Primary Arms Micro Torture Test

[Shotgun Jeremy]

Some guy decided to really torture test his PA Micro. Not that I would ever want to do anything like this, but damn-I'm impressed.

Primary Arms Micro Dot ultimate torture test | Tactical Sandwich

 

[robertc1024]

Dang - birdshot at 10 yards?

 

[matefrio]

Dang - birdshot at 10 yards?

Perfect home defense round against red dots.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. My PA 1-4x is a hoss as well. The past year she has been roughhoused a ton from banging against all sorts of things and being thrown into a few 3 gun barrels without much care. One time I had the rifle propped up against the wall and it out of nowhere decided to slide down scope first onto the cast iron base of a speaker stand. Through all this it has never lost zero and the only discernable damage is a bit of a dent in one of my turret caps and a few tiny tiny nicks (can't even call them scratches hardly). Scope is mounted on their extended mount.

 

[azkcr]

Wish I had known of PA 4-5yrs ago when I bought my eotech.
I love my eotech, just not what I paid for it. Lol

 

[Badfish]

I have a PA scope and it is a beefcake.

 

[1slow01Z71]

https://www.primaryarms.com/Primary-Arms-CR123A-Battery-Red-Dot-with-8-hr-auto-p/pacrs.htm

Not a big fan of the glass quality in their scopes but their new 1-6 is much better and their new red dot is going to put a serious dent in aimpoint pro sales I believe.

 

[Leper]

Hmmmm, broke college kid, has several aim points, saves his money to buy a PA micro, shots it with a shotgun. Seems legit.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

Yea, the story didn't make sense to me either...but the test is still cool.

 

[1slow01Z71]

My favorite part is him talking about how apparently he can hit a 2moa target at a K with a standard M1 with iron sights. Yeah bullshit. The whole story wreaks of BS but it was a cool test. The birdshot part lost me though, why the hell would you shoot it with birdshot? A better test would be to drop it from 4' while mounted on a rifle with the red dot down so it takes the whole hit like it would falling off a tailgate. That's more realistic than getting shot.

 

[Tactical Sandwich]

My favorite part is him talking about how apparently he can hit a 2moa target at a K with a standard M1 with iron sights. Yeah bullshit. The whole story wreaks of BS but it was a cool test. The birdshot part lost me though, why the hell would you shoot it with birdshot? A better test would be to drop it from 4' while mounted on a rifle with the red dot down so it takes the whole hit like it would falling off a tailgate. That's more realistic than getting shot.

I would like to clarify something with you. I am a member at a 1000 yard tactical range in Mingus TX. A friend of mine brought out his M1A because he wanted to test the "1000 yard" mark on his rear sight and see how close his dope was with 175 SMK's.

The only steel plate we had available (other shooters were using the smaller targets) was a 20"x20" plate. With a US Optics spotting scope, we were able to spot misses/hits.
At 1000 yards, iron sights give you a very cluttered sight picture, but with a 6 o'clock hold you can better see your target and get a better sight picture.

As far as true hits were concerned, we could keep about 3-4 out of 10 shots on the plate.
With perpetual 20mph 1/4 value winds at that distance, it's hard to even keep a .300 WM on target.
Hitting a plate at 1000 yards with irons out of stock battle-rifle is indeed a challenge, yet a very rewarding one.
Very few people even get the chance to do this at 500-600 yards, let alone 1000.
I am also currently working up a load in my AR-15 match rifle to shoot at 1000 yards. It's going to use an 80gr VLD at around 2600fps.
Now some may ask "why on earth would you shoot a .223 at that distance?"
The only thing I can say to them is "why not?" The skill involved to facilitate a 1000 yard hit with a 223 is pretty epic-one of which I have not yet obtained, but I am working towards it.


Also to answer your question why I shot the MD-06: it is the perfect impact test. As I stated on my review I was going to test this optic until failure, but the shotgun sealed the deal. If it could survive that, it would survive anything. It's more of a confidence booster for current owners of a MD-06. The whole "holy crap it will survive two rounds of birdshot and still work??? I am buying one!!!"
As far as the logistics are concerned, that's not for you to worry about is it?
And may I ask you why a 4' drop test would be better? If it can handle 2x hits of birdshot from 10yards, do you think dropping it from 4' mounted to the rifle is going to do more damage?
I'm only asking because I want feedback so I know how to better test products in the future.

Hmmmm, broke college kid, has several aim points, saves his money to buy a PA micro, shots it with a shotgun. Seems legit.

Let me clarify some things for you:

I am currently a broke college student...I enrolled full time the beginning of the year. Prior to that I haven't been to school in years so I had funds to purchase Aimpoints/high-end optics.
Secondly, I shot the MD-06 with a shotgun for two reasons:
1. Larry Vickers did the same thing to the Aimpoint T1 (I also noted in my review that I wanted to push the PA to the same level of an Aimpoint). This also negates the need for any drop test as the measured G's in a shotgun blast will far exceed any "normal" drop test, from any height.
2. I wanted to perform a "combat" durability test on the optic. Because I want my optics to survive anything, a shotgun blast of birdshot is as close as I can get to replicating real shrapnel from an explosion.



Take care,

-Mingo
www.tacticalsandwich.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leper]

Still seems legit.

and the 4' drop would show zero holding ability after a more common problem than dealing with explosive spall.

 

[Tactical Sandwich]

Still seems legit.

and the 4' drop would show zero holding ability after a more common problem than dealing with explosive spall.

Versus the foot-pound- energy and amount of G's delivered upon the optic from a 12 gauge?
The glass shattered because of the amount of force, so logically if a 4' drop does not impart enough force to break the glass, it's not going to deliver the same scientific results.
If I had another MD-06 I could test, I'd perform this test for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

I would LOVE to see someone grab a Windham with a PA Micro go through the same test we saw Daniel Defense put thier rifle through with the Aimpoint. Don't have a helicoptor? Use a skylift. I bet any of these equipment rental places would let you borrow one and use it in the backlot for a quick "op test".

I say Windham because its a good budget rifle with a solid reputation. I want to see that test because I feel like its the AR design holding up more than the fact that its a Daniel Defense holding up, just like I believe we just saw its the micro dot design thats holding up to the abuse. Aimpoint may have longer battery life, sharper dot, and deeper dive limit, but I've long suspected that structurally, both Aimpoint and Primary Arms MD's are on the same level.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

TS, thanks for coming on here and clearing things up, man. I'm looking forward to future reviews

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tactical Sandwich]

I would LOVE to see someone grab a Windham with a PA Micro go through the same test we saw Daniel Defense put thier rifle through with the Aimpoint. Don't have a helicoptor? Use a skylift. I bet any of these equipment rental places would let you borrow one and use it in the backlot for a quick "op test".

I say Windham because its a good budget rifle with a solid reputation. I want to see that test because I feel like its the AR design holding up more than the fact that its a Daniel Defense holding up, just like I believe we just saw its the micro dot design thats holding up to the abuse. Aimpoint may have longer battery life, sharper dot, and deeper dive limit, but I've long suspected that structurally, both Aimpoint and Primary Arms MD's are on the same level.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. Plenty of good "inexpensive" gear out there that'll hold its own against the "operator" gear. It's just a matter of testing it yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1slow01Z71]

I would like to clarify something with you. I am a member at a 1000 yard tactical range in Mingus TX. A friend of mine brought out his M1A because he wanted to test the "1000 yard" mark on his rear sight and see how close his dope was with 175 SMK's.

The only steel plate we had available (other shooters were using the smaller targets) was a 20"x20" plate. With a US Optics spotting scope, we were able to spot misses/hits.
At 1000 yards, iron sights give you a very cluttered sight picture, but with a 6 o'clock hold you can better see your target and get a better sight picture.

As far as true hits were concerned, we could keep about 3-4 out of 10 shots on the plate.
With perpetual 20mph 1/4 value winds at that distance, it's hard to even keep a .300 WM on target.
Hitting a plate at 1000 yards with irons out of stock battle-rifle is indeed a challenge, yet a very rewarding one.
Very few people even get the chance to do this at 500-600 yards, let alone 1000.
I am also currently working up a load in my AR-15 match rifle to shoot at 1000 yards. It's going to use an 80gr VLD at around 2600fps.
Now some may ask "why on earth would you shoot a .223 at that distance?"
The only thing I can say to them is "why not?" The skill involved to facilitate a 1000 yard hit with a 223 is pretty epic-one of which I have not yet obtained, but I am working towards it.


Also to answer your question why I shot the MD-06: it is the perfect impact test. As I stated on my review I was going to test this optic until failure, but the shotgun sealed the deal. If it could survive that, it would survive anything. It's more of a confidence booster for current owners of a MD-06. The whole "holy crap it will survive two rounds of birdshot and still work??? I am buying one!!!"
As far as the logistics are concerned, that's not for you to worry about is it?
And may I ask you why a 4' drop test would be better? If it can handle 2x hits of birdshot from 10yards, do you think dropping it from 4' mounted to the rifle is going to do more damage?
I'm only asking because I want feedback so I know how to better test products in the future.





Let me clarify some things for you:

I am currently a broke college student...I enrolled full time the beginning of the year. Prior to that I haven't been to school in years so I had funds to purchase Aimpoints/high-end optics.
Secondly, I shot the MD-06 with a shotgun for two reasons:
1. Larry Vickers did the same thing to the Aimpoint T1 (I also noted in my review that I wanted to push the PA to the same level of an Aimpoint). This also negates the need for any drop test as the measured G's in a shotgun blast will far exceed any "normal" drop test, from any height.
2. I wanted to perform a "combat" durability test on the optic. Because I want my optics to survive anything, a shotgun blast of birdshot is as close as I can get to replicating real shrapnel from an explosion.



Take care,

-Mingo
Tactical Sandwich | ?in case your average sandwich isn't good enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a hard time believing that you were actually aiming with the front post at your target. Seeing as how the front sight post on an M1A is 8moa, at 1000yds the front sight post covers 80"(almost 8') and youre holding ~7moa(almost 6') for wind. At 1000yds with M1A sights the far edge of your front sight post would be damn near off the far edge of the target so you would see basically 12" of the 20" target. The target would not be obscured by the front sight post at all to hold wind but that pesky elevation hold on the other hand would be tough since youd somehow have to hold 32' worth of it. Your target would be thoroughly covered with your barrel so why you mention target obscurity is beyond me. Youd be aiming at a spot on the hill way above the target to even hit unless. Unless you want to add that you were using an extended sight radius setup and/or Vernier sights but you said a "stock battle rifle"...

How do you figure having a 10# rifles energy falling on the sight isn't a good test? That whole physics thing is a mofo. Without boring you with the equations(a lot of grains to ounces to pounds and feet to meters conversion plus the actual equation math) figuring the average birdshot load runs 1300fps and saying that 20 pellets of #8 birshot(~1gr a piece) hit the sight versus an 8# rifle(lightened the rifle weight for the sake of argument) falling, the amount of force the sight would see is roughly 27 times greater being impacted by the rifles weight.

While the equation for kinetic energy squares the velocity, you have to multiply the velocity by the mass which is VERY small for birdshot versus a relatively heavy rifle in comparison. The rifles mass is roughly 2800 times more than 20 #8 birdshot. Think about it solely from a logic aspect. Essentially its the difference between a 150# person running into you versus the weight of the statue of liberty(actually googled what weighs ~450,000). In this example mass has a much bigger role in the kinetic energy equation than the velocity does. While the birshot is moving faster(40x faster), the rifle weighs much more(2800x heavier). Newton and his pesky equation. If Ive made an error in my calculations I apologize, its been a few years since I took physics in college...

 

[breakingcontact]

1slow dropping some math logic up in this piece!

You've got to know when to use a Bible and when to use a rifle.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

I have no clue what 1Slow just said....all I know is that Micro took that birdshot like a champ.

 

[breakingcontact]

I have no clue what 1Slow just said....all I know is that Micro took that birdshot like a champ.

AR fall > partial birdshot hit