Red dot verses irons

[BillSWPA]

Yesterday I sighted in an Aimpoint and backup irons for an AR pistol. To my surprise, I was able to shoot about equally accurately with both, but was able to achieve that same accuracy faster and more easily with the backup irons.

I like the idea of a red dot for sight visibility in low light as well as potentially having to shoot from a suboptimal position. Shooting while moving or at a moving target could also change things. But this side by side comparison had me questioning the advantages of an unmagnified optic over irons. I have not done a side by side comparison with a rifle yet, but I suspect that the longer sight radius would enable me to use the irons better than on the AR pistol, further putting the red dot at a disadvantage.

Different color targets (I was using red on a white background, which mostly appeared white at distance) or different lighting conditions could certainly change the result. I may need to do some more comparisons.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[19852+]

I use irons now because my eyes and red dots don't get along. However, before my eyes changed I found that the dot covered the target at range. Now I use a KNS pin head style front that works great for me. Now I can hit what I can see out to 300m , the longest my range has to offer.

[MVS]

Just the opposite for me. I shoot irons as accurately, but no where near as fast. Even more so as distance increases.

[Casual Friday]

To paraphrase something I heard on a P&S podcast, "If you're shooting irons faster than a red dot, you're shooting the red dot wrong."

Were you using a shot timer to get exact times or judging by feel?

[BillSWPA]

To paraphrase something I heard on a P&S podcast, "If you're shooting irons faster than a red dot, you're shooting the red dot wrong."

Were you using a shot timer to get exact times or judging by feel?

I was sighting in. These was no reason for a timer. I noticed that I had a much easier time acquiring a sight picture with the irons than with the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeep45238]

I used to volunteer my weekends away as a rifle instructor for several years before life happened, and before I enlisted.

I never, once, had a shooter that was capable of shooting iron sights better than a red dot once they understood focal planes. I've also never, ever, had a shooter that shot better with irons than magnification.

However, if someone is used to shooting with one setup, changing that system will tend to make the shooter think the new system is inferior. This is simply a practice makes permanent thing, as 10,000 reps on irons will make irons easier than 100 reps on a red dot.

Shutting one eye completely for 'precision' tends to put a lot of stress on the open eye and distort vision while putting a lot of strain on the shooter.


This is a common thing for people with astigmatism, and to some extent cross dominance issues. Putting a piece of painters tape over the lens, and shooting with both eyes open forces a target focus (what's needed for shooting red dots). With a 4 MOA Aimpoint T1, I have zero issues pegging steel at 500 yards (c zone IDPA - about a 4 MOA target at 500 yards). Honestly I shoot my red dot pistols better with tape over the lens in terms of not having points down, and my times are no slower either. Look at practically every Olympic shooting event, and they're shooting with both eyes open and the eye not over the sighting system being occluded by a shield on either the firearm or their glasses.


Quantify your data - times and groups at given distances. Preference for something is fine, but performance is a total different animal.

[Casual Friday]

I was sighting in. These was no reason for a timer. I noticed that I had a much easier time acquiring a sight picture with the irons than with the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slow fire from a bench really isn't the best way to compare the two. Run some drills on a timer and I think you'll get different results.

[HCM]

Yesterday I sighted in an Aimpoint and backup irons for an AR pistol. To my surprise, I was able to shoot about equally accurately with both, but was able to achieve that same accuracy faster and more easily with the backup irons.

I like the idea of a red dot for sight visibility in low light as well as potentially having to shoot from a suboptimal position. Shooting while moving or at a moving target could also change things. But this side by side comparison had me questioning the advantages of an unmagnified optic over irons. I have not done a side by side comparison with a rifle yet, but I suspect that the longer sight radius would enable me to use the irons better than on the AR pistol, further putting the red dot at a disadvantage.

Different color targets (I was using red on a white background, which mostly appeared white at distance) or different lighting conditions could certainly change the result. I may need to do some more comparisons.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) About how old are you and what is your vision like ? Astigmatism ?


2) Are you using a target focus with the dot or using it like irons ?

3) When you use the dot are you using just the dot ?

4) As noted slow fire from a bench on a single target is not a relevant metric even with a timer.

5) As TLG said "Feelings lie" https://pistol-training.com/archives/5108

Logically accomplishing something via 3 actions should not be faster than getting there by via 1 action.

If you eyes are not what they used to be you may well find yourself shooting better slow fire groups with irons than and RDS, the rear peep acts as a diopter. In fact some people look at the dot through a rear peep to "clean up" the dot.

However, go dynamic on a time and it's a different story, even if you see a dot as a comma, starburst or bunch of grapes it will be faster if used with a proper target focus.

Those who have issues with irregular dots can get the same befits from prism type optics and LPVOs. The diopter adjustment on these optics help.

[HCM]

I was sighting in. These was no reason for a timer. I noticed that I had a much easier time acquiring a sight picture with the irons than with the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try this.

Forget "sight picture"

Look through the optic and acquire / focus on the target, then "float" or superimpose the dot on the target like you were shooting clay birds with a shot gun. It can take a little adjustment but if you are also a wing / clay shooter it will come quicker.

[YVK]

My personal experience of comparing the two is summed up here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq-N3_plNq8

[LOKNLOD]

I zeroed irons and a dot on an AR carbine Saturday too.

Here’s what I observe that I think you might be experiencing, too:
The dot amplifies your awareness of wobble. When you’re hunched up behind it trying to shoot a 2” orange dot on white paper at 50y, it never quite gets 100% settled like the irons do. Therefore it feels slower. You’re trying to acquire a site picture, because you’re worried about alignment (rightfully so during zeroing) but that’s not really how you should use the dot in practice.

But if you stand up, offhand, and drive that dot between multiple targets or even straight out to a single target in a hurry, shooting with a target focus and both eyes open, “painting with the dot” as if it were a laser projected onto the target but only visible to you through this magic tube - that dot is going to be a lot faster in those conditions.

It’s similar but more subtle than the RDS on a pistol because the rifle is much more stable.

[frozentundra]

I think optics really shine when the target can move and situations are fluid or complex in a way that requires mental/visual processing and decision making at speed.

However, my experience here is based on animal targets at distances you wouldn't usually associate with pistols or "CQB". Perhaps this doesn't apply so much inside defensive pistol distances?

If the target is nailed solidly to a post, in an completely unambiguous setting, iron sights are probably somewhat less of a handicap. But you still don't see many people choosing to run irons in rifle matches with static targets.

[BillSWPA]

Thanks for all the replies.

I am about to turn 50, nearsighted, with mild astigmatism, but was wearing glasses which correct those issues.

The day was partly cloudy, and ai had the optic on its maximum brightness setting.

Perceiving wobble was not the issue at all. In fact, I could barely see the dot when it overlapped my (mostly white but some red) target. I had greater ability to perceive wobble - and everything else - with the irons.

I understand the speed issue. However, I can certainly shoot faster with a sight I can see immediately and clearly than with a sight I can see far less clearly.

Looking through an aperture only helps if there is a refraction error in your glasses prescription or if it is time to update your prescription.

I am open to trying some drills to see what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

I zeroed irons and a dot on an AR carbine Saturday too.

Here’s what I observe that I think you might be experiencing, too:
The dot amplifies your awareness of wobble. When you’re hunched up behind it trying to shoot a 2” orange dot on white paper at 50y, it never quite gets 100% settled like the irons do. Therefore it feels slower. You’re trying to acquire a site picture, because you’re worried about alignment (rightfully so during zeroing) but that’s not really how you should use the dot in practice.

But if you stand up, offhand, and drive that dot between multiple targets or even straight out to a single target in a hurry, shooting with a target focus and both eyes open, “painting with the dot” as if it were a laser projected onto the target but only visible to you through this magic tube - that dot is going to be a lot faster in those conditions.

It’s similar but more subtle than the RDS on a pistol because the rifle is much more stable.

The process you are describing is known as “chasing the dot.”

[HCM]

Thanks for all the replies.

I am about to turn 50, nearsighted, with mild astigmatism, but was wearing glasses which correct those issues.

The day was partly cloudy, and ai had the optic on its maximum brightness setting.

Perceiving wobble was not the issue at all. In fact, I could barely see the dot when it overlapped my (mostly white but some red) target. I had greater ability to perceive wobble - and everything else - with the irons.

I understand the speed issue. However, I can certainly shoot faster with a sight I can see immediately and clearly than with a sight I can see far less clearly.

Looking through an aperture only helps if there is a refraction error in your glasses prescription or if it is time to update your prescription.

I am open to trying some drills to see what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For zeroing, you normally want the dot turned down to the minimum brightness one can still see it. A red dot on a red zero target doesn’t help.

[Rex G]

Some conditions favor the dot. Other conditions favor iron sights, with a rear aperture. Other conditions, at least for my eyes, favor a big, bold, rectangular front, with a wide, bold rear notch.

I have some amount of astigmatism, so, cannot hope to be as accurate with a red dot.

Having all three of the above-listed sight set-ups, on one weapon, is impractical. I choose one, or two, per weapon.

[BillSWPA]

For zeroing, you normally want the dot turned down to the minimum brightness one can still see it. A red dot on a red zero target doesn’t help.

On a partly cloudy (but still sunny) day, maximum brightness was the minimum brightness at which I could see the dot.

I will have to try a different color target and different lighting conditions.

[jeep45238]

Put a piece of blue painters tape on the target side of your red dot, and reduce the brightness to where it’s barely visible.

With no ammo in the gun, get behind the rifle and practice looking at the target world both eyes open and dry fire the rifle. There is no harm in having the rifle bagged on a backpack or something when zeroing, or even removing the magazine from the lower after chambering to get a more stable position.

If you still can’t find the dot on the target, try switching shoulders and what eye ball is looking through the optic. You may have a very severe eye dominance issue you aren’t aware of. Example - I’m cross dominant and right handed. I shoot for precision left handed since that eye is so much stronger, even with both eyes open. For anything else, I just shoot righty with both eyes open.

Give the tape a try during dry fire, even in your home, and see if you notice a difference.

[BillSWPA]

Put a piece of blue painters tape on the target side of your red dot, and reduce the brightness to where it’s barely visible.

With no ammo in the gun, get behind the rifle and practice looking at the target world both eyes open and dry fire the rifle. There is no harm in having the rifle bagged on a backpack or something when zeroing, or even removing the magazine from the lower after chambering to get a more stable position.

If you still can’t find the dot on the target, try switching shoulders and what eye ball is looking through the optic. You may have a very severe eye dominance issue you aren’t aware of. Example - I’m cross dominant and right handed. I shoot for precision left handed since that eye is so much stronger, even with both eyes open. For anything else, I just shoot righty with both eyes open.

Give the tape a try during dry fire, even in your home, and see if you notice a difference.

I am right handed and right eye dominant. My left eye has slightly better acuity.

What am I trying to achieve with the taped red dot?

Finding the dot has not been an issue. The issue I had was perceiving the dot when overlayed on this particular target. I could see the dot without any problems when looking at the hillside behind the target, but as soon as the dot moved over the target, I could not see where the dot was on the target. One reason I am exploring this issue is the likelihood that with a different target under different lighting conditions, the iron front might be the less visible sight.

[DDTSGM]

Have you ever tried an etched reticle prismatic like the Vortex Spitfire? They work great for me and I have slight astigmatism. One upside is that you don't have to run batteries, the black etched reticle is always visible, of you can also illuminate the reticle.

Downsides folks talk about - not compatible with NVG's.

I've also been told that you have to be more 'in the eyebox' with an etched reticle. I really haven't found that to be true in my experience, you still have to be able to see through the tube. In shooting off-shoulder, asymmetrical positions, I find the Vortex dot can be seen in any position my Aimpoint PRO dot is visible, you have to be somewhat behind the tube with both. I also haven't found a lot of issues with eye relief. Maybe I'm not clear on what they are saying.

They don't work well with 3x magnifiers so if you want magnification you need to get a magnified etched reticle.. I use a Burris AR332 (3x Prismatic) and it works fine, for closer than 25-50, I just flip the front cover down and use illumination. Not practical or tactical, but for range drills it works. https://www.burrisoptics.com/sights/ar-sights-series/ar-332

I think the etched reticles solve a lot of problems for shooters with aging eyes.

Good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKkp9G1tsFI

[jeep45238]

I am right handed and right eye dominant. My left eye has slightly better acuity.

What am I trying to achieve with the taped red dot?

Finding the dot has not been an issue. The issue I had was perceiving the dot when overlayed on this particular target. I could see the dot without any problems when looking at the hillside behind the target, but as soon as the dot moved over the target, I could not see where the dot was on the target. One reason I am exploring this issue is the likelihood that with a different target under different lighting conditions, the iron front might be the less visible sight.

The tape has nothing to do with finding the dot. The tape forces you to have a target focus. The minute your eyes loose target focus you get a blue screen with a red dot on it. With both eyes open and a target focus, one eye picks up the dot and the other the target. This is all about focal planes.

it is insanely common for people with astigmatism to have an issue of doing this on a dot and having the brain meld the images - they generally wind up reticle focused without training their eyes and mind to stay on target focus.

Give it a try.

[BillSWPA]

The tape has nothing to do with finding the dot. The tape forces you to have a target focus. The minute your eyes loose target focus you get a blue screen with a red dot on it. With both eyes open and a target focus, one eye picks up the dot and the other the target. This is all about focal planes.

it is insanely common for people with astigmatism to have an issue of doing this on a dot and having the brain meld the images - they generally wind up reticle focused without training their eyes and mind to stay on target focus.

Give it a try.

I covered the input lens of the optic, and tried your suggestion. For the first few seconds, I was looking at the dot on a covered lens. However, after a few seconds, I was able to superimpose the images from both eyes as you described. I was then able to bring the gun up to my line of sight and see the superimposed images.

After trying this exercise, and after darkening the room (not complete darkness) I popped up the backup iron sights. Although I was able to see the black post in some surprisingly dark conditions, this confirmed that in those light conditions, the Aimpoint would be the far better aiming tool. Outdoors in bright light, I definitely prefer the irons, but in low light, the Aimpoint has a clear advantage.

Thinking of optic selection, my learning process so far (still too high on the learning curve) as well as the thread discussing the 2.5x fixed power optic on a defensive rifle, I am curious about how a low power (2x-3x) magnified illuminated optic would compare to the Aimpoint (other than the obvious advantage of magnification at distance).

[TWR]

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. For old man eyes, the dot and irons work together. I have astigmatism and the dot is not always a dot which still works up close. Given distance and time, looking at the dot through the peep clears the dot right up.

I also can’t see close up so the FSP is a blur, stick the dot right on top and I have shot some pretty decent groups at distance.

But I am always faster with a dot.

[rob_s]

Forgive me for being blunt, but it sounds like you *want* to prefer the irons.

I came into ARs with Aimpoint sand Acogs, but I spent a year and thousands of rounds shooting a Dissipator-style (16” barrel with front sight located near the muzzle) gun with irons. Matches, classes, and drills. I learned a lot of tricks that made the irons more effective in a lot of various situations, and beat a lot of other shooters running dots and even LPVO optics. But a 30mm Aimpoint is still faster. Combine that 30mm Aimpoint with a set of irons you can flip up and down and it’s more accurate too.

And as others have said, dot acquisition speed relative to irons your first time out zeroing the optic from a bench with no timer is pretty much a measure of nothing. It’s like a kid that puts a k&n filter on their Honda and claims to notice a 10hp increase on the street.

Im concerned as well that something is wrong with your optic, your eyes, or the sun in your AO. I live in SE Florida and have done all of my shooting in this state, and I’ve never had to turn an Aimpoint “up to 11” to be able to see the dot.

All of which is to say:
1) focus on the target not the dot. #1 mistake made by first time dot shooters
2) don’t measure things seat of pants, quantify with rulers and timers
3) get up on your hind legs, move around, shoot and keep quantifying
4) never arrive at conclusions your first time doing anything

[BillSWPA]

Forgive me for being blunt, but it sounds like you *want* to prefer the irons.

I came into ARs with Aimpoint sand Acogs, but I spent a year and thousands of rounds shooting a Dissipator-style (16” barrel with front sight located near the muzzle) gun with irons. Matches, classes, and drills. I learned a lot of tricks that made the irons more effective in a lot of various situations, and beat a lot of other shooters running dots and even LPVO optics. But a 30mm Aimpoint is still faster. Combine that 30mm Aimpoint with a set of irons you can flip up and down and it’s more accurate too.

And as others have said, dot acquisition speed relative to irons your first time out zeroing the optic from a bench with no timer is pretty much a measure of nothing. It’s like a kid that puts a k&n filter on their Honda and claims to notice a 10hp increase on the street.

Im concerned as well that something is wrong with your optic, your eyes, or the sun in your AO. I live in SE Florida and have done all of my shooting in this state, and I’ve never had to turn an Aimpoint “up to 11” to be able to see the dot.

All of which is to say:
1) focus on the target not the dot. #1 mistake made by first time dot shooters
2) don’t measure things seat of pants, quantify with rulers and timers
3) get up on your hind legs, move around, shoot and keep quantifying
4) never arrive at conclusions your first time doing anything

I did not spend hundreds of dollars on the optic because I wanted to prefer the irons. I was genuinely surprised by the result.

The optic is a new Aimpoint ACO. My eyes were examined within the past couple of weeks.

When I look through the irons and can immediately see what I need to see, but under those specific conditions needed to repeatedly move the dot off and on the target to confirm that it was centered on the target, there is simply no possible way the dot is faster under that set of conditions. Change the lighting and/or target, and perhaps the speed advantage changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rob_s]

I did not spend hundreds of dollars on the optic because I wanted to prefer the irons. I was genuinely surprised by the result.

The optic is a new Aimpoint ACO. My eyes were examined within the past couple of weeks.

When I look through the irons and can immediately see what I need to see, but under those specific conditions needed to repeatedly move the dot off and on the target to confirm that it was centered on the target, there is simply no possible way the dot is faster under that set of conditions. Change the lighting and/or target, and perhaps the speed advantage changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re right

The army went to the Aimpoint 20 years ago because irons were faster and more accurate and they just wanted to spend some money and introduce another level of complexity and Some general owned stock in a battery company.

You wouldn’t be the first guy to spend hundred of dollars just to confirm that your anachronistic and contrarian opinion was right all along.

Check back in when you’ve found your ruler and timer, and gotten up on your hind legs to do some shooting.

[BillSWPA]

You’re right

The army went to the Aimpoint 20 years ago because irons were faster and more accurate and they just wanted to spend some money and introduce another level of complexity and Some general owned stock in a battery company.

You wouldn’t be the first guy to spend hundred of dollars just to confirm that your anachronistic and contrarian opinion was right all along.

Check back in when you’ve found your ruler and timer, and gotten up on your hind legs to do some shooting.

Thanks for your helpful comment. Please explain how a timer changes the visibility of the sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Thanks for your helpful comment. Please explain how a timer changes the visibility of the sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some folks just can't seem to help themselves. (Meaning the member who posted the comment you are responding to.)

Take the comments for what they're worth, Bill, and drive on...(imho, of course). One Luddite to another. ;)

[DpdG]

To me, this sounds like a very specific situation that created a perfect storm least favorable to the red dot. Use a black target in an otherwise identical situation and the roles likely would be reversed. Change the situation (add movement, time pressure, time pressure, etc) and the outcome would likely be different.

With the above said- a common error of new dot users is to try to center the dot within the tube or place the dot on the front sight post if using a fixed front post. There’s no need for this. Disregarding parallax error common at the very outer edge of the display, wherever you see the dot is when the point of impact. See dot, shoot dot.

[BillSWPA]

To me, this sounds like a very specific situation that created a perfect storm least favorable to the red dot. Use a black target in an otherwise identical situation and the roles likely would be reversed. Change the situation (add movement, time pressure, time pressure, etc) and the outcome would likely be different.

As I learn more about using the dot, this is very likely to turn out to be the case.


With the above said- a common error of new dot users is to try to center the dot within the tube or place the dot on the front sight post if using a fixed front post. There’s no need for this. Disregarding parallax error common at the very outer edge of the display, wherever you see the dot is when the point of impact. See dot, shoot dot.

The first time I used a dot (C-more) about two decades ago, I tried to align both the dot and irons, and did some of my worst shooting ever. Either ignoring the irons and just using the dot or turning off the dot and just using the irons works better for me. I have learned that if I can see the dot overlaying the target, the sight is sighted on the target. I can definitely see the advantage of the dot in a compromised shooting position.

[TWR]

I noticed on my last PRO, it wasn't as bright as I remembered them being. Found this https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?225698-Aimpoint-Brightness-Issues-Answered
Maybe this would explain why you can't see the dot except on max and why it appears to be slower.

[jeep45238]

Either ignoring the irons and just using the dot or turning off the dot and just using the irons works better



That's the same for everyone bro.


Again, you're talking possibly thousands of reps with something that you're used to (irons) versus the new thing that you haven't spent the time training with. You're going to have a bit of a learning curve.


Additionally, no matter what facts of reality say regarding applications, if your brain says something is slower and less accurate, then you will perform that way.

[19852+]

How I came to iron sights:

A friend gave me a well used Trijicon reflex sight when I got my first AR. I used it for a while until I bought my own Aimpoint Pro. This was about 12 years ago. I used the Aimpoint until the dot became un-usable by me at ranges 50m and out. My eyes had changed over the years. I sold the Aimpoint to a friend and went about to look for a replacement. My choice is a Trijicon ACOG but I'll have to wait until I find one for the price I can pay. It will come along but until then I'll happily shoot irons because I can and I take some pride in making hits at 300m in competition, on the timer, etc. Since switching to irons I'm doing better, so says the timer, but I have no doubt that optics are the way to go forward. When I find one I like I'll get it but for now no hurry.

Plus I feel like I've learned a lot about zero, hold at different range, etc.

[BillSWPA]

How I came to iron sights:

A friend gave me a well used Trijicon reflex sight when I got my first AR. I used it for a while until I bought my own Aimpoint Pro. This was about 12 years ago. I used the Aimpoint until the dot became un-usable by me at ranges 50m and out. My eyes had changed over the years. I sold the Aimpoint to a friend and went about to look for a replacement. My choice is a Trijicon ACOG but I'll have to wait until I find one for the price I can pay. It will come along but until then I'll happily shoot irons because I can and I take some pride in making hits at 300m in competition, on the timer, etc. Since switching to irons I'm doing better, so says the timer, but I have no doubt that optics are the way to go forward. When I find one I like I'll get it but for now no hurry.

Plus I feel like I've learned a lot about zero, hold at different range, etc.

About 19 years ago, I tried a Trijicon Reflex sight. I had purchased it used, and it had a very noticeable tint to the lens. At 100 yards, I could not even see a standard 100 yard bullseye through the sight. After removing the sight, I had no problems seeing or hitting that bullseye using the iron sights.

A few years ago, I took a carbine class taught by a couple of members here. I used irons, and most other shooters used magnified or unmagnified optics. The shooters with optics did seem to be faster on various drills, but the irons were not a significant handicap. That class taught me to remove a tritium front post I was using, reinstalling my standard A2 post. The tritium post was a hindrance to both sight visibility and accuracy in a variety of daylight conditions.

At this point, I am leaning towards wanting magnification if I am going to have an optic on a rifle. The ACOG looks like a very interesting option. My biggest concern is that replacing the tritium when it eventually goes dim is not as simple as replacing a battery.

[19852+]

About 19 years ago, I tried a Trijicon Reflex sight. I had purchased it used, and it had a very noticeable tint to the lens. At 100 yards, I could not even see a standard 100 yard bullseye through the sight. After removing the sight, I had no problems seeing or hitting that bullseye using the iron sights.

A few years ago, I took a carbine class taught by a couple of members here. I used irons, and most other shooters used magnified or unmagnified optics. The shooters with optics did seem to be faster on various drills, but the irons were not a significant handicap. That class taught me to remove a tritium front post I was using, reinstalling my standard A2 post. The tritium post was a hindrance to both sight visibility and accuracy in a variety of daylight conditions.

At this point, I am leaning towards wanting magnification if I am going to have an optic on a rifle. The ACOG looks like a very interesting option. My biggest concern is that replacing the tritium when it eventually goes dim is not as simple as replacing a battery.

Yes, the dot is huge at 100m ! Forget it at 300, it's just guess work. But it was a good start and led to the Aimpoint I got later. Last week I checked the Trijicon reflex for brightness. It was old when I got it and it's been about 12 years since then, yet it still works indoor and out. The Aimpoint was awesome too. The original battery went at least 5 years before I replaced it. It wasn't even dead yet, it was just old and I was worried it might leak.

For a iron front sight try one of the KNS options for front sight post. I'm using a front that looks like a pin head. It allows a better picture of the target at range due to it's narrowness. I expect it would be more fragile but the wings on the sight block do a good job of protection.

[Andy T]

About 19 years ago, I tried a Trijicon Reflex sight. I had purchased it used, and it had a very noticeable tint to the lens. At 100 yards, I could not even see a standard 100 yard bullseye through the sight. After removing the sight, I had no problems seeing or hitting that bullseye using the iron sights.

A few years ago, I took a carbine class taught by a couple of members here. I used irons, and most other shooters used magnified or unmagnified optics. The shooters with optics did seem to be faster on various drills, but the irons were not a significant handicap. That class taught me to remove a tritium front post I was using, reinstalling my standard A2 post. The tritium post was a hindrance to both sight visibility and accuracy in a variety of daylight conditions.

At this point, I am leaning towards wanting magnification if I am going to have an optic on a rifle. The ACOG looks like a very interesting option. My biggest concern is that replacing the tritium when it eventually goes dim is not as simple as replacing a battery.

Depending on the ACOG model you want, Trijicon started making them with a battery instead of Tritium. Also Steiner makes fixed magnification optics with batteries.

[HCM]

I noticed on my last PRO, it wasn't as bright as I remembered them being. Found this https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?225698-Aimpoint-Brightness-Issues-Answered
Maybe this would explain why you can't see the dot except on max and why it appears to be slower.

If only P-F had members who worked for Aimpoint we could clear this up.

Wayne Dobbs

[HCM]

The first time I used a dot (C-more) about two decades ago, I tried to align both the dot and irons, and did some of my worst shooting ever. Either ignoring the irons and just using the dot or turning off the dot and just using the irons works better for me.

Replace "dot" with "target focus sight system" system and "Irons" with "sight focus sight" and it is self-evident why using them together would be sub-optimal and using them separately would give the best result.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Life is too overloaded at this point to go through the whole thread, but I'll pass on some truth based on using RDOs operationally, training same and selling same for quite a few years:

1. Used PROPERLY, no iron sight usage will be faster or more practically accurate than a quality red dot optic. Failing to learn or execute a process correctly will always skew the results of any human endeavor and especially that of physical or martial skill execution. Red dots allow for faster and more accurate shooting under extreme stress and don't require a focal shift to achieve accuracy as do iron sights. They allow you to look at the threat and make better decisions, faster, than do irons.
2. Red dots eliminate a cognitive language building process that defines iron sight alignment (essentially a four point alignment process to create a letter image requiring cerebral function) and turns it into a simplified process in which the alignment process only requires our awareness of a dot on the target zone.
3. If you're looking at/focusing on the dot, you're wrong. Simply see it over the target zone you wish to impact and press the trigger. Also, if you are in any way incorporating the iron sights as part of the red dot use process, you're horribly wrong.
4. Both eyes open, all the time. I'm going to blow some heads up here, but do it with all your sighting systems. Have you ever considered that in every other physical skill execution, we keep both eyes open? Walking, writing, driving, hand to hand fighting, etc. all have us using both eyes open. So, why in God's name would you close an eye to do the most critical act of your life? When you close that eye to shoot, you've not lost 50% of your vision, you've lost 60-65% of your vision, because you just killed half the visual field along with your depth perception and balance abilities. Stop it.
5. Aimpoint optics are still the same top quality and build as before. If you have a sight with issues, real or perceived, let me know and we'll help you get an RMA started to get it fixed.
6. If you need demos or training on this, let me know and we'll get you taken care of.

[TWR]

Thank you for responding Wayne Dobbs. Just to be clear, I emailed back and forth because I thought I got a fake and was told it was legit, all was good as the PRO is not as bright as the T2. My PRO on setting 7 is barely visible in a room with lights on, setting 8 is better but 9 is best and 10 is where it pops in full sun. That is normal was the answer I got. I did buy it used.

I’ve had 2 ML3’s, an M2, an H1 and a T2 along with another PRO that I’m comparing to. It works just fine it’s just different. Time will tell on battery life, if I can get a year out of it on 8, I’ll be pleased. Again thank you for responding.

[HCM]

Thank you for responding Wayne Dobbs. Just to be clear, I emailed back and forth because I thought I got a fake and was told it was legit, all was good as the PRO is not as bright as the T2. My PRO on setting 7 is barely visible in a room with lights on, setting 8 is better but 9 is best and 10 is where it pops in full sun. That is normal was the answer I got. I did buy it used.

I’ve had 2 ML3’s, an M2, an H1 and a T2 along with another PRO that I’m comparing to. It works just fine it’s just different. Time will tell on battery life, if I can get a year out of it on 8, I’ll be pleased. Again thank you for responding.

Could this be a battery problem ? The PRO is a modernized M3 it should be just as bright as an M2 or M3. If a new battery doesn't help I would send it in.

USBP is running the PRO on duty rifles in the Southwest border which is certainly a bright envionment.

For reference, the reason "Aimpoint bright" is a thing is that during early GWOT actions in the mountains of Afghanistan, including the battle of Roberts Ridge, the Comp M (Original M68 CCO) had issues with the dot washing out under bright conditions. The fix was the Comp M2 (2nd Gen M68) which is essentially a brighter version of the Comp M while maintaining the 10k hour battery life.

[TWR]

I bought the sight used so there is no warranty and I was going to ship it on my dime and request an estimate on getting it looked at but they did not think it was necessary.

I did try a new battery, even tried a different brand so 3 batteries, Energizer and Duracell plus the original battery. The sight was made 2-18 and sat in a safe until I bought it supposedly. Like I said it works, it just seems to be missing a setting or one setting off. Now max brightness is plenty bright, almost unusable unless in bright sunlight.

It replaced an EOTech because I wanted it to be on all the time for my HD gun and have plenty of battery life. So now that I leave it on setting 8 instead of 7, it's still always on but I wonder about battery life. Time will tell.

I do not want to turn this into an Aimpoint rant, I like them and will use them, in fact I sold an RMR to get an ACRO but will wait until they get battery life fixed there. If battery life suffers on this PRO, I will replace it with a T2 more than likely. But I am not the only one whose noticed this issue either.

[karmapolice]

Love aimpoint but a major issue with the PRO is that it doesn't have as many brightness settings, they wash out for me in bright sun not the same with others. Also the battery is expensive and harder to find than the other models, people buy it on the initial price point. The T/H series and M series (4 and 5) are way better than the pro and worth the higher initial cost for usability, battery type/life, etc.

Also red dot vs irons, if you don't know how to use something and compare it to something you know how to use of course what you know will seem better. Once you learn how to properly use the other it will show that is superior to the other.

[BillSWPA]

The Aimpoint ACO on a rifle has been on about 7 or 8 since about April. I checked the CR1/3N cell today, expecting it to be at least half drained. My ZTS tester said 100% power. I do appreciate the battery life of Aimpoint.

[jeep45238]

As an aside - I've been dry firing all my pistol RDS with blue tape over the lens for the last couple months, but last night was the first time shooting a match with it taped over as well.

Compared to the best PCC shooter, I've been sitting at 50% of their score for the last month (twice a month matches), with 60% being my common score when I dry fire a lot, all the gear being equal.

Last night I was just a hair under 80%, simply by shooting the match with my lens taped over.



I have astigmatism, am near sighted, right handed, and left eye dominant. During the match it was easy to find the perfs. on the targets at 20 yards. I finally saw the 'streak' of the dot vs. the dot being 'there' for 3 yard targets, and for the 20-25 yard targets it was easy to do a makeup on a headshot. The one shot I threw bad was in a string of 6 on one target, and I vividly recall going from seeing the target to seeing blue - and I sent the round anyway. That moment of target to reticle focus got me third place instead of second, and it was the 4th shot out of 6. My points down was reduced by 10%, which tells me that my accuracy went sky high without sacrificing time.


I'm telling you, drop the iron sights, tape your red dot, and put some live rounds down range after playing with it for a week in dry fire. You will be more accurate, and faster.