AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/17/2006 8:57:32 AM EDT
|
Anyone have one? Seen one? I like the look but they cost almost as much as a Eotech depending on the model. |
|
I have one installed on my Glock 24C and it works great but I have never used it on my AR15. That has a EOTech on it. The lower cost Cmores have a polymer body, there is a metal bodies Cmore made for tactical rifles but it costs considerably more (more than a EOTech and as much or more than a Aimpoint). |
| good sight for hand gun. light weight and lowprofile for hand guns and comp race guns.sti sv para etc. there are a lot of after market mounts for hand guns and a lot of them have blast sheilds to protect sight from ported barrels on race guns.i have tried on a 9mm ar was ok but went back to eo tech . one plus is they have very good battery life and you can get different modules to change moa of dot size. i have seen people over tighten set screws for windage and elevation and crack the poly housing.i would use on hand gun but stick to eo tech or aimpoint on a ar-15. |
I used them on pistols for USPSA for close to 10 years, 1994 - 2003, and never had a problem with them holding zero. Tim |
|
I recently bought the Tacitcal model made out of aluminum. It includes a standard A2 BUIS, as well as the mount. I paid $400 for it. It has 2 NV compatible settings (don't know why, can't mount an optic behind it) and the illumination dial has "clicks." This model seems to be very solidly built, and I wouldn't worry about knocks and scrapes. The polymer housed version however would not be a good choice for a "bang around" gun. Pluses: With the built in BUIS and mount, it weighs 1 oz less than an Aimpoint ML2/ARMS22M68/Cantilever/ARMS40 combination. At $400, it is about the same price as an EOTech plus a BUIS (slightly cheaper actually.) The dot size can be changed by the user by replacing the diode module for $35. Dot sizes are 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 MOA. Try that with an Aimpoint or EOTech. No 65MOA ring on the C-more! That is my biggest gripe with the EOTech. That ring just isn't for me. Uses the same battery as the Aimpoint series, as is easily replaced while the sight is mounted. Far less FOV obstruction than an Aimpoint, and slightly better than an EOtech. The only thing sticking up is the circle of glass. The aluminum around the glass measures 1/8" too, pretty thick. Built in standard A2 BUIS, with Cowitness in bottom third of the window. Easily operated brightness knob for the reticle, on par with the Aimpoint. I don't like the up/down arrows on the EOTech. And, if you mount the EOTech closer to the rear, near the BUIS, it can be difficult to turn off the EOTech. Minuses: Zeroing is a pain in the butt. But the zeroing dials do have set screws so it should hold zero very well. Thumb screws instead of throw levers, and no option to change it to throw levers. Weak battery life compared to an Aimpoint, but on par with an EOTech. But, it only uses one 1/3N battery to achieve that, not 2 N cell or 2 AA cells of the EOTech. 1/3N battery is harder to find than AA's, but not impossible (same drawback for the Aimpoint, except that its battery life is just ludicrous. I had some comparison pictures with the C-More and an Aimpoint ML2 in an ARMS 22M68 with a Cantilever spacer, but my hard drive crashed, taking those pictures with it. I bought the C-More for a few reasons: 1.) I wanted to try it out, since I've used Aimpoints in the past, and borrowed a few guns with EOTechs. 2.) For the price, it was significantly cheaper than an Aimpoint (by about $165.) 3.) I thought it might be slightly lighter than a similar setup, and I wanted to keep the weight on my "Sub7" carbine down (below 7 lbs total with optics, BUIS and light.) So far I have not regretted that decision. |
EvilBert
USPSA is not exactly a good example. The demands on a pistol in short rang competition where speed is desired slightly over accuracy. A Pistol comes out of its warm fuzzy little pistol rug and into a holster.. you shoot a course (200-300 rds max) in 30 second intervals, and then you clear it and put it back in it's warm cozy little pistol rug. I could NEVER see dropping $400 on a sight with a 6MOA dot Poor battery life Difficult to zero with no Click adjustment poor mount not built for hard use.... Drop that bad boy on the deck once after it's mounted on a Rifle/carbine... that glass is gonna be toast..  The so called built in BUIS is a joke and would be as useful as a screen door on a submarine... They might have been the deal 10 years ago, but in 2006... WAY better options out there for the smart shopper... it's OK to admit what you owned 10 years ago is not the best choice anymore....
|
|
I had a C-More Tactical about 8 or 9 years ago. it was a super looking rig with the C-More mounted on basically a modified carry handle with the full A2 rear sight and nice mount. However, I had too much trouble with the C-More. Not only difficlt to get sighted in because of movement of the dot when you locked down the screws, but it would not stay in zero. I had to send back the first sight I got because the dot floated around so much and C-More sent me a new one which worked better, but also would eventually move off zero. The C-More was polymer and had no aluminum protector or housing, other than the mount. I now have an EOTech 552.A65 and nothing really compares to it. Fantastic in every way. |
But hey, if you don't want one, don't buy it. But try not to provide feedback on a sight that you probably haven't even looked at for 10 years... 
|
| I was looking at these a few years back but couldn't find any good reviews of them. Every thing said wandering zero. I'm guessing that since C-more is still making them they have fixed the zero thing. I'll wait on trying one out until I hear more good stuff about 'em. |
|
I used my C-More Tactical (6 MOA) on my M16A4 in Iraq. Two other soldiers in my Company also had C-Mores. Zero. It kept its zero fine. Zeroed it at Ft. Benning and I didn't have to re-zero anytime while at the ranges at Benning. I took the sight off the receiver and had to re-zero in Kuwait but not by much. I kept it on the receiver and didn't need to re-zero the sight in Iraq; I even rechecked zero monthly at our FOB's range. It should be noted, I wasn't trying to shoot Sub-MOA groups with it, and hitting man-sized targets out to 200m with the red dot wasn't a problem. Battery. Battery life is awesome. I bought my C-More in 2000 and haven't changed the battery yet. Six years later, after multiple range trips, accidently leaving it on for hours a number of times, training at Ft. Benning and Kuwait, and patrolling in Iraq... It still turns on using the original battery. Lens. I loved using the lense because you actually "see-more" because it wasn't like you're looking through a can (Aimpoint). This was a good feature, and enhanced my ability to keep aware of my surroundings while keeping both eyes open, especially searching houses, being at checkpoints, aiding vehicle searches, and rounding up groups of people in an area. However, while the lens design allows you to see more, it is exposed to the environment (no lens-covers). When it's drizzling/raining, I would blow on the lens to remove the water droplets and wipe it with my finger. When it's dusty, I would flush the lens with water from my camelbak. I'm sure the Eotech suffers the same way with dust and rain. Integral Iron Sight. The C-More is mounted on a cut-down carrying handle. It was handy having the rear irons always there at the ready. Durability. As for durability, it wasn't that great for combat use. You have to be very careful with it since it had a plastic body and no protective metal hood, like you would see on an Eotech. Despite all my best efforts to protect it, half-way through my deployment my C-More cracked during a bumpy ride inside a HMMWV. Customer Service. Once I got home, I contacted C-More by email and told them what happened. They offered to repair it for FREE. I sent it off and two weeks later I got it back good as new. C-More customer service is superb. To recap: 1. Zero = Good 2. Battery life = Excellent 3. Lens = Excellent (for CQB), O.K. (for surviving the weather) 4. Rear Sight = Good (standard rear sight, it was always there) 5. Durability = Bad 6. Customer Service = Excellent The C-More Tactical is well suited for recreational shooters plinking away at cans and for law enforcement who only take it out of the Pelican Case whenever they need to. However, the C-More --although a great CQB sight-- is not durable enough for military use where rifles are handled constantly, subject to daily usage/abuse. I should mention though, the two other C-Mores in the company survived. I guess they were lucky. |
Great feedback! I believe that the particular model I have (all aluminum, no plastic) would have held up better in your environment. The housing is aluminum, and the hood that holds in the glass is also thick aluminum. I'm sure it would have fared better than the plastic version. But it might have still gone down though, since we can only speculate. Maybe if you received the upgraded version from C-More and happened to be re-deployed..... |
AR Sponsor