reposted with broken picture links repaired



Head Shots With Red Dots






For this ballistic exercise, I did a brief comparison of the level of accuracy that I was able to obtain when aiming with four different “red-dot” sights.  The following four optics were tested:


>  Aimpoint CompML2 with a 4 MOA dot

>  Aimpoint T1 with an advertised 4 MOA dot

>  Aimpoint CompM4S with a 2 MOA dot

>  EoTech 551 with the 65 MOA ring/1 MOA dot





All shooting for this ballistic exercise was conducted from the bench at a distance of 50 yards using my Lothar-Walther barreled AR-15 and match-grade, hand-loaded ammunition.  The head-targets used for this exercise were reduced in scale to simulate aiming at distances beyond 50 yards.  

The testing was conducted at 50 yards in order to mitigate the variable of wind-drift that would have been significant if testing had been conducted at actual distances and to remove the vertical variation of the points of impact that would have occurred due to bullet drop at actual distances.  The objective here was to determine what the limitation on accuracy was, due to aiming with the various red-dot sights, not how well I could dope the wind and distance.  Each optic was zeroed for POA=POI at 50 yards prior to testing using 10-shot groups.  All aiming was conducted with the entire dot of each optic placed over the head-target.  (No aiming was done using just the bottom or top of the dot or holding the entire dot above or below the head-target.)


The targets used for this exercise are copies of the head portion of the Front Sight Official Training and Qualification Target.  The Front Sight target is an “accurate representation of human dimensions taken from medical cadaver studies and 3000 x-ray studies.”  

Only the head portion of the target was used so that no visual cues could be obtained from the larger body portion of the target.  The full-sized head-target is approximately 6” wide by 9” high.  The targets were sequentially reduced in scale to simulate the full-sized head targets from 75 yards to 600 yards (at the actual distance of 50 yards), in 25 yard increments.  (Again, all shooting was actually conducted at 50 yards.)
















The simple test procedure for this exercise was as follows: one shot and one shot only was fired at the head-targets in increasing simulated distance (smaller and smaller targets.)  Testing for each optic ended when I missed a target on the first shot.  The entire exercise was conducted twice, with the same results each time.

To establish a control base-line of accuracy, I tested a NightForce NXS 1-4X with the NP-1 reticle prior to testing the red-dot sights.   Using the NightForce scope (set at 4X magnification) I was able to make first-round hits on the simulated 600 yard head-target (the farthest simulated distance that I used for this exercise.)










Aimpoint Comp ML2





Using the Aimpoint CompML2 with the 4 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 225 yard head-target.






Aimpoint T1





Using the Aimpoint T1 with the advertised 4 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 250 yard head-target.






Aimpoint Comp M4S





Using the Aimpoint Comp M4S with the 2 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 400 yard head-target.






EoTech 551






Using the EoTech 551 with the 65 MOA ring/1 MOA dot reticle (and aiming with the 1 MOA dot) I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 375 yard head-target.














…

As always, a nice write up.
Thank you for your work.

For this test to be meaningful, you would have to repeat it multiple times.   Preferably, with multiple shooters.  

In its current form, it is useless.

Disagree. I think it shows the size of the dot's limitations on shooting distance.

No... not useless.  But it is only ONE Data Point.  To be a better study, multiple shooters with multiple firearms would be needed.  And all under conditions as closely matching as possible.

But this would have to all start from somewhere, and this could be that point.

Man, some of you guys are true assholes.

In

I am an engineer.  This test is so incredibly flawed and unscientific, it should be ridiculed by any thinking individual.  At best, it is one data point.

No conclusions can be drawn.

Instead of heads, imagine the targets as various target sizes in MOA at 50 yards with the dot size being the limiting factor of what size target you can engage with a variety of dot sizes.

He used the common head size and reduced the target scale to represent different target ranges in relation to the size of the reticle/dot as an aiming device in order to display the limitations.

All comes down to how small of a target can you see with your own eyes and how much does your dot cover up. Drop the dot down over the target to cover it and judge as best you can the center. Looks like there may have been some head sticking up as the widths of the target were only about an inch wide.

So with a smaller dot it’s more accurate? This is not shocking.

Better to have no test than a so-called test with one data point and think you can draw conclusions.  

Stick to cows, cowboy.  It doesn’t take a technical mind.

I like the idea behind it, but there is no consideration of holdovers

Well I don't think the comparison test that was done is useless, but it does have its limitations. I wonder what your average shooter to do with those optics on their rifle? Is it the optics that are capable or is it the shooter that is capable? If the shooter is that good with a red dot, he's probably that good with iron sites, so if this is a promotion for red dots in their capability it pretty much is limited to the shooter. I have seen shooters accomplish this with iron sights in the service rifle league, offhand. This is not to say that the test was not impressive oh, because it is to me, as I cannot shoot that well.

Man I hate name-calling in forums, it is so rude!

Interesting, my takeaway was that red dots are still king

I don't think this can be said loud or often enough around here.

Give it time.

Great shooting sir!!
This shows that a red dot and magnifier is actually overkill related to the distance that a 5.56 round can put a hog ( etc ) straight down in it’s shadow ( nevermind convoluted lpvo’s, etc ). The magnifier just helps folks like me with old eyes make a precision shot when I have the time to aim and don’t mind giving up my position. For everything else I have a battle proven tool ?? to quickly make center mass hits until that hog quits charging .

Excellent post.  My thoughts mirror yours. Molon's test shows the possibility not scientific data.  So some information is useful just like some engineers.  I appreciate useful information and useful engineers.

The reason that this thread has “devolved” is because SJ395 is a re-tread that has already been banned previously from this website for being a re-tread and shitting all over my name and tech threads.

He has fucked-over a member in the equipment exchange and then re-registered under a different username to hide from that.

He has been smacked-down by a moderator for shitting in tech threads and then re-registered under a different username to get around that.

Here he is in 2017, on at least his second user name, shitting all over my name, posting lie after lie, in a thread that I hadn’t even posted in.  




For that same post, he is found-out to be a re-tread and is banned from the website.





Here he is in 2018, after being banned in 2017, back with yet another user name and again shitting all over my name, posting more lies, in another thread that I hadn’t even posted in.




Now he’s back in this thread with a username from 2019, and again shitting all over a tech thread that I posted.  This is all a perfect example of why most of the knowledgeable members we once had, no longer share their data on this website.

....

Under the conditions of this ballistic exercise, the sight with the "smallest" dot, the EoTech, did not yield the most accurate aiming.

....

Excellent work Molon.   I would havd thought the Eotech would have bee the better one.   It does show that the smaller dots generally will give you better precision at longer ranges.

The most important thing I learned off this is stay out of Molon’s crosshairs

Thanks for sharing your results I honestly would have guessed the Eotech would win out on this test.

This test just reinforces what I've known for years...The red dot is still the best general-purpose sight and if I could only have one optic....It would be a red dot.

We truly live in a 2oo meter world as Pat Rogers would often say.  And the red dot is king of that world.

@Harv24
curious why not the LPVO mentioned earlier as being able to shoot the smallest target?

I have dots on pistols and rifles and this testing certainly makes sense to me. the bigger/blurrier the dot the smaller target you can hit or the farther you can do it. That said, it seems that these dots are certainly "good enough" to get the job done should the need arise, especially in close.

200 and under, with my eyesight, rds is fine. If there can be only one, maybe rds is it.. I never have been able to decide, so I have rds, LPVO and holos

I'd just say that while you (or Molon) might be able to make 600 yard headshots with a red dot, even leaving wind aside I assume most people can not.

Shooting 55gr from a 12.5" barrel I'm looking at a hair under 8' holdover at 600. Having magnification is nice, but the hash marks are going to be crucial for me personally to make that hit. No argument on your choice though. Maybe if I shot more rds at long range I'd have a better feel for holding over accordingly too.

And cool exhibits as always, thank you Molon. You get me wanting to do some barrel writeups but you also make for a tough comp.

From the original post of this thread . . .




...

Magnification doesn’t make you shoot better…. it lets you see better.
LVPO’s are a compromise. A lot of guys use one set at 6x or 8x and have a RDS mounted along side for a quick transition.

At the end of the day, most of us cannot justify a 200-300 yd shot anyhow. and in a .Mil scenario, the target is going to be behind some cover, in camo and in motion.

I’ve tried a lot of different set ups over the years, and when the smoke clears. a good dependable red dot, like. T-1 or T-2 is going to allow me the best of what I need want in a general purpose, do all carbine.

I think the point was that a red dot is as accurate as you, your gun, and your ammo are. I think correlating a 50 yard shot to a 600 yard shot based on target size ratio is entirely unrealistic, but that wasn’t the point of the exercise here.

Maybe it should have been labeled “I shoot really small targets accurately”, maybe not. Certainly not worth being offended by.

From the original post of this thread . . .

Good methodical demonstration that might inform people’s choice of zeroing distance for a red dot optic. Naturally with actual distance (versus target scaling) a dispersion cone for given rifle/shooter/ammo might shift the conclusions a bit.  

Rather than running down the exercise people should try it for themselves and from various positions. Could make for a good low round count range session.

Agree, experience is the best teacher. Get out and shoot and see what you're capable of along with your set up.



Push yourself...

If you had to make a 300 yard shot with a Red dot, could you.?

Shoot outside your comfort zone. We all like to do the easy stuff that we feel your good at. Do the stuff your not good at.

sort of agree, however the 1 MOA dot did not fair as well as the 2 MOA

Service rifle shooters have been holding tight SubMOA groups using a front sight for ever. Guess how wide the front sight is ?

[youtube]PYQhvW-tjNM?t=25[/youtube]

Dammed good advice

not a bad test, more of a validation of what most people assumed- that a smaller dot obscures a lesser area of a smaller target as it diminishes at distance.
Having multiple shooters try would have introduced nothing other than noise- it's not a test of marksmanship, or the quality of an individuals eyesight.
The size of the dot and it's relationship to the area of the target are a constant.
Why didn't the smallest dot win? Perhaps because the Eotech is holographic, maybe the dot was not as sharp, or maybe just simple misses.

Exactly. It’s all about how consistently you index whatever sight you have.

This group was at 25 yards with the 16 MOA dot on my Steel Challenge gun. The dot was far larger than the group.


Attached File

I am a LE firearms instructor. I teach new rifle shooters, cops specifically, to shoot with red dots, help them get zeroed, etc. We used to qualify and zero at 50 yards and had a 100 yard and up outdoor ranges to shoot on. We now zero at 50, but qualify on smaller targets at 25 yards, and have a 100 yard indoor range to shoot on.

You would not believe the horrible shooting that new or average shooters will do at 100 yards+ who have not shot that distance before. The zeros are usually off on their rifles, especially windage, due to larger group sizes making their zeros imprecise. Some BUIS like the standard MBUS have an odd small rear aperture shape that people tend to get elevation issues with until they sort out where the center of the rear aperture actually is.

Everyone is better with a LPVO scope at distance and everyone is better with more magnification when it comes to group size too IMO. It takes some skill, experience, AND good eyesight to use a red dot at longer ranges.

Personally, I can only shoot about 3 MOA at a range or 4 MOA in the field with most red dots due to my astigmatism. I shoot the same with most AR15 BUIS. With a magnifier I can cut 1 MOA off that red dot. With a 4-5× max LPVO scope I can shoot sub MOA. With a high magnification precision scope I can shoot sub half MOA.

I have tried some target irons with front and rear aperatures so small on a Sweedish Mauser I could shoot 1 MOA at 300 yards. But I can only shoot boldly contrasting paper circles of an exact size, otherwise I can't even see through them to shoot!

Different "irons" or "red dots" certainly have different accuracy potentials, but the usability by the individual shooter varies wildly, and not just due to skill. Eyesight is a big issue, equal to any other. Skill and experience are also huge factors, but IMO eyesight is actually bigger. You can't teach someone to hit what they can not see. How a red dot reacts to a person's eyes is IMO the biggest factor and not something a test like this can account for.

Yeah, but I bet it was easy to center the dot in that big blue circle too. Try the same shooting at a 1" orange pasty dot on a big piece of plain cardboard. I bet your group size increases.

I took a brand new rifle, with a brand new red dot, zeroed at 50 and went to 200 immediately afterwards and didn't miss an IPSC AR500 plate. I did a slight hold at 400 and still made hits.

Then I handed it to my dad who doesn't shoot rifles at all, and even he was able to make the same hits at 200 but wasn't wanting to go for 400 because of his eyes.

On another rifle using just an Aimpoint Pro during a 40 hour course, I had no issues at all hitting 100, 150, and 200 each and every time.

Both of the above instances, were done with just the dot and no front or rear sights being used at all.

FWIW, I am better with a red dot than some LPVO. If I need to be ultra precise, then I've got ACOG's and magnifiers for the dots. But like another member here said, we should all push ourselves to see where we're at and what we're actually capable of. If you think you need an LPVO, cool. I don't, I have no need for one.

45-S was staying on the positive side, but that's what he said.
"Exactly. It's all about how consistently you index whatever sight you have."

I don't like snowman type holds, but for grouping, I'd go for 6:00.

This is interesting, as I always thought of red-dot sights as a get on center mass quickly kind of thing.

Guess I was wrong.

It would be interesting to do the same experiment, but time the "pick up the gun, acquire, shoot" with red-dot vs. scope.

Was ringing 18" steel at 300 with a T2 and 11.5" two weekends ago.  The target was an upper torso variant but shorter and thinner.

It can be done...yes push yourself

Been awhile at 300 for me. Old eyes suck.

I'm still a solid 200 shooter w/RDS and 11.5" on plates.