So if I read your post correctly, you could indeed see the reticle of the accupoint, it was simply too bright? If that is the case, the optic is equipped with an adjustable cover for the fibre optics which would allow you to dial down the bright if you will. The same situation can occur with an Aimpoint that has been turned up due to bright conditions as well. Both should be adjusted, by the user.
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?
A lot of Aimpoints and EOTechs are in service with those who do most of their work at relatively short distances. Oddly, the Marines seem to have no issues running a fixed 4x ACOG on their 20" AR's. Does that mean that zero magnification close combat optics such as the Aimpoint and 14.5" carbines are no good?
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
Of course not, the same goes for your belief that the accupoint or any other low magnification optic is no good. The rifle and optic are simply tools, choose the right tool for the right job.
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.
As for handgun sights washing out, I don't have that issue with the big dots I run.
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.
I supplement the need for sights with my ability to point shoot, should I ever run into that transitional light or a pistol with no sights at all. Of course, if you can't see your sights I doubt you can adequately identify a 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.
But thanks for the insight tips..
TDC
Hey no problem, when you argue for the sake of arguing, somebody's got to keep you in line
