Choosing your MOA dot size

[Preferred User]

I thought there would be something on this in the CQB sticky. Maybe I missed it.

The Aimpoint site shows: 1 MOA = 30 mm at 100 meters = 1" at 100 yards

So the dot in the T-1 would cover 120 mm or 4" at that distance.

At a greater distance the 2MOA dot should be "more precise". But what about the inverse? What about down a hallway? Does the 2MOA get too small? Is the 4MOA easier to pick up?

[Gutshot John]

I use an M4S and I think the 2MOA dot is too small.

For bigger dots, I think you can use the dot's 12 o'clock/Zero degree tangent as a more precise aiming point while using the whole dot for speed.

[Zhurdan]

Eotech's are 1MOA dot in the center and 65MOA in the outside circle. I've never lost the red dot on any target, including the moving variety (big ol' jackrabbits). I think the large outer ring makes it easier to keep that inner dot in your minds eye a little better. That's shooting at targets from 25m to 200m. I think intensity is a bigger factor in weather or not you'd lose the dot. Although, at maximum intensity, it's almost too bright in my opinion. I'm in the process of saving up for an Aimpoint, but I think with my experience so far with a 1MOA dot, I'd prefer smaller. I guess I'll see if that larger outer circle is focusing my eye in on the smaller dot.

[RogerinTPA]

I like the two moa dot on my M4s but it is slightly distorted, compared to the one dot on my eotech 553. I feel both are precise for my shooting needs, but give the edge to the eotech. Besides, the 65 moa circle allows me to find the dot and the target, faster when shooting on the move and engaging more than one target. YMMV.

[Henny]

This is one of those questions, that no matter how many people you ask, you'll get multiple answers and everyone thinks they are right. In their mind they probably are.

I'm guessing you are talking about a sight for CQB, which is what the RDS is for. What works for me? I tend to like the larger dots like Aimpoint's 4 MOA dot or EoTech's 1 moa / 65 moa dot because they are easier to pick up. My eyes aren't as young as they use to be! On my work gun, I have a 4 MOA Aimpoint. It seems to work for me, it's fast, accurate and it's what I have!

[bkb0000]

i dont ever seem to have any trouble picking up a 2MOA dot on the lowest visible power setting... i like that dot as tiny as possible, especially at longer range, but at close range it makes no difference. if you're working in mixed light settings, like woods or moving in and out of houses, just crank the power setting up and make the dot brighter/bigger.

a 2MOA dot at full power, even in broad daylight, becomes about a 6-10 MOA dot, to my eyes.

[Preferred User]

Yes this is a CQB question. I have plenty of scopes (and rifles) from my hunting days that are incredible for long range.

Making the transition to the M4gery world has been interesting and will take much more training until it becomes my go to tool. As much as I want to like the T-1, the EoTechs I have tried are easier to use and find the dot (for me).

I am trying to choose (COMPM3, M4 or T-1) an Aimpoint and trying to understand which will be easier to work up to and dot size seems to be an important consideration.

Thanks for the comments.

[bkb0000]

a lot of people have trouble picking up the dot on the T-1s.. they're not for everyone. but the Comps are super easy.. comp m2-4, compc3.. all really good sights.

[Preferred User]

a lot of people have trouble picking up the dot on the T-1s.. they're not for everyone.

That makes me feel a lot better. So many posters raving about the T-1. I was starting to get a complex.

[bkb0000]

That makes me feel a lot better. So many posters raving about the T-1. I was starting to get a complex.

its not just you. in fact, there was a thread on that very topic here on M4 sometime last year. i've only tried the T-1 on display weapons- i wouldn't say i had "trouble" picking up the dot, but it was finicky about cheekweld.

[Outlander Systems]

I may be under the wrongful impression that bigger dot = faster pickup/target acquisition.

That's what has always tickled my fancy about the EOTech. Love them or hate them, it's the fastest RDS I've ever used.

[Failure2Stop]

Put it on a clock.
People are generally pretty suprised to find out that what they think feels fast is not always as fast as they think. The difference between a set of irons, a 2 MOA dot, a 4 MOA dot, and a 1 MOA dot suspended in a 65 MOA ring is not what people think or imagine it to be. The difference in training effort will mean a whole shit-ton more than the reticle size.

As far as precision goes, the only time that reticle size will really adversely affect you is when shooting at something smaller than the reticle, and only if the combination of shooter, barrel, and ammo is even caipable of sub-reticle precision.

Before obsessing over dot size and marginal loss of precision I would take a hard look at what I wanted the optic to do and my ability to project that will.

[Zhurdan]

F2S,
As the old saying goes...Perception is reality.

On the clock is indeed a good way to test things. That being said... how many of us have $500+ for an Eotech and $650+ for an Aimpoint? I don't. I looked at both, albeit with an uneducated eye, and thought as I posted earlier that the 65 moa circle would "guide" my eye to the central 1 moa dot. It's worked perfectly so far. These kinds of discussions are really about taste rather than effectiveness. Effectiveness comes later. If something is ineffective for a person, it ends up on the "for sale" forum.

If people just bought on their preference, it might eliminate these types of threads, but people are a bit skitish to spend that kind of money. Hearing all sides helps a bit.

Personally, like I said earlier, I think the outer ring of the Eotech guides the eye a bit. Keeping the center dot in their main focus. Tracking wise, I think it wins the day. I've never had an Aimpoint myself, but I've shot others guns that had them. I thought that even at 2 moa with no outer circle, it was a bit hard to track it. Not because it wasn't prominent in the reticle, but because the dominant eye begins to wander a bit with the non-dominant eye when scanning. I think it's a mental thing to be honest. It's not like my eye's aren't scanning with both optics, but the 65 moa ring gives a frame of reference when refocusing on a moving target. As I stated earlier, tracking a moving target, (jackrabbits) was done with both eyes open on the optic. The left eye seemed to track it and when it came into view of the optic, the dominant eye took over. The outer reticle seemed to ease the transition. It is like it guides the iris to the dot. I know there's a lot of benefits to Aimpoints for their toughness and battery life... I just wish they could incorporate the 65 moa ring into their sight! I'd drop $700 for that in a heartbeat. Best of both worlds!

Respectfully,

Zhur

[Outlander Systems]

Let me rephrase my aforementioned comment.

The EOTech has the easiest reticule I've found to quickly acquire, in that, I'm not searching for a reticule when I could be acquiring something to shoot at. The EOTech reticule is, for me, incredibly easy to register mentally and has the quickest mental lock time. In short, the orientation phase of the loop moves faster due to the EOTech's easily acquired reticule.

That being said, I don't use EOTech gear, for various other reasons, but I'll never take a heap on it.

[Failure2Stop]

I was not responding to any individual poster in the thread, simply making a general observation.

That being said- to have a preference, one need to have experience and proficiency- meaning that the user must have enough time and rounds on all options to be able to compare them objectively. To be clear, I am not saying that the EO reticle is bad, just that it has not been proven to be the big sell-point that some try to make it.

They are both caipable optics with their own pro's and con's. I would put more emphasis on mounting, robustness, ergonomics, battery life, and general ease of use. That's not to say that the only option is the "best" of each category, simply that making sure that the optic meets the need in all aspects will pay off later.