>tfw want this What's wrong with me? I mean how practical/reliable

They are very practical and reliable. As electronic optics for pistols continue to improve, it is only natural that you will see more of them.

Why would it be odd to want that?

>>29580923
I don't know just that having electronics/tritium on something that is supposed to contain a small explosion seems like it won't be durable. What's the warranty like on Trijicon RMRs?

File: DSC_0910.jpg (99KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x424px

>>29580940

Five year limited but they typically fix shit well outside of warranty, and for things like tritium lamp replacement they charge a reasonable price.

The fiber optic ones will never need to be serviced unless you break the window other than if you want or need to replace the tritium 15 years from now, and they will always perform fine in good ambient light.

I have gotten over 2 years of battery life on a single battery from my rmr 02 (generally considered the best option for carry)

Old picture.

>>29580976
Is it consistently on? Can you turn it off?

>>29580976

I will add that while the rmr 02 feels fucking solid I have had good results from cheaper optics, too. I have a fastfire 3 on a 1911 with a dovetail mount that is past the 15k round mark now, and it only lost zero once. After that I loctited the attachment screws and have had no issues.

>>29580983

Rmr 02 is always on and self adjusts for ambient light to save battery. There is no need to turn something that lasts for years off, the batteries are like a dollar.

Some of the LED RMRS have adjustable dimmers, like the one in your picture, but mall ninjas and tactical monkeys like Gabe Suarez say they can be hit during movement aND are not as good of a choice. The auto dim / brighten on the 02 is so good I never wanted an adjustable.

The tritium / fiber optic versions cannot be cut off, onviously. They are dimmer than the LED versions and when shooting from a dark or shaded spot into a bright one it can be hard to see the dot.

>>29580912
How much superior are these to iron sights? I'd pick one up for my 19 but I'd be concerned about getting a holster for it since it's my edc

>>29581015
What's cheaper to buy a MOS 19 off the bat or send it to Zev later?

>>29580940
>contain a small explosion
>contain
>explosion
>small
>on a glock

0/10 apply yourself

>>29581037

Probably to buy a MOS. I don't have a MOS and they weren't an option when I did mine, but a mill job at L&M precision (used to be the go to guys) was around 150 or 175 I think back then. The MOS has plates for different optics too. There are games in town other than the RMR, although popular consensus seems to be the RMR is the most durable. The Deltapoint has a bigger viewing window, for instance. The fastfire series are a great value. People seem to like the vortex dots as well, and doctor, eotech, and jpoint are also options and most need different mount setups that the MOS or ATOM setups can use, whereas a specific mill job like mine has might make cowitnessing a little easier (maybe? Just based on appearance).

>>29581031

You will find making farther shots and smaller targets is MUCH easier, but you might actually find your time to first shot and splits may be a bit slower at first.

The ideal solution is to cowitnessing irons and optics.

>>29581096
This is accurate. Having the dot makes precise shooting much easier, but until you've practiced with it a decent amount, it will slow you down as you have a tendency to search for and chase the dot, especially on close/large targets that you'd hit faster with an 'acceptable' fuzzy front sight focus.

There's also a strong tendency to throw shots from crushing the trigger as you try to make the shot happen RIGHT NOW as the dot passes briefly through the target.

>>29581086
Mill in will set the optic lower than any factory adapter plate option. Some handguns (mainly ones without a plunger style firing pin block) can have the dot milled in low enough that it co-witnesses with the factory sights (no suppressor sights required).