Posted: 5/16/2018 11:18:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History Quoted:
I would offer these counter points to the 'weaknesses' you brought up.
Brightness adjustment: unless you're using NODs, literally a non-issue. Especially if you're using a TACLIGHT. Set it and forget it.
Battery life: the DPP motion sensing "instant on" takes care of any battery life concerns. Unlike the RMR which is ALWAYS on, the DPP is only on when the rifle is picked up. And it is FAST. I have yet to beat the motion sensor. I also prefer to conserve battery life rather than rely on the battery's actual life, not the "advertised" run time, so I prefer the motion sensor approach. Trijicon claims 5 years "always on" runtime, but as everyone knows, that is actually dependent on the quality of the battery itself. My DPP is still on the original battery which is over four years old. Battery access on the DPP is also far superior to the RMR ridiculous design.
As for durability, I continue to beat the snot out of my DPP. It gots tossed into the bed of my truck, knocked into doorframes and against barricades without thought...zero issues. I think Cowan's drop test is a bit far fetched. But it will remain a valid concern until Trijicon's design patent expires. Until then, I will take a reasonable amount of care with my DPP, keeping in the back of my mind that I can always rely on Leupold's lifetime guarantee. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
The DPP's main weak point is it's inability to withstand impacts, specifically impacts to the top of the optic body, without the glass being damaged. Other less severe weak points are the brightness adjustment method and battery life. Apparently the DPP's optic/glass is less resilient because Trijicon has a patent on the shape of the RMR, which is extremely effective in mitigating damage from impacts to the optic body. In this video, Aaron Cowan from Sage Dynamics breaks a DPP by intentionally abusing it, but discusses what happened and why. I can't recall who posted them, but there at least two other reviews where the same problem arose. So take that for what it's worth.
On the other hand, I have owned multiple RMRs and multiple DPPs. I still have all my DPPs and the only RMR I kept is for a mount that can not accommodate a DPP. Like all Leupold products, I believe the DPP has a lifetime warranty so I'm not really worried about it breaking. That being said, I do not carry a gun for work but if I did and it had to wear one of these two optics I would lean towards the RMR just because it's more of a tank. So to conclude this long-winded answer, a quality "standard red dot" will likely be much "tougher" than a DPP, but an RMR will likely hold its own against quality non-reflex red dot optics (in terms of durability).
Hopefully this helps. I would offer these counter points to the 'weaknesses' you brought up. Brightness adjustment: unless you're using NODs, literally a non-issue. Especially if you're using a TACLIGHT. Set it and forget it.
Battery life: the DPP motion sensing "instant on" takes care of any battery life concerns. Unlike the RMR which is ALWAYS on, the DPP is only on when the rifle is picked up. And it is FAST. I have yet to beat the motion sensor. I also prefer to conserve battery life rather than rely on the battery's actual life, not the "advertised" run time, so I prefer the motion sensor approach. Trijicon claims 5 years "always on" runtime, but as everyone knows, that is actually dependent on the quality of the battery itself. My DPP is still on the original battery which is over four years old. Battery access on the DPP is also far superior to the RMR ridiculous design.
As for durability, I continue to beat the snot out of my DPP. It gots tossed into the bed of my truck, knocked into doorframes and against barricades without thought...zero issues. I think Cowan's drop test is a bit far fetched. But it will remain a valid concern until Trijicon's design patent expires. Until then, I will take a reasonable amount of care with my DPP, keeping in the back of my mind that I can always rely on Leupold's lifetime guarantee. I agree. I have two DPPs now. I've abused the first one, including accidentally dropping the rifle it was on upper receiver down on a concrete floor from bench height, striking directly on the DPP's spring steel hood. Ugly scrape, but no damage to the DPP. FWIW, there is an air gap between the spring steel hood or shell and the magnesium frame of the glass. The spring steel will have to compress enough to close that gap before transferring force to the glass. And, because that outer hood is steel, I was able to easily repair the cosmetic scrape with ordinary sporting goods store cold blue.
The optic is duty grade. I run a second one on my HD carbine. Keep the dot (7.5 MOA triangle in this case) set high to run with the momentary on weapon light.
|
|