Caliber/Platform impact on RDS longevity?

[Ptero]

If this has been discussed, please forgive my weak search "fu".

I am wondering if there is any data that indicates a particular platform or caliber of handgun is more conducive (or at least less abusive to) RDS systems?

I know that recoil springs and how "hot" ammo is loaded has an impact and introduces variables, but I am wondering if, in general, a particular platform (perhaps those attributed to shooting "softer") or certain calibers have a notable impact on RDS longevity compared to perhaps the same platform in another caliber (Glock 17 v. G22 v. G21 for example).

I am wondering because I read a thread the other day that mentioned that FNX-45s were particularly brutal on RDS platforms, and that got me wondering...are certain platforms better suited for RDS?

Obviously slide velocity/recoil is rough on electronics, but I am wondering if an M&P .45 (regularly attributed to being a "soft" shooter), would contribute to longer RDS life than a Glock 23, for example?

Obviously, RDS longevity is not of primary concern when picking calibers and platforms (reliability, accuracy, and suitability for the mission being primary), however, I'm lucky enough to have multiple guns in multiple calibers that suit my primary requirements, if I can have a suitable weapon platform that also happens to not beat RDSs to death, that would be a bonus.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or input.

[GJM]

I think there are so many variables beyond just caliber, that it is hard to do more than just cite anecdotes. For example weight of the gun, polymer vs steel, recoil spring, plate or direct milled on the gun side, and durability of the various optics on the red dot side.

[Ptero]

I think there are so many variables beyond just caliber, that it is hard to do more than just cite anecdotes. For example weight of the gun, polymer vs steel, recoil spring, plate or direct milled on the gun side, and durability of the various optics on the red dot side.

Thats kind of what I was afraid of...I was hoping there were some anecdotal trends or generalities.

Oh well.

[GJM]

There is an ongoing debate as to whether direct milled or using a plate is easier on optics, so I think that is still TBD. I have heard polymer guns are easier on optics than steel, but that is still somewhere between anecdote and data.

I do know that my wife and I broke 31 DP Pro units, and I am yet to break a single SRO in 18 months of shooting, so a Glock 17 and a SRO should be a safe choice based on my experience.

[Ptero]

There is an ongoing debate as to whether direct milled or using a plate is easier on optics, so I think that is still TBD. I have heard polymer guns are easier on optics than steel, but that is still somewhere between anecdote and data.

I do know that my wife and I broke 31 DP Pro units, and I am yet to break a single SRO in 18 months of shooting, so a Glock 17 and a SRO should be a safe choice based on my experience.

Thank you for the insights.

[Archer1440]

A few months ago, I sat down and devised a Design of Experiment that would isolate each variable, and provide guidelines to industry for the purpose of definitively answering this very question.

It is a rather expensive and laborious process that requires the effort of companies with well funded testing capabilities- something surprisingly lacking in most US firearms makers.


(As an aside, I have no idea why anyone would go through more than three of any optic they broke regularly, much less over thirty, before making a change of some kind...)

[Bart Carter]

There is an ongoing debate as to whether direct milled or using a plate is easier on optics, so I think that is still TBD. I have heard polymer guns are easier on optics than steel, but that is still somewhere between anecdote and data.

I do know that my wife and I broke 31 DP Pro units, and I am yet to break a single SRO in 18 months of shooting, so a Glock 17 and a SRO should be a safe choice based on my experience.

Have you broken or heard of being broken the new DP Pro units?

[GJM]

A few months ago, I sat down and devised a Design of Experiment that would isolate each variable, and provide guidelines to industry for the purpose of definitively answering this very question.

It is a rather expensive and laborious process that requires the effort of companies with well funded testing capabilities- something surprisingly lacking in most US firearms makers.


(As an aside, I have no idea why anyone would go through more than three of any optic they broke regularly, much less over thirty, before making a change of some kind...)

At that time, the DP Pro was pretty much the only game in town for a gaming optic. Plus I had a bunch of slides direct milled for them. I worked with Leupold to identify the problem and beta test the fix.


Have you broken or heard of being broken the new DP Pro units? I am not aware of failures with the improved DP Pro.

[Archer1440]

Plus I had a bunch of slides direct milled for them. I worked with Leupold to identify the problem and beta test the fix.

I am not aware of failures with the improved DP Pro.

You did them a real service. I do not use the DPP, but I made sure my friends who do got the latest iterations (which one can determine from the battery compartment)

[Erick Gelhaus]

On the anecdotal side of things ... since the OP asked about frames, calibers, etc:

Every PMO that I have broken and there have been several (the most recent was last summer), have had the mechanical windage adjustments fail. Those I broke failed between 2500 rounds (the very first one) and 200 rds on the low end. I have not ever had an electronics failure.

In each case, the pistol was a 9mm M&P - either a full-size with RMRs or a 4" Shield with a Shield mini rds on it.