Talk:Reflector sight

Reflex sight merged

Merged per WP:MERGE - Overlap to overcome many of the problems noted at Talk:Reflex sight#Merger and scope. There were several articles describing some narrow aspect of the Reflector sight, Red dot sight-->moved to and expanded at Reflex sight[1], and this original Reflector sight article[2]. Merged to this article for broader overall description since these are all the same device per reference (example) and per WP:TITLEFORMAT per avoid abbreviations. Article heavily rewritten and expanded with many added references. There could probably be articles on sub-types, I think Red dot sight, Collimator sight, and Holographic weapon sight have unique description that could probably be seperate articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reflector sight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) This is a generally well-written, informative, and well-referenced article. I was especially pleased to see the wide range of devices that are covered. I would like to see a more explicit explanation of why parallax is not a problem with these sights.

ty for the input and noted problem. Effects of parallax was explained per its effects on usage in the "Weapons" section, but yeah, that was scattered and not explained well in the "Overview". Edits have now been made to try to fix that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Parallax wording

Fountains of Bryn Mawr recently added this to the overview:

Since the optical collimator produces collimated light, light that is nearly parallel, the reticle image produced by the sight is theoretically perfectly parallel with the axis of the device or gun barrel it is aligned with, i.e. with no parallax. Because the light is collimated the reticle can be seen at any position behind the optical window. But this also means, for targets closer than infinity, sighting towards the edge of the optical window can make the reticle move in relation to the target since the observer is sighting down a parallel light bundle at the edge. This gives a error circle equal to the diameter of the collimating optics.

I'm not an expert on optics. Maybe an expert would understand better than I do, but I have trouble with the following points:

• "reticle image produced by the sight is theoretically perfectly parallel with the axis of the device or gun barrel it is aligned with". I'm not sure what it means for a virtual image to be parallel with anything. It looks perpendicular with the axis of the gun barrel.
• "the reticle can be seen at any position behind the optical window." No, the reticle can be seen only if the observer's eye is nearly on the axis of the collimator.
• "This gives a error circle equal to the diameter of the collimating optics." I'm not sure where this error circle is located, so I can't envision how much error this causes at the target. A diagram showing the observer, optics, and target would help understand the error. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I see where it is unclear. Per point 1, the light making up the image of the reticle is collimated (parallel) and that parallel light is parallel with the barrel, or device aiming axis. Per point 2, reference #2 describes "The collimator's pupil is so large that the eye can be positioned at any point within a large cylindrical volume in back of the sight", so yeah, need to describe as a type of cylinder, the eye has to be in the cylindrical volume behind the optical window. Per point 3, the sight uses parallel light so if you have a 2 inch diameter optical collimator and move your eye position from the bottom of the collimator to the top of the collimator the sighting point moves up 2 inches as well, whether the target is a person 3 feet in front of you or a spaceship orbiting the moon the aim point moves 2 inches up that body or 2 inches up that spaceship hull, respectively. "error circle" may be the wrong term since it is close to other technical terms that have a different meaning such as Circular error probable. Maybe it should be described as a "range of movement". Will try to reword and/or will look for other suggestions/edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the reference to parallax is plain wrong. Parallax is the offset fixed of the sight to the gun -- a couple of feet in an airplane. There is no way that a simple reflector gun sight can adjust for this -- ie point a couple of feet lower on the target regardless of distance. I suggest that it be removed. Tuntable (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Parallax is the apparent movement of the target relative to the reticle when moving your head up and down," (or left and right for that matter) per this document (page 16). I think you are talking about "Sight Height". Parallax, in this application, is a measure of the accuracy of a sight in relationship to itself (its optical axis). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Telrad

removed citation needed December 2011 because the information basic and common knowledge. The following was left for the edit/removal /* Other uses */ citation needed removed links for information will be on talk page, CN writer lacks any basic professional knowledge on the subject to request such.68.210.95.127 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC) links to back up telrad sights on follow spots in the the entertainment industry which by its ad hock nature lacks a multiple history sources for references.

• http://roadietools.com/spotsight.html Roadie redirects to Road_crew and tool

from here down I will list basic links with out breaking the terms down, as in you ether know the words or you should start at Stagecraft and read towards stage lighting and follow spots and follow spot operators

• http://www.controlbooth.com/wiki/Telrad theater forum and wiki website
• http://www.productionadvantageonline.com/Followspot-Parts/TELRAD.aspx sales deescription
• http://www.amazon.com/Telrad-Finder-Sight/dp/B0000ALKAN see reviews for information
• http://www.stagespot.com/product/TELRAD/TelRad%20Spotting%20Scope sales page
• http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/4018-followspot-aiming-tips.html discuss methods for spotlights to aim and telrad is mentioned and linked to
• http://www.enlightenment.co.uk/lighting/techSpecs/followspots/fs4.html
• http://www.theatrecrafts.com/lx_followspotting.shtml
• http://www.barbizon.com/product_info.php?products_id=15028

Two links for images in use

• http://www.hbernstaedt.de/knowhow/scheinwerfer/verfolger/verfolger.htm you'll find them on numerous follow spotlights
• http://behindthebeam.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2006-12-15T17:05:00-05:00&max-results=14 second image shows the view through a telrad combined with dancers on stage and farther down you will see telrads on followspots.

I don't have the time hunt up more images of it in use. However that short sampling will show the "citation needed December 2011" was not necessary nor valid. Their use is not a matter of debate, the preference for types of sights used by follow spot operator are. Which comes down to each users preference including using light leaks and making marks on a dry erase board for them when the light is aimed at a spot. Since most links are commercial in nature none were added to the main article. Feel free to choose which ever one you like and/or want.

Please note: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of "common knowledge" and the knowledge of the editor on the subject has nothing to do with whether he/she can edit it (you may want to read WP:V). Any "facts" claimed have to be verifiable (with citation), and any editor can (and will) look up those citations or note the total lack of them. I have put back the need for citation because the addition of this information is very sketchy re: only the Telrad?[3]... no[4], use on other types of spots?, use in other types of event besides theater? .... general lack of third party reference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Retiflector sights

I am an unskilled Wikipedia user. I would love to discuss this with you, since I have a fourth figure that shows the retiflector configuration.

If you wouldn't mind talking about it directly, please e-mail me at rwhistler25@hotmail.com.

The only references I know of that describe the retiflector sight are the pertinent Air Force Tech Orders and a Baille-Lemaire manual, as well as an article describing the NIFE sight. I can pull these together for you, though many will be hard for you to find.

Ross

Rosswhis (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager's thoughts

"To my estimation, the M14 sight is the biggest improvement to combatequipment to Fighter up to this date." - from his combat report of 12 October 1944,when he downed 5 Me109s.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 October 2012‎

The M14 was a US-produced version of the British Ferranti GGS Mk II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.134 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes and GA de-listing

Actually not sure if this was supposed to have been GA de-listed since there is no comment on that and simple MOS changes fall outside WP:GAR. The removed section heading structure was a logical one, a reflector sight has uses and sub-uses and it is on more devices than just "military", such as probably 100000+ astronomical telescopes at this point. Also I am not sure a history section should go first in an encyclopedia listing for a device, it should probably be description first. The rest of the MOS changes seem correct and should probably be put right back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk • contribs) 19:50, 27 March 2014

Right well, as you appeared to notice at the end there was no de-listing: the icon was merely moved to the foot of the code out of the way of the content, which as far as I'm aware is the prevailing style. As this seems to have been the primary point of disagreement, I've rolled back to this afternoon's revision. Regarding the history section, my reading of it is that it actually does a better job than the previous "overview" of providing the required context for the rest of the article; in my experience it is also the case that a brief history, where present, is usually the first section after the lead. The next two sections flow logically into one another and the previous split was incongruous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

[6] Actually it was a Wikipedia brain problem mixed in --- pages would not refresh (I could see my edits in page history, but they would not show) so gave up to give the overworked Wikipedia servers a rest. Back at it, simply moved "History" section and preserved sub-sections. I used to put History sections first but other editors would move them down below description and now I can see the value in that. I looked to see if there were guidelines or MOS to follow but saw none. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, the diff clearly shows that a bunch of smaller edits were undone there. It's far easier simply to manually reorder the paragraphs than to try to piece the preferred version together from diffs which may not have discrete changes. I've fixed things up now. I'm still not happy that we're going as deep as level 4 section headers here; this suggests an imbalance to the article's coverage, as (much as I said before) the majority of the material covers weapon sights and yet they're being hived off into one section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Collimator sight

Shouldn't it be stated as a form of Collimator sight instead of a specific device ? (i fixed the article a bit, so its readable at least) Irvnriir (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Any reference that states a reflector sight is a sub type of collimator sight? It looks like the reflector sight came before the collimator sight and Elementary optics and application to fire control instruments By United States. Dept. of the Army, section 8-24 describes them as two different types. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)