Leupold Delta Point Micro (DPM)

[Elwin]

My first thought was, "Hey guys, now you can make the back of a Glock slide even harder to conceal."

I'm not a dot guy, and I'm sure that's not the biggest problem, and maybe they're not even marketing it as a carry thing, but damn.

[RevolverRob]

I really thought this was a troll from Leupold.

This trash is real.

Damn, 2020 Strikes Again.

[Lex Luthier]

I kind of like it, but only if they add brass trim, a couple of exposed gears, and a provision to fit it to the Mannlicher Model 1901 and still clear the hammer.

(I'll see myself out.)

[farscott]

While I am not fond of the package, how it makes the pistol longer, and how it is not compatible with the SCD, I am quite impressed that the electronics fit into the sight volume. I look at the DPM as a branch off the development trunk of the MRDS. I expect the developments that led to the smaller package will be used on future designs.

I also wonder what requirements drove the DPM. That is a very pistol specific design. I wonder if the DPM was a way to meet requirements in an agency or .gov RFQ. If the original customer was an agency with open carry, I could see how the design would make more sense. No need for the users to access the slide internals and open carry makes the increased length less of an issue. Plus no need to deal with adapter plates or slide milling, lowering cost and depot-level part inventory.

[ETA] I might consider one for a VP9, should a model be offered. [/ETA]

[RevolverRob]

Actually, I thought of a good application for this. Internal hammer revolvers ala J-Frame bodyguards.

[HCM]

Recoil article with good photos:

https://www.recoilweb.com/leupold-de..._GroBpjEBBNzs8

[DamonL]

Do you think they were trying to meet the CBP RFI?

https://soldiersystems.net/2020/02/0...glock-pistols/

[littlejerry]

While I am not fond of the package, how it makes the pistol longer, and how it is not compatible with the SCD, I am quite impressed that the electronics fit into the sight volume. I look at the DPM as a branch off the development trunk of the MRDS. I expect the developments that led to the smaller package will be used on future designs.

I also wonder what requirements drove the DPM. That is a very pistol specific design. I wonder if the DPM was a way to meet requirements in an agency or .gov RFQ. If the original customer was an agency with open carry, I could see how the design would make more sense. No need for the users to access the slide internals and open carry makes the increased length less of an issue. Plus no need to deal with adapter plates or slide milling, lowering cost and depot-level part inventory.

[ETA] I might consider one for a VP9, should a model be offered. [/ETA]

Frankly I'm surprised that no one has brought to market a non-replaceable(or at least no quick change) battery option. Cell phones and smart watches went this route long ago to optimize size and packaging without sacrificing durability.

You could also justify a smaller, lower cappacity battery if all it took was half an hour connected to a magnetic charging cable to hit 100%.

[farscott]

Do you think they were trying to meet the CBP RFI?

https://soldiersystems.net/2020/02/0...glock-pistols/

I do not believe so based on the following requirement in that RFI that requires the sight to mount to the "MOS-Cut".

Shall mount to the handgun slide MOS-cut directly, without the use of adaptor plates.

[DamonL]

True, but it meets a lot of the requirements.