Trijicon RMRcc

[HCM]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3253771314703790&id=1396466933767580


Introducing the Trijicon RMRcc
Proprietary Footprint
1 Click = 3 MOA Adjustments
The Trijicon RMRcc has a thinner, lower-profile design that reduces the risk of snags for a faster and easier draw. Although smaller, the RMRcc keeps all the great features of the RMR. Easy-to-use buttons, a common 2032 battery with illumination, and a wide variety of mounts to fit today's popular concealed carry pistols.
Trijicon RMRcc Specs
Magnification: 1X
Sight Window: .76 x .56 inches; 19 x 14mm
Lens: Tempered Glass
Adjustments: 1 tick = 3 MOA Adjustment Range (Elevation & Windage) 150 MOA Total Travel Dimensions (L x W x H) 1.8 x 0.9 x 0.9 in. 46 x 23 x 23mm
Overall Weight: 1 oz. (w/ battery) 28.34g
Illumination Source: LED Powered by CR2032 Battery
Battery Life: Over four years of continuous use (when used at 70ºF (21ºC)) at setting 4 of 8 Brightness Settings Automatic & 8 Adjustable Settings
WE DO NOT KNOW A PRICE POINT OR AVAILABILITY YET!

Now you know what I know.

59727

[PNWTO]

Coincidence that this happens with the new baby Glocks getting announced or no?

Although I don’t know the appropriate dimensions offhand so disregard.

[YVK]

Since it says "proprietary footprint", I assume it is specifically designed not to be same as Shield or others.

[HCM]

https://youtu.be/onICTM4lEbw

[HeavyDuty]

More info, including a size comparison to the RMR: https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/trijicon-rmrcc-reflex-sight-review-concealed-carry/384003

Definitely bears watching, I’ve been waiting for a top quality slimline optic from Trijicon. Not sure at this point if this will be enough to sway me from a compact Shield with the glass lens option, though.

[CalAlumnus]

At 2:55 in the video it appears to be direct mounted on a G48 (they use a dovetail plate with the Hellcat).

It’s a non-rail 48, though, so no saying if it fits the new optics ready G48.

[Xhado]

Super disappointing, Trijicon is so out of touch.

[GJM]

Glad they offer a 6.5 moa option — I think “auto” works much better on the RMR than on a Holosun, and a larger dot seems more conducive to good auto function.

[HeavyDuty]

At 2:55 in the video it appears to be direct mounted on a G48 (they use a dovetail plate with the Hellcat).

It’s a non-rail 48, though, so no saying if it fits the new optics ready G48.

That’s a mill job - no rear sight dovetail.


Super disappointing, Trijicon is so out of touch.

How so?

[jh9]

From the gunsandammo.com link upthread:

https://content.osgnetworks.tv/gunsandammo/content/photos/Trijicon-RMRcc-compare-RMR.jpg

I realize the body (and thus window) has to be smaller to accommodate smaller slides, but where is the point of diminishing returns re: window size?

The 5.0 MOA SRO I have on my 320 has plenty of visibility. Even with a less than perfect index, the dot is still (usually) somewhere in the window. The other RMR-size optics I've played with weren't so forgiving. If you go smaller still this looks like it'll be great for M/GM-level shooters who practice enough to build a consistent index and have a tiny version of their CO gun for actual carry... but I just can't see this working out for anyone else.

[CCT125US]

This has a listed 3 MOA adjustment per click, which equates to .628 inch at 20 yards. RMSC has .25 inch adjustment at the same distance for reference.

[Xhado]

How so?

Proprietary footprint (wont fit Glock or Sig)

Bottom loading battery

Requires additional sealing plate

Base is taller than the Shield/HS, which means that co-witnessing with standard height sights may not be possible.

Keeping the RMR's poor window position. RMRs work better the closer they are to your face (on a rifle). Some of the window is obscured when it's on a pistol farther out in front of your face.

[RJ]

Mounting options overview snipped from the product support sheet posted on the Trijicon web site:

https://www.trijicon.com/uploads/product-uploads/product-downloads/PML4083-1_Rev_%280%29_RMRcc_Spec_Sheet..pdf

59735

[Darth_Uno]

Bottom loading battery


I know exactly nothing about why optics are built the way they are. And I know the RMR wasn’t originally designed for handguns, people just figured out how to mount them on slides. But it seems like Trijicon could’ve made an accessible battery a consideration for new designs. Especially seeing how everybody else has one (including themselves). Removing and rezeroing your RMR is hardly difficult, but could be avoided.

[HeavyDuty]

Well, that didn’t take long:

https://chpws.com/product/glock-mos-v4-mil-leo-to-trijicon-rmrcc

[HeavyDuty]

Proprietary footprint (wont fit Glock or Sig)

Bottom loading battery

Requires additional sealing plate

Base is taller than the Shield/HS, which means that co-witnessing with standard height sights may not be possible.

Keeping the RMR's poor window position. RMRs work better the closer they are to your face (on a rifle). Some of the window is obscured when it's on a pistol farther out in front of your face.

Agree on all counts, but they aren’t automatically fails for me. The height is my biggest concern - some of the photos I’ve seen of the compact Shield on a 48 MOS sure make it look like the factory sights are usable as a backup. I really want to avoid suppressor height sights on a 43.

[HeavyDuty]

This has a listed 3 MOA adjustment per click, which equates to .628 inch at 20 yards. RMSC has .25 inch adjustment at the same distance for reference.

Another thing - the G&A video mentions no clicks in the adjustment. I’m not sure how I feel about that on an optic designed for carry and defense.

[HeavyDuty]

From the gunsandammo.com link upthread:

https://content.osgnetworks.tv/gunsandammo/content/photos/Trijicon-RMRcc-compare-RMR.jpg

I realize the body (and thus window) has to be smaller to accommodate smaller slides, but where is the point of diminishing returns re: window size?

The 5.0 MOA SRO I have on my 320 has plenty of visibility. Even with a less than perfect index, the dot is still (usually) somewhere in the window. The other RMR-size optics I've played with weren't so forgiving. If you go smaller still this looks like it'll be great for M/GM-level shooters who practice enough to build a consistent index and have a tiny version of their CO gun for actual carry... but I just can't see this working out for anyone else.

I think this window will be similar in size to the one on my Ruger MkIII - small but workable, especially for the intended purpose. But practice is the key - a 200 round a year guy is probably going to be painfully slow with a window this size.

[jh9]

small but workable, especially for the intended purpose. But practice is the key - a 200 round a year guy is probably going to be painfully slow with a window this size.

Yeah. Maybe that's a good thing, though. Nobody's going to mount one of these on a CO division piece, and I want the 200 round a year guy to trade speed for accuracy when he's popping off rounds in a parking lot.

[Grey]

For sale currently: https://www.kenziesoptics.com/product/trijicon-rmrcc-adjustable-led-sight-multiple-options/?attribute_pa_reticle-options=3-25-moa&redirect_mongo_id=5f4e455248e97761f17ea373

$529.99

[Archer1440]

Super disappointing, Trijicon is so out of touch.

I tend to disagree. They have a wide range of mounts for direct mounting to popular small pistols, and they kept the durability and battery life of the RMR. It seems to me this is exactly what serious users have been waiting for. A huge improvement over the plastic and delicate extruded aluminum choices currently out there. They did not add gimmicky features like solar panels or a rifle reticle. I would be far more confident with this over a Romeo Zero or other delicate plastic sight.

I’ve personally relegated my subcompacts to back up use only, but if I wanted a dot for my 365’s, (currently laser equipped) this would be my choice after appropriate field reports come in. I would want to be sure the automatic adjustment is correctly dialed in (RMR rather than SRO behavior).

What I found interesting is the fact that the product is illustrated in their official literature with a Maxell battery, which seems to indicate that perhaps they have moved away from the Energizers they normally include with the RMR and SRO.

The only negative is the smaller window, which is a relative non issue for the well trained.

[tlong17]

Other than it being a Trijicon and not saying Holosun on the side, I'm not seeing anything that makes it a compelling argument over a 507 or 407k?

[YVK]

I am excited to see this one.

Proprietary print is fine by me. Not ideal, but may indicate, besides their own logistic issues, a power play based on their rep and market dominance. Make customers commit.

In regards to removable battery, it is nice to have but I don't think the tech is there yet when it comes to low profile optics. Personally I would never use anything that has a sliding tray, what I have seen made me believe it was/is a weak design. Trijicon's top loading execution has received enough criticism, and the only top loading compartment design I like is that of a DPP. Which requires such a tall optic body that finding backup sights is often hard.


Now, does this come with a factory sealing plate, or we need to get a Battlewerx something?

[Archer1440]

The optic is available now from a couple of the usual suppliers, street price is $499

[psalms144.1]

Yawn. You lost me at proprietary footprint. And the price.

[BobLoblaw]

I really dislike proprietary mounting footprints. It's the biggest thing holding me back from jumping in. It's a burden to the consumer to have to buy plates that increase the height (making it less concealable) and then buy taller iron sights due to a optic company pissing match. Come together and pick one so we can all direct mount without milling. If you are delivering to your target market what they want, it shouldn't make a difference.

[GJM]

On lens:

59757

[Archer1440]

This helps underscore GJM’s point as well:

[HeavyDuty]

Almost like they’re pushing towards CC guns that are optical only, no irons. A front blade with this will look like a spinnaker.

[GJM]

The optic is available now from a couple of the usual suppliers, street price is $499

Thanks, just bought a 6.5 from Kenzie’s.

[HCM]

On lens:

59757

As someone who is not a fan of the RMR for just this reason, it is very interesting.

[Archer1440]

Thanks, just bought a 6.5 from Kenzie’s.

Good supplier, but a bit cheaper at Eurooptic, where I have had six excellent RMR/SRO transactions.

(And also, the biblical reference Trijicon chose for this one is very amusing in context of the product.)

[randyho]

Another good comparison of the rmr and rmrcc (https://www.instagram.com/p/CEl9SgrhL5n/)

[TAZ]

I am excited to see this one.

Proprietary print is fine by me. Not ideal, but may indicate, besides their own logistic issues, a power play based on their rep and market dominance. Make customers commit.

In regards to removable battery, it is nice to have but I don't think the tech is there yet when it comes to low profile optics. Personally I would never use anything that has a sliding tray, what I have seen made me believe it was/is a weak design. Trijicon's top loading execution has received enough criticism, and the only top loading compartment design I like is that of a DPP. Which requires such a tall optic body that finding backup sights is often hard.


Now, does this come with a factory sealing plate, or we need to get a Battlewerx something?

Power plays are generally best played when one has the power. In this application Trijicon is LATE to the game so they have little power. Had they come out and matched an already existing footprint (no idea what the footprint IP landscape looks like) they would have killed everyone. Not sure how that strategy will play out long term.

[stomridertx]

I am excited to see this one.

Proprietary print is fine by me. Not ideal, but may indicate, besides their own logistic issues, a power play based on their rep and market dominance. Make customers commit.

In regards to removable battery, it is nice to have but I don't think the tech is there yet when it comes to low profile optics. Personally I would never use anything that has a sliding tray, what I have seen made me believe it was/is a weak design. Trijicon's top loading execution has received enough criticism, and the only top loading compartment design I like is that of a DPP. Which requires such a tall optic body that finding backup sights is often hard.


Now, does this come with a factory sealing plate, or we need to get a Battlewerx something?

Sample size of one, but my Holosun 407C V2 survived an optic first accidental drop on concrete and and the battery compartment did not fail. I don't really see this as a weak point at all. I did suffer a chip in the glass, that's where Trijicon outclasses everyone else with their hood design. What is it about the tray that is a weak design?

[backtrail540]

tv/CEmMkl3JCCh

[YVK]

What is it about the tray that is a weak design?

I've seen trays being so wobbly, there was no battery contact, and I've seen trays fully come out of the body during battery exchange. Vortex and/or SIG, don't remember.

[Archer1440]

Sample size of one, but my Holosun 407C V2 survived an optic first accidental drop on concrete and and the battery compartment did not fail. I don't really see this as a weak point at all. I did suffer a chip in the glass, that's where Trijicon outclasses everyone else with their hood design. What is it about the tray that is a weak design?

Broken glass is not “survived” in my calculus. That’s a failure.

[Xhado]

Broken glass is not “survived” in my calculus. That’s a failure.

If the dot is still visible, and remains zeroed, then it's a pass in my book.

[Boomer]

I see people making a big deal out of the smaller window size, however, if you compare “usable” window size, it seems there is no apparent loss in the vertical, just the width. As has been pointed out before, and as is illustrated in the comparison pics, yes, the RMR has a bigger window, but in use, the elevated rear shelf that houses the emitter is taller than the bottom of the window and occludes the bottom of the window. A quick measurement of the comparison photos with my calipers shows the useable vertical portion of the window seems to be identical between the two.

An added bonus is the width of the RMRcc should allow for a really nice deep milled direct mount on a 1911/2011 slide, with no need for an adapter plate to widen the footprint as is needed for the RMR.

I love my SRO’s, but I will give this serious consideration for direct mounting on my 2011.

[mrozowjj]

I'm a bit torn about this. On one hand it will likely be the most reugged option out there for a slim pistol which puts it head and shoulders above everything else out there.

I also see a bunch of people online getting annoyed at the 3 MOA adjustments but unlike the RMR this is not intended for a rifle; it's meant for a pistol 3 MOA is 3/4 of an inch at 25 yards and it will be even less further in so I personally don't think that's a big deal.

However the bottom load battery and the UI is really the thing about the RMR I don't like all that much. Holosun has spoiled me with that shake-awake feature; I leave all those dots on all the time and whenever I pick them up they are on. They have that thing where you hold the buttons for 3 seconds and it stays on for 14 hours which is good but it's a thing you have to remember to do every time you put the gun on where with the Holosun I don't have to remember to do anything it's just on.

However much like GJM already noted I find the auto adjustment on Holosun is always a little dimmer than I'd like it to be where the auto adjust on the RMR is almost always a little brither than I'd like which at least for self defense is prefered; it's harder for me to be as precise with a blooming dot but for defense I don't need to shoot out the eye of a gnat at 25 yards I need to be able to get hits on a torso at 15.

I do think the battery on the bottom is a bad design at this point but if I can get a solid year out of a battery I don't know that I can complain that much that I have to once a year rezero.

[P226SAOFan]

Im shocked they didnt work with glock for the 48/43x mos cut. That really sucks. I hope there is some really slick and thin adapter but im doubting it because of the recoil bosses that protrude the mos cut. Hopefully the mos can be milled aftermarket to work with the RMRcc.

[call_me_ski]

Im shocked they didnt work with glock for the 48/43x mos cut. That really sucks. I hope there is some really slick and thin adapter but im doubting it because of the recoil bosses that protrude the mos cut. Hopefully the mos can be milled aftermarket to work with the RMRcc.

The big hurdle is that the RMRcc is .19 of an inch longer front to back than the RMSc so the RMRcc won’t fit into the overall cut.

[stomridertx]

If the dot is still visible, and remains zeroed, then it's a pass in my book.

I agree. It's a tiny crack and I don't notice it when presenting the gun. Zero was maintained and I still see a floating dot on target anywhere in the window. I'm confident carrying it on 2 fronts:
1. It was still functional after taking the worst possible drop.
2. Holosun is giving me no grief at all on warranty and sent a tracking number for the new optic at the same time as a prepaid label to send this one in. Customer service was excellent on the phone, and the RMA request had a 1 day turnaround. So, I feel like the company has my back.

If any degree of cracked glass is unacceptable from a fall to the user, I agree that the Trijicon RMR is the only logical choice. For me, I like this optic enough that I will buy a backup in case this happens again and I don't feel like I'll have an unusable optic if it takes another harsh impact. In fact, my accident was so similar to Aaron Cowan's infamous drop test in both execution and result it's pretty comical.

[SoCalDep]

The big hurdle is that the RMRcc is .19 of an inch longer front to back than the RMSc so the RMRcc won’t fit into the overall cut.

So the RMRcc won’t fit in the G48MOS at all? Or am I reading this wrong?

[Archer1440]

I agree. It's a tiny crack and I don't notice it when presenting the gun. Zero was maintained and I still see a floating dot on target anywhere in the window. I'm confident carrying it on 2 fronts:
1. It was still functional after taking the worst possible drop.
2. Holosun is giving me no grief at all on warranty and sent a tracking number for the new optic at the same time as a prepaid label to send this one in. Customer service was excellent on the phone, and the RMA request had a 1 day turnaround. So, I feel like the company has my back.

If any degree of cracked glass is unacceptable from a fall to the user, I agree that the Trijicon RMR is the only logical choice. For me, I like this optic enough that I will buy a backup in case this happens again and I don't feel like I'll have an unusable optic if it takes another harsh impact. In fact, my accident was so similar to Aaron Cowan's infamous drop test in both execution and result it's pretty comical.

If it cracked in a fight and you were still able to acquire the dot then I agree, but what do you plan to do while you wait for the replacement? I wouldn’t trust a broken piece of glass not to send something my way in recoil on the range.

If they’re giving you a warranty replacement for a drop, then that is certainly a very high level of CS on their part.

[Xhado]

If it cracked in a fight and you were still able to acquire the dot then I agree, but what do you plan to do while you wait for the replacement?

Welcome to the Dot Life.

Always have a spare dot on hand.

Better yet, have a spare gun with a dot.

[Archer1440]

Welcome to the Dot Life.

Always have a spare dot on hand.

Better yet, have a spare gun with a dot.

Or... six?

[stomridertx]

If it cracked in a fight and you were still able to acquire the dot then I agree, but what do you plan to do while you wait for the replacement? I wouldn’t trust a broken piece of glass not to send something my way in recoil on the range.

If they’re giving you a warranty replacement for a drop, then that is certainly a very high level of CS on their part.

I'll use the backup iron sights, I know where they hit at different distances and the windage is properly zeroed. This is my first go around with the dot on a pistol and that has become clear to me, no matter what dot I go with I need a backup unit. I'll attach a picture of the crack, it's really not so dramatic that the glass is about to fly out of the optic. It's more of a de-lamination I think. If Holosun had told me to piss off I'd still carry it while saving for an RMR.

59774

[mrozowjj]

I'll use the backup iron sights, I know where they hit at different distances and the windage is properly zeroed. This is my first go around with the dot on a pistol and that has become clear to me, no matter what dot I go with I need a backup unit. I'll attach a picture of the crack, it's really not so dramatic that the glass is about to fly out of the optic. It's more of a de-lamination I think. If Holosun had told me to piss off I'd still carry it while saving for an RMR.

59774

I can't even see the crack in that picture.

[GJM]

So the RMRcc won’t fit in the G48MOS at all? Or am I reading this wrong?

Won’t fit.

[Doc_Glock]

Won’t fit.


That is a HUGE miscalculation on someone’s part.

[Det1397]

So again, I’m trolling on IG and I see that Trijicon has a post on the new RMRcc. Someone asked the question about compatibility with the G43 MOS and here’s the official response (simple, right...?) But then there’s a follow up question about the fit and guess what? No response from Trijicon...

[RevolverRob]

TFB had a brief discussion on what the CC has a proprietary footprint. Apparently to make it smaller and get everything packed in, they had to change the mounting screw positions, to package the wiring.

If you're running a plate-type mounting system it's not really a big deal at all. If you're direct milling it's gonna suck.

What I am intrigued about is the flat base to the window. That's actually kind of a big deal to me, since I often still run irons, I usually bring my guns up, focusing on the front sight and snap the rear sight into place, by snapping the grip up, using the horizontal plan of the top of the rear sight to get my elevation. In the case of optics where the window dips below the top of the emitter housing, I often stop 'short' and end up muzzle high, because my brain is saying, "Things are aligned!", when they are not. So, to run a dot quickly, requires a change in my presentation that I don't like (basically sweeping the gun up, instead of a push/snap). If the bottom of the window is level with the highest point of the emitter housing, I now have a horizontal plane like the top of my rear sight to snap up to. Now it's no different than running irons for me.

[HeavyDuty]

TFB had a brief discussion on what the CC has a proprietary footprint. Apparently to make it smaller and get everything packed in, they had to change the mounting screw positions, to package the wiring.

If you're running a plate-type mounting system it's not really a big deal at all. If you're direct milling it's gonna suck.

What I am intrigued about is the flat base to the window. That's actually kind of a big deal to me, since I often still run irons, I usually bring my guns up, focusing on the front sight and snap the rear sight into place, by snapping the grip up, using the horizontal plan of the top of the rear sight to get my elevation. In the case of optics where the window dips below the top of the emitter housing, I often stop 'short' and end up muzzle high, because my brain is saying, "Things are aligned!", when they are not. So, to run a dot quickly, requires a change in my presentation that I don't like (basically sweeping the gun up, instead of a push/snap). If the bottom of the window is level with the highest point of the emitter housing, I now have a horizontal plane like the top of my rear sight to snap up to. Now it's no different than running irons for me.

It’s a big deal for the new 43x and 48 MOS - they locked themselves out of what I suspect will be a major chunk of the optic ready singlestack market by not following the existing defacto standard footprint.

[randyho]

It’s a big deal for the new 43x and 48 MOS - they locked themselves out of what I suspect will be a major chunk of the optic ready singlestack market by not following the existing defacto standard footprint.
I never warmed up to any of the MOS's. I'll wait for someone trustworthy to make something compatible and build another upper, as I've been doing for years.

[RevolverRob]

So, the CC is the exact same length as a standard RMR. Is it Trijicon's fault for not shortening the thing (assuming they even could?) to fit the Glock 43/48 MOS or is it Glock's fault for not using the same MOS length on the smaller guns? One of those is actually easier to accomplish than the other and it isn't shortening the optic...

I'm just saying, yes, it sucks Trijicon didn't make the optic to fit the smaller Glock MOS - but Glock probably should not have changed the dimension on the MOS. That seems kind of obvious to me since MOS stands for "Modular Optic System" - modularity implies the ability to scale up and down via a plug and play fashion...having two different MOS sizes that are not interchangeable kind of defeats that purpose.

[CalAlumnus]

That is a HUGE miscalculation on someone’s part.

It’s just sort of shocking. The gun industry seems pretty small, relatively speaking, and people talk. Surely someone at Glock heard about the RMRcc in advance from a buddy at Trijicon, and surely someone at Trijicon heard about the optics-ready 43x/48 from a buddy at Glock. Both are released at almost exactly the same time, but are incompatible.

The Glock and Trijicon brands fit well together. With Sig’s “complete solution provider” strategy, it would have made sense for Glock and Trijicon to work together.

It makes me wonder if negotiations for a collaboration fell through, and one or both said “f-u” to the whole thing.

[Xhado]

I never warmed up to any of the MOS's. I'll wait for someone trustworthy to make something compatible and build another upper, as I've been doing for years.

The 43x/48 "MOS" is not a MOS. It's simply factory milled to the RMSc footprint.

[randyho]

The 43x/48 "MOS" is not a MOS. It's simply factory milled to the RMSc footprint.
I stopped paying attention to them, so thank you for that.

[farscott]

Here is what drives me nuts. I have owned two dot-equipped pistols that have a common footprint, namely the Optima 2000 aka J-Point aka Shield RMS(c). Trijicon even private-labeled the sight as I had one on a S&W M&P .45c. For all of the other issues with the Shield sights, the common footprint is definitely a good design choice. So for basically a decade, one can find a sight for a pistol and not worry about plates or needing a new slide. Iron sights are bad enough in terms of footprints, but the cost is minimal as sights can last a decade with no issues. Dot sights fail a lot more often, and I am not willing to obsolete perfectly fine weapons because a sight footprint is made obsolete. And Trijicon just added a new footprint.

[GJM]

I contacted primary machine to ask about them direct billing the new RMRcc optic. They said as of now, they are not aware of any suppressor height sights that work with the 43X/48 slide?

[pangloss]

I contacted primary machine to ask about them direct billing the new RMRcc optic. They said as of now, they are not aware of any suppressor height sights that work with the 43X/48 slide?Check 10-8 performance. The website mentions their MOS sights working for the slim Glocks.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

[Xhado]

I contacted primary machine to ask about them direct billing the new RMRcc optic. They said as of now, they are not aware of any suppressor height sights that work with the 43X/48 slide?

Why do you need suppressor height sights when it can be co-witnessed with regular height sights?

[GJM]

Why do you need suppressor height sights when it can be co-witnessed with regular height sights?

Apparently not.

[Xhado]

Apparently not.


Send it to ATEi.

http://i.imgur.com/cHxg11B.jpg (https://imgur.com/cHxg11B)

[YVK]

Having owned an ATEI milled Glock for RMR, as well as a Glock that was milled in even lower than ATEI, I am gonna wait till someone else checks out their claim in regards to RMScc and regular height irons.

[Redneck Zen]

Not an RMRcc, but I have a Brownells G48 slide milled for a Shield RMS and put a Holosun 407K on it. Ameriglo suppressor height sights fit just fine, give a perfect co-witness, just like my RMR'd Glock 19s and 17s.

FWIW, Ameriglo says their suppressor height sights are not compatible with the 43, 43x and 48. They are a little snug on width, but mine work fine.

FWIW #2, the height of the Holosun 407K is the same as the regular RMR, so co-witness requirements are the same.

FWIW #3, the Brownells slide has four indexing posts meant for the RMS. Ya have to mill them down completely in the rear and about halfway in the front to accommodate the Holosun 407k. Totally worth it, though. The optic practically snaps in like Tupperware, no movement at all.

Regarding sight height, I also have a G43 that's been milled and has an adapter plate for an RMR, which is too wide for a G43. Because of the extra height by the adapter plate MOS height sights a required for proper co-witnessing.

Which is best? Well, I like'em both. The 407K is the same width as the 43/48 series, so no adapter plate is required. Only down side to the RMR'd G43 is the MOS front sight looks kinda goofy and might cause a problem with a holster. Mine rides in a Bravo Concealment rig and drags a bit, but has never given me a problem drawing.

I won't be getting an RMRcc. Price, proprietary footprint, no new innovations ... there's nothing for me there. The 407K is still new but my 507s have been excellent, so if anyone asks, I say go Holosun.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eH4UgZ5zKAe1LZz6OaWNr8ZG-9D3cdPO/view?usp=sharing

[davisj]

https://youtu.be/lFAvBmFNI4w

[HeavyDuty]

I’ve been toying with the idea of picking up a second slide for my 43 or 48 and having it milled for a RMRcc as low and as far back as is physically possible removing the rear dovetail, and either running no front sight or something that just provides a gross index through the window as a backup. I’m curious if it would be practical, but that’s a fair amount of money for an experiment.

[TC215]

I’ve been toying with the idea of picking up a second slide for my 43 or 48 and having it milled for a RMRcc as low and as far back as is physically possible removing the rear dovetail, and either running no front sight or something that just provides a gross index through the window as a backup. I’m curious if it would be practical, but that’s a fair amount of money for an experiment.

I just got a spare 43 and am waiting for my RMRcc to come in so I can send my slide off to get milled and get it installed. From my understanding, the RMRcc HAS to be milled at the rear of slide, where the dovetail is, to avoid interfering with the internals. The rear sight as to be installed in front of the RMRcc.

[Redneck Zen]

I’ve been toying with the idea of picking up a second slide for my 43 or 48 and having it milled for a RMRcc as low and as far back as is physically possible removing the rear dovetail, and either running no front sight or something that just provides a gross index through the window as a backup. I’m curious if it would be practical, but that’s a fair amount of money for an experiment.

It's just money. :p:D:cool:

But seriously, if you're putting that kind of money into this gun I suggest going that extra step and upgrade the irons. There's no practical gain to eliminating the rear dovetail and moving the RMR back that little bit.

I'm strongly dedicated to the idea of back up iron sights on a red dot equipped pistol for two reasons:

1. Yeah, in the unlikely case of the optic failing due to internal problems/damage/battery fail. Possible, but increasingly unlikely. I finally changed out the battery on a Type 1 RME after nearly five years. It was on auto adjust most of the time, and in my carry bag or under a shirt. Pretty impressive, though I would recommend yearly battery change out. That was my first RMR and an experiment.

2. Also 'cuz -- for me -- using the irons to index on and get that dot was a huge help to helping train my little monkey brain.

I've been shooting RMR'd Glocks for about five years and now I rarely use the irons, but on days I stumble they help me out. Most have at least a front tritium; my daily carry -- a G43 -- has both front and rear, just in case.

Also, to bust the myth, the Ameriglo suppressor height sights DO work on the G48 Brownells slide I have. There is very little room to adjust windage, but it's enough to zero the gun. See attached pix. Both the G48 and G43 have full size suppressor height sights. The G43's sights are MOS height 'cuz mounting a full-sized RMR required a cantilevered or tapered adapter plate and that adds to the height of the sight axis. It looks a bit weird, but it's a laser ... a teeny, tiny laser. Shoots way better than I'm capable, so I'm okay with it.

Aaron at Sage Dynamics did a find job 'splaining a lot about the RMRcc. It doesn't turn me on, but YMMV.

I'm gonna do one more, a factory G48X -- if I can find one -- and send it off to accept a Holosun 407K. Then I'm gonna stop before my wife files a cease and desist order.

Just my dos centavos.

[Redneck Zen]

I just got a spare 43 and am waiting for my RMRcc to come in so I can send my slide off to get milled and get it installed. From my understanding, the RMRcc HAS to be milled at the rear of slide, where the dovetail is, to avoid interfering with the internals. The rear sight as to be installed in front of the RMRcc.

Don't know who told you that, but it's not true. Just look at my G43. It's milled way deep for an RMR adapter plate. It's actually deeper than the mill job Brownells puts on their slides for the Holosun/Shield series. There's no reason to eliminate the rear sight notch unless it's just something you wanna do.

You might wanna get someone to check the math. ;)

The only advantage to the RMRcc is the narrow width. Height and length are the same as the full sized RMR. I like it, but it came too late, but I'm good to go. For now. ;)

[TC215]

Don't know who told you that, but it's not true. Just look at my G43. It's milled way deep for an RMR adapter plate. It's actually deeper than the mill job Brownells puts on their slides for the Holosun/Shield series. There's no reason to eliminate the rear sight notch unless it's just something you wanna do.

You might wanna get someone to check the math. ;)

The only advantage to the RMRcc is the narrow width. Height and length are the same as the full sized RMR. I like it, but it came too late,

JagerWerks and BattleWerx will only mill for the RMRcc on slimline Glocks with rear sight in front of the optic, or no rear sight at all. Same with Maple Leaf:


Due to the dimensions of the drop safety mechanism, it is not possible to put the RMRcc optic cut in front of the rear iron sight dovetail on a Glock 43/43X/48 slide. Doing so would compromise the drop safety mechanism.

In law enforcement, we refer to that as “a clue.”

The length of the RMRcc is the same as the RMR, but the RMRcc is slightly shorter in height (1” vs 0.9”).

[Redneck Zen]

JagerWerks and BattleWerx will only mill for the RMRcc on slimline Glocks with rear sight in front of the optic, or no rear sight at all. Same with Maple Leaf:



In law enforcement, we refer to that as “a clue.”

The length of the RMRcc is the same as the RMR, but the RMRcc is slightly shorter in height (1” vs 0.9”).

Ah, well then, there it is. :D Funny, looking at how low my adapter plate is, you'd think it would work. But those guys know best, it seems.

Anywho, I appreciate the information.

[Redneck Zen]

JagerWerks and BattleWerx will only mill for the RMRcc on slimline Glocks with rear sight in front of the optic, or no rear sight at all. Same with Maple Leaf:



In law enforcement, we refer to that as “a clue.”

The length of the RMRcc is the same as the RMR, but the RMRcc is slightly shorter in height (1” vs 0.9”).

Well, you got me worried about firing pin drop safety, so I field stripped both of my G43s, one with and one without an RMR. Thank goodness, both firing pin safeties function as they should, look identical except, of course, for the milled space for the adapter plate. Eyeballing it, it looks like the RMRcc would work, but WTF do I know? Could be the RMRcc bolt/screw placement would be the culprits. The plate I got was apparently designed to avoid that problem.

FWIW, that same G43 has about 1K round through it over the past four or so years without missing nary a lick. So far, so good, as the man says.

Thanks again. Good conversation.

[GJM]

https://youtu.be/lFAvBmFNI4w

Can someone provide the cliff notes version.

[TC215]

Can someone provide the cliff notes version.

It’s an RMR with a smaller window.

[GJM]

It’s an RMR with a smaller window.

And complicated mounting considerations?

[TC215]

And complicated mounting considerations?

I think the only thing he mentioned in reference to that is the fact that it’s longer than the RMSc footprint, so it has to be mounted relatively high on the 43X/48 MOS guns.

[HeavyDuty]

It's just money. :p:D:cool:

But seriously, if you're putting that kind of money into this gun I suggest going that extra step and upgrade the irons. There's no practical gain to eliminating the rear dovetail and moving the RMR back that little bit.

I'm strongly dedicated to the idea of back up iron sights on a red dot equipped pistol for two reasons:

1. Yeah, in the unlikely case of the optic failing due to internal problems/damage/battery fail. Possible, but increasingly unlikely. I finally changed out the battery on a Type 1 RME after nearly five years. It was on auto adjust most of the time, and in my carry bag or under a shirt. Pretty impressive, though I would recommend yearly battery change out. That was my first RMR and an experiment.

2. Also 'cuz -- for me -- using the irons to index on and get that dot was a huge help to helping train my little monkey brain.

I've been shooting RMR'd Glocks for about five years and now I rarely use the irons, but on days I stumble they help me out. Most have at least a front tritium; my daily carry -- a G43 -- has both front and rear, just in case.

Also, to bust the myth, the Ameriglo suppressor height sights DO work on the G48 Brownells slide I have. There is very little room to adjust windage, but it's enough to zero the gun. See attached pix. Both the G48 and G43 have full size suppressor height sights. The G43's sights are MOS height 'cuz mounting a full-sized RMR required a cantilevered or tapered adapter plate and that adds to the height of the sight axis. It looks a bit weird, but it's a laser ... a teeny, tiny laser. Shoots way better than I'm capable, so I'm okay with it.

Aaron at Sage Dynamics did a find job 'splaining a lot about the RMRcc. It doesn't turn me on, but YMMV.

I'm gonna do one more, a factory G48X -- if I can find one -- and send it off to accept a Holosun 407K. Then I'm gonna stop before my wife files a cease and desist order.

Just my dos centavos.
I generally agree, but the purpose if this would be to see how well I can work with a RDS only defensive pistol sans irons. I had a Seventrees Asp for a brief period in the early 80s, and put a lot of money into Silvertips to learn how to shoot it well. The Guttersnipe was basically a gross indexing tool, and I was happy to find that with practice I could reliably place hits at seven yards with it.

If a spare 43 or 48 slide pops up, I just might try this. And if I mill all the way to the rear, I could always send the slide back for a forward of sight mount dovetail if the idea crashes and burns. I know others do it, I want to see if I can.

[TC215]

My RMRcc apparently came yesterday, but I didn’t see the box on the porch until this morning. As soon as the back-up irons come in, I’ll be sending it off to get milled. I’m looking forward to trying it out.

[1911Nut]

Not certain this is the specific thread to post this question, but I am curious about forum members' thoughts regarding red dot sights on an everyday carry pistol, and the need (or not) for BUIS. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the subject, but I cannot recall a compilation of the PF position(s) on this subject.

Perhaps a poll? (Is there an ROP for requesting or suggesting a poll?)

If I could have a currently available red dot optic on my primary everyday carry pistol, it would:

1. Definitely have BUIS, because I won't trust my life to the currently available optics and/or mounting systems

2. Not require BUIS, because the optic and mounting technologies available today are perfectly adequate for an EDC pistol

3. Not matter to me, because there is no way in Hell I want an optic (BUIS or not) on my EDC pistol

4. Who suggested this stupid poll?

[alamo5000]

I recently acquired my very first RDS (for a pistol) not that long ago. At first I thought the RMRcc was going to be it. After researching it and looking at my options I did not go that route. Price had zero bearing on the decision.

My choice after lots of comparing was the Holosun 507k.

My EDC pistol is a 365XL and what it boiled down to is a few things.

1. The holosun is a tank.
2. I wasn't sure at all what kind of reticle I wanted. The three options on the Holosun are actually great in my opinion, especially for transitioning into RDS for the first time. That 32 moa ring actually does make it easier to pick up the dot.
3. No adapter plate needed. Straight out of the box it fit perfectly.
4. When you remove the plate from the 365xl the rear sight goes away as well. With the holosun the housing of the optic has a built in rear site that can be used for a backup in a pinch. This is not possible with the RMRcc.

Overall I am really glad I went the direction I did.

[RJ]

Not certain this is the specific thread to post this question, but I am curious about forum members' thoughts regarding red dot sights on an everyday carry pistol, and the need (or not) for BUIS. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the subject, but I cannot recall a compilation of the PF position(s) on this subject.

Perhaps a poll? (Is there an ROP for requesting or suggesting a poll?)

If I could have a currently available red dot optic on my primary everyday carry pistol, it would:

1. Definitely have BUIS, because I won't trust my life to the currently available optics and/or mounting systems

2. Not require BUIS, because the optic and mounting technologies available today are perfectly adequate for an EDC pistol

3. Not matter to me, because there is no way in Hell I want an optic (BUIS or not) on my EDC pistol

4. Who suggested this stupid poll?

I would pick 2), because I'm pretty confident I can make center-mass shots on a 8" circle out to around 7 yards using my Glock 48 with a target focused sight picture i.e. sans sights. I just put a 507c V2 on my Glock 34 for USPSA, and plan to move to a MRDS for my EDC G48 (non-MOS) "soon".

[Up1911Fan]

Not certain this is the specific thread to post this question, but I am curious about forum members' thoughts regarding red dot sights on an everyday carry pistol, and the need (or not) for BUIS. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the subject, but I cannot recall a compilation of the PF position(s) on this subject.

Perhaps a poll? (Is there an ROP for requesting or suggesting a poll?)

If I could have a currently available red dot optic on my primary everyday carry pistol, it would:

1. Definitely have BUIS, because I won't trust my life to the currently available optics and/or mounting systems

2. Not require BUIS, because the optic and mounting technologies available today are perfectly adequate for an EDC pistol

3. Not matter to me, because there is no way in Hell I want an optic (BUIS or not) on my EDC pistol

4. Who suggested this stupid poll?

Absolutely #1 with no other option for me. I place a high value and being able to consistently make a low percentage shot with the gun on my person. An 8" circle at 7 yards is nowhere good enough for me. If my dot goes down, I want Irons I know are zeroed with the same load the dot was.

[1911Nut]

I recently acquired my very first RDS (for a pistol) not that long ago. At first I thought the RMRcc was going to be it. After researching it and looking at my options I did not go that route. Price had zero bearing on the decision.

My choice after lots of comparing was the Holosun 507k.

My EDC pistol is a 365XL and what it boiled down to is a few things.

1. The holosun is a tank.
2. I wasn't sure at all what kind of reticle I wanted. The three options on the Holosun are actually great in my opinion, especially for transitioning into RDS for the first time. That 32 moa ring actually does make it easier to pick up the dot.
3. No adapter plate needed. Straight out of the box it fit perfectly.
4. When you remove the plate from the 365xl the rear sight goes away as well. With the holosun the housing of the optic has a built in rear site that can be used for a backup in a pinch. This is not possible with the RMRcc.

Overall I am really glad I went the direction I did.

I have essentially the same setup, and made the choices for exactly the same reasons you mentioned. Except I went with the 407K because I strongly prefer the larger MOA dot.

Additionally, I have been shooting CZ Shadows with Trijicon SRO's on them in competition, and wanted a carry oriented, smaller optic to experiment with. So far, so good.

But I haven't bet my life on the 365XL/401K combo yet, and need more confidence in both of them before I can feel comfortable using them as EDC.

Currently working with Cajun Gun Works to explore options for mounting either a Holosun 407K or a Trijicon RMRcc on my CGW RAMI. I'm not sure the RMRcc will fit and allow BUIS, but they have already told me that the Holosun will.

[HCM]

Not certain this is the specific thread to post this question, but I am curious about forum members' thoughts regarding red dot sights on an everyday carry pistol, and the need (or not) for BUIS. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the subject, but I cannot recall a compilation of the PF position(s) on this subject.

Perhaps a poll? (Is there an ROP for requesting or suggesting a poll?)

If I could have a currently available red dot optic on my primary everyday carry pistol, it would:

1. Definitely have BUIS, because I won't trust my life to the currently available optics and/or mounting systems

2. Not require BUIS, because the optic and mounting technologies available today are perfectly adequate for an EDC pistol

3. Not matter to me, because there is no way in Hell I want an optic (BUIS or not) on my EDC pistol

4. Who suggested this stupid poll?

You are missing an option:

5. Not have separate BUIS because the body of the optic can be used for gross aiming at typical pistol ranges.

I’d be fine with this for personal, CCW purposes.

For Duty use I would want a back up sighting system, though that could be BUIS or a laser. If BUIS I want plain black as night sights or fiber optic distracts from use of the primary sighting system. I also do not want true co-witness BUIS. I want lower 1/3 to lower 1/4 co-witness. Once again because the back up sighting system should not distract from the primary sighting system.

Since you are the 1911 nut. I have a SA Operator with a factory mounted RMR. I like the gun very much but if putting another RDS on a 1911 I think I would rather use the RMRCC vs the other “standard width” RDS.

[1911Nut]

You are missing an option:

5. Not have separate BUIS because the body of the optic can be used for gross aiming at typical pistol ranges.

I’d be fine with this for personal, CCW purposes.

For Duty use I would want a back up sighting system, though that could be BUIS or a laser. If BUIS I want plain black as night sights or fiber optic distracts from use of the primary sighting system. I also do not want true co-witness BUIS. I want lower 1/3 to lower 1/4 co-witness. Once again because the back up sighting system should not distract from the primary sighting system.

I agree that I missed an option. And will note that the 407K/507K Holosun (there are probably others) have a rudimentary notch built into the back of the housing that allows it to be used as a rear sight. So if you have a front sight on the pistol, perhaps this is just a "notch above" (pun intended) using just the optic body.

[alamo5000]

But I haven't bet my life on the 365XL/401K combo yet, and need more confidence in both of them before I can feel comfortable using them as EDC.

I have a sample of one but I have at least a few thousand rounds downrange with my XL without a single malfunction.

As for the dot, John Lovell and Aaron Cowan both signed off on the 507k. I have the X2 version. I've been carrying it for a few months now and I have no reason to doubt it now. That's just me.

This is my first RDS for a pistol so I am still learning a lot. Sometimes I don't even fire. I will draw and acquire at random times just because. When my shot timer gets here I will start keeping track of actual times.

At first I was all for going with a 3 MOA dot but now I'm glad I got what I did. The center dot is 3.25moa and the outer ring is 32moa.

I can toggle through any combination I want. That 32 moa ring though is great to learn on. Sort of like training wheels for the new guy. That ring at 10 yards (32 MOA) is right around 3 inches which is plenty sufficient for carry. I run mine with the circle and dot so I can get a lot more precise if need be.

Later on after I get used to the dot on a pistol thing I might have a different opinion but for now I like it a lot.

[Redneck Zen]

I generally agree, but the purpose if this would be to see how well I can work with a RDS only defensive pistol sans irons. I had a Seventrees Asp for a brief period in the early 80s, and put a lot of money into Silvertips to learn how to shoot it well. The Guttersnipe was basically a gross indexing tool, and I was happy to find that with practice I could reliably place hits at seven yards with it.

If a spare 43 or 48 slide pops up, I just might try this. And if I mill all the way to the rear, I could always send the slide back for a forward of sight mount dovetail if the idea crashes and burns. I know others do it, I want to see if I can.

67906

Well heck, you should have said that in the first place. I lusted after an ASP when I was a kid. I would have settled for the Devel version like what Col. Rex Appelgate had. I thought I was going to be the next Paris Theodore back then. Good times.

So yeah, I get it. In my little monkey brain I often compare my RMR'd G43 to the ol' ASP. Just imagine what all those old timers would think if they could see what's available today.

Oddly, someone today, I think it's the Springfield Hellcat, has a sight kinda like the old Guttersnipe, only they use fiber optics instead of gold plating or paint or whatever. What's old is new again, it seems.

Good luck on your project. I've a few like that myself. I'd love to take one of my old pre-war Colt Woodsmans and fit it with an integral suppressor, or at least thread it for something like a Dead Air Mask. I also have a couple of Beretta 71 "Mossad pistols" ;) that wear a can. So again, yeah, I get it.

I bet you still had that ASP.

[HCM]

67906

Oddly, someone today, I think it's the Springfield Hellcat, has a sight kinda like the old Guttersnipe, only they use fiber optics instead of gold plating or paint or whatever. What's old is new again, it seems.


It’s the SIG P365 SAS and it is still inferior to conventional sights.

[HeavyDuty]

It’s the SIG P365 SAS and it is still inferior to conventional sights.

A friend has a SAS, and I find it very shootable. Yes, it’s not as good as conventional sights - but it’s fast and accurate enough for self defense.

I put a few hundred rounds through it, and could see it working for me.

[Redneck Zen]

A friend has a SAS, and I find it very shootable. Yes, it’s not as good as conventional sights - but it’s fast and accurate enough for self defense.

I put a few hundred rounds through it, and could see it working for me.

... which is why we have so many options. ;)

Yeah, the SAS ... I get'em mixed up, there's so many out now. Our local shop had a couple ... I told the guys about how it mimics the old Guttersnipe system, got a lot of blank stares. :rolleyes: I thought it was interesting, but I'm focusing (get it, focusing?) on red dots. Also, I'm not crazy about those little Sigs, but that's just me. Go for it.

Since 1973 when I joined Uncle Sugar's Army and carried a 1911 as an MP, I've gone from crappy issue sights to the first days of milling and adding irons to three dot, two dot, Express Big dot and now RMRs. My son loves three dot, I hate'em. I love RMRs, other people bitch about the price, then go out and buy more guns that they don't shoot ... whatever makes ya happy, I say.

Politics aside, we are living in a golden age of firearms innovation.

[GJM]

You are missing an option:

5. Not have separate BUIS because the body of the optic can be used for gross aiming at typical pistol ranges.

I’d be fine with this for personal, CCW purposes.

For Duty use I would want a back up sighting system, though that could be BUIS or a laser. If BUIS I want plain black as night sights or fiber optic distracts from use of the primary sighting system. I also do not want true co-witness BUIS. I want lower 1/3 to lower 1/4 co-witness. Once again because the back up sighting system should not distract from the primary sighting system.

Since you are the 1911 nut. I have a SA Operator with a factory mounted RMR. I like the gun very much but if putting another RDS on a 1911 I think I would rather use the RMRCC vs the other “standard width” RDS.


and missed option 6 — have a BUG with iron sights

[flyrodr]

I had a Colt New Agent with the gutter/trench sight. The only way I could shoot it reasonably well was by just indexing the gun. Trying to "sight" using the gutter just wouldn't work for me, at least beyond "spitting distance".

Apologies if I posted this before, but here is what Ned Christiansen did to fix it. Milled the slide top, leaving just a bit at the muzzle to place (via longitudinal dovetail and cross pins) the FO sight (Ned made it from scratch, with both the vertical and horizontal "light windows"). And he added his Shield Driver rear sight. (And some other stuff).

Nice gun now. Very nice!

https://i.imgur.com/zgviti6.jpg?1

[HCM]

A friend has a SAS, and I find it very shootable. Yes, it’s not as good as conventional sights - but it’s fast and accurate enough for self defense.

I put a few hundred rounds through it, and could see it working for me.

Lots of things “can work” but it doesn’t make them a good idea.


https://youtu.be/cZvmzArslgs

[WDR]

Primary Arms has a sale going on the 6.5 moa RMRcc for a heck of a deal right now ($429.99)... if you click the Primary Arms link at the top of the page and go find it, pistol-forum gets a cut...

Just saying...

(I have no affiliation with PA or Trijicon, FWIW)

[tlong17]

Primary Arms has a sale going on the 6.5 moa RMRcc for a heck of a deal right now ($429.99)... if you click the Primary Arms link at the top of the page and go find it, pistol-forum gets a cut...

Just saying...

(I have no affiliation with PA or Trijicon, FWIW)

Back to $580 already apparently. Too bad.

[WDR]

Back to $580 already apparently. Too bad.

Yeah, it was a "flash sale"... there was 16 hours left on the clock when I posted it. Heck of a deal, IMHO... for anyone who snagged one.

[tlong17]

$422 for the 3.25 MOA version at BigTex

https://www.bigtexoutdoors.com/product/trijicon-rmrcc-sight-adjustable-led-3-25-moa-red-dot-cc06-c-3100001/

[Up1911Fan]

Was just going to post that. Ordered a 3.25 MOA from BigTex Outdoors.

[GJM]

It is interesting that Holosun sights can hardly be found in stock and this new optic is being discounted. I think if they went with a RMSc (“the Springfield standard”) footprint, they would be selling bushels of them.

[Up1911Fan]

It is interesting that Holosun sights can hardly be found in stock and this new optic is being discounted. I think if they went with a RMSc (“the Springfield standard”) footprint, they would be selling bushels of them.

Standard footprint would've been great. Mine will be direct milled, so I wasn’t too concerned.

[TC215]

Of course the sales happen after I bought one. :rolleyes:

My RMRcc, along with a G43 slide, arrived at Battle Werx today to get milled. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

[tlong17]

$430 for the 6.5 MOA at EuroOptic

https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-RMRcc-Sight-Adjustable-LED-65-MOA-Red-Dot-Mounting-Plate-Kit.aspx

This is the one I ended up keeping over the 3.5.

[Up1911Fan]

Who's had a P365 milled for the RMRcc? Who did you use?

[tlong17]

Who's had a P365 milled for the RMRcc? Who did you use?

Waiting on mine from Maple Leaf. If I were to do it again I’d check with CHPWS first. They have the rights to use the Zev posts which make it a bit more robust.

[GJM]

Waiting on mine from Maple Leaf. If I were to do it again I’d check with CHPWS first. They have the rights to use the Zev posts which make it a bit more robust.

Seems like a lot of smoke there at CHPWS lately, not sure if there is a fire.

[Up1911Fan]

Waiting on mine from Maple Leaf. If I were to do it again I’d check with CHPWS first. They have the rights to use the Zev posts which make it a bit more robust.

Thanks, from what I can tell those two plus AETi seem to be the only ones doing it.


Seems like a lot of smoke there at CHPWS lately, not sure if there is a fire.

How so? I have several of their plates, but have only used them for milling once. Work was good, but comms sucked and took longer than quoted, plus they lost the sights that were on my slide. They made it right just didn't have a usable gun for about 6 weeks longer than I was quoted.

[tlong17]

Another company, Fabricated Arms, also has it available on their website. I’ve never heard of them before so I can’t confirm or deny the quality of their craftsmanship.

[GJM]

Thanks, from what I can tell those two plus AETi seem to be the only ones doing it.



How so? I have several of their plates, but have only used them for milling once. Work was good, but comms sucked and took longer than quoted, plus they lost the sights that were on my slide. They made it right just didn't have a usable gun for about 6 weeks longer than I was quoted.

Between experiences here and what I have read on other forums, there are quite a number of issues. While I have some idea of the numerator, I don’t know the denominator, so it is hard to make an informed decision.

[Casual Friday]

Thanks, from what I can tell those two plus AETi seem to be the only ones doing it.

Battle Werx mills the posts too. They did one of my G17 slides and did an exceptional job.


How so? I have several of their plates, but have only used them for milling once. Work was good, but comms sucked and took longer than quoted, plus they lost the sights that were on my slide. They made it right just didn't have a usable gun for about 6 weeks longer than I was quoted.

You're on the right track. PM headed your way.

[P226SAOFan]

This was done my Mac defense and the work was really nice. Took a long time. But optic fits nice and snug and has the posts.

The 10-8 rear sight and a heinie .240 front give a nice low cowitness too.

https://i.postimg.cc/TYpC0cRn/5-CCDAE17-9947-4560-A3-E2-A3-A95-E6-C544-C.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/mrHR4FZp/14-BC13-A9-C25-F-44-B8-A58-F-5-FEDB00-AED86.jpg

[Up1911Fan]

Battle Werx mills the posts too. They did one of my G17 slides and did an exceptional job.



You're on the right track. PM headed your way.
Last time I checked, Battle Were only does Glock slides. Looking to have a P365 slide done.

[EricP]

Eurooptic has both the 3.25 and 6.5 MOA RMRcc on sale for $429.

RMRcc at Eurooptic (https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-RMRcc-Red-Dot-Sights.aspx?utm_source=Site+Subscribers&utm_campaign=c6276ec9af-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_03_11_03_56&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dde3ccfa21-c6276ec9af-160159804)

[HeavyDuty]

How are the RMRccs holding up for y’all so far? Any annoyances? How about the undetented adjustments?

[1911Nut]

How are the RMRccs holding up for y’all so far? Any annoyances? How about the undetented adjustments?

Anyone with feedback to HD's question from a couple of weeks ago?

[HeavyDuty]

Anyone with feedback to HD's question from a couple of weeks ago?

I’m used to being ignored. Lol

[P226SAOFan]

Sample of one but mines been fine. No different than any other rmr and the no click adjustment hasn’t bothered me either.

Would I buy it again? I don’t know. Having to take the optic off to change the battery is something I hate.

[SeaSoldier]

I just picked up a Blue Label G48 MOS. I also picked up an RMRCC not realizing that it wont fit into the slide cut. Where can I send my slide to have the cut opened up to accept the RMRCC? Or can it even be done this way. I really don't want to use an elevated plate.

[SeaSoldier]

This was done my Mac defense and the work was really nice. Took a long time. But optic fits nice and snug and has the posts.

The 10-8 rear sight and a heinie .240 front give a nice low cowitness too.

https://i.postimg.cc/TYpC0cRn/5-CCDAE17-9947-4560-A3-E2-A3-A95-E6-C544-C.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/mrHR4FZp/14-BC13-A9-C25-F-44-B8-A58-F-5-FEDB00-AED86.jpg

Was this an MOS gun that an RMRCC was fit to? Anyone else doing this work?

[P226SAOFan]

^ No this was a regular 48 slide I bought second hand and sent out for the milling.

I believe CHPWS will change the 48 mos to fit an rmrcc though.

[HeavyDuty]

Has anyone tried a RMRcc on a non-slimline Glock? I see advantages to the window design and slightly more compact form factor for a CCW. I’m thinking on a 26…

[Nephrology]

Crossposting... I really like the RMRcc, but the auto-adjust seems shittier than the same feature on my RM06s. Probably will just set a brightness and put it on lockout mode once I have zeroed and vetted this gun and am using it for CCW. For now should at least help me save battery life.

https://i.imgur.com/fEkS77n.jpg

[frank]

Crossposting... I really like the RMRcc, but the auto-adjust seems shittier than the same feature on my RM06s. Probably will just set a brightness and put it on lockout mode once I have zeroed and vetted this gun and am using it for CCW. For now should at least help me save battery life.



The s/n on that 43 was *thisclose* to being perfect.

[Archer1440]

Yes, “true” Civil Liberties… LOL

[HeavyDuty]

Can I get people’s opinions on whether the RMRcc footprint will be around for the duration? I don’t worry about milling for an RMR, but the RMRcc is enough of an odd duck I worry a little that replacing it ten years down the road may be an issue. I’m not quite ready to accept that a Glock is basically disposable…

[GearFondler]

but the RMRcc is enough of an odd duck I worry a little that replacing it ten years down the road may be an issue. I’m not quite ready to accept that a Glock is basically disposable…

Go for it... In 10 years it will be time to start over with the new Gen 6 Glock.

[HeavyDuty]

Go for it... In 10 years it will be time to start over with the new Gen 6 Glock.

Good point. I’m a little surprised that more people haven’t tried the narrower RMRcc on the 26, it’s almost exactly the same width as the slide from what I can tell and also has a more favorable window design. It took handling a RMRcc against a RMR at the store for the impact of that window design difference to sink in.

It looks like not many millers are doing the RMRcc on a doublestack Glock. I see Jagerworks and Maple Leaf are doing it, I’ll reach out to Battlewerx to see if it’s on the agenda since I’d like them to do some other work for me.

[Isaac]

Keep us posted, HD. Like the idea of one on my G26 too.

[Nephrology]

Good point. I’m a little surprised that more people haven’t tried the narrower RMRcc on the 26, it’s almost exactly the same width as the slide from what I can tell and also has a more favorable window design. It took handling a RMRcc against a RMR at the store for the impact of that window design difference to sink in.

It looks like not many millers are doing the RMRcc on a doublestack Glock. I see Jagerworks and Maple Leaf are doing it, I’ll reach out to Battlewerx to see if it’s on the agenda since I’d like them to do some other work for me.

The brightness auto-adjust on the RMRcc doesnt seem to be as good/responsive as the one on my RM06, but it does have more settings options (eg lockout mode). Aaron Cowan speculated that it uses the same electronics as the SRO which seems to make sense. It also requires proprietary screws and has a slightly smaller window size.

Given that both the RMRcc and the RM06 will both fit just fine on a G26 slide I'd get the RM06 over the RMRcc for that application any day. Not really sure what advantage an RMRcc would be offer for you on a slide of that size.

[HeavyDuty]

The brightness auto-adjust on the RMRcc doesnt seem to be as good/responsive as the one on my RM06, but it does have more settings options (eg lockout mode). Aaron Cowan speculated that it uses the same electronics as the SRO which seems to make sense. It also requires proprietary screws and has a slightly smaller window size.

Given that both the RMRcc and the RM06 will both fit just fine on a G26 slide I'd get the RM06 over the RMRcc for that application any day. Not really sure what advantage an RMRcc would be offer for you on a slide of that size.

Analyst talking here.

The RMRcc is the same width as the 26 slide with no overhang, and the window design (where the bottom of the window is in line with the sight’s case) is an improvement in my opinion. I wouldn’t put a RMRcc on anything larger than a 26, but it makes sense there to me. My 27.5 would definitely get a RMR if I decide to RDS it due to the wider slide.

That said, you have much more RDS experience than me. Not sure what way I want to go.

[EricM]

Good point. I’m a little surprised that more people haven’t tried the narrower RMRcc on the 26, it’s almost exactly the same width as the slide from what I can tell and also has a more favorable window design. It took handling a RMRcc against a RMR at the store for the impact of that window design difference to sink in.

This is interesting, I had assumed the RMRcc's window would simply be smaller still than the RMR, which has a window that is already on the smaller side. Could you summarize the difference for someone who's used pretty much all of the other open-emitter red dots but hadn't ever given the RMRcc much consideration?

[HeavyDuty]

This is interesting, I had assumed the RMRcc's window would simply be smaller still than the RMR, which has a window that is already on the smaller side. Could you summarize the difference for someone who's used pretty much all of the other open-emitter red dots but hadn't ever given the RMRcc much consideration?

A picture is worth a thousand words, here’s a pic stolen from Eurooptic showing both RMR and RMRcc on a doublestack that illustrates how the window bottom is on the same place as the base:

75175

[EricM]

Thanks, that's helpful, much better comparison photo than I'd seen before. While I've been training with a dot for a while, I haven't yet moved to carrying one, and an optic the width of the slide could certainly be beneficial especially with the full sweat shield I generally prefer.

[TC215]

I've been going back and forth between an RMR Type 2 (Glock 45) and RMRcc's (G43 and 48) without any issues. I never really notice how much smaller with window is on the RMRcc until I go back to my G45. It doesn't bother me when shooting.

[HeavyDuty]

Battle Werx confirmed they can do the RMRcc cut on a 26, so I bundled the slide off to them yesterday and ordered the optic. To be continued.

[Grizzlyblake]

Is anyone running the RMRcc on the Trijicon dovetail mount on a G43?

I have no red dot pistols and was looking at this combo to try out on a small, minimalist carry gun. Raven Vanguard AIWB carry.

[HeavyDuty]

Primary Arms has the RMRcc for $399 right now, with some kind of additional $25 bongo bucks deal on top of that.

[Archer1440]

If it behaves like an SRO, then you pretty much have to lock-in the dot setting. SRO’s are relatively non-responsive to LED lighting, including handhelds and pistol lights, compared to RMR2’s. They work fine with incandescent, certain coil type fluorescents, and natural light, but not with LED’s (which generally strobe at a high frequency, and I think this is the reason).

[Nephrology]

If it behaves like an SRO, then you pretty much have to lock-in the dot setting. SRO’s are relatively non-responsive to LED lighting, including handhelds and pistol lights, compared to RMR2’s. They work fine with incandescent, certain coil type fluorescents, and natural light, but not with LED’s (which generally strobe at a high frequency, and I think this is the reason).

That's been my experience with the RMRcc vs the RM06 Type 2.

[HeavyDuty]

My 26.5 slide came back from BattleWerx, very nice work on their part. The RMRcc fit snugly without needing to drive it in, and the milling and refinishing was impeccable. I’m happy with the width of the RMRcc on the 26, and the flatter sighting plane (no step at the lens.)

77391

77392

I think my spare 43 will be going to BattleWerx next for the other RMRcc I picked up. I suspect I’ll abandon the Mepro Bullseye experiment.

[jandbj]

Very clean dot install.
Planning to have a front sight for a reference point in the event of battery failure?

Also, might be interested in the bullseye sight you’re abandoning.

[HeavyDuty]

Very clean dot install.
Planning to have a front sight for a reference point in the event of battery failure?

Also, might be interested in the bullseye sight you’re abandoning.

I’m trying to go sans irons for now, but next step would be just that - a front sight to index, and if that doesn’t work for me sending it back for a rear sight.

I’ll PM you.

[M2CattleCo]

I like it.

I decided I hated irons and don’t have any on my AR anymore.

It’s just a matter of time before I let my Glocks dress so skimpy!

[HeavyDuty]

I like it.

I decided I hated irons and don’t have any on my AR anymore.

It’s just a matter of time before I let my Glocks dress so skimpy!

Like a string bikini for your Glock.

[HeavyDuty]

Primary Arms has the 6.5 RMRcc on sale again for $375 after a $25 store credit.

[Nephrology]

Primary Arms has the 6.5 RMRcc on sale again for $375 after a $25 store credit.

Nice price.

[HeavyDuty]

I just sent my second 43 to Battlewerx for the same style install.

[BCA]

What height sights will provide a lower 1/3?

I'm using GL-429s on my g45 and I want to achieve that sight picture with my 43X MOS.

[HeavyDuty]

There was some question if the PMM IRDS as sold by CHPWS fits the RMRcc. I’m happy to report it does, giving us another rear sight option. I’m still trying to go sans irons, but it’s nice to know that if I decide I want them I don’t have to have my pistols remilled and refinished.

https://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=79824&d=1636747099

[1911Nut]

I have an RMRcc on order with expected delivery the middle of next week.

When it arrives, it is being shipped to Primary Machine for a direct mount optic cut and installation on my CZ P10S pistol.

BUIS will be installed on the front and in the existing dovetail cut on the rear to provide a lower 1/3 co-witness.

Planning to see if I like and can shoot as it well as my CGW CZ RAMI with the Holosun 507K.

[HeavyDuty]

Question for those of you that are carrying a RMRcc - what is your dot brightness strategy? My 43 and 26 are the first RDS equipped pistols I am carrying on a daily basis, and I’m noticing the dot takes a few seconds to come up to a useable brightness after being under a cover garment. Do you just ride with it on automatic, or set the brightness manually in the morning letting it revert to auto at the end of the day?

[1911Nut]

Question for those of you that are carrying a RMRcc - what is your dot brightness strategy? My 43 and 26 are the first RDS equipped pistols I am carrying on a daily basis, and I’m noticing the dot takes a few seconds to come up to a useable brightness after being under a cover garment. Do you just ride with it on automatic, or set the brightness manually in the morning letting it revert to auto at the end of the day?


Ken:

On my 43 (407K) and RAMI (507̊ X2), I have chosen the second option you mentioned. I reached this conclusion after a significant bit of time experimenting with both pistols and optic in varying light both indoors and outdoors and at different times of the day.

As you mentioned, I found that the interval between moving into different light and the optic adjusting intensity felt way too long for me to be comfortable.

I also played around with an RMR 06 that didn't belong to me, and had similar issues.

Will see if I feel differently about my RMRcc as soon as I get it and my CZ P10S back from CZ Custom.

[Nephrology]

Question for those of you that are carrying a RMRcc - what is your dot brightness strategy? My 43 and 26 are the first RDS equipped pistols I am carrying on a daily basis, and I’m noticing the dot takes a few seconds to come up to a useable brightness after being under a cover garment. Do you just ride with it on automatic, or set the brightness manually in the morning letting it revert to auto at the end of the day?

I don't particularly love the auto sensor on the RMRcc. In addition to the lag, it does not seem to sense artifical light nearly as well as the regular RMR units. when I am carrying my 2 guns with RMRccs I usually will set the brightness to a level that will not wash out in the bright Colorado sunlight. I am carrying my doublestack guns lately so I couldn't tell you what that setting is, but I think about 2-3 settings off the highest intensity. When I put the gun in the safe I put it back on auto to save battery.

I do not have this issue with the RM06s that I run, I leave those in auto mode 24/7.

[HeavyDuty]

EuroOptic has the 6.5 MOA RMRcc on sale for $409.

[Biggy]

I think it is just a matter of time before we see Trijicon closed emitter type pistol sights in different sizes. Hopefully they introduce them by late summer or early fall and not until SHOT 2023.

[RancidSumo]

Sad to report that playing with my new RMRcc just around the house today I've come to the same conclusion as everyone else in this thread - the auto adjustment is useless. How did they get it so wrong in this sight when it works fine in the full size RMR?

[HeavyDuty]

I’m ok with how my 6.5 MOA pair work. What dot size is yours?

[RancidSumo]

I’m ok with how my 6.5 MOA pair work. What dot size is yours?

Mine is also a 6.5. It changes so slowly. I've got it up and aimed before the brightness kicks up to where it should be. Much slower than the RM07.