"Universal" optic milling

[gnappi]

I know that it's unlikely to get a M&P slide milled for all dot sights but is there a kinda sorta universal mount that more than one brand use?

 

[s&wchad]

I haven't used one, but there's this:
Smith & Wesson M&P Red Dot Adapter M.R.A. - by OuterImpact

 

[gnappi]

I haven't used one, but there's this:
Smith & Wesson M&P Red Dot Adapter M.R.A. - by OuterImpact

Thanks, I've seen them but I tried one on a Beretta and It was unnaturally high and regularly came loose. I'd really like that option you liked to in a milled slide.

 

[CB3]

Don’t go universal. It’s simply the manifestation of being unable to make a decision.

Universal mount milled slides are compromises. Its a solution only if all you’re going to do is go to the range and play with different sights. They are supposedly a budget approach to shooting many different RDS. The premise (shooting many RDS) is flawed.

If you are looking at seriously mounting an RDS for serious purposes, custom milled for one footprint will give the lowest and most secure mounting. Lowest is very important for ease of shooting and proper back up iron sight height. The need for secure mounting is obvious.

If you’re having problems choosing which RDS you favor given your priorities, there are hundreds of reviews to help you narrow down your choices. Finding shooters with an RDS, usually at a range, will provide you the opportunity to actually talk to folks about their decisions and likely even shoot different configurations to help with your decision.

You must mention your priorities/intended uses for such a gun to get helpful advice. If it is for CCW, your options narrow.

1. The RDS must be sufficiently expensive to be robust and reliable with a recognizable track record.
2. It must sit as low as possible in a milled slide.
3 It must have appropriate height front and rear iron sights to allow for cowitnessing through the sight’s window.

With these considerations in mind, the milling footprint for which you should look is the Trijicon RMR. This also fits the Holosun footprint and others. Between these manufacturers that meet the above criteria you should be able to find one or more sights that you will like and therefore simplify your milling decision. You will also find more places that can do the RMR cut faster for less.

 

[Fishinfool]

gnappi - Here is a guide that shows foot print specs, and what cut / mount fits what red dot sight.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/redire...optics-info.com/footprints-on-red-dot-sights/

Larry

 

[gnappi]

CB3: "It’s simply the manifestation of being unable to make a decision."

No it's more a resistance to being unable to make a change if a supplier goes out of business or wanting to move away from one brand but your point is well taken.

Larry... thanks that's 100% on point. I'd rather suffer fewer choices than be limited to one and that link goes perfectly with my comment...

"is there a kinda sorta universal mount that more than one brand use? "

 

[Saudade]

OK: Looks like Larry beat me to it: I'll leave this here anyway.

Have a look at this in depth article. It lists what RDS's are compatible with specific footprints.

Footprints/Mounting Standards on Red Dot Sights - Optics info

When I bought my CORE slide kit, I knew I was going to mount an RMR. However, I do have the rest of the plates in case I want to switch.

I also bought an RX slide form my 320. It has a Romeo1. It's footprint is unique so I'm "stuck" with it.

While I agree with CB3, specific RDS milling will give you the lowest and most secure mounting, you may not be able to take advantage of new models as the technology advances.

One example is the Holosun 507K does not use the RMR footprint, it uses a modified Shield. It has a dot and circle and comes in red or green. It's becoming very popular.

 

[darkpenguin_ak]

Don’t go universal. It’s simply the manifestation of being unable to make a decision.

Universal mount milled slides are compromises.

Does this apply to things like the M&P C.O.R.E. or Glock MOS pistols? I assume yes? Serious question.

 

[CB3]

Does this apply to things like the M&P C.O.R.E. or Glock MOS pistols? I assume yes? Serious question.

Yes.

When you use generic cuts with mounting plates you raise the height of the RDS over the lowest mounting possible. You also put a thin interface between the RDS and the milled slot, decreasing security of the mounted sight.

The RMR and most Holosuns share the same footprint and are very good RDS. Almost every reviewer not on the take recommends the Trij RMR. If the RMR is out of one's budget range, the Holosuns come in next. The chance that an RMR footprint cut will become obsolete is almost non-existent. The chance that a serious contender to the RMR will have a different footprint is also slim.

Shadow Systems has developed a mounting system that uses a shim at the rear of the cut instead of a plate. It's proprietary at the moment I believe. It keeps the RDS low and appears secure, but you have to buy their enhanced Glock clone to get it.

I have five milled slides with RDS--three Trij RMR, one Holosun 507c and a Shield RMSc on a Shield v. 1 9mm (also a widely used footprint for the smaller sights on smaller guns). These are fighting handguns, so that is what I am talking about. If someone just wants to play with red dots on a range, do whatever.

My research as I entered the RDS world over five years ago convinced me the milled slide is the best for serious performance, and all my guns are meant for carry first and anything else second.

There are other mounting methods that work. They just don't work as well.

Every fraction of an inch an RDS is raised above the slide has a cascading set of impediments--more torque on the mounting system; the need for higher BUIS (absolutely required for co-witnessing); harder to carry/conceal because the gun is taller than it needs to be; more difficult to use because the new sight plane is so much higher than standard irons; more difficult to use because the sight plane of the RDS intersects the path of the bullet for a shorter distance, etc. Any of these drawbacks individually probably doesn't mean much, but a few (or all) of them together add up to real disadvantages.

Research the recent thread here on the OP's disappointment with trying to put a Leupold Delta Point Pro on a CORE. Good sight, but not for a carry pistol.

Carrying a pistol for self defense is already a compromise. Any enhancement to a carry gun should be well thought out and properly executed with the value of human life in mind, whether yours or someone else's. There are a dozen or more RDS mounting approaches available so it seems confusing at first. However, with in-depth research both as to mounting and the RDS unit itself, the viable options narrow dramatically.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

I would concur with points 1-3 in Post #4 but would add that actual Warranty performance by the manufacturer should be factored in as well... Point 4, maybe?

As far as the "universal" mounting concept is concerned, what not just pick two of the most common (your favorite?) patterns and have the slide drilled and tapped for them? That ought to solve the dilemma posed in Post #6.

Cheers!

P.S. My PC C.O.R.E. factory sights co-witness with my Vortex out of the box. It plays just fine "on a range" but is not my 1st choice as a carry weapon, although I have holsters and would not hesitate to carry it under some circumstances. Nor do I have the need for an Aimpoint Micro T2s attached to a Leupold VX-5HD on my MSRs. It might be nice, but...

"Most carbon-based lifeforms on this, the 3rd planet from the Sun, operate on a bell-shaped curve...". More power to those on both ends!

 

[darkpenguin_ak]

Thanks for the reply. You made up my mind lol. Going with a milled slide. If I want one without a RDS I've got a 3.6 compact that works well. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Ethang]

I am just starting down the RDS path, but if I had it to do over again I would not buy a Core. I would get a standard slide milled for an RMR, as far back and low on the slide as possible. The farther from the chamber, the less cruddy blowback, milled makes a precise fit, not relying on a plate that puts the stress on the screws. Iron sights I would put the rear in front of the RMR instead of behind, with the heights as low as possible and still be useable.

 

[CB3]

. . . The farther from the chamber, the less cruddy blowback . . . Iron sights I would put the rear in front of the RMR instead of behind, with the heights as low as possible and still be useable.

I have not experienced “blowback” from the chamber fouling any of my RDS lenses with the rear sights behind the RDS. I have shot over 200 rounds in a day/session with no appreciable clouding of my front lens. I have shot many thousands of rounds and never experienced such blowback.

If I’m carrying with a clean lens, I doubt seriously the number of rounds fired during a (even extended) gunfight would degrade my RDS sighting abilities. I don’t think this is an issue.

Placing a rear sight in a place where it was not meant to be also does not make sense to me. The BUIS should be a completely viable, separate, effective sighting system. It is there to train one to use the RDS with the same iron sights as on a non-RDS gun. When the dot is always visible through the lens the irons are thereafter ignored. But the BUIS are also there in case the dot fails, so it should be a fail safe backup system that is exactly the same as irons on a pistol without an RDS. As well, if one removes the RDS and covers the milled slot with a fitted cover plate, the pistol will still have normal placement of the rear sight rather than a shortened sight radius that will require a different eye focus than other normal pistols.

One’s traditional sight alignment recognizes the size and shape of the rear sight as part of sight alignment, and this is especially true if one has a very low co-witness through the RDS. I like ~10% intrusion. It would be hard to pick up just the top of a rear sight placed in front of the RDS with the whole base of the RDS blocking the view of the rear iron sight.

Both the RDS and the iron sighting systems shoot to the same PoA/PoI. That is co-witnessing. It’s one of the best characteristics of a properly set up modern RDS sighting system. If there is no need to shorten the sight radius (there isn’t), and a rear sight obscured by an RDS is harder to see and use, I just don’t see the reasoning.

 

[gnappi]

Warranty is irrelevant because I bought a spare slide. I've also settled on the Docter /Vortex option as I have an optic with that mount which for the time being I'm happy with but I removed from the gun it was on.

I tried the sight dovetail mounts on one of my Beretta's and did not like it... Too tall, unstable.

Thanks all.

 

[Ethang]

I have not experienced “blowback” from the chamber fouling any of my RDS lenses with the rear sights behind the RDS. I have shot over 200 rounds in a day/session with no appreciable clouding of my front lens. I have shot many thousands of rounds and never experienced such blowback.

If I’m carrying with a clean lens, I doubt seriously the number of rounds fired during a (even extended) gunfight would degrade my RDS sighting abilities. I don’t think this is an issue.

Placing a rear sight in a place where it was not meant to be also does not make sense to me. The BUIS should be a completely viable, separate, effective sighting system. It is there to train one to use the RDS with the same iron sights as on a non-RDS gun. When the dot is always visible through the lens the irons are thereafter ignored. But the BUIS are also there in case the dot fails, so it should be a fail safe backup system that is exactly the same as irons on a pistol without an RDS.

One’s traditional sight alignment recognizes the size and shape of the rear sight as part of sight alignment, and this is especially true if one has a very low co-witness through the RDS. I like ~10% intrusion. It would be hard to pick up just the top of a rear sight placed in front of the RDS with the whole base of the RDS blocking the view of the rear iron sight.

Both the RDS and the iron sighting systems shoot to the same PoA/PoI. That is co-witnessing. It’s one of the best characteristics of a properly set up modern RDS sighting system. If there is no need to shorten the sight radius (there isn’t), and a rear sight obscured by an RDS is harder to see and use, I just don’t see the reasoning.

I am shooting a Core and do experience "crud" getting on the RMR lens. Yes, starting with a clean lens on your carry pistol negates this issue. However when training, especially in different lighting conditions the crud and reflections can be distracting. I thought it was related to the LCI on the Smith, but I have spoken to many other shooters, including a professional shooter who says the same thing. If you have not experienced it that is great.

As to the irons, running an RDS they are a fail safe. I don't want them protruding into the optic window anymore than absolutely necessary. If the dot works I want to see nothing but the dot, if it fails than a small adjustment to using the irons would be a minimal distraction, especially given there is different emergency sighting options with a RMR housing in the event of a failure. Like a lower 1/3 setup with an AR. I think one day sooner than later, the technology and reliability of an RDS will negate needing iron sights to a large degree.



As always, your opinions may be different and I respect that.

 

[CB3]

Concerning lens crud, I agree it can happen. The placement of the RDS is relevant. However, as seen in the photos below, my milled slides have my RDS further back than on a CORE. Maybe that translates to being less of a problem for me.

My front lens gets a little cloudy during extended use mainly from grease on my palm when I operate the slide overhand. I now typically wear a glove on my left hand for shooting classes. A rear sight mounted in front of the RDS would also have sharp edges right where my hand manipulates the slide.

However, when my lens gets dirty, I simply clean it with a lens brush, lens cloth and cleaner. Takes about as much time as loading a mag. Regular lens cleaning is part of RDS maintenance no matter where it or the rear sight are mounted.

I need to clean the rear of my lens more often because of stuff that falls into it while holstered concealed. Usually just the lens brush takes care of that.

For me, simple maintenance like this is a better solution than moving my rear sight in front of my RDS.

 

[The MONK]

I've got a SIG P320 with a factory milled slide and a SIG Romeo 1 Pro and just had the slide milled on my M&P 2.0 .40 for my DPP (original model with the actual "delta point"). I shoot very accurately with both. When I first got the S&W, I tried the universal Outerlimits dovetail plate. It wasn't bad but didn't come close to a milled slide. Now the Outerlimits plate is in a plastic baggie somewhere on a shelf.