I "think" I see differences in possible milling depth between makes/models of pistols. This got me to wondering just which pistol design allows the deepest milling cuts .... and therefore the lowest mounting of the RDS?

With no evidence/proof at all I'm thinking probably Glock?

Thanks for your thoughts ...

I'll grab my micrometer and measure a few for you (I've milled quite a few different guns), but only if you can explain why you think it matters...

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I'll grab my micrometer and measure a few for you (I've milled quite a few different guns), but only if you can explain why you think it matters...

Sure. CONTEXT: I've been shooting for over 50 years, but "plinking" would probably be a more accurate term. I've taken, later in life, a couple pistol training classes, by local folks. I had a little rifle training by my uncle Sam in 1969. With this caveat in mind.

Old eyes, RDS is very helpful to me. I've shot a few on friends pistols. I laid in a G19 MOS so as to be able to try various RDS. The adaptor plate I found for a Leupold DP-P was very thick, and of course the DP-P is one of the taller RDS. I didn't have co-wittnes BUIS. After some dry fire, and a couple hundred rounds I could shoot it fine (for me.) By that I mean I could bring the pistol off "compressed ready" and have the dot on target, 95% + of the time. I try to maintain focus on the target ... got that off the "inter web" somewhere?

I've ended up with quite a selection of RDS; DP-P, RMR, 507c (Holosun), Shield, ACRO, Romeo1, SRO, one of the Vortex? When I maintain focus/concentration (I am a 70 year old Texas Aggie) I didn't really feel a difference in RDS ... there is a red dot on target (or close) adjust and fire. My not great trigger control is another issue.

Within this context; I find I prefer a lower mounted RDS because I adjust to it quicker as I change RDS ... and because I like the aesthetic a bit better (of very limited importance.)

I'm curious (short answer).

I would hazard a guess that the 1911 is theoretically up there, until you factor in the mount that is required because of the narrow slide.

But I, too, question why it matters. At least within the real world range of variations involved. Maybe gun X can sit .015 or .025 inches lower than gun Y, but are you going to notice? The height of the optic is a relatively similar thing and when you consider the relatively negligible difference in usability (if any) between, say, the RMR and Deltapoint Pro despite the Leupold being noticeably taller in the body, it's hard for me to feel like it matters. Now, stack a mounting plate plus a taller optic and you might be onto something, but that's not the point of the discussion.

Visibly the 1911 is way lower in the slide after milling than a glock on milling, but you can't mount anything.
The answer to your question is going to be a bit of a running post as I get stuff and measure it.
But to the above I am sure that the optic height differences will dwarf the milling differences so let's get those out of the way initially.
An RMR is 24mm high not counting the needed sealing plate. I'll measure that shortly.
An SRO is 34.5mm high
An ACRO is 29.5mm high
That doesn't give you optical centers, but the differences are probably related to those.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Visibly the 1911 is way lower in the slide after milling than a glock on milling, but you can't mount anything.

Is this due to how thin the profile is?

quote:

To answer to your question is going to be a bit of a running post as I get stuff and measure it.
But to the above I am sure that the optic height differences will dwarf the milling differences so let's get those out of the way initially.
An RMR is 24mm high not counting the needed sealing plate. I'll measure that shortly.
An SRO is 34.5mm high
An ACRO is 29.5mm high
That doesn't give you optical centers, but the differences are probably related to those.

Interesting ... I had not thought about the "base thickness" in these terms. But the thinner base of the RMR, and smaller (less tall) glass would count for "lowering" the dot noticeably.

The lowest mount I have used is the Shield RMS, with the shield low profile MOS mounting plate, it did co-witness with the Glock factory sights. I "think" I found this setup quicker to acquire the dot. I appreciate your thoughts and numbers.

EDIT: Sorry for the delayed response ... life got in the way.