Given the small increase in weight and cost of the 512, the closed emitter design seems a no brainer to me.
Given the small increase in weight and cost of the 512, the closed emitter design seems a no brainer to me.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I've used these pictures before but here is the reticle at 25 yards. It's mounted to a pistol here which is why you see that green thing in the lower portion of the picture, that's the front sight.Originally Posted by Alpha Sierra
The targets are a 3/4 USPSA target on the right with a 3" sticker placed in the A zone and a 14" x 22" B-29 target on the right. At 100 yards the 8 MOA ring is only a little smaller than that 3/4 USPSA target which is why I say it works well on anything inside of 100 yards. I'd venture a guess it would work ok at 200 as well assuming your goal was to hit the target not shoot for groups; any further than that and it'd be pushing it.
That's interesting to me because with my eyes the open emitter tends to look cleaner to me. I suspect it's because the open emitter lets in more background light with reduces the intensity of the LED and I believe that is why some dots look star-burtsy to me... but I'm not a doctor or a physicist so what do I know. I'll give the 512 a look if I can find one in store somewhere.
I REALLY like that reticle. The easiest iron sights I've ever used are dual apertures on target rifles and that ring works the same way.I've used these pictures before but here is the reticle at 25 yards. It's mounted to a pistol here which is why you see that green thing in the lower portion of the picture, that's the front sight.
The targets are a 3/4 USPSA target on the right with a 3" sticker placed in the A zone and a 14" x 22" B-29 target on the right. At 100 yards the 8 MOA ring is only a little smaller than that 3/4 USPSA target which is why I say it works well on anything inside of 100 yards. I'd venture a guess it would work ok at 200 as well assuming your goal was to hit the target not shoot for groups; any further than that and it'd be pushing it.
.
I agree and that is exactly what this reminds me of. My first 22lr rifle was this old Mossberg from 1941 that had these sights: (The pictures are over 10 years old)
and easily the most intuitive of any sights on a rifle. I eventually sold that rifle. I tried finding a similar sight setup for my 10/22 but I couldn't find anything close that was easy to do so I settled on Tech Sights.
Scope (sight? site?) arrived today. I like it, but I'm disappointed to see two dots. I was hoping my astigmatism (which is supposedly corrected for in my glasses but i guess not well enough) wasn't going to be an issue. I'll still mount it and shoot it and see how it goes. Subjectively it feels solid, well built, etc. The battery door mechanism is really innovative IMO.
Anybody know if a 512 will get cooked on an Ultimak? That small of a battery that close to the rail gives me second thoughts.
Here you go:
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
My astigmatism plays hell with red dots. I've heard that Holosun's new gold colored dot sights generally work better for astigmatism, but I've not tried one yet.
They have 20mm micro dots and a more expensive closed emitter reflex sight in gold color.
http://www.holosun.com/index/product/detail/id/133.html
http://www.holosun.com/index/product/detail/id/127.html
I think I can hold out until April 15. Maybe...
I wonder if Holosun will do better at hitting a release date that Aimpoint or Sig.
Have you tried to fix it with corrective lenses or surgery? I'm nearly blind as a bat without corrective lenses. With them, every dot I look at is clear as a bell. The larger the dot the sharper its edges.
I'm not sure why some people (not necessarily you) think it's the sight manufacturers' job to fix their vision problems.
Reply With Quote