Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 161

Thread: Trijicon RMRcc

  1. #11
    Site Supporter CCT125US's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    This has a listed 3 MOA adjustment per click, which equates to .628 inch at 20 yards. RMSC has .25 inch adjustment at the same distance for reference.
    Taking a break from social media.

  2. #12
    Member Xhado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Helotes, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post

    How so?
    Proprietary footprint (wont fit Glock or Sig)

    Bottom loading battery

    Requires additional sealing plate

    Base is taller than the Shield/HS, which means that co-witnessing with standard height sights may not be possible.

    Keeping the RMR's poor window position. RMRs work better the closer they are to your face (on a rifle). Some of the window is obscured when it's on a pistol farther out in front of your face.

  3. #13
    Chasing the Horizon RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Mounting options overview snipped from the product support sheet posted on the Trijicon web site:

    https://www.trijicon.com/uploads/pro...pec_Sheet..pdf

    Name:  6D95ECD5-9B30-48B2-A2F9-51062DB6E77B.jpg
Views: 1766
Size:  37.4 KB

  4. #14
    Gucci gear, Walmart skill Darth_Uno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    STL
    Quote Originally Posted by Xhado View Post

    Bottom loading battery
    I know exactly nothing about why optics are built the way they are. And I know the RMR wasn’t originally designed for handguns, people just figured out how to mount them on slides. But it seems like Trijicon could’ve made an accessible battery a consideration for new designs. Especially seeing how everybody else has one (including themselves). Removing and rezeroing your RMR is hardly difficult, but could be avoided.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  6. #16
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by Xhado View Post
    Proprietary footprint (wont fit Glock or Sig)

    Bottom loading battery

    Requires additional sealing plate

    Base is taller than the Shield/HS, which means that co-witnessing with standard height sights may not be possible.

    Keeping the RMR's poor window position. RMRs work better the closer they are to your face (on a rifle). Some of the window is obscured when it's on a pistol farther out in front of your face.
    Agree on all counts, but they aren’t automatically fails for me. The height is my biggest concern - some of the photos I’ve seen of the compact Shield on a 48 MOS sure make it look like the factory sights are usable as a backup. I really want to avoid suppressor height sights on a 43.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  7. #17
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by CCT125US View Post
    This has a listed 3 MOA adjustment per click, which equates to .628 inch at 20 yards. RMSC has .25 inch adjustment at the same distance for reference.
    Another thing - the G&A video mentions no clicks in the adjustment. I’m not sure how I feel about that on an optic designed for carry and defense.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  8. #18
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by jh9 View Post
    From the gunsandammo.com link upthread:



    I realize the body (and thus window) has to be smaller to accommodate smaller slides, but where is the point of diminishing returns re: window size?

    The 5.0 MOA SRO I have on my 320 has plenty of visibility. Even with a less than perfect index, the dot is still (usually) somewhere in the window. The other RMR-size optics I've played with weren't so forgiving. If you go smaller still this looks like it'll be great for M/GM-level shooters who practice enough to build a consistent index and have a tiny version of their CO gun for actual carry... but I just can't see this working out for anyone else.
    I think this window will be similar in size to the one on my Ruger MkIII - small but workable, especially for the intended purpose. But practice is the key - a 200 round a year guy is probably going to be painfully slow with a window this size.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    small but workable, especially for the intended purpose. But practice is the key - a 200 round a year guy is probably going to be painfully slow with a window this size.
    Yeah. Maybe that's a good thing, though. Nobody's going to mount one of these on a CO division piece, and I want the 200 round a year guy to trade speed for accuracy when he's popping off rounds in a parking lot.

  10. #20

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
  •