You missed my point. It’s a small ape rapture to sight through in both sights. I understand the SAS isn’t a “see through” but my pint was its unforgiving of bad eye placement. If you bring the gun up in a poor position the dot isn’t visible. You have to maneuver to get dot. Same for the red dot. A huge advantage of red dot optics is that if you can see the dot you can get hits. This tiny window means is is less forgiving. Period. This isn’t really up for debate. Tiny window means your eye to sight placement has to be better.

Looking forward to you guys buying this thing and wringing it out. Unlike the reviews so far on YouTube where the guy does a mag dump and declares it a winner. No idea if he even saw the dot but the mag dump was fast. Or 5he guy who said it was just as easy to pick up the dot as on a larger window. Seriously, if you are going to lie about the basics I’m done watching your review. (I actually still watched his review, it was visibly glowing with praise).

I trust you guys more than those guys.

I'm not sure this is the case. The 'box' for iron sights is pretty small. The new DP is just consistent with the limited box of using irons. Would the RMR allow for a larger 'box' - I guess so. But I'm not sure the DP is practically limiting; it may just enforce a more stringent presentation.

You may be right as I really don't have any experience with the RMR yet; overall, I think I'm still faster with irons (or at least more comfortable). With a smaller aperture, perhaps if presentation is off, it's more intuitive how to adjust the gun to find the dot.

I'm not put off by the DP micro yet. I'd like to give it a shot.

Although I have very little experience with using illuminated dot reticle sights on handguns, one significant difference between them and irons is that the iron sights come into our peripheral vision very soon in the target engagement process and that allows us to know where they are and adjust their alignment during the process. If the optical sight isn’t oriented well enough to see the reticle at all, which is often the case if the “presentation” isn’t very good, then we don’t have that advantage. That’s why we see the advice that using a conventional RMR sight requires extensive practice to master (although a mere 10,000 target engagements or so from any one starting position should be sufficient ).

That said, it’s possible that the relatively small viewing area and tunnel-like shape of the Leupold micro might help with peripheral vision alignment of the gun so that the reticle can be picked up more readily than with the large RMR type sight. In fact, with that thought I conducted an experiment just now with a plastic pen barrel taped to the top of a pistol slide.

I found that despite the small diameter of the tube its length made it easy to orient it on a target, and easier (as I recall) than when I used a Docter sight. If there was an illuminated dot in the center, it would of course have been oriented as well. The Leupold sight isn’t as long as the tube I was using and its internal diameter is larger, but it would be interesting to try it and see if the same visual process makes it easier to orient on the target than the more common RMR type sight with its large window and no real orientation aid.

Shooting irons when you bring up the gun the sights are visible. It’s wildly intuitive for you to adjust to ”find” the front blade. When you present a powered optic and the dot is off screen it is not intuitive at all to find the dot. You will find it but you guys are literally comparing apples and oranges. You also admit to not using these optics yet you seem to have pretty opinions of how you think they will work. Lol. Trust me when I say this. No one except someone selling this product will ever say acquiring this dot will be as fast as a larger window optic. It’s just fucking nonsensical. Can you train through it? Sure, but it will always always always have a smaller window of error that is acceptable to make it work. The second or third gen of this idea will be interesting. This will be a stepping stone at best.

Seriously is no one notice that they are marketing this to CC all while putting an extra fucking inch on one of the easiest parts of the gun to print? It’s like selling huge mag extensions to CC guys. Literally a CCW with an RMR will print less than this. Why did they use a coin battery? Great battery life but I think they literally forgot who they were making this for.

Well, at least if what we say is nonsense, it isn’t gratuitously and rudely vulgar.

Do you really believe that such language contributes anything to the discussion or that we will be more likely to accept your opinions because you don’t seem to have the maturity, self-discipline, or vocabulary to avoid using it?

LOL. First, I'm pretty sure we're not "literally" comparing apples and oranges here. But if you think so, perhaps that's why you're in such an uproar over this?

Second, I have an RMR; I'm not fully proficient yet but I have some experience and believe I can be pragmatically effective with it. So, I think I have a conceptual idea of what the high level pros/cons might be with the DP; still want first hand experience to confirm but I don't think the experience will be a shocking surprise.

Third, I generally trust Leupold as a brand. While like any product this product will have pros/cons, I doubt they would bring a product to market that didn't have some merit. Can it be improved upon. Surely, but that's the same with your golden RMR as well. I don't find the RMR perfect either.

To me, this comes down to which has the more favorable pros/cons. I'm willing to give the DP Micro a shot because the RMR has deficiencies in my mind that the DP may address.

Not sure why you're so closed and adamantly against the DP. Unless you work for Trij; in that case, you may be just biased.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

That said, it’s possible that the relatively small viewing area and tunnel-like shape of the Leupold micro might help with peripheral vision alignment of the gun so that the reticle can be picked up more readily than with the large RMR type sight. In fact, with that thought I conducted an experiment just now with a plastic pen barrel taped to the top of a pistol slide.

I found that despite the small diameter of the tube its length made it easy to orient it on a target, and easier (as I recall) than when I used a Docter sight. If there was an illuminated dot in the center, it would of course have been oriented as well. The Leupold sight isn’t as long as the tube I was using and its internal diameter is larger, but it would be interesting to try it and see if the same visual process makes it easier to orient on the target than the more common RMR type sight with its large window and no real orientation aid.

This is what I was conceptually anticipating. Hoping to try it and confirm a benefit or not.

quote:

Trust me when I say this. No one except someone selling this product will ever say acquiring this dot will be as fast as a larger window optic. It’s just fucking nonsensical.

Who is claiming this????
I have yet to see this claim made. I mentioned that the videos I watched the folks were pleasantly surprised at how easily the acquired the dot.
No mention of it being faster than other sights.

You’re coming at this like the sight it out to replace all other sights and are all hot and bothered over people wanting to give it a shot.
I am just over here saying hey this is kind of intriguing think I’ll check it out and also already said it may very well be a bust.

Watch the review videos. They aren’t saying it’s faster they are saying it’s just as fast. It’s fucking nonsensical.

I own and have shot a pretty wide range of optics. The silliness here is off the charts. Pretending a tinier window will be as fast or forgiving is stupid. And yes it’s frustrating to point out the obvious to a bunch of guys who admit they don’t shoot rds much. When this gets in widespread hands what I’m saying will be easier to discuss because the shills won’t be in play.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Watch the review videos. They aren’t saying it’s faster they are saying it’s just as fast. It’s fucking nonsensical.

I own and have shot a pretty wide range of optics. The silliness here is off the charts. Pretending a tinier window will be as fast or forgiving is stupid. And yes it’s frustrating to point out the obvious to a bunch of guys who admit they don’t shoot rds much. When this gets in widespread hands what I’m saying will be easier to discuss because the shills won’t be in play.

So why are they blatantly lying in their reviews?

Would like to hear about field of view ,
eye relief and quick acquisition of dot .
The hanging battery compartment looks
Very vulnerable .

Thoughts from the knowldgeable on why the S&W M&P was chosen as the second gun the sight is being made available for? Based on an admittedly not-very-thorough search, that model doesn’t seem to be selling as much as the P320, for example. Or are there a lot of M&Ps out there all ready?

-----------------

You're right about the political comment. Sorry.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Don’t be stupid. There are lots of reasons to fib on reviews. I get you don’t appreciate my language sigfruend but now you are just being a dick. And bringing politics into a non political thread. So check yourself.

Reviewers can be getting free stuff to review. Trying to get subscribers. Could be as simple as they paid full tilt on a new fan dangle and don’t want to think they got taken. Who knows. I used to read Guns and Ammo as as boy and thought every gun and every writer could offhand put 5 shots into a cloverleaf at 25 yards and never bobble. They never wrote a bad review. That’s why Gun Tests had a nice run for awhile.

To recap. I love Leupold. Leupold drops a deuce now and again. I owned the original Deltapoint. It was a great idea. It was wildly badly engineered from a basic standpoint. It led to an amazing follow on product, the DP Pro. (which stills suffers from odd buttonology but is otherwise excellent). This product I think will be potentially outstanding in its next iteration.

It will always suffer from a tiny aperture which when shooting dots on handguns isn’t a plus guys. All you “I don’t shoot rds much” guys, trust me when I say the faster you find the dot the better. Whether through bigger glass or way more training, bigger clearer glass will always win.

The battery compartment is an odd choice. Two spots print. The two spots that stick out of your waistband. One of which you just added an inch long protrusion. Because they used a coin battery that gives outstanding battery life and is easy to find in stores. It’s not the best choice. I’m no engineer but that goofy battery that powers my C More and is impossible to find locally would take up less than half the space.

Since you guys are picking on me, lol, I will bring up one more shortcoming. Motion activated sights might not be the best solution to a carry gun. That might be why they went with the big ass battery. This thing will literally be on in your pants all day long.

I want to play with one. When the 549 price plummets, and it will, I might even buy a cheap one for fun.

I think they've been discontinued the bigger Delta Point Pro's that would fit the G19/17/34??

Anybody have any insights when these things will start shipping. They seem to be listed online by various retailers; some allow it to be added to cart (ie - backorder fashion), others just indicate it's coming.

I'm seeing street prices ranging from $325 - $400. I wonder who's going to start shipping first.....

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
It’s a small ape rapture...

Oh my...

So a few apes go to heaven. Surely much better then a small ape rupture

Battery compartment seems an odd design choice as has been said.

To me this almost looks as if it acts as an electronic ghost ring sight. This could be an advantage if the sight goes down and you still have a sort of ghost ring with the front sight.

I wonder if a aaa sized tube on top would have been better. A lithium aaa would provide a decent and easily obtainable power source.

That said I know so little about pistol optics I am really speaking out of my uneducated ass.

Well I just read the copy and apparently I wasn’t far off from the ghost ring thought.

Well as long as apes get to heaven I’m in.

Does that sight and battery pack need to be removed in order to field strip the slide?