Why P320 is so popular outside of pistol-forum

[Alpha Sierra]

It is not a true closed emitter. The prototypes they have shown will ship with two shrouds. One is a closed emitter and the other is just a hood like on the Romeo1 pro. It is IPX7 water proof while you can scuba dive with the Acro.

Question: what does it matter that it isn't a "true" closed emitter optic if it's IPX7 rated? If the Romeo 2 can take submersion to 1 meter without leakeage past the hood, who really cares if you can't take it scuba diving?

When do consumer expectations become ridiculous?

[HCM]

Question: what does it matter that it isn't a "true" closed emitter optic if it's IPX7 rated? If the Romeo 2 can take submersion to 1 meter without leakeage past the hood, who really cares if you can't take it scuba diving?

When do consumer expectations become ridiculous?

Its not about scuba. The detachable hood can be a double edge sword. It physically shields the emitter from rain, snow, mud etc but the question is how will it deal with condensation / temperature induced environmental moisture inside the hood vs a traditional “sealed” optic.

Modern hunting rifle scopes have gotten pretty good but I recall in the 70s and 80 ambient moisture getting into and fogging up scopes was a common issue.

[Alpha Sierra]

Its not about scuba. The detachable hood can be a double edge sword. It physically shields the emitter from rain, snow, mud etc but the question is how will it deal with condensation / temperature induced environmental moisture inside the hood vs a traditional “sealed” optic.

The answer would lie, at least in part, in the definition of IPX7 and what environmental conditions it's designed to resist.

If indeed the Romeo2 with hood is IPX7 rated as someone here said. I haven't verified that myself.

[Alpha Sierra]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code

IPX7: not tested against solid particle intrusion. No harmful water penetration permitted when submerged to a depth of 1 meter for 30 minutes.

[45dotACP]

At a shooting class this weekend...will have an AAR up tomorrow because this class seriously rocks, but I thought I'd share some hardware observations.

There's more Sig 320 legion X5 models here than any other single gun design. As a carry optics gun I can see why. I've had the chance to fondle a few..including some done up by Gray Guns.

Excluding the guy who is running a standard 320 as his duty gun, Quite a few of them have triggers that are lighter than my 1911s, with no thumb safety or grip safety and they weigh about what a 1911 does, whilst being chambered on 9x19.

I'm talking triggers that are sub 2lbs for some.

It made me a touch nervous tbh

Safety concerns aside, this with a red dot is a very potent combo. They'll probably be solid contenders with the regular production guns (CZ, Tanfo, etc) and they're clearly the leader of the pack in carry optics.


Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Eyesquared]

The answer would lie, at least in part, in the definition of IPX7 and what environmental conditions it's designed to resist.

If indeed the Romeo2 with hood is IPX7 rated as someone here said. I haven't verified that myself.

It's not just the issue of water intrusion, it's the issue of moisture in the air trapped inside the optic when you attach the hood. Think purging optics with inert gas, that sort of thing.

[Alpha Sierra]

It's not just the issue of water intrusion, it's the issue of moisture in the air trapped inside the optic when you attach the hood. Think purging optics with inert gas, that sort of thing.

Probably right. I don't think about this too much because I don't think a closed emitter RDS is a necessity for me.

[zaitcev]

Yep. Treating an RDS as an adjunct to irons instead of treating it as primary and independent of irons explains why it seems so many have trouble accepting or quickly getting proficient with pistol mounted RDS.

It's not entirely independent. You still use the front sight when drawing. This method is quick and eliminates any delay of searching for the dot. So, unlike a rifle or a competition pistol, the iron sights are still critically important for operation of a combat pistol with an optical sight. I do agree though that to ask for tritium shows that the shooter isn't utilizing the optic. And asking for a front fiber of the same color as the dot might be a little self-defeating in some lighting conditions.

[HCM]

It's not entirely independent. You still use the front sight when drawing. This method is quick and eliminates any delay of searching for the dot. So, unlike a rifle or a competition pistol, the iron sights are still critically important for operation of a combat pistol with an optical sight. I do agree though that to ask for tritium shows that the shooter isn't utilizing the optic. And asking for a front fiber of the same color as the dot might be a little self-defeating in some lighting conditions.

No. You don’t still use the front sight while drawing. Alpha Sierra is spot on here.

Read what I wrote above again about 1 focal plane vs 3 vs 4.

Using the front sight to index the dot is a crutch masking poor draw /index and wastes time.

The only reason to have irons in the window at all is because PMO technology is not yet at the level of reliability of rifle mounted RDS. As PMO reliability improves to where rifles are now, I can see flip up pistol BUIS becoming a thing.

[El Cid]

It's not entirely independent. You still use the front sight when drawing. This method is quick and eliminates any delay of searching for the dot. So, unlike a rifle or a competition pistol, the iron sights are still critically important for operation of a combat pistol with an optical sight. I do agree though that to ask for tritium shows that the shooter isn't utilizing the optic. And asking for a front fiber of the same color as the dot might be a little self-defeating in some lighting conditions.

As HCM explained - you’re doing it wrong. Take a class from a reputable trainer that is specifically geared to pistols with red dots.