Posted: 4/2/2011 11:00:42 AM EDT
| Obviously size, weight, and price are all different - but most of the other specs between the Micro and M4 clone seem pretty comparable. Is there a difference in reliability/durability in the optics or the supplied mounts? I'm thinking of one for a midlength 5.56 rifle. I like that the M4 uses AA batteries - which I get for free - but was wondering if the Micro had any other advantage I should care about - the weight/size between the two isn't a big deal to me... |
|
Battery life is listed as 1,000+ hours on both units - so that's a battery a month if I just leave it on... Any thing else I should know? I'm sure they're both great, but if one is more or less durable I'd want to know before buying... Also, does anyone know the actual weight differences between the two optics with the supplied mounts? I'm leaning towards the M4 due to the fact that I'll have free batteries for it... but I'll get whichever one has the better options..
|
|
1) Weight and size, 2) the ability to choose different reticles and 3) battery preference will be the major factors. I think both optics will be equally durable. I think you will need to ask yourself which factor(s) will influence your purchase. Both have the blue tint so that shouldn’t be a factor.
I had both and I mounted them on my SCAR and I quickly realize I prefer the Micro over the M4. The biggest factor for me was the size and weight. I didn’t like the “balance” of the SCAR with the M4. I only used the red dot so having different reticles wasn’t a big deal to me. To me, the Micro dot seems brighter than the M4, maybe because of the Micro has a 4 MOA and theM4 has a 2 MOA. I don’t have a scale so I can't weigh the optic. In the end I sold the M4 and stuck with the Micro. I had 2 friend purchase the Micro from PA after using mine. 
M4 on FN SCAR 
Micro on FN SCAR 
|