Talk me into the AimPoint T1 with the DANG 4 MOA

[Jaysop]

I love the dot on my M4S, but it really only shines with a magnifier behind it - which if you do want to do, the M4, M4S, or M3-2MOA are going to be a bit better. On a lighter carbine, the only advantage those hold are the larger tubes provide you with more viewing area.

I'm curious as to why you think that? I've been concidering Replacing my variable with a rds/mag set up.

[austinN4]

Neither. The 3.4MOA dot of the micros is plenty small for carbine uses, and more than adequate for any shooting within 250m.

I will, however, suggest the Aimpoint H1. Slightly cheaper, and mostly more available granularity in brightness adjustments since it doesn't use up three spots on the rheostat with ultra-low NV settings. As long as you're not diving it or running NODs behind it, they're a better deal.

I agree with all of this. I am very happy with my H1.

[markm]

Go 2MOA or Go HOME!

[lebowski]

I like smaller dots too but in practice it doesn't make a big difference. If you're shooting very far with a T- or H-1 you're holding the dot over the target anyway.

+1

I have a 2MOA dot on my comp ML3 and was a little hesitant going to a 4MOA micro on my other gun ... I don't find it's a detriment for the role I use the gun for (~0-200m carbine), I just turn the brightness down.

[sadmin]

The PRO is a 2MOA and is what Im using. This could just be me and my eyes, but having an astigmatism, the smaller dot seems less "clusterfied" without my contacts or corrective lenses. Something to consider if you are in the same schooner as me.

[BBQBOY]

Is a magnifier a bad idea for the micro? I'm starting to think that if the T1's dot is too large, I can just shift it to my Benelli M4 then get the Aimpoint M4 for my 4 rifle. Wow, these gun manufactures and accessory manufactures really need to stop using "M4".

[JSantoro]

I read somewhere that aimpoint went with a 4moa due to technical difficulties refining a smaller dot inside a small package like that.

No, it's WAY simpler than that: They use exactly the same emitter as they do for other 4MOA reticle'd optics (no need to develop/buy something exotic = reduced costs on the production line), but the body of the optic is shorter, so it "prints" smaller within the FOV.

It's way closer to a 3.3-3.5, the way it shows up in the glass.

And, what a0 said about zeroing to the top of the dot is dead-nuts-on. If you do that, all the arguments about "not being able to shoot smaller than the dot" start to look as stupid as they are, because it's just an excuse for not practicing to be consistent.

[markm]

And, what a0 said about zeroing to the top of the dot is dead-nuts-on.

That is interesting! I don't run an RDS, but that's something good to file away incase I ever do.

(caught me off guard, having a good reply in a dot size thread)

[lethal dose]

This is going to be my next tattoo -->

Consistent sight picture is the key. Doesn't matter all that much whether your dot is 2 or 4 MOA if your sight picture looks the same each time.

Also, zero at the top of the dot and the size of it no longer matters if you're into trying to shoot tiny little groups with a RDS.

Let's look at this practically for a second. Let's say, for example, that you zero a standard M4 with standard M855 ammunition at 100 yards using the top of the red dot.

For a 300 yard target, drop is around 4 MOA.

So, place the bottom of the dot exactly where you want POI to be and you're golden at 300.

For 200 the drop is about 2 MOA. Aim dead center.

200 yards and less is a no brainer with a 100 yard zero, obviously.

That's how I do things at least (although I don't think in yards, just using them for other people's sake).

What's my point? The 4 MOA dot is not a disadvantage at close range, obviously. I don't think anyone disputes this. Some people think it's actually better for faster acquisition. Where the 4 MOA dot starts to take a beating on these forums is in people's perception that it makes long range shooting more difficult. Well, at long range, you're going to be using holdover anyway. So WTF does it matter how big the dot is, if it's not going to be directly over the target?

You can use the example I gave above for 0-300 and be very accurate / precise even with a RDS. When you get out past that the dot is over the target anyhow.

I don't get how the 4 MOA dot is ever a disadvantage.

[JSantoro]

That is interesting! I don't run an RDS, but that's something good to file away incase I ever do.

(caught me off guard, having a good reply in a dot size thread)

I'm not just another pretty face....

Besides which, Molon's the one who went over the same idea extensively, or at least put together the most complete explaination and prac-app I've ever read. Mostly dealing with dubunking the idea that the best group one can ever expect from a 4MOA dot......is 4MOA....

...which is pure poppycock, of course....

...but it relates strongly to using 12 o'clock of the dot as one's zero aimpoint, with the added benefit of using the known quantity of the dot (it's known size) for simple offsets. In Molon's case, I believe that he zeroed to the center of the dot, but held the top of the dot the same point on the target, consistently, and was able to produce groups WAY smaller than the 4MOA dot he was using.

EDIT: Aha! Here it is....https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34995

The stuff a0's speaking to, I've seen taught by Aimpoint reps and taught myself. It's not new, it just keeps getting ignored by folks that vapor-lock on size as a stand-alone consideration, and not how they can apply it.