L2A2 SUIT 4x Optical Sight: Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux, On An L1A1 SLR
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2023
- Bloke takes a look at the OG SUIT sight: Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux. Most commonly seen mounted on an 7.62mm L1A1 SLR, this sight was available to infantry in the British Army from the mid-70's onwards, and is very forward thinking. However, the mount is hot garbage, which is probably why you don't see them so much in archive footage or photos. It's 4 power and has an 8° field of view.
The Israelis also adopted them, for use on 5.56mm M16 rifles.
Let's take a close look at the thing, shall we?
Playeur/Utreon: playeur.com/c/blokeontherange
Patreon: / blokeontherange
Teespring: teespring.com/stores/bloke-on...
Instagram: / blokeontherange
Facebook: / blokeontherange
308 Win
223 Rem
Battle rifle
telescopic sight
scope
DMR - Наука та технологія
![L1A1 🇬🇧 SLR [British FN FAL - Iron Sights] to 600yds (Feat. Bloke on the Range) Practical Accuracy](/img/n.gif)
While I was in the Austrian Army, we we're transitioning from the Stg58 (FAL) to the Stg77(AUG).
At the time, the always skint Austrian Army, was thinking how to recycle the Stg 58's in good condition for their own use.
They had a committee (of course), one of the ideas was a DMR.
I spent a couple of Friday afternoons and Saturday mornings on the ranges in Hirtenberg and Wr. Neustadt with some boffins from Steyr, a bunch of army brass and some other junior NCO's shooting the prototype's they'd come up with.
Nothing came of it of course, Austrian army procurement 🤷♂️🤦♂️, but I'm very sure that these prototype's served as a template for what the Irish Army has as a DMR today.
Still doesn’t stop me from wanting one for my SLR
Knock yourself out. It's your money to waste.
@@pablodelsegundo9502 I was issued one in 1979, whilst on pre-deployment traiing for an operational tour on the violent streets of West Belfast during "The Troubles"
My group size was instantly quadrupled, because the goddam thing danced around the rifle's top cover with every shot.
If (as I understand to be the case) it was conceived as a way of improving the accuracy of soldiers under fire in densely populated urban areas in Northern Ireland, it was engineered in such a way - as Bloke has explained - that it would, after minimal daily use, achieve precisely the opposite effect to what was intended, thereby increasing the risk to innocent bystanders if Troops returned fire. Design/engineering disaster.
It wan't even useful as a monocular (it coulda been pretty good, for that kind of use), but the mounting system meant it could not be carried conveniently in a pouch or pocket.
I ought to be astonished at how long it was in UK service. I'm not astonished, simply because I learned the hard way over 30 years as a Brit infantry officer that 99% of my peers and superiors have Zero understanding of small arms shooting, and their degree of interest in the skillset can - to this very day - only be measured in negative values.
@@pablodelsegundo9502 They go for decent money and are a sound investment even despite being a fairly poor optic.
Not really connected to this sight system, but had a funny SLR incident while in the CCF - on a range-day, an officer (teacher) was pre-warned to keep his eye back from the rear-sight when firing. Of course, he knew better. Smacked the lens out of his glasses & gave him a black eye 😊 We laughed 😊
Happened to a guy I did basic training with
Wearing specs...I used to get little chips in the lens from the rear sight......problem solved with a bit of black insulation tape on the rear sight ramp.
I carried this sight for 4 years in N I and never had a problem with it. You need to remember that compared to iron sights this was a “Rolls Royce”. It wasn’t just used as a weapon sight but also as de facto binoculars. SUIT was more than useful to the common infantryman, maybe just not good enough for some “Walter Mitty” dressed up in DPM down the local rifle range.
The 'clip-on' idea was good in theory, but in practice it lost Zero very easily (an SLR top-cover does get rather loose, as you show), and when on patrol we usually tied a bit of string round the rifle and to the sight in case it fell off.
Also - I would say the main reason they're so rare now is the radioactive source, and all the pain that this involved regarding storage, transport, etc.
The Tritium 'glow' was pretty weak, even when the source was 'new', and as the half-life wore on it reduced markedly. We were told the sight as 'crepuscular' (loooong ord for an Infantryman to comprehend!) i.e. meant to work best at dawn and dusk - the traditional times of Stand-To, so sort of made sense.
Finally - the use of 30-rd Mags, though officially frowned on, certainly happened on Ops, and coupled with a simple clip-on M16 bipod, could make for decent shooting at range.
I bought an L1A1 (UB60) as the first firearm I bought in the US. Of course because they’re ally af, I bought a SUIT for it. I was shooting about 2-and-a-bit MOA average with the irons so was expecting to be shrinking that a little with the SUIT. Long story short, even trying the zero the thing was a pain as it was so bad. At one point, it jettisoned off the mount on recoil. I ended up buying a second one because I thought either that retention spring was shagged or the mount was bad. Nope, it’s the norm, that one was shagged too.
It looks Cold War ally af but that’s all it’s really good for.
Same experience here, with the added bonus of the mount itself shearing off under recoil after a few hundred rounds
Nice BSA 61, mine is a 58.
My fading memory understands that issuance was 1 per rifle section. But everybody wanted one or at least a picture taken holding one..😂
Entirely plausible that that was your unit's policy :)
Good call on the Primary Arms prism. I absolutely love their products for what they are. Very affordable, durable, intuitive, and reliable optics. They may weigh a tad more than other higher priced optics. But there is always a trade off in any purchase.
At the time everyone issued with them tried really hard to get the system to work. Night Shoot hits went up. Having everyone in the section with a x4 bino was a plus. But no good shot had any confidence they could keep zero. Units tried them, and then generally handed them back and stopped issuing them.
Optics slow the snap point and shoot. And then optics and "Sennybridge" rain don't mix well, and a whole bundle of carry drills are formed to negate the worst.
The Susat could be got to work with the SA80. The SA80 doesn't snap shoot like a SLR, without loads of training.
The eyebox thing wasn't such an issue though loads of us ended up with a hardened bump on our brow from leaning into it.
IWS night vision scope had to sit on a SLR slide too. I never saw one actually fitted in the field.
I'm sat in bed on my day off and my arms are aching just looking at that heavy setup
In Canada we had "starlight" night vision scopes mounted on the top cover of our FN rifles. I had to lug one around for a while, but never got to shoot with it. The mounting arrangement probably worked about as well as this.
i remember them, my arms are slightly longer because of it
@@watsondove849 Yep, same in UK - we called them IWS - but they were US-surplus scopes. I remember being able to judge my gradual hearing loss by my ability to hear it's distinctive hum....
Love your direct honesty, most reviewers would not come right out....and as always pove your presentations, your skill, and your perspective
That 3x primary arms fills that stand in role for low power cold war era scopes really well. We love it on our M14 mount.
I had a SUIT sight back in the day. It was an Israeli model with a red LED in place of the brightness knob and the front latch had a hole for a screw to keep it clamped down. It was a fascinating piece of technology and at the time I had it, I couldn't find a damn thing online about it. I managed to find a Tapco mount for a 1913 rail and put in on my .22lr upper for my AR15. I was neat to be able to see the time of flight of a .22lr bullet out to the 100yd berm. 😅
Great video Bloke 👌
Thank you. I have never shot with a Trilux although one of the guys in our squadron bought one privately and allowed us to look through it.
A Rube Goldberg mounting system that doesn't hold zero very well attached to a loose dust cover. Brilliant!
Danke für das Zeigen von dem tollen Sammlerstück. Das Primary Arms MicroPrism hab ich auch seit ein paar Tagen.
There are two types of people: Those who make decisions, and those who have to live with those decisions... 🤔
While working for a distributor in the '90s, we got a bunch of them in. I wish I could have tried shooting with them.
I am really looking forward to your conclusions on that little PA sight after Finnish Brutality. Given the tiny size, features and price, they look like a dream come true for a general purpose optic. I actually have two, for my 5.56 AR and a 7.62x39 AK!
Carried this in Northern Ireland in the 70s. Great bit of kit.
Did you chew the eye piece?
It was fascinating to see that the eye relief was 'better' through the front than through the back of the sight (about equal clarity on camera)
Good man! Printing on both sides of the paper.
When the Soviets come up with a better mounting system you know you've fucked up.
I never had any problem with losing zero, and the orientation of the aiming post meant that your target and just as important what it was doing was not obscured. In training we were told not to remove the sight from the top cover after it had been zeroed, the quick release feature being meant for emergencies when the SUIT had been damaged and you needed the iron sights. Of course these were issue sights relatively new and well maintained, not ancient surplus. The reason given by people at the time for not liking them was added weight to the rifle.
That might be what your unit did, but the 1975 pam assumes you've got a carrying pouch for it and are mounting/dismounting it as needed
@@BlokeontheRange The pouches were a much sought after item for the 58 webbing as a 1st aid container. If you were constantly removing it from the top cover I could see it or pretty much any optic losing zero quickly. Nevertheless it's what we had and the only other option at the time was the IWS, the Singlepoint having been banned. The RUC trialled a variety of sights for the Ruger rifle including the SUIT, Elbit Falcon etc.
@@pk33 Why was the singlepoint banned?
I've only ever been able to find photos of it in use and never any really solid information on the sight much to my frustration.
@@Kav. The army tested it and concluded that they gave off a glow from the front that could give away your position, something apparently missed by everyone else. Prior to this soldiers had been acquiring their own Singlepoint sights and carrying them in NI. The use of the singlepoint was apparently debated in parliament.
The mount that the RUC officer has looked even worse interesting video as ever. I never got to shoot an L1A1 with one on but compared to a modern optic I don't think I have missed much.
Good luck in Finland, Bloke. +1 for doing it in Hard Mode with 7.62!
I like the top mounted pointer. Once you get it dialed, it's great.
That photo of the SUIT on a Mini-14 makes me wonder if there a competition in the RUC to see how just much height over bore they could get.
Maybe wearing their sashes on the weekend caused neck injuries and they couldn't get a good cheek weld? 🤭
Ooof, SUITs you, sir! Ooof!
Thank you so much for this! Having had most flavors of FAL I was very excited to try a rifle with SUIT… until I tried it on the range at least. Maybe talk me out of an ELCAN C79 for a Canadian pattern rifle?
That was excellent thank you...very informative indeed.
Used the TRILUX all the time while serving in the British army , never had any issues . once zero'd do not take it off the top cover. especially if its a tight fit like yours. mainly used in Norther Ireland because of the open country to spot movment of someone , it was an aide to the section and a great use for fire control orders to the other lads
Seem to remember a phrase at the time that went “It makes a good shot better but a shit shot even worse”! Does that compute with you at all?
@@richardbaxter2057 don't think i recall that phrase. There is a bit of a myth going around that it was only issued to the best shots of a section. in our battalion it was upto the individual weather they wanted one. but some people were just told you you and you, depended on the section comander. i used it because i was on the shooting team and i prefered to use one. never had any issues with zero unless i gave my gat a smack debussing. Zeroed once a month either in a pipe range or on the range , and never removed. my reason really was i didn't want the fecking IWS LOL🤣🤣
I enjoyed the Brutality Bootcamp short. Chappie has “the Eye of the Tiger”.
I got a refurbished SUIT from Israel about 30yrs ago. Came on a new mount for the L1A1. I shot better groups with the iron sights. Glad I got it dirt cheap, because all I use it for is pictures & videos now days. Just a prop.
I have, somewhere, a photo of an SAS range session from the late 70s. All in civvies, plenty of flares (and not the pyro type). Weapons were M10s, some suppressed and an L34A1 suppressed Sterling....with a SUIT mounted.
Good one Bloke, I have the rifle but could never find the optics (in Canada) good choice on magazine, we used on the C2.
SLR, proper bundook.
I strongly suspect the design process went:
"Treasury says we can go ahead, but they cut the budget by 30%"
"Bollocks, we can't take it out of the sight, it'll have to come out of the mounting. Tell Wally I need a new design by lunchtime and unit price can't exceed tuppence-ha'penny. "
Thank you for doing this video. I had one of these combos (ie same rifle and scope) in 1995. I purchased this used and surplus. Rifle was completely garbage and I could never get the damn scope to hold zero. I returned all of it to the firearms surplus company and got my money back. I am greatful to understand now WTF it didn't work.
I loved the SLR
I've seen pictures with the RUC carrying M1 Carbines with SUIT sights mounted on them as well.
Theres, only one Knob, handling my beautiful firestick..!!
I recall being issued a new top cover for my issue SLR with the same or very similar mount but with the SUSAT sight fitted, zeroing them on the range and thinking they were the bee's knees. Alas we almost straight away got issued the shitty SA80 and never saw them again. On a side note, we had one (between us) of the starlight scopes which nobody ever used because a, they were very heavy b, very expensive and c, rumour had it that if you fired a round, the muzzle flash overwhelmed the sight's brain and all you could see was bright green for over a minute, lol.
Nice rifle, and I have one just like it and equipped just like yours.
Ricky from IBM
Reminds me of tge Griffin and Howe M-14 mount, but that worked really well.
I have an Australian L1A1 SLR and always wanted one of these sights. I think I'll be making a clone to encase a more modern short 4x scope.
Remember the Trilux and still have the user manual. Still wish that I had acquired one foe my collection when the sights first came into US in bulk as surplus.
Let me know when yours is for sale. Happy to buy it off of you. I have one trilux with reanimated tritium for my Century LEO L1A1 but need one more. Mines lost zero but after TIG welding the mount to the cover and refinishing it, it has been solid. Poetic irony is doing the TIG welding in a high school shop class.
The good news is that if he does sell it to you, it's now going to be a lot cheaper than it would have been...
Using one of these if your a left handed shot, with an SLR with the sight fitted was funny too, my partner says as a left hander.
Yes there was a Zero issue, every time you clear the SLR, my partner says too.
As his SLR in the late 70's and early 80's, was fitted for the sight.
There was about 10 maybe 20 SLR's across the Regiments five batteries.
With SLR' having these Sight mounts, plus around just 10 actual sights too.
If the regimental senior armourer, would let you have one in the first place, he like keeping locked up in the armoury.
My partner's says, the fact the Infantry Battalions soldiers, or Marines and/or RAF Regiment personnel had problems get their hands on these wS one thing.
You try getting one, in the Armoured, Artillery, Engineer's, Signals Rwgiments, or other units, was near impossible.
Though they did work, if set up properly, as long as you realised you may have to re-Zero the SLR and Sight for accurate shoting especially out to 600 to 700 yards.
When even the SLR was being loaded or stored, in the Land Rover rifle grip holders, behind the driver and front passenger seats.
The SLR still moved around, not helping the sight being zeroed.
Especially going over Sainsburys Plain or West German Exercise grounds, or down the metal roads to the fire ranges in the Landy too.
Even flying around in Sea Kings, Lynx's, or Puma's and/or the old Wessex's Transport helicopters, or transported by C-130's let alone parachuting.
Would far from help the SLR and Sight, being zeroed, my partner told me, but he said he like the SLR and Sight combination and would not be without it, it was better than iron sights on their own.
I had one of these, it was optional , I never had any problem with in keeping zero when it was on. The problem I had is when it got a whack. It fell off! The second time on a patrol through woods at night. I ended up crawling on the floor hunting for it. Luckily it was on a live ex here, not across the water.
bloke bad man
Using my £700 shit on the top of my UK straight pull L1A1 ,it just looks so cool 😎
Great video and way overdue ! Outstanding! We purchased some SUIT sights in Britain in 1983 and built our own mounts on Canadian top covers. You're right as rain on holding a zero but they do look as hot as a good looking babe with a 30 round magazine. Can you recommend a source for the nice replacement top cover with the rails for a SUIT? If one can be madeI think it would find a good market as these scopes may be 70's but they have a cool about them that is without equal! Thanks very much again and greatly appreciate the first class video! We are licensed US importers and are always looking for cool gear like this! Again, well done!
Thanks for your kind words. DS Militaria has repro top covers.
Used the SUIT and SUSAT extensively personally never experienced much zero shift if any and we were required to check zero every 14 days. You kind of dismiss the reticle illumination without taking into account the only other night shooting methods where pointing in the general direction and hoping for the best or aiming along a white line along the top of the hand guard. The downward aiming mark made observing the fall of shot at unknown ranges easy and was much better than the SUSAT which obscured the fall of shot. Removing the sight from the mount was highly discouraged whenever we were issued them so potential shortcomings where well known.
Right about the L7 mags. Work fine. I saw a Singlepoint red dot mounted on an L1A1 cover once.
There's a picture of a single point in use in NI actually as well.
Yup there's a few pictures of them in use .
With both eyes open they gave a better situational awareness around the general target whilst the SUIT only gave you the restricted picture near the target. I liked the Singlepoint.
I know the scopes used by Australia on the L1A1 were fairly different. Ive seen some for sale but never the mount close up.
I was on the army shooting team SLR and never came across this sight. I was aware they existed but never came across one.
They were used in N.I. during The Troubles, including mounted on L7 GPMG. The mount is designed to be sacrificial and break when you drop your weapon so as to lessen chances of damage to the SUIT.
You keep saying that, but you're going to have to provide some evidence other than "that's something I was told in the army", sorry...
@@BlokeontheRange it was what I was told. Whether it's written down somewhere who knows, it probably is in some design document somewhere I'd guess. However, it does make perfect sense to me. The SUIT is still useful even if the mount is broken, it's a magnified optic. It's much more important that it doesn't break. Modern optics are remarkably durable but a 10lb SLR dropping on a SUIT I'm guessing is a bit dicey. The individual rifleman being an expert marksman hasn't really been a thing since the beginning of WW1. Look at the crappy sights they put on No. 4 Mk 1*. Soldiers are killed by artillery, mines, and machine guns not rifles.
Your source is "someone told me it in the army". His source is he made it up. I'm sure it's *not* in some design document somewhere, cos the aim was to *increase* the effectiveness of the rifle, and making a mount that won't hold zero goes against that.
Nothing wrong with the "crappy sights they put on No.4 Mk.1* (they put all the variants of sights on them btw, same as they did with the No.4 Mk.1) I presume you're referring to the 2 position flip that gave 300 (with bayo), 400 and 600 yard zeros? Which is essentially the same rearsight as on the M16A1?
@@kalliste23 How would the top cover mount being designed to break stop the sight becoming damaged? So the mount breaks and the sight flies off risking further damage? Strange how designers dont incorporate this pearl of wisdom into all sight mounting designs. You might have been told that, I certainly was not, it is not in any training docs. I seriously doubt it "is in a design document somewhere". Marksmanship was certainly a thing in the British Army post war, every Infantry unit encouraged individual marksmanship.
While I was serving in Ireland they gave me a a single point sight to trail, it was a red dot, no need to close one eye just get the dot on target and shoot,it was fantastic, dont think the army took it up though.
Half a pair of porro prism binoculars with a pointer snd external adjustments. I can see they wanted something rugged and easy to use but the mounting system was always a real wtf moment.
I remember when they used to sell both cams over here in the US and people would swap them all the time depending on if they're going to use it for 556 or 7.62 and then someday someone on FAL files actually measured them and found out they were identical. Lol.
I actually saw one of these at a US gun show a few years back. I got to look at it but not shoot with it. Very Cold War-funky.
I'll admit to being slightly infatuated with the SUIT sight to be honest, I really love how it looks.
If you'd ever do a video on the No1 Mk1 Receiving set (maybe a bit out of your area? idk?) that'd be amazing, I'm desperate for more info on them and their use.
Also regarding 3:03, this is pure speculation but the EM-2 "sniper" optic is also offset similarly (albeit by not as much). I wonder if this was just the way they did it? I don't know who OEM'd the EM-2 one though.
"Kijker Richt Recht" 😂 you have to work on the pronunciation of the "G" (even some Dutch have a weird habit to mess it up) but it was very darn close. Nice video!
BTW, my L2A2 had the tendency to mysteriously fall of my L1A1 when firing. And the rear lips of the top cover broke off very quickly. Zeroing was a pure horror and if you only fire on man size targets, it will hit it up to 400 meters (longest distances I could fire as an civilian). The rifle is long gone but still have the Trilux with topcover. It's just pure cult.
Thanks :)
Maar er is geen "g" in in "kijker richt recht" ;)
@@BlokeontheRangeoh damn.... ;-)
Look how stiff the Carry handle is and no sling.
Very alley
Am I spelling that right?
Loved the 9 hole team up.
I was lucky in that mine was BLR, so I didn’t have to use one, the whole battalion was issued and mandated it’s use apart from me for four months in west Belfast in 1983
Luckily I was a decent shot with the iron sights
I have seen a specimen of this in Ishapore Rifle Factory museum. I have no idea how it got there.
Another issue is that the two rivets that hold the bracket to the top cover work themselves loose from recoil etc and so the whole scope flops around .
Great idea just horribly execution.
whats odd to me is out of all the optics available, even the german issue ones, *THIS* one is the one the soviets chose to copy as their general issue side rail optic.
The upside down post was left over for the em2 bullpup project. The idea was that it maximised hit probability over a post ret or post cross .
Got a source and an explanation for that hit probability thing?
Saw one, never got to use one. As far as I can remember my thoughts were the optic wasn't as good quality as a half pair of binoculars and the mount was just wrong. I was used to various camera lens mounts that locked into place repeatedly and reliably, Enfield should have done so much better with what was available.
This sight is so typically infantry barrack generic you can almost smell the aging camoflage nets and company halls from across the screen.
Yep a good idea that wasnt very good. Some thought they were Ally but they were generally unpopular in my experience, only used one on the range, in the field I preferred iron sights. The choice of the downward pointer despite the claims of its benefits, was to put it politely "silly", the SUSAT proved that.
I kinda want one for my SLR, but I also kinda don't, as I much prefer the sleek lines of the gun with the wooden furniture and I fear a bulky sight like this would ruin the ever so important aesthetics 😄 at least I have an extended mag for the added allyness
Thanks Bloke! Does this mean Henry at 9-hole is going to upload his SUIT/SLR practical accuracy video soon?
Maybe ;)
When your optic is built by committee.
Now if possible do one over SUSAT
The Dutch sight, kijker richt recht, was tried with a German clamp system but found to expensive. What is sjeit as there was a very limited amount of these rifles avbl in the companies. I bet it was the easy way out. Btw I liked the sight.
Interesting video. That mount design looks like someone was doing a bit of overthinking. I bet the tolerance stack on that spring was entertaining, I wonder what the range of preload turns out to be on those things. You can definitely see how the zero would shift if the rifle had a big enough bump, I bet the optics fell off from time-to-time on particularly loose ones.
I got a replacement spring. It's weaker than the original one and really doesn't hold the sight firmly at all. I put the original one back on.
There was a modification (done on mine) where the lever is drilled and the surface underneath tapped for a screw. This stopped the issue with the lever snagging and dropping the sight from the rifle with a weak spring.
@@nigelwright1610 Heh and thus defeating the tool-free optic mount, classic! Thanks for the insight!
I was in the army in the 2000s early 2010s, most of our binoculars had been spilt in two. I wonder if why the army had lots of of signs and no mounts is because they where only used as scope’s
3:01 I suspect that this was done so a "porro" type prism could be used for image erection rather than the more advanced roof prism design used in the susat.
Since making the video I found buried in a training manual that it's to prevent the front sight impinging on the field of view.
@@BlokeontheRange Interesting, I wonder if that "became" a feature just because of how it was designed. I also found a manual that shows the prism is set up in this way.
the scope on the cover wobble had to take someone that could wield it more firmly.
I bought a Century L1A1 that had one on it. It might be very cool, but I was not overly fond of the feeling of being gently punched in the eye with a boxing glove every time I shot it.
Hadn't occurred to me before but was SUIT originally conceived to go on LMG (7.62 BREN) as well and the offset done for that but later retained when the application was done away with?
It's in the 1975 Pam (found after filming): it's to stop the front sight and muzzle from interfering with the view. I've never seen anything suggesting it was intended to go on the L4.
0:38 cue the IT crowd's episode "Made in England"
Back in the early 90’s I build a l1a1 from a kit I purchased off shotgun news anyway I also bought two suit sights I think for around $40 each . The mount was junk so I never used them I ended up selling them through my gun shop for a loss
I was in the Army when we transitioned from SUSAT to ACOG. I didn't like and I had to do my Afghan tour with ACOG and was told I didn't have a choice. SUSAT was just better in every other than it was a little heavy but SA80 a lump of metal anyway
I got to marksman standard with one of these.
You are right, it was shit, wouldn't take any knocks.
Remember having to put black tap over the lock in NI.
Are there any good mounting options for FAL pattern rifles? Larry Vickers has repeatedly said that the SAS used G3s in Desert Storm because they were more optic friendly.
Yes, you can get bolt-on systems that clamp to the receiver rails properly, like I showed in the video.
i fitted one to my M16
I have one of these.
Do you know if there is anything speaking against using a 1x prism sight and a magnifier?
It's kinda the worst of both worlds, if you can get the pair to work together at all (I tried it once and failed), and puts the 1x prism forward at the far end of the vaguely-acceptable eyebox. Dot + magnifier is great though.
God I wish I could get myself a Trilux for my L1A1. Been looking for one that isn't retardedly marked marked up for years, but haven't had such luck unfortunately. They really aren't all too common in the US, and when you do find one for sale, its going for around $500 to $700. Back in 2012 they went for $150 from what I am told, but when I got myself an L1A1 in 2020, I saw them going for $350. Now I can't find one under $500. At this point I'm looking into getting another period appropriate optic that, while not authentic to an L1A1, will still look good on it.
Can you get SUSAT's over there?
Mounts were fabricated for the SLR for Op Granby in 1990
your concern about the single spring holding it in place is true of many picatinny QD scope mounts which do not have issues, such as almost every aimpoint mount, many acog mounts, and some traditional scope mounts, including the G3 mount which you referenced as an example of a good mount. i think the fact that everything on the trilux is exposed makes it look less sturdy. obviously the top cover is crap, AKs have the same problem. those microprisms are quite good, i had the 3x and now i have the 5x, the eye relief is somehow better despite the magnification bump. i can be about 4 inches back and still see through it in a useable way.
Could you please show me a Picatinny QD scope mount where it's only a spring that actually holds the mount to the rail? Cos I've never seen such a mount, it's always cammed-in wedges.
@@BlokeontheRange the lever has a cam, but the actual rail grabber bit has a spring on it, usually. that's what creates resistance when you throw the lever. how could it cam in if it's all solid metal? think about it, there has to be something for the cam to squish. otherwise you'd be crushing aluminum.
On the SUIT you can literally pull the sight up off the mount against the spring. I've got a QD picatinny mount in my hand right now: yes, you're literally squishing aluminium, which is the same as how a conventional screw-on mount works. It's just a cam doing the work instead of a screw thread. And is why you can't grab the sight and push / pull it against a spring with a picatinny QD mount.
@@BlokeontheRange my ADM mount has a spring. the idea is you thread the nut such that the spring is fully compressed when mounted, that way you don't destroy the pic rail. i didn't know you could just pull the trilux off without using the lever
*fully compressed* ... Does the mount move if you push it against the spring? Or is it mounted completely rigidly? The Holosun mount in my hand has a spring too, but it's just to push the movable locking piece *away* from the rail (not towards it) when you open it, in order to make removing the optic easier by removing the risk of it hanging up on the movable locking piece.
You can't pull the SUIT completely off, buy you can pull it away from the mounting surfaces cos it's literally only the spring that's holding it against them.
I always wondered why we got them in the old T.A. in the U.K in late 70's. Nobody else wanted them. Were pretty strong mechanically.
Probably easier and cheaper to send them out to TA units to store rather than store them centrally at Donnington, lol
@@BlokeontheRange Saved them from being burnt, what was the old saying FOFAD(F Off Fire At Donnington).
2 Wessex had SUIT's.
They were just thrown in a box and if you wanted one you just asked for one 🤷
Completely useless as they were never zeroed.
@@oldspec3006 If you still got some, I'll have 2.
Yeah, I remember the standard top cover always had some slack and whatnot in it. A great introduction to colloquial English too - tonk, and of course speccy twat.
The squaddies used to chew the rubber eyepiece, not only was the sight crap but it was very tasty. Far from squaddie proof
Does the section LMG bod know you've nicked one of his mags?
Two, actually ;)
@@BlokeontheRange Well done that man.
Why did they make the pointer so friggin massive?
It's plastic and robust, and it's the same as on the later SUSAT just the other way up.
Only place my battallion used SUIT sights was in NI for the added observation bonus. Apart from that they're horrible wannabe sights :)
You can see how insane was the top mounted sight pointer when you see they went immediately back to bottom mounted pointer in SUSAT.
Not really
@@alangordon3283 I suppose "insane" is overstating it, but if you interpret their comment as 'if it worked well they probably would have kept it', they're probably right.
Was the offset for the LMG?
No idea, I'd have to Google it or measure ;)