The Aimpoint Micro - The Best Red Dot In The World

[Pappabear]

Back to astigmatism, at what distance does it become signifigant? Inside the house? 25 yards? 50 yards ?

PB

[maximus83]

I'm sure it's highly individual to shooter's vision. I have moderate issues with the T1, which I've learned some workarounds for, and with the T2 the issue is mild enough I can pretty much ignore it. With a quality magnifier and especially if it has ocular adjustment, the issue vanishes.

With a T1:
* Even with the blurry/blob effect that I get on the dot, I can still make fast heads-up hits on torso-sized targets out to 50m. Very little impact in that scenario when I'm shooting at a larger sized target.
* For more precisely aimed shots trying to hit something smaller (say a head-sized or smaller target) or at a range > 50m, I use either or both of these workarounds and get by ok. But using ONLY the blurred T1 with my uncorrected eyes, I cannot get as precise hits as I could 10 years ago.
- Turn down the light intensity 1 to 2 clicks.
- Look through my rear peep sight (lower 1/3 cowitness).

I've also read a few reports that using a quality 3x magnifier with an ocular adjustment can clean up an Aimpoint red dot, though I haven't tried that with the T1.

[ABNAK]

Fellow 55yr old here. I’m in the same place vision wise. I’ve learned that for precise shots I’m
able to get a crisp dot on my H1 by looking through the aperture of my rear sight.

Yes, that does help. It doesn't completely remove the tail but certainly makes it less noticeable. However, it also kind of makes it slower to pick up that dot when snapping the weapon up (since you're searching for the aperture).

[ABNAK]

I'm sure it's highly individual to shooter's vision. I have moderate issues with the T1, which I've learned some workarounds for, and with the T2 the issue is mild enough I can pretty much ignore it. With a quality magnifier and especially if it has ocular adjustment, the issue vanishes.

With a T1:
* Even with the blurry/blob effect that I get on the dot, I can still make fast heads-up hits on torso-sized targets out to 50m. Very little impact in that scenario when I'm shooting at a larger sized target.
* For more precisely aimed shots trying to hit something smaller (say a head-sized or smaller target) or at a range > 50m, I use either or both of these workarounds and get by ok. But using ONLY the blurred T1 with my uncorrected eyes, I cannot get as precise hits as I could 10 years ago.
- Turn down the light intensity 1 to 2 clicks.
- Look through my rear peep sight (lower 1/3 cowitness).

I've also read a few reports that using a quality 3x magnifier with an ocular adjustment can clean up an Aimpoint red dot, though I haven't tried that with the T1.

I'd like to read some verification of that before I drop the $$$ on a quality magnifier. Not doubting you, just would like to hear someone say "Yeah, it works".

[maximus83]

I'd like to read some verification of that before I drop the $$$ on a quality magnifier. Not doubting you, just would like to hear someone say "Yeah, it works".

Same--I don't want to go buy one just on the POSSIBILITY it might work. I have a solid Vortex Razor for my LPVO setup on another rifle, so I'm getting by with just the T1 + BUIS on my newer setup that has the BCM LW barrel. I don't really NEED a magnified setup on that rifle, and I don't want the added cost and weight penalty of an LPVO, so I'm just living with the blurry T1. I might eventually spring for another T2 + Scalarworks mount package, but dang, $800 is a lot to pay just to have a non-blurry dot.

[ABNAK]

Back to astigmatism, at what distance does it become signifigant? Inside the house? 25 yards? 50 yards ?

For quick shots, which is what the RDS is basically for, it shouldn't be an issue. For more "precise" stuff (as much as you can with an RDS anyway) such as zeroing it can be a royal PIA. When doing so I try to focus on the "body" of the dot and not the "tail" growing off of it, but it ain't easy. One thing seems to be consistent though, the "tail" for me is at about the 5 o'clock position on my different T-1's and T-2's.

One thing I have noticed however is that the EOTech's center dot doesn't have as pronounced of a "tail" to it. I read somewhere that it's because the EOTech is a holographic sight and the way the dot is projected is different from a regular RDS (?).

Also, I have two ACOGs, both with the upside-down horseshoe/dot reticle. The dots on those ACOGs do not have "tails" on them.

[maximus83]

For quick shots, which is what the RDS is basically for, it shouldn't be an issue. For more "precise" stuff (as much as you can with an RDS anyway) such as zeroing it can be a royal PIA. When doing so I try to focus on the "body" of the dot and not the "tail" growing off of it, but it ain't easy. One thing seems to be consistent though, the "tail" for me is at about the 5 o'clock position on my different T-1's and T-2's.

One thing I have noticed however is that the EOTech's center dot doesn't have as pronounced of a "tail" to it. I read somewhere that it's because the EOTech is a holographic sight and the way the dot is projected is different from a regular RDS (?).

Also, I have two ACOGs, both with the upside-down horseshoe/dot reticle. The dots on those ACOGs do not have "tails" on them.

Since you mention ACOGs (which I've never owned), I wonder if a workaround to the astigmatism issue for some shooters could be....
* Run a quality lightweight, fixed optic such as an ACOG, or similar prism type sight, with a regular reticle (which avoids the common astigmatism issues of RDS sights). The main advantage of this approach vs LPVO being, mechanical simplicity and reliability, and weight savings.
* Run a top-mounted, or offset rail-mounted, RDS. As you said about RDS, it works fine even for astimatism sufferers if used in its main CQB role, so using it in this way combined with an ACOG or prism sight, would let you do that.

Always been curious about that setup and now, it seems like a possible workaround for shooters who want to run a quality RDS like Aimpoint, but find it's limiting their ability to get precision hits. Have you tried this combo?

[ABNAK]

Since you mention ACOGs (which I've never owned), I wonder if a workaround to the astigmatism issue for some shooters could be....
* Run a quality lightweight, fixed optic such as an ACOG, or similar prism type sight, with a regular reticle (which avoids the common astigmatism issues of RDS sights). The main advantage of this approach vs LPVO being, mechanical simplicity and reliability, and weight savings.
* Run a top-mounted, or offset rail-mounted, RDS. As you said about RDS, it works fine even for astimatism sufferers if used in its main CQB role, so using it in this way combined with an ACOG or prism sight, would let you do that.

Always been curious about that setup and now, it seems like a possible workaround for shooters who want to run a quality RDS like Aimpoint, but find it's limiting their ability to get precision hits. Have you tried this combo?

No I have not. If you practice a bit you can use the ACOG as an "RDS" for reflexive-type shooting. It isn't as optimal as an actual RDS for that purpose but the Binden Aiming Concept (both eyes open) theoretically enables the ACOG to be used like that. What's cool about that is you can practice without actually having to fire a gazillion rounds. I've done it during the day as well as at night. It takes some getting used to but it's doable.

I'd like to hear from some of our combat vets who've used the ACOG downrange for CQB-ish shooting when it was necessary and what they think of it's ability to do that. Obviously distance is what it's made for but supposedly has that up-close-and-personal feature.

[GTF425]

Removed

[ABNAK]

Removed

From some of your previous posts you've BTDT. Your input would be greatly appreciated.



From things I've read it comes down to these points:

1) The BAC thing, while "doable", is far from optimal for CQB ranges.

2) To even make it somewhat worthwhile it takes LOTS of practice, considerably more so than a RDS.