Or vice versa?
I don’t have experience with either of these optics and I wanted to hear some recommendations. Preferrably from those that actually own one or the other.:laugh:
So what is the compelling reason to choose one over the other?
Both are great, but if you want to go as light weight as possible, the T-1 is your best bet.
M4 - smaller dot and larger aperture. A larger aperture allows less precise head placement. M4 accepts killflash or covers.
I like the M4 better.
The m4 also has a longer battery life and runs on AA’s
So batterys are really easy to find. That being said I went with the T1
because it is very light and compact, both are great optics though.
why not an H-1? Unless you are planning on running night vision.
I’m assuming that the OP didn’t necessarily mean T-1 specifically as much as the M4 vs. micro line.
I’ve tried both, own a micro. The smaller MOA dot is a plus. Battery life/availability of the M4 is also a plus but let’s be realistic. Kept constantly on at an acceptable setting the battery of the micro will last 3-5 years and currently the battery availability is not that difficult. I’m figuring by the time I’ll be ready to change the battery on the micro for the second time, something better will probably be invented.
The compact/light aspect of the micro is what attracted me, and I have yet to regret my decision.
I have one of each (M4S, H-1, T-1). I do love the M4S, but I’m still going to replace it with an H-1.
You can never go wrong with an Aimpoint. A lot of this is just personal preference. I don’t like the T1 as a stand alone optic.
As a matter of fact, I just took my last two T1s and put them in a Larue offset mount with my TA11Fs. They seem perfect for this.
There is no wrong answer.
I can shoot far more accurate with the M4S than the T-1 at range(100m)…a true cqb gun should use a t-1, whereas a general purpose M4 is better served by the smaller dot on the M4S. Just my 2cents.
[QUOTE=WEC;711300]I’m assuming that the OP didn’t necessarily mean T-1 specifically as much as the M4 vs. micro line.[QUOTE]
Correct. That is what I was asking.
I was wondering if there were advantages to the M4 line that would offset the Micro advantages on size/weight.
I don’t have either one right now, but I am planning on getting 1 or the other in the next couple of weeks.
This would be mounted on a 6920 with a Larue fixed BUIS.
I am looking at RDS because I don’t think that the Trijicon TR24 (that I recently purchased)is going to work for ME as a general purpose optic.
I like the magnification and sight picture but I do not like the reticle washout. Unfortunately, for me, in low light, the reticle is too dim for me to quickly place on a target while focusing on the target. (Either behind a light or looking from a darkened area into a lighted one) I have to momentarily shift focus to the reticle and find the triangle, then place it on the target or I have to focus on the reticle like it was a front sight and place that on the target. (Which gives me double targets with both eyes open:mad:)
It works great when there light on the scope that is greater than or equal to the target lighting, but I don’t feel that it does what need it to do right now as a general purpose defensive optic.
I am planning on getting one of the above mentioned RDS sights and do a comparison versus the TR24 for my needs.
I am hoping, based on my research, that using a RDS will allow me to keep my focus down range while interposing the dot onto the target irrespective of lighting conditions.
I have (2) 16 inch rifles, and an sbr lower, with a 10.5, and (3) 12.5 inch uppers.
I have 3 M4s, 2 on the 16 inchers, one on a 12.5, the rest have the T1.
You cant go wrong with either, but if I could only take one, I’d go with the M4s due to the larger fov.
This. I’ve seen people who were far from being inexperienced shooters come out and say honestly that smaller aperture slowed them down in dynamic situation like shooting on the move, changing body positions etc. I’ve seen people being put in atypical shooting positions and not being able to fire a shot fast enough even with a full sized optic. I caught myself several times squeezing a shot with red dot just inside the edge of my M4s and feeling good that I had an M4s on it, not T1.
I have two of each - M4s and T1 - and I prefer full-sized one. I consider Micro a niche optic best used were M4 is no-go - like Ultimach rail on AK or offset rail with magnified optic. Weight and size advantages of Micro are not sufficient for me to offset an checkweld/head position with full sized optic.
M4s absolutely over the Micro. Remember the Micro T-1 and H-1 were meant to be a direct competition with the Mini Red dots like the Doctor optic and the applications that mini red dots were intended for.
When everyone started running them as a primary optic, that is when certain subtle draw backs were noticed. As mentioned above the smaller tube size is sometimes restrictive. Also the larger dot in the smaller optic. I find it easier to aim with the 2 min dot over the 3.5 to 4 min dot in the Micro.
One other aspect seldom discussed is night vision usage at anything over straight 1X, i.e. PVS 14 with the 3x magnifier, both cause a double image, as seen through the PVS 14. With the M4s it can be correct MUCH easier than with the T-1 Micro.
Don’t get me wrong I LOVE the idea of a Micro I really do and if they ever make them with a 2MOA dot I will get one. For now the M4S is my fave. Got three of them by the way.
IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA
M4 pros: Smaller MOA, larger FOV, longer battery life, common battery, can use a killflash, can use flip up lens covers, works better with a magnifier IMO, and plenty of great mounting options.
Micro pros: Weighs less, which may make it faster from target to target, and it costs less.
I prefer the M4 as the slightly heavier weight doesn’t make enough difference to me. My main reason is hog hunting in brush and senderos. I can run see-thur blizzard flip caps and don’t have to worry about scratching the lens all to heck. If I were to build a KISS light as possible AR, however, I’d go with Micro.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
In my on-going perfect optic search I am independently discovering that.
With $ attached… :bad:
There is no such thing as “perfect” either.
:dirol:
Actually Pat Rogers told me: “Any sight is a compromise”.
His wisdom is shining through on my experience.
Now I just need to find the compromise that works best for me.
I think I am leaning more towards the under the bed rifle with a red dot/flashling and seperate rifle with a magified optic of some sort for my varmit/ranch gun.
I sure would have liked to find an optic that I could do it all with.:sad:
I think I have the answer for you. It will not be inexpensive. But, it will do what you want.
I have my M4 carbine set up with a TA11 and a T1. I have the T1 on the Larue offset mount.
There is nothing this rifle can’t handle. I can hunt with it. I can use it for home defense. It is the best of both worlds.
I just picked up a Colt LE6940 and am in the process of doing research for setting it up. The rifle will be used as an active field LE tactical rifle. My question is one of co-witnessing with these two styles of Aimpoints. The T-1 seems to sit high enough that the flip up sights would not co-witness, but I don’t know. What is the best set up to use with flip up front/rear sights?
More than likely the M4. Aimpoint reps came out to our firing range and beat the hell out of thier product. The rep fired rounds, removed the M4 from the rifle and threw it down range. Did this a few times. re-mounted the sight on the rifle and it was perfectly sight aligned every time. Can’t do that with an Eotech!!!