To avoid further confusion about the various Short Dot models:
Disclaimer: I do not consider myself to be a Short Dot expert but I do understand this much though.
1.1–4 x 20 CQB Short Dot (Gen I)
This is the first generation of the Short Dot. It has non-locking turrets and comes standard with changeable BDC cams for 5.56mm M855 & 75 gr. Hornady and .308 M118LR 16” & 20”.
1.1–4 x 20 CQB Short Dot (Gen II)
This is the newer version of the original Short Dot. It has the self-locking adjustment turrets. It comes standard with your choice of a M855 or M1118LR BDC cam.
Both are first focal plane with 20mm objective lenses.
The easiest way to tell the difference between the two models is to look for the taller/longer adjustment knobs found on the genII.
Both can be ordered with either the CQB or #7 reticles .
CQB:
#7:
The new Short Dot II is actually called the “S&B 1.1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot LE” in the U.S.
I could not find an actual picture of it.
It differs from the original Short Dot’s in many ways:
2nd Focal Plane
24mm objective lense
Spare battery cap replaces the locking windage turret.
It’s slightly over a 1/2" longer because it’s based on the 1.1-4x S&B Zenith line
You are asking this in a lot of threads so please forgive me for answering in more than one of them. I wouldn’t and for the very same reasons I didn’t end up liking the Meopta Kdot reticle. I wanted an Aimpoint bright dot combined with crosshairs.
That being said, what are your thoughts here. Are you thinking your reticle with the bright S&B dot, or your reticle as presently illuminated in a Short Dot?
I too opted for FD7, though I didn’t pick up the Short Dot model, per se.
The Gen II Short Dot that we tend to be most concerned with (locking turrets, CQB reticle) is the specialized PM II variant, but if you’re navigating your way through the Schmidt & Bender web site, or perusing their catalog, that distinction is likely to be less than clear. The reason for this is that the Short Dot is closely related to – and in some sense derived from – the regular “Zenith” FlashDot line, which includes 1.1-4 x 24mm, 1.5-6x42mm, 2.5-10x56mm and 3-12x50mm variants. Thus, there is more than one Short Dot model on the market, and the distinctions from one to the next can actually be quite subtle.
Although I had some non-AR applications in mind when I made my purchase decision, I have found the Zenith FlashDot 1.5-6x42mm (non-PM II) to be an astonishingly versatile piece of glass that offers most of the advantages of the Short Dot with significantly more distance precision and light-gathering capability. I’m not suggesting this is the way to go for everyone, but for those who are drawn to the Short Dot concept, but are wishing for something with just a bit more headroom, the 1.5-6x42mm Zenith may actually be worth looking into.
Here’s part of a e-mail I got back from Mark Cromwell at S&B asking about the Zenith LE with the CQB reticle.
“As you know the 1.1-4x24 Zenith is a second focal plane scope and
Germany has been telling me they had issues with installing a ranging
style reticle into this scope as the reticle spacing would not hold true
throughout the power range like it does in the first focal plane
1.1-4x20 Short Dot’s. We have wanted a ranging reticle but could not
decide on the proper one as there are several people who dislike the
“CQB” reticle. We were thinking of a mil-dot style at one point.”
Tell me more! Is it the same daylight visable red dot as the 1.1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot LE? Can this scope be used with both eyes open? If so, is there much distortion at 1.5X? Does it have the same locking turrets? What about the BDC?
I guess there are both subjective and objective questions being raised here, so let me deal first with the facts.
The entire Zenith line is available with the same visible red dot used on the ShortDot, which is referred to as the “FlashDot” in S&B parlance. The same reticles are generally available, with the exception of the CQB-dedicated variant. Functionally, the two models in question here are more alike than they are different, though some of the PM-II line touches (notably, locking turrets) are absent on the regular Zenith line models.
Objectively, there are measurable field of view differences, as you might expect, but these are slight in actual usage – and I consider them a small price to pay for a bit more top end magnification capability. Distortion at 1.5 is a more subjective thing, and my answer may not be very instructive. In using the scope with both eyes open (which is easily done, as this is a perfect fast-acquisition drive hunt optic according to the German definition), there is some obvious disparity, but S&B glass clarity is so uniformly excellent that I would hesitate to call any of this “distortion.”
Ultimately, I would describe the ShortDot as a very capable, uniformly excellent mission-optimized optic. The Zenith 1.5-6x42 offers the same basic features, clarity and build quality, with somewhat broader applicability to non-CQB applications. One might level the charge that in making such an observation, I’m missing the whole point of the ShortDot, and to some degree that is likely true. That said, my needs were not quite so homogenous, and the Zenith delivers in areas where the ShortDot cannot; especially at lower light levels (since I’m not switching to NVDs away from the job) and at somewhat greater distances (since my over-40 eyes appreciate the extra 2x). Given the same technology, same superior glass, and same reticle/dot possibilities as the ShortDot, I’m just not sure how one can find much fault with the larger Zeniths.
Now my question would be for those that have the 1.1-4x24 Short Dot. Why do they have such a small objective lens diameter? Their twilight factor is only (3.5/8.9). How do they really perform in lowlight?
