I want to start off by saying that I really love this holosight -- but I can't say that. What I really need to tell you is that I would have loved this site if it were what it was claimed to be, but the actual unit fell far short of my expectations. I'll start off with a little bit of info about me as a reviewer. I have been interested in long range precision and premium grade optics since the 1990s. I own Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Tangent Theta and old Leupolds. Although this was my first holographic sight purchase it was not my first red dot sight (RDS) purchase. I have experience using RDS and have no problems with them. I have 20/10 vision and I do not have astigmatism. I have some presbyopia that limits my ability to focus up close, which results in excellent vision that is biased toward focusing at infinity to render a holographic site picture very clear. I have had no problems whatsoever with RDS products by Aimpoint, Trijicon and Holosun or any claims of "astigmatism."Now about the EOTEch sight -- on opening the package I was concerned that I was shipped an item that had previously been returned but was being re-sold as a "NewItem." This is because the mandatory EOTech export restriction warning label on the side of the packaging had been covered up with another label that said, "X001UTZT6L 112850413 EOTECH EXPS3 Holographic Weapon Sight NewItem." (see attached photo). I was worried by the fact that the arms restriction export label had been covered up by a label that declared this unit to be a "NewItem". How could an item being sold as new from the EOTech Store on Amazon be anything but new? This label being stuck to the side of the box, directly over the manufacturer's export restriction label, raised my eyebrows.Unboxing showed an item that appeared to be new/unused, as there was no evidence of previous mounting on the quick-detach Picatinny mount. The unit had the typical problems with incomplete and/or excessive glue on the glass windows, as others have mentioned in their Amazon reviews. That's not worrisome to me in the short term, but it does give me pause to think about the horror stories that I've heard about EOTech sights having their glass delaminating after 5 years (when they are no longer covered by the factory warranty) and reticles going dim due to nitrogen depressurization. If you read the warranty information closely, you get 5 years of free repairs, then 5 years of service for $100, then you get nothing. That means that this is at best, a 10-year optic and cannot be considered a 20-year optic or a lifetime optic. There are plenty of horror stories about people sending in EOTechs that are out of warranty and EOTech refusing to service them. As a practical matter, that means that you have to pay close attention to even the smallest glass/lamination/adhesive defects on delivery, as those defects may result in the failure of your optic rendering it non-serviceable and non-repairable. Then you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're going to be SOL after 10 years if the optic should develop a problem, as EOTech does not offer a lifetime warranty like others in the industry. Instead, they recommend the purchase of another new optic.The deal killer for this purchase -- the reason that I had to return it -- were what appeared to be manufacturing defects in the reticle and poor quality control. No, I'm not complaining about "fuzziness" in the reticle. That's a user training problem. Holographic reticles will appear fuzzy or pixelated if you focus on them instead of on the target. You need to train yourself to look through the reticle and focus on the target so that the reticle will appear clear. That technique works well once you are able to master it. The problem with this sight was different -- on this sight when I would focus at a distant target the Speed Ring (aka the "donut of death") would appear as a sharp collection of pixels, but the 50/200 yard and 500 yard "dots" did not appear as dots; they appeared as crescents. (see the attached image). No amount of intensity adjustment could make the images appear as dots, the crescents just got brighter or dimmer. The problem is that these targeting "dots" do not appear as dots because there is a defect in the alignment of the holographic grate that projects the dots onto the reticle. This unit was clearly mis-aligned at the factory (or damaged in the supply/distribution network) and never should have been sold to the public. In my opinion this is most likely a manufacturing defect and a quality control failure. The extra label that has been added to the box appears to indicate that the item was purchased, returned, inspected, and marked for resale without bothering to fix the defect. (see attached photos).So now I have two options: return for refund or jump through warranty hoops with EOTech. My decision was to take the money and run. If an item is defective on purchase, I never go through warranty I just return it. I'm very disappointed that I have to go this route, because I got a great price on this optic during the EOTech end of summer sale at the EOTech Amazon Store. It's unlikely that I'm ever going to find a deal like this again (I've been price watching for a long time). It's just too bad that when I finally found the item on sale by the manufacturer, I appeared to be the recipient of someone's decision to unload their dud merchandise. This is really disappointing because I want to buy an American product from an American company and I'm willing to pay more to get quality, but I'm not willing to pay more just to buy American if the quality is substandard. The quality needs to be there. Right now it looks like EOTech is sitting on their laurels and passing off sub-par/rejects/seconds during their "sales", hoping that non-discriminating buyers won't notice that they're being shipped seconds. EOTech needs to improve their QC and needs to offer a lifetime warranty to remain competitive in the current marketplace.I hate to say it, but the EOTech is being returned, I'm falling back to using a Holosun HS512C, and now I'm shopping for the Vortex UH-1 primarily for it's warranty.About recticle options: I purchased the EXPS3-2 because I wanted some long distance ranging capability, but I was not willing to consider the EXPS3-4. The Type -4 reticle is just too difficult to use without a magnifier, and if the dots are not crisp, the Type -4 reticle offers no advantage. Indeed, the Type -2 reticle offers very little advantage, and is best used with magnification. My two cents on this is that the Type -4 ranging dots are crowded and you can't really benefit from them unless you use a magnifier. The Type -2 is also crowded (but less crowded than the Type -4). The Type -2 is best used with magnification, but could be usable without magnification if you've got excellent eyesight and a good specimen of the holosight. (I have good eyesight but I got a lemon holosight). All things considered, if I had to do it all over again I'd probably just buy the Type -0 reticle (single dot) because the rifle I'm going to use with this holosight is intended for close range combat style shooting, not long range precision, and the 500 yard dot really is not needed for non-DMR/civilian applications.About the photography: These photos were taken of the actual unit being reviewed. A Zeiss Otus manual focus telephoto lens and Nikon DSLR were used in manual focus mode to accurately focus the camera at infinity to provide the clearest possible rendering of the projected reticle on a dark background. This method yielded the clearest possible rendering of the EOTech reticle, removing all of the fuzziness and as much pixellation as possible. Photographs were taken at each of the available visible light settings on the EOTech using "small" lens aperture at the camera's diffraction limit of f/8 to maximize apparent depth of field while avoiding any diffraction-limited effects on resolution; exposure control was performed manually by "chimping" shutter speed until a suitable image was obtained; long exposures (1/15) at medium ISO were used to prevent the introduction of "grain" by the camera sensor. Photos were selected that showed the most clear definition of the reticle image. Notice that on the EOTech reticle was uniformly in focus within a single plane, while the Holosun reticle had the top and bottom of the Speed Ring appearing at subtly different focus distances near infinity, which results in the "donut" being thicker toward the top of the image than on the bottom; this variation in thickness at the top/bottom reverses when the camera lens' focus is subtly adjusted, indicating that the projection of the Holosun reticle does not lie uniformly in the vertical plane. (the glass is canted). I don't notice this "defect" in real world use on the Holosun, but the crescent-shaped dots are very annoying on the EOTech.