I've used 1X3, 1X4 and 1X6 riflescopes in bowling pin, Steel plate, IDPA, 2 guns, and from the bench.

And non magnified red dot sights in the same competitions.

The true 1X settings variables seem to compete well with red dots close up and at intermediate ranges.

At 100 or more yards, in poor light conditions and with semi hidden targets, the variable scopes do well at their higher powers but the red dots are left sucking hind tit.

I mean, as in the red dots are nearly useless.

Is it worth adding a 3X, 4X or even higher powered magnifier to rifles with red dots?

What are the pros and cons?
Are the more expensive magnifiers/mounts that much better than the ' value priced" offerings?

Not for my money, no.


By the time you have red dot + magnifier, you are in the weight and cost realm of some of the decent quality, low expense LPVOs.

I have 2 magnifiers. First is a Vortex VMX-3T which I got on sale for just over $100. I primarily use it for solidifying / confirming zeros with RDS rifles but I do keep it on my SBR behind an Aimpoint T-2 and it has been helpful with some shooting on the property. The second is an Aimpoint 3X-C with their flipmount which I also got on sale last year for $299. It's on another rifle behind a Aimpoint Micro.

For the money, I prefer the eye relief on the cheaper Vortex 3X, since it seems to be a tad more forgiving. I bet the Aimpoint would be more durable and I prefer their flip mount / twist to remove setup, but eye relief is a tad tighter. Clarity is subjective but neither is notably better or worse. If the Aimpoint 3X-C combo wasn't on that significant sale, I wouldn't own it and I'd be fine with the VMX-3T.

I have looked through Eotech G33 / Aimpoint 3X & 6X and I don't think they are worth the cash over a Vortex 3x or putting all that money toward a quality 1-4/6/8x. I think the clarity will never compete with a quality 1-4/1-6/1-8x optic since you have the lenses of the magnifier, the lenses of the RDS, and sometimes some intermediate clear lens caps, plus any added dirt / dust / etc on & between the extra lenses.

RDS aren't useless shooting out to 300+ yards, but you do need a well defined target & confirmed to hit - just like you would with regular mechanical sights.

RDS have their uses and I think a 3x can help make them more useful out to 100-200 yards, but a quality 1-X optic really shines at ID and precision from 50 yards and beyond over the RDS.

If we are talking for daylight competitive use the LPVO's are truly the best option. That said my go to rifle does not have one as getting NV behind the NF LPVO is just not practical so I have the aimpoint twist mount and can use either NV or the aimpoint 3x. Most of the issue to me on the 3x is that the actual dot isn't a very good distance aiming point comparatively. The glass itself doesn't have any serious issues for what its intended to do. And I'm sure its way rugged. I have only used the aimpoint so no thoughts if the others are the same for less money.

I agree with Rhino. I have found the Vortex to be more user friendly and less expensive. The Aimpoint might be able to withstand more punishment but I will never push it to its limit. As far as which one is better for your needs,try borrowing a magnifier and see if it works for you. After awhile you get pretty good at flipping it out of the way but it does block some of your field of view with your other eye.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Is it worth adding a 3X, 4X or even higher powered magnifier to rifles with red dots?

I am interested in this question because it’s something that is not discussed very much that I have seen. Also, I must believe that the answer(s) will depend upon what purpose the rifle and sight are intended to serve. Is it just various forms of competition, or for more serious purposes?

If I had to engage a dangerous target indoors or it would be at similar close ranges outside, I would prefer one of my Aimpoint red dots. Outdoors, unless I were in a jungle or other dense vegetation, I would hope to be carrying my rifle with the 1-6× variable that’s usable at close distances, albeit not as good for that purpose as a red dot, but far better for accurate fire at longer ranges.

It’s always seemed to me that a red dot with magnifier, even if not being used, has the drawback of being somewhat cumbersome and heavy without providing the benefits of the traditional scope, including (usually) the higher magnification and (often) a calibrated reticle.

So, I’ll reiterate the original question: is using a magnifier with a red dot a good practice for situations involving “100 or more yards, in poor light conditions and with semi hidden targets …”?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
So, I’ll reiterate the original question: is using a magnifier with a red dot a good practice for situations involving “100 or more yards, in poor light conditions and with semi hidden targets …”?

My opinion is its better than just the RDS without the magnifier and worse than a quality magnified optic.

Obviously if it's dark and you are using NODs, that could change things, but that seems beyond the scope of the question.

As Rhino mentioned, having a magnifier around is handy when confirming zeros on red dots. I was always kind of “ish” before when zeroing red dots and magnifiers help a lot.

As for magnifying red dots, I’m not a huge fan. If you have a 3x magnifier on a 2 moa dot, you have a 6 moa dot. That covers a lot at 200 yards and as you go out further you can’t see a damn thing because the dot covers so much.

However, holographic sights don’t magnify like red dots do (it’s magic...I have no idea why it works this way but it’s what happens). So I like magnifying Eotechs. Your 1 moa dot in the center of the reticle stays 1 moa even under magnification.

As for magnified Eotech vs LPVO, if I could only have one, I’d say I think I prefer the LPVO because I can go higher than 3x. BUT, I still like my magnified eotechs. I can easily take off the magnifier with the QD lever and lighten up my rifle and shrink the optic. I can’t lighten up my LPVO if I just want 1x.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
If you have a 3x magnifier on a 2 moa dot, you have a 6 moa dot. ...

However, holographic sights don’t magnify like red dots do ....

Thanks for all that. Something I wondered about but had never seen stated clearly, and I have no experience with magnifiers. So yes, I would much rather have a 2 MOA dot that covers 4 inches at 200 yards without magnification than a magnified dot that covers 12 inches at 200.

Above incorrect statement is discussed below in a separate post.
A 3x magnifier does not change the angular size of the dot from 2 MOA to 6 MOA. The angular size remains the same because the target image is also magnified.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
If you have a 3x magnifier on a 2 moa dot, you have a 6 moa dot. That covers a lot at 200 yards and as you go out further you can’t see a damn thing because the dot covers so much.

I know Eotech pushes this a lot, but I've never seen it myself or seen it demonstrated - or maybe it does and I just turn down the dot a bit. If you have any info where this phenomenon is explained, I'd appreciate it.

In my simple mind, everything is expanded by x3 or x6, so its the same relative image size. And again, I've been shooting T-1/T-2/H-2/Pro/512/518s and they all appear to magnify the same.

A red dot definitely gets bigger when I magnify it. I have an astigmatism, so it makes it worse even. If you don’t have an astigmatism m, maybe it’s not as bad? It’s very noticeable for me. The eotech is still just a tiny little 1 moa dot. I have no idea why it works differently between the two though. I didn’t even realize eotech pushes it. It’s just something I’ve noticed.

quote:

So, I’ll reiterate the original question: is using a magnifier with a red dot a good practice for situations involving “100 or more yards, in poor light conditions and with semi hidden targets …”?

Well if the targets are like IDPA sizes then no and maybe hell no. The magnifier reduces the available light a lot and adds nothing over the dot in terms of aiming at something that sized.
Now exactly why one is trying to shoot 100y in poor light I leave to further discussion. But if I'm doing it I want a LPVO period.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
So yes, I would much rather have a 2 MOA dot that covers 4 inches at 200 yards without magnification than a magnified dot that covers 12 inches at 200.

All right, so that’s wrong.

I still wasn’t satisfied with my understanding of the subject, and decided to do a quick search elsewhere. After asking if the dot was magnified, I immediately found a site that answered not only that question, but also pointed out the flaw in my thinking about the effect of magnifying the dot.

Magnifiers magnify not only the reticle dot, but also the rest of the image. That means that the proportions of reticle (dot) and the target always remain the same. If my target is a 6×9 inch rectangle at 100 yards, with no magnification a 2 MOA dot will cover only a part of the center. If the dot is magnified three times, it still only covers 2 MOA because the target also appears three times as large. Or as another example, if the target is a ~2 inch circle that the dot covers perfectly at 100 yards without magnification, the dot will still cover it perfectly with the magnification.

It’s the same optical principle of using a conventional scope with the reticle at the first focal plane: The size of the target and the size of the reticle change with the magnification, but their proportions always remain the same.

All that got me to thinking again about the original question of which was better for certain targets, a red dot sight with magnifier or low power conventional variable scopesight.

In addition to other factors, a possibly important consideration is the size of the reticle and how that affects precise aiming. Based on another quick search, it seems that the component lines of most reticles calibrated in minutes of angle cover 0.2 MOA or even less, or 1/10th as fine as a 2 MOA dot. That obviously means that much more precise aiming is possible with the crosshairs reticle than with a projected red dot.

So, sigfreund, you found that a dot with magnifier is like a First Focal Plane scope …

here's another question about them:
if I have three identical rifles, each with its own (identical) red dot (with identical mount) sighted in for a 50y/200yard zero, could I swap one magnifier amongst them, and not be changing the point of impact?

That would be an economic bonus point for buying one good magnifier rather than three new 1X3-4-6 power scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
if I have three identical rifles, each with its own (identical) red dot (with identical mount) sighted in for a 50y/200yard zero, could I swap one magnifier amongst them, and not be changing the point of impact?

Yes. You can swap magnifiers to different rifles with the same or different Red Dots.

I use my Vortex behind an Aimpoint Pro, M4S, and several Micros. The magnifier does nothing to change your zero, it is simply providing a magnified view of your RDS window.

The only thing you may need to do is adjust magnifier so the red dot is projected in the center - because the magnifier is zooming in on the RDS window, it may be aligned so that the red dot doesn't appear in the center of the magnifier - it's still zeroed, but you are just seeing a non-centered 'zoom' of your RDS window. The adjustment screws on the top and side of the magnifier allow you to 'center the dot' in the magnifier, but it's really just centering the zoom you see, not changing the dots position in any way.

I have found that minimal to no adjustment is needed when switching on AR-15s, but even if you do it only takes a couple of seconds to adjust.

And I also became curious about the statement that the dot reticle of the EOTech doesn’t increase in apparent size when used with a magnifier, unlike the dot of something like an Aimpoint.

That seemed odd to me, but this is from the 2017 product catalog on their web site:

“The aiming dot does not expand when viewed with typical magnification. In tandem with a 3X magnifier, the dot size does not increase noticeably, while the target is enlarged 3 times, offering much greater precision.”

Given how the magnifiers work, how it that possible. Beats physics. I leave it to others to explain. After owning a very large qty of eotechs I will not own another so its not relevant to me.
But I would add a small bit to the above conversation. In the FFP true 1x scopes I use (NF) the dot at 1x is essentially the same as a red dot in size (2mil in size) any other aiming strada are not usable. Once you get the magnification up you get many other options all better than a normal red dot.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Given how the magnifiers work, how is that possible.

The only thing I was able to find was reference to the fact that the central dot of the EOTech reticle is a holographic display, and somehow that’s the reason why it doesn’t become larger with external magnification. As someone on another site posted, the EOTech with magnification acts like a second focal plane scope, but no explanation why.

quote:

First Focal Plane

?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

First Focal Plane

?

Many complete explanations can be found on the ’net, but as I understand it there are two locations inside a conventional scopesight where the reticle can be located.

In a fixed power scope I don’t believe it matters which, but in a variable, the position—first or second—affects what happens to the image of the reticle when the magnification changes.

I believe that the very earliest variable power scopes had their reticles at the first focal plane, and at that location the size of the reticle changes along with the size of the target image as the magnification is changed. The primary disadvantage of that is at low powers the reticle may be too fine to see clearly, and at high powers the reticle becomes coarse and distracting. Because shooters didn’t like the reticle size change, the solution was to move the reticle to the second focal plane.

In second focal plane scopes, the reticle size remains the same regardless of the magnification setting. Until the advent of calibrated reticles that could be used for calibrated hold-offs and even range estimation, second focal plane scopes were the standard because most shooters wanted the reticles to remain the same.

What led to the common switch back to first focal plane scopes were the demands of snipers and other shooters who wanted things like “mil-dot” reticles to be usable for accurate point of aim adjustments and range estimation at all magnifications. If a reticle is marked to show milliradians or minutes of angle, a second focal plane reticle will be accurate at only one magnification. (And I long ago learned from personal experience that if the magnification was adjusted even slightly off of the one accurate setting, a miss was almost guaranteed.) If, however, the reticle is at the first focal plane, the calibration markings are accurate at all magnifications.

The two types, first or second focal plane, both still have their pros and cons, and their adherents.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,