TargetTalk

I switched from an Aimpoint ML2 to a Micro and the dot on the Micro appears as three distinct dots - like a Micky Mouse head. I do not have the problem with the older, larger ML2. Is this related to my eyeglass prescription and/or astigmatism?

shadow wrote:I switched from an Aimpoint ML2 to a Micro and the dot on the Micro appears as three distinct dots - like a Micky Mouse head. I do not have the problem with the older, larger ML2. Is this related to my eyeglass prescription and/or astigmatism?

Look through the sight while holding your head steady and slowly rotating the sight. If Mickey Mouse rotates with the sight, then the problem is in the sight. If Mickey stays steady, the problem is with your eye and/or your glasses.

Fred
That is very interesting, I never knew that.
With my shooting glasses with an extreme astigmatism correction, I see a center dot and 2 lines below it. (Without glasses it is way worse). I have 4 ultradots and all look the same.
I am resigned to using the top dot as my aiming point. My eye doctor says it's the best I can expect.

I was working the air gun range at the NRA convention 2 weeks ago, in Nashville.
Pyramid Air Guns was running the range, and they put red dots on most of the rifles and pistols.
They used the "Hawke Sport Optics Red Dot Sight, 5 MOA" you can see it on their site.
They sell this sight for $44.95 retail. Extremely cheap.
I looked through every one with my shooting glasses, since it was the only one with safety glass.
Every scope had a perfectly round dot. With 3 days of extreme use, they held up very well.
I had estimated each one was fired 5,000 times in the 3 days.

My question is, is there more than one type of dot system?

Trooperjake wrote:Fred
That is very interesting, I never knew that.
With my shooting glasses with an extreme astigmatism correction, I see a center dot and 2 lines below it. (Without glasses it is way worse). I have 4 ultradots and all look the same.
I am resigned to using the top dot as my aiming point. My eye doctor says it's the best I can expect.

I was working the air gun range at the NRA convention 2 weeks ago, in Nashville.
Pyramid Air Guns was running the range, and they put red dots on most of the rifles and pistols.
They used the "Hawke Sport Optics Red Dot Sight, 5 MOA" you can see it on their site.
They sell this sight for $44.95 retail. Extremely cheap.
I looked through every one with my shooting glasses, since it was the only one with safety glass.
Every scope had a perfectly round dot. With 3 days of extreme use, they held up very well.
I had estimated each one was fired 5,000 times in the 3 days.

My question is, is there more than one type of dot system?

Not sure what you are asking here. Almost any dot will work well enough on a bullseye gun if it is frame mounted and not on a moving slide.

As far as the dot is concerned (and what you see). There are two schools of thought. The first is Brian Zins. He says look at the target, and not the dot. Turn it down enough so it does not catch your eye.

The second school of thought is to make the dot big enough and bright enough so you don't look at the target.

I don't care how big the dot is, I can guarantee if you pull the trigger smoothly without getting your hand involved or flipping your wrist, if that big bold dot is in the center of the scope, your shot will be a ten.
The bull can actually be a distraction. Because the perfectionist in all of us, wants to center that dot on the target, and often in order to do that, we either move our wrist, or hesitate on the trigger.

My best slow fire target at Camp Perry was shot in the pouring rain, when I could not even see the target. I had no choice but to center the dot, and pull the trigger. Worked out 8 times. I had two bad shots when I lost confidence and hesitated.

I have the Comp ML2 and have used it for 6 years. Like you, I find it produces a consistent round dot. Many other red dot sights appear square, or irregular to my eyes: Matchdot's for example project a much larger dot than the stated size and are oddly shaped, to me. In my case I have had LASIK and I believe the resurfacing of the eye effects how certain wavelengths of light are perceived. Perhaps, in your case, the Micro's LED wavelength is sufficiently different so as to change how it is perceived, by you.

Isabel1130 wrote: There are two schools of thought. The first is Brian Zins. He says look at the target, and not the dot. The second school of thought is to make the dot big enough and bright enough so you don't look at the target.

It is hard to commit to any one of these theories. The whole debate appears rather moot. The reason for looking at the front sight is the human eye's inability to focus at two distances (1 and 25/50 yd) at the same time. Hence the importance of choosing wisely. The dot is projected at a much longer distance downrange. You can actually see both the dot and the target at the same time.

shaky hands wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote: There are two schools of thought. The first is Brian Zins. He says look at the target, and not the dot. The second school of thought is to make the dot big enough and bright enough so you don't look at the target.

It is hard to commit to any one of these theories. The whole debate appears rather moot. The reason for looking at the front sight is the human eye's inability to focus at two distances (1 and 25/50 yd) at the same time. Hence the importance of choosing wisely. The dot is projected at a much longer distance downrange. You can actually see both the dot and the target at the same time.

It's much more complicated than that. First there can be a difference between the optical focus point and the object to which you are paying attention ("mental focus point"?). That's what Isabel was talking about above. Then there's the issue of focal convergence, the point where the focus of your 2 eyes converges. If you focus on something relatively close with both eyes, such as the sight on the gun, you will have double vision at distance, i.e. 2 targets. If you focus with both eyes at distance, such as the target, your aiming eye will superimpose the dot over the distant object. (The earliest dot sights relied on that ability and you could actually not see anything at distance directly through them.) So even though the dot and the target are basically in the same focal plane, there are definitely choices to make, and they can affect how well you shoot.

Isabel;
My question is: why does a cheap red dot, have a perfectly round dot,
And my Ultradot have 3 lines, with the same glasses.

I was not the only person to notice how good the Hawke sight looked.
There were about 7-8 of them and they all looked good.

I have taken my Ultradots to the eye doctor and she said,
I cannot get any better sight picture. She is a shooter and knows what I am looking for.
I have also looked thru Aimpoints, they are better for me than the Ultradot, but not perfect.

So my original question is, how can a cheap $44 sight have a better dot than an Aimpoint or Ultradot?
Has nothing to do about technique of shooting. just the ability to see a round dot.

FredB wrote: So even though the dot and the target are basically in the same focal plane, there are definitely choices to make, and they can affect how well you shoot.

This has not been my experience. (I shoot with a blinder on the other eye, so I have no second image of either the dot or the target.) And it is hard to fathom that those choices would noticeably affect physically how well you shoot. The reason why attentive watching of the front sight is important is that the far point (the point of a relaxed eye) is much farther than the front sight, so there is a natural tendency to stop looking at the sight. If one does that, the sight will be blurred. The blurring is usually significant enough to make a big error and a bad shot. When using the red dot you are focusing your eye much closer to its far point. As a result, the tendency to lose the dot picture is much less likely. But even if your eye relaxes, this will not have much effect, because the blurring of the dot is virtually non-existent. To summarize, losing the focus of the open sight leads to an error which is bigger than my wobble, but losing the focus on the dot does not prevent me from aligning it with the center of the target. Even if there is some remote theoretical possibility that it will affect the accuracy of the shot, the error will be insignificant in comparison to the wobble of even the steadiest of champions. So physically there is no reason that focusing on the dot or the target will facilitate/hinder aiming. How it affects people mentally, on the other hand, is a different story.

shaky hands wrote: So physically there is no reason that focusing on the dot or the target will facilitate/hinder aiming. How it affects people mentally, on the other hand, is a different story.

Well, I'm not sure I see such a clear distinction between "physically" and "mentally", but there seem to be 2 different aiming processes involved. If your mental focus is fixed on the target, you are relying on your mind to automatically center the dot over the target. And if your mental focus is on the dot, you are relying on your mind to automatically center the dot in the sight tube (somewhat similar to using open sights). Either method works; it's just a question of which works better for you. What doesn't work well is to let your mental focus float back and forth between target and dot.

Anyway, the above is my current understanding about using a dot sight, but I'm very open to a better explanation if any one has one.

As for dot sights and my eyes I have gone to 1" ultradots on all three of my pistols because I see a perfectly round dot.

Had a Bushy TRS25 which had a round dot but kind of a starburst to me, sold it.

Had an Aimpoint H1 which had a comet tail hanging down and trailing to the 4' o clock position, sold it.

As far as what I see while shooting at the target.
My dots are set on brightness #3 almost all the time.
I wear vermillion shooting lenses.
I focus on the dot but can also see the black bull, kind of like looking through a ghost red dot image centered on the black bull.
My scores have gone up since turning down the brightness from around #7 down to #3.

YMMV

Clarence

Trooperjake wrote:Isabel;
My question is: why does a cheap red dot, have a perfectly round dot,
And my Ultradot have 3 lines, with the same glasses.

I was not the only person to notice how good the Hawke sight looked.
There were about 7-8 of them and they all looked good.

I have taken my Ultradots to the eye doctor and she said,
I cannot get any better sight picture. She is a shooter and knows what I am looking for.
I have also looked thru Aimpoints, they are better for me than the Ultradot, but not perfect.

So my original question is, how can a cheap $44 sight have a better dot than an Aimpoint or Ultradot?
Has nothing to do about technique of shooting. just the ability to see a round dot.

I am not an optimitrist, but since the dot itself is a projection, I would guess, it has something to do with the glass in each end of the scope and how it reflects, and refracts the light.

It could be, (just a theory) that the cheap scopes are made with very thin glass, and there is almost no distortion. This could be a trade off thing. Thin glass, almost no distortion but not very durable, thicker glass, more distortion, but also more durable.

Scopes are one of those things that should be getting dirt cheap. I would say the mark up on the Aimpoints, has to be sky high.

As Clarence does, I use all Ultradots. The dot looks perfectly round, unless I turn it up so bright that it flares.