View Full Version : Thoughts on RMR on carbine
TheAxeShooter
03-02-13, 23:30
Hey guys, looking for anyone who has personal experience with an RMR. I can get a pretty big discount on one from trijicon. I was looking to use this as a primary sight on my carbine.
So, what mounts would work well with this set up? Would this set up even be worth it? I know the sight is pretty small. Any help/personal experience would be awesome. Also feel free to post any pics of your carbine with an RMR. I'd love to see how it looks.
Give the site a search. Pat McNamara from TMACs runs one. During a TAPs class he mentioned the dot was crisper.
I recall a thread or two on here about the RMR on a carbine.
Hey guys, looking for anyone who has personal experience with an RMR. I can get a pretty big discount on one from trijicon. I was looking to use this as a primary sight on my carbine.
So, what mounts would work well with this set up? Would this set up even be worth it? I know the sight is pretty small. Any help/personal experience would be awesome. Also feel free to post any pics of your carbine with an RMR. I'd love to see how it looks.
http://www.americandefensemanufacturing.com/view/product/242/
Stickman has been posting a lot of carbines with an RMR lately.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8226/8495027253_1c546094b8_o.jpg
Pat McNamara turned me onto using an RMR as a primary carbine optic.
http://www.tridentconcepts.org/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/133195191071.jpg
While I have been well served by Aimpoints for many years, since my accident in 2009, the Aimpoint dots now appear as misshapen blobs to my damaged vision, especially when using a 4x magnifier. In contrast the 3.5 MOA RMR06 dot is crisp. At 100 yds, it perfectly fits into the center of an SR1 target. The RMR06 mated to an RM34 mount makes for a very low profile optic. Hopefully LaRue will eventually get around to making an RMR mount for the AR15.
http://www.tridentconcepts.org/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/13319523554.jpg
Pat McNamara turned me onto using an RMR as a primary carbine optic.
http://www.tridentconcepts.org/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/133195191071.jpg
While I have been well served by Aimpoints for many years, since my accident in 2009, the Aimpoint dots now appear as misshapen blobs to my damaged vision, especially when using a 4x magnifier. In contrast the 3.5 MOA RMR06 dot is crisp. At 100 yds, it perfectly fits into the center of an SR1 target. The RMR06 mated to an RM34 mount makes for a very low profile optic. Hopefully LaRue will eventually get around to making an RMR mount for the AR15.
http://www.tridentconcepts.org/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/13319523554.jpg
Doc, for some reason, that's not what I expected your AR to look like.
I guess I expected a sopmod stock, centurion rail, colt (which is true), 16" barrel (again got that right!), an ir laser of some sort, a bcm gunfighter ch, and a different pistol grip.
I don't know why I expected the above...
On the picture of Stickman's rmr rifle, note that he's running the vltor casv rail that adds height to the receiver area. That, combined with the absolute cowitness adm rmr mount probably gives something like lower 1/4 cowitness, if not even lower.
It's sad there isn't a quick disconnect lower 1/3 rmr mount on the market to my knowledge. Preferably one from adm or larue that maintains zero on removal.
Many questions about the RMR.
1) Does it use a common battery?
2) Is there a on/off switch or does it have"Sleep" mode?
3) How long is the Battery life?
4) Is there some type of "cover" for the lens when not in use?
5) Do you lose the "DOT" if you not completely behind the gun?
The Aimpoints, because they are a tube pretty much make you find the dot. I worked with a C More on a handgun some years back and I kept losing the dot.
Thanks for helping the confused. :dirol:
Good video on rmr/ar15. Not my video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcGKrRchohM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I don't see a problem with it.
Although I see it better suited on a Kriss.
If I could afford a Trijicon RMR...i'd rock it...
I dont know how comparable they are side by side, but a friend has a Leupold deltapoint. I always have the hardest time finding the dot.
TheAxeShooter
03-03-13, 08:22
I've never really considered an RMR until I got this discount. I guess I'm really just looking for how it stacks up agains aimpoints,eotechs, and the like. I know the sight is really small. How would this effect your view down range?
Which rmr? What moa? From what I have seen the dot looks bright and ranges from 3.5 to 9 moa. Glass looks smaller in size than Aimpoints and Eo's .
The only issue I see is the range of view side to side/up and down. Seems like you would have to stay steady behind the glass. Thats what I noticed w/ the deltapoint(even though I couldnt find the damn dot)
TheAxeShooter
03-03-13, 09:43
Which rmr? What moa? From what I have seen the dot looks bright and ranges from 3.5 to 9 moa. Glass looks smaller in size than Aimpoints and Eo's .
The only issue I see is the range of view side to side/up and down. Seems like you would have to stay steady behind the glass. Thats what I noticed w/ the deltapoint(even though I couldnt find the damn dot)
If I was going to get one this would most likely be the one.
http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=RM01
That's the smallest dot they have. I sure don't want a 9-13 MOA dot.
KalashniKEV
03-03-13, 10:08
So, what mounts would work well with this set up? Would this set up even be worth it? I know the sight is pretty small. Any help/personal experience would be awesome. Also feel free to post any pics of your carbine with an RMR. I'd love to see how it looks.
Probably not what you were looking for, but I have an RM05 on my MP5 in a LaRue LT726 mount.
Hopefully LaRue will eventually get around to making an RMR mount for the AR15.
Although I'm not too crazy about "mini-RDS" on a primary weapon, when LaRue makes a skyscraper mount for the RMR, I will probably buy one (and another RMR- probably an RM04).
On the picture of Stickman's rmr rifle, note that he's running the vltor casv rail that adds height to the receiver area. That, combined with the absolute cowitness adm rmr mount probably gives something like lower 1/4 cowitness, if not even lower.
That was the first thing I noticed too. If he was right on the receiver, he would have a full view of FSB and probably not even be able to get his eye low enough to see it.
A "good" solution...
Although I see it better suited on a Kriss.
These RMRs were like... *made* for sub guns and PDWs.
Kriss is a novelty gun too, BTW.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/Rifles/IMG_1708_zpscf691853.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/Rifles/mp5hp2_zps4456a9c5.png
I'm very interested to try one on a pistol soon too...
The further from your eye the optic, the harder to pick up the reticle/dot.
Cheekweld with the RMR is more critical than with an Aimpoint
The further from your eye the optic, the harder to pick up the reticle/dot.
Are you referring to the RMR specifically, or red dot sights in general?
If so, I respectfully disagree with your statement regarding difficulty in picking up the dot.
There was a Dutch study done on optics placement on the rifle, and it concluded that an optic placed halfway out on the rail forend was both faster and more accurate than optics placed further back. An optic placed just in front of the upper reciever was perceived to be the best.
A few pics from the study:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1168/opticsplacement1.png
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2788/opticsplacement2.png
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9189/opticsplacement3.png
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/292/opticsplacement4.png
Here is the full study:
http://rapidshare.com/files/2314436698/Plasseringavoptikk.pdf
Personal preference also plays a role.
Personally I mount the optic as far forward on the upper as possible, but not on the handguard. We had some issues retaining zero on our weapons when removing the rail for maintenance, as the mounting screw needs a consistent torque of 7N in order to retain zero.
As for the cheekweld issue, I don't know what the parallax balance is on the RMR, but I use a Docter III on my S&W MP9, and it has a parallax balance of 40 meters. If you are shooting at close distances, parallax won't/shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't mind having a mount that pushed the optic out further, but I have to use the issued mount.
Smaller optics are harder to find the further out they are. I'd like to see that test done with the addition of uncomfortable or unconventional shooting positions.
I have found I like to run a T1 no more than half way forward on the upper vs all the way forward for an M3.
Larry Vickers
03-03-13, 15:19
I had an RMR mounted on a Glock and I had zero shift issues- I also know that I am not alone with that problem
I would wonder if that is going to occur mounted on a carbine or if the recoil forces of having it mounted on a pistol slide were too extreme and it only rears it's ugly head on a handgun
Are you referring to the RMR specifically, or red dot sights in general?...
I'm talking about all optical sights. The further from the eye, the more difficult it is to pick up the reticle/dot, whether it's a scope, redot, RMR etc. I have experimented with placing sights close to the eye and far from the eye. A scope with short eye relief is easier to align with the eye and find the reticle than an intermediate or long eye relief scope. It's easier to pick up the red dot of an Aimpoint when it's mounted to be close to the eye than it is when mounted much further away. I even experimented with placing an Aimpoint on the other side of the room because I wanted to see if the perceived size of the dot changed. It was very difficult to find the dot inside the optic because the distance decreases the angle at which the dot can be seen. The slightest movement of the head and the dot was off the screen and disappeared.
Having a proper cheekweld makes it much faster & easier for the eye to align with the optic and find the reticle/dot. With the RMR, cheekweld is more critical than with the larger Aimpoints because the screen is smaller.
I don't know if the distance from the eye changes accuracy when using RDS sights and make no claims one way or the other. I will read the links you provided which I thank you for
PS- Tried the link and was denied access
I have an rmr on a glock. It is a nice small lightweight sight, but personally, on a carbine, I would go with an aimpoint. Better battery life, bigger window which does help with picking up the dot, and on a carbine the extra size and weight on an aimpoint is not a big deal.
I think the RMR is a good little sight and is great if you are mounting it on a pistol or sub gun or anything with limited space. I memory serves me right the battery life is good for around 2 years. You have to dsimount the sight to change the battery. I have not had to change my battery yet so I do not know if that will effect the zero. I will find out when I get there. I would not have a problem running one on a carbine, but would probably choose other options first.
Many questions about the RMR.
1) Does it use a common battery?
2) Is there a on/off switch or does it have"Sleep" mode?
3) How long is the Battery life?
4) Is there some type of "cover" for the lens when not in use?
5) Do you lose the "DOT" if you not completely behind the gun?
The Aimpoints, because they are a tube pretty much make you find the dot. I worked with a C More on a handgun some years back and I kept losing the dot.
Thanks for helping the confused. :dirol:
1. Yes it uses the same batteries as the micros and many other red dots
2. The adjustable models can be turned off and have the brightness adjusted, but there is no sleep mode
3. I think this is somewhat model dependent but I think it is in the neighborhood of 2 years although I have heard most suggest changing every year to be safe.
4. not that I have seen
5. Mine is on a pistol so it is hard for me to say how it would be on a carbine but it does seem more sensative to loosing the dot then an aimpoint.
I used a Primary Arms RMR-like red dot. I really liked it, much more than the TruGlo red dot (which is sorta like an Aimpoint T1 size), or the Primary Arms imitation of the PRO. Unfortunately, it has no off switch, and wore out in about a week.
Real light, real easy to get on target. I may sell and ACOG for one, if it came with a slightly smaller dot.
Any real work experience on how forgiving it is on accuracy, if your head position isn't perfect? I like that my Eotech shows the reticle no matter where my head lies.
@MistWolf:
With magnified scopes, eye relief will always be important. That is why they usually come with instructions regarding eye relief.
Eye relief for an Aimpoint/red dot is unlimited, within realistic limits of course.
I don't think that your test placing the Aimpoint on the other side of the room holds any relevance, seeing as that distance is outside it's intended use.
As the test showed, at longer ranges, having the Aimpoint mounted on the handguard drastically improved target engagement times. The test also shows that times are faster with forward placed optics than optics closer to the shooters' eye.
I'm not saying that it's the end all be all of optics placement tests, but the numbers the Dutch produced are pretty clear. Maybe, as Todd K. touched upon, forward optics placement has weaknesses with regards to unconventional or uncomfortable firing positions.
I find that a good cheekweld, and correct LOP/optic mount location/eye relief is a lot more important when shooting magnified optics than with a red dot optic. I noticed that when I used my Short Dot. I have shot many rounds with my HK416 using an Aimpoint both mounted on the handguard and on the upper, and it has never felt more difficult having the optic mounted further forward on the gun.
I could never figure out the whole nose to charging handle thing, and I shoot with my stock fully extended, so the distance from my eye to my optic is pretty long, prolly 20-25 cm. Doesn't negatively affect my times or accuracy.
I will concede that the size of the optic can influence how easy/difficult it is to acquire the dot, but I disagree with that being the case on a general basis. Not advocating mounting your optic on the flash hider, but there is no reason having the optic smack you in the eye either.
Not sure why the download isn't working for you, it works for me.
Thanks jesuvuah. I was wondering about them.
@MistWolf:
With magnified scopes, eye relief will always be important. That is why they usually come with instructions regarding eye relief.
Eye relief for an Aimpoint/red dot is unlimited, within realistic limits of course.
I do understand the concept of eye relief, both with a scope and an RDS.
Direct experience has taught me that a standard eye relief scope is easier to pick up the reticle than an intermediate eye relief scope (scout scope mounted ahead of the action of the rifle) and an extended eye relief scope (mounted to a pistol used with arms fully extended) is even harder still and why I don't like pistol scopes.
I only mentioned setting the Aimpoint across the room as an extreme illustration of my point. I tested the Aimpoint at various distances mounted to my carbine. The further from my eye, the harder it was to pick up the red dot. The closer the Aimpoint to my eye, the less critical the angle. I could be much sloppier with my cheekweld. When placed all the way up by the FSB, it was much more difficult to pick up the dot quickly. It's all about geometry.
I cannot speak against what the Dutch discovered in their study. But I also know what I discovered with my own experiments. At first, I did not test the various distances to see how easy it was to find the dot, but to see if it changed how much of the target it covered (it did not appear to do so). However, what I noticed was it has harder to find the dot. The further the dot was from my eye, the more critical aligning my eye with the screen became. My conclusion is that, like a magnified optic, the further Aimpoint was from my eye, the narrower the angle was where the dot was visible. I think some of the guys call it the "eye box". The further from my eye, the smaller the eye box.
I don't advocate locating any optic too close to my eye. I learned much in the over 40 years of using optics on rifles, especially rifles with healthy recoil. One lesson I painfully learned involved using a high mounted scope which bopped me in the eyebrow. Now I keep my scopes mounted as low as practical and don't use scopes with large objectives. Nor am I an advocate of placing my nose to the charging handle.
When I mounted my Aimpoint, it ended up at the forward end of the receiver. I played with it along the entire length and where it is now just felt the most natural. (I didn't shoot the rifle with the Aimpoint on the handguard as I use a MOE and didn't think it was worth doing so with the sight duct taped on!:jester:)
Not sure why the download isn't working for you, it works for me.
Because I don't have the log on information?
While it may be subjective, Aimpoint H/T-1s, Comps, and Pros just seem like they could take more abuse than a RMR. But I've never seen a torture test on an RMR, so like I said it could very well be an unwarranted fear.
I'd like to try one on my "novely" 9MM AR SBR, I guess I need to check into how much my dealer buddy can get me one for...
@MistWolf:
I still have to disagree. I think personal preference also plays a huge part when it comes to optics placement.
I played around at work today, with my Micro T-1 (for my MP7), mounted all the way forward on my HK416 rail forearm. It's on an Aimpoint lever release mount and low spacer, so it sits quite low.
Can't really say it increased the difficulty at all. Same experience with my Docter sight equipped M&P; it wasn't difficult, just unfamiliar. With a few reps, I now have no issue presenting the gun and acquiring a good sight Picture immediatly. That said, comparing an optic equipped handgun to an optic equipped rifle is like comparing apples to oranges. You have much more positive control over your rifle, ie more contact points, resulting in less movement. It doesn't take much movement of the pistol to also move the optic, and the dot, in relation to your eye.
Trying to sort out the download issue.
ETA:
This link should work: http://rapidshare.com/files/2314436698/Plasseringavoptikk.pdf
I briefly ran an Insight MRDS as the primary on my carbine. AFAIK only Botach makes an absolute cowitness mount for it (which I tried) but I found a 1/2" riser that put the dot slightly higher than that.
Compared to an Aimpoint micro...
PROS
- lighter and more compact
- thinner optic walls (less visual obstruction)
- auto brightness (could be a con)
- single polycarbonate lens, no fogging issues
- slightly crisper dot
CONS
- no true lower 1/3 cowitness mount
- limited mount options
- mud/debris could block emitter
- battery life (conservatively 1 year)
- toughness (very durable, but Aimpoint is hard to beat here)
- 3.5 MOA smallest dot size
I switched to an 2 MOA H1 mostly because I wanted a true lower 1/3 cowitness, which isn't practical with a flat-bottom RDS since the irons would sit too low to be useful. The smaller dot size offsets any crispness advantage the MRDS has IMHO. I haven't tried the RMR though I understand its lens distorts more than the MRDS, and it's heavier.
@MistWolf:
I still have to disagree. I think personal preference also plays a huge part when it comes to optics placement.
I played around at work today, with my Micro T-1 (for my MP7), mounted all the way forward on my HK416 rail forearm. It's on an Aimpoint lever release mount and low spacer, so it sits quite low.
Can't really say it increased the difficulty at all. Same experience with my Docter sight equipped M&P; it wasn't difficult, just unfamiliar. With a few reps, I now have no issue presenting the gun and acquiring a good sight Picture immediatly. That said, comparing an optic equipped handgun to an optic equipped rifle is like comparing apples to oranges. You have much more positive control over your rifle, ie more contact points, resulting in less movement. It doesn't take much movement of the pistol to also move the optic, and the dot, in relation to your eye.
Trying to sort out the download issue.
ETA:
This link should work: http://rapidshare.com/files/2314436698/Plasseringavoptikk.pdf
Of course optic type and location is a personal choice. But personal choice doesn't change the geometry of the eye box. If someone mounts there optic all the way out to the muzzle and it works- it works.
While comparing handgun optics to rifle optics may be apples & oranges, it does illustrate, when the optic is mounted way out there, how narrow the eye box gets and how important eye to sight alignment becomes.
I'll try your new link
ETA- Link worked, downloaded pdf
PS- I may be remiss by neglecting to mention the Aimpoint I use is a Micro
I had to do some searching to find out what the eye box is. The best explanation I found was:
"the area between the closest position and the farthest position from eye to lens where you can still see the full-diameter view."
In my opinion and experience, not an issue with red dot sights. Scopes with magnification, sure. My cheekweld and eye relief was more important with my Short Dot, than now with my Comp M4, even though the Short Dot has pretty deep/long eye relief.
Red dot sights have extremely deep eye relief, as they have no magnification, resulting in great flexibility in where you mount them on the weapon. This goes for both handguns and rifles.
A question for you; if using an optic on a pistol was more difficult than iron sights, why are optics only allowed in open divison competitions? On so-called race guns? Red dot optics are not allowed on production guns because they are seen as providing the shooter with an advantage over iron sights.
Also, ref your example with the handgun with optic mounted. If you were to hold the pistol like you hold a rifle, gripping the frame with your support hand in front of the trigger guard, it is much easier than with a standard shooting grip. Grip stability, and overall greater stability when comparing a rifle vs handgun, is the most likely explanation for any initial difficulty experienced acquiring a proper sight picture when using a handgun with an optic.
I think optics placement on the receiver is a result of habit; that's where the carrying handle was located; and mounting space; difficult to have a forward mounted sight with a PEQ in the way.
As I stated, I mount my optic as far forward on the receiver as possible, a bit forward of the ejection port. I would have preferred to have a mount that pushed the sight further forward, but I am stuck using the QRP2 mount.
The Dutch study is the only one of it's kind that I have seen. Is it the end-all be-all study on optics placement? No. But I do think their findings have merit. As the study shows, the differences are not huge at close ranges. Are the benefits such that they suggest a different approach to where optics are placed? Can't say anything conclusive. It would be interesting to see some really good shooters do some tests with optics placement, to see how it affects their accuracy and speed.
Would anyone be willing to email the study to me? I can't seem to access it. I had this very discussion with one of my soldiers this past weekend and I'd like to read this up on it.
scoutfsu99
03-04-13, 17:55
While it may be subjective, Aimpoint H/T-1s, Comps, and Pros just seem like they could take more abuse than a RMR. But I've never seen a torture test on an RMR, so like I said it could very well be an unwarranted fear.
They sit exposed on SM's weapons, taking a beating daily. They are pretty durable IME.
Would anyone be willing to email the study to me? I can't seem to access it. I had this very discussion with one of my soldiers this past weekend and I'd like to read this up on it.
Did you try the download link in my post #27? That should work. If it does not, shoot me a PM and I'll email it to you.
What experience do y'all have with the dot size of the dual illumnated models on a rifle? It seems that the dots are all rather large for rifle work...
Here is my first hand experience:
I run an RM08 on my M4. I am currently in Afghanistan. I used the RMR during training prior to deployment and on my personal AR. The 12.9 MOA triangle is as accurate as you are. If you miss, it is your own fault. I think Trijicon triangles/chevrons are the best reticule pattern going. At close range just put the whole triangle on the target. At long range use the apex of the triangle for an infinitely fine sight post.
I place my RMR flush with the front of the upper receiver.
I do wish the RMR glass was larger (maybe half again). You do have to get a little more behind the gun to get a good sight picture. It is not as forgiving as an EOTech, Aimpoint, or MARS (which I have also used). But, given it's size, weight, and battery free operation it is worth the trade off.
It still has some washout issues if you are shooting from indoors into bright daylight but it is not as bad as the RX series. If the target is a dark color it is even less of an issue. I am not bothered by it enough to switch to an EOTech (which is issued in my kit) because it has yet to be an issue here. If I were really pressed I would just use my front sight post and use the body of the RMR as a large ghost ring. I tried this in training and I did not have a problem.
If you do have a really sweet deal on an RMR, hook a brother up! I plan to put these on most of my personal rifles and shotguns.
I like the RMR on my ACOG. It's worked out well for me so far. No loss of zero. Cheek weld really isn't as bad as you would expect...
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j143/rohardi/DSC_0233.jpg
What that study says is true as long as you can achieve a good cheeckweld such as the standing postition they used in the test. When you throw in unconventional postions such SBU prone, urban prone, etc... having the sight farther away from your eye makes aquiring the dot a slower process. This is because you are not able to maintain an optimal viewing angle through the sight. The main "gotcha" with the Dutch test is, according to the method they used, is that they only ran the test in the standing postion.
In regards to the eye box, my definition of it is the box/window/occular lens where you look through to aquire the dot. The farther the sight is from your eye the smaller the "box" you will have to look through to find the dot. Meaning you will need better cheekweld to see the dot so you loose a portion of the "forgiveness" that red dot sights offer when shooting in unconventional positons. I believe this also what Mistwolf is referring to in his post above.
The issue is finding the sweet spot for each individual which will not necessaryly be the same due to various reasons...
Are you referring to the RMR specifically, or red dot sights in general?
If so, I respectfully disagree with your statement regarding difficulty in picking up the dot.
There was a Dutch study done on optics placement on the rifle, and it concluded that an optic placed halfway out on the rail forend was both faster and more accurate than optics placed further back. An optic placed just in front of the upper reciever was perceived to be the best.
A few pics from the study:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1168/opticsplacement1.png
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2788/opticsplacement2.png
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9189/opticsplacement3.png
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/292/opticsplacement4.png
Here is the full study:
http://rapidshare.com/files/2314436698/Plasseringavoptikk.pdf
Personal preference also plays a role.
Personally I mount the optic as far forward on the upper as possible, but not on the handguard. We had some issues retaining zero on our weapons when removing the rail for maintenance, as the mounting screw needs a consistent torque of 7N in order to retain zero.
As for the cheekweld issue, I don't know what the parallax balance is on the RMR, but I use a Docter III on my S&W MP9, and it has a parallax balance of 40 meters. If you are shooting at close distances, parallax won't/shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't mind having a mount that pushed the optic out further, but I have to use the issued mount.
Thank you for that link! That was some good reading. I just have one question and maybe someone on here could answer it, the presentation showed that the best place for your Aimpoint granted that you do not have a 3x, NV, etc, on it would be in position 3, I was told that it is best to keep it as far forward as you could but still keeping it on the rear receiver like position 2. I know splitting the optic half and half is a no go. So why position 3? I understand the balance aspect. I see the results given in the presentation, and I was kinda surprised. You guys have much more experience then I do obviously, and I am sorry for the slight thread hijack. It is just a question that I have always had. I have tried this with my Aimpoint PRO and I did not find it better for me, easier or any quicker for picking up targets.
Again I am sorry for going off topic but I did not think it was appropriate for me to open a new thread and take up more space when it seems like the question could be answered here. Thank you all.
They sit exposed on SM's weapons, taking a beating daily. They are pretty durable IME.
Thanks for the input, it seems like Trijicon made them pretty tough. I'm considering one to try on my two light SBRs.
onefastz33
03-18-13, 10:02
I have the ACOG/RMR on my AR that I mounted and sighted in on Saturday, with the RMR being so high and my cheek weild being low (ace fixed stock) I have to say it took a little bit to get used to where I had to be to find the dot. It wouldn't be near as bad mounted to the rail of course. The dot is super crisp and very bright even in the 90 degrees weather we had on Saturday with this west Texas sun. It was also almost zeroed at 50 yards, which is where the owners manuel says to zero, and stayed super crisp through some rapid fire.
It's not an RMR, but I have a Deltapoint on my SBR. As far as the size and form factor goes, I'd say it was a great choice for an AR style rifle. With the proper riser there is zero dot-hunting. It lines up just the same as my T1s do.
I've only put a few mags though it, so I can't speak to its durability at this point, but as far as ergonomics and co-witnessing, it seems solid.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.