View Full Version : deltapoint vs Rmr for Glock duty weapon
Hey guys at it again. now that i have seen what an Rmr is capable of and how alt of teams are going to them. im thinking of adding one to one of my duty guns. either my Glock 17 or 19. i see the two most popular are the Rmr from trijicon and the deltapoint. David bowie likes the deltapoint and he's been at this game probably the longest. but idk how id like the triangle. also it is nice to switch weapons platforms and have the same red.dot. But im looking for yalls opinions especially people who have.shot one.or the.other or.both. how do they compare with each other in durability. also can't forget gabe suarez who favors the Rmr with the buis behind the mrds.
thanks for the help and sorry for the punctuation errors im typing this on my phone while on duty. Dinner break haha.
hope y'all have a great weekend.
jonconsiglio
03-09-12, 18:29
I have used both for a while now. I prefer the Trijicon. The DeltaPoint is pretty decent as well, but I've never used it hard enough like the Trijicon, which has been mounted on two handguns and a shotgun over the past year or two. There was an issue with the DeltaPoint where it would flicker. It was replaced and has been fine since.
I guess that could have happened with the Trijicon as well, but I've only had the fiber optic/tritium model.
Here's my Glock 17 with Trijicon RMR. Work by Mark Housel of L&M Precision Gunworks (http://www.landmprecisiongunworks.com/drupal/). Admittedly, I have yet to subject this combination to real field use (save one unique and physically demanding match). I've only had it for about three months - and while the pistol is approaching 1000 rounds with no problems - I'm not completely confident in my capability with it yet. The RDS allows for truly precise shooting with the G17 - at 15 yards and in I cut one ragged hole with little effort. Out to 25 yards, I'm shooting far tighter groups than I do with irons.
The problem is speed - despite my best efforts, my first round shot from the draw is significantly slower with the dot, and my multiple shot splits are also slower. I haven't mastered tracking the dot through recoil. I regularly score six second FAST scores, and while I can pull the occasional sub-six second FAST time with irons, with the RDS I'm always 1-2 seconds slower.
Still, I remain intrigued by the combination and I can't help but think that this is the future. Unquestionably this is the pistol I'd choose for long range use or for the ubiquitous 'walk-back drill'. Every time I practice, my speed improves and I hope to continue to narrow the gap.
Regardless of which optic you choose, I highly recommend Mark Housel's work.
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x131/JSGlock34/IMG_2184.jpg
Thanks for.the info saw far guys. also if you have a mrds handgun. feel free to post pics. also what do y'all think about rear sight before or after the mrds
also was wondering what model Rmr y'all like. between the 02 and 07. I've heard that some holster and situations cause the 07 to change brightness or turn off.
I have over 5,000 rounds in the last month through a M&P 9 FS with an RMR -02 with complete satisfaction.
i jumped ship a decided to give it a try...i really havnt shot it enough to say yay or nay but it looks cool haha it will take some getting used to for sure
http://schupbachs.smugmug.com/Other/Custom-Stipple-Work/i-bdG67Dd/0/L/IMG7194-L.jpg
http://schupbachs.smugmug.com/Other/Custom-Stipple-Work/i-cKCVtn8/1/L/IMG7185-L.jpg
I cant comment on the Deltapoint. I have a G19 setup similar to JSGlock34s G17 - with the Trijicon RMR02. It is a good RDS - not as roomy as a T1 obviously.
Had this for almost a year now and did have an issue where became unstable in the beginning (on/off not when you wanted) - Trijicon took care of it fairly fast.
That said had it in a few pretty high speed classes since - past 9 mos - and its been a champ.
Now I totally agree about the longer initial target/sight acquisition. I have been working and working on it but still not totally comfortable with my that initial shot from draw - speed! Followup shots are very fast. Moving steel, also very fast and accurate. Gaming gun for sure.
Dont worry about switches with this one - on all the time - I'll change the battery July 4th. As for holsters, I did have to take a dremel to my Safariland 6004, but works fine with my Raven Concealment..
The delta is not a combat optic.
Get the RMRs and don't look back.
Third post here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887.
After running pistol slide mounted RDS trials for over two years using multiple types of sights (J-Point, Dr. Optic, ITI Mini-RDS, Leupold DeltaPoint, Trijicon RMR, micro-Aimpoint), we have come to prefer the RMR over all other slide mounted sights, including the Deltapoint. The one exception is when an absolutely robust and waterproof optic is needed for swimming operations, as well ensuring an OTB capability, then the low-mount micro-Aimpoint is the way to go despite the larger bulk and limited holster options.
As to which RMR, skip the self-illuminating RMR's and stick with the battery powered ones in order to ensure adequate dot brightness in all lighting conditions. Note that the adjustment pads on the early RMR-A's were very sensitive to even slight touch. A lot of folks running around with RMR-A's on duty pistols found that the R side dimmer switch would frequently get hit while the pistol was in the holster (modified 6280's/6004's, RCS Phantoms, Comp Tac Belt Holsters). This occurred just sitting in cars, going through shoot houses, and with general pistol manipulations. The advent of holsters like the Fricke Seraphim and the 6354DO that protect the RDS will hopefully reduce this issue. Even so, I have pulled RMR07 equipped pistols out of my holster and found the dot to be off or very dim--this has never happened with an RMR02. I do like the RMR07 on training pistols, as the ability to quickly turn off the dot is useful for practicing with the BIS.
8 MOA RMR02's milled into the slide in conjunction with tall BIS have been AWESOME--some of ours have now had over 2 years continuous running on the initial battery--these are on pistols that get carried every day. The consensus here is that the RMR02 is the best option for use on a typical duty/CCW pistol.
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=7655&filename=Glocks%20GFA.jpg
I cant comment on the Deltapoint. I have a G19 setup similar to JSGlock34s G17 - with the Trijicon RMR02. It is a good RDS - not as roomy as a T1 obviously.
Had this for almost a year now and did have an issue where became unstable in the beginning (on/off not when you wanted) - Trijicon took care of it fairly fast.
That said had it in a few pretty high speed classes since - past 9 mos - and its been a champ.
Now I totally agree about the longer initial target/sight acquisition. I have been working and working on it but still not totally comfortable with my that initial shot from draw - speed! Followup shots are very fast. Moving steel, also very fast and accurate. Gaming gun for sure.
Dont worry about switches with this one - on all the time - I'll change the battery July 4th. As for holsters, I did have to take a dremel to my Safariland 6004, but works fine with my Raven Concealment..
You run that RMR like a BOSS!
To the OP, in my limited experience (less than 1k rounds) with the two, I prefer the RMR over the Delta...
The RMR/Delta really excel in two areas IMHO, shooting on the move and shooting movers. I am a full second slower out of the holster with them though and I'm not sure how much of it is a training issue due to my limited use but I do have a harder time picking up the dot as fast as I do my front post... YMMV. I also found shooting at distance 50-100 yds to take some time getting used to...
Thanks for all of the info guys. I really appreciate it.
jonconsiglio
03-10-12, 09:03
Cool that Doc chimed in. Everyone seems to be on the same page here. I should have went with the LED over fiber optic, but it still works pretty well.
I too have found it takes some serious practice, at least for me, to pick up the dot. At first, irons were a good bit quicker unlike a carbine, where I was quicker from day one with an RDS even after years of irons.
For whatever reason, and I still haven't figured out exactly what I was doing, I could not get the dot during presentations at first. I'd have to adjust the angle a bit once I was extended. I guess it was after years of catching the front sight in view during my draw and following it during extension, if that makes sense.
I still don't have a one set up with a red dot at all times, so I'm still new to the idea, even though I've been toying with it off and on for 2 years now.
Lucky Strike
03-10-12, 09:12
I've got the following M&P with a Deltapoint and really like it. Haven't shot it in a class yet but using it in IPSC matches is so much fun being able to put more accurate hits (compared to irons) on target under stress and on the move. But yeah like everyone else I'm still working on getting that initial shot up to snuff speed wise compared to irons.
I'm currently having an RMR02 put on a PPQ (should get it back next week from Mark Housel).....looking forward to running the two side by side and figuring out which I like better.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/chicano11/Stipple6.jpg
Cool that Doc chimed in. Everyone seems to be on the same page here. I should have went with the LED over fiber optic, but it still works pretty well.
I too have found it takes some serious practice, at least for me, to pick up the dot. At first, irons were a good bit quicker unlike a carbine, where I was quicker from day one with an RDS even after years of irons.
For whatever reason, and I still haven't figured out exactly what I was doing, I could not get the dot during presentations at first. I'd have to adjust the angle a bit once I was extended. I guess it was after years of catching the front sight in view during my draw and following it during extension, if that makes sense.
I still don't have a one set up with a red dot at all times, so I'm still new to the idea, even though I've been toying with it off and on for 2 years now.
I find that painting my reserve front sight bright white or orange, and looking for it in the draw stroke, gets me on the dot reliably. When I was transitioning to the RMR, I found using a laser and presenting so the laser stayed on the target during my press out also helped me. Finally, I look to the lower part of the RMR window, not the center.
Here is one of our current crop of adj RMR07's on a training G19, note the painted front sight like GJM described:
http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=654&stc=1&d=1331509393
http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=655&stc=1&d=1331509405
willowofwisp
03-11-12, 18:51
Here is one of our current crop of adj RMR07's on a training G19, note the painted front sight like GJM described:
http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=654&stc=1&d=1331509393
http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=655&stc=1&d=1331509405
pics aren't working Doc.
When I first ran the RMR on a pistol, I didn't really dig it.
Just ran 200 rounds or so through a deltapoint equipped Glock 17 today, and I will be ordering an RMR02 ASAP.
Target transitions were easier, and my first shot wasn't really any slower, even on a pistol with the higher mount (dovetail mount) that had a GFA on it that I wasn't used to.
I'm sold.
Here is some footage of it.
Baseline performance with my own 17 with Defoor sights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7kOQz_w4U
Slower run early in the day working with the Deltapoint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeEvirsOo0
Running at full speed, 1 miss, but was just trigger control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga6f79LVlHw
We did some 1v1 competition drills, and whoever was shooting with the red dot consistently did better. They didn't win every drill, but we tracked times and times to first shot was about the same (even not being used to it) but transitions between targets was really where you saw the dot (and being able to stay target focuses) having the advantage.
We also did some shooting on the move and having the dot was a substantial benefit, there.
As a counter point, I just finished up a three plus month experiment shooting 10,000 rounds thru a M&P 9 FS with a RMR, and almost no iron sight rounds. I attended the Rogers Shooting School last week, and shot the RMR for the first three 125 shot school tests, and then an iron sighted M&P for tests 4-6. Despite not having shot many iron sight rounds since December, and the Rogers test being relatively dot friendly, I shot higher scores with the iron sight M&P.
Prior to this, I was absolutely convinced the RMR offered a major advantage over iron sights, but my experience did not prove out this theory. While this may change with improvements in RDS technology for handguns, my belief is that while someone with difficulty seeing the front sight or cross eye dominant may get a definite benefit with the RDS, someone able to see the front sight will likely shoot better with iron sights. The hard part is measuring this in more than an anecdotal way, and the 125 shot Rogers School test, repeated six times, is what got me to sort this out.
GJM—Based on what you have written above and at other web sites, I must be missing something. If I understand your narratives correctly, on this third trip to Rogers, after only a few months practice and only 10K rounds split between two different pistol types you successfully shot an RMR equipped pistol essentially the same as an iron sighted one (3 points difference) and both your RDS and iron sight scores were substantially better than your initial trip to Rogers only one year ago. I would be thrilled at such performance gains and am utterly unclear why you think your RDS experiment was a failure. I have to ask what your expectations were and whether they were realistic. In addition, I am curious why your performance at Rogers is the standard you are comparing yourself against.
I have not had an opportunity to attend Rogers as yet, but many military and LE colleagues have done so. Rogers is very good at teaching and testing one particular marksmanship task-set fired against a sequence of generally non-random targets. Unless you erroneously plan on standing basically stock still while in gunfights with multiple opponents who thankfully appear in the same sequence most every time, then Rogers, as good as it is for specific marksmanship skills, may NOT be a realistic measure of combat/self-defense shooting competence when looked at in aggregate.
You wrote elsewhere:
” It has almost been accepted as "settled science" that once you learned to acquire the red dot reliably, the red dot would do almost everything better. My experience did not support that theory.”
I have been involved with RDS handgun trials for a bit over 2 years now. In our experience it takes a lot of dry firing/drawing and thousands of live rounds to become proficient with an RDS. After 2 years, I am still not as quite as fast using the RDS as I was with iron sights, however, I am substantially more accurate with the RDS, especially at longer ranges. Anyone who claims an RDS equipped pistol is as fast as irons is delusional, but pure speed is NOT the only factor in real world shooting incidents. Shooting at moving targets and when moving is substantially easier with the RDS. The RDS also offers advantages in reduced light shooting. In addition, the RDS allows the shooter to remain fully focused on the threat and not have to transition back to the front sight prior to firing—this is an incredibly SIGNIFICANT factor in the real world!
Again, what were you expecting to occur? How is your accuracy at ranges 25 yds and beyond with an RDS vs. irons? What is the difference when shooting at targets moving laterally and at oblique angles when using an RDS vs. irons? How is the comparison when you are moving and shooting? Have you noticed any difference in shooting an RDS vs. irons in low light conditions?
Until those types of questions are addressed, I am not sure you should be so critical of your attempts with an RDS. Keep in mind I am NOT stating that an RDS is better or superior than irons.
More importantly, as noted by others, you might be better off to pick one pistol type, one sight type, and then go shoot and train with it for at least a year and preferably a decade or so over a wide array of shooting conditions. Only then will you truly begin to get a good measure of your shooting abilities.
I responded in detail on PF. Not sure if I should link that thread (or if that violates protocol here) or copy and paste my response here?
The delta is not a combat optic.
Get the RMRs and don't look back.
And have Doug /ATEi machine your slide!!
Top tier machining/Service.
All you guys running the RMR, have any of you tried it when its raining heavily and that lens is wet?
I am not so much concerned with the optic getting wet (im sure its plenty water proof) but more as to if your sight picture and is actually visible and/or usable? I was just reminiscing about a pistol class I took where it pretty much monsooned for two days straight.
Nice pics! Why is the Burris Fastfire 2 not on the list?
Nice pics! Why is the Burris Fastfire 2 not on the list?
The tittle of this thread is "deltapoint vs Rmr for Glock duty weapon".
Duty weapon = combat sidearm
A plastic body, plastic lens MRDS is NOT a combat optic.
If you want to put it on a plinker, go for it. It has no place on a combat firearm.
It is my opinion that the only 2 MRDS that should ever be on a combat sidearm are the Aimpoint micro's (T-1, H-1) and the Trijicon RMR.
The tittle of this thread is "deltapoint vs Rmr for Glock duty weapon".
Duty weapon = combat sidearm
A plastic body, plastic lens MRDS is NOT a combat optic.
If you want to put it on a plinker, go for it. It has no place on a combat firearm.
It is my opinion that the only 2 MRDS that should ever be on a combat sidearm are the Aimpoint micro's (T-1, H-1) and the Trijicon RMR.
The Insights is plastic bodied, and the only one currently made that is IR functional (other than T1's which are still being figure out with regards to mounts).
What do you really think is being used in "combat"?
Some people think the EOtech isn't a combat optic, or that plastic/aluminum rifles are combat worthy, or that plastic pistols aren't either...
I'm not saying the Burris should be a serious consideration for duty use, but 5 years ago there were about 4 people who thought ANY red dot sight belonged on a combat pistol.
Let's not forget the Bushnell Holopoint, which was a shitty Eotech with no metal hood on it, and that went downrange on a lot of rifles belonging to some high speed guys.
It's all relative...
Anyone put a Trijicon RM08 on their pistol (triangle)?
http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=RM08A
I have been running an RMR on my M&P for several years now and believe it really the way to go in many different applications (moving and shooting, shooting on the move while the other target is moving, low light, etc). If you are standing still and the target is still (and have good eyesight), then iron sights will most likely be faster and more accurate.
C4
Anyone put a Trijicon RM08 on their pistol (triangle)?
http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=RM08A
I have been running an RMR on my M&P for several years now and believe it really the way to go in many different applications (moving and shooting, shooting on the move while the other target is moving, low light, etc). If you are standing still and the target is still (and have good eyesight), then iron sights will most likely be faster and more accurate.
C4
Grant, do you run night sights as BUIS's on your M&P?
I had a buddy who carried his Glock/Sig with a Docter Optic for a while, and said he really had trouble finding his dot with a one handed draw at night.
I'm debating doing a front night sight vs. not, and would be curious what your experience in low light has been with it.
Thanks!
Grant, do you run night sights as BUIS's on your M&P?
I had a buddy who carried his Glock/Sig with a Docter Optic for a while, and said he really had trouble finding his dot with a one handed draw at night.
I'm debating doing a front night sight vs. not, and would be curious what your experience in low light has been with it.
Thanks!
I have a Tritium front sight. I also have CT laser grips. IMHO, in a room clearing environment, the laser is superior to the dot as it is faster. So typically use the laser for shots from 15yds and under. If the threat is farther out, I use the dot.
If using a Glock and not using the CT grips, I think it might not be a bad idea to have a front sight with tritium.
C4
gdboytyler
03-26-12, 19:24
I got to this thread because I was looking for Deltapoint reviews. Im thinking about putting the Deltapoint on my IPSC racegun.
It's interesting to read that the same complaints pop up. Gamers don't like the small lens on Aimpoint Micros because its easy to lose the dot when compared to Cmore sight. This causes slower draws; but not a problem with transitions.
I'm assuming the same problem for the duty weapon, harder to find the dot in the small RMR lens when compared to the front sight.
As a side note, with a Tasco 30mm red dot tube sight, I can draw and hit a chest size target, 10 yd away in 1.15 sec; exact same draw time and consistency with iron sights. With the Aimpoint Micro, I could hit 1.15 sec, but not as consistent. Bigger lens makes everything easier.
So for pure speed, I'm sure the Deltapoint has got to be faster than the RMR because of the bigger window. But no one has posted about any durability problems with the Deltapoint.
Has the RMR been shown to be undeniably more robust? I've read about a couple of gamers that have put the Deltapoint through thousands of rounds without any problems. However, not many gamers are using it yet; Cmore is still the king for IPSC.
Bowie Tactical
03-26-12, 19:34
I have been well published on running a Deltapoint and have beat the hell out of them. They have been fine. As with any new product they all have their bugs. The RMR's have had plenty. I can't say alot yet but I can tell you the Deltapoint you get now is even tougher in its internals than ever before. I have consulted at length with Leupold. They are very good to go. And you are right that they are faster and dot can be found faster in different positions because the wider window gives more angle to find it from.
David Bowie
Bowie Tactical Concepts
I have no hangups about the durability of the Deltapoint, but I don't like the lack of tactile clicks when adjusting it.
If it had the adjustment controls of the RMR, I'd buy one.
i jumped ship a decided to give it a try...i really havnt shot it enough to say yay or nay but it looks cool haha it will take some getting used to for sure
http://schupbachs.smugmug.com/Other/Custom-Stipple-Work/i-bdG67Dd/0/L/IMG7194-L.jpg
http://schupbachs.smugmug.com/Other/Custom-Stipple-Work/i-cKCVtn8/1/L/IMG7185-L.jpg
Did I shoot with you yesterday?
I'm guessing the slide must be refinished - hence many having a different color?
RMR02 here as well. I did a small design summary between the RMR and DeltaPoint, on here somewhere. There are a lot of things I dislike about the DP, except that the glass is clearer. I believe the RMR is the best deal going, though there has been a lot of interest in the T-1 as of late.
This is my EDC gun, of which I have 2 identical. Also have a 9pro setup the same way.
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss192/goteron/aacf1cff.jpg
Did I shoot with you yesterday?
I'm guessing the slide must be refinished - hence many having a different color?
If u shot at Matt's VSM class then yea. And ya I think you should have them refinished. Doug that has popped up a couple times on this thread is the one that did the mill work.. A+ btw Doug and thanks
If u shot at Matt's VSM class then yea. And ya I think you should have them refinished. Doug that has popped up a couple times on this thread is the one that did the mill work.. A+ btw Doug and thanks
Shoulda brought the can, dude! What kind is it?
Is there an advantage to running the suppressor sights behind the RMR or is it just personal preference? Seems like the RMR would get less beat up by ejection if further back with the BUIS in front.
I dont think there is an advantage either way. At the time I got these milled I just had it done that way. I dont get brass hitting the RMR though. I don't think it matters to me either way at this point.
FWIW our new mounting solution front mounts the BUIS.
Bowie Tactical
03-27-12, 09:18
I have no hangups about the durability of the Deltapoint, but I don't like the lack of tactile clicks when adjusting it.
If it had the adjustment controls of the RMR, I'd buy one.
Not a good reason to give up on it. It takes no time to sight it in and it's locking screws secure it better. I have seen and been told about many RMR's shooting out of adjustment. Again both are good. Both have had improvements over time but no clicks means nothing for this type of optic.
David Bowie
Bowie Tactical Concepts
I've heard that the front mounted sight protects the screen, but I don't know how brass would come out of the port that low against the slide.
I've noticed that it's easier to drive the gun out and find the dot when seeing the iron sights, and having that notch at the rear made it easier for me to do it than having the notch in front of the screen (and obscured by the screen hood when the gun is up at a high ready).
Probably a training issue, but one I see no benefit in changing.
I'm doing a rear mount, but to each their own.
Not a good reason to give up on it. It takes no time to sight it in and it's locking screws secure it better. I have seen and been told about many RMR's shooting out of adjustment. Again both are good. Both have had improvements over time but no clicks means nothing for this type of optic.
David Bowie
Bowie Tactical Concepts
Watching a buddy struggle with it to the point that he about sent it back, and not being able to adjust the locks through a rear mounted BUIS (without drilling them out) is a pain that I'm not looking for.
As you have to remove the optic to change batteries, I'm not interested in going through that headache every year, when it's much easier with the RMR.
As you said you worked on the DP, is there a reason Leupold isn't doing click adjustments, and went with this method of adjustment?
I don't know anyone that prefers this interface, so unless there is a benefit to it that I'm not seeing, I don't understand why Leupold chose it...
Thanks
I have no hangups about the durability of the Deltapoint, but I don't like the lack of tactile clicks when adjusting it.
If it had the adjustment controls of the RMR, I'd buy one.
Me neither. I like clicks in the adjustment.
Another issue is Leupold's CS. A forum member on here (Crossgun) had a big problem with them and his Deltapoint (as in they wouldn't warranty it).
C4
I have some other issues with the DP, but I believe the RMR is just designed and executed to a higher standard.
I don't use my irons at all when presenting.
Grant
Sorry if you mis understood me. The Delta Point was repaired after only 65 rounds by Leupold but their customer serviced sucks! Never again. If I but another Leupold product ever again it will be from Cabelas so I can just get another and avoid their customer service.
Just hate being treated like what I am saying is not true and waiting ridiculous times to have their issues fixed.
Would have liked to have had better service from the dealer but all he did was point the finger at them
Grant
Sorry if you mis understood me. The Delta Point was repaired after only 65 rounds by Leupold but their customer serviced sucks! Never again. If I but another Leupold product ever again it will be from Cabelas so I can just get another and avoid their customer service.
Just hate being treated like what I am saying is not true and waiting ridiculous times to have their issues fixed.
Would have liked to have had better service from the dealer but all he did was point the finger at them
Thank you for the clarification.
C4
Did I shoot with you yesterday?
I'm guessing the slide must be refinished - hence many having a different color?
Shoulda brought the can, dude! What kind is it?
Is there an advantage to running the suppressor sights behind the RMR or is it just personal preference? Seems like the RMR would get less beat up by ejection if further back with the BUIS in front.
It's not mine.... Yet lol it will come with time... We stock them at the shop and we threw it on for the drool factor haha the can is a gemtech tundra. I can't wait till I start the paper work on some cans lol
Um I just didn't like the rear sight in the rear. It stuck out like a sore thumb for me and I just focused on it too much. U don't even really notice it when it's in front until you have to use it, which hopefully you never have to...
I have seen more issues with delta points than rmr's and CS as well
RMR for me
Link mentioned by goteron: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=81008
I have Trijicon RM02s mounted on both of my go to pistols (TSD Combat Systems Glock 17 and 19) for about 6 months. Main carry gun right now is the 17. Both have retained zero without issue. I have sold many of these slide pacages equipped with the RM02 and have not had a single customer complaint. YMMV.
I’ll preface by saying I have tried this concept on a Glock 19. I ordered an extra factory Glock slide (I didn’t want to modify my matching serial numbered slide in case I didn’t like the concept.) and sent it to JP Enterprises to cut for a low mount for their JPoint 3.5 MOA MRDS.
I found I liked the concept for reasons everyone has already stated, but ultimately, the JPoint was not durable. The entire gun fell off my bathroom sink (note: not of extreme height) and the Jpoint shattered.
After which, I wanted to order the Trijicon RMR #07 with adjustable 6.5 MOA dot. However, just looking at the +/- adjustments on the side of the unit tells me the buttons could be easily bumped, which might be OK on a competition piece, not so much on a CCW. After reading some of the posts here, this seems to be confirmed.
I contacted David Bowie to see if my modified Glock 19 slide can be further cut to accept a low mounted Trijicon RMR #02 8MOA dot (The Trijicon footprint is different/larger than the JPoint). He strongly preferred and pushed the Leupold Deltapoint (One major reason was the larger window). I was concerned about the “wider than the Glock slide” Deltapoint. He assured me, in his experience, of the durability of the Deltapoint. Based on comments in this thread regarding Leupold’s customer service, I have my doubts on selecting it. Conversely, Trijicon’s CS is beyond reproach in my personal experience.
To get to the point of this post, I think MRDS handguns are in its infancy and in the future will be standard. Much like RDS carbines/rifles are now standard. I submit that current MRDS designs for handguns are going in the wrong direction. Unlike rifles, handguns do not have a cheekweld point to “automatically” align your eye with the red dot. Because of this cheekweld, many people prefer a larger diameter window (Aimpoint M3/4 vs. T1) for rifle-mounted RDS’s. Probably the main/only reason for the T1 is vastly reduced weight and bulk.
Since handguns lack cheekwelds, I strongly feel MRDS’s with larger windows is contradictory to the fast first shot. Evidence that people who have tried the concept feel iron sights (which are mounted low to the slide/bore line) provide faster first shots. I feel this is because they are “hunting” for the red dot. A larger MRDS window would exacerbate this. As many have stated, once the red dot is located after the first shot, they have no problems.
I think future MRDS for handguns should have smaller/lower windows, forcing the eye to focus on the smaller area and thus finding the red dot quicker. Furthermore, I believe the lower the handgun’s iron sight sightline (Glock vs. SIG) provides a quicker sight picture, because the eye “knows” where the top of your hand is. (Similar in concept to the Uzi mag reloading procedure: hand finds hand) Lowering the dot in reference to the hand would allow one to pick up the dot quicker.
In conclusion, the RDS parameters are different for longarms than it is for handguns. This is why people prefer smaller and smaller MOA’s for longarms (As small as 2 MOA) vs. MOA’s for handguns where people prefer the larger MOA’s (Up to 8 MOA). There is a relative inverse relationship. This is also why front sights for handguns are trending toward larger and larger contrast. (Trijicon HD, XS Big dot, etc.) Furthermore, a lower/smaller MRDS would be by nature, more durable and more compact for handgun applications.
What do you guys think?
Everyone I know prefers the micro-Aimpoint on an AR15 style rifle compared to the M2/M3/M4 size optics.
Likewise, every person I know prefers a larger window on their handgun RDS vs. a smaller one; the larger window allows a FASTER pick-up of the dot, not slower.
In general, the windage and elevation adj screws on the RMR's do not get dislodged in use or carry. We have seen a couple of recent ones with less distinct "clicks" that seem more prone to this issue--thank goodness for witness marks.
Everyone I know prefers the micro-Aimpoint on an AR15 style rifle compared to the M2/M3/M4 size optics.
But why do they prefer the T1 over the M2/M3/M4? I have six T1's myself, but my reason is bulk/weight and I have no problems with consistant cheekweld.
Likewise, every person I know prefers a larger window on their handgun RDS vs. a smaller one; the larger window allows a FASTER pick-up of the dot, not slower.
No present MDRS design has a "small window" to try for comparison. Many in this thread has posted problems with first shot MRDS speed vs. iron sights, even after "a couple of years" of trying the MDRS handgun concept. My idea/concept was an attempt to remedy that.
Presently, many MRDS windows are approx. .80"w x .60"h. The standard Glock fixed "iron" (plastic) front/rear sigh combination is say approx. .20" x .20" max. that is necessary for partridge sight alignment. I'm not alking about the width of the entire rear sight as we only use "the notch" of the rear sight, which is .140". An MRDS can be marketed with a circular glass window of say .30"x.30".
People have no problems using standard front post/rear notch, which requires a fairly exact alignment from the rear of the slide. What's the difference in sighting into a .30" x .30" window to see a 8MOA red dot? Do you understand what I'm trying to describe?
Everyone I know prefers the micro-Aimpoint on an AR15 style rifle compared to the M2/M3/M4 size optics.
Likewise, every person I know prefers a larger window on their handgun RDS vs. a smaller one; the larger window allows a FASTER pick-up of the dot, not slower.
In general, the windage and elevation adj screws on the RMR's do not get dislodged in use or carry. We have seen a couple of recent ones with less distinct "clicks" that seem more prone to this issue--thank goodness for witness marks.
I will probably get an Aimpoint PRO rather than a micro due to window size, and that's one of the reasons that people like Eotech's to Aimpoint's.
Jim D--Glad you like the larger opening, but as I stated, everyone I know and shoot with prefers the micro-Aimpoint. When you are looking through the Aimpoint, the red dot is equally easy to see with either Aimpoint type. This is not the case with a handgun RDS. The current RDS optics have a very narrow angle of view in which the red dot can be seen. If the angle of view can be widened, then a smaller screen might be viable.
This is not the case with a handgun RDS. The current RDS optics have a very narrow angle of view in which the red dot can be seen. If the angle of view can be widened, then a smaller screen might be viable.
Since a handgun MRDS has such a narrow angle of view, how is a larger glass window supposed to help? I'm advocating smaller windows for MRDS for handguns. How is that different than sighting a traditional front post/rear notch iron sight setup where you would need a pretty precise lineup?
This is why some who have MRDS on their handguns advocate sighting as usual finding their front post/rear notch and the red dot should be visible via co-witness.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. (Writing was never one of my best suits.)
Alaskapopo
03-30-12, 22:13
I have no hangups about the durability of the Deltapoint, but I don't like the lack of tactile clicks when adjusting it.
If it had the adjustment controls of the RMR, I'd buy one.
Zeroing the Deltapoint is a pain in the ass but once its done its done. So who cares it is not like you are going to be constantly dialing in for different loads like you would with a rifle. I run a Delta Point on my race shotgun for three gun and its been great. This same shotgun killed a Fast Fire2. I am considering a Delta Point on one of my Glock 17's.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/shotguns/Saiga12RR.jpg
pat
G13A3 - it's not about seeing the dot, it's about finding the dot for follow up shots, movements, and press out. Also in unconventional shooting positions. Since a pistol is only supported by your hands on the grip, angular deviation is much more pronounced. A carbine is supported by an anchor (your shoulder) firing hand, and a long moment arm (support hand) the cheek weld secures your eye behind the optic. The window of an MRDD could be smaller if there were an external alignment reference. This is why some shooters look for irons on press out. A larger window gives you more time to track the dot to target instantly after shooting, while shooting on the move, etc.
If you cannot see the dot, sometimes it's difficult to tell which want to angle the gun to get it back.
The T-1 helps with this because it's a tube instead of a squarish window.
I have a Fastfire which works fine to but adjusting it is a pain. The RMR seems like a more durable option so I may soon be making the switch to it.
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb244/a996hawk/tapatalk_1331076609625.jpg
Blame any mispellings on Autocorrect & Tapatalk
goteron
Actually you are describing what I am talking about just in a different way. Up to and including the extra points of references provided by a longarm (1. dominate hand, 2. shoulder, 3. cheek, 4. non-dominate hand). This is why people who are used to consistant positioning on these points can sight down the smaller T1 with no problems with the actual red quickly coming into the eye's line of sight.
Those that prefer larger RDS's like the M2/3/4's mistakenly think a larger window provides a "wider field of view", when RDS's are meant for both eyes to be open and a wider field of view is irrelavent as long as the actual red dot can be instinctively and quickly located. A consistant four points of reference of the long arms allows this.
Perhaps in my first post where I state an inverse relationship (longarms vs handgun) was wrong. It may be small windows on ANY RDS's are not necessarily more preferable as it is more pratical.
The point is with a traditional pistol iron sight sighting system, you need four points to line up (1. Eye, 2. Rear sight, 3. Front sight, 4. Target). However, the eye needs to be focused on the front sight, which casuses the target to go out of focus. Either way, this requires the eye to be located directly behind 2, 3, and 4. The above posters seem to have no problem with this and in fact state they are faster on first shot with irons.
The RDS & MRDS concepts overlay an electronic red dot over a target. Basically combining 2 & 3. But with improved focus on the target. You still need to line up (1. Eye, 2. Actual red dot, 3. Target). We all know this by now.
Say if a MINI-MINI-red dot was made that was half the window size (maybe even 1/3 the size) of current MRDS's, with an absolute circular shaped window, and was installed in the rear dovetail of pistol slides. How is finding the actual red dot any harder/slower than finding an iron sight's rear notch. I believe current MRDS designs have windows unnecessarily too large causing the human eye to be drawn to the center of the "large" window and the "hunt" begins to find the actual red dot (Because we don't have the benefit of a longarms' four points of holding reference.). The larger the window, the more area the eye/brain needs to search. This hunting is what slows down the first shot speed. This "hunting" is minimized on RDS-mounted longarms due to the four points of reference. Also, the larger the MRDS's window means the "center of the window" is higher above the dominate hand slowing the locating of the actual red dot even more.
If a MRDS designed specifically for pistols with a small circular-shaped window, the eye should hunt less because the brain knows the red dot can only be in that smaller window (Assuming the electronics/battery is functioning properly). Also, being a circular window (Like all RDS are, except the EoTech (which really has a circular window too...the outer red ring)) instead of the "hut-shaped" windows of current MDRS's, forces the eye/brain to the center. The red dot can't "hide" in the lower corners of a hut-shaped window.
At an extreme to illustrate my point, visualize one of those ghost ring rear iron sights that are on the market. They are quite tiny compared to a MRDS. Many people who use them claim increased speed, though they are not everyones' taste. But no one can deny anyone can see them especially low to the top of the slide. Say inside the ring was glass. Say there were electronics that can project a red dot onto that glass. Isn't focusing on the center of a smaller ring faster than focusing on a much larger ring?
Damn, I'm bad at written communication. I will need to draw my idea and post it somehow.
7.62WildBill
03-31-12, 10:27
Hi-Point...?:confused:
I have a Fastfire which works fine to but adjusting it is a pain. The RMR seems like a more durable option so I may soon be making the switch to it.
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb244/a996hawk/tapatalk_1331076609625.jpg
Blame any mispellings on Autocorrect & Tapatalk
Please tell me that's photo shopped!
Those that prefer larger RDS's like the M2/3/4's mistakenly think a larger window provides a "wider field of view", when RDS's are meant for both eyes to be open and a wider field of view is irrelavent as long as the actual red dot can be instinctively and quickly located. A consistant four points of reference of the long arms allows this.
A wider window obscures less of the surrounding target on close range stuff where your target is bigger than the optic. I've noticed this on target transitions, like on rifle El Prez's... it's easier to pickup and stop on the targets (for me) with a bigger windowed optic.
It has nothing to do with speed of acquisition, is has to do with obscuring less of the surrounding target.
A wider window obscures less of the surrounding target on close range stuff where your target is bigger than the optic. I've noticed this on target transitions, like on rifle El Prez's... it's easier to pickup and stop on the targets (for me) with a bigger windowed optic.
It has nothing to do with speed of acquisition, is has to do with obscuring less of the surrounding target.
Are shooting you with both eyes open as intended? If so, NOTHING should be blocked. Your non-dominate eye would "look around" the physical scope itself. Similar in concept to low mounting a magnified scope on an AR that doesn't clear the FSB line of sight. When looking through a magnified scope, you do not see the FSB. The magnified scope "looks around" the FSB.
One of the original small arms-mounted red dots was the Armson OEG. Many of today's designs branched from that design. I had one bought from Trijicon. The tube was not a see through. So in effect, it only is "less wide", it had zero width. Yet it still worked well. It required two eyes and since it wasn't a see through design, it was also it's flaw, namely people with astigmatism could not use it.
The dominate eye could not see through the scope as it was closed at the objective end. The scope's purpose was to project a red dot onto the closed end, which your dominate eye sees. Your non-dominate eye would see/focus at your taget near or far. Your brain merges the two images together, giving you the impressioon the red dot is imposed onto the target. Namely the Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC).
Using current RDS, it doesn't matter the size of the tube as long as the red dot can be seen AND both eyes are open. RDS sights were designed for speed.
Are shooting you with both eyes open as intended? If so, NOTHING should be blocked. Your non-dominate eye would "look around" the physical scope itself. Similar in concept to low mounting a magnified scope on an AR that doesn't clear the FSB line of sight. When looking through a magnified scope, you do not see the FSB. The magnified scope "looks around" the FSB.
There is no 100% solution. I don't get into the battles about one eye or two eyes open... I do both, depending on the shot.
Having less in front of my eyes that I can't see through is better than more.
If that were not true, optics would be smaller and smaller.
One of the original small arms-mounted red dots was the Armson OEG. Many of today's designs branched from that design. I had one bought from Trijicon. The tube was not a see through. So in effect, it only is "less wide", it had zero width. Yet it still worked well. It required two eyes and since it wasn't a see through design, it was also it's flaw, namely people with astigmatism could not use it.
The dominate eye could not see through the scope as it was closed at the objective end. The scope's purpose was to project a red dot onto the closed end, which your dominate eye sees. Your non-dominate eye would see/focus at your taget near or far. Your brain merges the two images together, giving you the impressioon the red dot is imposed onto the target. Namely the Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC).
Using current RDS, it doesn't matter the size of the tube as long as the red dot can be seen AND both eyes are open. RDS sights were designed for speed.
That's your assertion, but I don't think it's "fact". Were that fact, Trijicon wouldn't have invested making a big-ass windowed red dot, and people wouldn't be using Eotechs because of the FOV increases.
There are times with a rifle, just like with a pistol, where it makes sense to close one eye.
I keep being asked questions like:
Which MRDS is the best?
Which one is the toughest?
How well do they hold up?
So I made a very impromptu video....here tiz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHrG2SQ2010
gdboytyler
04-25-12, 14:36
Say if a MINI-MINI-red dot was made that was half the window size (maybe even 1/3 the size) of current MRDS's, with an absolute circular shaped window, and was installed in the rear dovetail of pistol slides. How is finding the actual red dot any harder/slower than finding an iron sight's rear notch.
If you have a RDS with a small window, aim it at a target and move your head around, you will eventually lose the the dot. If your RDS has a bigger window, you can move your head around MORE before you lose the dot. The bigger the window, the bigger your margin of error. Doesn't matter if you use one eye or two.
The bigger window and bigger margin for error is why I picked the Deltapoint over the RMR.
With iron sights, no matter how much you move your head around, you never lose the rear sight and you ALWAYS know which way to move to align the sights.
So you actually look at your rear sights to determine where your front sight is?
gdboytyler
04-25-12, 20:16
So you actually look at your rear sights to determine where your front sight is?
If you hold your gun at waist level, you can still see the rear sight in your peripheral vision. When you bring the gun to eye level, I don't think anyone will index the front sight based on the rear sight:rolleyes:
Bowie Tactical
04-26-12, 14:53
I keep being asked questions like:
Which MRDS is the best?
Which one is the toughest?
How well do they hold up?
So I made a very impromptu video....here tiz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHrG2SQ2010
I do that with a deltapoint all the time and have tons of witnesses that are students.
Well I guess we just need to get together and beat the crap out of them both and see which one lives longer. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.