The Trijicon Ruggedized Miniature Reflex Sight: The Future of Handgun Sighting Systems

a reply to: johnwick

Personally, I like to take it past shooting with a pistol in each hand. I juggle them, so I have three sidearms in play at all times.

I also like to make really loud Bruce Lee noises while doing so.

Haven't quite got the "matrix" thing down where I keep juggling and laying down precision fire whilst I do cartwheels but I'm working on it.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: slednecktx

To get results like this without a reflex sight like the RMR above, you have to be Jerry Miculek.

I cant believe you broke out that name drop...Jerry is the man!!!

That guy is the real deal!!!

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: johnwick

Personally, I like to take it past shooting with a pistol in each hand. I juggle them, so I have three sidearms in play at all times.

I also like to make really loud Bruce Lee noises while doing so.

Haven't quite got the "matrix" thing down where I keep juggling and laying down precision fire whilst I do cartwheels but I'm working on it.

Lol

Make a youtube vid, i will watch it

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: johnwick

Personally, I like to take it past shooting with a pistol in each hand. I juggle them, so I have three sidearms in play at all times.

I also like to make really loud Bruce Lee noises while doing so.

Haven't quite got the "matrix" thing down where I keep juggling and laying down precision fire whilst I do cartwheels but I'm working on it.

Lol

Make a youtube vid, i will watch it

i have found secret training video of agent Bedlam training in Gun fu:

a reply to: buster2010

The article says 1 shot from a 9mm revolver at 1000 yards untimed

a reply to: projectvxn
While it seems like a fine sighting system, a better subtitle may be "The future of SOME handgun sighting systems." Competition and law enforcement may be able to benefit from such a sighting system but not for other applications. The reflex sight would not be suitable for, e.g., a Kahr .380 [or similar sized pocket pistols]. I also never felt the need for optics on a hunting revolver but some find them useful.

My opinion is that optical sights are a nice option for many applications but all firearms should be supplied with basic open sights, rifles included.

I have a couple of Triji RMR's piggybacking 4x32 ACOG's on an AR and a HK SL8, and they are excellent CQB sights. I have fired a 1911 with a Docter RMR, which is the original RMR IIRC, and while I realized the merits of the sight, without a focused training regimen to become proficient it didn't fit my optics budget.

Your results appear to outstanding, but I'd like to see a practical shooting scenario for acquire/reacquire speed vs accuracy.

Next glass: Tangent Theta 5-25X56 for a custom 6.5 Creedmoor.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Here buddy, here's one of my Glocks with a bayonet.



There are some real bad apples walking around WA.

Well you guys do realize ranch hands in Irving Texas were shooting tails off cotton tail rabbits in 1970
I shoot a red dot scope on my revolver hard to acquire but real really a tack driver out to 130 yards

originally posted by: projectvxn

Trijicon RMR RM05, 9 MOA Amber Dot Reflex Sight.

I wonder why 9 MOA, I kind of like 3 MOA, and I do not see why the dot needs to be so large since it would cover the target at 50 yards, but then we are talking hand guns. At 20 yards I'm just as good as the OP with regular sights, so I would want something that helps me out to 50 to 100 yards.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Shamrock6

Here buddy, here's one of my Glocks with a bayonet.

There are some real bad apples walking around WA.

Peel 'em high.

a reply to: VashTheStampede

1. The sight is not electronic.

2. The type of pin point adjustment you can do with these makes your assertion that irons are more accurate absurd.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: VashTheStampede

1. The sight is not electronic.

2. The type of pin point adjustment you can do with these makes your assertion that irons are more accurate absurd.

1: if it doesn't use some sort of steam-punk setup,coal,gasoline,or propane to power your sight it is electronic.

2: Hardly,shoot your handgun from a benchrest with the sights properly dialed in and then do it with the red dot,do this emptying a full magazine per sight and you will see that the groupings with irons is tighter I say use a benchrest because most people aren't accurate enough to do it unassisted. It helps if you also use something with a competition grade barrel like a Colt Python,or a Wilson Combat 1911,with a competition barrel it is quite obvious.Also shoot at say 35 yards to 50 yards for a better comparison.

a reply to: VashTheStampede

1. There is no electricity being used on the RM05. It is a light gathering fiber optic and a tritium gas lamp.

It is not electronic at all.

Hardly,shoot your handgun from a benchrest with the sights properly dialed in and then do it with the red dot,do this emptying a full magazine per sight and you will see that the groupings with irons is tighter I say use a benchrest because most people aren't accurate enough to do it unassisted.

That's absurd. Modern optics are far more accurate off hand and on bench rest. This has been proven time and time again. It is the reason why competition shooters have been using optical set ups on guns for years now.

It is pretty obvious to me you lack experience and knowledge in this field. Please come back when you have some and stop stating absurd things as fact.

a reply to: VashTheStampede

Is there a lot of combat shooting done from a bench? Just curious.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: VashTheStampede

1. There is no electricity being used on the RM05. It is a light gathering fiber optic and a tritium gas lamp.

It is not electronic at all.

Hardly,shoot your handgun from a benchrest with the sights properly dialed in and then do it with the red dot,do this emptying a full magazine per sight and you will see that the groupings with irons is tighter I say use a benchrest because most people aren't accurate enough to do it unassisted.

That's absurd. Modern optics are far more accurate off hand and on bench rest. This has been proven time and time again. It is the reason why competition shooters have been using optical set ups on guns for years now.

Yes but competition shooters have their red dot mounted on the frame so the dot doesn't move when they shoot.
Also if you conceal carry they will make your gun print a whole lot more which can get you arrested in some areas.
I train people to shoot all day everyday I have more knowledge on this subject than you ever will unless you get the same job.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: VashTheStampede

Is there a lot of combat shooting done from a bench? Just curious.

No but that wasn't my point,do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

a reply to: VashTheStampede

The RMR has been tested time and time again.

I've used Trijicon optics in combat.

The RMR has been designed specifically for this purpose. There are no signs of loss of zero.

Also if you conceal carry they will make your gun print a whole lot more which can get you arrested in some areas.

Um no.

I train people to shoot all day everyday I have more knowledge on this subject than you ever will unless you get the same job.

I'm an extremely qualified individual.

I've qualified expert with every ground combat firearm the US Army has for your average combat team. I'm a unit armorer, unit trainer, and I spent 1/3 of my career in combat. In my lifetime I have fired a little over 2 million rounds from many different firearms, and I've been a range RSO and trainer. Please don't make assumptions. You've proven time and time again in this thread that you have zero idea what you're talking about.

originally posted by: VashTheStampede

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: VashTheStampede

Is there a lot of combat shooting done from a bench? Just curious.

No but that wasn't my point,do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Aw. Right to the personal attacks eh? Cute.

Between your response to vixen and the one to me, I can tell we're in the presence of greatness. I probably shouldn't reply directly though. I wouldn't want you to pound anymore keys off your keyboard

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: VashTheStampede

The RMR has been tested time and time again.

I've used Trijicon optics in combat.

The RMR has been designed specifically for this purpose. There are no signs of loss of zero.

Also if you conceal carry they will make your gun print a whole lot more which can get you arrested in some areas.

Um no.

I train people to shoot all day everyday I have more knowledge on this subject than you ever will unless you get the same job.

I'm an extremely qualified individual.

I've qualified expert with every ground combat firearm the US Army has for your average combat team. I'm a unit armorer, unit trainer, and I spent 1/3 of my career in combat. In my lifetime I have fire a little over 2 million rounds from many different firearms, and I've been a range RSO and trainer. Please don't make assumptions. You've proven time and time again in this thread that you have zero idea what you're talking about.

Being a army man isn't any sort of qualifications I've trained seals and I doubt you can shoot better than one.
It doesn't matter if you have used a Trijicon on combat,because it would have been mounted on rifle,when a red dot is mounted on the action of a weapon it is significantly less accurate and takes more of a beating than if it was mounted on the frame,notice none of the well know competition shooters have their red dots mounted on the slide.