I know some of you might not care for the ATN sights. So, my question isn't going to be what you think of the Atn units compared to other brands. What I am looking for is advice on weather the Digital Ultra Sight is worth the extra money over the standard Ultra Sight. The sight will go on a M-4 flat top AR and will be mostly used for plinking and punching paper with the possibility of some 3 gun shoots in the future. So any advice from anyone with experiance with these two would be great.
I can't compare the Digital to the Ultra, as I only have the Digital, but heres what I can tell you about the Digital in general:
Digital has six reticles, none with a circle, vs. Ultra's 5;
When mounted on the flat-top receiver, Digital sits high enough that front sight is in the lower 20-25% of the lens (only the crown formed by the ears and front sight post, and maybe 1/4 inch below that are visible in the lens);
Co-witness is possible, but not absolute/same plane co-witness (see above);
When mounted solely over the receiver (slots T7 and T13), the rear of the Digital hangs over the rear of slot T1 by about 3/16ths inch. I don't think a BUIS can be used with the Digital mounted solely over the receiver;
Return-to-zero in both windage and elevation is by springs. Whereas the elevation r-t-z on mine is positive, the windage r-t-z is a little mushy. That could just be mine though.
I've not shot 3 gun, but for plinking it seems to be plenty adequate. I've not yet shot mine while mounted on the flat-top, nor at distances past 100 yards, but for plinking when mounted on a handguard rail it seemed perfectly adequate. I just wish they could desing a lower profile, more positive base for it.
Thanks for the reply,
From what I understand the digital is paralax(sp?) free and the digital design promotes longer battery life. So, for the extra $30 I went ahead and bought the digital. We'll see how it does.
Thanks again for the input,
I had an ATN Digital Ultra for about 3 days and returned it. The dot washed out completely in daylight on light colored targets, even with new batteries. It's well built and mounted solidly and had some nice features, but didn't have enough dot for all situations. I ended up coughing up the money for an ML2.
Both the digital and the analog versions are parallex free, it really isnt designed for longer shots mostly on the run quick aquisition stuff and CQ. Plinking at that range is actually kinda fun with this scope. The technical run down was actually quite impressive and as it went the reticles really dont quite match up with EVERY situation. We have some away right now and the response is good, however they prefer the analog due to the fact its harder to change anything by a mere BUMP. In the digital you can change a lot of things with a light touch of a button. So, for high end tactical purposes we do prefer the analog version.
For the price it is a DURABLE PEICE that WILL hold up. We get about $169 for the digital and $139 for the analog version, Lifetime Warranty and it wont set you back to much. Hope you enjoy your sight FGC....Thanks for your time.
I have the digital one on a flat top and it works pretty well. I to feel as though the adjustments are a bit mushy but they do seem to hold zero. I like the 2 MOA dot. You can get nice groups out of it. If you have the brightness set all the way up and then take it inside you get a lot of reflection from the back of it which kind of makes a circle around your dot. But it's not to bad. I find that my wife and son like to shoot the AR more and can hit the bulls eyes easyer now. It makes it more fun for them and thats a big plus for me. That is what we are all trying to do anyway is get people involed in the sport right, and that means it has to be fun for them.