RMR sights

RMR sights

This is a discussion on RMR sights within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Anyone have any experience with RMR sights? I tried some on a friend's Glock. I can see them being much more accurate than traditional sights, ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: RMR sights

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExactlyMyPoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,984

    RMR sights

    Anyone have any experience with RMR sights? I tried some on a friend's Glock. I can see them being much more accurate than traditional sights, so I am wondering what others think. They are rather spendy, though at around $700.


    Trijicon RMR™
    Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or Rapture....whichever comes first.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,499
    There are good points, and bad points about RMR sights. This has been kicked around alot.

    For the cost, I see no decisive advantage for my uses over a properly set up iron sight configuration.
    Tangle likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array WC145's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downeast Maine
    Posts
    957
    I have RMR02s on a FNP45 Tactical and a FNS-9, the RMR02 is the "always-on" 8MOA LED version. The Trijicon RMRs are pretty much top of the line as far as pistol appropriate mini red dots go, followed by the Leupold Delta Point. The only negatives I've heard of are a few instances of reduced battery life and those issues have been resolved by Trijicon under warranty.

    For me they work great. I wear progressive bifocals that make focusing on the front sight a pain, I have to tip my head back to find the "sweet spot" in the lens and that leaves my target even more out of focus than it would be for someone with normal vision. With the red dot I look through my glasses as I normally would and focus on my target instead of the sight and superimpose the dot on it so the target stays in focus all the time - big advantage, IMO. I like it a lot but be aware there is a learning curve, these changes take some getting used to since it's backwards from the way most of us have learned to shoot. If you have taller suppressor - style sights on your gun it makes it easier since the dot can co-witness with the sights like on a rifle.

    The suggested retail on the Trijicons might be in the $700 range but I bought one of mine from Slim's Tactical for $430 + shipping and One Source Tactical currently has them on sale for $425. Still pricey but not out of line with what a decent rifle red dot costs. No reason to expect that a quality pistol optic would cost less than a quality rifle optic, same technology in a smaller package. There are less expensive options out there but with optics, as with many things, you get what you pay for.

    “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Array Philly Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Posts
    1,128
    For $700 ( or even $400) I believe I'll stick with my Trijicons and Mepros, Thank You.
    Chicken Little? Who the heck is Chicken Little? And what does she know, anyway?!

    " The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man." Thomas Jefferson.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,873
    Bowie Tactical just did another one for me, milling the slide and installing a DeltaPoint 7.5 mil delta and suppressor sights. $743 total, including return shipping. Is it worth it? Depends.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  6. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Thank you WC145 for this: "...I like it a lot but be aware there is a learning curve, these changes take some getting used to since it's backwards from the way most of us have learned to shoot..."

    I've experienced that too. Just a word about cowitnessing sights. Bowie Tactical calls them BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights). It's not to be different, but to more accurately describe the role of the iron sights. They are really not for co-witness at all, they are for a backup sighting system in case the red dot fails or as David Bowie says it, sometimes you just don't see the red dot in some unusual positions.

    In discussing RDSs with a buddy that has used them for years and taught people to use them for years, he explains how he is forever trying to break people from co-witnessing sights and/or trying to get the dot centered in the window. Think about it: is if faster to find the dot on the target anywhere it happens to be in the window, OR, try to center the dot in the display, OR much worse, try to line the dot up with the front sight, rear sight, and target?

    The point is, co-witnessing is a misnomer. The iron sights are for backup, not co-witnessing.

    David explains that co-witnessing is ok to help in learning to use the RDS, but the goal is to get to the point where you can use the dot alone. As he says, and my buddy also says - it's just faster.

    The following are with regard to a SD gun and SD applications:

    As for the price you quoted, $425 - $430, BTW, Bowie Tactical Concepts charge $400 for the DeltaPoint but installation is $295 which puts the cost installed to $695.

    The OP asked about the rmr, not a rds. RMR is Rijicon's trade name; I doubt they can be had for less than $500. I'm not sure it was the OP's intent to be that specific, but if that is what he meant then the installed rmr is gonna run about $795.

    I should add that this is the price for one sight that can only be used on one gun!

    Of course one can get a gun such as the FN already cut for a RDS, but then the gun costs significantly more to start with.

    There are two real issues I see with RDSs, one, obviously the cost, and two if one has more than one gun in a carry rotation etc. is he going to have rds's on all of them?

    As far as the cost goes, one can do what I did. Spend $240 plus $50 for a Burris FastFire III and the dovetail adapter for his specific gun. That's still $290 but you don't get BUISs (Back Up Iron Sights).

    As for multiple guns, one has to decide to spend upwards of $700 per gun for RDSs; who can afford to spend $700 - $800 for every SD gun he wants to carry? Choosing not to put RDS's on all your carry guns leads to yet another problem - you get accustomed to having the RDS, and then it's not there because you've switched guns.

    Further, if one is using a RDS to correct an eye problem, then why does he need BUISs? If his eyes are so bad he can't use iron sights effectively and that's why he went to a red dot then why go to the expense to having BUISs that you can't use?

    My suggestion, if you have a vision problem, get your eyes fixed instead of trying to fix a vision problem with a sight. I have gone through the vision thing of not being able to focus on the front sight. But there is another option - monovision. That's what I have and I shoot pretty good (and fast) that way, if I do say so myself and I do say so.

    Monovision is one eye for distance and one for close up. $700 - $800 would probably be much better spent with eye doctors and contact lens and/or glasses than on a RDS. One way you'll be able to see, the other way, well...

    Monovision doesn't work for everyone; a very few are unable to adjust. Most seem to take to it like a duck to water - I did.

    I've shot very carefully with my Burris FastFire III on one of my Glock 17s. In slow fire, I'm more accurate with Pro Sights. About the same in rapid fire. RDSs are fun and they probably take less practice to shoot with, but is it worth $700 - $800? You can get 4,000 rounds of 9mm for $880 with free shipping ($220/1000; free shipping over $500 to $700). You can get an eye exam, which is really addressing the vision problem, for considerably less than $700.

    Nothing wrong with getting a RDS, just be aware of the whole picture. I have a RDS, Burris FF III and pretty much lost interest in it because I actually shoot better and faster with with Pro Sights.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,499
    Very well articulated Tangle, and I think spot on. One thing I have noticed is some people claim that because of vision issues, that the target is blurry. Well, the target is supposed to be blurry, and the front sight is supposed to be clear with proper use of iron sights. However, I do understand vision problems that may make it difficult to clearly see the front sight.

    Certainly, if one wants to have it, then hey, I say go for it. But stories demonstrating " amazing feats of accuracy" out past 100 yards due to hanging one on the gun is way overrated and in my opinion, a false demonstration. Its not hard to do the same with decent stock sights.

    Problem is, nowadays people want instant gratification and results without putting out effort, and use their wallets to try and compensate for the lack thereof.
    Tangle and OldVet like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array jdsumner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    riverview, fl
    Posts
    765
    Last edited by jdsumner; August 22nd, 2012 at 05:52 AM. Reason: found link to better discussion

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array WC145's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downeast Maine
    Posts
    957
    As for the price you quoted, $425 - $430, BTW, Bowie Tactical Concepts charge $400 for the DeltaPoint but installation is $295 which puts the cost installed to $695.

    The OP asked about the rmr, not a rds. RMR is Trijicon's trade name; I doubt they can be had for less than $500. I'm not sure it was the OP's intent to be that specific, but if that is what he meant then the installed rmr is gonna run about $795.
    Like I said, I paid $430 + shipping for one of my Trijicon RMR02s from SlimsTactical.com and One Source Tactical just ran a sale on them for $425.

    As for multiple guns, one has to decide to spend upwards of $700 per gun for RDSs; who can afford to spend $700 - $800 for every SD gun he wants to carry? Choosing not to put RDS's on all your carry guns leads to yet another problem - you get accustomed to having the RDS, and then it's not there because you've switched guns.
    Like I said in my post, cost is relative. Some folks don't seem to have an issue with a $450 Eotech and a $150 mount for their AR-15 but they blanche at the idea of spending a similar amount of money on an optic for a pistol, I suppose it's a matter of conditioning. Everyone is used to red dots on long guns and accept the cost as part of the package, since it's a newer concept on pistols it might be harder for some to take. My patrol rifle is a SIG556, I've got $400+ in the red dot sight I have on it. My FNP45T cost me about the same as my rifle, I've got $400+ in the red dot sight I have on it. What's the difference? If spending the money that way doesn't sit well with some folks, no one says anybody has to have an optic on any weapon, if the cost is an issue don't buy one.
    Also, I have no problem switching from a gun with a red dot to one with a scope to one with iron sights, I've been doing it for decades since not all of my guns have optics on them, in fact, most of them do not. I'm sure that other folks can work it out as well.

    Further, if one is using a RDS to correct an eye problem, then why does he need BUISs? If his eyes are so bad he can't use iron sights effectively and that's why he went to a red dot then why go to the expense to having BUISs that you can't use?
    I'm using RDSs because I prefer the target focused sighting method, I like having my target in clear focus all the time, like when I use my rifle. I also like having cowitnessed BUIS, just like on my rifle, they're always there if I need them. IMO, there's no reason to not have the same sighting advantages on a handgun as a long gun if available and appropriate to the intended use. Again, these are my preferences, not necessities. As far as eye sight and irons go, bifocals are an irritation that make front sight focused shooting a pain, not impossible.

    One thing I have noticed is some people claim that because of vision issues, that the target is blurry. Well, the target is supposed to be blurry, and the front sight is supposed to be clear with proper use of iron sights. However, I do understand vision problems that may make it difficult to clearly see the front sight.
    Yes, with proper use of iron sights the front sight is supposed to be focused and the target blurry but if you think about it that's an ass backwards approach to shooting. Everything else we do we focus on the target, imagine trying to drive a nail while focusing on the hammer instead of the nail, or throwing a pitch while watching the ball instead of the catcher's mitt. We're able to do those things effectively because we focus on the targets. There is a distinct advantage to being able to have a clear view of someone you have to draw on and being able to clearly see every move they make as opposed to having them out of focus to see the front sight and make an accurate shot. That's where these red dots sights excel - both eyes open, target in focus, clearly focused dot superimposed on the target. Once again, this is an accepted method with long guns and red dots, no reason the same ideas can't be effectively applied to handguns.
    “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,499
    "Yes, with proper use of iron sights the front sight is supposed to be focused and the target blurry but if you think about it that's an ass backwards approach to shooting. Everything else we do we focus on the target, imagine trying to drive a nail while focusing on the hammer instead of the nail, or throwing a pitch while watching the ball instead of the catcher's mitt. We're able to do those things effectively because we focus on the targets. There is a distinct advantage to being able to have a clear view of someone you have to draw on and being able to clearly see every move they make as opposed to having them out of focus to see the front sight and make an accurate shot. That's where these red dots sights excel - both eyes open, target in focus, clearly focused dot superimposed on the target. Once again, this is an accepted method with long guns and red dots, no reason the same ideas can't be effectively applied to handguns. "

    I don't see it as backwards at all. This technique has brought many good men home to fight another day, such as Jordan, Cirillo, and others. It seems to me, that shooters of the past who followed Col Cooper and subscribed to the " modern techinique" had a much higher success ratio than they do now using all the technology we have today.

    Front sight..press. In the engagements I have been in ( whether shots are fired or not) Once I identified the threat as a potential deadly force engagement, and drawn to engage, my total concentration goes to that front sight. It is easy to see the threats actions while doing this if properly trained.

    Having said that, I can see the ease of using the dot superimposed on the target, and the benefits. Between the two, its a simple training issue.
    But the red dot does not trump nor render the proper use of iron sights. It seems to me the real question is for the individual pondering it, is does the cost justify the end result.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,590
    Forget sights. I working on a programable bullet that you simply say, "Guy in black hoodie with firearm in right hand pointing this way," and the bullet automatically goes to target regardless of aim.

    What, no "Fire & Forget" bullets? Sure, they're expensive-but what's your life worth?
    glockman10mm likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  12. #12
    Ex Member Array ScottM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    716
    I haven't had the co-witness/BUIS issues others seem to have.

    When I draw, I look for the sights like I have for 30+ years. The red dot is there on the target and I press the trigger. It isn't anywhere near as complicated as some of you try to make it

    Co-witness does help shorten the learning curve, but there is so much more to the system.

    I've carried a G26 w/JPoint milled by TSD for a while now. I recently purchased a TSD/RMR slide for my G19. It has tritium night sights. I originally thought the extra dots would make the sight picture to 'busy'. Happily, this hasn't been the case.

    There are several threads on the RDS. This one is recent:
    Red Dot Rampage

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,903
    Quote Originally Posted by WC145 View Post
    Yes, with proper use of iron sights the front sight is supposed to be focused and the target blurry but if you think about it that's an ass backwards approach to shooting. Everything else we do we focus on the target, imagine trying to drive a nail while focusing on the hammer instead of the nail, or throwing a pitch while watching the ball instead of the catcher's mitt. We're able to do those things effectively because we focus on the targets. There is a distinct advantage to being able to have a clear view of someone you have to draw on and being able to clearly see every move they make as opposed to having them out of focus to see the front sight and make an accurate shot. That's where these red dots sights excel - both eyes open, target in focus, clearly focused dot superimposed on the target. Once again, this is an accepted method with long guns and red dots, no reason the same ideas can't be effectively applied to handguns.
    There's a big difference in shooting vs your two examples as throwing and hammering depend on hand/eye coordination and involve constant adjustments throughout the hand/arm motion whereas it is the front sight that ultimately and instantaneously determines where the bullet goes. However, that's a good point wrt keeping your assailant in focus; but how quick can you change focus to something already in your sight plane vs. being dependent on the life of batteries/electronics + cost. Also, with practice you can also learn to shoot irons with both eyes open which is a skill that transfers to any gun you shoot.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array WC145's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Downeast Maine
    Posts
    957
    I don't see it as backwards at all. This technique has brought many good men home to fight another day, such as Jordan, Cirillo, and others. It seems to me, that shooters of the past who followed Col Cooper and subscribed to the " modern techinique" had a much higher success ratio than they do now using all the technology we have today.

    Front sight..press. In the engagements I have been in ( whether shots are fired or not) Once I identified the threat as a potential deadly force engagement, and drawn to engage, my total concentration goes to that front sight. It is easy to see the threats actions while doing this if properly trained.
    Yes, it is backwards, in everything else we do we focus on the subject/target, this is the only thing I can think of where we intentionally take our attention away from the the object we're engaging and focus it somewhere else. That isn't natural, that's learned behavior, staying focused on your target is natural. Sure, it's the best method we've had to work with since we've only had iron sights up until recently but the times they are a changin'. I'm not saying that we haven't been well served by iron sights or that they don't work. When I was in the service all we had was the M16 rifle with iron sights - no red dots, no lights, no sliding stocks, flak jackets instead of body armor, no kevlar anything, and we got by because we had to work with what was available. Now my son is in and he's issued goodies that we never dreamed of just 30 years ago - Aimpoint sights (yes, with BUIS, nothing wrong with a back up plan), weapon mounted lights, body armor and helmets made from exotic materials, hell, the sunglasses they issue him are practically bullet proof! These advancements have been adopted because they work better than what we had before. I agree that MRDSs are not the all that ends all and if you don't want to buy a one for your handgun, don't. I'm just pointing out that if you care to make the investment there are very real benefits to be had with this new technology.



    You know, every time one of these threads come up the same guys come out to complain about the red dots and extoll the virtues of good ol' iron sights because that's the way we've always done it and it works, they're too expensive, can't replace training, yada yada yada. Instead of constantly trying to show why these things aren't needed or where they fall short why not look for the advantages they offer over doing things the old way. Jordan, Cirillo, Cooper, et al, were pioneers and moved us forward from the old ways into "modern" combat handgunning by embracing and extolling the virtues of new methods and technologies. I find it hard to believe that they'd just dismiss the benefits these sights can bring to the fight.

    I think we can all agree that an ice box will keep your beer cold and doesn't require electricity, but pretty much all of us own refrigerators these days because they do the same thing only a whole lot better. Keep an open mind.
    “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,499
    You are way off base with my take on this. I am certainly not against them, as you suggest. Why would I be?
    But in the interest of objectivity, it's always a good idea to look at both sides of coin.

    It could just as easily be pointed out that people who use these sighting systems are also vehement about their uses and virtues over iron sights. And, like I pointed out, they have their advantages.

    But in the spirit of what forums are supposed to be for, and in fairness to the people who inquire about such things, is it so bad to have alternative points of view, or as you say, keep an open mind.

    And, what greater disservice could be rendered to those seeking advice than to only get a one sided view point, or to allow someone to skip the process of learning the iron sight system and go strait to technology.

    Think it doesn't happen? Most people today who buy the AR go straight to mounting all manner of equipment on them and have no idea or knowledge of proper use and doping of the sights. Some budget level guns are sold with cheap red dots sans any iron sights at all, and people are buying them!

    So in all good conscious, I will always make sure that the mind is " kept open" when I render my opinion or advice. Giving one all the necessary info to think for themselves is always a win.
    Beans and Mike1956 like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

best rmr
,
best rmr for pistol
,

best rmr sight

,
how to use rmr sight
,
p226 with rmr sight
,

rmr sight

,

rmr sights

,
rmr vs fastfire 3
,
trijicon rmr
,
trijicon rmr vs burris fastfire
,
what is an rmr sight
,
what is rmr sight
Click on a term to search for related topics.