Rifle Scopes What are the main reasons for choosing a red-dot sight over a reflex sight?

[68bthp]

What are the main reasons for choosing a red-dot sight over a reflex sight? The reflex has a compact profile and larger field of view.

I am wanting it for an 18" shotgun, or maybe for an AR15. Both are small and will fit onto a long arm. I know the reflex sight will fit better onto a pistol, and the red-dot is usually put onto a long gun. But is there any reason to put the red dot on my AR15 instead of the reflex?

Reflex variety of sight
vs
your red-dot sight

Brand is not the question. Just wanting to know which style to choose over the other and why.

 

[Guthwine]

They both serve the same purpose, the closed housing just offers more protection for the optics but obstructs more of your field of vision. Depends on your situation (do you want to cowitness your iron sights for example?) pretty much I would say.

 

[shoobe01]

I would not call one a Red Dot and the other a Reflex. Better to say Closed Emitter, Open Emitter on the two examples.

(Basically all RDS that are not holographic are reflex sights. Terminology!)

Open emitters have a smaller overall volume, and less weight because less sight, but the emitter is hanging out there in the open. I had one obscured by a bit of fluff just the other day. Was hard to dislodge.

Closed emitters have more volume, and necessarily more weight for the structure to enclose the volume, but it is practically not as big a deal as it will have the same max height and width as open emitters in the same class, and: everything is closed. Only lenses can get covered in rain, snow, and dust.

Early on, open emitters were common. The C-more and ... I want to say the Elbit Falcon, but even though I had one I don't recall if that lump in the back was the emitter. Assume it was.

The closed emitter designs won out for ruggedness I tend to say. Open emitter designs are all the rage in Micro RDS because the world likes to copycat. Everything looks like... I admit I don't know. Whatever the first micro red dot was (I am inclined to say something like the Insight mRDS because weird maker, and the name) everyone else copied the form factor. Open emitter micro red dots tend to be micro above all else, reducing weight at the expense of all, such as waterproofing of the battery bay on some models. Or other convenience; many micro RDS open emitters have no battery access without dismounting the sight.

The ACRO may signal a trend to closed emitters for pistols. Maybe. If someone starts copying that form factor, I bet it'll take off. But time will tell.

 

[UpSideDown]

Firstly, what the fuck? Secondly, exactly what the post above says. You’ve been playing too much call of duty.

 

[Rlandry]

I read it twice. Three minutes of my life I can't get back.

 

[308pirate]

What are the main reasons for choosing a red-dot sight over a reflex sight? The reflex has a compact profile and larger field of view.

I am wanting it for an 18" shotgun, or maybe for an AR15. Both are small and will fit onto a long arm. I know the reflex sight will fit better onto a pistol, and the red-dot is usually put onto a long gun. But is there any reason to put the red dot on my AR15 instead of the reflex?

Reflex variety of sight
vs
your red-dot sight

Brand is not the question. Just wanting to know which style to choose over the other and why.

They are both reflex sights. They are both red dot sights.

One is an open emitter reflex sight (the top one) one is a closed emitter reflex sight.

They work exactly the same way: an LED diode shines through a collimator to create a very narrow beam of light that is reflected as a dot on the angled, reflective front lens.

The closed emitter sight is slightly better resistant to the elements.

 

[68bthp]

Guthwine, shoobe01, 308Pirate,
Thank you for your input. Your opinions were well taken.

UpsideDown, RLandry,
What is so hard to understand? Guthwine, shoobe01 & 308 Pirate had no comprehension problems, and neither did all 5 guys who replied to my same question elsewhere. I obviously interrupted 2 guys from their unhappy lives. Go back to drinking, kicking your dog, and doing whatever else rude & abusive people normally do. BTW; congrats; You're the first 2 names on my ignore list. lol.

 

[UpSideDown]

I’m a little happy to be blocked. I love dogs much more than someone who gets pissy because they can’t understand that call of duty lied to them about reflex sights and red dots being from different dimensions.

 

[OutThere]

I find it easier to acquire the dot in tube-type sights.

 

[Jigstick]

Some are better for certain eyes vs others. Red dots can starburst bad for people with astigmatism. Holographics work a little better for those people. Holographics inherently allow faster acquisition because of their reticle designs.

 

[308pirate]

Holographics inherently allow faster acquisition because of their reticle designs.

If you're talking about the dot inside a circle reticle used by EOTech, that's absolutely not unique to holographic sights and it's also not "inherently faster". Go look at many Holosun reflex sights, both open and closed emitters, and you'll find essentially the same reticle.

The people who struggle with "reticle acquisition" are typically the ones who try to focus on the reticle and not on the target, or even worse try to focus on the reticle while closing the off eye. The people who think red dots on pistols are slower than irons are the people whose draw and index out of the holster suck, are always fishing for their iron sights, and again try to focus on the dot instead of on the target.

Reflex and holographic sights require that you use your vision completely differently from how most people have been taught (or taught themselves) to use vision when shooting a rifle or pistol.

 

[OutThere]

Some are better for certain eyes vs others. Red dots can starburst bad for people with astigmatism. Holographics work a little better for those people. Holographics inherently allow faster acquisition because of their reticle designs.

I agree about the appearance of the dot. I know many people that see a "comet" instead of a round dot.

 

[Jigstick]

It is absolutely faster. Take joe dogfuck off the street and hand him identical M4s. One with an EOTech and one with an Aimpoint. Guarantee that individual will hit faster with the EOTech. With some training the Aimpoint will be just as fast

 

[koshkin]

As has been previously pointed out, both types are reflex sights aka red dot sights and work in the exact same way optically. The difference is in the mechanical enclosure.

The choice between them sorta comes down to what you are looking for. Resistance to debris is the primary difference and that has already been covered above. Under some lighting conditions, the two types of reflex sights also produce different type of glare as well.

Both can work very well and now there are some sights that are an attempt to combine the two, in a manner of speaking: Leica Tempus is an open-type reflex sight that comes with a snap on cover that effectively turns it into a compact enclosed sight.

The upcoming Burris Fastfire 4 also has a snap on cover that they call the weather shield. I do not think it is available yet, however. Probably toward the end of year or after SHOT.

Anyway, the difference between open and tubular sights is not particularly significant in terms of performance, so I suggest you first figure out the exact application and how much you want to spend. Then pick the best sight that fits your use and budget.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

They are both reflex sights. They are both red dot sights.

One is an open emitter reflex sight (the top one) one is a closed emitter reflex sight.

They work exactly the same way: an LED diode shines through a collimator to create a very narrow beam of light that is reflected as a dot on the angled, reflective front lens.

The closed emitter sight is slightly better resistant to the elements.

That's mostly accurate. There are a couple of different way to make a reflex sight. The most common one is where the front optical element in the RDS is the collimating reflector surface (hence reflex). When you try to make that surface fairly large you can have magnification and parallax issues away from center.

Holographic sights do away with this problem because all the optical elements you look through are flat and Meprolight (and maybe others) make a different version of a conventional reflex sight by hiding all the curved surfaces from view. Here is a link to the piece I did on that earlier in the year:

Meprolight Sights - Guns and Ammo

Meprolight has a lot to offer, and most of their products are built to true Mil-Spec standards with battle-proven history. They sometimes march to the beat of their own drum, but they are innovative and worth a look.

www.gunsandammo.com

ILya

 

[308pirate]

It is absolutely faster. Take joe dogfuck off the street and hand him identical M4s. One with an EOTech and one with an Aimpoint. Guarantee that individual will hit faster with the EOTech. With some training the Aimpoint will be just as fast

I'm sure you have evidence of this beyond your say so

 

[308pirate]

I agree about the appearance of the dot. I know many people that see a "comet" instead of a round dot.

Easily fixable by seeing an optometrist and having corrective lenses made to correct astigmatism.

 

[68bthp]

A whole lot of good information and debate to weigh and compare. I currently own a couple of Eotechs for my AR15's which have worked fine, & I like them. That said, I think I'm in familiar territory if I transfer right over to something more like the open "reflex" style Bushnell or Vortex Venom for my pistol gripped 870 folder shotgun, instead of the aimpoint style encased red-dot. I feel like the Bushnell's "micro advance" 5 MOA red dot is better suited for a defensive fast point&shoot weapon inside of 15-25 yards with buckshot which I perceive. However, I do agree that the round tube & better protected 2-3 MOA red-dot style sight (like the aimpoint) is better for more serious SHTF duty with rough handling and exposure to the elements. I'd consider it for my AR15 which currently does not wear an Eotech.

The back & forth debate between a couple of you guys was helpful as I got to consider the opposing points of view.
Thanks again guys for your help.

 

[308pirate]

A whole lot of good information and debate to weigh and compare. I currently own a couple of Eotechs for my AR15's which have worked fine, & I like them. That said, I think I'm in familiar territory if I transfer right over to something more like the open "reflex" style Bushnell or Vortex Venom for my pistol gripped 870 folder shotgun, instead of the aimpoint style encased red-dot. I feel like the Bushnell's "micro advance" 5 MOA red dot is better suited for a defensive fast point&shoot weapon inside of 15-25 yards with buckshot which I perceive. However, I do agree that the round tube & better protected 2-3 MOA red-dot style sight (like the aimpoint) is better for more serious SHTF duty with rough handling and exposure to the elements. I'd consider it for my AR15 which currently does not wear an Eotech.

The back & forth debate between a couple of you guys was helpful as I got to consider the opposing points of view.
Thanks again guys for your help.

Open emitter sights are far more resistant of the elements than what they appear. At least properly engineered and manufactured ones like Trijicon.

I've shot pistol matches in the pouring rain with a Trijicon RMR-equipped pistol. The pistol sat in the holster with the sight collecting rain water. When the gun came out of the holster most of the water drained away (the sight body actually has drain holes on the sides) and the dot was perfectly usable for the first shot. As soon as the slide cycled once, the rest of the water on the glass pretty much flew off and disappeared.

On the subject of brands, cheap chinese made junk is fine for games (and even that's debatable) but there is no fucking way I am trusting anything not made by tier 1 brands on a firearm I might have to fight with. When it comes to reflex sights that means one of two names: Aimpoint or Trijicon.

All my optical sighted pistols have Trijicons on them. An RMR type 2 on the one I carry every day and an SRO on the one I compete with in USPSA and IDPA Carry Optics. Both of them with the largest dot size Trijicon offers: 6.5 MOA in the RMR and 5 MOA in the SRO. In fact I wish the SRO came with a 6 MOA dot.

 

[koshkin]

Open emitter sights are far more resistant of the elements than what they appear. At least properly engineered and manufactured ones like Trijicon.

I've shot pistol matches in the pouring rain with a Trijicon RMR-equipped pistol. The pistol sat in the holster with the sight collecting rain water. When the gun came out of the holster most of the water drained away (the sight body actually has drain holes on the sides) and the dot was perfectly usable for the first shot. As soon as the slide cycled once, the rest of the water on the glass pretty much flew off and disappeared.

On the subject of brands, cheap chinese made junk is fine for games (and even that's debatable) but there is no fucking way I am trusting anything not made by tier 1 brands on a firearm I might have to fight with. When it comes to reflex sights that means one of two names: Aimpoint or Trijicon.

All my optical sighted pistols have Trijicons on them. An RMR type 2 on the one I carry every day and an SRO on the one I compete with in USPSA and IDPA Carry Optics. Both of them with the largest dot size Trijicon offers: 6.5 MOA in the RMR and 5 MOA in the SRO. In fact I wish the SRO came with a 6 MOA dot.

Generally, reasonably argument although some Chinese stuff is getting quite good. Whether you want to support them is a different conversation, but the quality is definitely getting there.

Either way, there are other options that are not made in China and are definitely tier one in terms of quality with the most obvious ones being UK made Shield Sights and Israeli made (for the larger sights) Meproligt.

Razor red dot is made in Japan.

Razor UH-1 is made in the US.

Steiner DRS1x is US and Germany and looks promising.

Higher end Sig red dots are mostly made in US it Japan.

ILya

 

[308pirate]

Generally, reasonably argument although some Chinese stuff is getting quite good. Whether you want to support them is a different conversation, but the quality is definitely getting there.

Either way, there are other options that are not made in China and are definitely tier one in terms of quality with the most obvious ones being UK made Shield Sights and Israeli made (for the larger sights) Meproligt.

Razor red dot is made in Japan.

Razor UH-1 is made in the US.

Steiner DRS1x is US and Germany and looks promising.

Higher end Sig red dots are mostly made in US it Japan.

ILya

USPSA carry optics competitors combined put more rounds downrange through slide-mounted reflex sights than anyone, including even the most special of US military units.

Trijicon products outnumber all others and lead the pack in durability and reliability. That's based on equipment surveys from nationals as well as the conversations in sport-centric forums like brianenos.com and direct observations at matches.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Reflex on a shotgun

Red dot on a rifle

 

[308pirate]

Reflex on a shotgun

Red dot on a rifle

LOL they are the same exact thing

 

[Guthwine]

The many forms of reflex sights:

Reflector sight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

LOL they are the same exact thing

Then you agree

 

[Powder_Burns]

I’ve dropped my aimpoint m4s 5’ onto concrete, nothing happened. Not sure I’d have the same luck with a micro red dot.

 

[308pirate]

Then you agree

No

 

[308pirate]

I’ve dropped my aimpoint m4s 5’ onto concrete, nothing happened. Not sure I’d have the same luck with a micro red dot.

You would if it's made by Aimpoint or Trijicon

 

[Trevor]

i am going to go in a different route.
My interest (the Shotgun) my question was which reticle circle dot combination had more advantages. RMRs typically have smaller circle then RDS

both come with a 2moa dot. the RMR runs a 32 moa circle while RDS run 65 moa circle.
The larger circle has application for hunting (turkey / bear) and more practical application. The USPSA target is 17.5" across as long as the 65moa circle was within the target you could expect good centre mass hits at distances in 30yrd.

posters on this thread have discussed real application vs games if you need the reliability look at the EOtech if these are for 3gun there assortment of other choices

pictures are courtesy of https://pistol-forum.com/showthread...eticles-Relative-to-Targets-various-distances

EOTech describes there circle dot combination
Our most popular reticle offered, the 68 MOA ring with 1 MOA dot provides three usable aiming points. The aiming points above are based on the following load: .223 cal. 62 gr. 2,900 vel.
When using other loads and calibers, the operator will have to establish the ranges associated with the aiming points. When using a shotgun, the 68 MOA ring can be used to represent shot patterns but will vary based on choke and shell selection. For ordering this reticle, the model codes will end in -0.

cheers
Trevor

 

[koshkin]

I can only reiterate that both are called reflex sights and both are called red dot sights because they are one and the same. You can call them open architecture vs closed architecture, but they are still both reflex sights and both are RDSs.

The specific type of reticle is up to the manufacturer and both can come with a larger or smaller circle.

ILya