New Vortex Micro Red Dot - Defender ST

[stomridertx]

New offering from Vortex https://vortexoptics.com/red-dots-defender-st+reticle-6~MOA~Defender~Dot

I had to download the manual to see the footprint, it's Delta Point Pro.

[Clusterfrack]

That's kind of a high price point for an open-emitter MRDS...

[Basher]

DPP footprint, open emitter, but you can change the battery without removing the optic. This seems like a super-late arrival for the "SRO at home" kind of joke. They should have at least used the RMR footprint IMO.

[stomridertx]

I've softened my stance on open emitters as I run HS508T and HS407C dots as offsets on my AR-15s and it hasn't posed any problems for me. While we do get rain quite a bit in the Texas Panhandle, it's not all the time and rarely when I'm training. I've heard anecdotes that open emitter dots don't fog up as bad when going between extreme temps, but I haven't vetted that info with any real-world experience or experiments. The enclosed EPS is still my favorite dot I've experienced on a handgun to date. My favorite thing about closed emitters is squarely a first world problem: I find it easier to wipe the lenses clean before carrying.
I really like that Vortex is offering both 3MOA and 6MOA dots and not falling into the circle nonsense. I like the side buttons and the polymer shock absorbing thing might be a great idea. They advertise a distortion free aspherical lens, which is another awesome feature if it performs to that promise. The DPP footprint is meh, but that does mean it will work in the Badger Ordnance C1 ecosystem as a secondary dot on a rifle and there will be plates for it on pistols. The biggest thing that worries me is my experience with the Vortex SPARC solar. I had to send it back twice and wound up selling the third from an overall lack of confidence. I had better luck with the Vortex Crossfire dot before that so I don't think all Vortex dots are trash, but there seems to be hit and miss going on. There are reports of dot flicker problems on the original Defender, but I'm not sure if that was unique to the shooter's eyes and not a real issue. I'm pretty brand agnostic, but I do have a soft spot for Vortex and would love a reason to run their dots instead of Holosun.

[HCM]

I’m ok with open emitter.

My question have they fixed the atrociously slow refresh rate that made the RMSC footprint model unusable for anything but slow fire.

Setting the refresh rate slower to extend battery life is lazy and bad engineering.

[stomridertx]

https://youtu.be/yYTMU2v4QpA?si=3CVxQ5k6kT1MQXym

I've seen more than one video on this today where it's highlighted that the refresh rate has been fixed and the shake awake shutoff now kicks in at 10 minutes of inactivity. They would be wise to make an inline change to the Defender CCW to bring it up to this standard and have consistency in the lineup.
The above video insinuates more dots are coming.
They have my attention.

[HCM]

I’m ok with open emitter.

My question have they fixed the atrociously slow refresh rate that made the RMSC footprint model unusable for anything but slow fire.

Setting the refresh rate slower to extend battery life is lazy and bad engineering.

This reviewer indicates Vortex has addressed the refresh rate issue (what he styles “Phasing and pulsing”) in the new optic..

[Bart Carter]

...They should have at least used the RMR footprint IMO.

I really don't like the RMR footprint. It is too wide for direct mill on many pistols that don't have the boxy shape of a Glock. That's why so many pistols have to use plates to get the width of an RMR mount. DPP, Docter/Noblex, Vortex, Shield, etc. all have less distance between mounting screws that allow for direct milling on almost anything.

The DPP footprint also allows for a top mounted battery rather than side mounted. This allows for the body to be shorter, which can accommodate backup sights lower than suppressor height.

[Basher]

I really don't like the RMR footprint. It is too wide for direct mill on many pistols that don't have the boxy shape of a Glock. That's why so many pistols have to use plates to get the width of an RMR mount. DPP, Docter/Noblex, Vortex, Shield, etc. all have less distance between mounting screws that allow for direct milling on almost anything.

The DPP footprint also allows for a top mounted battery rather than side mounted. This allows for the body to be shorter, which can accommodate backup sights lower than suppressor height.

If I’m not mistaken, the DPP actually has a higher deck height than the RMR, necessitating taller irons. I get the thinner footprint, though. But the RMR is overall a more robust and more popular optic, so the footprint is in wider use. The Shield/407K footprint would really be the ideal choice here, I guess.

[HCM]

If I’m not mistaken, the DPP actually has a higher deck height than the RMR, necessitating taller irons. I get the thinner footprint, though. But the RMR is overall a more robust and more popular optic, so the footprint is in wider use. The Shield/407K footprint would really be the ideal choice here, I guess.

The DPP has a higher deck, but not every optic that uses the DPP footprint has a high deck.

EoTech, Bushnell and SIG all make optics which fit the DPP footprint without the deck height of the DPP.

[stomridertx]

If I’m not mistaken, the DPP actually has a higher deck height than the RMR, necessitating taller irons. I get the thinner footprint, though. But the RMR is overall a more robust and more popular optic, so the footprint is in wider use. The Shield/407K footprint would really be the ideal choice here, I guess.

The Deltapoint Pro having the highest deck height has nothing to do with the hole pattern and everything to do with Leupold being Leupold.
I'm more disappointed that the industry isn't moving to a mini pic rail like the Acro or 509t. When it comes to mounting an open emitter dot top-down with fasteners, I don't blame them at all for getting tired of working around the worst pattern of the bunch because of its fading popularity and going with something easier to design around. Even Trijicon had to do weird workarounds to keep the RMR footprint and still move the designs forward, like overhanging close to the ejection port or using capstan screws for their enclosed dot.

[DLWinner]

The new defender seems solid. Much nicer than their other offerings. Time will tell.

[Basher]

The Deltapoint Pro having the highest deck height has nothing to do with the hole pattern and everything to do with Leupold being Leupold.
I'm more disappointed that the industry isn't moving to a mini pic rail like the Acro or 509t. When it comes to mounting an open emitter dot top-down with fasteners, I don't blame them at all for getting tired of working around the worst pattern of the bunch because of its fading popularity and going with something easier to design around. Even Trijicon had to do weird workarounds to keep the RMR footprint and still move the designs forward, like overhanging close to the ejection port or using capstan screws for their enclosed dot.

I think my statement was unclear in its full intent, so I’ll clear it up a bit lol.

If they’re sticking with a traditional full-size open emitter, I think the RMR is the standard that most of the industry has settled on, with a few stragglers still using the DPP. I don’t feel the DPP FOOTPRINT is inferior in any way (the optic itself is another discussion), just that for commonality’s sake the RMR cut is far and away more popular. If they were going to use a different open emitter cut, I think the 407K would be the better choice if a smaller footprint was desired. So full-size open emitter = RMR for me, slimline = 407K.

For a closed emitter (which the Defender is not, so I didn’t bring it up), I’m with StormRider on using a crossbolt like the ACRO or 509T. With a pic rail and crossbolt type mount, you end up with a far more robust and repeatable mounting system, but there aren’t any good options for smaller, open emitter RDOs using that right now.

[stomridertx]

I think my statement was unclear in its full intent, so I’ll clear it up a bit lol.

If they’re sticking with a traditional full-size open emitter, I think the RMR is the standard that most of the industry has settled on, with a few stragglers still using the DPP. I don’t feel the DPP FOOTPRINT is inferior in any way (the optic itself is another discussion), just that for commonality’s sake the RMR cut is far and away more popular. If they were going to use a different open emitter cut, I think the 407K would be the better choice if a smaller footprint was desired. So full-size open emitter = RMR for me, slimline = 407K.

For a closed emitter (which the Defender is not, so I didn’t bring it up), I’m with StormRider on using a crossbolt like the ACRO or 509T. With a pic rail and crossbolt type mount, you end up with a far more robust and repeatable mounting system, but there aren’t any good options for smaller, open emitter RDOs using that right now.

You were clear and have a good point. I'm siding with Vortex on this one because I think it's time for the RMR footprint to stop being the standard. If we have to continue having top-down fastener mounting, it would be awesome to see the Holosun K and DPP footprints take over. The DPP footprint is not that obscure as there are optics from Eotech, Bushnell, Holosun, and Sig that use it. In the rifle world, the DPP is still a popular choice for an offset dot so that footprint can still direct mount to a lot of the best offset mounting solutions. It's noteworthy that the DPP pattern is much more friendly for direct mounting on the 1911 platform.

[stomridertx]

I watched another video on this that pointed out that it takes a CR2032 battery. I didn't think to look at that before, but worth noting. Keeping a bunch of Duracell CR2032s is pretty easy if you have Costco where you live. With all my Holosuns I have to keep a bunch of 1632 and 1620 Renata batteries in the mix. One common button battery for all optics would be nice, but not enough of a problem to switch. Still, another positive check mark for this optic I think.

[HCM]

I think my statement was unclear in its full intent, so I’ll clear it up a bit lol.

If they’re sticking with a traditional full-size open emitter, I think the RMR is the standard that most of the industry has settled on, with a few stragglers still using the DPP. I don’t feel the DPP FOOTPRINT is inferior in any way (the optic itself is another discussion), just that for commonality’s sake the RMR cut is far and away more popular. If they were going to use a different open emitter cut, I think the 407K would be the better choice if a smaller footprint was desired. So full-size open emitter = RMR for me, slimline = 407K.

For a closed emitter (which the Defender is not, so I didn’t bring it up), I’m with StormRider on using a crossbolt like the ACRO or 509T. With a pic rail and crossbolt type mount, you end up with a far more robust and repeatable mounting system, but there aren’t any good options for smaller, open emitter RDOs using that right now.

The RMR is not “the standard” - it’s common to several optics ( thanks to Holosun as much as Trijicon) but it’s far from THE standard.

In terms of guns, there are a more direct mount DPP guns than direct mount RMR guns. Commercial SIG 320s, the second most popular striker fired service pistol behind Glock, all directly accept DPPs. As do Stacattos.

[Basher]

The RMR is not “the standard” - it’s common to several optics ( thanks to Holosun as much as Trijicon) but it’s far from THE standard.

In terms of guns, there are a more direct mount DPP guns than direct mount RMR guns. Commercial SIG 320s, the second most popular striker fired service pistol behind Glock, all directly accept DPPs. As do Stacattos.

Out of curiousity, does anyone have access to the sales numbers for the DPP vs RMRs? I realize Sig uses the DPP cut, but I rarely actually see a DPP mounted on them. Most of what I see are RMRs using adapter plates. I don’t count those towards the DPP side as that’s not the final optic being mounted.

If I’m wrong and more DPPs are being sold than RMRs, so be it. I don’t gain or lose anything from being right or wrong here, I just think (key word there, I’m not saying anything from my mouth is gospel) that the RMR is more popular. I’m totally OK being wrong here, I have zero proof either way.

To me, I run RMR optics. I won’t be buying a Defender because I can’t use it on anything else I own. That’s an L to me. *shrug*

[HCM]

Out of curiousity, does anyone have access to the sales numbers for the DPP vs RMRs? I realize Sig uses the DPP cut, but I rarely actually see a DPP mounted on them. Most of what I see are RMRs using adapter plates. I don’t count those towards the DPP side as that’s not the final optic being mounted.

If I’m wrong and more DPPs are being sold than RMRs, so be it. I don’t gain or lose anything from being right or wrong here, I just think (key word there, I’m not saying anything from my mouth is gospel) that the RMR is more popular. I’m totally OK being wrong here, I have zero proof either way.

To me, I run RMR optics. I won’t be buying a Defender because I can’t use it on anything else I own. That’s an L to me. *shrug*

You do you, but that doesn’t define the market.

Most of what you see on Sig 320s are Sig optics, followed by SROs on adapter plates for competition guns. Actual DPP’s are probably 3rd.

The ability for people (and especially non-gun people like cops) to walk in and buy a turn key solution I.e. a gun with an optic already mounted, is likely as significant as the MHS contract in terms of why the 320 is second only to Glock in the current market.

There are technical issues with the RMR footprint, which I believe are why you are seeing more new open emitter optics using the DPP footprint.

Having to dismount the optic to change the battery is unacceptable for institutional use at any scale and for other end users who with lack basic mechanical skills or don’t want to be bothered.

The mounting screw placement of the RMR pattern makes a top mounted battery problematic. You either have to go to a side mounted battery like Holosun, or push everything forward like Trijicon did on the SRO and RMR HD. But pushing everything forward creates its own set of problems. From excessive fouling on glass and impeding ejection to duty holster fitment issues.

If you want a top mounted battery without the issues inherent to pushing everything forward, you are left with the DPP footprint.

[Clusterfrack]

... pushing everything forward creates its own set of problems. From excessive fouling on glass and impeding ejection to duty holster fitment issues.


Of course, there's always the option of putting the rear iron sight in front of the optic--which I strongly prefer. Unfortunately, the market doesn't seem ready for that.

[Basher]

You do you, but that doesn’t define the market.

If anything I said gave the impression that my preferences should define the market, then that wasn’t my intent. I was merely trying to state that, from what I see in my area and online, the RMR gets way more use than any other options aside from Holosun. That’s all.

If time proves the DPP to be more popular long-term, I may switch. But we’re not there yet IMO. Thanks for your insights and factual approach to the subject.

[HCM]

Of course, there's always the option of putting the rear iron sight in front of the optic--which I strongly prefer. Unfortunately, the market doesn't seem ready for that.

While the SRO and RMR HD do preclude forward placement of irons, what I’m talking about has nothing to do with BUIS placement.

Due to the location of the mounting screw holes in the RMR pattern, if you don’t push the glass and the frame of the optic that holds the glass in place forward, there’s not enough room for a top mounted battery compartment or access to same.

PS-

I think duty holster fitment has been a limiting factor for forward mounted BUIS though I believe the ATEI Shim sight mitigates some of those issues.

[stomridertx]

I asked in the Vortex industry forum on Arfcom if this refresh rate and auto shutoff improvement would be a rolling change in the Defender CCW as well, and they responded that it will.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/Industry/Question-on-Defender-Red-Dot-Lineup/277-305229/

[Exiledviking]

Anyone have one of these Defender ST sights? Judging by the videos and pictures I've seen the rear deck is tall. I'm curious if it's taller than the 508T that I'm currently using along with a DPO adapter plate on my Staccato P. As I prefer the 5 or 6 MOA dots on my pistols, this optic has caught my attention.

[stomridertx]

Anyone have one of these Defender ST sights? Judging by the videos and pictures I've seen the rear deck is tall. I'm curious if it's taller than the 508T that I'm currently using along with a DPO adapter plate on my Staccato P. As I prefer the 5 or 6 MOA dots on my pistols, this optic has caught my attention.

I might very soon. There's a good chance I'll sell my Holosun 509t and migrate a Holosun 508t to an offset AR mount in favor of standardizing on the Vortex Defender line. I like the button layout and 6 MOA dot option enough to give up closed emitter and side clamp mount, as well as having Vortex customer service behind hard use optics on pistols. Vortex including a MOS plate in the package of the ST and XL went a long way to winning me over on this. The only Holosun I'll have left on a pistol is a 6 MOA EPS on my Glock 26 that just doesn't warrant replacement as long as it's running. If I follow through I'll post deck height measurements and take pictures on how it works with the existing Ameriglo XL sights.
I'll keep the Holosuns with solar and 2MOA dots in service on rifle offsets until they die, then probably will stick with Vortex from now on. Vortex answered the call with improvements so I'll respond in kind.

[Steven T]

Anyone have one of these Defender ST sights? Judging by the videos and pictures I've seen the rear deck is tall. I'm curious if it's taller than the 508T that I'm currently using along with a DPO adapter plate on my Staccato P. As I prefer the 5 or 6 MOA dots on my pistols, this optic has caught my attention.

The Defender deck height is taller than the Holosun. My 507C looks to be about .34, my Defender ST looks to be .38-40. All my numbers are from optics that are mounted, so I’m not as precise as I’d like. My Delta point pro looks to be about .48 The Defender has a raised area like a crude rear sight which complicates the matter.
The Defender does well in bright sunlight. The only real issue I have observed is that if I lay the pistol on its side the sight can turn on or adjust. This might be do to slide shape, both are on Glock 17s.
I’m a fan of the bigger dots. I intend to eventually replace the Delta Point Pro on my Sig X5 Legion to a Defender though I might go to the competition model on that.
Hope my ramblings help.