TargetTalk

I would like input from our forum members.

What is the best Red Dot Scope and why?

Why do you like the dot you are using and why?

Please include dot size you use and tube size and model number.

Please, no wise guy answers.

If best means "best price" just by the cheapest
If best means "biggest dot", or "smallest dot", or "brightest dot", or "lightest weight unit", or "biggest field of view", or "longest battery life" then compare the specifications of all the scopes and buy what you define as best.
Find out what is important to you as "best" and buy that unit.
The only thing I use a red dot scope for is to aid me to hit the middle of a stationary bullseye so any one will do. Remember to shoot great scores you need only do two things put the dot in the middle and pull trigger.

Laseraim Pulsepoint.

Because it blinks.




Really it does.


Ultradot if you can not find a Laseraim.

I own several different models of Ultradots and also the Aimpoint Micro. I really think the Ultradot Matchdot is the best of them all.

The Aimpoint is lightweight, durable, and has an incredible battery life. The price is really the big issue for me. You can buy two Matchdots for the price of one Aimpoint. I have not found one to be more accurate than the other.

The Matchdots ability to switch dot size has been very helpful for me. After spending a year shooting 2 MOA, I have recently found I shoot better with a 4 MOA dot. I plan on really looking into this closer, shooting a number of matches and comparing my long and short line scores with 2 and 4 MOA dots.

Before I bought my Matchdot II I walked up and down the firing line and those that were shooting a dot about 80% were shooting an Ultradot of some kind. I bought the Matchdot II because of the ease of setting an elevation zero and getting back to it. The different sized dots wasn't of much interest to me but like Sixftunda I found that I shot better with a different size dot than I was use too. I am also experimenting with short and long line dot size and intensity.

Quality, service, and a lifetime warranty also played big in the decision.

Dave

Aimpoint Micro series. Finer adjustments, doesn't use rings that lose their zero when removed for cleaning, less parallax at 50 yards, longer battery life, lower to the bore centerline... and a few others. More expensive? Yes. Do they reduce variables to why the shot isn't an 'X'? Yes.

trulyapostolic wrote:Aimpoint Micro series. Finer adjustments, doesn't use rings that lose their zero when removed for cleaning, less parallax at 50 yards, longer battery life, lower to the bore centerline... and a few others. More expensive? Yes. Do they reduce variables to why the shot isn't an 'X'? Yes.

Was a test done comparing the parallax of the Aimpoint and the Ultradot? The only one I have seen is the one John Dreyer did between the Ultradot and a Pro-Point.

Trooperjake wrote:I would like input from our forum members.

What is the best Red Dot Scope and why?

Why do you like the dot you are using and why?

Please include dot size you use and tube size and model number.

Please, no wise guy answers.

Ultradot is the best for precision pistol target shooting. The 30mm is better just because it's a bigger field of view than a 1". Being that it is also so light, well priced, and lifetime warranty, and that the two ring mount style keeps it true.....these are for so many reasons, the best for many applications. With that being said, I also do prefer an Aimpoint micro on my Pardini 45. Reason being, the Aimpont is small so it stays clear of the ejecting brass. It's twice the price of an Ultradot, but sometimes it not about the price, it's about what is best. Ultradot is my choice for most pistol applications such as bullseye, but that Aimpoint is a better choice for my GT45.

Duplicate Post - Admin Please Delete

When I first started to consider a red dot Ultradot and Aimpoint tube types kept rising to the top of "best" lists. I'm not a big fan of the reflex types. If you go to Camp Perry and check what the most common red dot is there I think you'll find its the basic Ultradot 1" or 30mm by a comfortable margin.

I have now acquired a handful of red dots that came with pistols I bought. Among them are Adco, Aimpoint 5000, and NcStar. All are Ok but the Ultradots just seem to hold zero well and have long battery life. They're bright and stand up well to the lack of due care I inflict on them.

Sixftunda wrote:

trulyapostolic wrote:Aimpoint Micro series. Finer adjustments, doesn't use rings that lose their zero when removed for cleaning, less parallax at 50 yards, longer battery life, lower to the bore centerline... and a few others. More expensive? Yes. Do they reduce variables to why the shot isn't an 'X'? Yes.

Was a test done comparing the parallax of the Aimpoint and the Ultradot? The only one I have seen is the one John Dreyer did between the Ultradot and a Pro-Point.

Nothing scientific, i can see the difference through my own eye. I owned 3 Matchdots and sold them after trying the Micro, they're just better.

I have 3 Aimpoints and 4 Burris dot's on other guns and really like them all, but I like I stated in an earlier post when it came time to outfit the bullseye guns I went with the Matchdot II

I really like my Aimpoints but they will not get you any additional points. The fact is that I could put a Matchdot II on both my 22 & 45 bullseye guns for the price of one Micro. Or put another way $1,100 for 2 Micros verses $500 for 2 Matchdot II. This save $600 for ammo - or about 5,000 rounds of 22lr and 2-3,000 of 45acp (reloaded) to shoot which will get you to Master much faster.

I bought a BSA and lost the dot in the sun during a match.
I ended up buying an Ultradot to put on my Mark III. I liked it so much I bought another one for another pistol.
I think I paid $154 a piece.

It comes with a polarizing filter which I used for outside matches.

Yiogo

Just a note.. I know that expense is a major consideration when investing in equipment..
The new Micros have a distinct advantage, in that they can be mounted much lower in relation to the bore center line, when compared to traditional optics. They are expensive, the super low mounting options are presently custom design, further add to the cost, and are not readily available. Lowering the sight line will add points to the score.. Below are examples of a Pardini and Hammerli.
Jerry

I agree with Jerry. For a newer shooter, a low mount is an advantage as it will minimize dot movement.
Biggest thing in shooting a dot, in my opinion? Confidence. A dot makes your hold look worse than it is, and magnifies every error. If you respond to what you see, it can really screw up your triggering.

A dot gives you lots of indicators when you are shooting, that irons dont, but you need to develop a decent hold before you can really learn anything from those indicators.

I used to pay a lot of attention to the dot. Now, when i am shooting well I find myself ignoring it entirely. I look at the target, and keep the black of the target centered in the tube, ignore the dot movement, as long as it is basically in the center, and focus on my triggering.
As Chuck Holt says... Trigger trumps everything.

That said, the Aimpoint micro, and the ultra-dot match dot are both good scopes. If you shoot better with a lighter gun, and can afford it, go with the micro. If you cant afford it, the Ultradot will do fine. For bullseye you definitely want a reliable tube scope, and the Aimpoint and the Ultradot are both reliable.

I am one of those paranoid people that goes to the line, at big matches with a gun and a backup in my box for each course of fire. I can do that with ultradots. But putting an aimpoint on six guns would break the bank for me.

I may not be the best person to chime on this discussion, being that I prefer iron sights, but I have used and like the Docter sight from Germany.
Having used the standard tube style red dots, I like the Docter because it's small size and light weight does not compromise the balance and feel of the pistol.
I also like how it mounts very low to the bore line.
However, the adjustments are, or at least were, not click adjustable.

Jim

What is the advantage of getting the sight line close to the bore line? For other types of shooting, a low sight line helps when shooting over cover or at very close range. Neither of those situations in going to arise in a bullseye match.

Is it that getting the dot closer to the "fulcrum of wobble" (i.e., the shooter's wrist) helps reduce dot movement?

I imagine that one disadvantage of a low dot is that the lower the sight is mounted, the higher the arm must lift the pistol to align the dot with the eye. Lifting the pistol higher seems like it would cause more fatigue.

"I imagine that one disadvantage of a low dot is that the lower the sight is mounted, the higher the arm must lift the pistol to align the dot with the eye. Lifting the pistol higher seems like it would cause more fatigue."


Actually you lift the pistol less with any dot than you would with iron sights, but it is a matter of inches and the change in angle is insignificant when the target is fifty yards away.

You will perceive more movement in the dot, the closer the scope is to your eye. You will also see more movement with a short tube like the Aimpoint micro, than you do with a longer tube like an Ultradot. The better shooters learn to ignore the dot movement anyway and focus on their triggering.

Now, I can respect the recommendations for the ultradots.......I own a couple and they are very good red dots. matter of fact they are the best! with one exception..........

Check out the aimpoint 9000 series.... either the shorter 9000SC's or the longer 9000L's. Crisper rounder dot.

after gobs and gobs of highly scientific measurements and engineering evaluations, using a aimpoint 9000 series against a ultra dot will add exactly 0.0038 points to your score in a 900 point match.

The ultra dots are really damn good....

the aimpoint 9000's, they are really really damn good!

Regards,
Cranky

I've been using the Matchdot Ultradot as I like the 2 MOA dot and I can't see spending the money on an Aimpoint which then needs to have so much work done to it to make it work. Maybe someday down the line I'll get to see one and appreciate the difference but for now it's not holding me back.

I do appreciate the low bore line that Jerry tries to obtain with his mounts. One of the reasons (among many) that I switched to a Pardini was the very small dovetail that allowed me to machine some old dot rings to obtain a much lower mount. It's easily as low as Jerry's but at a fraction of the cost. It's so low in fact that I can actually line up the iron sites in the dots view! Ha!



Here's a shot of my first test rings. I am going to make some new ones that are a bit cleaner but I wanted to prove the concept first. It works perfectly.

Gregor