View Full Version : STI 2011 - DUO or other plate for RMR?
I'm going to order another 2011 - likely a Stacatto C2 when they are available. I am unimpressed with how high the RMR rides on the factory DUO mount. I am considering having a Chambers RDSM plate or maybe a Trijicon mount fitted. Realistically, both the Trijicon and the Chambers will end up cheaper than the premium they charge for the DUO, but cost is overall not a concern. It looks like both the Chambers and Trijicon mounts are lower - the Chambers much so, but maybe with a less useful iron sight, which is minor to me.
I am likewise not very concerned with the possibility of STI not warrantying the gun.
Anybody have any thoughts?
With any substantial "muscle memory" dedicated to presentations with a 1911/2011, the higher the Dot is perched on the slide, the more difficult it is to "groove in" the new muscle memory and find the Dot.
Assuming one is unconcerned with voiding factory warranty; get the sight as low as possible.
Limiting factors with 1911/2011; height of bore in relation to hand (web of your hand is closer to bore axis with Glock/CZ P10 series as example), relatively narrow slide of 1911 requiring mounting plate, amount of "meat" from top of slide to firing pin channel.
In a perfect world, the bottom of the RD screen would be even with top of slide. This isn't possible with current generation of micro Red Dots on the 1911/2011 platform.
There was a thread here earlier that mentioned the USMS requested the Stacatto P be set up so the Leupold DPP would bolt directly to the slide.
This may be an option(?).
With the two examples shown (2011 DVC P and CZ P10c) you can clearly see the RD sits higher on the slide of the 2011, as well as the slide itself sitting higher in the web of your hand.
This seeming disadvantage can be (fairly easily) overcome with dedication to repetitive presentations, but certainly isn't ideal IMO.
Given a choice, I'd mount the Dot as low as possible, irregardless of voiding warranty.
(Both optics below share the same "footprint". It is fairly an "apples to apples" comparison in that regard.)
https://i.imgur.com/otOo3Ar.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/sfgp7fC.jpg
The Deltapoint Pro is simply not an option. I despise the switching on it and it inherently rides higher than an RMR. The large window and Leupold quality are its only pluses to me.
Here's the ride height of the Chambers RDSM:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0295/6317/products/RDMS_Plate_2_1024x1024.jpg
To my eye it's substantially lower than the Stacatto P's RMR plate.
^^ It does look thinner than the STI plate.
Perhaps just the photo; but it also looks to taper towards the muzzle?
I seriously doubt Joe's plate sits lower in the slide than the STI. Again, the limiting factor is the firing pin tunnel.
And I do not disagree with your assessment of the DPP.
chrisp2493
01-01-20, 09:05
I’ve seen many people say the chambers mount is one of the best available for a 2011. I’m getting one put on mine sometime this year for my DVC Limited. He only allows two shops to do the milling for him, so that’s something to consider. Luckily for me the one shop is 45 minutes away from me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
chrisp2493
01-01-20, 09:07
^^ It does look thinner than the STI plate.
Perhaps just the photo; but it also looks to taper towards the muzzle?
I seriously doubt Joe's plate sits lower in the slide than the STI. Again, the limiting factor is the firing pin tunnel.
And I do not disagree with your assessment of the DPP.
It sits considerably lower then the duo mount
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200101/35183caadf1038b040522678cd1fb0bd.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200101/28de52077085a8f4eb60655143297c2a.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
^^ Sure looks like it does. Appears to sit forward of the firing pin stop and must be right on top of the FP tunnel.
Sure like to examine one in hand.
I believe there Trijicon plate also sits lower. I'm having trouble finding a good profile picture, but here is something:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRfCK-mWnYDdE6w0blGJpyuCqz4rBZnXp2YhNVwlqmUz-4nVoq6
Allegedly there is a "new" STI plate that is 30% thinner, but I'm guessing it still has to regulate with the same front sight, so you're stuck with really tall irons. Also undesirable.
Per STI the 4.4" Staccato P is now in production and the older 4.15" is now gone.
Guess it will be a C2 for me.
BLUF: Chambers Custom Red Dot Sight Mount (RDSM) sits the lowest. The price difference between a DO vs irons only STI is more than the cost of the plate and install...
RDSM also is a plate system, unlike the Trijicon plate. So...you can swap to an ACRO or whatever other optic as plates become available.
I have a Chambers gun, the plate system is second to none. I absolutely hate the height of the STI DUO system. They chose to build a system around one mediocre optic, no go in my estimate.
I ordered a C2 non-DUO and will be going with the RDSM. I'll update when it's all done (who knows how long that will be).
SWATcop556
04-28-20, 04:36
I ordered a C2 non-DUO and will be going with the RDSM. I'll update when it's all done (who knows how long that will be).
I would love to see some photos once its all done. This is the leading contender for my EDC pistol. I would love a Chambers gun but it's just not a realistic price point for me at this time.
I think the C2 plus the RDSM is the ticket.
It's been at Defensive Creations for two weeks. Hopefully soon. I'm very excited.
I got the gun with optic mount back about a month ago. Stuck a new RM06 on it and have put about 1250-1500 through it since. The extractor needed minor tuning to get it where it needed to be, but the gun has otherwise been worry free. I have shot a mix of 115 and 124 grain ball from various companies, 124 +P Gold Dot, and 135 +P Critical Duty. No ammo-related problems. Trigger is clean and smooth at about 4 pounds. Safety is very positive (full-size right side paddle is a nice touch), grip safety is right where it should be.
The RDSM is a great mount. It's lower than the DUO and I like the irons forward design. It's also cheaper than the DUO. Being limited to the RMR footprint may prove limiting in the long run, but that's really hard to infer. Reports that you can use the RDSM with a "normal" front sight are not accurate. I still need to calculate the proper height for the front sight and obtain one.
I've been shooting the gun out of an LAS Concealment AIWB holster and like it, but am in the process of trying to find one for a TLR-7A.
SWATcop556
06-15-20, 23:37
Good to hear. Can you post up some photos when you get a chance?
I spoke with Buck at CHPWS re. availability of an RMR mount for a DVC-P.
Their plate is attractive as it is actually substantially lower than the OEM STI or Dawson plates.
He said they don't have one currently, but if I sent my slide they'd fabricate one and have slide back to me in 4 weeks.
I'll report back after receiving and testing durability with live fire.
http://chpws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/STI-DUO-Plate-for-IG.jpg
SWATcop556
06-21-20, 18:23
Yeah this is my other option I'm looking into. Aaron from Sage Dynamics has a solid video on the CHPWS plates, though Glock specific.
Recieved the CHPWS mount plate.
It places the RD substantially lower than Dawson's plate.
I find it quicker to acquire Dot with the thinner plate.
Dawson-
https://i.imgur.com/MMQHnN6.jpg
CH-
https://i.imgur.com/Np8exuw.jpg
I've been a little remiss. Here is my C2 with RDSM.
https://i.postimg.cc/8C5S1wV8/IMG-20200613-142250.jpg
I have since obtained a Staccato P and had an RDSM installed on it, too. I dig the mount.
I've been a little remiss. Here is my C2 with RDSM.
https://i.postimg.cc/8C5S1wV8/IMG-20200613-142250.jpg
I have since obtained a Staccato P and had an RDSM installed on it, too. I dig the mount.
Well shit. I know where next year's gun budget is going.
SWATcop556
07-25-20, 20:24
My Staccato P and CHPWS plate gets here Tuesday. I'll follow up with some photos and my thoughts once I can ring it out.
This will probably make me buy a C2 now.
Went with a .250”H X .115”W Dawson FS. Got it installed last night and verified sight height GTG this AM.
This shoots POA/POI with my range loads.
The lower mount required a different/taller FS.
63229
63228
Owning both a P and a C2 now, I see the salient points of both guns.
I know there are a lot of guys claiming that they can conceal a full-size 2011 (appendix, even!) without a problem. I am not one of them. The C2 does provide a G19esque concealment experience and I can appendix it fine in an LAS Concealment AIWB holster. It shoots, for me, at about 90% of the speed of the Staccato P (maybe .21-.22 splits versus .18-.19 on the P) I actually prefer the VIP (C2) grip for my hand size a little bit because the lip at the base of the front strap is perfect to catch my pinky finger. A magwell on the P would likely make it equivalent to me in this regard.
I prefer the tool-less guide rod on the P to the recoil master on the C2, but I understand that Staccato is using what they use for maximum reliability with each slide length. The Dawson tool-less is just easier from a maintenance standpoint.
I stand by the RDSM as a good mount, but I think Chambers Custom's method of selling you the mount on their site and then limiting installers to a small handful who generally don't stock the mount. It makes for a clumsy buying experience where, in both cases, it's taken a couple days for Chambers to get the mount shipped and then a separate interaction with the gunsmith is required.
I used two different gunsmiths for my installs. One of them accepted the work and completed it promptly, but then notified me that the only payment option was a money order or cashier's check AFTER the work was done, adding a delay for me to mail payment. I should have asked in advance but I was perturbed that that wasn't part of the initial exchange. The second smith completed even faster (less than a week) and accepted PayPal, but when the screws provided by Chambers to mount the RMR were far too short (no threads were able to engage), he dumped me back to Chambers to resolve it. I guess I don't find that to be a surprise, but I could tell the screws were too short from looking at them and it adds yet another wrinkle to resolve.
So...
Overall, the RDSM is still a "go" for me. If you're ordering a Staccato, consider the iron sight models and RDSM. I think the C&H plate for the DUO guns looks good, too, but adding $145 on to the $500 premium for the DUO gun to get a mount that is, at best, about as low as the RDSM, seems like a lot to spend.
One final thought: I went with the RM09 on the Staccato P (RM06 on the C2). This was on the advice of Aaron Cowan at a recent class. I really, really like the 1 MOA dot.
Eurodriver
08-08-20, 12:42
I see this is where all the adults and people who enjoy fancy things hang out.
I'm debating the STI Staccato P or DUO.
I generally like RMRs on guns, but as mentioned above it does sit very high and it's 25% more expensive.
Can't decide :(
MountainRaven
08-08-20, 15:25
I see this is where all the adults and people who enjoy fancy things hang out.
I'm debating the STI Staccato P or DUO.
I generally like RMRs on guns, but as mentioned above it does sit very high and it's 25% more expensive.
Can't decide :(
I chose both.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HighLikableBlackwidowspider-size_restricted.gif
SWATcop556
08-09-20, 04:25
I see this is where all the adults and people who enjoy fancy things hang out.
I'm debating the STI Staccato P or DUO.
I generally like RMRs on guns, but as mentioned above it does sit very high and it's 25% more expensive.
Can't decide :(
The DUO with the CHPWS is where it's at. You'll need a new front sight though but anything in the .190 height should be GTG.
I've been a little remiss. Here is my C2 with RDSM.
https://i.postimg.cc/8C5S1wV8/IMG-20200613-142250.jpg
I have since obtained a Staccato P and had an RDSM installed on it, too. I dig the mount.
Da,
Is the rear of the optic supported with the Chambers plate? I’ve seen pictures of guns with rear support in place and then also with the rear of the slide flat milled off for whatever reason which would seem problematic.
From all the research I’ve done on this it seems the only legitimate options are the CHPWS and RDSM given their significant improvements over factory DUO design if milling a standard slide. So I’m trying to narrow down which way to go.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mine has a small lip on the rear. The mount is also milled for removable bosses that Chambers can provide if desired. Joe says that they don't see them as necessary but I understand the trepidation with asking the screws to hold the optic in place in the vertical and horizontal planes.
I think the C&H at $150 over the already $500 premium on the DUO is just a bridge too far. I would also consider Nighthawk's mount and maybe even Trijicon's as viable options that are cheaper than the DUO alone let alone with the C&H plate.
Note that I have no issue with C&H's plate or even it's price, it's how much Staccato wants over base for the DUO.
Mine has a small lip on the rear. The mount is also milled for removable bosses that Chambers can provide if desired. Joe says that they don't see them as necessary but I understand the trepidation with asking the screws to hold the optic in place in the vertical and horizontal planes.
I think the C&H at $150 over the already $500 premium on the DUO is just a bridge too far. I would also consider Nighthawk's mount and maybe even Trijicon's as viable options that are cheaper than the DUO alone let alone with the C&H plate.
Note that I have no issue with C&H's plate or even it's price, it's how much Staccato wants over base for the DUO.
I'm tracking on that. The Nighthawk plate design looks good. Downside they’re for new builds only.
I agree the up charge on the DUO is criminal, especially considering how unsupported a RMR ischemic mounted.
As for the Chambers if they said they precision fit the optic to the plate then alright lets party. History has shown that simply bolting an optic onto a slide with no additional axial support will inevitably fail so I'm not sure why the 1911 crowd hasn't seem to have caught on to this yet. Also I think its wack he wont sell the plate outright but maybe that’ll change someday. His seems to be the lowest out there so that’s where I’m leaning at the moment.
Are the removable bosses similar to the new V4 style from CHPWS?
Oops...I missed that Nighthawk wasn't doing theirs as a service. I never really pursued it myself...my fault.
The bosses for the Chambers are little metal ...nubs?... that drop into machined spots in the mount and then stick up high enough to interface with the optic. I have a set for one of my RDSMs and have not installed them to see how tightly fit they are. They aren't as nice as the T posts from C&H, but it's notable that the bosses are milled into the V4 C&H plate, it's the screw posts that are replaceable. It's been "on the list" of things to do, but the Staccato P that could use them is a range only gun and is just so dead nuts perfect right now that I don't want to pull the optic until the end of the shooting season. There's a little bit of superstition in there, but it's where I'm at on it...
Now that I'm on a computer and not my damn phone I can talk a little more about the mount. I originally had the C2 done. The optic on it is a Type 2 RM06. The fit is very snug...not like ATEI snug, but snug. The P was done next and has a Type 2 RM09. The second RDSM does not fit to the optic as tightly. There is maybe a paper width of space between the optic body and the front of the wall. I talked to Joe about this and he says that it's because of the variation in optic dimensions and needing to make the mount big enough to fit the largest variation of the optic. That makes sense to me. He sent me out a little bag of bosses at no charge. This is probably going to be the case with any 1911/2011 optic mount because nobody is milling slides for the guns like they are for Glocks...it's all bolt on mounts (at least with the RMR).
Oops...I missed that Nighthawk wasn't doing theirs as a service. I never really pursued it myself...my fault.
The bosses for the Chambers are little metal ...nubs?... that drop into machined spots in the mount and then stick up high enough to interface with the optic. I have a set for one of my RDSMs and have not installed them to see how tightly fit they are. They aren't as nice as the T posts from C&H, but it's notable that the bosses are milled into the V4 C&H plate, it's the screw posts that are replaceable. It's been "on the list" of things to do, but the Staccato P that could use them is a range only gun and is just so dead nuts perfect right now that I don't want to pull the optic until the end of the shooting season. There's a little bit of superstition in there, but it's where I'm at on it...
Now that I'm on a computer and not my damn phone I can talk a little more about the mount. I originally had the C2 done. The optic on it is a Type 2 RM06. The fit is very snug...not like ATEI snug, but snug. The P was done next and has a Type 2 RM09. The second RDSM does not fit to the optic as tightly. There is maybe a paper width of space between the optic body and the front of the wall. I talked to Joe about this and he says that it's because of the variation in optic dimensions and needing to make the mount big enough to fit the largest variation of the optic. That makes sense to me. He sent me out a little bag of bosses at no charge. This is probably going to be the case with any 1911/2011 optic mount because nobody is milling slides for the guns like they are for Glocks...it's all bolt on mounts (at least with the RMR).
Very informative, thank you.
I’ll have to reach out to CCP direct and pick their brains a little. I can understand making the plate on the large spec to accommodate all RMRs but that’s what everyone else has done in the past and now (and for sometime now) you’re seeing a concerted effort precision fit plates and slides to the individual optics. Frankly, I’d pay the machinist extra to do this if need be even with the plate bosses.
I can understand on a game gun it being less critical and then doubly so given the slowish slide velocities of an all steel 1911 and low power factor ammo but I’d want all the support I could get if that gun’s ever going to get racked off a window frame or car door.
I wonder how things would be if the RMR design had used larger 8-32 or 10-32 mounting hardware instead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.