Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Display size and shootability

  1. #11

    RMSc again

    I didn’t like the measurement I took on the RMSc so here it is traced better.

    Name:  C535BF47-A2E1-42FF-9F10-061D72B390B2.jpg
Views: 261
Size:  42.4 KB
    Pointing at cardboard things.... CO GM, working on PCC.

  2. #12
    Not sure how much work it would take, but if we could get a picture of each of the optics with your measurement, maybe we could list the optic, it’s nominal size, the footprint, and show a picture of the display?
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  3. #13
    Wow, great thread and information. I am but surprised at how tiny the RMR and ACRO windows are. I have a SRO and a 507k and the difference is drastic. To think that the acro, designed for full size duty guns, has a smaller window than a 507k for a tiny single stack is baffling.

    @JCN had a really good post somewhere about why window size matters when shooting at speed. Prior to shooting dots I thought it was for acquiring the dot but he made it clear that the bigger window makes it easier to track the dot. So with small windows you will/can lose the dot in recoil meaning if you’re shooting to vision you’re going to be slower because sight tracking will be more difficult.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Not sure how much work it would take, but if we could get a picture of each of the optics with your measurement, maybe we could list the optic, it’s nominal size, the footprint, and show a picture of the display?
    I think that’s entering @RJ land with a whole lot of detail for no functional purpose.

    People are going to either pick a large window gaming dot or a small window rugged dot.

    Out of those choices they’ll pick based off other primary criteria with minor window differences being moot.

    Like I pick the SRO based off reliability over the R3M and window is what it is.

    I picked the RMSC based on the light sensor over the 507k and the window is what it is.
    Pointing at cardboard things.... CO GM, working on PCC.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    I think they’re shipping out Dec 6th so I can do that if people are interested.

    In the meantime:

    DPP
    Attachment 80835

    507c
    Attachment 80836

    507k
    Attachment 80837

    R3Max
    Attachment 80838
    Awesome info. Just curious, why did you switch to centimeters on the 507k and R3Max?

  6. #16
    Disregard. It's gotta be a typo.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by cornstalker View Post
    Disregard. It's gotta be a typo.
    Correct sorry. I didn’t click the toggle box to inches for the label.
    Pointing at cardboard things.... CO GM, working on PCC.

  8. #18
    If I had thought about it more I wouldn't have piped off about it. It's obvious enough, had I been paying attention. My apologies.

  9. #19
    I wonder if you put a 507K plate from CHPWS, on a PDP, if the RMSX would work on the Holosun plate? I think the RMSC works on the 507K footprint, but not the other way around.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    I wonder if you put a 507K plate from CHPWS, on a PDP, if the RMSX would work on the Holosun plate? I think the RMSC works on the 507K footprint, but not the other way around.
    If you read the link I posted it’ll help.

    You also have to be more strict on what you’re calling “footprint.”

    There’s “footprint” which is the mounting hole spacing and physical dimension of the base.

    And then there’s mounting system which includes the bosses and dimples which is kind of specific to the plates and cuts by manufacturers.

    So for example: Some cuts and plates for RMSc don’t use bosses. Those work fine for 507k.

    P365XL cut is like that. There are also Jpoint adapters like for the Smith revolvers like that.

    But then there are cuts for RMSc that don’t work for 507k. The footprint is fine (physical base dimension and mounting hole spacing) but the bosses are too high and wide. Brownells G43x and I hear the G43x MOS is like that too.

    But that’s easily remedied with a Dremel to grind off the bosses.

    The Holosun mounts have less and smaller bosses. Will work with RMSc.

    RMSx would work on a Holosun plate either directly or with some massaging and the answer to that question is in the link I posted. Look at the plate and look at boss pattern.

    The one thing I don’t know is related to that particular plate. If it’s just the width of an RMSc/507k then an RMSx will overhang the sides just a whiff but they’re pretty close. If the plate is super snug front to back there’s a chance you might have to fit clearance it or the optic just a whiff as well.

    But for functional purposes yes it should work +/- minus minor massaging.

    I plan on getting Holosun’s RMR to 507k adapters if I like the RMSx a lot.

    I will probably drill and tap my frame mounts for the Shield hole spacing to mount them as low as possible.
    Pointing at cardboard things.... CO GM, working on PCC.

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
  •