Reflex sights - Image quality of aiming dot?


PDA






Bill_Rights
April 1, 2009, 07:29 AM
I just received my new Burris Fastfire II reflex sight and have some questions for those having experience with reflex sights. First, here is what it looks like:

http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww25/Bill_Rights/Burris_Fastfire_II_Reflex_sight1.jpg
http://www.burrisoptics.com/fastfire.html

This sight projects a red light beam from an LED (light emitting diode) onto the curved glass lens/screen. The screen has a coating on it that reflects only the wavelength of the light beam back toward your eye while letting all other light pass in either direction, so you can sight through it. The projected dot is supposed to be 4 MoA size. Put the red dot on the target, pull the trigger, bullet goes there (once zeroed). Simple, cool.

Questions:
1) The projected dot on the screen is a little "fuzzy". Actually, the edges look sharply, irregularly jagged. Is this normal? I think it is distracting, at least, for aiming. I guess I am spoiled by the sharpness of scope reticles. My first thought was, the jaggedness is due to reflections off small scratches on the glass screen. But I guess it could be from the LED lens/projection assembly. How to tell and what to do?

2) Mfgr says the intensity of the LED beam uses an ambient light sensor and brightens or dims the dot to suit light level - the sensor is in that little hole you can see in the photo centered just beneath the lens. Supposed to measure light in the direction of your target. Q: Could the fuzzy dot image be because the intensity is too bright? Maybe the intensity control is stuck on high? I can't see any difference, whatever the lighting (I guess that's the point of the sensor, but it may be too bright overall).

Do I call Burris or where I bought the unit (MidwayUSA)? How would I know that any replacement unit is any better?

Overall its a cool little unit - I think I'll like it once set to my liking.

If you enjoyed reading about "Reflex sights - Image quality of aiming dot?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hostile Amish
April 1, 2009, 08:18 AM
Fuzzy dot appears on any reflex sight.

dave from mesa
April 1, 2009, 09:09 AM
I have a J-Point and the dot is fuzzy also. Sure wish someone could make them with a nice round clear dot.

stubbicatt
April 1, 2009, 09:10 AM
Howabout on an aimpoint? Is the dot any better defined?

H2O MAN
April 1, 2009, 09:25 AM
I had one of those and did not like the distorted view through the curved glass.
The dot was a little fuzzy and did not appear perfectly round.

The dot on my Aimpoint T-1 is clear until I crank up the brightness and the dot/reticle on my EOTech is crystal clear.

hardluk1
April 1, 2009, 09:58 AM
Find one that has and ajustment for brightness like all the tube tyoe have so you can dail in the amount of light needed. I to ordered a reflex type and would not get must again without the dial.

briansmithwins
April 1, 2009, 10:15 AM
Astigmatism in your eye can also effect the sharpness of the dot. Try rotating the whole sight: If the jaggies stay in the same place, it's your eye. If they rotate with the sight, it's the sight.

I agree that your Burris sounds like it's too bright for ambient conditions, which is another reason I don't like auto adjusting sights. BSW

Walkalong
April 1, 2009, 10:22 AM
Howabout on an aimpoint? Is the dot any better defined?Just about a perfect circle until turned up too much.

heron
April 1, 2009, 10:46 AM
I never noticed any irregularity of the dot in mine (cheapo Sightmark), but what I do have a problem with is lining up the dot with the proper portion of my prescription glasses.

desidog
April 1, 2009, 11:33 AM
So the overall opinion I'm getting here is that the Burris isn't that good? I was thinking about getting one at some point, but am more inclined to go with the Leupold, since it doesn't require batteries to function...and the batteries always go too quick!

Cohibra45
April 1, 2009, 11:39 AM
'Red Dot' sights are not meant for 'precision' shooting......they are used for accurate 'fast' fire. In other words, if you want precision MOA shooting, get yourself a good scope. If your needs are MOM/A (minute of man/animal) and need to get off shots quickly, then the 'red dot' sights are what you need (or just a good set of irons)!!!;)

Bill_Rights
April 1, 2009, 11:47 AM
Thanks.

BSW: Thanks for the idea to rotate, check my own eyes.

H2O Man: OK, OK - Aimpoint and EOTech: I paid $209 for the Burris Fastfire II and I thought I was doing good not to cheap out but to pay 4X more than the $50 bottom-rung units, and buy from Burris, a family-owned USA (Colorado) company I trust and have seen good things from (although, the sight itself is marked "Made in Philippines", which I also 10X prefer over something made in China). But the Aimpoint and EOTech, aren't they $1000-1500? They damn well better be better! But I always assumed they got a premium price because they had the military contracts, and you could get just as good stuff, made in the USA, from those who don't have the big contracts. Not true?

Several of You: You seem to agree that overly intense dot makes the fuzzy-ness happen, or at least makes it worse. It gave me the idea to look around for a sliver of neutral density filter material/plate and stick it between the projector and the screen, to see if that cures the fuzz, i.e., by knocking down the intensity impinging on the screen. But of course, I need to be able to put the filter in the beam without blocking my eye-view of the screen, hence the "sliver" idea. Let you know....

heron
April 1, 2009, 11:54 AM
If you're going to do something with a neutral-density filter, I'd try putting a bit of it over the sensor hole first. BTW, have you tested to see if that's working? Block the hole and the image should change intensity (dimmer), shine extra light at it, and it should get brighter.

mattw
April 1, 2009, 12:18 PM
Try focusing on the target instead of the image of the dot. That is how EoTechs are designed to be used, maybe it would apply to this optic as well.

Bill_Rights
April 2, 2009, 12:54 AM
BSW said: Astigmatism in your eye can also effect the sharpness of the dot. Try rotating the whole sight: If the jaggies stay in the same place, it's your eye. If they rotate with the sight, it's the sight. The "jaggies" do stay in the same place when I rotate the sight, so I tend to agree that the effect is in my eye. Actually, that would be another good test. Look at it with my other (non-dominant) eye - the two eyes couldn't have the exact same patern of jaggies. That said, if I dim the projection light, as heron said, the jaggies nearly go away. Mattw, your idea didn't work. Somehow the jaggies look the same no matter how far out I focus my eye(s). I guess that's the "magic" of 1X reflex sights - that's why they work.

chris in va
April 2, 2009, 01:09 AM
I have two red dots, both look like a coronal discharge from the sun.
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7809/070817solarflare516jaxa.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=070817solarflare516jaxa.jpg)

If I lower the brightness, they appear nice and round. It's all in my eyes.

Coal Dragger
April 2, 2009, 01:38 AM
My Aimpoint has a fairly clean dot on lower power settings, but it is slightly elongated due to the angle it is projected on the glass.

lipadj46
April 2, 2009, 08:46 AM
Turn down the brightness it will appear fuzzy when cranked up. Also if you focus on the dot it can look fuzzy but if you focus past the dot it will sharpen up. You could have a bad one though.

Bill_Rights
April 2, 2009, 10:23 AM
Coal Dragger,
Your eyes are not fooling you about the elongated dot. I see the same thing on the Burris unit. I think this particular undesirable imperfection is due to the inherent optical output nature of the solid-state light-emitting diode (LED) or the laser diode (LD) being used to generate the light for the dot. These guys (LEDs and LDs) both put out an elliptical beam. See the figure below with the big blue oval in front and its label wording to the immediate left of it. This is entirely typical of these devices and a figure like this appears in every optics textbook relating to the matter:

http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww25/Bill_Rights/Elliptical_output_of_Diode_Laser.jpg

The light-emitting material is built up in thin layers ( about 1 micro-meter = 0.039 mils = 0.000039") thick, in stacks, on semiconductor wafers, then the diode devices are cleaved out of the flat wafer into "chips" and the emitted light comes out of the edges of the chips. The chip is represented by the rectangular elongated-perspective box in the drawing. The emitting layer is wider than it is thick, so you get an elliptical beam (though note that the sense of the ellipse is 90 from what you'd expect). Turns out, it is a bear of a job to "circularize" these elliptical output beams. So most cheap optical systems just take a half-hearted stab at it and leave the output beam kinda not circular. More than you wanted to know, but this is what Burris and the others are fighting to get it right....

sinistr
April 2, 2009, 03:59 PM
i like the trijicon reflex myself,doesn't require batteries and is very tough.will washout in real bright light though.the small triangle redicle seems to work the best, imo.

Hungry Seagull
April 2, 2009, 05:18 PM
My sightmark reflex isnt that bad, however no auto light here, just a big knob setting the intensity.

Ask me again a month from now after the cataract is removed from the eye that will be using that sight.

dillynfw
April 2, 2009, 05:22 PM
I hope this isn't off topic but what's the max. effective range for a sight like this?

Obviously, there's no magnification. So is it merely then a matter of zeroing the sight at any reasonable distance you want?

H2O MAN
April 2, 2009, 05:32 PM
dillynfw

I hope this isn't off topic but what's the max. effective range for a sight like this?


I was able to deliver consistent hits to the head of a steel target
at 400 yards off hand with my EOTech equipped MK14 SEI Mod 0.

Bill_Rights
April 2, 2009, 06:21 PM
dillynfw:
I don't mind (as OP) talking about range. I've looked at targets 200 yds away with mine and see no reason I couldn't put a (rifle) bullet into an 8" box with this sight (4 MOA dot size). But I think Cohibra45 (yesterday) has the right idea....

sinistr:
A triangular dot, eh? That could NOT be a raw LED beam of any sort. See my posting above about the elliptical beam and the difficulty of even making it just circular.

NEW SUB-TOPIC: Who knows if their reflex sight uses a reticle (or some kind of equivalent) to shape the "dot" or whether the dot you see is just the raw light beam, reflected off the screen?

I am beginning to think that the Burris Fastfire I have just has me looking straight into the output of the LED. Well, if so, no wonder the dot is fuzzy, jaggy or whatever!? Even looked at the filament of a light bulb up close? Or looked at the sun? Even looking into a flashlight too close is, uh, non-productive. The receptors in your eye are overwhelmed by the light intensity and all sorts of image distortions result.

Anybody know?

briansmithwins
April 2, 2009, 06:48 PM
Unity power sights (1X) shine for close up, fast work. They can be used for longer ranges (I've shot and got hits on man sized steel at 400 yards) but they have problems at range. The primary problem is that unity power sights don't help you SEE the target the way a magnified optic can: That tan smudge is just a tan smudge, not visable as a face...

The shaped reticles on a Trijicon Reflex sight are formed by the emitter. If you look at the emitter you'll see a little wee triangle, or chevron, or dot. I like the Reflex, but 2 batteries in a modern Aimpoint get you longer life (always on) than the tritium in a Reflex sight. Plus the battery is field replaceable. BSW

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 2, 2009, 07:19 PM
useful range is around 50 yards for a "pretty close" hit, maybe a bit more.

briansmithwins
April 2, 2009, 08:06 PM
useful range is around 50 yards for a "pretty close" hit, maybe a bit more.

What exactly are you referring to?

I've shot 8" steel at 300+ yards with an Aimpoint before at our local rifle matches. Hardly 'pretty close'.

Now, that steel can be bloody hard to see out there after it's been shot a bit and turned grey...

BSW

sinistr
April 2, 2009, 10:34 PM
bill rights,the trijicon does no use a led beam.it uses tritium (which is why it doesn't use batteries) i was not aware the op was refering to just to that kind of reflex sight.

wally
April 2, 2009, 10:47 PM
Take a photo of the dot, I think you will find it remarkably round. The bright point-like light exposes all the defects in the eye. Before I had my astigmatism fixed with Lasik I'd see two dots if the brightness was very high.

You definitely must look thru the dot and focus on the target. Failure to do so results in misses and complaints about them "not holding zero".

I'm very happy with my Burris Fast Fire, since I have to shoot into the sun a good bit of the time the way our range is laid out, but it could be too bright for other conditions.

--wally.

Bill_Rights
April 2, 2009, 11:15 PM
sinistr,

You are correct that I was thinking only of electrically powered light sources in my last post (actually in all my posts), answering to you about the triangular dot.

Truth is, several people have been talking about tritium-powered red dots. I have been ignoring them, in the sense that I have not kept a list of which brand of optics has the tritium. So, when you mentioned the triangle dot, I didn't "snap" that it was on a tritium type unit.

I was thinking that your triangle-dot unit was electrically powered. If that were the case (which it's not, for the Trijicon), then there must be some sort of triangular-shaped diffuser (which I was calling a "reticle", but that might be the wrong term) to intercept light from the bright-jaggy electric source and a) give the triangular or circular shape and b) get rid of the "jaggies". It would be the lit-up image of the shaped diffuser (maybe reticle) that would be projected onto the sighting screen.

I am happy to talk about the larger point, however. The glow from a tritium lamp/emitter would not have a super-bright optical hot-spot, like an LED, LD or even a light bulb filament would have. The glow from a tritium source would be uniformly emitted from all through the phosphor slug - of course, the light being used would mostly be coming from near the surface facing the optic path. In fact, the Trijicon probably just uses a triangular-shaped plug of tritium/phosphor, and that gets focused and projected onto the sighting screen. In my (maybe wrong) reticle terminology, the light source and the reticle are one and the same object.

EDIT: Duhhh.... briansmithwins said:The shaped reticles on a Trijicon Reflex sight are formed by the emitter. If you look at the emitter you'll see a little wee triangle, or chevron, or dot. .... BSW This is exactly my content when I said the Trijicon probably just uses a triangular-shaped plug of tritium/phosphor, and that gets focused and projected onto the sighting screen. In my (maybe wrong) reticle terminology, the light source and the reticle are one and the same object. , in which I failed to give credit to BSW for the idea.

gga357
April 2, 2009, 11:20 PM
I have a pretty bad astigmatism and I am new to reflex sights. I have to admit I am not too happy because they really show how bad the astigmatism is. Makes me like the Millett I put on my FNAR.

Bill_Rights
April 3, 2009, 12:45 AM
I took Wally's advice and took a photo of the red dot (Burris Fastfire II) in action, so to speak. The setup of the shot is not any too good (dot not centered, focus depth huh?, etc.) but all the dots in all the photos look the same anyway. Here it is:

http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww25/Bill_Rights/Burris_Fastfire_II_dot_appearance1_.jpg

earplug
April 3, 2009, 01:03 AM
As far as accuracy goes, many use red dots for Bullseye. I like my Ultradots.
I suspect as your photos show that the image you see is due to your eyes.
Depending on my eyes, I might get a bunch of grape effect for a dot.
Or a sunspot eruption looking thing.
I have been messing with a quality iron sight 22 lr pistol for grins and it has shown me that my dots are way better then irons for bullseye.

HorseSoldier
April 3, 2009, 01:26 AM
I hope this isn't off topic but what's the max. effective range for a sight like this?

I've made consistent hits out at 600 meters on steel chest plates using an EOTech and an M4 (after some trial and error to figure hold over), with good ammo -- not a chip shot, but not magic (and easier than doing the same with irons, in my opinion).

benzy2
April 3, 2009, 02:20 AM
I have never tried for absolute accuracy but I know if I shoot for quick follow up shots a reflex sight is always more accurate for me. I find it easier to put the dot on the target on multiple shots than to line the irons back up. It may not give the tightest groups possible but it certainly is faster getting back onto the targets I am shooting at.

Bill_Rights
April 3, 2009, 10:19 AM
earplug,

What is "Bullseye"? Is that a competition style or game?

You mention "Ultradots". Who manufactures these and could you describe them and give price range (for ex., Burris Fastfire is in the $200 range)?

What is "grape effect"? Is it static or changing?

HorseSoldier said: (after some trial and error to figure hold over) What is "hold over", please?

robsc
April 3, 2009, 11:18 AM
I put a ZEISS reflex on my 629. Dot size is 3.9m.o.a. It`s fuzzy around the egde if I`m indoors and looking thru it with intensity set too high. There is no fuzzy edge outdoors with same setting.
http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq296/southerngent0012/Picture149.jpg

H2O MAN
April 3, 2009, 11:22 AM
HorseSoldier

I've made consistent hits out at 600 meters on steel chest plates using an EOTech and an M4 (after some trial and error to figure hold over),

Nice shooting!
The 1 MOA center dot in the EOTech reticle does make this easy.

Bill_Rights
April 3, 2009, 11:38 AM
robsc,

Hey, your photo link http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/q...Picture149.jpg does not work for me - something about "expired or moved". Please check it and update. I'd like to see what you had in mind.

Thanks.

robsc
April 3, 2009, 08:11 PM
Bill Rights, the photobucket link has been updated. thank you.

Titan6
April 3, 2009, 10:39 PM
Okay I will be the party stopper. The $780 Aim Point that the Army issued me works just as well as the $19 china special sight I bought at Walmart 4 years ago. The target can not tell the difference inside 200 meters. Past 200 meters they both get flaky.

The difference between a $800 magnified scope and $19 Walmart special is huge though.

Lucky
April 3, 2009, 10:57 PM
I like the Reflex, but 2 batteries in a modern Aimpoint get you longer life (always on) than the tritium in a Reflex sight. Plus the battery is field replaceable. BSW

But in the post-nuclear-apocalypse world where such things would matter, batteries will be priceless, while you simply leave your rifle outside once in a while to recharge the rads on the Trijicon.

DoubleTapDrew
April 3, 2009, 11:12 PM
I have EOtechs (and a little astigmatism in my right eye). The dot looked like you describe until I learned to focus on the target, then it's remarkably sharp. You can't focus on the dot like with crosshairs in a traditional sight or it'll explode into a mess like you see. Try it. Focus on a point on a wall and bring the sight up in front of you eye and keep focusing on that point.

The $780 Aim Point that the Army issued me works just as well as the $19 china special sight I bought at Walmart 4 years ago.
I have a $20 BSA red dot that works more or less as well as a "good" red dot. However if it's subjected to rough use, dropping, smacking on a door frame, etc. I have a feeling the cheapo one would quickly show why it's so cheap. It's fine for a range gun though.
Bill Rights: Here's the Ultradot site: http://www.ultradotusa.com/ I think they are made in China. Last time I checked they were in the $100 range and a good bargain. Much more rugged than the cheap ones, and much less expensive than the major brands.

Titan6
April 4, 2009, 09:19 AM
That is an excellent point. I subjected the Aimpoint to all kinds of abuse and to my utter amazement it remained true. Sounds like a $20 experiment is in order.

This is an excellent thread BTW.

H2O MAN
April 4, 2009, 09:32 AM
I love the EOTech. It has an excellent reticle, but heat can sap power from the batteries.

My new favorite red dot is the tiny Aimpoint Micro, mine are T-1s.
At about 3.50 MOA the dot is a little larger than I like, but it's unaffected by heat and the battery life is extra long.

I have a T-1 on my T56SHTF (http://www.athenswater.com/Type_56SHTF_AK47.htm) and on one of my MK14s (http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14-EBR-18.jpg).




.

Bill_Rights
April 4, 2009, 09:35 AM
Thanks to all Responders.

HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED (I will start another thread to zero in on one more detail):

1) DIRECT BEAM PROJECTION reflex sights, with electric-powered beam (usually LED), can "overwhelm" the light receptor to the eye, or maybe fool the brain's interpretation of it, so many of us see a jagged, irregular starburst or or other mis-shapen "dot" on the aiming screen. This effect is worse in dim ambient lighting conditions.

2) Even with that, the majority report is that reflex sights are at least faster for target acquisition (esp. for second, third, etc. shot) than iron sights and probably also marginally more accurate.

3) "TRITIUM" or other PHOSPHOR reflex sights have a nice, tight, well-shaped dot, but their brightness may get overwhelmed in bright sunlight and they may lose brightness over time (a few days?). But they can be "re-charged" by exposure to bright light. Somewhere I gathered that there are also "fiber optic" reflex sights that gather ambient light to concentrate it to make a dot. I did not get too much detail on that. Somebody else post to this thread or start another if interested - I am, mildly.

4) RETICLE-PROJECTION reflex sights, with electric light source, exist. Apparently. Beyond that, I got not much detail. That will be the topic of my next thread on this general area.

Thanks!

If you did want to continue this thread a bit:

- What colors are available in tritium dots in reflex sights. Ever heard of multiple color choices available in one sight?

PO2Hammer
April 4, 2009, 11:02 AM
bill rights,the trijicon does no use a led beam.it uses tritium (which is why it doesn't use batteries) i was not aware the op was refering to just to that kind of reflex sight.

Trijicons don't project a beam, the lens is partially mirrored to pick up the reflection (hence reflex) of the triangle. Mechanically they are much simpler than the ones like your Burris. Just two hinges and two beefy adjustment screws. If your picking one for ruggedness, get the Trijicon. Mine is 8 or 9 years old and still works perfectly.

FWIW, the emitter on my Reflex II is triangular. The triangle is very crisp and shrp on the screen. I usee the sharp tip of the triangle for precision aiming. better than open sights, not as precise as a scope, but what do you expect?

Tritium (used in the Trijicon Reflex sights) is a radioactive gas that gives off it own light. It deminishes over a much longer period of time, like decades. The tritium only comes into play in total darkness, otherwise the fiber optics are supplying the light.

http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/parts_new.cfm?categoryID=8

click on the 'more info' button.

PO2Hammer
April 4, 2009, 11:05 AM
One more nice feature to the Trijicon model is the windage and elevation settings are easily adjusted with a coin or cartridge rim. No fusssy allen wrenches or covers to lose.

SharpsDressedMan
April 4, 2009, 11:43 AM
The 3.5- 4.0 minute dots are o.k. out to 300 yards, but beyond that, head shots are going to be iffy, due to covering too much of the target. They are, as stated by others, reflexive (hence the name) for shooting at more immediate combat ranges, say 25-200 yards. Beyond 250, there are better sights, and with QD systems, one can change to a longer range scope if he has the QD setup for that type of scope at hand. Some people hang the Docter or Burris on the SIDE of a tactical weapon for close shots and backup to their glass, long range scopes. The Burris is NOT waterproof, as the expensive Docter is supposed to be, and this is where "you get what you pay for" comes in. Some tac scopes are waterproof. The red dot can be a little fuzzy..."forget about it!". It still works fine, gets tight groups (if you aim in the same place each time), and gets on target as fast or faster than most everything else.

TRGRHPY
April 4, 2009, 01:01 PM
I have a mini red-dot from Tactical Night Vision mounted on a LaRue qd that has the photo sensor on the front like yours. Mine adjusts just fine, so you might have an issue with yours. Try covering the sensor hole with a finger or something and see if it gets lighter, remove your finger and it should get brighter. If it isn't adjusting, I'd send it back. TNV sells theirs for $139 the last time I checked.

Bill_Rights
April 5, 2009, 02:19 AM
TRGRHPY,

You know what? The RDP-II mini-dot from Tactical Night Vision Company IS THE SAME THING as the Burris Fastfire. Here're two photos from TNVC's web page (http://tacticalnightvision.com/red_dot_sights.htm) for red-dots:

http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww25/Bill_Rights/TNVC_RDP-II_on_Scope_Accessory_Ring.jpg http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww25/Bill_Rights/Tactical_Night_Vision_RDP-II_kit.jpg

The thing that clinched it for me is the shipping kit. Every single piece is the same as what you get with the Burris (well, the foam is cut a little different). But the elev. and windage adjustment dial is exactly the same, as are the tools. Maybe the lens coatings are a little different (TNVC is blueish, Burris FF is orangeish, but that could just be the light or angle). But the controls, shape and everything are the same.

So you say Try covering the sensor hole with a finger or something and see if it gets lighter, remove your finger and it should get brighter. If it isn't adjusting, I'd send it back. and I did try that. The red dot does dim down somewhat when I cover the sensor, but it never goes below a certain level, and for my eyes, that level is too bright for everything except bright sunlight - I get the really bad jaggy dot shape. But, yeh, yeh, I hear ya Sharps red dot can be a little fuzzy..."forget about it!". It still works fine, gets tight groups (if you aim in the same place each time) I could probably get used to it. Trying to decide if I will or not....

Bill_Rights
April 7, 2009, 02:52 PM
To round off this thread, I thought I'd share the best intro to reflex sights I've come across.
Electronic Sights; A look at why they exist, how they work, and how you use them. (http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-sights.htm) by Oleg Volk.

Wasn't Oleg a founder (or something?) of THR? Is he still involved? I am still a newbie, so old-timers speak up!

If you enjoyed reading about "Reflex sights - Image quality of aiming dot?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!