Aimpoint H-2 red dot sight

While being out of the country, doing a lot of reading, I decided I wanted to replace the Matchdot II on my Model 41 with an Aimpoint.  The reasons were how nice the "image" looked through Aimpoint sights, and how much weight it would save.  Maybe if I was 47 instead of 74, the weight wouldn't be an issue, but for me it is.  Adding an H-1 to my wad gun didn't seem to make the gun any heavier, while placing the Matchdot onto my Model 41 seemed to double the apparent weight.

While researching all this, I found an excellent article on the Aimpoint sights at the Big Tex Outdoors website.
      https://bigtexoutdoors.com/blogs/news/88201863-differences-between-aimpoint-micro-sights
I also found a line about a 15% discount if I used the code "Aimpoint Article" on my order form.  So, I cancelled the sight I had already put in my shopping cart from MidwayUSA, and put one of the H-2 sights in my new shopping cart - then wrote to BigTexOutdoors, explaining that I would place the order when I returned this past Saturday.   They wrote back that this was no problem, and I placed the order on Monday.

I was just adding up all my notes about the new equipment that would soon be arriving, mostly for my Pro 2000 reloading press, when I get an email a few minutes ago: "Stop What You're Doing & Check The Mailbox!  Something Amazing From Big Tex Outdoors Has Been Delivered".    Very impressive - nothing ever gets here this fast.

So, here was the box with the H-2 sight.  I liked the H-1 version, and I like this version even more.  Most importantly, it has flip-up covers for each end of the sight, so I won't continually lose track of where my H-1 covers are.  The flip-up covers have lenses, so you can see through the sights even with them closed.  Interesting.  The way the shape of the casing is built up to "protect" the adjustment controls is a nice improvement.  I haven't yet installed the battery - will be interesting to see how the "image" compares with the H-1.   According to the article, the H-2 is slightly taller than the H-1, which is why I bought the H-1 last time.  Most importantly to me, the weight is insignificant.

It does one thing that completely baffles me.  I've tried it over and over, as it shouldn't be doing this.  I've looked at small things through the sight way off in the distance, and every time they look sharper than when I see them without the sight.  My glasses have no correction for my right eye for distance viewing, but seeing through this sight makes things clearer.  My left eye glasses do have a prescription, but the same thing happens!  I plan to call Aimpoint, as I don't understand this.


Anyway, it's here, and to make a fair test I want to shoot the Model 41 once more just the way it is, with the Matchdot II, then install the H-2.

Interesting - the box that BigTexOutdoors shipped it in, included a small printed booklet, "The Constitution of the United States".  It also included a package of "Israeli military grade pocket sand".



I'll write more later.  I hope it works with my Aimpoint base, as it will "only" be on a 22.  




      "Save 15% THESE SIGHTS with the code: Aimpoint Article"

Regarding my comments on improving the image over what I see with my bare eyes, I called Aimpoint to ask.  They told me that there is no polarizing, and that the lenses all do have anti-reflective coatings.

Unless/until someone tells me otherwise, I'm going to assume that the reason things look better through the sight than without it, is glare.  The black area surrounding the visible part of the sight is blocking "extra" light which my eye maybe sees as "glare", degrading the image quality.  Maybe.

Are the lens caps on the h2 removable???

Apparently, yes:    
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Anyone_else_take_their_lens_covers_off_Aimpoint_T2_/18-695678/?

Also here, check page #6:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/C17pMI8BARS.pdf

Yes they are removable, KC carry's shades for the H2.
https://kcskustomcreations.com/product/kodiak-shades-h2/

- Dave

Are KC's shades for the H1 and H2 just a press fit or do they screw in?

Press fit on. A very hard press fit
Jon

Jon, is the "screw on" wording on KC's website a mistake?

Great, Next Question... is the H2 worth the extra $70 over the H1??? it seems there is less "blue" tint to the lenses on the H2, but my old UDs had a blue tint to it and I didn't seem to mind.  it's intimidating spending an ungodly amount of money for a sight only to say "if only" or "I could have"...

mikemyers wrote:Jon, is the "screw on" wording on KC's website a mistake?

 Mike,
I talked to KC the other day (I just bought a couple H2's as well). The REAR tube on the h2 is a screw on. Apparently an oddball size too. He's going to hook me up with shades at perry.

It’s possible they came out with a thread on and I didn’t know anything about it. I prefer the H 1  because it has a larger field of view. The H2 has different size lens. There actually is quite a difference between the two. I’ve known people to buy the H2 and turn right around and sell it to buy an H 1
Jon .

10sandxs wrote:Great, Next Question... is the H2 worth the extra $70 over the H1??? it seems there is less "blue" tint to the lenses on the H2, but my old UDs had a blue tint to it and I didn't seem to mind.  it's intimidating spending an ungodly amount of money for a sight only to say "if only" or "I could have"...

The article I listed up above from BigTexOutdoors shows several differences, along with comparison photos for some of them.

Jon Eulette wrote:It’s possible they came out with a thread on and I didn’t know anything about it. I prefer the H 1  because it has a larger field of view. The H2 has different size lens. There actually is quite a difference between the two. I’ve known people to buy the H2 and turn right around and sell it to buy an H 1
Jon .

Interesting observation... I read the article, but didn't see the field of view discussion.

The h1 is roughly a 30mm viewing, the h2 is closer to 1"

To try this out, I put both sights side by side (H-1 mounted to my Salyer, and H-2 held against the H-1), and aimed them at a picture on my wall such that with the H-1 the picture completely filled the field of view, left to right.  I then moved my eye behind the H-2, and as far as I can tell, the angular coverage is identical.  I then aimed them at a building across the bay from my condo, and again, I could not tell that either one showed "more" of the building than the other.  

This is with both sights reasonably close to my eye.  Unless I take the H-1 off the gun, and place them both on a table 30" away from my camera, and take comparison photos, I don't know how to test them realistically.

Looking through both sights from the front, side by side, the H-1 has an obviously larger diameter of what can be seen.  Looking at both sighs from the rear, held 24" away from my eye, the furthest I can comfortably try this, they both look identical to me.  I aim them at a building several hundred feet away, and I can't tell that either shows more or less than the other.  


Lots more technical information and test photos here:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Which_Aimpoint_Micro_has_best_F_o_V__/18-691022/?

I have an Aimpoint Micro H2 sitting on my gun bench waiting for my Nelson Weaver Conversion to arrive. Pretty excited to try them.

I'm very interested in seeing how this plays out. I just went to a Ultradot Matchdot II but wondering if I should have spent the extra bucks and gone to the Aimpoint H1 or H2.

I removed the polarizing filter from the Matchdot II

For a bright, sunlit scene out my window, a brightness setting of 11 on the Matchdot II looked about the same as a brightness setting of between 8 and 9 on the Aimpoint H-2.  However, that setting of 11 was the maximum for the Matchdot, while the H-2 goes far beyond that, up to 12 (at which point the dot looks more like a red flashlight aimed at me, not round, and with sun-flares all around.  Much too bright.

Both sights appeared equally bright.  The Matchdot II dot didn't show up as well as it did for me yesterday at the range, so I put the polarizing filter back on.  That darkened the view, compared to the dot, making things look as good as they did at the range.  For my eyes, this was better.

The Matchdot II covers a wider area than the H-2.  If I had to guess, I'd estimate 10% more, with both sights about a foot in front of my eye.  

With the polarizing filter removed, both sights were equally bright, and equally sharp. Both looked great (but without the filter on the Matchdot II, I struggled to see the dot - would have liked it to be brighter).  With the polarizing filter, some of the sharpness seemed to go away, and the view definitely got darker.

Matchdot II has the "bra" for a protective shield for the sight.  Somehow I keep misplacing it.  It will be more convenient to have the flip up covers.

None of this describes the actual reason I originally wanted the Aimpoint - the Matchdot II weighs 5.1 oz.  The Aimpoint H-2 weighs 3.3 oz.  I think both of these are without the mounting components.  Originally, my Matchdot II made the gun feel "twice as heavy".  Then I moved the sight as far as possible to the rear, with both mounting rings attached to the front of the tube.  That made the Matchdot II more comfortable.


I'm not going to quote who said what, but while I have heard from two sources that their Matchdot II failed at an important time, I have never yet heard from anyone with complaints about the Aimpoint (other than the mounting base, which should be replaced with a Kodiak steel mount).


I'm not experienced enough about any of this to give a good opinion for others, only for myself.  I think it all comes down to "you get what you pay for".

I went to the range this morning - rain before and after, but I did get two hours to shoot.  It took forever to sight in the Aimpoint, first, because I didn't know how many "clicks" it took for a given amount of distance, and second because I'm almost certain it was settling in as I was doing this.  After 50 or so shots, I thought I was done.  After 100, it needed a correction.  Targets 3 and 4 below are before, and #5 was after two clicks to move the grouping to the right.  I had to do something similar with my H-1 on the Salyer, but it eventually settled down.  Then I put on the Kodiak, and it seemed more stable.  Even with the Aimpoint base, it did eventually settle down and stay OK, but on the advice of someone here, I went ahead with the Kodiak.

Anyway, back to the H-2.  I know what was going on, but I don't know "why".  Usually I get to the range, and I'll have a few nice targets, several not as nice, and a few that I'd rather forget.  For reasons I can only guess at, the H-2 was very consistent, target to target - or I should say I was.  I've never been able to do this before.  The only real difference between the last three targets is that the holes moved towards the right for the last target (two clicks).

I suspect that the biggest difference between the Aimpoint and the Matchdot II that I took off the gun, was weight.  With the Aimpoint, the gun felt perfectly balanced in my hands (yes, with the "s").  I'm still pathetically unable to control the dot when I'm only using one of them.  More practice needed, unless I give up in disgust at my lack of ability to do this.


The sight was on a setting of 9, and was actually a little too bright.  Supposedly the optics of the Aimpoint are better, but not to my eyes.  I didn't notice much of a difference.  

I didn't get the feeling that adjusting the sight was as smooth as I hoped.  I would turn the adjustment one or two clicks, and nothing happened.  Then something freed up, and it got more responsive.  

I'm using the last of my homemade M-8 targets.  I bought some official ones, and I also bought some shoot-n-see targets which I can try at 50 yards.

Final comment - because the Aimpoint is lighter than the Matchdot II, I found myself using a little less grip on the gun.  I have a feeling that this is the reason why the gun was slightly more stable, and my results improved.  Regardless of the reason, it left me feeling much more pleased as I got into my car to fight the rain on the way home..........

All targets shown are at 25 yards.  I used a large piece of paper with hand-drawn crosses on it, at 15 yards, to get the gun sighted in.

I ordered a mount and the sun shades for my H1 from KC last night.  He said he press fits them on with a milling vice.  I don't have one so will try my drill press vice.  have any of you installed these your self?  Don

Could you send him the sight, so he can install it?  Much less chance of something getting damaged.  I'm thinking of the housing of the sight.

mikemyers wrote:Could you send him the sight, so he can install it?  Much less chance of something getting damaged.  I'm thinking of the housing of the sight.

I do not want to use that route as I got the sight off Amazon as I forgot he sold them.  I will get it done I suspect if I can get it started I can do it.  Remember I was the one that drilled and tapped 10 holes in a nice SS Gold Cup to put a mount on it.  I am a retired electronics tech/computer not a machinist or gun smith and just have a drill press but will try most DIY projects.  Don

Just a thought - however much force you apply to push the shades onto the sight, will be equalled by the force you apply to the other end of the sight.  If nothing else, I would ask KC how to do it....     but that's me.  

Or, don't you want to have one of these anyway?

Thanks Mike I could use one of those.  I hoped to push both the front and the back on at the same time.  I am going to have to wait till I get the shades so I can figure out if I need a 4",5", or a 6".  My drill press vice should work but that thing would really come in handy for other things.

Be careful. If the vice has any slop at all you won't get the shade on correctly. It needs to be a precision vice. Ask me how I know. I advise a plastic or nylon block on either vice jaw. Do one side at a time.

Bill