Red Dots vs Scopes

[alamo5000]

I have been trying to do a lot of homework on various optics as part of my learning experience. Here's a topic dejour.

What is your opinion of scopes (prism or whatever) of the same power magnification vs comparable red dots of the same power and price point?

Assuming similar price points it's just a general discussion what are the pros and cons of each?

We don't have to be brand specific but feel free to give specific examples if you wish to make your case of the (general) pros or cons.

I am sort of forming an opinion that may not be rooted in fact so really I want to learn the virtues of red dots when compared to other optic options.

[alamo5000]

For example's sake there is the Vortex Spitfire 1x prism scope with an etched reticule, the primary arms 2.5x etched reticule scope that's being tested etc etc... these are examples of one type. Both have illumination.

Then you have red dots of all makes and models including red dot scopes.

What is the virtue in a true non etched red dot?

[alamo5000]

I will even throw out there to include holographic sights in the discussion.

So it's the battle of the various forms of optics. Scopes vs Red Dots vs Holographic sights.

I kind of get the allure of the holographic sight to some degree but I want to hear more opinions.

[SINNER]

I've always considered a red dot a sight with no magnification. A illuminated reticle in a magnafied optic is not a red dot sight IMO. My favorite optic for an AR is a prism based optic, the ACOG.

[alamo5000]

A illuminated reticle in a magnafied optic is not a red dot sight IMO.

Agreed. Just having illumination isn't a 'red dot'. I'm talking red dot red dot.

[JHoward]

While a red dot with a magnifier is not an ACOG by any means, I feel like it's the best for what I use it for. 3X power, inside of 300. I don't run a magnifier when it's in the house, but usually at the range, I do, because my eyes are terrible.

[GOST]

Some prefer an etched reticle cause it appears more crisp for those who have astigmatism.

[alamo5000]

"Holographic Sight Vs. Red Dot Sight

The holographic weapon sight is optically, electronically, and otherwise superior to red dot sights. The two types of sight differ in optical performance and construction.

The HWS has...

A 65 MOA ring with a 1 MOA dot, the finest dot available in any optic. It provides an optimal compromise between speed and accuracy
A tubeless, heads-up display window that provides an unlimited field of view, allows operators to maintain critical peripheral vision for engaging multiple-threat situations
State-of-the-art technology proven to deliver far superior target acquisition speed

In contrast, the red dot style sight is 30-plus-year-old technology with very little enhancement."


Found here:

http://www.eotechinc.com/holographic-weapons-technology/holographic-sight-versus-red-dot-sight

[alamo5000]

"Why should I use a red dot sight?

To be successful, every shooter must be able to aim accurately and quickly under a variety of conditions. On a shooting range, there is plenty of time to take aim, but in the real world, everything is in fast motion. Add rough terrain, foul weather and high levels of stress and even the most experienced marksman will be put to the test.

The single red dot has been proven to be the fastest type of reticle to place on target and provides the greatest increase in hit probability on close quarter moving targets. Red dot sights allow you to remain focused on the target. Shooting with both eyes open means that you remain in touch with what is going on around you, and can deal with new situations as they arise.

Red dot sights are superior to iron sights and scopes in several ways. Using these other types of aiming devices require that your focus leaves the target."


Found here (further reading as well):

http://www.aimpoint.com/us/products/whyreddotsight/

[caporider]

I say use both!

Rolling to the red dot takes a fraction of a second with no break in cheekweld. It works from either shoulder (yes I've tried it) and allows for off-cheekweld positional shooting while still giving you the benefits of an etched reticle and magnification. There is no problem with cheekweld and mechanical offset like you get with a mini RDS mounted on top of an ACOG; the 45degree mount puts the red dot exactly in line with your barrel so there is no issue with adjusting elevation and windage. In addition, if your primary and secondary optic both become unusable (e.g. condensation or heavy rain) you can pop off your primary's QD mount and use the irons without the RDS getting in the way at all.

I will caution that not all "offset" mounts are correct for red dot usage -- get something dedicated to this task like the Burkett or the LaRue to ensure your red dot is in line with your barrel.

You could easily mount up a Vortex Spitfire 3x and a Vortex SPARC II on an offset mount for a fraction of the cost of a single ACOG.

http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/ar15/556_ta11d_01_1200px.jpg

[alamo5000]

My preferences that I am developing would be to have a 1-4x or even more (1-8X if I could afford it) and a 45 degree mounted RMR or other holographic sight. Sort of like the 3 gun type set ups. The scope would be zeroed at 100 yards and the offset to 25 or 50 yards. It's light, quick and easy to use. As I develop more into the AR platform anything is possible.

My thing is I am trying to learn about Red Dots. I don't want to go off saying they are no good when people are using them every day. What are the pros of a red dot over a holographic sight? Or a holographic sight over a red dot?

I am looking more at a general (non brand specific) discussion about the pros and cons of each one of the options.

With a 1-4x scope, dial it back to 1x and isn't that more or less a red dot? With a holographic sight you can cowitness with irons which is not really an option with a scope.

The way I see it each of these 'style' of optics are like a tool box. One is a flat head screw driver, one is a phillips head, and one might be a hex head. Each of the optical choices has pros and cons to it (speaking as to the general design).

I am wanting to kind of get to a pros and cons list of optic choices.

I don't really get it when red dots shine above all other options, which I am trying to learn.

In what situation are each of the specific tools best put to use?

And to keep it simple I am saying 'what if you could only mount one optic'.... what are the pros and cons and best scenario uses?

[caporider]

A standard scope at 1x is not the same as a red dot. A prism scope at 1x is the not the same as a red dot. The critical difference is that both the regular scope and the prism scope will have critical eye relief requirements, whereas the red dot will allow basically infinite eye relief to the point where you can't resolve the dot (some ridiculous distance like 6').

The biggest issue with a holographic sight like the Eotech is battery life. To get the ring/dot reticle the holo sight uses a relatively power-hungry laser, so your battery life is measured in hundreds of hours rather than years. This is why the Eotech has an auto shutoff feature that many do not like. In addition, Eotech has had battery retention/durability issues in the past and I'm not sure these have been resolved. The Aimpoint uses a very efficient diode to generate the red dot, and the latest T-2 seems to use a lens coating or lens angle that alleviates some of the issues around astigmatism and red dots and presents a crisper dot when used with a magnifier.

I've tried the "one scope" thing with 1-4x S&B Short dots, 1-6x Razor HDs, 4x and 3x ACOGs, 1.5x ACOGs, 2x ACOGs, 1x/4x Elcan Specter DRs, red dots with magnifiers, and red dots alone... and I've converted most of my rifles to a fixed mag/offset red dot configuration. YMMV, but that just works the best for me, leveraging the strengths of both the fixed mag prism scope and the red dot.

[alamo5000]

A standard scope at 1x is not the same as a red dot. A prism scope at 1x is the not the same as a red dot. The critical difference is that both the regular scope and the prism scope will have critical eye relief requirements, whereas the red dot will allow basically infinite eye relief to the point where you can't resolve the dot (some ridiculous distance like 6').

Now we are getting somewhere. [BD]

See. I learned something.

[Uffdaphil]

While it is not surprising that Eotech flat out claims the HWS is superior to an Aimpoint type red dot, millions of end users disagree. Having had both, put me in the Aimpoint camp. I find it faster to get on target without the busy EO reticle. YMMV.

For the same reason I dislike many of the circle/dot reticles on some 1-4s. A too-wide outer ring obscures too much of the target and draws the eye away from the smaller center dot.

[GOST]

I say use both!

http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/ar15/556_ta11d_01_1200px.jpg

That is great.

[gatordev]

While it's jut preliminary and has some caveats, I ran some tests today running the WEVO T&E Micro I have against my MK6 at 1x. I'll put it up in another thread as I'm going to try and continue updating it as I run the MK6 some more. Bottom line, though: I felt slower with the MK6, but the config of the rifle played a big part and I was actually faster than the RDS. Not what I was expecting, but in hindsight, kind of makes sense.

[alamo5000]

While it's jut preliminary and has some caveats, I ran some tests today running the WEVO T&E Micro I have against my MK6 at 1x. I'll put it up in another thread as I'm going to try and continue updating it as I run the MK6 some more. Bottom line, though: I felt slower with the MK6, but the config of the rifle played a big part and I was actually faster than the RDS. Not what I was expecting, but in hindsight, kind of makes sense.

I'm confused. So which one was faster? You're almost as bad as Luis! LOL BWHAAHAAAA!!

Does that mean you felt slower with your Leupold but that was only because of how you had your rifle configured? So if you did apples to apples you would be faster with the Leupold vs the micro dot?

[gatordev]

No, I was faster with the MK6 because of the rifle. If I had had had the same rifle for both optics, I'm pretty sure I would have been faster with the RDS. My point is that the optic isn't necessarily the end all cause for speed (if speed is even one's priority).

I'll try and do the first little write up tomorrow with the actual numbers.

[KevinBLC]

I don't have the range to use magnified optics, so I stick to reddots. I think the unlimited eye relief is more important than any slight advantage additional magnification could give you vs. eye relief. Also gatordev points out, it's also how you setup your gun.

[alamo5000]

I was kind of looking for a more general discussion on various optical choices.

From what I have gathered:

Irons are irons. They don't need batteries and they generally don't fail. Down sides is no magnification. If you are going to be on a target relatively far away you will be one eye on target squinting trying to create a sight picture. You have to aim down the axis of the bore to get a sight picture. In really low light they can be less effective especially in dynamic situations.

Red dots. They have a very long eye relief and are pretty much very versatile across numerous weapons platforms. Pretty much where you put the dot is where you hit. It's a lot faster than plain irons in some cases. With practice it's much more of a 'quick sight' and a lot of them are pretty small and light (or can be). You have a lot of versatility in how you set up your gun with a red dot. Down side is it runs on batteries and for general use it's not going to be some super accurate tack driver. If you are shooting steel targets or hogs or whatever it's a viable option. The range can also be sort of limited but there are magnification options. It uses laser technology to project that laser dot (which can be various sizes-- which can be both good or bad depending on what you do) But in low light you can see that dot a whole lot easier especially in dynamic situations. Having a red or green or blue or whatever color illumination does not make something a 'red dot'. A red dot refers to a laser dot projected inside the optic itself (it's not projecting a laser out to the target).

Holographic sights are sort of similar to red dots only electronically they do not function the same or with the same technology. Instead of projecting a laser they project a holograph that is more or less imposed over your target. You can shoot a holographic sight with both eyes open and you don't need any perfect alignments of your eye down the bore. You can also add magnifiers, night vision, etc etc. Again the effective range is limited to some degree without adding magnification. It allows for more situational awareness because both eyes open allows you to see everything is one of the main strengths. It is designed to more or less get on target quick and to be able to see and to be used in CQB situations. The downside to some of the holograms is that they cannot be used by some shooters because of vision issues.

Variable optics (such as a 1-4x or 1-6x). Very versatile. Can have illumination if you want it. Dial it back to 1x and it can function sort of like a red dot but the key difference is there is still some eye relief issues. Most are not true 1x. These do not have anything 'projected' inside the optic. Its generally an etched reticule. Zoom up to 4x you can readily engage targets at a much farther distance. 400 or 500 or 600 yards (or more) is readily achievable. Dialing in or out for proper magnification of more down range action is the key. Up close it's not really a both eyes open kind of sight although some can be pretty versatile in this regard. A lot of 3 gun shooters use both a variable optic AND a holographic sight on the same weapon.

Of course any weapon will depend on training and practice and how you set up your rifle and for what purpose its set up for. So basically when choosing how to build an AR it's important to know how that AR will be used. If you have a 24 inch stainless steel match grade barrel on your prairie dog shooter but you put a 3 MOA red dot on there it's not optimizing what was put together. Conversely if you have a $2500 US Optic 1-8X mounted on a 10" suppressed 300 Blackout SBR and you buy 5 case loads of subsonic rounds for it that might not be the best optic for that particular set up. It would work but it might be a bit of overkill on the long end.

So am I warm here?

[alamo5000]

If I am sort of close I need to add more about fixed power optics and why people choose those.

Once I kind of get my head around all this more I can think more clearly about building different uppers/rifles in different configurations for different purposes and see what I can come up with.

[alamo5000]

The AR I have now, how it's configured... It is awesome. I am pleased with my choices. That said I am thinking about other things I could do.

I could build a true longer range upper, maybe 18 or 20 inch stainless match barrel with that Vortex 2.5-10x FFP scope on it. So when I get the idea to shoot groups or get the opportunity to try 400-600 yard shots I could just put that upper on what I have now and I am good to go.

I am also considering building a lighter weight race gun kind of setup. If I do that I would not have a full flat top upper. I would have a round hand guard with a 1-4 or 1-6x optic with a mounted 45 degree holographic sight. I would probably chose a different butt stock from what I have now as well.

I would also like a suppressed 300 blackout upper. I could outfit that one with some sort of holographic sight (maybe an SRS) and have a magnifier and also night vision. On that one those can all be QD mounted.

Some of these things might not be too far off. Others might be out a little bit but who knows. If I swap jobs I could do all of the above as complete rifles. If I stay put (in my job) I am leaning towards the 18 or 20" barrel option and put that 2.5-10x optic on there. That is extremely doable in the short term (couple months maybe?)...

My second option would be for the blackout set up but that would take me a while longer to save up for all that stuff.

[CarbonScoring]

Typically my preference is for Aimpoints. The bright dot is easy to pick up and very intuitive.

If weight isn't an issue however, I really like my Trijicon Accupoint TR24G. The triangle is so damn bright and doesn't distort like an Aimpoint dot (I have astigmatism). The glass is super clear and the eye box is large enough that I have no issues getting my eye in a good spot.

My primary concern is shooting close range (under 50 yards), hence my preference has been for Aimpoints. The TR24G gives me performance as good as my H1, while giving me a bit more reach at the cost of a bit of weight.

[alamo5000]

Typically my preference is for Aimpoints. The bright dot is easy to pick up and very intuitive.

If weight isn't an issue however, I really like my Trijicon Accupoint TR24G. The triangle is so damn bright and doesn't distort like an Aimpoint dot (I have astigmatism). The glass is super clear and the eye box is large enough that I have no issues getting my eye in a good spot.

My primary concern is shooting close range (under 50 yards), hence my preference has been for Aimpoints. The TR24G gives me performance as good as my H1, while giving me a bit more reach at the cost of a bit of weight.

I know I am thinking out loud a lot but hey, that's part of the fun part... dreaming up what I really 'need' [:D]

At the end of the day I like to think through what I am putting together and WHY it is that way.

On one hand I have been looking at scopes a lot (I just ordered a new scope BTW) and I might either build the longer upper and put the 2.5-10X Vortex FFP on it... OR.... I could join the Evolution club and put in the papers for a .30 cal suppressor.

I could SBR it for for an extra $200 bucks but have the suppressor seated inside the hand guard to some degree. I don't really know but I am mulling the idea over in my head all the time.

In the end I want to learn more before I start forking out the dough. Its something I want to put the time in to do right. That also includes eventually picking an optic that would work well for the set up but it's such an integral part of it I need to think it alll the way through first and make wise choices.

I have to get my head around all this stuff. I want to be a smart shopper. [:D]

[Thompson]

The triangle is so damn bright and doesn't distort like an Aimpoint dot (I have astigmatism).
Sorry, not to divert the thread too much, but how does an astigmatism affect the dot? ... I have that nastiness too :(

[Slippers]

Sorry, not to divert the thread too much, but how does an astigmatism affect the dot? ... I have that nastiness too :(

It causes the dot to look like a comet, with a tail. At least for me.

Corrective lenses can correct it. Also, if you flip up just your rear sight and look at the dot through the peep, it usually clears it up, too.

[UWone77]

Sorry, not to divert the thread too much, but how does an astigmatism affect the dot? ... I have that nastiness too :(

Seems like a lot of people have an astigmatism.

[Dstrbdmedic167]

Seems like a lot of people have an astigmatism.

You can add me to that list... 😕

[GOST]

Seems like a lot of people have an astigmatism.

That's because they're old.[BD]

[Tyrannosaur]

I too have an astigmatism. Got new lenses and they helped. Believe it or not I looked through a friends T2 and it was a little better when it came to the distortion of a T1. Also I have used the Trijicon TA44 which is their compact 1.5x magnification ACOG, was also helpful. Went for the LASIK and was told my cornias were to messed up to get it, on a whim my wife got tested get the surgery the next day. Now she laughs at me as I struggle with contacts and when my children destroy my "spectacles".

[SINNER]

I also have a slight astigmatism in my dominant eye. Sucks. Trijicon reticles in their magnified optics are by far the best for me. The only dot type sight that does not cause the dreaded blooming of the dot is the SRS. Eotech is by far the worst. The brighter I run the T1's and H1's the worse it gets. That makes transitioning from darker areas to well lit areas an issue.

[Jerry R]

That's because they're old.[BD]

Ouch ! I resemble that remark !

Interesting thread ... interesting ideas and points of view

[Hmac]

I categorize HWS and RDS the same and see no practical difference between them in concept. Relative to the two models on the market, battery life appears to be the major practical difference between Eotech and Aimpoint. For my needs for my rifles, battery life is irrelevant...a mere convenience. I have both Eotechs and Aimpoints, two of each on four rifles with an Eotech G33 that I switch between them as needed.

[Thompson]

It causes the dot to look like a comet, with a tail. At least for me.
Hmmm, I'll have to try and take a look at that the next time I shoot someone's red dot. Most of the time I shoot with contacts, cause I hate when my glasses droop down below my sight picture [bash]

LASIKS is something I'd like to do one day; should the funds and means become available.

[Hmac]

Hmmm, I'll have to try and take a look at that the next time I shoot someone's red dot. Most of the time I shoot with contacts, cause I hate when my glasses droop down below my sight picture [bash]

LASIKS is something I'd like to do one day; should the funds and means become available.

LASIK can correct astigmatism ver well if done by a good ophthalmologist using state-of-the-art equipment. Only problem with LASIK is potential life-long problems with the corneal flap. I'd recommend PRK over LASIK for people with an "active lifestyle".

[Slippers]

Hmmm, I'll have to try and take a look at that the next time I shoot someone's red dot. Most of the time I shoot with contacts, cause I hate when my glasses droop down below my sight picture [bash]

LASIKS is something I'd like to do one day; should the funds and means become available.

Contacts should correct it, depending on the severity.

[Hmac]

Contacts should correct it, depending on the severity.
Toric contact lenses might correct astigmatism if it's axiial astigmatism and not due to cornieal irregularity, but they are more expensive, harder to fit, and may require more trial and error to fit comfortably and optimally correct astigmatism. Best to have good corneal mapping and very accurate refraction. Not necessarily the kind of thing you want done by your WalMart optometrist.

[Former11B]

Alamo, I bet your school teachers just loooooooooved you lol

[alamo5000]

Alamo, I bet your school teachers just loooooooooved you lol

HAHAAAA! Why whatever do you mean???[BD]

You have no idea. [:D]

I challenge a lot if stuff and drive some people up a wall with my questions... but at the end of the day I am passionate about learning which is the main point.

On the first time I went up to be expelled from university it was because I called out a professor for his 'bullshit' right in front of everyone. I ended up having all these meetings with the head of the department, the dean, and even the VP of the entire university (like 40,000 students)....

They thought I was going to be all scared but I went o the VP's office and demanded a refund of my tuition money. He was pretty taken back but I certainly didn't back down. I think a quote was something like 'what kind of second rate organization are you running here? I want my money back.' Right before launching into him about all the bullshit and all the wrongs..."I mean seriously, you run an organization like THAT and then want to charge me money for it??? I WANT MY MONEY BACK."

[CarbonScoring]

Toric contact lenses might correct astigmatism if it's axiial astigmatism and not due to cornieal irregularity, but they are more expensive, harder to fit, and may require more trial and error to fit comfortably and optimally correct astigmatism. Best to have good corneal mapping and very accurate refraction. Not necessarily the kind of thing you want done by your WalMart optometrist.

This has been my experience. My contacts took more trial and error to fit correctly, but now that I've got a decent fitting they work pretty well at correcting my astigmatism. Pretty well, but not perfect. I do still get some blooming at brighter settings, and at lower settings the dot is a bit oval, but for my style of shooting it's still fine enough for me to be precise.

I've got an Eotech as well, and it is much sharper than my Aimpoints. There's still a bit of fuzziness, but that's normal as far as I know for HWS.

The Trijicon TR24G is always sharp, so that's going on my main rifle. I doubt I'll be shooting my SBR past 100 yards.

[alamo5000]

Is there an optometrist in the house? [:D]

[WHSmithIV]

I'll chip in a bit with this. I'm cross dominant. I find red dots much easier to use because with the unlimited eye relief and not having magnification it's both eyes open shooting. I have had difficulty using scopes with my right eye though the fixed 4x scope I had on my Marlin 30/30 was comfortable enough to use. I sold my 3x9x 40 scope. It was just to uncomfortable for me to use. The Vortex flip to side 3x magnifier I do like with the Strikefire II. When have it flipped in I have to switch to my weak eye but the red dot does compensate plenty sufficiently for the weakness of my right eye. I am a both eyes open shooter and I like iron sights. I do like red dots because with the unlimited eye relief they are still both eyes open sights.

[DutyUse]

They all have their place. There is this theory that a unicorn exists. A short barreled, .5 MOA sniper rifle you can CQB and then take to 600 yards. It's light but stable under heavy strings of fire. A "one gun" to rule them all thing. If there is I haven't seen it it.

I'm with Carbon on this one, IF I had to use an AR to protect my family, my farm or whatever it's not going to be at 200y, it's going to be 50 and in. That's why the aimpoint pro and SRS are my top picks atm. But variable scopes certainly have their place

[Jerry R]

I agree with DutyUse on this. But, if you are considering a rifle scope, think about QD mounts for it. I put a Leupold on the Colt in a LaRue. Zero has been very repeatable (no POI change) with multiple removals.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i106/pdogkilr/Firearms/AR-15/Colt%20LE-6920/LE-6920%20Sized%201024/IMG_0267FortisonColtFramedSize1024_zpsfa9d5a66.jpg ~original

Having said that, the Colt's current configuration is an AimPoint PRO with an EOTech 3x behind it - the most "useful" configuration as a go-to rifle; zeroed 50/200. But everything is on QD. The EOTech 3x is easily moved from rifle to rifle as it does not affect POI. I have not had a chance to test POI shift with the PRO when removed/remounted. Put it back in the same slot, turn the knob till it clicks and hope the torque is the same. We'll see.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i106/pdogkilr/Firearms/AR-15/Colt%20LE-6920/LE-6920%20Sized%201280/IMG_0557Prow-Eotech3xSize1280_zpsdf2acd40.jpg~original