trijicon rmr adjustable led vs. aimpoint t1 as a scope mounted cqb sight

[trinydex]

this is a very specific comparison of these two exact products.

trijicon rmr using the adjustable led red dot

vs.

aimpoint t1

assume comparable dot sizes.


one or the other would be mounted _on a scope_ using a larue ring mount
http://www.laruetactical.com/aimpoint-micro-t-1-ring-mount
http://www.laruetactical.com/burris-doctor-optic-and-trijicon-rmr-ring-mount



please add to the discussion the pros and cons associated with mounting at 12 o clock on the scope (sight over turret) vs. 1 o clock (11 o clock for left handers) (sight canted), specifically if a 1 o clock can be used by the offhand. how awkward is it? is there any merit to the idea? also are there better alternatives to the larue ring mount? do other ring mounts offer more or less height? please don't add the spuhr mount to the discussion, as the scope is already mounted.



what are the pros and cons to each optic?

there is an obvious weight difference. the t1 will be heavier.

there is a field of view advantage that i believe would go to the aimpoint t1.


please discuss these points as well as any other points that come to mind.

[Whiskey&beer]

Ok this is just my thoughts being passed and usually I just keep my mouth shut but I've been trying to find the perfect set-up for the last two years that involved a shit ton of time on the range from classes to personal shooting that involves this very issue of finding the right scope set up so take my view as well... Nothing.

I have used the T-1 at the 12:00 on top of a nightforce and it's just too high. If it's for a quick snap shot - not bad I guess but it will screw you bad when any type of barricade shooting through tight spaces / awkward positions come up... And bad!

Canting it a few degrees either way off the scope now really throws your impact to aim off and again is only ok if you are just popping quick hits just standing there but blows worse when "unconventional" positions come up.

Now I've tried Canting off the rails of the rifle and that is the better of the three. It was easier to get a zero on the sight and had a better point of aim to impact and also just "felt" easier to cant and acquire a sight picture. Now the huge issue is going to your off hand that involves any type of unorthodox position and having to cant your rifle to get a secondary pic. It is slow and bad and will cost you in precision, speed, and suck.

Plus this is just me and what my experience has been, but another thing that has been an issue and it's been a good one for me - having my secondary sight canted off to a side really bit my ass during (2) classes where we were shooting in a heavily graveled range and my T-1 really took some abuse. Not the body but the glass. Shit happens and you move on but it's just something to take into consideration. My aimpoint did stick out pretty good and it ate / grinded some good gravel. That also was using a larue canted mount. I believe the rmr would have been screwed worse but that's only my opinion, my partner actually took his off before class so no actual proof there.

If you are just shooting some standard shit on the range and stuff, cant your site off the rail of your rifle. Lower profile and it makes for a better poa / poi and not so high / awkward from the barrel.

Well no comparison between the sights but eh... Just thought I'd pipe in about the T-1 and my thoughts...

[GO_ALLOUT]

Just my .02 but the rmr takes it hands down. I am running on on you of an acog...which I know is different than your application but target acquisition through an rmr is much, much faster than through the Aimpoint. Ran an aimpoint for a little while before getting my acog and there's no going back. In my opinion, the rmr is so compact and the body is so small that very little sight picture is lost when shooting 2 eyes open. I'm actually going to be going with an rmr only on the "PISTOL" I'm currently building just because it is so fast...and durable!