Why not a red dot?

[Cy Soto]

I do not shoot multi gun but, if I did, I would think that a red dot would be a better choice than the more widely used 1-4x or 1-6x scopes. Clearly this is not the case because no one who plays that game uses anything but the aforementioned scopes. Why is that?

[Cy Soto]

BTW, when I use the generic term 'red dot', I am referring to something like an EOtech or an Aimpoint PRO.

[alma]

Dot works great for short range stages. They can be extremely light too as opposed to my Vortex. At 1 power the better scopes do a good job of emulating the dot experience but they also give the the versatility to crank up the magnification for longer shots.

I shot irons for a long time and kept up with the scopes just fine until the range got past 75-100 yards or so and then I wasn't able to get hits as fast.

Same matches run limited divisions that allow use of irons or a basic dot but no magnification.

[rtp]

Depends on your stages.

Great for hosing stages up close, start to feel the (unmagnified) pain at 100yards on out.

We've got stages locally routinely from hose mode out to ~350yards or so.

[co-exprs]

Exactly right. Red dots are great and have their place, but low power variables are just as fast and provide considerably more flexibility, especially when the ranges extend beyond 200yds, This not only holds true in terms of raw speed, but also in the ability to see targets clearly. RDS are really designed for hitting man sized targets inside of 300yds, but we shoot at 10" plates at 300. Sometimes those 10" plates can be tough to see with the naked eye and just get more difficult when looking through glass or irons. There are a pile of arguments on every shooting forum regarding which is faster... RDS or low power variables. As an argument supporting variables... most of the fastest 3 gunners in the world are on the 3GN pro tour and most of them opt to run their scopes rather than switch to a dot, even though their courses are largely IPSC pistol style. Close in and very fast. Even in Limited division a 1x Prismatic is favored over RDS due to it's very small dot and the ability to focus. The focus gives those with questionable eye sight the ability to see targets at distance they might not otherwise be able to see clearly. These are general observations of course as there are exceptions. For instance, I really like the Prismatic over an Aimpoint, but I recently started running my Pris on my 308 and found the additional movement of the 308 made the tiny black dot hard to track. I found that the red dot in my Aimpoint is easier to track on my 308, but the dot is larger and less precise, making longer shots more problematic. I'm getting faster with irons and right now I can't tell you which is better on my 308... irons, Pris or Comp M4. I can tell you that my irons are elevation adjustable, weigh less and don't require batteries, but if targets at distance are difficult to see then irons are the most challenging to hit with. Another for instance; at one of the Pueblo Tac Rifle matches last summer, Craig Calkin (who usually shoots open) showed up with an Eotech on his rifle. I was using a 223 with my Prismatic that day. Good match up... Craig not only beat me, he was high shooter that day. He beat everyone with scopes or without and we were shooting out to 425 that day. Indian rather than arrows and Craig is good enough to be an exception to most rules of thumb. I don't often beat him.

'

[Cy Soto]

That makes a ton of sense. Let me then add a couple more questions:

1) When shooting through a scope set to 1x at targets inside of 35 yards, are you folks focused on the target (looking past the reticule) or are you focusing your eyesight on the reticule?

2) Also, is it possible to shoot with both eyes open at these shorter distances when using a scope or do you find yourselves squinting your non-dominant eye?

[alma]

1. Dot = focus on target, irons = focus on sights

2. Always open

[co-exprs]

Both eyes open, focused on the target. Most scopes with 1x have a diopter adjustment just like binoculars, so you can focus your glass eye to match your non glass eye. You generally only see a little parallax inside of 10yds and in a match... I don't even notice. In 3gun the reticle get a lot of attention and discussion. Some want lots of information with extra stadia lines for bullet drop and wind. Others are more minimalist and like a simple reticle with just enough to get the job done. In the end, it really comes down to a few simple things. 1. The glass needs to be good enough to see targets out to 600yds. 2. The reticle needs to be easy enough to see to go fast while giving you enough information to hit long targets with at least a 75% hit ratio at any distance. 3. The eye box must be forgiving enough to allow you some flexibility, as you won't always get a perfect cheek weld. If you look at the popular choices most commonly seen at matches, they all meet these important criteria, whether $300 or $3000. There are lots of other considerations for sure, but in the end they are all a balance of performance, preference, cost and compromise. FFP, SFP, 3x 4x 6x, capped or exposed turrets, daylight bright or not, mils moa or bdc, large and bulletproof construction or light weight and compact. So many options it's like trying to pick a woman.

[Stlhead]

I think if all targets where 4 MOA, 350 yards or less, and visible to the naked eye for every shooter (painted and with contrasting backers if needed) then 1x would be more competitive with the magnified optics. It is very difficult to hit targets that you can't see. A magnified optic makes it much easier to play where's Waldo with an unpainted target that seems to be hidden.

[P.E. Kelley]

I think if all targets where 4 MOA, 350 yards or less, and visible to the naked eye for every shooter (painted and with contrasting backers if needed) then 1x would be more competitive with the magnified optics. It is very difficult to hit targets that you can't see. A magnified optic makes it much easier to play where's Waldo with an unpainted target that seems to be hidden.

Simple and effective. Why doesn't it happen?

[ben b.]

Yeah ~200 yds & in, a red dot seems to work fine with a 50/200 zero, and I think a red dot is simply more fun on the CQB-range stages. Last match I brought a red dot AR to what I thought was a CQB match, and they had one stage with steel out to 245 with a cross wind. I whined beforehand about bringing my no-magnification optic but ended up with just 2 make up shots and I think it was the fastest time on that stage, so I was convinced. When the 10"-12" steel targets get out to 300 yds & farther, it is hard to see them and not fun for me.

[StealthyBlagga]

I think if all targets where 4 MOA, 350 yards or less, and visible to the naked eye for every shooter (painted and with contrasting backers if needed) then 1x would be more competitive with the magnified optics. It is very difficult to hit targets that you can't see. A magnified optic makes it much easier to play where's Waldo with an unpainted target that seems to be hidden.

Freakin' THIS ^^^^^... it's not rocket science, but a surprising number of Match Directors seem unable to get it. I'm really hoping they get it at USPSA MG Nats this year.

[Shootsgood]

I am also getting gear together so I can participate in 2 gun and 3 gun matches. I found this topic helpful and informative.

Thanks, Beth

[dcloudy777]

I use an Eotech, because they are legal in the "irons" divisions at most matches now.

This made me very happy, because it's the sight I'm very, very comfortable using (buncha bunch rounds downrange in training in my "former" life), and it's what I use on most of my "social" rifles.

Within 100-150 yards or so, it's as competitive as anything (depending on eyesight). At longer ranges, magnification is a colossal advantage.

[MetropolisLake]

I do not shoot multi gun but, if I did, I would think that a red dot would be a better choice than the more widely used 1-4x or 1-6x scopes. Clearly this is not the case because no one who plays that game uses anything but the aforementioned scopes. Why is that?

Another way of thinking about it is that a decent 1-4 or 1-6 scope can do everything that a red dot can, so if the rules for your class allow it, why wouldn't you run a variable scope so you can have the red dot functionality but still be able to better see the long distance targets? Of course some guys like the challenge of an unmagnified optic or iron sights, but personally I like magnified scopes because I'm a wuss I guess.

[thermobollocks]

Depends on your division. Lim optics/tactical/whatever generally allows one piece of glass, so you'll need something that can take you from 0 yards to whatever venue you want to shoot has available. Magnification helps, especially when you've got a 55 grain bullet, a 15 mph crosswind, and a 300+ yard target.

Lim irons, on the other hand, often permits a single unmagnified optic, and people often find red dots preferable to iron sights. I haven't actually gone down that route, though.

I can tell you, though, that it's easier by far to hit things a long way away with my MTAC, and it's no handicap at shorter ranges than a 4 MOA dot on 1x.

[co-exprs]

I do not shoot multi gun but, if I did, I would think that a red dot would be a better choice than the more widely used 1-4x or 1-6x scopes. Clearly this is not the case because no one who plays that game uses anything but the aforementioned scopes. Why is that?

Another way of thinking about it is that a decent 1-4 or 1-6 scope can do everything that a red dot can, so if the rules for your class allow it, why wouldn't you run a variable scope so you can have the red dot functionality but still be able to better see the long distance targets? Of course some guys like the challenge of an unmagnified optic or iron sights, but personally I like magnified scopes because I'm a wuss I guess.

Not wuss. The challenges in each division are simply different. With most matches under 400 and most guys shooting magnified, hits are much easier to not only make but call yourself. The learning curve is faster and higher speeds a reality. The challenges for non iron shooting come in the form of speed. People want to go fast now and irons takes a fair bit of commitment to get good at.

[Alaskapopo]

If all targets were 350 yards or less and big it would be less challenging and less fun.
Pat

[thermobollocks]

If all targets were 350 yards or less and big it would be less challenging and less fun.

Pat

Ab-so-lutely. I love having shots right on the limit of what halfway decent (but still working) guns can accomplish.

[dcloudy777]

If all targets were 350 yards or less and big it would be less challenging and less fun.

Pat

I would settle for 350 yards or less OR big.

[Alaskapopo]

I personally think targets should never be bigger than a uspsa target no matter the range I would like to see targets go out to 600

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cy Soto]

I personally think targets should never be bigger than a uspsa target no matter the range I would like to see targets go out to 600

At least around here, the problem is finding a range that goes out to that distance but also, would the .223 round have enough energy to move a target at 600 yds?

[Doug H.]

I personally think targets should never be bigger than a uspsa target no matter the range I would like to see targets go out to 600

At least around here, the problem is finding a range that goes out to that distance but also, would the .223 round have enough energy to move a target at 600 yds?

At long range you use a vibration sensor attached to strobes, works great. Had a target like this at over 1500 yards at Rocky Mountain last year and they routinely use them at 500-600 yards.

Doug

[dcloudy777]

I personally think targets should never be bigger than a uspsa target no matter the range I would like to see targets go out to 600

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I consider the USPSA target "big". A heck of a lot bigger than a 10" plate anyway.

[Alaskapopo]

It is big but I have seen some targets get bigger. I have no problem with a majority of targets being C zone steel but I like MGM flashers at 400 yards for fun.
Pat