My Search For a New RDS (and Questions)

[ra2bach]

...reading a Clancy novel after downing a whole bottle of Nyquil.

you say that like it's a bad thing...

[JSantoro]

I submit that I assigned a level of unreliability to one's conclusions derived from the process, without casting judgement upon one's enjoyment OF it.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Sounds like you're using both optics with one eye, like it is a scope, instead of with both eyes open, as intended. You can make your hits with any RDS, be that Eotech or Aimpoint, with the objective lens/glass completely taped over if using the correct technique.

I understand why you might think that, but no. This was something I noticed only in side by side testing looking for differences, but it was readily apparent there. If you have access to both a micro and a 30mm model (which I assume most people commenting here do), go to a range with 25/50/100 yard target stands, but both Aimpoints on the bench next to each other, align the dot on a target, and then move your eye all around the window while watching to see if the dot stays precisely on target. In my side by side testing the ML3 dot stayed right on target without perceptible drift, while the H1 dot moved noticeably, particularly as my eye moved from lower right to upper left.

I haven't noticed any real-world problem getting hits as a result, but this along with some other fuzzy factors (the slight distortion coming from the H1 glass, and my preference for the knob on the ML3 over the side knob on the Micro) persuaded me to trade my Micro for a PRO and some cash. YMMV, I don't care who buys what, I'm just sharing my experience.

I do use red dots with both eyes open, as I also do with 1-4x scopes at 1x.

[Alaskapopo]

Sounds like you're using both optics with one eye, like it is a scope, instead of with both eyes open, as intended. You can make your hits with any RDS, be that Eotech or Aimpoint, with the objective lens/glass completely taped over if using the correct technique.

You should shoot scopes and irons and RDS sights with both eyes open. Closing an eye is not requires with a scope.
Pat

[Djstorm100]

Subscribe to thread. Great info

[kmrtnsn]

I understand why you might think that, but no. This was something I noticed only in side by side testing looking for differences, but it was readily apparent there. If you have access to both a micro and a 30mm model (which I assume most people commenting here do), go to a range with 25/50/100 yard target stands, but both Aimpoints on the bench next to each other, align the dot on a target, and then move your eye all around the window while watching to see if the dot stays precisely on target. In my side by side testing the ML3 dot stayed right on target without perceptible drift, while the H1 dot moved noticeably, particularly as my eye moved from lower right to upper left.

I haven't noticed any real-world problem getting hits as a result, but this along with some other fuzzy factors (the slight distortion coming from the H1 glass, and my preference for the knob on the ML3 over the side knob on the Micro) persuaded me to trade my Micro for a PRO and some cash. YMMV, I don't care who buys what, I'm just sharing my experience.

I do use red dots with both eyes open, as I also do with 1-4x scopes at 1x.

In my household on different rifles and shotguns we have a T-1, an R-1, a PRO, 2 1-4Xs, a Fastfire II, and an Eotech on my work rifle (see an Aimpoint trend here for personal use/choice?). Looking through the Aimpoint, or any other RDS to align the dot is a missapplication of the optic. I focus on the target, I "see" the dot (or reticle when using the Eotech) on my point of focus, the target, when the sight is brought into the field of view; field of view, not point of focus. I don't even need to open the front cap on the PRO to see the dot on target. It isn't the position of the dot or reticle inside the glass that matters. I don't find any real advantage of the PRO over the T-1 or the R-1 in our personal inventory, the next purchased will most likely be an H-1 as I have no need for NV capability and I am not a diver anymore. The PRO was one of those "price too good to pass up" purchases. I like it but the size and weight of the Micros can't be beat, even with the price differential.

I find with our issued Eotechs that most of our shooters are running the optic way too far to the rear and are spending way too much time "getting behind" the glass when it is not necessary. They are trying to look through it, some closing or squinting their other eye. Unfortunately we don't get as much time as I'd like to work on this.

[Alaskapopo]

In my household on different rifles and shotguns we have a T-1, an R-1, a PRO, 2 1-4Xs, a Fastfire II, and an Eotech on my work rifle (see an Aimpoint trend here for personal use/choice?). Looking through the Aimpoint, or any other RDS to align the dot is a missapplication of the optic. I focus on the target, I "see" the dot (or reticle when using the Eotech) on my point of focus, the target, when the sight is brought into the field of view; field of view, not point of focus. I don't even need to open the front cap on the PRO to see the dot on target. It isn't the position of the dot or reticle inside the glass that matters. I don't find any real advantage of the PRO over the T-1 or the R-1 in our personal inventory, the next purchased will most likely be an H-1 as I have no need for NV capability and I am not a diver anymore. The PRO was one of those "price too good to pass up" purchases. I like it but the size and weight of the Micros can't be beat, even with the price differential.

I find with our issued Eotechs that most of our shooters are running the optic way too far to the rear and are spending way too much time "getting behind" the glass when it is not necessary. They are trying to look through it, some closing or squinting their other eye. Unfortunately we don't get as much time as I'd like to work on this.

I have found the closer the optic is to your eye the faster I can shoot due to the greater field of view inside the optic itself vs the walls of the optic itself blocking parts of the target.
Pat

[markm]

I have found the closer the optic is to your eye the faster I can shoot due to the greater field of view inside the optic itself vs the walls of the optic itself blocking parts of the target.
Pat

I've found the opposite. I was trying this yesterday by moving my head position. If I go nose to charging handle like I'm taking a longer, aimed shot, the body of the aimpoint blocks more of my picture.

If I back off and just get my head above the irons and a few inches back, I can see more of the target and what's around it.

[Koshinn]

I've found the opposite. I was trying this yesterday by moving my head position. If I go nose to charging handle like I'm taking a longer, aimed shot, the body of the aimpoint blocks more of my picture.

If I back off and just get my head above the irons and a few inches back, I can see more of the target and what's around it.

I concur. It's actually mathematically true that the further something is away from your eyes, the smaller it seems.

[PrevailFI]

Did you buy a 2MOA T-1, or the 4MOA T-1?

Went with the 2 MOA. Mine is very sharp and well-defined (with my contacts in).