I have a GSSF coupon and torn between getting a plain 19.5 to be milled or a MOS variant.
Initially, I was thinking of getting a plain variant and milling it for P2. However, it seems that Holosun 509t is slightly better. Would it make sense to mill for an RMR and then use RMR > Acro or RMR > Holosun plates?
Any other thoughts/suggestions? Or is getting another MOS makes it easier?
Plates are an unnecessary failure point--unless you need the flexibility of mounting different footprints. But, the new MOS-direct Holosun SCS optics make it a more interesting option to me. Personally, I'd still go with a direct-milled 509t2 or RMR/Holosun EPS
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
I agonized over the same decision and ultimately went MOS. Never bothered with the stock plate and went straight to FCD. Followed the advice here for mounting and haven't had issues
I checked out a buddies direct mill and was surprised to see it had the same optic height. I'm sure someone out there does lower profile milling, but it's no guarantee of a slimmer package
At the rate we're seeing new optics come out (Acro, 509, SCS, EPS...) I'd be hesitant to commit to a single footprint. Especially with the prospect of MOS specific options like the SCS
No right answer -- the two previous posts sum up the pros and cons.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
If the SCS pans out, there may no longer be a need for milling if they make a variant for your pistol.Originally Posted by littlejerry
I prefer to have the optic at the lowest possible height, so it's directed mounted, no adaptor plates for me.
I do think a good direct mill is the best way to mount an optic for durability, and I’ve been satisfied with the couple direct-mill guns I’ve had, but I switch optics enough that at this point everything I have is a plate system of some sort. Even my Agency guns are AOS plate systems. When mounted right with the right equipment they are plenty durable.
I had a G19 milled for a 507c. Since this will also take all of these I think it will be viable for a while. The other issue is to direct mill for an enclose emitter. If milling for a 509t or an Acro will future optics still fit?
Trijicon RMR
Trijicon SRO
Holosun HS407C
Holosun HS507C
Holosun HS508T
Riton X3 Tactix PRD
NcStar VISM FlipDot Pro
Swampfox Kingslayer
Has this been the case in that large volume sample of dotted guns you've observed in your classes?
Asking because I've heard the opposite opinion from some high volume shooters. The speculation was that plates might serve sort of like shock absorbers. This was a few years back, I don't know if those people still held same opinions. Anecdotally, my two hardest use pair of guns are set as a plate system one and a direct mill another. Both are sporting SROs and it was a direct mill gun on which the SRO broke at around 12k. Plate gun's SRO is approaching 20k. Obviously sample size of 2 doesn't say much.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
I wish I could give you a definitive answer.
Yes, the plates are an additional failure point, and it is really easy to find bad examples - both factory and after-market. However, there is the advantage of being able to adopt new offerings relatively quickly.
My most frequently used pistols are all milled, direct mount guns. And I'm quite happy with how solid they are.
I'm hopeful that the OEM direct mount slides will expand beyond being agency-only, L/E-only purchase.
Along that last line, I'd really like the industry to agree on two, three footprints total (both bolt across and bolt down into) to aid in fixing the mounting problems going forward.
Reply With Quote