Accupoint Mil-dot vs Triangle

[Anunnaki]

I'm considering an Accupoint LPVO, but cant decide between the Green Mildot or Triangle reticles. I'm not able to view them in person since no one stocks them in my area, and pictures don't really accurately represent how the reticle and illumination appears to the naked eye.

I like the size of the triangle, which looks like it would be great for quick shots inside 100m, but with no way to measure distance or accurately hold over, it really limits the range.

While the mildot allows for finer aiming, longer distance and range estimation, the dot is difficult to see in pictures, it almost appears invisible, making me question its utility.

To anyone who owns the dot or both, is the dot really that difficult to see at 1x as it appears to be in pictures? Is it very noticeable in broad daylight, or at night? And how would you compare its speed and visibility to the triangle version, or a battery powered LPVO, I.E. a Steiner p4xi?

[rockapede]

This thread is relevant to my interests; been thinking about picking up a mil dot 1-6 as well. What I’ve heard/read is it’s probably sufficiently daylight bright but the illumination is relatively worthless in low light. I’d run an offset T-2, so the latter is not an insurmountable factor for me. I want some form of subtensions, otherwise I’d just go triangle and not worry about it.

That said, I still have concerns about the reticle brightness in daylight because, as you said, it definitely doesn’t seem to translate well in pictures.

[mebiuspower]

The triangle is really made for short to medium distance, speed and speed only. It's not good for distance & holdover since it's a solid triangle instead of a chevron and it will obscure your view.

[Warp]

I'm considering an Accupoint LPVO, but cant decide between the Green Mildot or Triangle reticles. I'm not able to view them in person since no one stocks them in my area, and pictures don't really accurately represent how the reticle and illumination appears to the naked eye.

I like the size of the triangle, which looks like it would be great for quick shots inside 100m, but with no way to measure distance or accurately hold over, it really limits the range.

While the mildot allows for finer aiming, longer distance and range estimation, the dot is difficult to see in pictures, it almost appears invisible, making me question its utility.

To anyone who owns the dot or both, is the dot really that difficult to see at 1x as it appears to be in pictures? Is it very noticeable in broad daylight, or at night? And how would you compare its speed and visibility to the triangle version, or a battery powered LPVO, I.E. a Steiner p4xi?

Since most with an AR pattern rifle will zero for 50/200 or thereabout, you pretty much have a 'point blank' dead hold range to 225+ yards. Only a few inches vertical deviation tops, probably. Even if you had a BDC reticle with all kinds of Christmas tree stuff going on, you'd probably still be holding dead on to 200+. Most aren't going to find 225-ish yards on a 5.56 carbine "really limited" range.

If you want it to be fast, close, you want the triangle.

Illumination in low light is fine. It's not bright like an Aimpoint or Razor, but it's plenty. It will wash out to crisp black (like a good front sight under ideal low light lighting conditions) if you are somewhere dark while looking through the scope to somewhere really bright (like right at the hotspot from your 1,500 lumen WML), which is totally usable, but not as eye grabbing as a battery powered option.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Had the triangle on a 1-4x Trijicon, and hated it. Currently have the mil-dot on a 3-9x Accupower and love it. The triangle is just so big and chunky it inhibits precision. Yeah, I know you can use the top point as you precise aiming mark, etc., but it didn't work well for me. Also holdovers are a bad joke, so forget any shots beyond 250 yards or so. Any sort of crosshair, plain or mil or BDC, eliminates this problem and offers more precision. My 2 cents.