What's the advantage to mini-dot optics over a larger non-magnified red dot?  It seems like it would be more difficult to use in CQ as well.

Depends on which dot sight you're talking about.  I'd say weight , primarily.  The Aimpoint micro is a damn good example of effeciency for instance.  It is robust, simple, small, has an insane battery life,and is lightweight.  I can't speak to the others as the Aimpoint is the only one I've owned.

I have an Eotech on my work MP5N and it's ok. On my work carbine (HK G36C) I have a 4x ACOG with a Docter red dot on top. I prefer the Docter as it gives a much smaller but well defined aiming reference. This translates into my sporting firearms where I use a Docter and a Burris Fastfire. On a carbine in particular I find no disadvantage to the physically smaller 'mini-dot' I prefer them because they are smaller, lighter and obscure less of the target area, using a cheek weld or heads up.

My optics preference on a gun for CQB and out to 400m is a 1-4x variable scope and mini-dot combination.

Wouldn't  your AGOC 4X and Docter allready fill that role perfectly

It's close, but I would rather have it on an AR based paltform. Also, rather than having the dot on top of the ACOG I would have it mounted at @1 o'clock on the receiver or handguard. That way it is much closer to the bore and more accurate over a greater distance. You keep the same cheek weld and simply rotate the rifle slightly between sights.

..and of course the ACOG is a fixed 4x, which is too much magnification inside 50m, hence the dot in thefirst place..

From what you say here:




and from this quote:




(found in this thread: link)





It seems to me that there are a lot of folks who are thinking in terms of seeing the world in front of you "through the tube" when shooting with a non-magnified optic such as Aimpoints and Eotechs. I can only assume this thinking comes from some experience with magnified optics.





This is the "wrong" way to think of what you are seeing in front of you with a non-magnified optic. With an Aimpoint of any size, your field of view is everything you can see in front of you with both eyes open. You should not be closing one eye, nor should you be drawn into seeing things through a funnel equal to the size of the glass on your optic.





It doesn't matter if the size of the optic glass (non-magnified) is 40mm or 25mm. You are looking at everything in front of you and placing the dot on the threat and squeezing. You should be seeing the dot on the target and whatever is surrounding the target whether it fits in the window or not, perhaps with the small exception of the optic housing, but with both eyes open you can generally see around that too.






 

+1

Non-magnified dot sights have the same field of view. I just prefer mini's because there is less of their housing etc in the way. I also like the smaller dot size because it can be used out to longer distances without overly obscuring the target area.

A slight aside, but the only exception I have found is dot sights on handguns. If you are using these then I find that bigger sights are better because the dot is easier to acquire quickly due to bigger objective lens size, particularly from the holster. Hence my sporting LBP(), has a humungous dot sight on it. It can be done with mini-dots, which are obviously more physically suited to handguns, but it takes more practice than I can find the time for............

IMHO the only significant downside to a quality mini-dot (like the Micro) is the smallish 20mm tube being less forgiving of sloppy cheekweld when shooting from awkward positions.
Tomac

I was debating whether to run a mini dot as a primary optic on a carbine but decided against it for two reasons:

1) There is a real lack of lightweight cowitness mounts available. Most of the mounts, like the ADM MRD's don't sit high enough off the rail. The mounts that do provide the correct height are just too freeking heavy. The Insight MRDS weights 0.9oz. That's awesome, but then you add a shroud and a base and you are in the range of 5-6oz. At that weight the Aimpoint T-1 w/ larue mount is a MUCH better option for a primary optic. So the only real benefit, being small and light, is taken away by excessively heavy mounts.

2) The viewing angle of the MRD's is very small compared with even the T-1. One of my complaints about the T-1 is that it takes longer to pick up the dot than the larger tube Aimpoints and Eotechs, and the MRD's only magnified that weakness.