Red Dot vs Halo optic

[retired]

Ok, the only thing I know about optics of any kind is that you look "in" them and you see stuff you want to shoot at. So, saying that, can someone please explain the differences, advantages and disadvantages of the two I've mentioned.

I have seen a pic of a red dot on a Ruger MK III on one of my other sites. I have also seen a pic of a Tru Glo Halo sight that a member here posted in another thread (coincidentally, for the same gun for the wife of another member).

Well, I have the same gun and am thinking of putting an optic on it. The price of the Tru Glo is $70 per the link and the Red Dot was $50. That is the kind of price range I'm looking at. I don't want to pay a price like UltraDot charges ($135+).

Any help is appreciated; thanks.

ETA: I should have written Holo as that is what Tru Glo calls it; my mistake. Here is the link that will show a pic and description of the product I was referring to. I guess the question I was trying to frame was what is the advantage/disadvantage to an open vs closed red dot sight if any. Thanks.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=179627

[retired]

23 views and no one knows. Come on, someone has to know the answers. Please.

[bombadillo]

On a mkIII, I'd go with something like this: http://swfa.com/Bushnell-1x28-Trophy...ght-P4629.aspx

or:http://swfa.com/BSA-Panoramic-Sight-P13088.aspx

You don't need much on a .22lr pistol as far as being able to withstand recoil. I'd just get a cheap setup with no bigger than a 3moa dot and call it a day. As far as understanding what you're saying, there really is no "holographic" sight except for an eotech or bushnell holosight. Aimpoint is about the best quality red dot sight you can get but they cost 5x or more than these cheap ones do. The holographic sights use a laser technology that others haven't been able to replicate with any luck. Watch out for fakes and buy from a quality well established site like SWFA or from Scott @ libertyoptics.com He's great and he can get the bushnell sights for the same price as SWFA and he's a calgunner so mo power to him.

[maxicon]

Most inexpensive red dots have a 1 or 2 year warranty. The Ultradot still comes with a lifetime warranty, I believe. I've got 3, and have never had a problem with any of them.

As bombadillo says, it's not as big a deal on a .22, though paying more for good stuff can be important in optics. This is a lesson everyone has to learn for themselves, though.

The less expensive red dots are more likely to have plastic lenses, fish-eye distortion, and such, though they may hold up just fine under light recoil.

For lower prices, I'm liking the T1 look-alikes like the Konus Atomic Pro or the Primary Arms version. They're small and light, and are ready to mount on a .22 with a Weaver style mount.


Just to expand on bombadillo's holosight comment, there are only 2 companies making holosights (often called "halo" sights, but that's not the right term). That's Eotech, who also makes a version for Bushnell, and Bushnell has their XLP version made in Japan as well.

Holosight means it's using holographic laser technology. There are many sights called holosights, usually referring to open-frame red dots, but they're not holosights unless they use a laser to generate the reticle, and only Eotech/Bushnell does that, as far as I know.

For instance, Tru-Glo doesn't call theirs holo (or halo) sights - they call them open red dots.

Also, the typical Eotech style is designed for the AR, and is going to be too high for other platforms. The lower XLP is too big for most .22s, and is still pretty high.

Sorry if that's a bit pedantic, but terminology can be important sometimes.

[bohoki]

who the hell calls them halo sights?

a halo is what you see if you are looking at a red dot and have a little astigmatism

red dot is red dot some red dots have reticle patterns other than a dot and they often get called holo sights even though they are not holographic

[bombadillo]

Thanks maxicon, I knew you'd be around to splain things a little better! He's one of the optic guru's here!

[MaceWindu]

Buy cheap and you WILL get what you pay for.

[Noboundaries]

Weight and size were big factors for me when I wanted to install something on my Buck Mark Camper and Ruger Mark 1 Target. The TruGlu multi-reticle, red/green holo sight was only 3.5 oz and quite compact. Most of the red dot scopes were 5-8oz on average and quite a bit bigger.

On larger caliber weapons it appears the scope is the way to go. On a 22, the holographic sight is fine. I've run about a thousand rounds through each of my 22s since installing the TruGlo sights and they hold zero just fine.

[bombadillo]

Buy cheap and you WILL get what you pay for.

Cheap and inexpensive are two different things. You can get a bushnell holosight for 200 bucks with a few rounds on it, or you can spend 500 on an eotech that does the exact same thing with a little bit of armor. I'm just saying that the trophy sight is probably about what he's looking for in general. Doubt its gonna be outiside of 50 yards and doesn't need a 500 dollar sight for a 300 dollar pistol. Just my .02

[retired]

Thanks for all of your answers so far, I appreciate the info. As you can see, I edited my the OP to try to clear up the confusion.

It sounds more like I'm asking the advantages between the Busnell that bomadillo mentioned, which is closed and the Tru Glo red dot holographic one I provided in the link, which is open.

Thanks.

PS: bombadillo, I wish my Ruger MK III was a $300 gun. I bought the Hunter SS, which is a 6 7/8" fluted barrel with a TFO front sight. IIRC, it was about $550 or so.

[bombadillo]

Oh you suck!! Thats the exact model I am looking for. No, nevermind, I'm looking for the Govt. slab side with the blade sight. The front sight post with the TFO takes up too much of the target for me.

[maxicon]

Buy cheap and you WILL get what you pay for.

The Ultradot is one of the best general-purpose red dots out there, and they're inexpensive by some standards. AR optics snobs would never consider running a $130 optic, but the Ultradot's got a long history of winning matches. Likewise, you can buy a Counter Sniper uber-tactical scope for $780, and most people would argue you don't get your money's worth.

However, I'll agree that dropping below $100 gets into iffy territory on most optics...

who the hell calls them halo sights?

a halo is what you see if you are looking at a red dot and have a little astigmatism

red dot is red dot some red dots have reticle patterns other than a dot and they often get called holo sights even though they are not holographic

This is a pretty common term for certain red dots. If you google it, you'll find lots of links.

It's a form of minor dyslexia. Holo sight, halo sight, potayto, potahto... Halo is a word that most people are familiar with, while holo is a more specialized word. Many people's brains make that kind of connection with an unfamiliar word - slotting it into the best fitting pattern.

It's also a wiring thing, similar to how some intelligent people can't spell no matter how hard they try, while others see spelling errors instantly. Sometimes this can be changed, sometimes not - it's totally dependent on the individual.

I've also heard people explain that it made sense to them, as the circle around the center dot is the halo.

A little off topic, I know, but you did ask...

[Noboundaries]

My wife took one look through the TruGlo holographic sight and said "Hey, it's a mini heads-up display!"

I love her brain.

[bohoki]

My wife took one look through the TruGlo holographic sight and said "Hey, it's a mini heads-up display!"

I love her brain.

thats what i thought when i first saw a quality one

a bushnell holosight its so different the reticle looks like its floating out in space

unlike a red dot in a tube that looks like its a big fat thumb on the lens of a camera on a picture you want to take