Talk:Collimator sight

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

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.

Makes no sense[edit]

This whole description about "using both eyes to look into the sight, or using one eye partially open to view first the sight and then the target" makes absolutely no sense to someone who doesn't know what a collimator sight is (namely, me), which is exactly the person who the article is supposed to be written for. How can a sight work if you can't see the sight and the target at the same time? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of using the sight to line the weapon up on the target? A gun which allows me to see the aiming reticle OR the target, but not both, does not sound ideal to me. I assume there is something lacking in the transmission here. Te exact same baffling description is repeated in the Collimator article. From what I gather a collimator sight is basically a parallax-free sight with an illuminated reticle, which basically works just like a red dot sight. So I don't know what all this confusing stuff about "one eye at a time, or one eye partially open" comes from. Just confusing the whole article without better clarification.

64.223.165.28 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I started the article I probably have a blind spot for how it reads. I noticed the word "superimpose" is missing - and that is how the sight works, one eye sees the target, the other sees the reticle in the sight, and your brain puts the two together. They existed because they were not easily smashed and did not have to be very clean to work - two very important points on a battle field. A red dot sight is a collimator sight, they just added a glass beam spliter so you could see reticle and target in one view.

If you can incorporate those explanations into the article or find a way to make it read better, please do. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a promotion. It doesn't describe purpose or usage, just an overview of the technology, and then a list of features from commercial products. If the problems it solves can't be described, maybe the feature list should be deleted and have only a "what a prism is" type description/article. Manys (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]