Real MOA Dot Size: BEnos User Reports?

[jkrispies]

I've read (and participated in) several discussions on this site that boil down to "Name-Your-Company's optic is advertised as having an Xmoa sized dot, but it really looks more like Zmoa."  I personally find this disconcerting when I'm looking to spend hundreds of dollars on a product, perhaps sight unseen, and I have to depend on some marketing guy's version of facts which may not align with reality.  

 

Attached to this post you will find some printable MS Word templates that can be used to measure dot sizes ranging from 1moa to 12moa with a few odd sizes (read: Trijicon) thrown in for good measure.  And, yes, for the perfectionists in the audience I created these templates defining "MOA" as 1 inch at 100 yards and not 1.047 inches.  Please forgive my attempt at simplicity... 

 

INSTRUCTIONS:  Simply print the templates, set them up at 25 yards, and place your bench rested dot over the various templates-- whichever template fits your dot, that's your dot's MOA.

 

I'm hoping that perhaps we can create a somewhat scientifically based verification system of dot MOA sizes which can be referenced prior to making a purchase.  Bear in mind that this is still somewhat subjective as our eyes are all different, and the dots may grow or shrink based on the brightness setting of the dot-- if a dot you own is already listed as tested in this thread, I'd still invite you to test it anyway to see if your results match the results of others.  I also think it would be helpful if people who have multiple versions of the same optic could measure all of their samples to provide an idea of consistency/quality control of the various products.

 

Thanks,

J 

 

EDIT TO ADD:  Not the best instructional photo, but the best I could do with a cell phone...

 

 

MOA Test Dots.docx

Edited January 15, 2018 by jkrispies

[jkrispies]

And I'll start it off:

• 6moa C-More RTS2:  This appears to me to be dead-on at 6moa
• 8moa C-More RTS2:  This appears to me to be slightly smaller than 8moa, but close, maybe around 7.5moa.  I have two of these, and they were consistent in size.
• 3.25moa Trijicon RMR RM06:  This appears to me to fall somewhere between 5 and 6moa... I think closer to 6.  I also have two of these, and I measured them both on the auto setting, with both delivering consistent results.  I also did a side-by-side to my 6moa C-More RTS2, and it appears only slightly smaller than the C-More.

Edited January 15, 2018 by jkrispies

[Maximis228]

This honestly is making things much harder, especially for newer shooters. The only readily used optic (For USPSA/IPSC Open and CO) that has a weird label is the 2.5 MOA Delta Point Pro. (2.5 looks like 6 MOA)

Edited January 15, 2018 by Maximis228

[jkrispies]

3 minutes ago, Maximis228 said:

This honestly is making things much harder, especially for newer shooters. The only readily used optic (For USPSA/IPSC Open and CO) that has a weird label is the 2.5 MOA Delta Point Pro. (2.5 looks like 6 MOA)

From my testing, the RMR is wrong as well, which is used by many Carry Optics shooters.

[Maximis228]

But its not out of the realm of sizing comparing to others which is why I say its not a big deal.

[jkrispies]

1 minute ago, Maximis228 said:

But its not out of the realm of sizing comparing to others which is why I say its not a big deal.

Sorry, I have to politely disagree with you.  

 

If Leupold advertises 2.5moa, and it looks like 6moa (according to your estimation-- not actually measured) then that's more than double off.  How is that not a big deal?  The same is true of the RMR per my testing.  

 

On OpticsPlanet right now, the DeltaPoint Pro is selling for $400 and the Trijicon RMR is selling for $490-$520.  I can't stand the idea of putting out that much of my hard-earned money for a product that's "only" 2x off on its spec numbers!!!  In the case of the Trijicon, their "3.25moa" dot is actually very nearly 6moa... so what the heck would I be getting if I purchased their 6.5moa version, expecting a 6.5moa dot?  And how upset would I be if I learned too late that I'd have been happy purchasing their mis-labeled 3.25moa version because that has the dot size I really wanted?  

 

I don't find this to be an acceptable situation in any way, shape, or form, but since I can't control how the manufacturers measure and label their products, then I don't see a better solution than to circumvent their numbers through real data testing by end users.  Hence, this thread.

[Maximis228]

First off... DPPs are for sale on amazon right now for $375, free shipping, no sales tax. I would not buy from optics plant (I turned down a job offer from there as its a shitshow), but that's a whole different story.

 

The changes you made to scale them actually don't change where they rank in size outside of the delta point pro. Thats what im saying. There are a ton of other threads detailing this info. It might be best to make a chart with the info you have found and post it for others. Vs starting a thread where you once again will need to scroll and search for the answer.

[jkrispies]

7 minutes ago, Maximis228 said:

First off... DPPs are for sale on amazon right now for $375, free shipping, no sales tax. I would not buy from optics plant (I turned down a job offer from there as its a shitshow), but that's a whole different story.

 

The changes you made to scale them actually don't change where they rank in size outside of the delta point pro. Thats what im saying. There are a ton of other threads detailing this info. It might be best to make a chart with the info you have found and post it for others. Vs starting a thread where you once again will need to scroll and search for the answer.

Okay, so it’s safe to say that you won’t be measuring anything for this thread.  Perhaps if enough others respond with data standardized with the use of the templates then I will make a spreadsheet of results so that scrolling is not necessary.  Without a standardized testing method, however, there’s no point because the spreadsheet will be composed of a bunch of “I feel like it’s 6moa” when the reported number was simply pulled out of the air.  

[tomjerry1]

I'm with you, truth in advertising. Next time I'm at the range, I'll check my CMore and buddies Burris.

[zzt]

I have three DPPs in 2.5 MOA.  All are true 2.5 MOA if you ignore the glow around a too bright setting.  All three show a solid red core at any setting.  As the brightness is increased, the bloom around the dot increases.  I can understand why some say it is 5 or 6 MOA, but I can clearly see the difference between the dot and the bloom at any setting.

[SlvrDragon50]

3 hours ago, zzt said:

I have three DPPs in 2.5 MOA.  All are true 2.5 MOA if you ignore the glow around a too bright setting.  All three show a solid red core at any setting.  As the brightness is increased, the bloom around the dot increases.  I can understand why some say it is 5 or 6 MOA, but I can clearly see the difference between the dot and the bloom at any setting.

This was my concern. How are you going to handle bloom? And peoples' astigmatism that might cause additional blurriness?

[zzt]

You handle the bloom by turning the brightness down.  There is no rule that says you have to keep it at max brightness all the time.  You only have to see the dot, not have it dazzle you.  Every other make of reflex sight I own does the same thing if you have it too bright.  If you have astigmatism, have it corrected in your shooting glasses.  That's exactly what I do for my ANSI spec shooting glasses.

[jkrispies]

22 hours ago, tomjerry1 said:

I'm with you, truth in advertising. Next time I'm at the range, I'll check my CMore and buddies Burris.

[Tampa-XD45]

On 1/15/2018 at 4:28 PM, jkrispies said:

Okay, so it’s safe to say that you won’t be measuring anything for this thread.  Perhaps if enough others respond with data standardized with the use of the templates then I will make a spreadsheet of results so that scrolling is not necessary.  Without a standardized testing method, however, there’s no point because the spreadsheet will be composed of a bunch of “I feel like it’s 6moa” when the reported number was simply pulled out of the air.  

J - thanks for performing the comparison. I look forward to viewing the results.

[Steve RA]

Very nice, thank you for the effort !   

[SlvrDragon50]

20 hours ago, zzt said:

You handle the bloom by turning the brightness down.  There is no rule that says you have to keep it at max brightness all the time.  You only have to see the dot, not have it dazzle you.  Every other make of reflex sight I own does the same thing if you have it too bright.  If you have astigmatism, have it corrected in your shooting glasses.  That's exactly what I do for my ANSI spec shooting glasses.

I was referring to the real moa dot size test. People have different subjective opinions of acceptable bloom and and "real" moa dot size test will be subject to this.

[jkrispies]

1 hour ago, SlvrDragon50 said:

I was referring to the real moa dot size test. People have different subjective opinions of acceptable bloom and and "real" moa dot size test will be subject to this.

 I think the best answer is just to test it and clearly give us your results with interpretation at the various settings. I’m thinking that if I make the spreadsheet, I can include columns in there along the lines of “actual.dot size at factory brightness”, versus “bloom size at usable brightness”.   I would define “factory brightness” to mean the proper setting (probably low) to get the sharpest correctly sized dot possible   

 

For instance, I used to have a TRS25 that was advertised at something like a 3moa, and probably was when dialed down to an unusably low brightness setting for all but slow fire target shooting, but bloomed out larger when cranked up to top brightness to get it close enough for usable speed shooting. On the flip side, I’ve found RTS2’s to be appropriately bright for speed shooting while also being at what I’d call factory setting for correct dot size.  In the case of the RTS2, the manufacturer has hit the sweet spot in terms of meshing dot bloom mitigation at usable brightness, whereas the TRS25 missed the mark.  I hope that makes sense.

 

Thinking it through like that, it makes me want to go back and retest my Trijicon RM06’s to see how they line up along those lines...

Edited February 22, 2018 by jkrispies