Leupold DeltaPoint Micro On Gen 3 Glock G19

[JonInWA]

While I'm still somewhat ambivalent on the overall utility and desirability of RDS as a sighting option, I'm gradually becoming more open and oriented towards them. Having previously gotten my toe in the water with my SIG-Sauer P320 RX X Carry, with its organically installed Romeo 1 (which, when I encountered some issues, SIG's Electro Optics department promptly replaced with their upgraded Variant 5, which has performed impeccably to date), I was intrigued with the smaller sized RDS that Leupold fairly recently came up with, their DeltaPoint Micro (which I'll call the DPM for the rest of the thread). Speaking with Shawn Skipper at Leupold, he was happy to expeditiously provide me with mine for long-term T&E and use.

https://i.imgur.com/QL1pKtlh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uVol30lh.jpg


To date, Leupold only produces these for Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps (and there are some caveats-for Glock, they don't fit each and every Glock, so check the Leupold site for applicability before ordering). Conceptually, the DPM has an exceptionally low profile and overall size; the critical electronics are contained in a pod that hangs in back of the slide. This small profile allows for use of standard front sights-no need to go to a suppressor-size higher front sight for co-witnessing. I also allows most holsters for a platform to be used without modifications or having to run out to get a new holster with a RDS cut (caveat-holsters with a protective Level 2/3 rotating hood might not work, or may necessitate replacing the rotating hood with a larger-sized one)

Installation was exceptionally easy: I simply knocked out (well, drifted out) my old OEM Trijicon tritium rear sight (and, as an OEM sight, that sucker was really in there securely...), cleaning the dovetail with some rubbing alcohol, and inserting and centering the securing bar, drilled tp line up with the sight, centering, and then appropriately securing (a dab of blue Locktite is already applied to the securing screws). The slide with installed sight is then slid on and locked into the frame, and then (and only then) is the sight's removable battery holder and control unit screwed into the sight (the holder/control unit will need to be unscrewed and removed for field stripping, and then re-screwed in once the slide is reassembled. This does not require that the sight be re-zeroed after each field-stripping and cleaning; however, for any further detailed disassembly of the slide the sight will have to be removed, and after re-installation, the sight will need to be re-zeroed. Since most of us probably only need to detail disassemble and reassemble annually, I can life with it.

The battery holder/control compartment is easy to remove and put back on, and is well sealed from dirt, dust and water. It's controlling button located underneath is easily used and sequential use and adaptability is well thought out.

https://i.imgur.com/9pO9Haih.jpg

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

This RDS sight is a hybrid system, in that it deliberately uses the front sight in conjunction with use. On draw, you conceptually use it a a large ghost sight, and then (when properly zeroed) the 3 moa dot is superimposed atop the front iron sight. After using a conventional RDS for several years, I really like the Leupold DPM; Leupold has concurrently milled two rear sight dots in the back of the DPM, which I filled in white with a white paint pen.

https://i.imgur.com/ne2sW5ch.jpg

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

Some time back, when this sight first came out we had a 9 page thread that HCM initiated https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?46095-Leupold-Delta-Point-Micro-(DPM)&highlight=DeltaPoint+Micro
much criticism was leveled at the relatively miniscule screen size (especially when compared to existing RDS systems). My limited experiences so far have lead me to determine several things: First, the small screen size has no operational issues-it's simply like using a ghost sight, and I'm thinking the "Aim small, hit small" concept might very well operationally apply. One of the critical reviews exclaimed, "Well, we don't know any RDS users asking for a SMALLER screen like the DPM." My response, after my use of the DPM is, "Well, maybe they should..." I've encountered zero problems in dot acquisition-no hasty futile screen searching for the dot at all. Second, the small lens size make them more impervious to GSR and to smudging, fingerprints and contamination-and, when necessary the lenses are very easy to clean. Additionally, the rearward positioning of the DPM really precludes GSR contamination on the front lens.

I also found the DPM exceptionally easy to zero; Leupold suggests on their installation video that you initially zero at three yards, and then once that initial zero is set, confirm/adjust as necessary as other distances. I prefer zeroing at a square range with a gridded target for my baseline zeroing. There was also some criticism that the adjustment points were continuous, as opposed to click adjustment. I found the continuous movement to be very easy to achieve zero with; YMMV.

In practice, matches and carry I'm finding the DPM to be an excellent RDS. While some critique has centered on it being a kind of gateway or "training wheels" approach for newbies to an RDS, the more I use the DPM the more appreciative I am of it. I like the hybrid iron sight/dot approach, and the effective ghost ring setup provided if the dot dies, or if you simply want to turn it off and return to a conventional iron setup. The dot intensity adjustability is easily achieved using the under battery compartment button click adjustment, and there are some good adjustment mode options usable with it (such as varying the intensity sequence direction, turning off/on, etc.). The DPM also has a motion sensor, so after a period on non-use (especially with the brighter intensity settings) it'll automatically turn itself off or on as appropriate.

My next test will be to concurrently in a training/practice session see how quantifiably and operationally the DPM compares with my more standard Romeo RDS on my P320 RX X Carry.

I think that there's much to commend this RDS, and it also provides a pretty cost- and operationally-effective way to add a RDS to an existing or earlier generation non-MOS Glock or S&W M&P.

Best, Jon

[titsonritz]

Thanks for the review. I have admit I was pretty critical and dismissive when this RDS first came out and pretty much blew it off, but I kept hearing people I trust say they like it a lot. So now I'm at the point that this is the next RDS I will purchase, unless I run into an Aimpoint ACRO P2 first.

[JCN]

JonInWA can you post a video of you shooting a match with it?

I like the Mepro SAS sights which are kind of a low tech version of this, so I can see the appeal.

[CS Tactical]

Glad you are starting a long term T&E on this JCN We have some Open Box models going for just $309.99 for anyone wanting to try one out :)
https://cstactical.com/leupold-deltapoint-micro-glock/

[HCM]

Glad you are starting a long term T&E on this JCN We have some Open Box models going for just $309.99 for anyone wanting to try one out :)
https://cstactical.com/leupold-deltapoint-micro-glock/

My local Academy stores are closing these out at $239.

[CS Tactical]

My local Academy stores are closing these out at $239.

Wow, that's way less than our cost :eek:

[HCM]

Wow, that's way less than our cost :eek:

My guess is it's less than their cost too.

I think they are literally just trying to dump them.

[GJM]

Enough time has passed so ..... I had heard of a great new product that was easy to install, easy to change batteries on, with a sealed emitter. Boy was I excited. When I saw the drawing pre release, I was dumbfounded. My reaction, which I made very clear, was DO NOT DO THIS, it will not be well received and will reflect badly on the big L.

[JCN]

My local Academy stores are closing these out at $239.

That is a good enough price that I’d buy one for shits and grins.

[SoCalDep]

That is a good enough price that I’d buy one for shits and grins.

Not me. I would have maybe tried it if it wasn’t more bulk to hinder concealment and limit duty holster choices, a small window to reduce the ability to target focus and have “wobble room” with the dot or use it from awkward positions, and a front sight that takes up a substantial portion of the teeny window…

It’s a whole lotta nope.

[JCN]

Not me. I would have maybe tried it if it wasn’t more bulk to hinder concealment and limit duty holster choices, a small window to reduce the ability to target focus and have “wobble room” with the dot or use it from awkward positions, and a front sight that takes up a substantial portion of the teeny window…

It’s a whole lotta nope.

To be clear, I wouldn’t expect it to be good haha.

I just like getting firsthand knowledge of things both good and bad so I can more specifically learn if things are as good or bad as I suspect.

Being a regular Joe, that usually means buying a whole bunch of stuff to test. :)

[HeavyDuty]

My biggest issue with this is no SCD.

[JonInWA]

Enough time has passed so ..... I had heard of a great new product that was easy to install, easy to change batteries on, with a sealed emitter. Boy was I excited. When I saw the drawing pre release, I was dumbfounded. My reaction, which I made very clear, was DO NOT DO THIS, it will not be well received and will reflect badly on the big L.

George, I went back to the original thread on this, and after multiple pages it looked like only 1 p-f member actually acquired one, was initially skeptical, and then became much more impressed with actual use. I see that you at that time, had an opportunity to handle and dryfire, but not live fire.

With all deference to your experience, expertise and both general and RDS acquired skills, I've got to say that to date with my use my reaction to it is significantly more favorable than yours. Part of that is doubtlessly due to me not running a Gadget on my Glocks (the Leupold DPM blocks and precludes its use), but otherwise I haven't operationally run into any issues. Granted, I'm not running any of my Glocks in appendix carry, but even if I did choose appendix carry I would limit it to hammer-fired pistols, which for the purposes of this thread is irrelevant since Leupold currently only makes the DPM for Glocks and M&Ps.

I'm curious if you've had an opportunity to actually install and run one of these on one of your Glocks/M&Ps. I'd be very interested to see your feedback after actual use.

Best, Jon

[JCN]

George, I went back to the original thread on this, and after multiple pages it looked like only 1 p-f member actually acquired one, was initially skeptical, and then became much more impressed with actual use. I see that you at that time, had an opportunity to handle and dryfire, but not live fire.

With all deference to your experience, expertise and both general and RDS acquired skills, I've got to say that to date with my use my reaction to it is significantly more favorable than yours. Part of that is doubtlessly due to me not running a Gadget on my Glocks (the Leupold DPM blocks and precludes its use), but otherwise I haven't operationally run into any issues. Granted, I'm not running any of my Glocks in appendix carry, but even if I did choose appendix carry I would limit it to hammer-fired pistols, which for the purposes of this thread is irrelevant since Leupold currently only makes the DPM for Glocks and M&Ps.

I'm curious if you've had an opportunity to actually install and run one of these on one of your Glocks/M&Ps. I'd be very interested to see your feedback after actual use.

Best, Jon

This is the kind of thing that makes me super curious and wanting to buy one.

The popular opinion was that SAS sucked, but it turned out with a very good index they work very well and I adore mine (I have three).

I might have to buy one.

[JCN]

JonInWA does Shawn want to send me one for testing? I’ll happily test one if he does or sells me one for $200.

[JonInWA]

JonInWA does Shawn want to send me one for testing? I’ll happily test one if he does or sells me one for $200.

PM sent.

Best, Jon

[JCN]

I wanted to stay unbiased in my evaluations so I decided to just purchase one.

Looked around and decided to go with a Smith and Wesson model for a couple reasons:

There are so many good Glock options already, from replacement slides to even dovetail mounts of cheap and light optics like the Burris FF3. I fully expect even a cheap small window optic to best the micro in performance. That’s not the point IMO.

Something like an SRO will best almost any pistol optic in performance unless design flaws come into play like auto sensor sucking or false double dot in low sun angle (ameliorated by the sun visor shade).

93783

So that’s obviously not where this niche is going to be.

It has to offer something different and likely niche specific.

That’s the context that I’m looking at it.

So I got the M&P version because I personally have less RDS options with that.

And the slides aren’t as blocky as the Glock (which takes optics very well).

And it was cheaper than the Glock version.

I don’t think the Micro is going to outperform a traditional RDS and likely has no point on a full size gun like a 5” 2.0.

I’m thinking like “augmented irons.”

But I do own a Shield 1.0 in 9mm and one in 45ACP.

Those are pretty flat and slim.

If magazine restrictions come into play in the future, some retired guns are going to come back out of the safe.

93784

So I’m looking at the micro as kind of an SAS+ on a slim gun that doesn’t have a blocky slide.

Will try and come up with some exercises and drills for this niche.

The question isn’t “will it do better than…” because that answer is already “no.”

Just like a P365 doesn’t perform as well as a G34 in my hands.

But the question isn’t equivalence, it’s acceptability in the context of form factor and price.

If you have an older gun and are dot-curious, this might be a very cheap way to get into the game and at least get some dry fire feedback.

Will post up when I get it and design some tests if anyone is interested.

[idahojess]

Thanks for the in-depth review of these.

As I get the 47-year old eyes issue, I like the idea of a retrofit to my older M&P's without buying more guns.

JCN, do you have a source for the cheaper priced M&P versions? I do see they are a bit cheaper on Amazon.

[JCN]

Thanks for the in-depth review of these.

As I get the 47-year old eyes issue, I like the idea of a retrofit to my older M&P's without buying more guns.

JCN, do you have a source for the cheaper priced M&P versions? I do see they are a bit cheaper on Amazon.

I got mine off eBay for $250.
Someone else won a bid for $170.

The MP seems to be about $50 cheaper than the Glock versions.

[msstate56]

I was an early tester of these. As someone else said- it’s a whole lot of nope. Just no. I don’t know why Leupold wants to be “different” all the time, but “different” and “out of the box” from Leupy generally means hot garbage. Stick with a more traditional red dot.

[JonInWA]

I was an early tester of these. As someone else said- it’s a whole lot of nope. Just no. I don’t know why Leupold wants to be “different” all the time, but “different” and “out of the box” from Leupy generally means hot garbage. Stick with a more traditional red dot.

What specifically did you not like about it? If you could, please elaborate on your testing experiences with it.

Best, Jon

[GJM]

Even if the display was conducive to good shooting, who would want an optic that precluded AIWB use, retention holster and SCD use, only worked on two models of pistols, and protruded over the back of the slide preventing you from hitting high and riding down on the draw?

[JCN]

Even if the display was conducive to good shooting, who would want an optic that precluded AIWB use, retention holster and SCD use, only worked on two models of pistols, and protruded over the back of the slide preventing you from hitting high and riding down on the draw?

I don’t think it’s going to perform better than even the most basic traditional RDS.

Can you explain your reasoning behind “precluded AIWB use?”

I’m not understanding that part?

Putting it on a Smith, the SCD isn’t an issue. Manual safeties on them for me.

I don’t think the draw interference is going to be an issue from AIWB (it could in a 3 o’clock holster).






I won’t know until I test, but it would be like “augmented irons.”

Basically slim, weather resistant enclosed emitter that could be pocket drawn.

That’s where the niche might be for me.

[JonInWA]

Even if the display was conducive to good shooting, who would want an optic that precluded AIWB use, retention holster and SCD use, only worked on two models of pistols, and protruded over the back of the slide preventing you from hitting high and riding down on the draw?

Um, ok. Let's see, for those of us not into appendix carry, not using a level 2/3 retention holster with a hood, and not using a SCD, there just might be a bit of appeal for the DPM.

In my personal situation, I've somehow withstood the siren song of appendix carry (especially appendix carry for a striker-fired pistol), and as good idea as an SCD may be, the number of LEOs authorized to use one on their Glocks is presumptively incredibly low, given the lack of administrative proclivity to authorize ANY non-OEM components on issue/authorized weapons. Out of the millions of Glocks out there, I suspect that the number with an SCD is probably between 1-5,000-perhaps Tom and Ernest can elaborate on sales, if they or anyone else knowledgeable on SCD sales figures to date can chip in.

I personally haven't had any issues with the DPM on draw or operational use, so I'm unfamiliar with the "hitting high and riding down on the draw" issue.

I'm not saying that the DPM is necessarily the greatest device invented since the wheel. I'm willing to give it an honest, objective trial, specifying what I do and don't like about it, so that we can all collectively perhaps have some useful information in our toolboxes, and judiciously choose accordingly. I'll politely reiterate that there may be a difference in perception of the DPMs efficacy when it's subject to actual use-and hopefully, I and others here can shed some empirical light on it in such actual use.

And I agree that there are probably some limitations to marketing with Leupold to date only making DPMs for Glocks and M&Ps; but on the other hand, looking at production numbers literally in the millions for those platforms, that's a pretty target-rich environment-particularly those wishing to cost-effectively going to an RDS without having to either buy another gun, or another slide, or to have an existing slide milled out. And using a DPM on either of the platforms will have an absolutely zero effect on warranty.

Best, Jon

[msstate56]

What specifically did you not like about it? If you could, please elaborate on your testing experiences with it.

Best, Jon

The window is absolutely tiny. Sure it sort of works standing flatfooted on the range. Try odd positions, around cover, VTAC barricades, etc. You’ll quickly find out it doesn’t work.

…“but it would be like “augmented irons.”- sounds great in theory. It doesn’t work like that in practice. I can index and locate my front sight in odd positions. Now put a black straw on top of your slide and try and find the front sight through the straw.

If the screen were about 3x bigger it might work. I would perhaps be willing to work around the other issues (blocking Safariland hoods, having to remove the very finely threaded battery cap and button every time I need to remove the slide).

It’s sadly just more Leupold junk that doesn’t really work. The Mark 5 scope line is the only thing they make worth a damn. I’m disappointed because I want to support an American company that does provide a significant discount to .mil/le, but nothing else they build is worth the hassle.

[JCN]

…“but it would be like “augmented irons.”- sounds great in theory. It doesn’t work like that in practice. I can index and locate my front sight in odd positions. Now put a black straw on top of your slide and try and find the front sight through the straw.

This is where context of the skill of the shooter matters.

In an odd position, I’m unlikely to take a very difficult shot. Probably nothing farther than 10 yards.

I have shot red dot with dot off, no irons.
I have shot SAS sights which are even less augmented than a DPM.

If we are talking about Glocks, you can hit pretty good accuracy just lining up the corner of the slides to 10 yards and past.

So I’m not seeing that as any worse than what I’ve shot with.

The ruler of that scenario is a laser anyway. And you can run a laser with this if you like.

[msstate56]

This is where context of the skill of the shooter matters.

In an odd position, I’m unlikely to take a very difficult shot. Probably nothing farther than 10 yards.

The ruler of that scenario is a laser anyway. And you can run a laser with this if you like.

You can’t if you can only carry issued pistols, with no lasers allowed per policy.

If you’re going to use a laser, why bother with the dot at all?

Lastly- I’m not here to sell anything to anyone. If you like it, fine, I don’t care. I personally wouldn’t waste my money on it again. I think it says something that I don’t know of a single LE agency that issues these.

[JCN]

You can’t if you can only carry issued pistols, with no lasers allowed per policy.

If you’re going to use a laser, why bother with the dot at all?

Lastly- I’m not here to sell anything to anyone. If you like it, fine, I don’t care. I personally wouldn’t waste my money on it again. I think it says something that I don’t know of a single LE agency that issues these.

I don’t think it’s even remotely appropriate for a duty gun.

That’s missing the point of the optic.

It’s like saying a Prius is a shitty car for towing a boat.

That’s not the point.

Nobody in their right mind would recommend this on a duty gun.

Regarding laser, many reasons to run an optic instead of a laser.

Most pistol lasers aren’t of sufficient quality to have adequate accuracy past 10 yards on small targets. Most are grip or frame mounted and most plastic fantastic guns have a lot of frame to slide slop.

[JonInWA]

The window is absolutely tiny. Sure it sort of works standing flatfooted on the range. Try odd positions, around cover, VTAC barricades, etc. You’ll quickly find out it doesn’t work.

…“but it would be like “augmented irons.”- sounds great in theory. It doesn’t work like that in practice. I can index and locate my front sight in odd positions. Now put a black straw on top of your slide and try and find the front sight through the straw.

If the screen were about 3x bigger it might work. I would perhaps be willing to work around the other issues (blocking Safariland hoods, having to remove the very finely threaded battery cap and button every time I need to remove the slide).

It’s sadly just more Leupold junk that doesn’t really work. The Mark 5 scope line is the only thing they make worth a damn. I’m disappointed because I want to support an American company that does provide a significant discount to .mil/le, but nothing else they build is worth the hassle.

That's extremely helpful-thanks for specifying and sharing. So far (practices and 2X IDPA matches) the window size hasn't appeared (no pun intended...) to be a handicap, as I index pretty naturally with the G19, so as long as I have a decent grip acquisition on draw, things seem to pretty naturally fall into place without me having to hunt for the dot-seemingly less so for me than is the case with a "regular" RDS screen.

I'm looking forward to an intensive practice session where I'll comparatively use the DPM and the full-size Romeo RDS.

Best, Jon

[JCN]

That's extremely helpful-thanks for specifying and sharing. So far (practices and 2X IDPA matches) the window size hasn't appeared (no pun intended...) to be a handicap, as I index pretty naturally with the G19, so as long as I have a decent grip acquisition on draw, things seem to pretty naturally fall into place without me having to hunt for the dot-seemingly less so for me than is the case with a "regular" RDS screen.

I'm looking forward to an intensive practice session where I'll comparatively use the DPM and the full-size Romeo RDS.

Best, Jon

You might not notice the difference in index and dot finding, but you *should* notice it in recoil and transition entry if you’re going fast enough.

With 0.20 splits on an 8” target at 7 yards the difference should be apparent.

[JCN]

I very very much expect this to be like a slightly better SAS sight.

93941


https://youtu.be/Zmus_tjFdDQ


https://youtu.be/F2O4JqbLkVc

So I can do that for recoil management with an SAS sight, but I definitely notice the performance drop with the smaller FOV.

That’s why the context of reviewer matters so much.

There still might be a niche role for this sight. Kind of like the SAS (which I like but I don’t generally recommend to others unless they have very specific needs and skills).

[JCN]

So I’m glad I got the Smith version.

They’re shaped different than the Glock ones.

93998

Can take the slide down if remove battery cap.

93999

Dunno what GJM was referencing with regarding “precludes AIWB,” fits fine in a stock Bladetech, no trimming required.

94000

I think it’ll work well as augmented irons. Basically track it like a ghost ring iron setup and use the dot to refine alignment.

I think it’s actually a great way to help train iron shooters that don’t want to irreversibly modify their guns.

Like Aaron Cowan says, this might be a great “gateway” RDS.

When used like irons, I think it would give benefit in dry and at distance.

[JCN]

I’ll test at 7 yards and see what the spread is of the dispersion of shots if the dot is in the corner of the window.

I’ve done this with irons and fiber optics to see where the shots land if they FO is visible anywhere in the notch. This obviously depends on the width of the notch and fiber.

But for the irons I’ve tested (skinny front blade), you can get good hits at speed by just having the FO anywhere in the notch. I expect the DPM to be similar and might be able to be a “go, no go” signal.

If you see any red in the window, break the shot and you’ll hit at X distance.

[JCN]

In dry, the index is like irons. That’s a good thing for someone who is used to irons.

With a traditional dot, the presentation index position is different than irons as you go dot in the center of the window generally. Which leads to the gun being a little lower and the front sight tipped up a little.

This would be a seamless transition from an iron.

The benefit is low profile of the sight and use of factory front iron.

It’s also a closed emitter which has those benefits as well.

I would probably E6000 the base plate to prevent sliding if I had to mount it again in the future.

I think the price point MSRP is too much though.

With many guns coming with optic cuts from factory and cheap open emitters being around $200, that’s the competition price point for this.

I would very much consider this on a G42 or G43 instead of milling.

[JCN]

JonInWA

Here are my impressions. I tried to test what I see as the criticisms and potential weaknesses of the sight.


https://youtu.be/6AK-fOYJ15c

Cliffs notes: works pretty well. Performance drop off at full speed compared to large window optic, but for a slim and short enclosed emitter optic… not bad.

[JonInWA]

Excellent video, I appreciated the notes and discussion. I'll be shooting the G19 with the DPM this Saturday in an ASI match (ASI is kinda like IDPA Lite); I have some videos taken per earlier request. I also plan on shooting it towards the end of the month in an IDPA match.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

I shot the G19/DPM in a seven stage approximately 100 round match yesterday. ASI, short for Action Shooting International is sort of "IDPA Lite," originally ginned up here in the Pacific NW as a reaction of the profusion (and confusion) emanating from IDPA rules and rules changes, and then modification to the rules changes. While originally started as a 4 stage 50 round "start at 10 am finish by noon," it's somewhat morphed into the norm being 6-7 stages. Rules and stages are basically simplified IDPA, and it's a great venue to shooters wishing to get into the dynamic shooting sports, but not being interested in athleticism, high round counts, or complex stages and rules.

The twist for me in this match is that I ran the DPM normally in 6 stages, and then turned it off in one stage, and then I ran the following stage twice-first with the DPM on, and then again with it turned off. I was curious to see how effective it was as a hybrid iron/ghost sight without the benefit of the dot.

I had several videos taken. Other than my relatively slow speed in traversing the stages, the DPM again performed quite nicely. Definitely little to no hunting for the dot-simply acquire the front iron, and it's there. (the "little" was in one stage where I got lazy, and just looked in the lens without acquiring the front sight).

The pleasant surprise is how good the set up is with the dot turned off. I equaled or even slightly bettered my score with the dot turned off, which isn't so much a condemnation of the dot per se, but more confirmation to me that the highest and best benefit of a RDS is with medium-to-longer-range shots, and with more difficult precision shots, and with single-handed shooting. My DPM has the milled rear sight dots filled in with white paint, so that while it's normally unobtrusive when using in RDS mode, when necessary in "dumb" mode, the front and rear sight acquisitions are very easily accomplished, and sight alignment is excellent. Everything is aided and abetted with the "ghost ring" setup accomplished with the DPM lens tube.

My overall scores with the DPM are arching upward better (and significantly so) as well. My plan is to remain with the G19 with DPM for at least several more months and into 2023.

I continue to be impressed with the DPM, and the DPM with Glock G19. While one probably shouldn't spend $400 to get a non-RDS sight, I'm impressed with the accuracy and efficacy of the DPM when turned off and used in the "dumb" mode; that's a nice, and unexpected benefit. To me, it demonstrates and extends the flexibility of the DPM, as well as providing reassurance if the dot goes out/battery gets depleted and you can't expeditiously replace it.

Overall, both my accuracy and speed are mo betta with the DPM compared to iron sights per se; the next test will be how it fares compared to a regular RDS (so it'll be G19 with DPM versus SIG P320 RX X Carry with upgraded Romeo1)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/oPJhpwTdLsQho7HFA

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8aPWomNMDb3dMUAy6

https://photos.app.goo.gl/XkwMBTmiA5rVYaFU6

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Further info points for any interested:

Ammunition used: American Eagle 115 gr

Holster and magazine pouches: Blade Tech (Old "IDPA Pack"-OWB G19 kydex holster and dual magazine pouch, also used Tactical Tailor Fight Light Magna dual pouch for Barney magazine and initial load-up magazine)

Belt: The Wilderness Delrin Ring 5-Stitch 1.5"

Magazines: Due to Washington state's new magazine capacity restriction regarding new magazine acquisitions, I'm shooting matches primarily with Magpul 10 rounders; they're excellent, and preserving my high/normal capacity magazines for more serious uses. The Magpuls work flawlessly to date in my G19.

Best, Jon

[JCN]

JonInWA

This is not an insult, but a shooting observation.

You’re shooting too slowly to be limited by the DPM.

That’s why context of the shooter matters.

Most self defense type shootings will be well within the capability of the DPM and I feel like it’ll help more than regular irons.

But your current shooting ability doesn’t get to the limits of the DPM which is both a positive and negative.

So just because you aren’t able to get to the limits of the sight, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

[JonInWA]

JonInWA

This is not an insult, but a shooting observation.

You’re shooting too slowly to be limited by the DPM.

That’s why context of the shooter matters.

Most self defense type shootings will be well within the capability of the DPM and I feel like it’ll help more than regular irons.

But your current shooting ability doesn’t get to the limits of the DPM which is both a positive and negative.

So just because you aren’t able to get to the limits of the sight, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

JCN-absolutely no insult perceived, I think your observations and analysis of my shooting speed is correct. Thanks for taking the time to view the videos.

Guys, I think that JCN and I are hopefully providing some objective input to the forum here regarding the DPM. The sight's received criticism, but a lot of it has been based on how it appears and it's paper specs, as opposed to actual use. That doesn't mean that the criticism is necessarily incorrect, but actual use enables the sight to be considered empirically, pros and cons.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Yesterday I comparatively shot the G19 with the Leupold DeltaPoint Micro and my P320 RX X-Carry with its upgraded Variant 5 Romeo1. I had two friends (of greater shooting skills) with during the practice session, who graded and coached me with both platforms throughout.

The upshot is that I'm faster and more accurate with the G19/DPM, as demonstrated in multiple dot torture drills and IDPA classifiers that we shot with both weapons.

I freely admit that my comparative superiority with the G19/DPM might have to do with my significant use and dryfire with it recently; although I've recently used and dryfired the P320, I've really been concentrating on the G19/DPM lately.

The "aim small, hit small" concept really seems to play out will with the DPM and its small screen. I found that I could naturally draw, index and that the front sight/dot were there; with the P320/Romeo1 it was harder to initially find the dot, and I seemed to be more "painting" the target with it as opposed to the dot naturally being "there." For me, the small "soda straw" screen of the DPM is not an operational inhibitor.

I'm not displeased with the P320/Romeo1, it's just that for me (with my limited skill set, such as it is, and at this point in my shooting) the G19/DPM is demonstratively a better combination.

Best, Jon

[JCN]

JonInWA

What you’re describing is the different index between Glocks and Sigs.

When you’ve been practicing with the Glock index.

If you put a Romeo 1 on a Glock 19, the results would likely be very different.

It’s important not to conflate gun training improvements with optic benefits.

[JonInWA]

JonInWA

What you’re describing is the different index between Glocks and Sigs.

When you’ve been practicing with the Glock index.

If you put a Romeo 1 on a Glock 19, the results would likely be very different.

It’s important not to conflate gun training improvements with optic benefits.

I think you're making an off the cuff observation that provides a great catch phrase, but isn't necessarily an accurate capture of my reality.

I shot the P320 RX X-Carry very seriously from late 2019 through 2021, including in 2 Tier IV IDPA matches. I may not be a world class shooter with it, but I think I've got a pretty good feel, familiarization and muscle memory built up on the gun and the sight system. When I say that I shoot better with the G19 with the DPM, part of that may be better indexing with the G19, but I think that I can isolate the platform and the sight in my overall assessment. My conclusion at this point is the reverse of what you're suggesting-that if I placed a DPM on a P320, I would likely shoot better with it due to the DPM.

A component of that may well be my index with a Glock-specifically in this case, a Gen 3 Glock G19 with a Hogue HandAll Beavertail grip sleeve, a "dot" connector and a OEM product-improved triggerbar. But an important sight component by my experience and assessment is the hybrid system that the DPM provides; i.e., using the iron front sight in combination with the dot, and the relatively small viewing screen, which to me provides a "see small, hit small" sight variant on the "aim small, hit small" philosophy. I'll continue to critically assess and observe how well I do, particularly when shooting in scenarios with rapid transitions, both horizontal and vertical and involving physical movement and repositioning.

Again, I'm not trying to assert that the DPM is necessarily the greatest thing in RDS. But at this point, if I had a full-size RDS on a G19 and shot that concurrently with a G19 with the DPM, my assessment is that I would shoot better with the DPM. That may be due to my index and skills as they are at this point in time (and I accept that it may be a bit of a condemnation of my skill level), but at this point I'm predisposed to believe that I would do better with a DPM than a "regular" RDS based on my results to date.

Best, Jon

[JCN]

But at this point, if I had a full-size RDS on a G19 and shot that concurrently with a G19 with the DPM, my assessment is that I would shoot better with the DPM. That may be due to my index and skills as they are at this point in time (and I accept that it may be a bit of a condemnation of my skill level), but at this point I'm predisposed to believe that I would do better with a DPM than a "regular" RDS based on my results to date.

Best, Jon

That’s a very bold hypothesis and I think demands the actual experiment to test it.

I would bet a PF dollar that you’re wrong.

“Aim small, miss small” is not a valid hypothesis with a dot where the dot MOA is similar between optics.

You are aiming with the dot, not with the window.




If you are not able to get the dot in the window on index with a traditional optic and you are with a DPM…

It’s because you’re basically using irons to find your dot.

If you’re struggling with index, you might actually really benefit from something like the ACSS aiming ring.

94489




Don’t let defensiveness lead you down a hypothesis trail that will just hurt you as a shooter and hurt your credibility.




If you actually shoot better with a DPM on a 19 than an SRO or ACSS on a 19, it’s not because “aim small, miss small” because the shooting part is done with the same MOA dot on all the optics and that’s where you’re aiming at.

If you need help indexing and basically using the tube to help you find your dot, that’s a completely separate thing.

But it has nothing to do with aiming.




I say this both from my own experience and from training my wife.




https://youtu.be/XveMjl2deAk


When you get to these speeds of finding the dot on draw and recoil, you won’t be so keen on the DPM.

[JCN]

JonInWA

From an equipment standpoint, the actual reduced variable control to a DPM is a Glock 19 slide with a very low profile, large window dot so an iron index will work.

A tall body optic will change the index a little.

I would like to help this experiment.

If you’d be willing, I will ship you a Glock 19 slide with an RMSx optic on it so you can drill back to back and test our hypotheses.

Let’s put it to the test. What Gen 19 slide would you like? I’ll pay for shipping both ways.

[JonInWA]

JonInWA

From an equipment standpoint, the actual reduced variable control to a DPM is a Glock 19 slide with a very low profile, large window dot so an iron index will work.

A tall body optic will change the index a little.

I would like to help this experiment.

If you’d be willing, I will ship you a Glock 19 slide with an RMSx optic on it so you can drill back to back and test our hypotheses.

Let’s put it to the test. What Gen 19 slide would you like? I’ll pay for shipping both ways.

That sounds great, I'll send a PM. The nice thing about this thread, and p-f in general, is that through our shared experiences we can pick out nuggets of information that potentially are applicable (or not)to us both individually and collectively.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

JCN, PM sent.

Best, Jon