There's actually not that much difference in the optics (device) length. The aimpoint just lacks sunshades which MCP puts on them and isn't solid on a weaver rail as it is a piccatinny mount. Why aimpoint doesn't offer sunshades I have no idea, other than I guess they want them as compact as possible for tactical use.Freepistol wrote:I would think that parallax would be worse with a shorter tube as on the Micro, however, I have not seen a test. Does anyone have a link to a comparison parallax test of the Micro vs Ultradot? Thanks
ben
There's a test of the ultradot parallax on bullseye encyclopedia.
Parallax for the Ultradot is not that bad at 25 or 50 especially when you consider there's not going to be much parallax as long as you keep the dot centered, and consider the target is big, the bullet is big, the pistol is not benchrest accurate.
Doing a head bob test on the aimpoint the parallax ends after a few feet.
The big advantage I think for the aimpoint is battery life, whether its more accurate than a matchdot at bullseye distances is probably moot, although once MCP gets through with the aimpoint its about as nice a red dot for bullseye as you can ask for. Also MCP provides a scope rail for their pistols that is weighted (balanced) specifically for the aimpoint.
As delivered straight out of the box going onto a clark rail I think an Ultradot or a matchdot is a much better sight for bullseye.