Variable Scope vs Red Dot + Magnifier

[Graham Smith]

Just thinking out loud here. I got to wondering the other day if a Red Dot with a flip out magnifier might not be a better choice for three gun than a variable scope.

In general, I find a red dot easier to use than a scope at 1x and unless the distances get really long, the difference between the 4x scope and the 3x magnifier shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Second, now that there is a new division that allows for non-magnified red dots, a person could switch between divisions easier simply by adding a magnifier than by switching between a scope and a red dot.

IOW, a good variable scope is still going to be less than a good red dot and a magnifier but the latter would be more versatile.

[abn-rgr]

I think if a red dot and magnifier were a better choice, more people would be using them. To me the dot on an EOtech or Aimpoint is way too big (3-4 MOA) to shoot precisely at the long distances we see in matches now.

[Graham Smith]

I think if a red dot and magnifier were a better choice, more people would be using them. To me the dot on an EOtech or Aimpoint is way too big (3-4 MOA) to shoot precisely at the long distances we see in matches now.

Several Aimpoints come as a 2 MOA and the EOtech center dot is 1 MOA. As to why they aren't used more, I assumed that has to do with cost / benefit. The only thing that got me thinking along this line was that the red dot could now be used in two divisions, one with and one without a magnifier.

[caspian guy]

I don't think it could be cost vs benefit (at least not completely ). Many illuminated variables are as expensive or more expensive than dots plus a magnifier.

[smokshwn]

Just like every other multi tasking object it winds up doing a less than stellar job in all categories.

For 3 gun there is absolutely nothing that a RDS w/Magnifier can do that several 1-4, 1-6, variables don't do better.

[joshua79109]

I prefer the RDS with magnifier to the 1-4, but I don't have much time on the 1-4 yet and so far the only one I have is the Millett DMS-1. So far the 1-4 seems slower (for me) up close and it's a little harder to see with both eyes open on 1x. For the distances I shoot 5.56X45/223 the RDS is perfect (usually under 300 yards and out to 400 a few times).

This area seems to be one that splits between 3 gun and personal protection. In the small amount I see there is some crossover each way. I've done a lot more on the personal protection side than the 3 gun side. At the carbine classes I've been to I see far more RDS and iron sights than 1-4s. For 3 gun stuff it seems that the 1-4 is much more popular.

I lean towards the personal protection training and believe the RDS is stronger there. I understand that this site is geared towards sport and many folks that lean that way prefer the 1-4.

I've also tried the 1-4 a few times to hunt coyotes and found it to be slower (for me) than the RDS - when I get a chance at more than one coyote as the 2nd - 3rd coyote is moving pretty good at that point.

[mpeltier]

I prefer the RDS with magnifier to the 1-4, but I don't have much time on the 1-4 yet and so far the only one I have is the Millett DMS-1. So far the 1-4 seems slower (for me) up close and it's a little harder to see with both eyes open on 1x. For the distances I shoot 5.56X45/223 the RDS is perfect (usually under 300 yards and out to 400 a few times).

This area seems to be one that splits between 3 gun and personal protection. In the small amount I see there is some crossover each way. I've done a lot more on the personal protection side than the 3 gun side. At the carbine classes I've been to I see far more RDS and iron sights than 1-4s. For 3 gun stuff it seems that the 1-4 is much more popular.

I lean towards the personal protection training and believe the RDS is stronger there. I understand that this site is geared towards sport and many folks that lean that way prefer the 1-4.

I've also tried the 1-4 a few times to hunt coyotes and found it to be slower (for me) than the RDS - when I get a chance at more than one coyote as the 2nd - 3rd coyote is moving pretty good at that point.

The Millett is not a good scope to be judged against a high quality RDS. For a defensive gun the RDS is more popular probably due to its size,ruggedness, and percieved durability vs a 1-4 scope, rather than it actually bieng a better sighting system in actual use.

For someone who wishes to shoot both Tac-optic and Limited, the versatility may have some merrit if they already have the RDS and magnifier, but If I already had a RDS and wanted to also play in Tac-Optic, I would forego the magnifier and go strait to a decent 1-4. Switching between the two with a good QD mount is no more difficult than taking off the Magnifier.

I experimented for a while with a Aimpoint ML2 (2moa dot) and Aimpoint magnifier, both with LaRue mounts and comparing them with both a Meopta w/K dot and a Trijicon TR24, also in laRue mounts. My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device. The 1-4 was much better at distance. Up close the aimpoint was good, better with the magnifier removed, and equal to but no better than the 1-4's. With the magnifier, swung out of the way on the pivot mount, it really messed with my periferal vision, which is not a good thing to me. The 1-4 does not have that issue and has a tremendous field of view compared to the aimpoint, without distracting your periferal vision.

as someone mentioned in an earlier post, the RDS magnifier combo does not do anything a quality 1-4 doesn't do better.

[Graham Smith]

My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device.

Thanks. That helps a lot. I know several people who use a +3.5 ACOG for both close and distance but I've tried and it just doesn't work with my f*d up eyes.

[joshua79109]

I prefer the RDS with magnifier to the 1-4, but I don't have much time on the 1-4 yet and so far the only one I have is the Millett DMS-1. So far the 1-4 seems slower (for me) up close and it's a little harder to see with both eyes open on 1x. For the distances I shoot 5.56X45/223 the RDS is perfect (usually under 300 yards and out to 400 a few times).

This area seems to be one that splits between 3 gun and personal protection. In the small amount I see there is some crossover each way. I've done a lot more on the personal protection side than the 3 gun side. At the carbine classes I've been to I see far more RDS and iron sights than 1-4s. For 3 gun stuff it seems that the 1-4 is much more popular.

I lean towards the personal protection training and believe the RDS is stronger there. I understand that this site is geared towards sport and many folks that lean that way prefer the 1-4.

I've also tried the 1-4 a few times to hunt coyotes and found it to be slower (for me) than the RDS - when I get a chance at more than one coyote as the 2nd - 3rd coyote is moving pretty good at that point.

The Millett is not a good scope to be judged against a high quality RDS. For a defensive gun the RDS is more popular probably due to its size,ruggedness, and percieved durability vs a 1-4 scope, rather than it actually bieng a better sighting system in actual use.

For someone who wishes to shoot both Tac-optic and Limited, the versatility may have some merrit if they already have the RDS and magnifier, but If I already had a RDS and wanted to also play in Tac-Optic, I would forego the magnifier and go strait to a decent 1-4. Switching between the two with a good QD mount is no more difficult than taking off the Magnifier.

I experimented for a while with a Aimpoint ML2 (2moa dot) and Aimpoint magnifier, both with LaRue mounts and comparing them with both a Meopta w/K dot and a Trijicon TR24, also in laRue mounts. My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device. The 1-4 was much better at distance. Up close the aimpoint was good, better with the magnifier removed, and equal to but no better than the 1-4's. With the magnifier, swung out of the way on the pivot mount, it really messed with my periferal vision, which is not a good thing to me. The 1-4 does not have that issue and has a tremendous field of view compared to the aimpoint, without distracting your periferal vision.

as someone mentioned in an earlier post, the RDS magnifier combo does not do anything a quality 1-4 doesn't do better.

I'm sure you're right about the Millett and I just thought for the price it was worth a try.

As far as why the RDS is more popular for personal protection you've missed the boat in my opinion. The reasons I believe folks on the personal protection side gravitate to something like the Aimpoint.

- Battery Life

- Durability

- Reliability

- Unlimited eye relief and unlimited field of view - excellent when sweaty or bloody

- Co-Witness

- Simple - good when under the pressures of someone shooting at you

- Fast target acquisition

- Very well proven - not just perceived

- Excellent in low light

While the 1-4 does some of those things it does not do all of those things.

As far as accuracy with the magnifier. I get excellent groups out to 300 yards regularly and have pushed it to 400 yards. Most of my shots are under 150-200 yards and this set up serves me well. If most of my shots were over 150 yards I'd reconsider.

For some folks the line between the two will be close while for others it is very far apart. Lots of room for opinion here.

I won't pretend to be able to speak for the previous post, but his post says "for 3 gun" when referring to the 1-4 vs RDS with magnifier

My overall point was that folks on the 3 gun side seem to gravitate to the 1-4 while folks on the personal protection side go towards the RDS or irons. So, for some the 1-4 will do everything the RDS will, for others that's simply not true. I believe it's just opinion and seems to be separated some by the intended use. I'm sure that the one that each individual is most trained on is the best for that person most of the time.

[carlosa]

I run a eotech magnifier combo.

The main issue i have with It is that The magnifier will sometimes flip up while shaking or manipulating the rifle.

That can be a buzz kill while in the middle of a hose fest

The second is that depending on your eyes the dot can split into two dots or smear side ways. I have this problem my self but I know it's a problem with my eyes.

So try before you buy is a must!!

If your going to try the eotech I would also get the 223 ballistic reticle.

[StealthyBlagga]

I run a Meopta K-Dot. In my opinion, on 1x power it is as fast as my Aimpoint ML2 for close-range hoser stages. At ranges beyond 100yds the variable optic starts to show its strength, of course. I actually prefer a continuously variable scope over a fixed power magnifier (or switchable 1x/4x optic like the ELCAN) because you can select the optimal magnification for each situation; I have encountered stages where running at 2x power was optimal in terms of target acquisition (4x was too strong).

For a gunfight, there is no question that an Aimpoint is the better choice, but for 3-gunning Tac Scope division, the right 1-4x variable has the edge.

[mpeltier]

I prefer the RDS with magnifier to the 1-4, but I don't have much time on the 1-4 yet and so far the only one I have is the Millett DMS-1. So far the 1-4 seems slower (for me) up close and it's a little harder to see with both eyes open on 1x. For the distances I shoot 5.56X45/223 the RDS is perfect (usually under 300 yards and out to 400 a few times).

This area seems to be one that splits between 3 gun and personal protection. In the small amount I see there is some crossover each way. I've done a lot more on the personal protection side than the 3 gun side. At the carbine classes I've been to I see far more RDS and iron sights than 1-4s. For 3 gun stuff it seems that the 1-4 is much more popular.

I lean towards the personal protection training and believe the RDS is stronger there. I understand that this site is geared towards sport and many folks that lean that way prefer the 1-4.

I've also tried the 1-4 a few times to hunt coyotes and found it to be slower (for me) than the RDS - when I get a chance at more than one coyote as the 2nd - 3rd coyote is moving pretty good at that point.

The Millett is not a good scope to be judged against a high quality RDS. For a defensive gun the RDS is more popular probably due to its size,ruggedness, and percieved durability vs a 1-4 scope, rather than it actually bieng a better sighting system in actual use.

For someone who wishes to shoot both Tac-optic and Limited, the versatility may have some merrit if they already have the RDS and magnifier, but If I already had a RDS and wanted to also play in Tac-Optic, I would forego the magnifier and go strait to a decent 1-4. Switching between the two with a good QD mount is no more difficult than taking off the Magnifier.

I experimented for a while with a Aimpoint ML2 (2moa dot) and Aimpoint magnifier, both with LaRue mounts and comparing them with both a Meopta w/K dot and a Trijicon TR24, also in laRue mounts. My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device. The 1-4 was much better at distance. Up close the aimpoint was good, better with the magnifier removed, and equal to but no better than the 1-4's. With the magnifier, swung out of the way on the pivot mount, it really messed with my periferal vision, which is not a good thing to me. The 1-4 does not have that issue and has a tremendous field of view compared to the aimpoint, without distracting your periferal vision.

as someone mentioned in an earlier post, the RDS magnifier combo does not do anything a quality 1-4 doesn't do better.

I'm sure you're right about the Millett and I just thought for the price it was worth a try.

As far as why the RDS is more popular for personal protection you've missed the boat in my opinion. The reasons I believe folks on the personal protection side gravitate to something like the Aimpoint.

- Battery Life

- Durability

- Reliability

- Unlimited eye relief and unlimited field of view - excellent when sweaty or bloody

- Co-Witness

- Simple - good when under the pressures of someone shooting at you

- Fast target acquisition

- Very well proven - not just perceived

- Excellent in low light

While the 1-4 does some of those things it does not do all of those things.

As far as accuracy with the magnifier. I get excellent groups out to 300 yards regularly and have pushed it to 400 yards. Most of my shots are under 150-200 yards and this set up serves me well. If most of my shots were over 150 yards I'd reconsider.

For some folks the line between the two will be close while for others it is very far apart. Lots of room for opinion here.

I won't pretend to be able to speak for the previous post, but his post says "for 3 gun" when referring to the 1-4 vs RDS with magnifier

My overall point was that folks on the 3 gun side seem to gravitate to the 1-4 while folks on the personal protection side go towards the RDS or irons. So, for some the 1-4 will do everything the RDS will, for others that's simply not true. I believe it's just opinion and seems to be separated some by the intended use. I'm sure that the one that each individual is most trained on is the best for that person most of the time.

I did not miss your point, My post was from a 3-gun competition aspect, as that is what the OP was enquiring about, I am sure your opinion is important to someone who might ask regarding a sighting device for your purposes (personal defense), perhaps you could start a thread to that affect.

I do wish the competition would all switch to the RDS/magnifier combo.

[joshua79109]

I prefer the RDS with magnifier to the 1-4, but I don't have much time on the 1-4 yet and so far the only one I have is the Millett DMS-1. So far the 1-4 seems slower (for me) up close and it's a little harder to see with both eyes open on 1x. For the distances I shoot 5.56X45/223 the RDS is perfect (usually under 300 yards and out to 400 a few times).

This area seems to be one that splits between 3 gun and personal protection. In the small amount I see there is some crossover each way. I've done a lot more on the personal protection side than the 3 gun side. At the carbine classes I've been to I see far more RDS and iron sights than 1-4s. For 3 gun stuff it seems that the 1-4 is much more popular.

I lean towards the personal protection training and believe the RDS is stronger there. I understand that this site is geared towards sport and many folks that lean that way prefer the 1-4.

I've also tried the 1-4 a few times to hunt coyotes and found it to be slower (for me) than the RDS - when I get a chance at more than one coyote as the 2nd - 3rd coyote is moving pretty good at that point.

The Millett is not a good scope to be judged against a high quality RDS. For a defensive gun the RDS is more popular probably due to its size,ruggedness, and percieved durability vs a 1-4 scope, rather than it actually bieng a better sighting system in actual use.

For someone who wishes to shoot both Tac-optic and Limited, the versatility may have some merrit if they already have the RDS and magnifier, but If I already had a RDS and wanted to also play in Tac-Optic, I would forego the magnifier and go strait to a decent 1-4. Switching between the two with a good QD mount is no more difficult than taking off the Magnifier.

I experimented for a while with a Aimpoint ML2 (2moa dot) and Aimpoint magnifier, both with LaRue mounts and comparing them with both a Meopta w/K dot and a Trijicon TR24, also in laRue mounts. My conclusion after several months and lots of ammo was the magnifier was a good idea for target ID, but really sucked as a long range aiming device. The 1-4 was much better at distance. Up close the aimpoint was good, better with the magnifier removed, and equal to but no better than the 1-4's. With the magnifier, swung out of the way on the pivot mount, it really messed with my periferal vision, which is not a good thing to me. The 1-4 does not have that issue and has a tremendous field of view compared to the aimpoint, without distracting your periferal vision.

as someone mentioned in an earlier post, the RDS magnifier combo does not do anything a quality 1-4 doesn't do better.

I'm sure you're right about the Millett and I just thought for the price it was worth a try.

As far as why the RDS is more popular for personal protection you've missed the boat in my opinion. The reasons I believe folks on the personal protection side gravitate to something like the Aimpoint.

- Battery Life

- Durability

- Reliability

- Unlimited eye relief and unlimited field of view - excellent when sweaty or bloody

- Co-Witness

- Simple - good when under the pressures of someone shooting at you

- Fast target acquisition

- Very well proven - not just perceived

- Excellent in low light

While the 1-4 does some of those things it does not do all of those things.

As far as accuracy with the magnifier. I get excellent groups out to 300 yards regularly and have pushed it to 400 yards. Most of my shots are under 150-200 yards and this set up serves me well. If most of my shots were over 150 yards I'd reconsider.

For some folks the line between the two will be close while for others it is very far apart. Lots of room for opinion here.

I won't pretend to be able to speak for the previous post, but his post says "for 3 gun" when referring to the 1-4 vs RDS with magnifier

My overall point was that folks on the 3 gun side seem to gravitate to the 1-4 while folks on the personal protection side go towards the RDS or irons. So, for some the 1-4 will do everything the RDS will, for others that's simply not true. I believe it's just opinion and seems to be separated some by the intended use. I'm sure that the one that each individual is most trained on is the best for that person most of the time.

I did not miss your point, My post was from a 3-gun competition aspect, as that is what the OP was enquiring about, I am sure your opinion is important to someone who might ask regarding a sighting device for your purposes (personal defense), perhaps you could start a thread to that affect.

I do wish the competition would all switch to the RDS/magnifier combo.

It doesn't appear as though you got the point in your response to my post. It appears as though you were attempting to argue against my point (that you now say is not even relevant to the op - so why add to the confusion if you're correct).

My answer to the op was intended only to show the separation, not to argue one against the other. I made no such attempt until you posted up some inaccurate information about the RDS.

It now seems that you would like to make it look like I'm off target by saying perhaps I should start a thread, well - no thanks. I stated in my original post that I understand this site is geared towards 3 gun and qualified my statement with that. As far as you stating what my purposes are, you seemed to miss a few. For my purposes the RDS serves very well for 3 gun, personal protection, and predator hunting.

So to clarify, I like the RDS for 3 gun (as well as other things). If I had to pick only one sort of training from now on it would be personal protection as opposed to 3 gun and that is a lot of the reason I'd choose the RDS over the 1-4. Luckily I don't have to pick one style, so I pick the RDS and use it across the board, just because I like it more and I'm better with it. I'm nowhere near the top of the food chain in this sport, so I'm not terribly concerned with where using a good 1-4 might take my game as compared to the RDS. There are a good number of shooters like me out here, they just might not show up on a site like this. I'm much more likely to shoot irons in this sport than a good 1-4.

And I'm not sure what cheers means to you, but in good spirit -

[Jin]

I am on the fence also between the two...and what i can recommend is to try both out and make the decision based on your preferences. When i say try them both out...look through the optics at the various distances you are planning to shoot at. when you get a chance to test out a 1-4X for example, try walking while keeping your reticle on target. i do not have any 3 gun experience with a varible scope, but I am going that route because of my eyesite.

I just started 3 gun; and having been using my 2 MOA aimpoint (i'm a die hard fan of red dots). I wanted to run 3 gun with my aimpoint + a magnifier, but it seems the aimpoint magnifier is the way to go. But, I'm not going to drop $500 until I can test it out; hopefully i will run into someone at the range sooner or later.

In the meantime, I picked up a TR24G...which I did try out prior to purchase, and it worked well to aid my bad eyes at medium distances (200-300 yards). but, my main concern is if i will be able to utilize the 1X at speed (i have a match this weekend). i have been practicing looking beyond the scope and not though it...and so far it seems pretty user friendly because of the big bright TR24 triangle. we'll see how it works out for me in a couple days.

for the topic of personal protection, I will fall back on the aimpoint. as an inexperienced user...i suspect if i was on the move, and shooting at something on the move, a red dot will be much easier to use.

[mpeltier]

My appologies Joshua, I did not mean to ruffle your feathers. I am certain the OP has found your summations most useful.

I was not disagreeing with you, nor attemting to be argumentative. If I came across that way, it was not intentional. The only part of your posting I was refering to (in my very first paragraph) was your addmited lack of experiance with 1-4 scopes (and total lack of experiance with any of quality). All other points I was making were directed solely to the OP.

Lets keep this on track to the OP's original questions, bantering back and forth helps no one.

[Graham Smith]

Since I am the OP, I was interested in this for 3 gun not for any kind of "tactical" use. It just so happens that I'm interested in both because I haven't started 3-gun yet but have shot some "matches" where a red dot was the better choice and some where a scope was called for.

From what's been said, it seems prudent to keep doing it the way I am doing it rather than trying to add a magnifier to my red-dot. The cost benefit just isn't there for me.

BTW, just one point, one of the things I like about a red-dot over a variable scope is that my head and body alignment are virtually a non-issue with a red dot. I can probably shoot as well or better at speed at 200yds with a red dot than I can with a scope as long as the target is something like a 12" steel.

[Alaskapopo]

The only time when I have found a red dot easier to use than my Swarovski 1-6 scope is when I ame shooting akward positions like support side shoulder. (been working on that skill a lot lately to make up for sucking at it so bad at Larue) . With the dot I can always shoot but with the scope with my left side I have a hard time maintaining the right eye relief on my left side especially when I am shooting from kneeling. When I practice with my .22 lr training rifle which has a dot its much easier. I still have a lot of work to do on my left side.

Pat

[kellyn]

Excellent point about the fact that you can easily go back and forth between our new 1X power division and Tac scope. And I have been to a FEW matches wherein a red dot was the way to go as the ranges were short BUT I don't see red dots and magnifiers knocking variables off their perch anytime soon. Variables often have vastly more versatile reticles and are 95-99% as effective for close range shooting as red dots. The red dot with magnifier is ok for distance shots but I don't think that they are quite as effective for longer shots as the variables.

[SinistralRifleman]

BTW, just one point, one of the things I like about a red-dot over a variable scope is that my head and body alignment are virtually a non-issue with a red dot. I can probably shoot as well or better at speed at 200yds with a red dot than I can with a scope as long as the target is something like a 12" steel.

The only time when I have found a red dot easier to use than my Swarovski 1-6 scope is when I ame shooting akward positions like support side shoulder...

There is the key, red dots have a distinct advantage over anything with limited eye relief when shooting from less than ideal positions.

One advantage I see to the Dot + Magnifier set up is that I only need one magnifier and I can jump it between guns equipped with dots without needing to rezero anything. As someone mentioned you can also now take the magnifier on and off and be relatively effective in several divisions now.

Edited September 10, 2010 by SinistralRifleman

[kellyn]

That is very true but those are not usually commonly encountered shots unless Kyle Lamb or Greg Coker or the ACTS boys are involved in the match.

[Alaskapopo]

That is very true but those are not usually commonly encountered shots unless Kyle Lamb or Greg Coker or the ACTS boys are involved in the match.

How common are akward position shots in major three gun matches. My first major match was Larue and the akward shooting positions were a struggling point for me. The few run and gun stages they had I actually did ok on like the Jungle run (stage 7) but the ones where you have to curl up into a ball and shoot left handed killed me. Is this a common thing in major matches or just a few like Larue's.

Pat

[Cold Absolute Zero]

I'm a huge fan of RDS, aimpoints in specific. However I shot a friends AR w/ an Aimpoint and aimpoint 4x magnifier and was not as impressed as I thought I would be. It is attractive in that it does provide added benefits at range and you don't have to rezero the rifle but I felt the magnifier made the rifle cumbersome, I didn't like the flip mount he had. With that said, I didn't get to run and gun with the setup but from the brief time that I spent with it I didn't feel that the cost $$$ and weight was worth the advantages. I would much rather invest in an ACOG or good variable scope, just my .02

CAZ

[Alaskapopo]

I'm a huge fan of RDS, aimpoints in specific. However I shot a friends AR w/ an Aimpoint and aimpoint 4x magnifier and was not as impressed as I thought I would be. It is attractive in that it does provide added benefits at range and you don't have to rezero the rifle but I felt the magnifier made the rifle cumbersome, I didn't like the flip mount he had. With that said, I didn't get to run and gun with the setup but from the brief time that I spent with it I didn't feel that the cost $$$ and weight was worth the advantages. I would much rather invest in an ACOG or good variable scope, just my .02

CAZ

Are you sure it was an Aimpoint magnifier as they only make a 3x brand aimpoint Magnifier. Eotech makes a 3 and 4x magnfier.

[Cold Absolute Zero]

I'm a huge fan of RDS, aimpoints in specific. However I shot a friends AR w/ an Aimpoint and aimpoint 4x magnifier and was not as impressed as I thought I would be. It is attractive in that it does provide added benefits at range and you don't have to rezero the rifle but I felt the magnifier made the rifle cumbersome, I didn't like the flip mount he had. With that said, I didn't get to run and gun with the setup but from the brief time that I spent with it I didn't feel that the cost $$$ and weight was worth the advantages. I would much rather invest in an ACOG or good variable scope, just my .02

CAZ

Are you sure it was an Aimpoint magnifier as they only make a 3x brand aimpoint Magnifier. Eotech makes a 3 and 4x magnfier.

You're right, my mistake. it was the 3x version, the one that kind of resembles a pineapple grenade.

[Graham Smith]

Eotech makes a 3 and 4x magnfier.

Eotech now only has a 3x magnifier with a model number of G23. It is supposed to be optically superior to prior versions.