Does a low optic cut really matter

[NoTacTravis]

This is more of a hypothetical rather than anything that affects my shooting path or current build. Nor am I really attempting to say that I think people should abandon their pursuit of of a more perfect slide cut.

(From my reading at least) it seems like the settled consensus on slide mounted optics is hands down "the lower the better" with everyone wanting to mill deeper and deeper. LTT completely reengineering the the locking block to achieve this being probably the best example. Glock competitors debating an MOS system over an aftermarket cut to get a little deeper seems not uncommon as well.

However, when I look at all these super high dollar open guns running right at the edge of human performance using frame mounted optics, no one really seems to much consider it a problem that the optic is sitting considerably higher. Understandably they do this for logistics reasons, sight tracking during recoil, and equipment longevity. But open shooters just don't seem to much care that their optic rides so high.

Given that the open division has pretty much the fastest shooters acquiring effective sight pictures the absolute fastest with the least room for time errors, it doesn't seem to much affect them that their optic is riding a few millimeters higher.

I can understand that the closer the dot is to to the slide, the easier the transition would be from irons. But I'm wondering if it really matters.

Pic of JJ Racaza with an open gun:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAJ

Aside from carry and concealment issues, does the mount height of of the optic really matter "on the clock" once you practice a bit with your rig?

[olstyn]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges, given that Open guns' optics do not reciprocate with the slide, and those guns usually don't even bother with iron sights at all. Mount height would directly impact how tall the irons need to be in order to co-witness with the dot, and *maybe* hardware longevity - the higher the dot is mounted in the slide, the longer the "lever" that acts on the optic during recoil is, so I would speculate that mounting the dot lower *might* extend its lifespan.

[YVK]

Personal experience of shooting the same gun with optics mounted at five different heights (2 different optics - 3 different mounting solutions) was that it didn't matter a bit for shooting the dot. I also don't find it problematic when my match and practice gun have different mounting systems and place those SROs slightly differently.

Where it matters is not transition from irons but back to irons. Less relevant for games, more relevant for something else.

[Archer1440]

Offsets at various distances are also less of a thing with closer-to-bore RDS solutions. Concealment improves the lower one goes as well.

[NoTacTravis]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges, given that Open guns' optics do not reciprocate with the slide, and those guns usually don't even bother with iron sights at all. Mount height would directly impact how tall the irons need to be in order to co-witness with the dot,

Not sure that I agree with it being an apples to oranges for that reason. I don't think most Carry Optics competitors are bothering with co-witness irons these days with their slide mounted optics? Personally, I'd planned on removing the irons for a competition gun (in CO). Just seems like more to clutter up a sight picture if it's not a carry/duty gun.

Points on slide reciprocation and mounting height might definitely be valid though.

But still, open guys don't seem to see a real issue in sight acquisition. I've heard arguments that getting the pistol itself "out of the way" of the target below the sight picture might actually be a good thing.

[SoCalDep]

I agree with @YVK , though I have very little experience with the “open” style guns. I wouldn’t think things would change much other than getting used to it like you would get used to shooting a different gun. The trouble is holsters, snagging, aesthetics and iron sights.

Some taller optics won’t fit in some holsters, or require front sights so high they won’t fit. That can be frustrating. Speaking of the front sight, the taller it is the more likely to snag on things. I’ve seen a lot of people snag the front sight on the rotating hood of an SLS holster. This is a bit more of a training issue but an issue nonetheless. Of course, there comes a point where the optic is so high or mounted in such a way that irons aren’t practical. As much as I’m solidly in the pro-dot camp, I want those bumpy things there too.

Lastly is the looks department. While it’s probably higher-level thinking to value function over form - there’s certainly optics/guns that look cool and those that don’t. Lower/sleeker seems to win in this area.

All that to say I want the practical benefits of being able to use the optic and have irons available, I want it to look good if possible, but I don’t really care that one cut is slightly lower than another unless it does something like allow the use of the factory sights.

[Brotherrat]

In terms of usability, no it doesn’t matter. Your assessment that it doesn’t appear to slow down open competitors is spot on. A fraction of an inch one way or another, as in MOS Glocks vs milled, doesn’t change anything IME.

[GJM]

I “understand” lower is better, but I can’t tell any difference shooting different heights. Higher may even be more comfortable with the slide mounted optic as sometimes I need to dip my head a bit to center the display. For shooting fast, I like a higher dot on my PCC.

I believe “lower is better and a smaller (dot) is better” comes from precision rifle shooting. Max M made this exact point earlier this week on his podcast.

Where lower is definitely better is if you can get away with standard height sights as BUIS, like with the RMS Shield or Zev slides. I also prefer as close to the bore as possible for a laser.

[Clusterfrack]

I strongly prefer a lower RDS on a handgun, because the height affects my index and wrist angle. However, having a straight head and neck position is very important. Interestingly @GJM, I used to run a low scope height on my precision rifles, but found that taller rings yield a better cheek weld, and face position. Many rifle shooters are moving away from the barely off the barrel scope height. Tall RDS mounts are all the rage for carbines now too.

[JCN]

IMHO:

There isn’t an inherent advantage of lower cut for slide ride dot except for:

Having to account for holdover and height over bore at varying distances (minor issue).

Different optics have different body to window heights (Deltapro has a very tall body).

Once you do get used to one system, it affects your grip and presentation angle like @Clusterfrack says.

But if you had two new dot shooters and gave one guy an optic combination that rode 4mm higher than the other, told them to dry fire for a month and then objectively tested the performance, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference.