Shooting with both eyes open is a personal preference. I don't shoot with both eyes open, I was taught and trained to only shoot with my dominant eye, which is my right eye. I find my shots to be much more accurate, which is why I use the open sight rather than tube. I can see my targets with one eye closed while still maintaining great accuracy, as opposed to looking through a tube which blocks my vision.
I believe that red dot sights are designed and intended to be used heads-up with both eyes open, at distances from 0-100 yards. That is why they do what they do, and why folks can shoot so much faster with them.
That being said, it is certainly still possible to use them with 1 eye closed, although you will experience the issues that you've noted above-- namely having no peripheral vision and having the site body block your vision.
If that is your choice, then I certainly understand the desire to use an "open" design. Keep in mind that my perspective comes from fighting with a rifle, and not competitive shooting or long-range marksmanship.
I've tried both, I prefer open sights to tube. You may shoot with both eyes open and not lose peripheral vision, but most shooters shoot with 1 eye closed.
Most shooters I've encountered using red dot sights shoot with both eyes open. Magnified scopes are a different animal, and it does indeed help to close the non-dominant eye.
As far as the Osprey optics, I think performance on a RDS depends more on the shooter than it does the sight itself. As long as both hold zero and the batteries work, it's up to the shooter to make the shot count.
I would say that accuracy is indeed mostly dependent on the shooter. Its up to the RDS, however, to maintain zero, have an adequate battery life, be tough enough to withstands bumps and scrapes, and work in varying climates and conditions.
Just because they are made with foreign parts and sold for $300-$400 less than the US made ones doesn't mean they are "crap".
Aimpoints are foreign-- they are made in Sweden.
I don't mean to argue on here but I feel you should take into account that some people might not have $500 to spend on an optic, or even want to spend on an optic for a backyard paper puncher...
Totally agree. That's why I said this earlier:
esrice said:At the end of the day, however, its up to the buyer to decide what level of performance is necessary for his/her shooting regimen.
I've got a Primary Arms Micro (Aimpoint clone) with AR mount that I paid $93 for. It's a great little optic and has been mounted on everything from my AR, to a Ruger .22 pistol, to a 10/22 with great success. It has held zero and performed flawlessly for plinking and Friday Night Steel. I would recommend it to anyone. But would I put it on my "go-to" AR? Nope. I've got an Aimpoint Micro H1 on that. If its my butt on the line I want something that will absolutely work, and I have trust in the Aimpoint.
Also, people shoot different ways. Not everyone is going to shoot with both eyes open even with a red dot. I don't feel comfortable shooting that way, and I'm much more accurate my way because I am used to it.
You may be more accurate, but are you fast? Fast enough for your purposes? Could you be faster if you trained with both eyes open? Does it really matter? (rhetorical questions, just food for thought)
And I can tell you right now that it holds zero with no problems at $450 less than an EOtech. Yes, it's battery isn't going to live as long, and I wouldn't recommend taking it for a swim in the ocean, but for a backyard paper puncher it sure as hell beats spending $550. Use the other $450 and get a new pistol or some ammo if ya want...
Agreed. If you're just punching paper, there's no need to go top-end on a red dot (unless you just want to). If it goes down, you'll just simply toss it back on the bench, dig round your range bag for some tools, and fix the problem.