Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 305

Thread: Pistols (and pistol mounted optics) I saw this week

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    No worries. I was reading this on my phone and didn't see the picture. Would have been more clear if I had.

    Seems like screws should be almost considered single use for any slide mounted optic. Really makes the ACRO and Holosun 509t crossbar design seem preferable on a slide.
    I *think* C&H recommends replacement of all the screws when dismounted, battery change, etc. In my experience, they have been quite helpful and responsive. Their products seem thought out. Their plates are a tight, “click” fit too.
    I agree with the crossbar mounting plate a la ACRO. It takes a good among of the forces during slide cycling.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter SoCalDep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Between LA and Bakersfield
    Very nice report Erick!

    Your observations echo what I’ve seen in our pistol optic classes. Our biggest issue seems to be iron sights coming loose/falling off and optics coming loose. When mounted the correct (or somewhat close to correct) way both the optics and sights seem to work great. We’ve seen some screws shear, but no optics have come flying off the student’s guns yet (we’ve had that happen as instructors evaluated the concept over the past several years). We’ve lost a few front sights, have had rear sights slide almost out of the dovetail (I think we caught all three of those before they came off the gun), and have had one Trijicon RMR come DOA out of the box. During our evaluations we’ve had Leopold DeltaPoint Pros die in the first 500 - 2,000 rounds and one is at 50,000 plus rounds. It works but the lens is cracked (happened around 18,000 rounds) and the “shake awake” feature no longer works and it has to be turned on manually. I think that guy has finally broken down and he’s sending it in for warranty.

    We tested the Trijicon SRO to 10,000 rounds with a drop test and it’s now approved. We are 7,000 rounds into testing the new version DeltaPoint Pro and it’s doing well. I mounted the Holosun for T&E but we’ve yet to fire a round. I’m hoping to complete testing of the DPP and Holosun as well as Blackhawk and US Duty Gear duty holsters within the next two months. This is important because we have a bunch of information from our first six months of this program. We tracked scores in our certification classes and we’re requiring all participants (100 or so) to shoot an identical course of fire between July 1 and the end of August to see how the scores compare over a span of up to six months.

    We have also been sending out surveys to get information from field use of the pistol optics and we will have a total of five surveys sent by the end of the program. Once the last surveys are received and everyone has shot the course of fire, we’ll be putting together the companion report to the one that we used to present (and receive authorization) to start the optic program. That report will support our recommendation (which will not be finalized until all the data and information is evaluated) as to whether we will continue to require a challenging course prerequisite or open up the program to a wider group of our personnel.

    All this to say that especially when it comes to law enforcement use of pistol optics (I’m a believer as an individual, but to convince the leadership we often need more support for our proposals), we need more data points. We need more information and we need to stub our toes enough to really develop the best practices to Make this technology work. I really like these threads because they give us more information to focus efforts and market demands on things like better mounting systems and methods, as well as all the other things we discuss in this forum.

  3. #13
    There are some things that are unresolved in my mind, and I would like to see testing on.

    1) are metal guns harder on optics than polymer guns.

    2) is an optic in a direct milled tight pocket more reliable or less. I used to believe a tight pocket supported the optic and made it more reliable but recently someone with lots of exposure commented that he believed a plate provides cushion and makes an optic last longer.

    3) would an Acro style mounting arrangement be better than alternatives.

    4) is the CHPWS plate significantly better than a MOS plate properly loctited and torqued.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter SoCalDep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Between LA and Bakersfield
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    There are some things that are unresolved in my mind, and I would like to see testing on.

    1) are metal guns harder on optics than polymer guns.

    2) is an optic in a direct milled tight pocket more reliable or less. I used to believe a tight pocket supported the optic and made it more reliable but recently someone with lots of exposure commented that he believed a plate provides cushion and makes an optic last longer.

    3) would an Acro style mounting arrangement be better than alternatives.

    4) is the CHPWS plate significantly better than a MOS plate properly loctited and torqued.
    As to #1, I agree that I’m unresolved. intuitively I’d say they are probably harder all else being equal, but when one considers mounting variances, recoil springs as well as the various springs, angles, and mechanical theatrics involved in a pistol’s cycle of operation (a 1911 depends on hammer spring weight, recoil spring type and weight, firing pin stop angle, correct link length and avoidance of barrel bump, proper lubrication and more to determine proper timing). Add an optic and one might think a stock Glock is more durable but other factors could be a major influence. I don’t have nearly enough time on non-polymer (ie: metal) optic guns to form an opinion. Once my slide comes back from LTT I will make an enthusiastic effort!

    For #2... Not an expert, but I am skeptical of this one despite having communicated with a person who is an advocate. As I mentioned in my post above, I’ve seen far more issues of mounting problems resulting in loose/shearing screws than I have of optics breaking. While one particular optic seems to like to break a lot (and hopefully the improved version will break less), most optics seem very reliable and durable. To use a mount that encourages “cushioning”, which in my mind means movement against the mounting screws, as a way to increase the lifespan of the optic is making the known bad worse for the theoretical improvement in the thing that is less likely to fail in the beginning. That said, I’m no expert. I did manage to mess up a polymer plate really well though in testing the SRO and I would without a doubt recommend a metal plate based on my experience (which involved non-human level round counts in short times so is less than applicable to real life.).

    For #3, I think you’re onto a big question. A slide milled specifically for a cross-bolt type of mount a-la ACRO has a lot going for it. Otherwise you’re dealing with a plate system and I’ve seen those fail with ACROs. It’s not the ACROs fault but I know one guy who’s on plate number 3 and I witnessed number 2 fail in less than 2,000 rounds. My ACRO is mounted on a G45 with a Tango-Down plate and it’s several thousand rounds in with very positive results so far, so again, I think the mounting methods and adaptor plates (in the case of the Glock especially) may have a lot to do with it.

    #4 - Ugh. I wish I could say for sure. I know some people who’ve had CHPWS screws shear. I know more people who have had MOS plates shear, but there is a “per capita” issue there. I bought a CHPWS for my most recent optic pistol purchase (a G17g5 MOS with an SRO), and I’m now creeping past 1,000 rounds on it. Hardly a solid bit of information. Our T&E Holoson is mounted to a G17g5 MOS with the CHPWS plate and that will get 10,000 rounds plus, so that will be something, but I do think the jury is still out on this one. Again all that said, I like the fit and modularity ( a sheared screw may be more easily fixed with a replacement parts set (Including those really smart T-nuts) readily available (and available in advance) from CHPWS.

    I also have a Forward Controls Design OPF-G RMR on my carry G19g4 MOS with an RMR and it’s run great. It replaced the MOS plate that came loose (though we hadn’t solidified on our current mounting practices) and so far on a very limited (less than 500 rounds prior to being cleaned and somewhat dedicated to carry) basis it has been solid.

    We ran nearly 10,000 documented rounds through my type-1 RMR mounted on a G17g4 MOS with almost no optic experience (between Sept 2017 and around April 2019) using the stock MOS mount and had no issues, including using the same screws to replace the battery two times. The MOS can work. Are failures a result of a mounting procedure issue?... parts incompatibility (included RMR screws too long)?... or is it a design failure that makes the MOS more susceptible to issues?

    I’m not sure... But the more people who provide input the better we’ll be able to start formulating answers and best practices.
    Last edited by SoCalDep; 08-04-2020 at 01:34 AM.

  5. #15
    Great information, Erick. After three years of working with RDS on my pistols, I will be repeating my 499 class with an RMR on a VP9 this fall. Ran the same in a 4 day class with Larry Mudgett, which did a ton to improve my accuracy and trigger manipulation.

    Any insight on pitfalls I might run into over the week? Have concerns over the little stunt the instructors like to pull on about day three when they mess with your pistol with your back turned and then you have to solve the problem. I just might carry a second rig in AIWB.

  6. #16
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
    #4 - Ugh. I wish I could say for sure. I know some people who’ve had CHPWS screws shear. I know more people who have had MOS plates shear, but there is a “per capita” issue there. I bought a CHPWS for my most recent optic pistol purchase (a G17g5 MOS with an SRO), and I’m now creeping past 1,000 rounds on it. Hardly a solid bit of information. Our T&E Holoson is mounted to a G17g5 MOS with the CHPWS plate and that will get 10,000 rounds plus, so that will be something, but I do think the jury is still out on this one. Again all that said, I like the fit and modularity ( a sheared screw may be more easily fixed with a replacement parts set (Including those really smart T-nuts) readily available (and available in advance) from CHPWS.

    I also have a Forward Controls Design OPF-G RMR on my carry G19g4 MOS with an RMR and it’s run great. It replaced the MOS plate that came loose (though we hadn’t solidified on our current mounting practices) and so far on a very limited (less than 500 rounds prior to being cleaned and somewhat dedicated to carry) basis it has been solid.
    I have both the CHPWS and FCD plates as well, and the designs each take a slightly different approach. The CHPWS design uses the threaded posts (or T-nuts in the GEN4) to increase thread engagement over the OEM plate. The tradeoff for the additional thread engagement seems to be using smaller screws to mount the optic. While both the CHPWS and FCD plates use tighter tolerances to lock in the optic, the FCD has ever so slightly tighter tolerances (you can't put a Holosun on a FCD plate for the RMR, for example) and a fence on both sides of the optic to prevent any forward or rearward movement. FCD seems to think that the OEM thread engagement on the MOS plate is sufficient, but the MOS plate makes no attempt to prevent movement of the optic other than the mounting screws.

    I'm not terribly swayed one way or another by the use of steel in the FCD plate or aluminum in the CHWPS plate. The FCD plate is dimensionally identical to the OEM plate in terms of thickness, and you can use the OEM screws to secure the optic to the FCD plate. Both plates let you omit the Trijicon sealing plate.

    I think either is an upgrade over the OEM plate. So far I've had no cause to complain about either.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  7. #17
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    There are some things that are unresolved in my mind, and I would like to see testing on.

    1) are metal guns harder on optics than polymer guns.

    2) is an optic in a direct milled tight pocket more reliable or less. I used to believe a tight pocket supported the optic and made it more reliable but recently someone with lots of exposure commented that he believed a plate provides cushion and makes an optic last longer.

    3) would an Acro style mounting arrangement be better than alternatives.

    4) is the CHPWS plate significantly better than a MOS plate properly loctited and torqued.
    1) Between the LTT 92 and Chambers 1911 cuts now, we might get some broader-based info;
    2) Leaning against your original hypothesis - between all of the Type 1 RMRs I broke and one broken Shield mini-red dot that all were direct mount;
    3) Not enough info from others with Atei's Acro cut yet to offer thoughts, though I'm happy with mine;
    4) Without a CORE or MOS cut slide, I can't offer an opinion.

    @SoCalDep -
    Thank you. I'll have more info, insights, thoughts by this time next month.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus View Post
    1) Between the LTT 92 and Chambers 1911 cuts now, we might get some broader-based info;
    2) Leaning against your original hypothesis - between all of the Type 1 RMRs I broke and one broken Shield mini-red dot that all were direct mount;
    3) Not enough info from others with Atei's Acro cut yet to offer thoughts, though I'm happy with mine;
    4) Without a CORE or MOS cut slide, I can't offer an opinion.

    @SoCalDep -
    Thank you. I'll have more info, insights, thoughts by this time next month.
    Not surprisingly, the direct mill shops are certain a custom pocket supports the optic better and provides better optic longevity. The plate guys are certain a plate provides give and provides better optic longevity.

    Two summers ago, on PF, we thought the direct mill option was better for optics, but that was in part based on my DP Pro experience. As it turned out, the units I had on direct milled slides were from the reliable manufacture era, and that gutted that theory.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Not surprisingly, the direct mill shops are certain a custom pocket supports the optic better and provides better optic longevity. The plate guys are certain a plate provides give and provides better optic longevity.

    Two summers ago, on PF, we thought the direct mill option was better for optics, but that was in part based on my DP Pro experience. As it turned out, the units I had on direct milled slides were from the reliable manufacture era, and that gutted that theory.
    I spent three decades testing exactly this sort of thing for one of the world’s largest sporting goods manufacturers. A testing protocol could certainly be devised using accelerometers and strain gauges to definitively answer this question. I would think a company like Trijicon would have already done this internally, but since becoming an independent consultant, I have discovered that most companies, including those in firearms manufacture, are actually pretty limited as to test capabilities and protocols- not to mention imagination when it comes to this sort of thing.

    The design of experiment would be pretty easy, but execution would take some logistical effort (and incur some cost) to be statistically significant.

  10. #20
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Had only one PMO in this week's class - a Trijicon Type 2 w/3.5MOA dot anodized FDE.

    Mid-day Tuesday the dot was gone & had ben replaced by a horizontal line. The emitter window was still there. Talked with the student about history Trij issues, including batteries. That night he changed the battery as well as cleaning the emitter window and the lens. Came back Wednesday and the optic was inoperative once on the line.

    He already has an RMA from Trijicon.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •