Red Dot and precision at any speed?

[Dov]

I haven't yet owned Red Dot, and only personal experience I have with them was (3?) decades ago plinking with one of my Uncle's hunting handgun, don't recall which one now, that had a Red Dot for year or two.

I've thought about getting Red dot for shotgun several times but never gotten around to it, because I figured my concerns about Red Dot precision would be minor with buckshot.

One question I've had though about Dot is how precise you can be with them, because for me personally sights have been limiting factor for precision needed in field shooting situations ether not being precise enough or not being clear/visible enough (Uncle's Red Dot was pretty useless if Sun was at wrong angles between you and target). So that experience and some other influences have always pushed me to train for precision, though I don't mean benchrest level.

What I am talking about is ability to see and hit small part of target like when hunting if much of animal is concealed or behind cover so you only have a small vital area that is exposed.

So I have almost exclusively trained to hit 3x5 inch notecard or for reactive targets stationary Clay pigeon (used just like small paper plate) from offhand and field positions.

My understanding, possibly wrong, when people talk about using AR with Red dot at 100+ yards is that they are shooting at a much larger target.

Is that correct?

If your shooting with AR & Red Dot at 3x5 notecard or claypigeon at unknown ranges from 0-200 ish would you consider that relatively easy or doable for first round hits?

I assume at close ranges other than bore offset it would be easy, but at what range with what MOA size Red Dot does it become difficult or so bad your fighting your equipment?

[TCinVA]

What I am talking about is ability to see and hit small part of target like when hunting if much of animal is concealed or behind cover so you only have a small vital area that is exposed.

Right at 50 yards, hit behind the front shoulder when it was on all 4's.



65 yards, quartering away from me on all 4's.



About 35 yards, only the head and shoulders visible, standing on two legs.

All shots taken with a Gen5 G17 using an Acro P1 and 124 gr. +P HST.

On each of those shots I had sufficient time to knock the dot's brightness down a notch or two to get the cleanest dot I could. There is no doubt in my mind I was able to make those shots because the dot allowed me to have a level of precision that's unavailable with iron sights. The typical front sight is a 14 or so MOA sighting reference. Just fine for any normal pistol shooting task. But when it comes to killing small game with a handgun or putting a bullet into the brain stem of a badly wounded deer who is about to get up and run again, especially inside the woods where lighting is so highly variable, the dot made a huge difference in my ability to perform up to the circumstances of the shot.

Now that's with a pistol.

I'll let you draw conclusions about similar shots you might take with a rifle.

If your shooting with AR & Red Dot at 3x5 notecard or claypigeon at unknown ranges from 0-200 ish would you consider that relatively easy or doable for first round hits?

I assume at close ranges other than bore offset it would be easy, but at what range with what MOA size Red Dot does it become difficult or so bad your fighting your equipment?

If you are using the typical 2 MOA dots that is common these days, it'll be at whatever distance the dot is covering up most of your target...which means you are shooting at a really tiny target either because it's tiny or it's far away. In which case getting your ballistics right is going to be a much bigger deal than whatever uncertainty is in your dot. And just like I did with the squirrels, you can dial the brightness of the dot down to give you essentially just a faint ghostly image of the dot that allows you to see the target through the dot.

For me the biggest limitation is whether or not I can clearly see whatever it is I'm trying to engage at those kinds of distances. It's not that the dot is in my way, it's that I can barely see the fucking thing. In the shots shown above I had enough contrast in the surrounding area to make out the anatomy of the squirrel so I could make the shot. But once we get past 100 yards or so or we're dealing with trying to see a portion of a large animal through brush the lack of magnification is my main impediment. I just can't see what it is well enough to make the shot, and that's before I ever put a sight on it.

When I'm dealing with just normal shooting on normal targets it's a lot easier for me to get an accurate sights-on-target reference with a dot than with irons when we start talking about hitting 6" hostage plates at 100 yards, etc. And with a magnified optic it's even easier.

These days I run an LVPO equipped carbine most of the time because I have a setup that's really dialed in and I can call upon the magnification to assist whenever I want. It's heavier but really nice...but most of the time the optic stays at a no magnification setting and gets used just like a dot.

So short answer: Can you shoot a dot on something like a game animal with precision at speed?

Well, yeah. I've done that shit with my dot-equipped carry gun, homie. A rifle is going to be even easier.

If the question is dot vs. LPVO on a carbine, the LPVO can match the speed of a dot and give even better chances for identification and precision at longer ranges IF you have one set up properly...which is not an easy task. Takes the right mount, the right stock, and the right setup of the optic to achieve that result. And it's all going to be heavier and more expensive than a dot.

[GJM]

0-200 yards, speed and precision, from least to most --

Iron sights

Red dot

LPVO

Shooting groups at 100 yards with my Brockman 16 inch 45-70 rifles at 100 yards, I have been able to print tighter groups with aperture sights than an Aimpoint, but considering speed and variable lighting conditions, the red dot easily wins.

[JohnO]

So I have almost exclusively trained to hit 3x5 inch notecard or for reactive targets stationary Clay pigeon (used just like small paper plate) from offhand and field positions.

My understanding, possibly wrong, when people talk about using AR with Red dot at 100+ yards is that they are shooting at a much larger target.

Is that correct?

If your shooting with AR & Red Dot at 3x5 notecard or claypigeon at unknown ranges from 0-200 ish would you consider that relatively easy or doable for first round hits?

I assume at close ranges other than bore offset it would be easy, but at what range with what MOA size Red Dot does it become difficult or so bad your fighting your equipment?

Irons, Red Dot or Magnified Optics all have limitations. However so does the Shooter and the Weapon System. A 200 yard shot on a 3" x 5" card with a 1-10 LPVO at max magnification becomes a 20 yard shot. But not quite. The hold on the rifle is more critical than it was at 20 yards unmagnified. How well the ammunition and rifle function together will show itself at 200 yards. Hell the orientation of the card could be a factor as well (windage or elevation one will be more critical than the other).

I just going to bluntly say operator skill is going to be the determining factor. This is not an equipment issue.

[HCM]

0-200 yards, speed and precision, from least to most --

Iron sights

Red dot

LPVO

Shooting groups at 100 yards with my Brockman 16 inch 45-70 rifles at 100 yards, I have been able to print tighter groups with aperture sights than an Aimpoint, but considering speed and variable lighting conditions, the red dot easily wins.

Agree.

Precision

For high contrast targets on a range - I can shoot a tighter group with irons than a red dot if time is not a factor but on realistic targets under field conditions optics rule and irons will be the slowest.

Speed wise:

Red dot
LPVO
Irons

[Caballoflaco]

You’ll be fine.

Here’s a group I shot with an aimpoint comp m4 (2 moa dot) holding way up in the trees at 500 yards back when pistol braces were legal and that gun had an 11.5” barrel. Deer sized vitals with that setup were easy to beyond the ballistic ability of the cartridge in that barrel.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1229161

Similarly me and a buddy were making repeatable hits at 400 on like 8” plates with my AUG that wears a an aimpoint comp mL3 and a 3x magnifier the first time we had it out in the range.

[HCM]

Right at 50 yards, hit behind the front shoulder when it was on all 4's.



65 yards, quartering away from me on all 4's.



About 35 yards, only the head and shoulders visible, standing on two legs.

All shots taken with a Gen5 G17 using an Acro P1 and 124 gr. +P HST.

On each of those shots I had sufficient time to knock the dot's brightness down a notch or two to get the cleanest dot I could. There is no doubt in my mind I was able to make those shots because the dot allowed me to have a level of precision that's unavailable with iron sights. The typical front sight is a 14 or so MOA sighting reference. Just fine for any normal pistol shooting task. But when it comes to killing small game with a handgun or putting a bullet into the brain stem of a badly wounded deer who is about to get up and run again, especially inside the woods where lighting is so highly variable, the dot made a huge difference in my ability to perform up to the circumstances of the shot.

Now that's with a pistol.

I'll let you draw conclusions about similar shots you might take with a rifle.



If you are using the typical 2 MOA dots that is common these days, it'll be at whatever distance the dot is covering up most of your target...which means you are shooting at a really tiny target either because it's tiny or it's far away. In which case getting your ballistics right is going to be a much bigger deal than whatever uncertainty is in your dot. And just like I did with the squirrels, you can dial the brightness of the dot down to give you essentially just a faint ghostly image of the dot that allows you to see the target through the dot.

For me the biggest limitation is whether or not I can clearly see whatever it is I'm trying to engage at those kinds of distances. It's not that the dot is in my way, it's that I can barely see the fucking thing. In the shots shown above I had enough contrast in the surrounding area to make out the anatomy of the squirrel so I could make the shot. But once we get past 100 yards or so or we're dealing with trying to see a portion of a large animal through brush the lack of magnification is my main impediment. I just can't see what it is well enough to make the shot, and that's before I ever put a sight on it.

When I'm dealing with just normal shooting on normal targets it's a lot easier for me to get an accurate sights-on-target reference with a dot than with irons when we start talking about hitting 6" hostage plates at 100 yards, etc. And with a magnified optic it's even easier.

These days I run an LVPO equipped carbine most of the time because I have a setup that's really dialed in and I can call upon the magnification to assist whenever I want. It's heavier but really nice...but most of the time the optic stays at a no magnification setting and gets used just like a dot.

So short answer: Can you shoot a dot on something like a game animal with precision at speed?

Well, yeah. I've done that shit with my dot-equipped carry gun, homie. A rifle is going to be even easier.

If the question is dot vs. LPVO on a carbine, the LPVO can match the speed of a dot and give even better chances for identification and precision at longer ranges IF you have one set up properly...which is not an easy task. Takes the right mount, the right stock, and the right setup of the optic to achieve that result. And it's all going to be heavier and more expensive than a dot.

All dots are not created equal, so without an idea of the quality level of your uncles red dot from decades ago it’s hard to compare.

Regarding speed and precision in my experience:

Speed:

Red Dot
LPVO
Irons

Regarding precision there are a couple factors to consider.

Size of the dot: Initially most carbine optics had 4 MOA dots - meaning the dock would cover a 4 inch circle at 100 yards. In my experience, a carbine with a 4MO a dot is easily capable of keeping all rounds inside the 5.5 inch block of a B8 at 100 yards if the shooter does their part. However, it is easier to do so with a smaller dock, which is why most carbon optics have transitioned to smaller dots such as the 2 MOA dots in most Aimpoints and the 1 MOA dot in the center of EoTech reticles.

Being precise, when time is not a factor, I personally can shoot a slightly tighter group with irons, but when doing this type of shooting, such as when zeroing it is important to dim the dot down as much as possible.

However, in my experience being precise, when time is a factor single focal plane sighting systems such as red dots, and LPVOs will always be superior to a three plane sighting system such as irons. Doing one thing is faster and easier than doing three things, there’s nothing magical or complicated about it.

Another factor is the type of target. In my experience, there is a difference between shooting iron sights on a high contrast target on a range and shooting iron sights under field conditions. Optics and that single focal plane make things considerably easier under field conditions.

And all of that is before you start talking about things like reduce lighting conditions, moving targets, etc.

It’s not an accident rifle optics are nearly universal in military/ LE use at this point.

[Dov]

About 35 yards, only the head and shoulders visible, standing on two legs.

All shots taken with a Gen5 G17 using an Acro P1 and 124 gr. +P HST.

On each of those shots I had sufficient time to knock the dot's brightness down a notch or two to get the cleanest dot I could. There is no doubt in my mind I was able to make those shots because the dot allowed me to have a level of precision that's unavailable with iron sights. The typical front sight is a 14 or so MOA sighting reference. Just fine for any normal pistol shooting task. But when it comes to killing small game with a handgun or putting a bullet into the brain stem of a badly wounded deer who is about to get up and run again, especially inside the woods where lighting is so highly variable, the dot made a huge difference in my ability to perform up to the circumstances of the shot.

Now that's with a pistol.

I'll let you draw conclusions about similar shots you might take with a rifle.



If you are using the typical 2 MOA dots that is common these days, it'll be at whatever distance the dot is covering up most of your target...which means you are shooting at a really tiny target either because it's tiny or it's far away. In which case getting your ballistics right is going to be a much bigger deal than whatever uncertainty is in your dot. And just like I did with the squirrels, you can dial the brightness of the dot down to give you essentially just a faint ghostly image of the dot that allows you to see the target through the dot.

For me the biggest limitation is whether or not I can clearly see whatever it is I'm trying to engage at those kinds of distances. It's not that the dot is in my way, it's that I can barely see the fucking thing. In the shots shown above I had enough contrast in the surrounding area to make out the anatomy of the squirrel so I could make the shot. But once we get past 100 yards or so or we're dealing with trying to see a portion of a large animal through brush the lack of magnification is my main impediment. I just can't see what it is well enough to make the shot, and that's before I ever put a sight on it.

When I'm dealing with just normal shooting on normal targets it's a lot easier for me to get an accurate sights-on-target reference with a dot than with irons when we start talking about hitting 6" hostage plates at 100 yards, etc. And with a magnified optic it's even easier.

These days I run an LVPO equipped carbine most of the time because I have a setup that's really dialed in and I can call upon the magnification to assist whenever I want. It's heavier but really nice...but most of the time the optic stays at a no magnification setting and gets used just like a dot.

So short answer: Can you shoot a dot on something like a game animal with precision at speed?

Well, yeah. I've done that shit with my dot-equipped carry gun, homie. A rifle is going to be even easier.

If the question is dot vs. LPVO on a carbine, the LPVO can match the speed of a dot and give even better chances for identification and precision at longer ranges IF you have one set up properly...which is not an easy task. Takes the right mount, the right stock, and the right setup of the optic to achieve that result. And it's all going to be heavier and more expensive than a dot.

So with your dot setup for those shots is it zeroed to hit at top of dot (12 O'clock) or at center of dot?

From conversations I've seen some people do it one way some the other.

With irons I am so habituated to bullet hitting at top of Front sight I could never get used to my S&W 386 Night Guard that had a XS Dot front sight that was zeroed to hit in center of dot (ie front sight obscuring impact point), main reason I traded that gun to a buddy. Though I have never had problem witch Scopes and bullet hitting to the crosshairs, though I did not like the extra thick crosshairs on my Jeff Cooper Package Steyr Scout came with don't recall for certain but think they there were ~4MOA thick, I remember normal 8 or 9 inch paper plate at 200 yards was almost completely obscured by the crosshairs.

I would think with a Dot, since its a circle and not a square, Center of dot would allow for more precision?

I definitely lean LPV or even low to medium power fixed for rifles and carbines, but noticed how many people here favor Dots and trying to learn/understand why.

[HCM]

Irons, Red Dot or Magnified Optics all have limitations. However so does the Shooter and the Weapon System. A 200 yard shot on a 3" x 5" card with a 1-10 LPVO at max magnification becomes a 20 yard shot. But not quite. The hold on the rifle is more critical than it was at 20 yards unmagnified. How well the ammunition and rifle function together will show itself at 200 yards. Hell the orientation of the card could be a factor as well (windage or elevation one will be more critical than the other).

I just going to bluntly say operator skill is going to be the determining factor. This is not an equipment issue.

Agree operator skill is the biggest factor but the sighting system is not the only equipment issue. The capability of the gun and the ammo are factors as well.

For example, in my experience, given a competent shooter, a decent quality rack grade, M4 like a colt will generally shoot 2-4 MOA depending on the ammo.,

However the min standard for an M-4 is 4 MOA and the min standard for m855 green tip (which is not particularly good accurate) is also 4 MOA. However, when put together as a system, it is possible to have a Rifle and ammunition that meet minimum standards, but can only hold and 8 MOA group.

A gun and ammo combination that cannot hold 4 MOA is gonna be challenging to hit a 3 x 5 card with at 100 yards regardless of sighting system or operator skill.

[TCinVA]

So with your dot setup for those shots is it zeroed to hit at top of dot (12 O'clock) or at center of dot?

Center of dot, as best I can. Usually done from a rest on a B8 at 25 yards where I'm literally trying to hit the cross in the X.

I find "put the dot on the thing you wish wherefore the bullet to done have gone" works best for me when I'm trying to do things under pressure.