RDS on a SemiAuto

[1Rangemaster]

Not trying to start an argument here, but what is the logic for adopting a standard footprint when, as far as I can tell, there is no electronic sight that has proven reliable on a reciprocating slide. There seemed to be some hope for the Shield, but just a few posts back, we have a reported failure on what seems to be a cared for competition piece. GJM has sent a sackful of Delta Points back to Leupold. There are reports of some Trijicon RMRs working, but their reliability is not 100% across the years.
The Aimpoint Acro has yet to be seen in the marketplace, and tested by use. If the objective is a sight for competition, by all means carry on-that will improve the products. But I’ll wait to spend my resources on something that works; then we can discuss standardization.

[YVK]

I agree. GJM's experience has now been confirmed by that of many others. In my case, literally every person who I know personally of owning a DPP. It would the last choice of a footprint I'd use as a standard. Army's choice of that footprint does not come with a commitment to mount an RDS on every M17 so I don't know if it is a wise business choice for Trijicon or Aimpoint to start redesigning their optics vs keep working on making them better. I presume that these two choices are not mutually exclusive, but from a business competition standpoint I'd prioritize to keep beating my competitors without doing anything to support their platform.

[JSGlock34]

I'd argue that the M17/DPP footprint is the de facto standard, regardless of the reliability of the DPP itself. The military represents the single largest potential customer for MRDS.

I don't see why a standard optic footprint should matter a great deal to the optics manufacturer; there doesn't seem to be a business case against Aimpoint, EOTech, and Trijicon each producing picatinny mounts instead of their own proprietary system. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already an RMR prototype with the DPP footprint at Trijicon - they certainly want to sell pistols to the military. Why surrender potential market share to Leupold and SIG Optics? Of course, the picatinny standard has been in use for over 20 years...would we feel better if it wasn't the "DPP footprint" and instead was declared MIL-STD 1913X (or whatever)? Industry standards have to start somewhere.

[jwperry]

Luckily due to physical sizing, it should be easy enough to adopt the RMR to the DPP footprint. I'd expect to see a whole cottage industry offering adapter plates in the future.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[JodyH]

+100

There should be an industry standard footprint IMO. Adapter plates should simply allow different iron sight configurations like with the Agency AOS system.

The "mini-Picatinny" that the new Aimpoint has looks like it would be a great industry standard rail going forward.
IMO

[YVK]

I
Industry standards have to start somewhere.

That's true. Right now for Trijicon to play this game on Leupold's field, so to speak, they would have to incur the cost of designing the new housing, possibly designing the new guts, testing it out for any unforeseen side effects and, if they were to release it in the wild, incur the ongoing cost of logistics required to maintain and service two different designs. I've no clue how difficult that is and how much that would cost but it might be too substantial to justify a potential solicitation that may not happen for a foreseeable future. They may be preparing for that but at this moment I just don't think it is smart for them to support this new format on a big scale. The Aimpoint's ACRO is likely to be the most robust of them but it is a completely different mounting design; I can only see it mount to a DPP cut through an adapter plate (in which case why would Trijicon not to choose that route too). So, while I agree with you that the Army right now designated the DPP cut as their standard, I think that absence of a directly mounted option that is durable and reliable can prevent any traction in that direction.

[GJM]

I have a 5" Walther PPQ with a direct milled Shield. Through live and dry fire practice and a match, not a problem. I dry fired Friday and took it to a match Saturday. At the safety table, no dot. Tapping, no dot. Shot in the match, dot never came back. I get home later, the dot is back. Screws tight, mount feels solid. Dot today is now on. Any thoughts?

Good thing the guy that set that pistol up installed Dawson FO BUIS in lieu of an extended warranty.

[ubervic]

I just pulled the trigger on an rds setup for my G17.3. Just turned 54 yrs, and boy am I tired of struggling to focus on iron sights.

Will report back once I get my setup and can wring it out over 750-1,000 rnds.

[TCB]

You guys are missing the real potential of the Aimpoint mounting system...it has the ability of being called the Picamini.

[miller_man]

I just pulled the trigger on an rds setup for my G17.3. Just turned 54 yrs, and boy am I tired of struggling to focus on iron sights.

Will report back once I get my setup and can wring it out over 750-1,000 rnds.

Which dot did you go with?