Designing the perfect pistol mini red dot sight

In the hypothetical that an established optics manufacturer was to start with a blank sheet of paper to build the best every mini RDS for handguns what would I want?
My experience with them is limited to several hundred rounds total between a first generation Burris Fastfire one of my G19s way back when they first came out and more recently a Trijicon RMR a friend mounted on one of the purpose built slides for his G19.
My bottom line impression is that I don’t care for the concept. I did see a pretty incredible 25 yard precision capability. But to me this was overshadowed by the slowness of acquiring the dot when presenting from the draw at close ranges vs iron sights only. And I’m aware of quite a few MRDS on a pistol adopters that after vastly more time and shooting volume with them have judged them to be fast enough to balance the scale the other way. My sense is many of them acknowledge they are not as fast up close as irons – bottom line.

1. So my number one design requirement is to dramatically improve the acquisition of the dot at max speed. Now if that could be done by projecting a holographic reticle into thin air over the slide and that could actually be zeroed – that would be the ultimate heads up display. That however may be a bit of a technological stretch for a little while yet. So assuming we need to still stay with a lens – I’m wondering if the sight and mount design could allow the lens to extend down flush with the top of the slide. Perhaps by moving the electronics to the top or side of the sight’s structure? But maybe a view that is open down to the surface of the slide could really improve dot acquisition. And an added bonus might be to eliminate the need for the extra tall suppressor sights as back up.
2. Or . . . integrate the back up iron rear sight into the optics window itself.
3. Battery compartment on the side or top to make room for the above feature; with no change to zero when the battery is changed.
4. Use a dovetail to mount the optic directly to the slide.
5. IDK if the back up irons belong ahead of the optic or behind it.
6. Pistol manufacturer slides or complete guns with the mounting features as OEM features and complete guns/optics available.
7. Small total footprint of the optic in all directions no larger than the RDS, preferably smaller.
8. A sharper more precise dot reticle (than I see on RMRs). My eyes are not very electronic dot friendly.
9. A BDC reticle – perhaps like the EOTech with the BDC dots below the primary closer range reticle. Seems silly on a pistol but if a 100 yd and 150 yd BDC dot was possible below a primary closer range 5 MOA circle or something . . . just sayin’
10. Hilton Yam reported a difficulty while shooting in the rain when a bead of water was right on the diode and it really screwed up the reticle display. Could that diode be on the top of the hood of the optic and project down? Thereby being less likely for water to collect in it?
11. Waterproof/shockproof assumed.

Any other ideas?
Anything here that is just rubbish?

1. Mostly a training issue, though it may be partially the nature of the beast. With in excess of 30,000 rounds downrange through an RMR I am still a bit slower with it at ten yards and in.
2. One of the early earlier sights Dr. Optic I believe, had a built in rear sight. It didn't really pan out.
3. My RMR returns to zero, but you are right I don't like having to remove it to change the battery. No real biggie since it is only once a year.
4. How would that be an improvement over a purpose milled slide?
5. Behind
6. Doesn't S&W do this?
7. Double edged sword. The smaller it is the smaller your viewing window, unless we are going back to point one which as you mentioned is a pretty big leap in technology.
8. That would be nice. It really seems to vary by individual though.
9. Yeah, you mention this is silly, I agree.
10. That is one of the drawbacks.
11. No issues with the current quality crop of RDS's on that score that I am aware of.

A more compact T1 would solve many problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVS

1. Mostly a training issue, though it may be partially the nature of the beast. With in excess of 30,000 rounds downrange through an RMR I am still a bit slower with it at ten yards and in.
2. One of the early earlier sights Dr. Optic I believe, had a built in rear sight. It didn't really pan out.
3. My RMR returns to zero, but you are right I don't like having to remove it to change the battery. No real biggie since it is only once a year.
4. How would that be an improvement over a purpose milled slide?
5. Behind
6. Doesn't S&W do this?
7. Double edged sword. The smaller it is the smaller your viewing window, unless we are going back to point one which as you mentioned is a pretty big leap in technology.
8. That would be nice. It really seems to vary by individual though.
9. Yeah, you mention this is silly, I agree.
10. That is one of the drawbacks.
11. No issues with the current quality crop of RDS's on that score that I am aware of.

---

Funny thing is silly or not; with a sharp primary reticle, I think some 1-2 moa BDC dots would be pretty sick. ;)

Oh and I cannot stand the blue tint of some sights in this genre. It's got to be crystal clear.

The ideal pistol RDS needs to be stationary and NOT reciprocate with the slide. Ideally the pistol would be designed around the optic, not vice versa as is the case now.

I am envisioning something that design-wise resembles a Browning Buckmark .22, but with a reciprocating slide that telescopes over the barrel (at least on the sides) to get enough slide mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocGKR

The ideal pistol RDS needs to be stationary and reciprocate with the slide. Ideally the pistol would be designed around the optic, not vice versa as is the case now.

---

I understand that to mean "not reciprocate" with the slide. Designed as a system from the ground up. Fixed barrel.

I see the optimal coming from the following:

1. Purpose-designed platform; a pistol designed to incorporate an optic from the get-go. While the hypothetical designer is at it, it ought to be able to seamlessly incorporate other additions, such as fight-quality taclights with DG-type switches; with grip-panels that can be exchanged to best sink such switches into them.

2. An integrated platform for the optic, to allow it to remain stationary relative to the frame, as others have written. For holster- and indexing-purposes, I see that as being at the rear of the pistol. Whether a cowl needs to arch over the aft of the slide, or it needs to protrude through the top\rear of the slide with open raceways; it needs to not interfere with the reciprocation of the slide, dis\ass, ejection, and malfunction clearance. The rear sight bracket would be integrated into this.

(Thinking about this more, I'm wondering if running dual armatures along the upper edge of the frame, in the same location wherein a Glock's frame swells outwards, reaching back to an upside-down and vertically oriented U-frame; would be the best way to go about this. Dimple them a la Gunner Grips and allow the shooter to use them for indexing points, while keeping the grip-proper slim and the slide satisfyingly narrow.)

(Any such bracket that would obscure most of the slide's rear, would be best paired with slide charging assists, a la VP9 or the M4's charging handle.)

3. The optic's body would include some form of visual cuing for imminent sight alignment - perhaps tritium-supported fiberoptics that are visible to the shooter when within a 15' arc (arbitrary number) of being in-line with the sight-line. These must not be so distracting as to take away from the sight picture, but would work as a tool to support finding the dot vice searching for it.

4. Wholly sealed housing\operating group, but with a shape more akin to a window.

5. Either batteries must be able to changed from above, or the optic's mount must be able to both hinge upwards and then return to zero (a la LaRue mount). Low pro, fold-flat throw levers, perhaps?

6. NVG compatible dot.

7. Perhaps a larger and empty-centered reticle (halo?) for faster visual cuing?

8. Sacrificial protectors for the forward facing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runcible

I see the optimal coming from the following:

1. Purpose-designed platform; a pistol designed to incorporate an optic from the get-go. While the hypothetical designer is at it, it ought to be able to seamlessly incorporate other additions, such as fight-quality taclights with DG-type switches; with grip-panels that can be exchanged to best sink such switches into them.

2. An integrated platform for the optic, to allow it to remain stationary relative to the frame, as others have written. For holster- and indexing-purposes, I see that as being at the rear of the pistol. Whether a cowl needs to arch over the aft of the slide, or it needs to protrude through the top\rear of the slide with open raceways; it needs to not interfere with the reciprocation of the slide, dis\ass, ejection, and malfunction clearance. The rear sight bracket would be integrated into this.

(Thinking about this more, I'm wondering if running dual armatures along the upper edge of the frame, in the same location wherein a Glock's frame swells outwards, reaching back to an upside-down and vertically oriented U-frame; would be the best way to go about this. Dimple them a la Gunner Grips and allow the shooter to use them for indexing points, while keeping the grip-proper slim and the slide satisfyingly narrow.)

(Any such bracket that would obscure most of the slide's rear, would be best paired with slide charging assists, a la VP9 or the M4's charging handle.)

3. The optic's body would include some form of visual cuing for imminent sight alignment - perhaps tritium-supported fiberoptics that are visible to the shooter when within a 15' arc (arbitrary number) of being in-line with the sight-line. These must not be so distracting as to take away from the sight picture, but would work as a tool to support finding the dot vice searching for it.

4. Wholly sealed housing\operating group, but with a shape more akin to a window.

5. Either batteries must be able to changed from above, or the optic's mount must be able to both hinge upwards and then return to zero (a la LaRue mount). Low pro, fold-flat throw levers, perhaps?

6. NVG compatible dot.

7. Perhaps a larger and empty-centered reticle (halo?) for faster visual cuing?

8. Sacrificial protectors for the forward facing.

---

Lots of cool stuff there. I don't actually understand the bold and blue part enough to visualize it yet.

#3 is an interesting idea towards dot acquisition?

How about the BDC dots man? ;)

JHC,

Let me know which section you'd like elaboration upon, and I'd be happy to do so. :)


ETA: a non-reciprocating optic mount would ideally be attached to the metal insert(s) that are enclosed within the polymer frame itself. If bearing with the lastly mentioned idea, the mounting point would correspond with the void within the dustcover, but below the operating space of the guide rod and spring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runcible

JHC,

Let me know which section you'd like elaboration upon, and I'd be happy to do so. :)


ETA: a non-reciprocating optic mount would ideally be attached to the metal insert(s) that are enclosed within the polymer frame itself. If bearing with the lastly mentioned idea, the mounting point would correspond with the void within the dustcover, but below the operating space of the guide rod and spring.

---

OK that helped and I see the italics I tried to use didn't "stick". I'll loop back a little later. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocGKR

The ideal pistol RDS needs to be stationary and NOT reciprocate with the slide.

---

As evidenced by how few USPSA Open shooters there are with reciprocating optics. In fact, the non-reciprocating nature of the optic is probably at least 25% of the benefit of having a dot sight on a pistol to begin with. Maybe as much as 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Jones

I fixed your other post to make the part you were highlighting more apparent.

---

Ha! Thanks! Somehow, just re-reading it again in bold and blue, and I then visualized the inverted U he was describing.

So the completely new gun design with integrated optic (seems like the original AUG as a pistol approach) provides a lot of freedom. But it's going to suck if you want to have to resort to irons.

I wouldn't mind an optimized MRDS that can go on or off a more conventional pistol for a spell either.

Do these clear things up?

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d9...ncepts_131.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d9...ncepts_121.jpg

I'm thinking of a scaled-down Deagle or scaled-up Ruger .22/45.