2019 RDS on pistols thread

[Rick62]

Is there any data, beyond anecdotal, that an exact/pro cut offers optic durability benefits over a looser/MOS solution?

I thought so last summer, but now I am unsure.

Glad to see this point raised. I’m ready to take the optic plunge, most likely a RMR, but am stuck on the method of mounting. A “pro cut” seems to be the most secure, in theory, but I’m concerned about what happens should you face a optics failure. Expensive paperweight?
A universal pocket would afford the option of using a replacement optic, not to mention experimenting with optics that share the footprint (507c, SRO etc).
Just grabbing a MOS gun is the easy button option. No lead time for milling, and options to experiment with other optics. But the internet says the MOS system sucks and direct mill is the way to go for anything serious.
I imagine I’ll go with the MOS, mount it carefully, and go from there to avoid being married to one particular sight. I’m certainly open to hearing there’s a better path, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dontshakepandas]

Glad to see this point raised. I’m ready to take the optic plunge, most likely a RMR, but am stuck on the method of mounting. A “pro cut” seems to be the most secure, in theory, but I’m concerned about what happens should you face a optics failure. Expensive paperweight?
A universal pocket would afford the option of using a replacement optic, not to mention experimenting with optics that share the footprint (507c, SRO etc).
Just grabbing a MOS gun is the easy button option. No lead time for milling, and options to experiment with other optics. But the internet says the MOS system sucks and direct mill is the way to go for anything serious.
I imagine I’ll go with the MOS, mount it carefully, and go from there to avoid being married to one particular sight. I’m certainly open to hearing there’s a better path, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would go with the Agency Arms AOS over the MOS if you want optic flexibility.

[Rick62]

I would go with the Agency Arms AOS over the MOS if you want optic flexibility.

The AOS is appealing. It looks solid- I wonder though, do the modular plates offer a strength benefit to a universal cut for a RMR? Wouldn’t the AOS plate essentially be a universal RMR pocket- with the obvious benefit of being able to change to a different footprint entirely?

I’m not thrilled with Agency’s 10-12 week lead time, but if it’s a better mousetrap, I may go that route and just temper my impatience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dontshakepandas]

The AOS is appealing. It looks solid- I wonder though, do the modular plates offer a strength benefit to a universal cut for a RMR? Wouldn’t the AOS plate essentially be a universal RMR pocket- with the obvious benefit of being able to change to a different footprint entirely?

I’m not thrilled with Agency’s 10-12 week lead time, but if it’s a better mousetrap, I may go that route and just temper my impatience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the only advantage it offers over a universal RMR cut is that you can use different optic footprints in the future. If that isn't a concern for you, then I don't think there is a reason to do that over a direct mill.

So far I haven't had any issues with my RMR on my slide milled by Battlewerx, but I'm only around 2,000 rounds in. I have a second slide at Jagerwerks right now, which is also a universal cut.

[leif]

Which Ameriglo's would I want to get for a gen5 MOS with an RMR Type 2...429?

[Mitch]

Which Ameriglo's would I want to get for a gen5 MOS with an RMR Type 2...429?

I have that set up (type 1 RMR, but still) and I like it. It’s a little less than “lower 1/3” but definitely usable. With a small window like the RMR has I don’t want back up sights taking up a ton of visual space, so I like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leif]

I have that set up (type 1 RMR, but still) and I like it. It’s a little less than “lower 1/3” but definitely usable. With a small window like the RMR has I don’t want back up sights taking up a ton of visual space, so I like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks.

[JHC]

new Doctor Optics I guess. Glock centric or something.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-optics-glock/


"In a bit of a carryover from our discussion last weekend, this new optic focuses on placing the dot right at the same level as the standard height sight picture. If you’ve had that familiar “hunting for the dot” feeling, the Noblex-Docter Optics sight allows for a more natural point of aim."



Da FOOK???


Attachment 38020

[Trukinjp13]

Since I posted the Wilson/Acro in Acro thread. This looks like one badass EDC rig.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

new Doctor Optics I guess. Glock centric or something.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-optics-glock/


"In a bit of a carryover from our discussion last weekend, this new optic focuses on placing the dot right at the same level as the standard height sight picture. If you’ve had that familiar “hunting for the dot” feeling, the Noblex-Docter Optics sight allows for a more natural point of aim."



Da FOOK???


Attachment 38020

I like where their head is at. And, I agree. For that platform, building the optic into the plate is a key design. I’d probably opt for a design that is slightly thicker and gives a full 3-4 threads of engagement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk