RMR on Glock 34

[338lapua]

and if the red dot goes south, or dead, whats next, throw it at the target, just saying
maybe mabye not
Rj

The RMR is the only one proven reliable, if Aaron Cowan can't kill it with his over the top abuse I say they are good to go. I would have stayed iron sights if the RMR was not being made. I am not beating mine like Aaron does but I am now at over 6,000 rounds with a optic that gets a beating every time a round is fired.

[338lapua]

Had a Venom that didn't last 20 rds. Sent it back. They sent back a new one. I then sold it without even trying it. Went with RMR and also Burris fast fire 3. Not one single problem with either one.

I sold my replacement in a sealed box too when I got it. I may buy another one when I convert all my suppressed 22 pistols to a dot soon, I think they can handle that application.

I bought this Venom. It's on my 22/45 Lite and it's been great but of course I wouldn't expect there to be any issues.

The Romeo1 has pretty good reviews so I want to check that out eventually. The shield RMS seems interesting too since you can co-witness with OEM sights but I'm not sure it's all that rugged when compared with the others if you're hard on things.

Look at Sage Dynamics youtube page as he tests them and I don't believe the Shield lasted very long. He killed the Romeo before lunch in one morning.

https://www.youtube.com/user/SageDynamics

And the shield rms test where it failed

[superdrag67]

I've actually seen that video before. He is purposefully hard on the pistol RDS's to try and break them. It's good to see the limits but it's not a realistic representation of how it would normally be used. It's not like anyone would sit around slamming the optic against hard objects to chamber a round or drop it optic first onto concrete repeatedly. I think for a range toy the RMS would be fine. If you're planning on it being a carry gun I would go with an RMR for sure.

I haven't seen his Romeo video but I think there were issues with earlier ones that were fixed. I'll have to check it out.

[shooter444]

and if the red dot goes south, or dead, whats next, throw it at the target, just saying
maybe mabye not
Rj

I remember when throwing an empty handgun at the bad guy was written into Hollywood movies all the time. But, now, with all the plastic frames, an empty pistol won't even make a good hammer in a old time western.

Humor aside, you bring up an excellent point! This is something that I thought of extensively, just before I installed a Red dot on my MP, many years ago. Because I think it is a very serious 'WHAT IF" with a carry piece. I have never felt comfortable betting my life on electronics, of any kind.

After some research, I found a guy on line with a video promoting two hand point shooting, from waste level, with elbows locked against both sides of the body. It seemed rather awkward and funky, until I tried it. Now, it is my initial shooting position for 10 yard practice. It really didn't take any time at all to get good at it! It turned out to be so efficient, comfortable and natural, I began wondering why I needed the Red Dot at all.

Hell, I began wondering why I needed ANY sights on a pistol!

Then I moved out to 33 yards and quickly realized "WHY A RED DOT". I have satisfied my need for accuracy quite nicely even out to 50 yards with a Red Dot. So, I guess I answered my question of "WHY A RED DOT"!

Back to your post, yeah, even without a functioning Red Dot, the job can get done when up close and personal, imo.

[knockonit]

i am very proficient to almost a hundred without a red dot, practice it religiously, whilst not a hundred percent, it is enough that i will hit what i'm aiming at.

the red dot is for target fun and exploration, not for me for a full time carry, not gonna rely on electronics to make me a better or good shooter, either i am or not.
just my opinion. gonna stick to ti.
Rj

[shooter444]

I doubt that a red dot makes anyone a better shooter, but I know it gets me on target faster. Which is all that I wanted and expected from one. If it didn't, it would be back on my rifle, in a heart beat.

[338lapua]

I've actually seen that video before. He is purposefully hard on the pistol RDS's to try and break them. It's good to see the limits but it's not a realistic representation of how it would normally be used. It's not like anyone would sit around slamming the optic against hard objects to chamber a round or drop it optic first onto concrete repeatedly. I think for a range toy the RMS would be fine. If you're planning on it being a carry gun I would go with an RMR for sure.

I haven't seen his Romeo video but I think there were issues with earlier ones that were fixed. I'll have to check it out.

Sig Romeo review out, can you guess the results?

[338lapua]

So the Glock 34 mounting plate keeps coming loose. Screws have thread lock on them and twice it has loosened to the point of a shift of the bullet impact. The M&P has also come loose as well and that is with thread lock as well. Hope I don't have to go with red loctite to keep them from coming loose. Torqued to 15 inch pounds, may have to go to 20-25 to stop them from shifting.

[Azbuilder]

Speaking of mounts, what mount are you all using? I had been looking at the https://www.jtdefense.com mounts. Thoughts?
Thanx

[delta6]

Knockonit, just my opinion, but, setting up for co-witnessing with the front sight, kind'a defeats the whole purpose of a red dot sight on a pistol. I have always believed that the evolution to red dot sights was to shorten the time needed to get on target, compared with lining up two sights to get on target. Higher/suppressor sights would be an unnecessary expense, imo.

I have elevated/co-witnessed a front and rear sight so they could be seen through a red dot, but only as backup for a red dot failure.

Actually, co-witnessing with the front sight enhances the use of a red dot on a pistol. The physics for most in shooting a pistol is to either find the front sight, place it on the intended target or locate the intended target and place the front sight on it. Then our focus goes to the rear sight and we align the rear sight, flat across the top, even daylight on the sides. Once aligned, then our focus goes back to the front sight for the shot. With a red dot, the issue is not alignment, the issue is finding the dot. Unlike a rifle, where we have 3 points of contact to align and find our sights, with a pistol we basically have one.
When standing, we draw our pistol and if we have a great draw stroke, finding the dot is some what easier, but not guaranteed. We know where the gun is and where it should be at extension but we are dealing with 3 planes our head, arms and the firearm. Since the dot can be anywhere in the window and since the window is relatively small finding it can be at times problematic. Again, some can do this better than others, practice always helps, but the real solution is co-witnessing.
By having a front sight on your pistol, co-witnessed with your red dot, when you draw or aim your firearm you go thru the normal process of bringing the firearm level with the target, placing the front sight on your target, but at that point the red dot appears and the front sight disappears.
The issue of having a rear sight is always an interesting discussion. Is it absolutely necessary; that is for each individual to decide for himself. For me, since red dots on slides have had their issues, I have to agree with knockonit, having a complete set of back-up sights, if your red dot goes south is probably good insurance.

[shooter444]

Delta6 your pistol sighting recitation is 100% correct, at least to this neophyte, it sounds right!

But, I have to disagree with your opinion on mixing a red dot system with iron sights.

By mixing the two, you are trying to marry two totally, world apart, sighting concepts. Red Dot technology was developed (IMO) to increase target acquisition speed, by eliminating the need of lining up two sights (front&rear), to shoot.

I believe, introducing iron sights into the Red Dot sight system, restricts at best, and hinders at worst, the ONE SIGHT ON TARGET PRINCIPAL, by forcing it back into the multiple lined up sighting system.

Not what I went to a Red Dot sighting system on my pistol, for.

As you stated, getting a red Dot on target can be challenging, at times. Which substantiates my position, that mixing a possibly problematic Red Dot characteristic and aligning it with iron sights, only compounds any negative inherent characteristics, of getting on target.

NOT that training to line up a Red Dot with Iron Sights isn't possible and may be an advantage to some! I just don't see the advantage! Actually, just the opposite!

By mixing/co-existing (IMO) causes even more of a sighting problem than using either ONE, or, THE OTHER.

A RED DOT doesn't need the red dot in the center of the lens to hit your target. It just needs the red dot on target, no matter its lens position. That is one of the amazing things about a single sighting, red dot system!!! Now, not having the red dot in the center of the lens may be sloppy shooting, but, in a confrontation, getting on target, any way you can, is more important, (IMO).

If one has a problem getting on target with a RED DOT, obviously more practice is required, as you inclined. Just as practice with iron sights, is standard procedure, if one is deficient.

As I stated before, having iron back up sights for any electronic sight is prudent, as you stated as well!

I just can't see any advantage of mixing the two.

[JMpcc17]

IMO. Red dots on handguns are great for target shooting fun. And that's it.

Vortex is a fine outfit regardless of model. Customer service is exceptional.

[superdrag67]

I've actually seen that video before. He is purposefully hard on the pistol RDS's to try and break them. It's good to see the limits but it's not a realistic representation of how it would normally be used. It's not like anyone would sit around slamming the optic against hard objects to chamber a round or drop it optic first onto concrete repeatedly. I think for a range toy the RMS would be fine. If you're planning on it being a carry gun I would go with an RMR for sure.

I haven't seen his Romeo video but I think there were issues with earlier ones that were fixed. I'll have to check it out.

Sig Romeo review out, can you guess the results?

Yeah, not good. Oh well. Maybe someday a company will come out with a real competitor to the RMR.

[338lapua]

IMO. Red dots on handguns are great for target shooting fun. And that's it.

Vortex is a fine outfit regardless of model. Customer service is exceptional.

I hope Vortex brings their sights up to somewhere close to the RMR as far as durability of the electronics as I like them as a company but they are lacking in durability for the high volume shooters.

Yeah that's why the military and police are starting to get comfortable with them. Red dots on rifles in the military and with police is here to stay and nobody ever has a issue with this but they do when it is on a pistol. I am now getting to the point where I am increasing speed with the red dot now that I have learned not to loose the dot on recoil. 60 shots Glock 34 60 shots M&P CORE both with a 3.25 moa dot. .25 splits on the M&P and on the Glock I was getting .20 and lower splits so 4-6 rounds in a second and this kind of group at 10 yards. I would be at .4-50 splits with irons to get this group.

[338lapua]

Speaking of mounts, what mount are you all using? I had been looking at the https://www.jtdefense.com mounts. Thoughts?
Thanx

I am using the Glock and S&W mounting plates. All my slides are cut for optics. I am thinking about having one of my guys mill a Glock slide for me where I can directly mount the RMR to the slide without a plate.

I like what they did with the mount but it is a little high for my tastes as I want it lower but I think it would work fine. They need to make it for the RMR.