I'm very familiar with Aimpoints and their adjustable brightness - here, let me spell it out for you - even with the Aimpoint at it's brightest setting, it was much easier to see the target. You've obviously got your back up, and you're obviously going to argue till you're blue about something you didn't see or experience. WTF?
Again, you seem to be admitting that because YOU failed to adjust the brightness on the accupoint, that is reason enough to deem it a poor choice? Like several in this thread, I'e been running my accupoint for several years without any issues in any light conditions. I've run CCO's in the past without issue as well.
The only reason the Marines are doing OK with their fixed ACOG's and 20" AR's is because they are a branch of the military that valued long range marksmanship above all else, some would even say at the risk of combat effectiveness. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Marines are having "no issues" running 4X ACOGS and 20" AR's - the simple truth is that they have no other choice. Of the several Marine units that I've seen, they've been even more retarded than the RCR when it comes to putting the blinders on. Yeah, 20" AR's and fixed 4X optics make so much sense on the modern battlefield, ie. mostly 100 meters and under that everyone else is following suit - er, no. Is it a case of the Marines are so far ahead of everyone else, or of them being saddled by old doctrine? I'd suggest it is the latter. Not to mention how superior 20" AR's and fixed 4X are to Aimpoints in FIBUA
I'm not disputing the fact that a 4x optic and 20" guns aren't ideal for the role they're often being used in. I'm simply saying that such a beast is far from a poor choice and is more than doable.
Maybe you should go back and read my posts, Tips, because nowhere did I say "low magnification optic is no good" - that's something that you're adding in yourself; why would you go and make something up like that? Says a lot for your credibility. In fact I've recognized that a 1-4X is a good thing, as long as it's an optic that is suited to a tactical environment, such as a Short Dot or Leupold 1-8X. Yes there are other optics in that range that pretend to be, or want to be more than they are, such as the Accupoint, and that doesn't mean that they are not a good scope for punching paper - it just means that they are possibly not the best choice for a tactical environment.
Choose the right tool for the right job - and while the Accupoint is an OK tool, there are much better, albeit more expensive, tools out there that do a superior job.
A better anything is often an objective opinion rather than subjective. Of the optics mentioned above, the only difference may lie in the construction and/or overall durability. As far as performance, the only advantage is a higher magnification range. Both have adjustable illuminated reticles just like an accupoint. Although as you mentioned, the price tag on either the Leupold or the S&B is such that a "perfect" optic is to be expected.
Congratulations, you have Big Dots. Yes, they excel in situations like this. Many though, probably most, don't have the option of running Big Dots when it comes to something like an issue sidearm. I for instance, am stuck with sights with only tritium ampules, IE. no white or other coloured outlines.
If you're stuck with the old school then I guess more range time and point shooting will be the solution. Of course, I still have to wonder. If you can't see your sights, how can you clearly identify the threat?
With your "doubt" comment, it's obvious that you didn't even try the low light example that I quoted, because if you had you'd be able to see what I was talking about, rather than just "doubt" it out of principle.
I don't "doubt" your findings, I flat out call BS. As I mentioned above, I've run my accupoint for several years now as have others(many others around the globe) with no light issues regardless of environment.
Hey no problem, when you argue for the sake of arguing, somebody's got to keep you in line
