Rifle Scopes Why Small Dots Suck.

[Kartman]

Im sure some here will disagree with me. However, my latest article reviewing the Aimpoint H2 6moa busts the small dot myths, and shows how big dots work better from 0-500 on a rifle.

Big Dot Energy! The Aimpoint H2 6MOA.

Small dots suck! And the majority of the firearms industry has been lying to you. The last 8 years or so has seen an explosion of quality rugged red dot sights (RDS) from many manufacturers in the firearms industry. Together with all these sights came small dots. Customers were sold a bucket of...

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[eastexsteve]

It depends upon your application. Sure, a big dot is easier to acquire on a close target in an environment when you are firing offhand and relying on speed. But, if you are shooting from a rest at distant targets, a small dot will give you more precision. I've tried it both ways. I prefer a big dot for offhand shooting at close targets. For me, a small dot works better at distance from a rest. But, I don't like anything smaller than a 3 MOA dot.

 

[powdahound76]

Cause we all believe what someone writes in a gun mag or on a gun blog....

 

[aslrookie]

Right, because covering more of the target is better than less…everyone should start telling scope companies to make 6moa center dots for riflescopes now. No more of this small dot nonsense.

 

[phlegethon]

It’s sad that people are disagreeing without reading the article, which is well written and convincing. It does cover many of the objections. It is certainly possible to have groups that are smaller than the aiming point (this is very common in highpower shooting with iron sights).

 

[phlegethon]

Right, because covering more of the target is better than less…everyone should start telling scope companies to make 6moa center dots for riflescopes now. No more of this small dot nonsense.

A magnified optic is not the same as an unmagnified one.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

My RMR 1 moa can bloom into a 6 moa with a touch of a button.

 

[vinniedelpino]

Yep. Depends on application.

I just picked up a cheapo arken ep4 and the tiny little dot at the center of the reticle has improved my shooting considerably over the steiner I had been using.

 

[Killswitch Engage]

uh..... small aiming dot with large halo circle surrounding it. that would seem to cover both bases if only a mfg built said reticle.

 

[phlegethon]

uh..... small aiming dot with large halo circle surrounding it. that would seem to cover both bases if only a mfg built said reticle.

Holosun does have this, although the large dot is probably better for most applications.

 

[aslrookie]

A magnified optic is not the same as an unmagnified one.

You’re right. Unmagnified is even worse because you can’t zoom in to see what the dot is covering.

 

[phlegethon]

You’re right. Unmagnified is even worse because you can’t zoom in to see what the dot is covering.

Yeah but you are also not typically going to have the same accuracy expectations for an unmagnified optic. Again, it can be done, even if the dot or post is larger than the ultimate group size, by centering it on the point of aim, but typically people are not using unmagnified optics when they need to hit things that are smaller than 5MOA.

 

[10ring'r]

I've always considered a RDS, a non-precision tool. I thought the main premise of a RDS, whether on a handgun, shotgun, or Battle Rifle, was for quick target acquisition?
Mine have 2 moa dots, and If I'm on my game, I can hold 5-10 shots within "Center Mass" (5"/off-hand) at 100. Imho, good enough (??).
For precision work, that's where magnified optics, with very small dots, come into play.
Maybe, I've had it all wrong and have been confused, all these years.
The article did make sense tho. Or, he was an Aimpoint salesman. Mac

 

[slowworm]

It’s sad that people are disagreeing without reading the article, which is well written and convincing. It does cover many of the objections. It is certainly possible to have groups that are smaller than the aiming point (this is very common in highpower shooting with iron sights).

Highpower shooters tens to use a 6 o'clock hold so the sight isn't covering any of the target. You can make some pretty small interpolations that are way smaller than the front sight width doing that. I can see the same thing working with a 6 o'clock hold with a 6 MOA dot, but that isn't how they are typically set up.

 

[phlegethon]

Highpower shooters tens to use a 6 o'clock hold so the sight isn't covering any of the target. You can make some pretty small interpolations that are way smaller than the front sight width doing that. I can see the same thing working with a 6 o'clock hold with a 6 MOA dot, but that isn't how they are typically set up.

That wasn’t really my understanding. I believe the front sight post is typically sized to be the same width as the aiming black on the target, and while some use a six o clock hold many do not. Regardless, I think the main point is that very few people are making, can make, or should try to make 1-2 MOA shots with a red dot. Red dots are for speed, not fine accuracy.

 

[Kartman]

Right, because covering more of the target is better than less…everyone should start telling scope companies to make 6moa center dots for riflescopes now. No more of this small dot nonsense.

At distance you are not covering the target. And you can see through the dot when it is covering.

 

[Kartman]

uh..... small aiming dot with large halo circle surrounding it. that would seem to cover both bases if only a mfg built said reticle.

Outer ring is way too large. And why do they all have hashs on them? We are not in airplanes.

 

[Kartman]

The article did make sense tho. Or, he was an Aimpoint salesman. Mac

I dont work for Aimpoint, Im just a big fan.

 

[b6graham]

At distance you are not covering the target. And you can see through the dot when it is covering.

You're telling me a 6moa dot doesn't cover a 20" plate completely at 500y?!

 

[Kartman]

You're telling me a 6moa dot doesn't cover a 20" plate completely at 500y?!

Are you telling me you have a 500y zero on a red dot? Look at the photos in the article, it clearly explains what I am talking about.

 

[shoobe01]

I say: depends ENTIRELY on your eyes. The old Singlepoint and a few others I have shot over the years 100% work as shown. Big translucent dot, you can aim against specific bits like a large gold or white globe iron sight.

But none of the current technology sights work like this to my eyes. I tried a few, then with none available bought and sold over a dozen different ones. Even the best ones, which I kept and now shoot very well, are ever so slightly indistinct, with undefined edges, not At All like the illustrations shown in the images.

If I could get the old school tech to work, I'd love even bigger sights like the Singlepoint, which is like 12 or 15 moa IIRC and worked fine for rifle work out to at least 300 yds.

 

[jeffl838]

I like the way big dots and big front sights feel when I'm shooting fast, but the clock says that i'm just as fast with small dots, and I usually shoot better groups with small dots too. End of the convo for me personally.

 

[hypno02]

That top edge zero is intriguing. Not sure how keen I am to keeping my rds on a “translucent” lower power but interesting nonetheless.

 

[ArTeeKay]

@Kartman, what happens when I'm using a zero on my RDS that I hold on target at 500 yards, instead of holding over? How do you account for seeing through a red dot when the target is difficult to see at that distance anyway, especially if speed is the consideration? Is it possible that a person might lose all they made up in sight acquisition trying to find the obscured target through the over sized dot?

 

[Kartman]

I say: depends ENTIRELY on your eyes. The old Singlepoint and a few others I have shot over the years 100% work as shown. Big translucent dot, you can aim against specific bits like a large gold or white globe iron sight.

But none of the current technology sights work like this to my eyes. I tried a few, then with none available bought and sold over a dozen different ones. Even the best ones, which I kept and now shoot very well, are ever so slightly indistinct, with undefined edges, not At All like the illustrations shown in the images.

If I could get the old school tech to work, I'd love even bigger sights like the Singlepoint, which is like 12 or 15 moa IIRC and worked fine for rifle work out to at least 300 yds.

Singlepoints and Armson OEGs are cool. The problem is the zero distance with one eye seeing the dot and the other the target.

The H2 6moa has the crispest edges I have seen on any currently produced RDS. The only thing I have seen that is better are the old Aimpoint Comp XD's in 7 and 10 MOA.

 

[Kartman]

That top edge zero is intriguing. Not sure how keen I am to keeping my rds on a “translucent” lower power but interesting nonetheless.

I dont keep it translucent all the time, its just an option you can use with a big dot Aimpoint. I use that when zeroing or when I have a harder shot, like a 12 in circle at 200-250y. Otherwise I leave it opaque.

 

[Kartman]

@Kartman, what happens when I'm using a zero on my RDS that I hold on target at 500 yards, instead of holding over? How do you account for seeing through a red dot when the target is difficult to see at that distance anyway, especially if speed is the consideration? Is it possible that a person might lose all they made up in sight acquisition trying to find the obscured target through the over sized dot?

If you are zeroed at 500 then it would obscure the target, I cant think of a good reason to ever zero an RDS at 500 though.

 

[ArTeeKay]

If you are zeroed at 500 then it would obscure the target, I cant think of a good reason to ever zero an RDS at 500 though.

Not a 500 yard zero specifically, but rather one that I'm still holding on the target at 500, rather than above it. What I'm getting at, as it seems to me, is that unless you are using a particular type of zero on your weapon, your arguments for the large dot fall apart somewhat, as compared to a smaller, 3 MOA dot that would still allow holding on say a 15 inch wide target at 500. Slightly slower to acquire, maybe, but I can imagine more than one situation where I would like to be able to see what I'm shooting at as clearly as possible. In fairness, I think for competition shooting, where speed is 90% of the game, and especially in cases where any hit is good enough, your method seems just fine.

 

[tngambler]

i like 10 MOA dots and 15lb triggers on my guns,, it's more accurate that way

 

[Kartman]

Not a 500 yard zero specifically, but rather one that I'm still holding on the target at 500, rather than above it. What I'm getting at, as it seems to me, is that unless you are using a particular type of zero on your weapon, your arguments for the large dot fall apart somewhat, as compared to a smaller, 3 MOA dot that would still allow holding on say a 15 inch wide target at 500. Slightly slower to acquire, maybe, but I can imagine more than one situation where I would like to be able to see what I'm shooting at as clearly as possible. In fairness, I think for competition shooting, where speed is 90% of the game, and especially in cases where any hit is good enough, your method seems just fine.

50 and 100y zeros are the most common for a reason, they work well. All the math works with both. A 300y zero might lead to covering the target, you would have to do the math with your gun and ammo to find out. And inside 100 you would be dealing with goofy hold unders. WHy would anyone want that?

Do you want some zero that makes it more complicated than all rounds hit inside the dot from 0-350y?

Thats not a competition gun in the story. Its a 10.5in AR with a can, its a tactical or defensive gun. I do compete with it once in a while but because its fun and good practice, not because its good for competition. Speed counts in a gunfight too. Hitting your target faster is better in every situation.

Any hit is good enough? Are you talented enough to make headshots on an IPSC target with any size red dot on an AR at 300, 400 or farther? I'm not and I dont know anyone that can do it consistently either.

 

[ArTeeKay]

50 and 100y zeros are the most common for a reason, they work well. All the math works with both. A 300y zero might lead to covering the target, you would have to do the math with your gun and ammo to find out. And inside 100 you would be dealing with goofy hold unders. WHy would anyone want that?

Do you want some zero that makes it more complicated than all rounds hit inside the dot from 0-350y?

Thats not a competition gun in the story. Its a 10.5in AR with a can, its a tactical or defensive gun. I do compete with it once in a while but because its fun and good practice, not because its good for competition. Speed counts in a gunfight too. Hitting your target faster is better in every situation.

Any hit is good enough? Are you talented enough to make headshots on an IPSC target with any size red dot on an AR at 300, 400 or farther? I'm not and I dont know anyone that can do it consistently either.

In my rifle, for my intended use, a 25 yard zero serves me best. To 350 yards, I hold center mass, and rounds impact within 6 inches of point of aim. Farther than that, I hold on the head, and to 500 yards, I'm still getting good center mass hits on a standard 5'8" target. However, my 3 MOA dot covers my entire aiming point at that distance, so I'm forced to guess some at where center is. To me, that is still infinitely preferable to holding somewhere in space over top of my target. If I really wanted a holdover type optic, well, they make those.

As to speed, well, you can't miss fast enough either. And again, for my part, I can't hit what I can't see. So I'd rather my reticle not obscure my entire target at that distance.

You clearly like your setup, and if it works for you, that doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm just trying to point out potential drawbacks to those people who haven't formed an opinion of their own either way yet.

 

[shoobe01]

...The H2 6moa has the crispest edges I have seen on any currently produced RDS. The only thing I have seen that is better are the old Aimpoint Comp XD's in 7 and 10 MOA.

My point was: not for me. Not for many. Whatever optical path Aimpoint uses is not compatible with my eyes. Yes, even the T2/H2 (though I have not seen a Comp M5 yet). I can make them work but they are starbursts or smears, or both (even with Aimpoint, some variability from unit to unit).

It is good that this works for the article author and many others like you. Just not universally applicable.

 

[Kartman]

My point was: not for me. Not for many. Whatever optical path Aimpoint uses is not compatible with my eyes. Yes, even the T2/H2 (though I have not seen a Comp M5 yet). I can make them work but they are starbursts or smears, or both (even with Aimpoint, some variability from unit to unit).

It is good that this works for the article author and many others like you. Just not universally applicable.

The M5 will be the same as the T2. Those are a bit of a smear for me as well. My point was that the 6 is different.

 

[Kartman]

In my rifle, for my intended use, a 25 yard zero serves me best. To 350 yards, I hold center mass, and rounds impact within 6 inches of point of aim. Farther than that, I hold on the head, and to 500 yards, I'm still getting good center mass hits on a standard 5'8" target. However, my 3 MOA dot covers my entire aiming point at that distance, so I'm forced to guess some at where center is. To me, that is still infinitely preferable to holding somewhere in space over top of my target. If I really wanted a holdover type optic, well, they make those.

As to speed, well, you can't miss fast enough either. And again, for my part, I can't hit what I can't see. So I'd rather my reticle not obscure my entire target at that distance.

You clearly like your setup, and if it works for you, that doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm just trying to point out potential drawbacks to those people who haven't formed an opinion of their own either way yet.

Id love to see a dope card with a 25y zero that only has 16 inches of drop at 500. What caliber, bullet, velocity, BC?

 

[shoobe01]

The M5 will be the same as the T2. Those are a bit of a smear for me as well. My point was that the 6 is different.

Ah, got you now. Okay, not super in the mood to buy another $800 optic today but will try to start annoying everyone I see with one of those models to see if they have the bigger dot and try to look through it.

 

[RayDBonz]

As a Distinguished former High Master Bullseye shooter, I call shenanigans.
Small dots FTW!!

 

[ArTeeKay]

Id love to see a dope card with a 25y zero that only has 16 inches of drop at 500. What caliber, bullet, velocity, BC?

Not 16 inches of drop, closer to 34. Standard M193 ammo out of a 16" barrel. If I'm holding center of head, as I stated past 350 yards, rounds come in right around the pelvis at 500. Past that distance, natural dispersion of the system plus low precision of the optic means I'm suppressing an area, not engaging point targets. But if I'm engaging targets past 500 yards with a carbine and red dot, I brought the wrong gun.

That's all ok, like I said, you keep enjoying your big dot. I'm sure you shoot just fine with it. I'll keep my setup the way it is.

 

[KnowNothing256]

I think the article is worded a little strongly, as though the author has discovered the only acceptable "correct" answer in the universe. Also, the factoid about 1 MOA = 1.047" at 100 yds was a waste of every reader's time, nobody cares about 0.047" at 100 yds with a RDS, and the author immediately went right back to the 1 MOA ~ 1" at 100 yds convention that he was nitpicking the sentence prior. However, this is now me nitpicking, so whatever.

The author laid out the advantages of the particular 6 MOA RDS that he was using rather well, however; the holdover arguments make lots of sense to me, although an individual user would need to work out their own ballistics. Still, agreed that the point of a RDS is fast target acquisition, not tiny groups, and I think the author makes the case for the 6 MOA dot for that goal rather well. I'd want to use both to see what I thought, but it certainly puts a 6 MOA dot on the table for me.

 

[308pirate]

It’s sad that people are disagreeing without reading the article, which is well written and convincing. It does cover many of the objections. It is certainly possible to have groups that are smaller than the aiming point (this is very common in highpower shooting with iron sights).

There's a lot of Dunning-Kruger going on here.

I don't even bother with much of the technical discussions here any more.

 

[308pirate]

Highpower shooters tens to use a 6 o'clock hold so the sight isn't covering any of the target.

I made Master using a center of mass hold. And so have many others.

 

[kl3309]

Im sure some here will disagree with me. However, my latest article reviewing the Aimpoint H2 6moa busts the small dot myths, and shows how big dots work better from 0-500 on a rifle.

Hey, is there anyway to read your article without loading the webpage with its 5 ads and 9 tracking bots? No saying you're linking pages for the ad revenue, but maybe just post the plain text next time.

 

[srt-4_uk]

I made Master using a center of mass hold. And so have many others.

Let's not sit here and pretend USPSA is about accuracy.

 

[308pirate]

Let's not sit here and pretend USPSA is about accuracy.

I was talking about NRA Highpower. With iron sights. To put to rest the idiotic notion that precision fire requires aiming references that are very small compared to the target size.

USPSA is, outside of a gunfight, the ultimate test of handgun skill.

 

[tngambler]

reading this i was thinking this is the script for one of those moron YouTube videos. if you have to search for the dot at 50 yards or less your doing something wrong. get some training.

Let's not sit here and pretend USPSA is about accuracy.

they are not searching for their front sight either!

 

[Lug Nut]

“Small dots suck! And the majority of the firearms industry has been lying to you.”

Seems like strong language.

Kinda like click bait.

 

[KineticPerformance]

I'll argue that a game gun might benefit from a big dot depending on the game: I have a 7MoA dot on my PCC. Most shooting sports aren't really about accuracy except NRA, CMP, and IBS score shooting. In the rest, hits are hits: two shots in the dick is two shots on paper in most speed shooting matches regardless of affiliation, and a round that clips the edge of a 66% IPSC is a point awarded in PRS.

I would posit large dots are not a benefit in a fighting gun and I don't like anything bigger than about 2.5MoA for that.

 

[koshkin]

I am not sure if I would word it the same way, but with red dot sights I also prefer larger dots and have written about it fairly extensively.

One of the things to keep in mind is that if you have mild astigmatism, all other things being equal, a larger dot will look sharper. Also, because it is larger, you can run it a little dimmer and still have it easily visible.

A combination of a larger dot run at lower intensity will make it a lot more compatible with mild astigmatism in your eyes.

As far as aiming precision goes, sometimes it seems like too many people have been hypnotized by Mel Gibson saying "Aim small, miss small" in The Patriot. I liked the movie too, but that specific phrase is largely nonsense.

ILya

 

[308pirate]

I would posit large dots are not a benefit in a fighting gun and I don't like anything bigger than about 2.5MoA for that.

Dunning-Kruger

 

[308pirate]

I am not sure if I would word it the same way, but with red dot sights I also prefer larger dots and have written about it fairly extensively.

One of the things to keep in mind is that if you have mild astigmatism, all other things being equal, a larger dot will look sharper. Also, because it is larger, you can run it a little dimmer and still have it easily visible.

A combination of a larger dot run at lower intensity will make it a lot more compatible with mild astigmatism in your eyes.

As far as aiming precision goes, sometimes it seems like too many people have been hypnotized by Mel Gibson saying "Aim small, miss small" in The Patriot. I liked the movie too, but that specific phrase is largely nonsense.

ILya

Finally sanity and knowledge has arrived

 

[Lug Nut]

Finally sanity and knowledge has arrived

Well, I guess we can all go home now.

;-)


.