The state of the art in so-called red dot sights (which, confusingly, also come in green, and may be a simple dot, or a circle-dot, or a more complex reticle) has advanced considerably in the last few years. I've previously used Swampfox Optics units such as the Liberty, Justice and Liberator, all of which have since been updated to second-generation versions (follow the links provided for more information). More recently, I've been mounting Gideon Optics Omega and Advocate units, both for my own use and for a few of my disabled students from earlier times. I'm also testing two new models from Riton Optics.
As part of the process, I researched the problems some have reported with mounting red dot sights. Common complaints include (but are not limited to):
- Mounting plates required by some pistols (e.g. Glock MOS, S&W M&P 2.0, etc.) can be too light and flimsy to truly secure the sight to the gun. Some are even reportedly made of plastic rather than metal.
- Mounting screws for sight to plate, and plate to gun, can be simply too small to maintain their tension, even if thread locker is used. The G-forces generated as a semi-auto pistol's slide moves back and forth under recoil are very hard on screws at the best of times, and even more so on small screws, which can "back out" under the pressure. Some gunsmiths specialize in drilling out and re-tapping the relevant holes to take larger screws, but not all of us have access to them, or sufficient funds to allow for such modifications.
- Some lower-cost red dot optics find it difficult to stand up to a heavy diet of rounds. This applies particularly to competitors, or those who practice and train frequently with their weapons. For such individuals, cost of optics is secondary to the requirement that they be tough and reliable. Cheaper sights such as those I mentioned above are simply too cheap to stand up to the treatment they give them. For the rest of us, who shoot (say) several hundred rounds a year over five to ten range sessions, the lower-cost optics will generally be OK. If it lasts the first few hundred rounds, it'll probably last the next few thousand! Also, companies like Swampfox or Gideon warranty their optics, and will repair or replace them free of charge if necessary.
Second, the mounting process. Using a thread-locker on the screws (such as Loctite, Permatex, or a competitor) is essential! I strongly recommend using a gel-type thread-locker, rather than a liquid, for two reasons. One is to avoid splashes or drips on things you don't want to lock (and believe me, that happens!). The other is that thread-locker liquid appears to be a perishable substance. Leave it unused too long and it becomes less effective, to the point that it may no longer serve its purpose. Gel thread-lockers, in my limited experience, don't appear to have the same problem. Can any more knowledgeable reader comment on that, please?
Another useful technique helps overcome the limited holding power of smaller screws. Apply RTV silicone gasket maker, sealant and adhesive to the base of the sight and the base of the mounting plate before installing them on the gun (or directly between gun and sight, if it doesn't use a mounting plate). That will hold them pretty strongly in its own right, even without the help of the mounting screws. Be careful not to use too much, or too strong an adhesive, because you will probably want to remove the sight at some point! I use Permatex 80050, but there are many other brands and varieties out there. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
One potential problem is that on some firearms (particularly the Glock MOS narrow-slide models, but including a few others), the extractor system is fitted beneath the screw holes used by the red dot sight and/or mounting plate. If a screw is too long, it can protrude into the space used by the extractor system, and cause problems. Filing or cutting a small amount off the bottom of the screw (being careful not to interrupt or damage the screw thread) will cure them. You'll find videos about it on YouTube; for example, try this one. If you have a different type of pistol, but the mounting screws can still interfere with internal parts beneath them, the same fix may work for you.
So, there you are. Sealant-adhesive holding the sight to the mounting plate, and the mounting plate to the gun, plus clean, thread-locked screws, and you shouldn't have a sight come loose just when you need it to be rock-steady.
Peter
8 comments:
I don't get why the industry players can't just pick a footprint to be the "standard" and start making their sights fit the standard.
That way gun manufacturers only have to mill the slide to accept a standard footprint dot sight and no adapter plates would be required.
I mention this because I bought a slide for my G-19 that was milled to accept a Doctor/Noblex mount. I had to pick and choose between optics to fit that mount.
Yes, I could have used a plate, but I wanted to use "suppressor height" sights to still be able to use iron sights as a backup. The problem is with an adapter plate, the dot would be mounted to high and even the tall sights would be obscured, so I shopped around until I found a sight that A) I liked. B) I could afford and C) would fit the slide. I ended up with a Vortex Viper.
I'm pretty happy with it, but there are a couple of things I wish I'd have been able to get hat the Viper didn't have (mainly "shake-awake" functionality).
For a carry pistol, I'm not solely relying on an electronic sight...I MUST have a backup, manual sighting system; and I don't get how people with a dot mounted with an adapter plate can have useable Iron backup sights...am I missing something?
Anyway, this conundrum could be solved if they'd just pick a standard footprint...or is some of their profit model in selling $100 adapter plates? I don't know. Just seems to me that they'd grow the potential pool of pistol shooters willing to invest in a dot sight if they'd make them more standardized and easier to swap around.
I know I'd like to have a couple more of my "go to" pistols equipped with them, but I'm not going to invest the money in getting the slides milled for them, buy a sight and then discover that I don't like it, or a newer better one has been released that I want, but won't fit the mounting footprint I had my slide milled for.
Anyway...not that big a deal. I still shoot within minute of badguy with iron sights, so I'll just stick with that for now except on my one G-19 (which is a range gun, not something I carry).
I'm not certain if this is a valid point (and possibly it's so obvious it's really silly to bring it up) but any time I'm "cementing" two parts (if possible) I try to "degrease" them for a better bond (various chemicals/methods are available depending on the surfaces)
@boron: True dat. I didn't mention it because it seemed such an obvious step, but you're right. It does need to be repeated.
While I agree standards are great - the only response is: https://xkcd.com/927/
I use the paste Locktite. I have not had any problems. I have about 25k rounds on a Tisas 1911 9mm. On my Glock 10mm I have a Swampfox green dot that has about 1500 rounds. The 10 has a lot of recoil.
@Chris - True dat . . .
My two cents is to double-check the torque value, and make very sure the screw length is not too long or it will bottom out and give a 'false torque'.
One of my carry pistols uses a Red Dot. I misread the torque spec and under-torqued it. It held at first, and then decided to loosen during qualification (California requires qualification for every pistol on your permit) and drifted so I switched to backup irons. I flubbed a reload and put a sweaty palm-print on the front of the optic, which in the sunlight made it opaque and thus neither sight could be used. Still passed...
Agree with everything except sights that handle a few hundred rounds will last a long time.. I my experience if a sight goes 100 it may or may not go 500. If it goes 500 it probably will go a thousand but a few won't. If it goes a thousand it will literally last forever--but occasionally one will fail. We likely used different sights in testing.
Post a Comment