Why bother with the big ass tubes when you can have a good micro?

More field of view/larger objective
You can see more...
Looking through a micro is like trying to look through an asshole

>>32462560
Do you have any idea what the point of an RD is?

>>32462560
Only applies if you are sticking something like a magnifier or night vision behind it. For using it normally, as they are used 99% of the time, FOV is a pointless benchmark of a non magnified optic.

>>32462524
Did you ask your wife the same question?

>>32462524
more robust
and the battery is bigger therefore lasting longer

>>32462524

Personally, I've had great luck getting the larger Aimpoints cheap.

Yeah, their bigger, but they are still well made.

>>32462524
Price, mostly. Depending on the model, FOV is more important than >>32462727 suggests however many micro or smaller tubes can have just as good or better FOV than the full size tubes

I think they look cooler

File: ass tubes.jpg (28KB, 600x416px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x416px

big ass tubes make it easier to get all the fluid in and out of your rectum, micros are more comfortable but it takes longer to fill up and drain.

>>32463741

This for me, also.

Sometimes the micro dots look better. I think it depends on the overall weapon setup.

>>32463723
FOV in normal operation of a CCO is a pointless meteoric. You are shooting with both eyes overlaying the image anyway. What is more important is the bulk of the housing in your field of view, the actual window size doesn't matter.

Hell, I've got an Armson OEG which doesn't have FOV at all and it works as a CCO. It falls short for not working for distant shots and has more bulky housing occlusion that newer red dots. Any new red dot with any sort of FOV to make it usable for distant shoots is going to be the same in that regard.