[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The new USA-made PA HTX-1 universal pistol dot arrived! Shot it 5/7. I love it! (Page 3 of 4)
|
Quoted: My SRO has similar love marks and I've only been EDCing it for 1 year. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nice review. The anodizing is an issue at that price point, imo. Hopefully they can get production ramped up. Edit:spelling YEAH - WTF is up with that anodizing? Barely stronger than spray paint???!!! Not for $650 they are charging Same with the 507C that I wasn't carrying for very long. Same with the well-worn Gen3 G19 I was carrying for 15 years before the RXM. I'm not too worried about some finish wear on a tool that's going to be concealed all day every day, but I'm also not saying a more wear-resistant finish wouldn't be a bonus. |
|
Quoted: My SRO has similar love marks and I've only been EDCing it for 1 year. a year is different than taking it out of the box, he talked about it before mounting it. Im thinking something was not done right, or they rushed to ship. I mean it does not keep it from working, but its not a budget optic and tougher finish is going to be expected by about everyone shelling out for one at the price point. I think they will get it sorted but its gonna be a sore spot with some people, and make others avoid it. |
|
Quoted: I hope they can get the price closer to around $525 and it holds up. It would be great if we made optics here in price and quality parity with others. |
|
Quoted: Same with the 507C that I wasn't carrying for very long. Same with the well-worn Gen3 G19 I was carrying for 15 years before the RXM. I'm not too worried about some finish wear on a tool that's going to be concealed all day every day, but I'm also not saying a more wear-resistant finish wouldn't be a bonus. Might be a question of what anodizing types are available for the alloy they chose to make the bodies from-it could be a trade off was made for impact resistance. |
|
Quoted: a year is different than taking it out of the box, he talked about it before mounting it. Im thinking something was not done right, or they rushed to ship. I mean it does not keep it from working, but its not a budget optic and tougher finish is going to be expected by about everyone shelling out for one at the price point. I think they will get it sorted but its gonna be a sore spot with some people, and make others avoid it. I can see where the sock-drawer gun crowd would care, but the people who actually use their guns won’t. You guys would palp the fuck out of you saw the SRO I have mounted on one of my Glocks…. It did time in USPSA before getting put in a PDW chassis and used as a throw around/knock around gun to and from my cabin. |
|
Quoted: I put a $750 RMR HD on my $400 (It was on sale) Walther PDP 5". It fucks. Quoted: Quoted: $650 for a red dot. On a $400 pistol. That would be a hard no and I'm not alone. That's going to be a very tough sale. I put a $750 RMR HD on my $400 (It was on sale) Walther PDP 5". It fucks. The world is awash right now with very high quality weapons after the widespread adoption of CNC machines across all manufacturing, the public acceptance of polymer frames, and patent expiration of legacy designs. If you put a “Temu” Glock together with all the tactical bits and transported it back in time 20 years and took it to SHOT, it would be the darling of the show with fawning reviews…… and it would be worthy of them. Optics are always going to be expensive-handgun buyers are just now getting to where rifle guys have been for decades: they know you end up spending as much on the scope as they do for the rifle. Obviously, parts counts are lower and cheaper than a scope with ground and coated glass, but there is SOME cost in making a red dot and significant cost in building a facility and hiring people to make it. It’s not wrong for the people that put their nuts on the line to expect to make a profit after putting all of that in place. |
|
Quoted: The world is awash right now with very high quality weapons after the widespread adoption of CNC machines across all manufacturing, the public acceptance of polymer frames, and patent expiration of legacy designs. If you put a “Temu” Glock together with all the tactical bits and transported it back in time 20 years and took it to SHOT, it would be the darling of the show with fawning reviews…… and it would be worthy of them. Optics are always going to be expensive-handgun buyers are just now getting to where rifle guys have been for decades: they know you end up spending as much on the scope as they do for the rifle. Obviously, parts counts are lower and cheaper than a scope with ground and coated glass, but there is SOME cost in making a red dot and significant cost in building a facility and hiring people to make it. It’s not wrong for the people that put their nuts on the line to expect to make a profit after putting all of that in place. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: $650 for a red dot. On a $400 pistol. That would be a hard no and I'm not alone. That's going to be a very tough sale. I put a $750 RMR HD on my $400 (It was on sale) Walther PDP 5". It fucks. The world is awash right now with very high quality weapons after the widespread adoption of CNC machines across all manufacturing, the public acceptance of polymer frames, and patent expiration of legacy designs. If you put a “Temu” Glock together with all the tactical bits and transported it back in time 20 years and took it to SHOT, it would be the darling of the show with fawning reviews…… and it would be worthy of them. Optics are always going to be expensive-handgun buyers are just now getting to where rifle guys have been for decades: they know you end up spending as much on the scope as they do for the rifle. Obviously, parts counts are lower and cheaper than a scope with ground and coated glass, but there is SOME cost in making a red dot and significant cost in building a facility and hiring people to make it. It’s not wrong for the people that put their nuts on the line to expect to make a profit after putting all of that in place. I'm seeing a business opportunity. Will research. Not joking. |
|
Quoted: Many people can't grasp that Quoted: Quoted: $650 for a red dot. On a $400 pistol. That would be a hard no and I'm not alone. That's going to be a very tough sale. Quality optics often cost more than the guns they're mounted on.... Many people can't grasp that Buy more expensive guns to fit the math equation. |
|
Quoted: Might be a question of what anodizing types are available for the alloy they chose to make the bodies from-it could be a trade off was made for impact resistance. Specs say 7075-T6, same as an AR upper/lower, so it should be able to be Type III hard anodized like an upper/lower. Type II isn't as thick or hard, but it also could just be bad prep in a rush to get the first batch out. |
|
Not a materials engineer by any stretch RE: anodizing. Maybe there are considerations for dimensional accuracy on small parts like a pistol dot sight which are limiting factors. Distortion from the process etc. I don't care, as long as function and durability is not affected |
|
Quoted: I can see where the sock-drawer gun crowd would care, but the people who actually use their guns won’t. You guys would palp the fuck out of you saw the SRO I have mounted on one of my Glocks…. It did time in USPSA before getting put in a PDW chassis and used as a throw around/knock around gun to and from my cabin. It don't bother me much other than I prefer brand new stuff at least look that way for a little bit. However I'd hate for it to hurt their sales. I mean arsenal did sell expensive aks and have a shit finish so it might not matter. |
|
Quoted: Specs say 7075-T6, same as an AR upper/lower, so it should be able to be Type III hard anodized like an upper/lower. Type II isn't as thick or hard, but it also could just be bad prep in a rush to get the first batch out. AR's are bead blasted first, that might be a contributor-but I suspect that tumbling them probably would have helped some. |
|
Quoted: Not a materials engineer by any stretch RE: anodizing. Maybe there are considerations for dimensional accuracy on small parts like a pistol dot sight which are limiting factors. Distortion from the process etc. I don't care, as long as function and durability is not affected Not likely, anodizing isn't as bad as something like a coating-sure you are adding a layer of "controlled corrosion", but that came from parent material. We are probably talking a difference of .001" from bare metal. I can't think of anything in a body that would require that tight a tolerance. Distortion doesn't happen in Anodizing, it's not a high temperature process-in fact, .milspec anodizing is done near freezing temps IIRC. |
|
Quoted: Not a materials engineer by any stretch RE: anodizing. Maybe there are considerations for dimensional accuracy on small parts like a pistol dot sight which are limiting factors. Distortion from the process etc. I don't care, as long as function and durability is not affected 
|
|
Quoted: Thanks for the heads up. Quoted: Quoted: They abandoned their own thread in the industry forums about this optic. I'd be shocked if they respond here. Thanks for the heads up. Concerning -- I'm interested in the optic, as well as future footprint adapters... and a 1 MOA dot |
|
Quoted: I hope there will be an adapter eventually for the 407-507k footprint. My SA operator is already direct milled for that, and I would love to switch over to one of these if it is even possible. The base optic without the chassis is already a larger footprint than a 407K so that doesn't seem likely. |
|
Update: Still carrying and frequently shooting the RXM and the HTX-1. I’m really enjoying both the gun and optic. I have no issues to report. The anodizing on the optic seems to be holding up fine other than where it rubs against by belt and buckle, so I have zero concerns about the finish. I have yet to try it with my night vision, though. Been slacking on that. |
|
Quoted: Update: Still carrying and frequently shooting the RXM and the HTX-1. I’m really enjoying both the gun and optic. I have no issues to report. The anodizing on the optic seems to be holding up fine other than where it rubs against by belt and buckle, so I have zero concerns about the finish. I have yet to try it with my night vision, though. Been slacking on that. is the dot easy to pick up? or do you gotta be spot on with it? Im hit or miss with a bunch of them. I hate having to fish for the right combo to see..... just want it to work that an friggin astigmatisms mess with most of them. |
|
Quoted: is the dot easy to pick up? or do you gotta be spot on with it? Im hit or miss with a bunch of them. I hate having to fish for the right combo to see..... just want it to work that an friggin astigmatisms mess with most of them. If this is a concern, get the ACSS version. It really works. Same thing with my 507 X2 ACSS. Makes all the difference with a small window, even for guys like me that shoot a LOT. Shooting around barriers or opposite hand is where they really shine. |
|
Quoted: is the dot easy to pick up? or do you gotta be spot on with it? Im hit or miss with a bunch of them. I hate having to fish for the right combo to see..... just want it to work that an friggin astigmatisms mess with most of them. Quoted: Quoted: Update: Still carrying and frequently shooting the RXM and the HTX-1. I’m really enjoying both the gun and optic. I have no issues to report. The anodizing on the optic seems to be holding up fine other than where it rubs against by belt and buckle, so I have zero concerns about the finish. I have yet to try it with my night vision, though. Been slacking on that. is the dot easy to pick up? or do you gotta be spot on with it? Im hit or miss with a bunch of them. I hate having to fish for the right combo to see..... just want it to work that an friggin astigmatisms mess with most of them. It’s easy for me to pick up, but I am also well-versed with the use of RDSs on pistols at this point. What I like about it is the clarity of the glass and the crispness if the dot despite my astigmatism. |
|
Quoted: All these weird not-gonna-happen scenarios to justify the toaster.  Quoted: Quoted: Until your shit freezes over on a cold night and you can’t wipe out the inside lens or the emitter face. Or pack it full of mud. Or…. All these weird not-gonna-happen scenarios to justify the toaster. I've had the emitter obscured with mud or the dot blurred with rain a few times during shooting competitions and hunting at night. It took less than 5 seconds to clear the problem and go back to shooting and making hits. I find it to be much less of an issue than people make it out to be. |
|
Quoted: I've had the emitter obscured with mud or the dot blurred with rain a few times during shooting competitions and hunting at night. It took less than 5 seconds to clear the problem and go back to shooting and making hits. I find it to be much less of an issue than people make it out to be. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Until your shit freezes over on a cold night and you can’t wipe out the inside lens or the emitter face. Or pack it full of mud. Or…. All these weird not-gonna-happen scenarios to justify the toaster. I've had the emitter obscured with mud or the dot blurred with rain a few times during shooting competitions and hunting at night. It took less than 5 seconds to clear the problem and go back to shooting and making hits. I find it to be much less of an issue than people make it out to be. Ive had a rmr become unusable on a warm muggy/rainy day. Could not use the irons and it only became usuable after it dried out. Ive also gone swimming with one with no issues. |
