Talk:Aimpoint CompM2

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

critism for the CCO

I'll tell you from my experience as a soldier that the CCO is not that good, its just the choice the army has made. Calling it a favorite is BS. I prefer the Iron Sight. One problem is the difficulty to zero the red laser, and another the short lasting battery power of the CCO. Sixshooter500

why was this moved to M68 CCO?

why was this moved to M68 CCO? I feel that the old title (Aimpoint CompM2) appropriately followed the <manufacturer> <manufacturer's product name> format used so frequently on wikipedia, whereas this new one sports a unique designation used only by the US Army, and also fails to explain what CCO stands for (collimated combat optic, I'm guessing). if no explanation is given, I'm going to move this back to the old title. Tronno 01:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for 'Close Combat Optic'. Ve3 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECOS-N

Is ECOS-N a different model in any form or simply another designation for the SOPMOD Block II? --Squalla 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are any real differences, but the M68 CCO and ECOS-N are assigned different NSN.

M68 CCO: 1240-01-411-1265
ECOS-N: 1240-01-495-1385 --D.E. Watters 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Watters. (I forgot to sign the previous post, by the way.) --Squalla 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax-Free Minimum Distance

I was wondering where the source of the numbers is for the following statement in the article: "The M68 is parallax-free outside of 50m, meaning that while the red dot moves around the inside of sight based on eye position, it always represents the point of aim. Inside of 50m the red dot has to be kept in the center of the reticle." The reason I am curious is because I would like to see if I can find this information for Aimpoint CompM4 article I am writing. I saw references to 25m as the minimum distance elsewhere on the internet so I really want to clear this up. Igor at work 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

I was wondering when was this scope released? I've certain I've seen it on Delta's CAR-15's in the movie Black Hawk Down but also know movies are unreliable in the weapons attachments. I find it hard to believe these were available in 1993. 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.30.209 (talk)

First, the movie Black Hawk Down is not accurate - the Comp M2 didn't exist in 1993. In real life, the Delta operators and some Rangers used Aimpoint 3000s and 5000s, the only Aimpoint optics available at the time. However, both were out of production when the movie was filmed in 2001, so the Comp M2/M68 CCO was used as a stand-in (see this article). Regarding the release date for the Comp M2: Aimpoint's own web site claims that it was introduced in 2000, but this sounds inaccurate to me because U.S. soldiers and Marines have been photographed using them on training exercises before that date (for example: during Limited Objective Experiment 1 at Camp Lejune in 1998, some U.S. Marines were photographed carrying M4 Carbines fitted with the CompM2 - see here for example). I'm guessing that 2000 was the year that the CompM2 was standardized into the SOPMOD kit, but it clearly existed as a commercial product before then, and also began testing with the U.S. military before its formal adoption in 2000. -MA08P46K (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some users?

Never good WP:WEASEL wise when a paragraph starts that way. Needs a rewrite and references. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aimpoint CompM2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]