cutting edge when the AUG released. Most infantry even in America were still using irons only. On the boat, it still made sense because widespread adoption of optics hadn't quite happened. Same as the G36 initial iteration.Now that optics are common and mundane? The standardized optics like those found on either of the pictured guns are hilariously out of date to the point they're basically obsolete.
Not very relevant for nations who can issue red dots/optics to every infantryman. Pretty good for the 1970s-early 2000s. Obsolete today with rails and wide range of optics, but they look cool as fuck.
>>65053452back, when it was going to be the only sight? goodnow, where theres many different sights in use? bad
>>65053452it's a good idea that was implemented at a stupid fucking moment in weapon development. Every attempt at integrated sights suffers from the fact that the sights they used were actually garbage. The F2000, AUG, G36 sights and so on are dim, have bad eye relief, have bad field of view, are pretty junky and low quality and don't have enough magnification to make them worth the previously mentioned disadvantages.Now, if it was a GOOD optic, you're talking about a sight that's always zeored to the rifle it's mated to, that has a much more stable and comfortable mount because it's designed around the rifles cheek wield and made one with the receiver, and that presumably is a lot lighter because you don't have to have a lot of railspace to fuck with. When you have a standarized enough optic like the ACOG the end result ends up being the same, ACOGs were glued to their rifles they might as well have come out of the factories like that.
>>65053452It's kino and what's the point of fighting if you don't look cool doing it?
>>65053582>The F2000, AUG, G36 sightsOut of all of them the AUG had the best one and it was the one made in the 70s
>>65053452>fixed iron sightsGood idea>integrated electrical opticsBad ideaHope that helps
>>65053452At the time those guns were released, it was revolutionary. Nowadays, it's a bit of a dated concept.
>>65053452Did you know that on the F2000 the "integrated sight" is just a scope on a pic rail covered with an easily removed housing? You probably didn't, most don't, which is why one of the two of us on /k/ that ones one of these (or has even seen one up close) has to explain this every time someone starts one of these goddamned threads. Pull the cover off, remove the scope, and it's just a boring old rail on top like everything else has. So now that you know how it's actually designed, the question should be, is a compact sight mounted on a rail and protected by a removable housing with backup irons on it a good idea? And I'd say that the answer was yes 26 years ago, and it's probably still yes today.>but not the original 1.5x that it comes with, that's a bit shit by modern standards>serviceable and better than irons but shit next to an acog from the same era
>>65053687>integrated electrical opticsnone of those were electrical/battery powered
>>65053452What is it 1989? You are all retards and I hate you.
>>65053735i still think they should have upgraded the design and made it an LPVO. Add a plate for a pistol dot on the plastic cover Voila. It's now as futuristic inside as it looks from far away.
>>65053735I have an FS2000 Tactical and I want the integrated sight very badly.
>>65053452The dual optic was kind of ahead of the curve with a red dot stacked on a magnified optic. It sucks by today's standards but it's still very usable. Some of the magnified tubes have degraded over time but they're pretty easily replaceable.
good in that it forces a standardbad in that its hard to upgrade over time
>>65053876From an aesthetics standpoint or for functionality? The OG sight is an extremely narrow scope (think airgun) with a meh reticle and no illumination. The glass is clear enough, it's lightweight, and 1.5x gives the option of shooting with both eyes open, but we have better options today. Hell, we had better options back then too.
>>65053486Most of that technolology is within the last 20 years though. At the time, it was a good design
>>65053955Fucking where can i get new tubes man? Ive been looking for a 3x forever. I have a 1.5 that needs replacing.
i honestly see no reason not to just slap some flip up irons on everything just in case. it's a few grams of added weight without the rail mounting hardware, and sight issues aren't exactly uncommon. the kuna in picrel has some cool flip up irons that have a pistol style sight when folded, and a rifle style sight when up. my only complaint is if your optic fogs up, you can't get a good cowitness, so they'd have to be offset to be perfect, but then they're not ambi. but then again maybe it's fine if your backup irons aren't ambi
>>65053452It's a good idea that was mostly poorly implemented.A top rail lets you do the same thing with the added benefit of not being stuck with one optic, so it's a dead evolutionary branch now.
>>65056614>Most of that technolology is within the last 20 years though. At the time, it was a good designI took OP's question to be about whether it was still a good idea or something that should be revisited.
