1 MOA Aimpoint in future ?

[MegademiC]

Bad and Joe,

You have stated that the dot growing is "incorrect ". Outside of corporate advertising literature, can you back that up?

I'm happy to provide a brief primer on what MOA means, and provide evidence that (at higher levels) the dot covers far more than 2.

It's 2017. Saying I'm wrong because a company advertisement says so doesn't cut it.

Unless you all are poking your fingers inside your Aimpoints and feeling the dot, it only exists in your vision. How much of your field of view it covers IS how big it is. I can post pictures of my dot on a yard stick and make you look stupid if needed, because my digital camera happens to agree with my natural eye.

I was an Aimpoint dealer for a while, I've used them on duty, and I'm holding one now, gently whispering, "my precious".

They are still great optics even if you don't treat their marketing literature as inspired and inerrant.

Once you learn how an rds works, it will make sense.

[NongShim]

All the pissing aside, I think a 1MOA dot would be sweet. The LCO is awesome.

The M5 looks like it will rock. The idea of needing a "more common" battery is assinine to me, when battery life is longer than any deployment since WWII. To me the M4 has better sight picture than the Micros. I like the idea of clearer sight in a package closer to that of the Micros.

[GJM]

Max Leograndis, USPSA PCC national champion, is using a Leupold LCO with a one moa dot. Pistol Caliber Carbine is shot on the same course of fire as the other USPSA pistol divisions. One moa doesn't seem to be holding him back at all.

[BadgerPeak]

Once you learn how an rds works, it will make sense.

If you knew who you were talking to we'd both have a good laugh over that.

[Waylander]

The question isn't why but why not. If you have to lower the brightness to get a more precise dot what if it isn't bright enough? More options are a good thing.

[TAZ]

Why not an do a 1 MOA etched reticle unit for those of us with astigmatism.

[Joe R.]

Well said...it's always fun to watch Gun Forum chuckleheads miss the forest for the trees in any discussion of anything.

Perhaps you missed the part where I work for Aimpoint and have the Industry Professional tag. I'm pretty sure that provides more bona fides than "gun forum chucklehead".

Words have meaning. It was stated that the dot "get's bigger". It does not. Your eyes perceive it as being bigger when it's brighter and I made that clear. Yes, in actual use it "appears" bigger and for most folks that's what matters. The FACT is however that the dot size isn't changing.

[Joe R.]

To once again I'll go back to the original post and cover a few other comments;

No, I really don't think a 1 MOA dot is very likely. I could be wrong but my reasons lie in how Aimpoint creates the dot. They use an LED where everyone else that I am aware of uses lasers. Producing a 1 MOA LED would be very expensive. The use of an LED is the same reason that it is unlikely to see an Aimpoint with a circle/dot reticle.

Aimpoint has the tools to mechanically measure the dot size at any given brightness and has done so. Perception is not science. Yes, I get that your perception is what counts to you in use but to say that the dot changes size is still incorrect. Again, words have meaning. It's best to try and be as accurate as you can be.

ETA: After speaking with my tech source I have found out that there is in fact another brand out there using LEDs now. Along with that LED technology has advanced to the point where they can in fact produce patterns. Does this change the probability of Aimpoint doing something other than a dot? Not sure...have to see what the market demands and the gentlemen at the top of the food chain decide.

[Joe R.]

Why not an do a 1 MOA etched reticle unit for those of us with astigmatism.

Try looking through your backup irons. This clears up the dot for me when my astigmatism makes the dot look funky. Your other option is something along the line of the Leupold Prismatic which uses etched glass. I am not sure what the dot size is on that particular optic however.

[BadgerPeak]

Joe,

I wasn't kidding. I'm willing to explain what MOA means. Go back a few posts and look at the photo I took today. The argument is over. That is NOT a 2 MOA dot. Who you work for doesn't change that.

The size of the emitter may be controlled and measured, but the dot is WELL over 2 MOA at max brightness.

Aimpoint is not special. Every other optic manufacturer must accurately describe how much of the target area is covered by their reticle. Nobody gives a shit how far the dots are apart on an etched reticle. We care how far apart they are down range.

If you're going to say a mil is less than a centimeter because that's how far apart it is on the etched glass of a scope, I AGAIN offer to explain this stuff to you.

Nobody cares about your perfectly measured emitters. We care how big the dot REALLY IS down range. It is over 2 MOA. Even the pictures posted trying to prove the opposite were well over 2 MOA.

I've used them in the real world and like them, but this is getting stupid.

I suppose this is how the first guys who mentioned zero/temperature/parallax issues with EoTech were greeted by the fanboys