The idea came to me, as many do, while enjoying my second craft beer over lunch.  An optic sight that, instead of being perched inches over the bore, has literally no offset.  I have two concepts for how to  make it work.  But, as I am sitting there, pondering details, I cam across the big one... Why?

So, would you, as a shooter, be interested in an optic sight (telescopic, red dot, holographic, night vision, whatever) that didn't require you to deal with offset from the bore?  If so, why?  What features would you insist on?  What inconveniences would you tolerate?

Thought of something once but I wasn't sure how pratically it would be but I drew up a periscope type design but there would still be an offset. I'd be interested if someone could make it work.

The idea came to me, as many do, while enjoying my second craft beer over lunch.  An optic sight that, instead of being perched inches over the bore, has literally no offset.  I have two concepts for how to  make it work.  But, as I am sitting there, pondering details, I cam across the big one... Why?

So, would you, as a shooter, be interested in an optic sight (telescopic, red dot, holographic, night vision, whatever) that didn't require you to deal with offset from the bore?  If so, why?  What features would you insist on?  What inconveniences would you tolerate?

The only way you can make a sight that has literally no offset is a camera transmitting the image from the hollow tip of the bullet.

Interesting thread.

The problem is that line of sight is a straight line while the trajectory of a bullet is an arc.

Not sure if you're talking for rifle only, but for pistol, a bunch of USPSA Open Div. shooters use a 90 degree mount with their C-more.  Pretty much takes the sight down almost to the same height as iron sights.  Makes indexing an open gun almost the same as a limited div. gun.  Another benefit is that it gets the sight clear of the ejection port so there's less chance of cases hitting the sight and bouncing back in. 

Getting to to the screws used for zeroing can be a pain when the mount is run 90 degrees.  Also can't run a blast shield so if the barrel has popple holes, the sight glass can get really dirty.  The 90 doesn't totally eliminate holdover on really close shots, but it does lessen it a lot compared to an upright mount.

I have a setup, though not an optic, for point-blank engagement that references my bore rather than a traditional sight.  For me it verifies when I pull the trigger I'll hit somewhere in a 3 inch circle at a max range of 25 feet (longest distance in my house).  This is an inherent limitation with my setup but I guess if one were so inclined, it could be made more precise (maybe just outside 1" @ 25') with access to machine shop tooling.

The main purpose for me is to be able to engage a threat with very minimal reaction time.  I later found a good secondary function in that I can "Mechanically Zero" any other sights I have or I may add in the future.

The only way you can make a sight that has literally no offset is a camera transmitting the image from the hollow tip of the bullet.

That's an approach I hadn't considered.  I can add that as a 3rd option! 

The problem is that line of sight is a straight line while the trajectory of a bullet is an arc.

Well, I cannot change the laws of physics, at least not yet   But that's not a problem, just a reality.

Quote from: Teichi on May 01, 2014, 06:06:47 PMThe only way you can make a sight that has literally no offset is a camera transmitting the image from the hollow tip of the bullet.

That's an approach I hadn't considered.  I can add that as a 3rd option!

A DIFFERENT ANGLE
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-laser-guided-bullet-will-change-warfare-forever-2012-8#!Hw1NE

If you've ever played with reflector telescopes, you know that the center of the objective lens isn't used, it is actually obscured by a mirror.  Which, at least conceptually, means you could put a long, thin object, like a gun barrel, straight thru the center of that telescope without degrading performance. 

The forend of the gun becomes the housing for the sight, the diameter of the forend becomes the limitation for the diameter of the objective.  It would be a one-piece stock with a free-floated barrel.  Probably use fiber optics to rout the image to a position-able eyepiece, which is where the reticle and adjustments would be..

If you've ever played with reflector telescopes, you know that the center of the objective lens isn't used, it is actually obscured by a mirror.  Which, at least conceptually, means you could put a long, thin object, like a gun barrel, straight thru the center of that telescope without degrading performance. 

The forend of the gun becomes the housing for the sight, the diameter of the forend becomes the limitation for the diameter of the objective.  It would be a one-piece stock with a free-floated barrel.  Probably use fiber optics to rout the image to a position-able eyepiece, which is where the reticle and adjustments would be..

no matter how you do it, the barrel would still intersect some of the light.  the center of the objective lens might not be used, but light most certainly crosses that central axis on its way to your eye. 

you cant bend light.

the only thing i could imagine would be to place two scopes on each side like binoculars and use your brain to put the image together.

no matter how you do it, the barrel would still intersect some of the light.  the center of the objective lens might not be used, but light most certainly crosses that central axis on its way to your eye. 

you cant bend light.

the only thing i could imagine would be to place two scopes on each side like binoculars and use your brain to put the image together.

I'm thinking more of a series of objectives, mounted in a circle, each with a fiber-optic receptor.  The fibers intersect at a ground glass or prism.  I used used the reflector telescope as an analogy to having something obscuring the center of the "lens." 

how about, instead of making a sight, you make an attachment that uses 4 lasers?

All 4 lasers would be adjusted parallel to the bore.  on target, the 4 laser dots would mark the top, bottom, left, and right side of where the barrel is pointed.  the presumed center of all 4 of the dots would be the barrel bore.

from there, you would hold over accordingly.

I think I understand now.  Using the analogy of the binoculars mentioned previously, the use of the fiber optics is like using 1000's of 1X lenses arranged around the bore of the barrel and routed to the objective of a "traditional" scope.

This arrangement, similar to a reflector telescope, will have a long focal point to negate the physical obstruction in the center of the objective.

I could see this for a point blank "red dot", relatively flat projectiles at short to medium range, and for the ability to adjust the height of the eye piece without affecting the "zero".  I guess if you wanted to go all "high tech", you could put the eye piece on glasses too.  Try to hit something shooting around a corner and stuff...

For long distance however, there would need to be a way to tilt the objective relative to the bore.

I'm also wondering how close the objective would have to be to the muzzle where the barrel doesn't interfere with it, or how far off of the barrel's bore, whichever way you look at it.

Cool.  Design and patent first.  Then build for the masses.

how about, instead of making a sight, you make an attachment that uses 4 lasers?

All 4 lasers would be adjusted parallel to the bore.  on target, the 4 laser dots would mark the top, bottom, left, and right side of where the barrel is pointed.  the presumed center of all 4 of the dots would be the barrel bore.

from there, you would hold over accordingly.

i've thought of this idea too.  what if they made a threaded adapter (visually similar to a suppressor) with 4 embedded lasers in the walls? 

For long distance however, there would need to be a way to tilt the objective relative to the bore.

I don't think that's really an issue.  Elevation and windage adjustments would be done to the reticle at the eyepiece.  And what got me thinking about this was watching how much trouble people tend to have with the concept of raised sights.  Especially in non-vertical orientations.  I see this concept as a close-quarters one.  When you start talking about shooting at distance, and have to calculate bullet drop anyway, I think there wouldn't be as much advantage to a 0-offset optic.