When it comes to pistol mounted optics, I frequently recommend Holosun optics. While they are inexpensive, they have earned a reputation as a reliable and durable optic. The reputation is well deserved. If that wasn’t enough, it seems as though they have continued to improve in quality since I first became aware of them, which was after they had earned their reputation. They take a beating. The glass is decent. And the price is right. Almost without fail, after I’ve made the recommendation, folks ask, “What reticle options is the best?” They are after all available with just a dot, the beloved by many “doughnut of death”, and the Primary Arms ACSS Vulcan reticle. That question is difficult to answer because it depends entirely on the individual asking the question.
Reticle selection being user dependent rather than application context dependent might seem counterintuitive. I’d argue that it should seem counter intuitive. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s not true. Even if it is untrue, that’s where I’m at today with it. Let me explain.
Last time I wrote about the ACSS Vulcan reticle, I mentioned that I had been on the fence about it, but after spending some time with it I had no reservations about recommending it in the context of slimline pistols for defensive carry. That still holds true, but how I recommend using it has become more nuanced.
I suppose it would be prudent to describe the reticle again before I dive deeper into the explanation so I will do just that. The reticle, consists of a dot (or a chevron on the 507C Holosun optic) surrounded by a rather large ring (230 MOA ring in the case of the 507K Holosun optic) that isn’t visible in the window when the aiming reference (the dot or the chevron) is visible in the window. The idea behind this reticle design is that when the aiming reference is not visible on the lens and the pistol is more or less aligned with the target, the large outer circle provides an alignment correction reference. Some folks view this correction reference as a crutch and I agree with that. In my opinion, the crutch can be a good thing. Others have suggested that the crutch enables users of the reticle to remain lazy about perfecting their indexes and presentation. There is another group of folks that suggest the crutch can get in the way of developing target focus and can be detrimental to shot placement in certain situations. I agree with all that as well. The points are all plausible and valid. However, I think that all of those perspectives are valid within the context of the ACSS reticle bearer and often the opinions that present those points come from a place of projection that assumes that other users either have the same skill level or aspirations of achieving the same skill level held by the individual expressing the opinion. Again, I don’t think any of the opinions are blatantly incorrect. Rather, the opinions aren’t globally applicable.
Take me for instance. My skill level when I last wrote about the ACSS reticle has changed. While I have a couple of pistols with mounted optics that feature the reticle, I have turned off the outer ring on all of them. I’ve also turned off the ring on the “doughnut of death” optics I have mounted. This is because I have, for the most part, sorted out my presentation and found that the plain old center dot is the aiming reference that is most conducive to essentially everything that I do with a pistol based on my current skill level. Does that mean that I’m encouraging everyone to only use the simple dot on their pistol mounted optics today? Nope. Not even close. I’m only saying that I now find that the reticle configurations don’t work as well for me as the simple dots do. But that’s just me. And you’re not me. Nor am I you.
This is dangerously close to sounding like a “works for me” argument, but it’s not. At least, I don’t think it is. Let us dig a little deeper.
I found the outer ring of the ACSS reticle to be useful in my practice when I was working on my presentation. If my presentation wasn’t good, then the ring let me know what I needed to do to correct it. Once my presentation was good and was “finding the dot”, I turned the outer ring off and continued to practice without it. This, I think, is a fantastic use of the reticle. There are some who will disagree with me because this form of presentation development drives folks to become reticle or dot focused in practice when they should be working on becoming target focused. Again, they aren’t wrong. This form of practice can lead folks to become dot focused which is suboptimal. However, it can be mitigated by occluding the front lens to an extent. It’s also very hard to train and practice target focus when one can’t find the dot. In this sense, I think that the ACSS reticle may be a good option for those who aspire to develop a high level of marksmanship with optic mounted pistols but still haven’t developed a consistent presentation of the pistol. However, it’s important to get rid of the training wheels (the outer ring) as soon as it is possible.
I also found the ACSS reticle design to be useful when shooting small slimline pistols that tend to have a lot more muzzle rise than full size pistols. As I explained previously, the reticle gave me an idea of the direction the aiming reference was was moving when it left the window and informed me when it was returning. I found this to be very beneficial when the target difficulty required a finer grained visual confirmation before sending each shot. Detractors of the reticle will sometimes argue that is unnecessary and will only slow down the next shot as one has to exert additional cognitive load to ensure they are reacting to the aiming reference and not the outer circle. Once again, that’s a valid point. However, even those who have developed a grip that allows for consistent recoil recover sometimes screw up the grip and recoil recovery isn’t consistent. When that happens, the outer ring once again provides a valuable correction reference. Is that correction reference worth the additional cognitive load prior to taking a shot? I’d argue that it is for novice to intermediate level marksmen since the corrective reference decreases the muzzle to target realignment time. This is probably not the case for highly skilled advanced marksmen who very rarely experience a bad grip and inconsistent recoil recovery.
See where I’m going with this yet?
The outer ring, which can be turned on or off, can be a valuable aid. Sure, it can certainly be a crutch that enables laziness, an additional input that places unnecessary tax on the pistolero, or lead to false positives shoot indicators to advanced marksmen who are relying on very coarse grained color based visual confirmation.
That probably sounds like more cons than pros, but a think I’ve learned over the years is that there are several types of gun owners who put optics on their pistols such as, but not limited to:
- Those who have no aspirations to become skilled marksmen and will rarely practice (the ACSS reticle is a great option here),
- those who have aspirations to become skilled marksmen, but won’t do the work for one reason or another (the ACSS reticle is a great option here as well),
- those who have aspirations and are training, but are still in the early stages of their skill development (the ACSS reticle is good option here if it is used judiciously and wisely),
- and those who truly are advanced marksmen (the reticle won’t matter for folks in this category).
So what’s the best Holosun optic reticle for you? It depends.
If you’re just starting down the red dot path, the Primary Arms ACSS Vulcan reticle is, in my opinion, a safe bet and worth consideration. If you’re already on your way to becoming a competent marksman, then I will still suggest considering it, but make it a point to work towards turning off the outer ring and not relying on it. If you are an IDPA Expert or USPSA B class pistolero or better, then you probably realize that the reticle matters very little, but having an optional corrective aid for some situations and contexts might be worth your while.