Pictorial Comparison RTS2 vs Deltapoint Pro

[theWacoKid]

Isn't the 7.5 the triangle thing?  Other than that it's just like every other reflex sight.

[Steve RA]

Yes.  But it does need to project a triangle onto the lens instead of just a "dot".

[jkrispies]

1 hour ago, theWacoKid said:

Isn't the 7.5 the triangle thing?  Other than that it's just like every other reflex sight.

That's what I've always assumed, but when they use a term like "inscribed" then that makes me think of something like the Prismatic.  FYI, I just looked up an old Prismatic ad, and it was described as "glass-etched" so they are using two different terms.  I've just never heard of a reflex described as "inscribed" before.

[jkrispies]

4 hours ago, Steve RA said:

On the Leupold site they say it is an "inscribed" reticle but don't offer any other information.  Could be inscribed on the LED and not the actual lense.  Probably need to ask their customer service department or someone who has one.

I just sent a question to their customer service.  Will post if they answer.

[theWacoKid]

They probably call it "inscribed" because it creates (inscribes) a unique shape, in this instance a triangle, within the window.  Poor use of the word, but typical for marketing jargon versus being technically accurate.

 

Pretty sure the "creation" of the triangle is no different than the way they "create" different sized round dots.

Edited August 6, 2017 by theWacoKid

[jkrispies]

On 8/6/2017 at 3:32 PM, jkrispies said:

I just sent a question to their customer service.  Will post if they answer.

I got an answer!  To paraphrase them, the "7.5moa" refers to a dot that is "inscribed" inside the triangle.  In other words, it's as if there's a circle inside the triangle with the edges of the circle touching the center of each flat of the triangle; that inscribed circle is 7.5moa.

[jkrispies]

As an FYI, this thread got me wondering if my 8moa RTS2 was really 8moa or incorrectly advertised as such.  I finally got around to testing my pair of 8moa RTS2's.  

 

My math-fu indicates that an 8moa dot should appear to be approximately the same size as a 2 inch plate at 25 yards.  I set up this experiment in my backyard,, superimposing my dot over a 2" circle, and to my eye (and my 9yo daughter's eye), the C-More RTS2 8moa dot is indeed 8moa.  Again, I own two RTS2's and both were tested and gave the same results.  

 

The dot size was of course slightly contingent on the brightness setting (i.e., if I clicked it too low it appeared to get slightly smaller, and when I over-brightened it, it appeared to grow slightly larger) but when I had it set at the appropriate brightness level, the dot was as perfectly rounded and sized as I could expect it to be.  

 

So, in my opinion, if folks have concerns about one dot vs. another being the correctly advertised MOA, I would trust the RTS2 to be as-advertised and any dot compared side-by-side to it should be judged as if the RTS2 is the benchmark.

 

YMMV

[theWacoKid]

On 9/16/2017 at 3:11 PM, jkrispies said:

As an FYI, this thread got me wondering if my 8moa RTS2 was really 8moa or incorrectly advertised as such.  I finally got around to testing my pair of 8moa RTS2's.  

 

My math-fu indicates that an 8moa dot should appear to be approximately the same size as a 2 inch plate at 25 yards.  I set up this experiment in my backyard,, superimposing my dot over a 2" circle, and to my eye (and my 9yo daughter's eye), the C-More RTS2 8moa dot is indeed 8moa.  Again, I own two RTS2's and both were tested and gave the same results.  

 

The dot size was of course slightly contingent on the brightness setting (i.e., if I clicked it too low it appeared to get slightly smaller, and when I over-brightened it, it appeared to grow slightly larger) but when I had it set at the appropriate brightness level, the dot was as perfectly rounded and sized as I could expect it to be.  

 

So, in my opinion, if folks have concerns about one dot vs. another being the correctly advertised MOA, I would trust the RTS2 to be as-advertised and any dot compared side-by-side to it should be judged as if the RTS2 is the benchmark.

 

YMMV

 

Very nice.  Did you happen to measure how far your eye was from the glass?  This distance will change the observed size of the dot and since I haven't tested it yet I'm curious what change in distance it takes to get an observed 1 MOA size change.

Edited September 18, 2017 by theWacoKid

[jkrispies]

8 hours ago, theWacoKid said:

 

Very nice.  Did you happen to measure how far your eye was from the glass?  This distance will change the observed size of the dot and since I haven't tested it yet I'm curious what change in distance it takes to get an observed 1 MOA size change.

I did it on an AR rifle that was about 3-4" from my eye (just guessing -- whatever the distance would be mounted at the end of the receiver but before the hand rail) and off my pistol which was held at arm's length.  I had the same thought as you but I don't recall see noticeable difference. On my .22lr I normally keep the dot at the back of the receiver very close to my eye and might have seen it more then, but the dot I normally keep on my .22lr rifle is currently on the AR as a mock up so I can't test it at the moment.  

Edited September 19, 2017 by jkrispies

[jkrispies]

On 9/18/2017 at 6:56 PM, jkrispies said:

I did it on an AR rifle that was about 3-4" from my eye (just guessing -- whatever the distance would be mounted at the end of the receiver but before the hand rail) and off my pistol which was held at arm's length.  I had the same thought as you but I don't recall see noticeable difference. On my .22lr I normally keep the dot at the back of the receiver very close to my eye and might have seen it more then, but the dot I normally keep on my .22lr rifle is currently on the AR as a mock up so I can't test it at the moment.  

WacoKid, I Just did a quick measurement and the rifle distance from my eye was 7-8" and the pistol was around 2'.