How Much Weight to Give "Weight"

[Squishy 1,149]

I'd been doing research looking for a mid priced red dot and I'd pretty much settled on the Burris Fast Fire III. I noticed something though in looking around and that is there is a big weight difference between many of the popular choices. And it seems to not have to do specifically with configuration. I mean the difference between "tube type" like the Bushnell TRS-25 and the Vortex Strikefire or open designs like the Fast Fire and the Eotechs.

 

Here are the listed weights in no particular order;

• Burris Fast Fire III .88 oz - O
  
• Bushnell TRS-25 3.7 oz - T
  
• Aimpoint Comp M2 7.1 oz - T
  
• Trijicon RMR 1.2 oz - O
  
• Eotech 500 Series (512, 552) 9.3 oz - O
  
• Vortex StrikeFire 7.2 oz - T
  

As you can see there is no pattern according to configuration. The Fast Fire and the Trijicon are .88 and 1.2 ounces respectively. But the Eotechs are 9.3 ounces minus the 1.6 oz weight of two AA batteries.

 

The Bushnell is 3.7 ounces but the Aimpoint Comp M2 and Vortex StrikeFire are 7.1 and 7.2 ounces respectively. So it can't be assumed that a tube type will always weigh more. The "open" design of the Eotech 500s is the heaviest of all.

 

So I guess all this proves is that weight doesn't matter or, as these devices are solid state for the most part, added weight by a factor of 8 or 9x makes no difference in the capability or durability of this type of sight. I guess there may be more important things to talk about when selecting a sight like dot size, etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

In retrospect "Thoughts?" is too vague and open ended, which red dot sight would you recommend in the $200-$400 price range?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Squishy

[Syndicate 812]

I was apprehensive about my sight mark, but the dealer is local and said if they gave me any warrenty grief give him a call and he'll take care of it.

 

sight has held fine, recoil of the 12 ga hasn't knocked it out, and having someone drop the gun while in the soft case didn't mess it up. And same person packing a weekend worth of gear on top of it didn't bother it.

 

The bushnells are supposed to be great (as good as EOTechs, since according to internetdom the EOTechs are made by bushnell, no idea how true that is, but in my red dot research I came across that a good number of times)

 

I've used the EOTech, the aimpoint, and the Trijicon all are good choices. For my use I would get the EOTech out of your list.

[DrThunder88 912]

The EOTech Holosight works on different principles than the rest of the sights you mentioned. The holographic mechanism may be necessarily less compact than the simpler reflex mechanism in the open and tube type red dots.

[Squishy 1,149]

Ok, I knew I didn't know much but it appears I know a lot less than I thought I knew, or didn't know. In reading up on the differences between a reflex sight and a holographic site I'm not seeing the big benefit to a holographic sight given the battery life and added cost.

 

I learned a lot about these sights here. I see a reflex sight and a holographic sight as being very similar using two different technical configurations to do the same thing.

 

Can anyone offer any benefits of one over the other?

[MT Predator 2,294]

For your price range, I'd go with Aimpoint or EOTech if you want a durable optic designed, tested, and used by the Military. You can find used ones for under $400. What are you putting it on? That can be a deciding factor as well. EOTechs sit high on an AK platform as they were designed around the AR and their sights. EOTech 500s are probably heavier because of the guard/shroud but the new XPS series are smaller. The Aimpoint weight is going to vary depending on what mount it sits in. (A QRP mount is heavier than Aimpoint's low mount for example). As far as the dot size goes, again, what is going on? I run a Comp M3 on an AR with a 2 MOA dot but since I don't need such a small dot on my S12, I run a Comp M2 4 MOA on it. An EOTech with a 1 MOA dot/65 MOA ring can be utilized differently by using the dot for point targets at distance and the ring for CQB. We ran them on our Carbines and SAWs. On the SAW, the ring worked well for area targets BTW. I have heard of issues with the battery boxes on EOTechs but supposedly the company has already addressed those issues. We never experienced those problems and our shit got beat up jumping out of planes, etc.

That's my on those two sights. I personally won't fool with non Military sights. The Bushnell and EOTech are similar but not the same BTW. ETA: Aimpoints have an insane battery life compared to an EOTech.

Edited September 6, 2012 by MT Predator

[Squishy 1,149]

MT, thanks for the input. I went with the Burris Fast Fire III, it should be here soon. I figured I'd start the learning process with it.

 

I'm sure before it's over with I'll try a few different things. And this is going on one of my S-12s.

[Squishy 1,149]

FF III came today and wow, since I live 10 minutes from the range I was able to go test it out. I like it but I still have some adjustments to make. All I had with me was my Buck knife and I didn't want to risk scratching it up. I'll probably go tomorrow with a small screw driver and dial it in. 8MOA btw.

[Squishy 1,149]

Question: The top rail I have has about 8" of mounting space. Is there an advantage to placing the FF III forward, rearward or in the middle? I tried to find info indicating whether or not there is an advantage but found nothing.

[TX-Zen 287]

I think the closer to your eye the better generally speaking. The scope body will have a tendency to disappear the closer it gets to you and your field of view is less cluttered IMO. With the dot way out front like on an ultimak I find the scope body of a typical micro dot like a T-1 can interfere with the FOV.

 

For me this is a personal preference issue, I don't recall seeing any definite advantage to the dot being closer or farther, or rather maybe better to say having the dot farther out isn't doing anything extra that closer in isn't already doing.

 

 

 

Z

[Squishy 1,149]

I think the closer to your eye the better generally speaking. The scope body will have a tendency to disappear the closer it gets to you and your field of view is less cluttered IMO. With the dot way out front like on an ultimak I find the scope body of a typical micro dot like a T-1 can interfere with the FOV.

 

For me this is a personal preference issue, I don't recall seeing any definite advantage to the dot being closer or farther, or rather maybe better to say having the dot farther out isn't doing anything extra that closer in isn't already doing.

 

Z

 

This makes sense and thanks for the input. This stuff is so new to me I just wanted to make sure there was not something I was missing.

[MT Predator 2,294]

I think the closer to your eye the better generally speaking. The scope body will have a tendency to disappear the closer it gets to you and your field of view is less cluttered IMO. With the dot way out front like on an ultimak I find the scope body of a typical micro dot like a T-1 can interfere with the FOV.

 

For me this is a personal preference issue, I don't recall seeing any definite advantage to the dot being closer or farther, or rather maybe better to say having the dot farther out isn't doing anything extra that closer in isn't already doing.

 

 

 

Z

+1