Red dot: tube or holograph?

[tackdriver]

I'm getting a wish list together here and want to put a red dot on my Ruger MkIII this year. For $200, should I get a tube or should I get a holograph-type site?
I have zero experience with either.

I'd like to officially get into bullseye next year, but this will probably be for plinking more than anything else.

 

[yar]

For bullseye you want a tube. The ultradots seem to be the most popular.

 

[jmorris]

If you're just plinking get the $20 BSA. It's about $300 less than an Aimpoint.

 

[ahjack3]

Red Dot

I just bought a cheapo TruGlo to go on my MKIII. I plan on mounting the scope this weekend. Most folks I know seem to be quite satisfied with the cheaper (BSA's, TruGlo, etc) scopes.

 

[pinshooter]

I tried a $16.00 made in China red dot sight and it lasted one shot on my 1911 45ACP.

 

[yar]

While I don't shoot bullseye I have a squadmate who does on a weekly basis. The ultradots are popular (for bullseye) because they have a very clean dot and on some models you can adjust the dot size.

With a cheapo sight you have no guarentee if it will hold zero. So I recommend you get some quality mount, rings and tube sight. I believe the ultradots are in the $100 range and that is very reasonable.

 

[TNT_Shooter]

The biggest thing to worry about with dots and quality is how they perform with the recoil of the gun. The Truglo does well on .22 pistols because of the limited recoil, but they were never intended to stand up to the recoil of a .45acp.

The Ultradot redot scope does stand up to the recoil of a .45acp. Most Bullseye shooters use that as their benchmark scope. Personally, I shoot a Docter holo sight on my .22 and shoot open sights with the .45. I will probably get an Ultradot redot when I take the leap with the .45.

Good Luck!

TNT