IMO, the Romeo Zero gets a bad rap most of the time. Mine has been as dependable as my Holosuns.

Mine has been 100% for me so far.

If they did that sort of torture test with any other brand that had a glass lens, I'm pretty sure the lens would be toast.

I'm sure they are fine and if you're carrying it use the cover for it

Good to see the Romeo Zero did OK. I thought it would fare far worse. I use the Holosun and expect it would do better in the long run.

After a previous issue came up about "drop testing" and what constitutes the industry standard, I searched online and found the precise protocol. That wasn't it.

A few taps on a log, no.

Others report that dropping an RMR equipped handgun from about arm's height onto a concrete floor (also not to standard) will result in serious damage to the optics glass.

One of the issues I have with all of them is they won't use "gorilla" or near unbreakable glass in their optics. Nobody claims it can't be done, but the eventual result is that broken glass prompts a purchase of a new optic. Very few watch manufacturers are pursuing it, either. The ones who do are cell phone based tech, not legacy watches.

In DS1 there were conex loads of broken optics shipped back from Iraq. I don't expect them to be invulnerable to damage, but after 20 years its time to insist on some practical upgrades, too. You can drop an M4 out of the back of a truck onto asphalt and concrete, the optic should survive it and be operational. A red dot isn't a precision optical device - like, binoculars. And yet those can and do withstand a great deal of abuse.

We need to up our game and RMR's will force that.

quote:

Originally posted by ThankGod4Sig:
I'm sure they are fine and if you're carrying it use the cover for it

No, I'm not going to use the cover for a couple of reasons. First, I'd have to cut off part of my IWB holster to make it fit with cover and second, I'm convinced it would have come out much the same without the cover.

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:
After a previous issue came up about "drop testing" and what constitutes the industry standard, that wasn't it.

A few taps on a log, no.

Others report that dropping an RMR equipped handgun from about arm's height onto a concrete floor (also not to standard) will result in serious damage to the optics glass.

So, exactly what is the "industry standard" for testing these? IMO, the most vulnerable part is the hood, so dropping it on the hood represents the worst case scenario to me. The rest of it is probably going to be pretty bulletproof.

My buddy has a Romeo zero. Only thing I don’t like is the button-ology. I very much prefer the up and down intensity buttons of the Holosuns. It’s enough of an improvement to mean that I would never buy a Romeo zero for myself. Their price point is outstanding though.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
My buddy has a Romeo zero. Only thing I don’t like is the button-ology. I very much prefer the up and down intensity buttons of the Holosuns. It’s enough of an improvement to mean that I would never buy a Romeo zero for myself. Their price point is outstanding though.

I could agree with you if I used the up/down on a regular basis, but I've now got a total of 7 red dots on guns and in each case I've set up the brightness, tweaked it a little on a couple of them, then never touched it again.

That being the case, it really doesn't matter to me that I have to go through the loop.

That’s interesting. I find I adjust the dot constantly. Inside my house I move the dot intensity as the lighting changes. Going outside I definitely change the dot. The only real rule for me is that you can make it too low but it’s harder to make it too high. Ie, it can disappear whereas on the highest end it can be too bright but at least I can see it.

My DPP has the similar wonky adjustments. Cycle through or hold for a set amount of time, but not too long, and reverse. It’s goofy and shitty. At least they made the Pro way better than the original DP which sucked. I gave it to a buddy and even for free he got rid of it. The set screws for sighting in were retarded. The DPP was a huge improvement but in that category I will take my SRO any day.

It kind of amazes me you never have to adjust intensity. Just between indoors and outdoors that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

And explanation of drop testing to a mil standard for cases and some electronics:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/...drop-test-standards/

These guys say there is no "rating," just incluion on a list for ballistic lenses:https://blog.safetyglassesusa.com/how-to-identify-ballistic-rated-eyewear/

ANSI Z87.1 for safety glasses: https://blog.ansi.org/2020/04/...ty-glasses-eye-face/

Looking at Eotech's and Aimpoint's web pages doesn't quickly lead to technical standards, what kind of glass, etc as a lot of that is proprietary. Unlike, say, G Shock watches which describe the standard that engineer used - a 30 foot drop onto concrete. The watch had to remain functional altho it should be expected some abrasions or dents might happen..

The military standard of a 4 foot drop onto 2" of plywood over concrete would seem fair enough to simulate general abuse, altho not worst case. I haven't found where the optics makers call out they did or didn't perform to whatever listed standard might cover it.

I'm thinking we just take their word for it and if you do come up with a new and original way to break it, it's abuse.

As an aside, the gun industry protocol: https://saami.org/wp-content/u...proved-3-14-2016.pdf

I will bluntly ask how many of us are even aware of the SAMMI test number for this protocol, and how often we see Z299.5 bandied about in forums or gun news sites? There are more who are familiar with the Z87.1 safety glasses because their work require it. And G Shock owners are more likely to have a working knowledge of how much abuse their watch can take. Imagine strapping an RMR onto your wrist playing golf, taking a shower, changing a water pump, or changing tires on your 4WD truck. A G Shock would last years and do. Even todays better cell phones are highly water resistant and have gorilla glass to stop the breakage.

Red dots are just a couple of flat lenses and an emitter. A new Holosun is solar powered - something Citizen Watch has been doing since the 90's - and has an internal battery with 30k hours constant on. We are finally getting to wrist watch level tech - certainly NOT bleeding edge or even current state of the art for electronics.

So far anyone who does have a link to an industry wide optics drop testing standard is certainly welcome to post, over the years tho it's been conspicuously absent from any reviews and certainly isn't something heralded on maker websites to prove their optic is the One Optic To Rule Them All. Which, as we know they sure as heck would do to gain market advantage.

I think 30 feet onto concrete isn't ridiculous because at that point its in free fall - it can't go any faster (neither can we but don't try to find out.) If it comes to rest with no lens breakage and still operates, good. Attached to a weapon - cause that will happen, and the extra 9 pounds is significant. I doubt we'd find many that could survive a 4ft fall on their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:
I think 30 feet onto concrete isn't ridiculous because at that point its in free fall - it can't go any faster (neither can we but don't try to find out.)

I believe you’re referring to the terminal velocity of an object which is the maximum speed it can attain while falling through air. According to the limited research I’ve conducted, terminal velocity of a skydiver falling in a stable, belly-down position is about 120 mph, and is achieved after a fall of about 350 meters. A red dot sight may have a lower terminal velocity due to its higher drag, but I’d bet a nickel that it wouldn’t reach TV in 30 feet.

I’m not even sure the scenario where I could drop my handgun 30 feet. That’s like dropping it above the roof of a 2 story building. Forget the issue of whether the optic works after that, I’ve literally lost my gun in a firefight. Who cares if the optic works ifs it’s at ground level and I’m on the roof of a 2 story building. Lol

I don’t anticipate combat in the rest of my lifetime. My military days are long past. I ccw. I’m not likely to break an optic. I’m more likely to drop the remnants of my fried egg sandwich into it than I am to break it. If it breaks I use the backup irons or I point shoot. That’s the reality. If I was a cop the metric would perhaps be different. As a civilian, breaking an optic doesn’t even move my needle off the peg.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tirod:
I

I believe you’re referring to the terminal velocity of an object which is the maximum speed it can attain while falling through air. According to the limited research I’ve conducted, terminal velocity of a skydiver falling in a stable, belly-down position is about 120 mph, and is achieved after a fall of about 350 meters. A red dot sight may have a lower terminal velocity due to its higher drag, but I’d bet a nickel that it wouldn’t reach TV in 30 feet.

Without getting too far afield, terminal velocity in a stable face-to earth position for the typical jumper is about 120 mph, typically attained after 1,000' of freefall. Other positions, such as head-down or "max track" can achieve 250 mph or higher. Small objects like a pistol will achieve higher velocities.

I've done a lot of test drops using experimental packages on parachute research flights; where the parachutes don't deploy, the objects hit the ground at some high rates of speed, typically embedding themselves well beneath the surface.

For testing purposes, the pistol isn't going to reach anywhere near a terminal velocity, and frankly, I don't care what optic someone puts on there. It's not going to be much good after an impact at anything close to a terminal velocity.

30' is not remotely adequate to achieve terminal velocity unless one is dropping a feather.

Since the protocol for handguns under SAMMI testing is four feet onto a 2 inch plywood surface over concrete, a red dot might survive that on its own, but will it attached to a firearm? More weight faster acceleration and higher terminal velocity.

Hence the conex loads of premier milspec optics reduced to junk. We aren't supposed to drop a firearm at all, especially loaded, but it happens. It's hard to make one go off - in one notorious test it took over 500 attempts, not conducted to standard.

How many times should we drop a red dot for testing purposes, and can it be replaced for the next drop test in the series? With a firearm, there are about half a dozen drops and replacement is allowed IIRC.


Killing an optic is taken in stride as normal wear and tear - taxpayer gets the bill anyway. If we could double the impact resistance for $5 - 15 more in cost, would it be worth it? The gun can, why not the optic?

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:
More weight faster acceleration and higher terminal velocity.

You continue using that term. Are you sure you know what it means?

I'm glad the sight works well for you. I prefer other brands. I do enjoy the 1 Pro, though.