Standard Mount System

[ssc45]

I have no engineering or mechanical background. However, it appears that the mounting systems for the RDS feature 2 failure points. I know that there are folks on this sight who seem to be able to minimize these issues. First is the mounting of a plate to the slide and then the mounting of the RDS to the mount/plate. From a layman's point of view, this seems archaic.

It would seem to me that there needs to be an open source standard mounting system. This system would be incorporated within the slide of all pistols. It would seem to mimic the standard picatinny mount that is incorporated into a standard AR upper. It would then be incumbent on the RDS manufacturer to make their RDS with the standard base. Seems like the way the ACRO mounts to a plate would be a good system. If I understand it correctly, there would be only one cross bolt to tighten. Hence, no more plates would have to be attached to the slide and no more screws to be used to attach the RDS to the a plate. Plates would be a thing of the past.

Just some random thoughts. I am probably missing something. Your thoughts???

Cheers, Steve

[DaBigBR]

It's not happening. Variety of reasons.

There are too many companies making too many footprints and some of those are design necessitated. Trijicon is not going to change the RMR footprint. Leupold is not going to change the DPP footprint. Shield is not going to change the RMSc footprint. Aimpoint is not going to change the ACRO footprint. They just are not. There is too much invested by all of these companies and probably too much ego to change them.

The needs are different between open and closed emitter optics. You can't put screws through a closed emitter optic. Maybe you can do an open emitter with a clamp style attachment, but nobody is doing it. Maybe there's room for something there. But when the entire world is willing to accept slide milling, aftermarket slides, and plates, where is the incentive for a manufacturer to do it? Compacts also have different needs. So do competition guns. How do you come up with a way to meet all of these needs in one footprint, even if you can get the optics manufacturers to all agree?

Then you accept that there are hundreds of thousands or millions of guns and optics already out there. The military is basically the last to the table here, so an argument like 1913 driving development is likely moot. When you look at the genesis of the AR platform and the development of red dot optics, it's no wonder that we ended up with 1913 the way that it is. Conversely, look at weapon mounted lights for handguns - thirty years later we are just now starting to see the "universal" rails disappear, although the compact gun market is creating its own set of issues.

I think the closest thing to "universal" that you're going to see are improvements in factory cuts. I like Sig's newest cuts that have DPP and RMR screw holes. It means your plate to adapt for a lot of optics does not need to include any threaded holes for the optics, so they end up thinner and lower.

Sorry if this reads a little disjointed...I'm writing on my phone in the middle of something else.

[CleverNickname]

[DaBigBR]

As I've thought about this more, I'm not even sure 1913 is a good parallel.

Sure, 1913/Picatinny/Weaver are everywhere. They provide a ubiquitous interface between the optic and the receiver...except that in large part, they end up being more of an interface between an optic mount and the receiver. On the other side of the equation you've got Aimpoint Micro, MRO, Holosun 510C, EOtech, 30mm tubes, 34mm tubes, etc. There are a TON of popular long gun optics footprints.

If I want to get rid of my MRO and get a T2, I have to buy a new mount, and for the most part, we just accept it. In a lot of cases, I pay a lot more for the mount than I would for a new plate or for slide milling. Sure, the secondary market for optics mounts is better than the "buy my used milled slide" market, but the limited amount of secondhand plate sales I've seen seem to go okay.

[HCM]

As I've thought about this more, I'm not even sure 1913 is a good parallel.

Sure, 1913/Picatinny/Weaver are everywhere. They provide a ubiquitous interface between the optic and the receiver...except that in large part, they end up being more of an interface between an optic mount and the receiver. On the other side of the equation you've got Aimpoint Micro, MRO, Holosun 510C, EOtech, 30mm tubes, 34mm tubes, etc. There are a TON of popular long gun optics footprints.

If I want to get rid of my MRO and get a T2, I have to buy a new mount, and for the most part, we just accept it. In a lot of cases, I pay a lot more for the mount than I would for a new plate or for slide milling. Sure, the secondary market for optics mounts is better than the "buy my used milled slide" market, but the limited amount of secondhand plate sales I've seen seem to go okay.

That’s not a good analogy because carbine optics can afford to have modular mounting (different heights etc) Because they are not subjected to anywhere near the stresses of an optic on a reciprocating pistol slide.


I agree that there should be a standardized pistol optic footprint and that the ACRO or at least a similar cross bolt footprint should be it.

Unfortunately I also agree with you that it’s unlikely to ever be truly universal. There is no reason and open a Measure optic could not be built with a cross bolt mounting system. You may see some standardization in things like police duty guns.

I do expect we will eventually see some optics that direct mount to the Glock MOS cut.

[SoCalDep]

I do expect we will eventually see some optics that direct mount to the Glock MOS cut.

Probably, if for no other reason than the Border Patrol RFI, but it’s still a sub-standard solution. It may be popular for a while, but it’s old tech and will loose out to something. In fact, I think the writing is already on the wall that four screws isn’t “perfection”, and two screws probably isn’t either. One screw sounds way better, and it exists.

If not an ACRO footprint, it will be a one screw or less solution before optics reach maturity. Everything else will be neat old stuff.

[RJ]

Nice to think about in engineering terms...the Nighthawk IOS system that's been mentioned a few times here is a good example of a system that's in the market place already.

Another option is an intermediate step. Say a one-time, red-loctited in place, pair of T-posts instead of the current mounting screws. Then design a new side clamping optic footprint that slides in under the T-posts and locks in place with a cam-over lever. You could retrofit all previous standards this way.

Or another approach is to treat the optic slide cut not straight up and down, but more like a 90-degree turned, large, dovetail mount. The optic body would be pressed in, like a really big rear sight, across the slide, but with the ends under and into female "dovetail" angles milled front and back. These would be matched by the same 45 degree angle male cuts on the optic body. The stress would then propagate through the large metal to metal surface area, across the slide width. Retention could be via a screw or clamp, but the force needed to retain the optic sideways would be far less.

It's going to take a team with a fresh approach on this to develop something that works to make the next step forward. The whole "use two threaded fasteners which take the entirety of the recoil impact" is less than ideal.

[HCM]

Probably, if for no other reason than the Border Patrol RFI, but it’s still a sub-standard solution. It may be popular for a while, but it’s old tech and will loose out to something. In fact, I think the writing is already on the wall that four screws isn’t “perfection”, and two screws probably isn’t either. One screw sounds way better, and it exists.

If not an ACRO footprint, it will be a one screw or less solution before optics reach maturity. Everything else will be neat old stuff.

I agree it's a substandard solution but as the Russians say Quantity has a Quality all it's own.

[JSGlock34]

Considering the M17/M18 uses the DPP footprint I thought Leupold might have the best chance at a future mil-standard MRDS footprint.

Surprised to see that SIG is now offering a Romeo optic that fits the RMR footprint. Sigh.

[Noah]

Considering the M17/M18 uses the DPP footprint I thought Leupold might have the best chance at a future mil-standard MRDS footprint.

Surprised to see that SIG is now offering a Romeo optic that fits the RMR footprint. Sigh.

No kidding, which one? They seemed pretty invested in the DPP footprint with the R1Pro.