[Moab762]

What did the optic snag on? Most holsters don't enclose the optic so I'm curious how it would catch on something.

I was looking at a comparison video - Comp vs 507c - last night. Just happened to come up. But the height difference was not that big. I also noticed in my pic, in the original post above, that the 507c looks actually wider than the Comp.

I too wonder who has actually tested both with a pistol in their carry holster. And determined that the Comp made a big difference in draw. Once you've lifted your shirt (which if not lifted properly would snag on anything) your stomach is about the only thing I can think of that could potential snag. And with the width being the same, the pistol lays just as flat against your body. The whole package is a bit wider - the Comp being slightly taller than the 507c.

I have not seen a review or video of this type of actual comparison. And the torture tests of either are incredible. Neither are fragile in the least.

I bought the 507c. Only because I have not carried a lot with a red dot. But the cost of milling the slide did give me pause in my selection process. As once it's milled I'm pretty much stuck with the 507c. I'll have to check measurements, both are RMS cuts, but I just assume the base on the Comp is larger and swapping it for the 507c is out of the question(?).

I'll have to check measurements closer. But I do here what you are saying. A lot of RDS's, pistol and rifle, seem to be moving to larger windows. I could see this in the future. Good consistent draw is going to bring the dot readily into the window. But there is a reason they are using these for competition. If nothing else it gives you a larger field of view for threats etc.

I guess the question is - is it better to see the threats inside the window or out? And how much does the RDS frame size weigh into that equation. Both appear to be roughly the same thickness around the window. But one obviously has a larger overall width. If that makes sense.

I would like to see someone experienced draw the same pistol with both sights. From a concealed holster.

I have not sent my slide for milling yet. And will contact Jagerwerks. But does anyone know if a Comp would fit into a 507c cut? I assume not.

 

[Moab762]

Holosun Comp:

Window Size1.1×0.87
Dimension (in)1.8×1.3×1.3
Weight (oz)1.7

Holosun 507c X2:

Window Size0.63x0.91
Dimension (in)1.78x1.15x1.15
Weight (oz)1.5

Pics:

The measurements are not as drastically different as one would think. But I guess the Comp is .15" wider. Enough to make a difference IDK?

And the 507c is rounded. Which makes it quite a bit smaller than the actual measurements.

You'd have a gap. But I wonder if you had your slide cut for a Comp, if a 507c would fit as well? Both are RMS so the screws would be same.

I sent an email to Jagerwerks. They don't offer a Comp cut on their site. But we'll see what they have to say.

And man, the turn around time now at Jagerwerks is almost 3 months! That hurts a little. Was hoping to have this done by the election.

 

[McPatrickClan]

What did the optic snag on? Most holsters don't enclose the optic so I'm curious how it would catch on something.

He did not say. I think the optic may have hit his belt on the draw?

He was a jeweler and was being mugged in a parking lot during a buy gone bad. The optic snagging scared him to death and he removed it. This was probably five years ago so not as sleek as today‘s models, I am guessing.

I practice with mine and have confidence with my optic-mounted carry gun. I could see a deep concealment holster having issues with the presentation.

 

[Moab762]

Just got the 507c in the mail. This thing really does hang off the sides of the slide by quite a ways. Guess I'm used to my Hellcat with the rmsc mounted Shield RMSc. It's pretty much flush on the sides. Which leaves you feeling like nothing will hang it up or catch during draw.

Pictured below is the 507c sitting atop my Glock 32 gen 2. Which is the same size slide/pistol as a Glock 19 gen 3. Granted it will sit lower once milled. And the sides of the optic will sit closer to the far edges of the slide. Versus the contoured cut of the top of the slide. If that makes sense. Meaning it will match better once lowered into place.

But still. It seems like the sides of the optic are going to be what hangs you up during draw. As opposed to anything else. The right side of the 507c is wider than the left. As the button panel is on the right side. Luckily for right handers that is on the outside side of your carry orientation. So less likely to hangup on anything.

It's a nice height/size though. I'm happy with the overall size compared to the Glock it's sitting on. Basically a 19. (I have not had a chance to pick up the new Glock 19 gen 3 yet. Hopefully tomorrow.)

But overall, it appears to be like a nice fit for the G19. Pics of optics never look accurate without it sitting on the pistol you hope to mate it too. And the 507c looks a lot bigger in pics. Than when sitting on the pistol in front of you. When I go to pick up the G19 I might ask them to sit a Comp on top of it. To get a look/feel for what that optic actually seems like sitting atop a G19.

Again, someone needs to build a site like handgunhero.com but comparing various optics on various pistols. That would be a winning site for sure. And making breaking down all of these ridiculous different mounting patterns. When are any of these companies going to stop fighting over mount standards?! It's such a mess!

Even though Holosun got sued. What a genius move to simply use the RMS/RMSc mounting pattern. Everybody needs to just give it up and pick one pattern. How confusing for new shooters. Let alone the rest of us.

 

[racer88]

Just got the 507c in the mail. This thing really does hang off the sides of the slide by quite a ways. Guess I'm used to my Hellcat with the rmsc mounted Shield RMSc. It's pretty much flush on the sides. Which leaves you feeling like nothing will hang it up or catch during draw.

Pictured below is the 507c sitting atop my Glock 32 gen 2. Which is the same size slide/pistol as a Glock 19 gen 3. Granted it will sit lower once milled. And the sides of the optic will sit closer to the far edges of the slide. Versus the contoured cut of the top of the slide. If that makes sense. Meaning it will match better once lowered into place.

But still. It seems like the sides of the optic are going to be what hangs you up during draw. As opposed to anything else. The right side of the 507c is wider than the left. As the button panel is on the right side. Luckily for right handers that is on the outside side of your carry orientation. So less likely to hangup on anything.

It's a nice height/size though. I'm happy with the overall size compared to the Glock it's sitting on. Basically a 19. (I have not had a chance to pick up the new Glock 19 gen 3 yet. Hopefully tomorrow.)

But overall, it appears to be like a nice fit for the G19. Pics of optics never look accurate without it sitting on the pistol you hope to mate it too. And the 507c looks a lot bigger in pics. Than when sitting on the pistol in front of you. When I go to pick up the G19 I might ask them to sit a Comp on top of it. To get a look/feel for what that optic actually seems like sitting atop a G19.

Again, someone needs to build a site like handgunhero.com but comparing various optics on various pistols. That would be a winning site for sure. And making breaking down all of these ridiculous different mounting patterns. When are any of these companies going to stop fighting over mount standards?! It's such a mess!

Even though Holosun got sued. What a genius move to simply use the RMS/RMSc mounting pattern. Everybody needs to just give it up and pick one pattern. How confusing for new shooters. Let alone the rest of us.

On my P80 (G19 clone) with a milled slide:

 

[kiser64]

There are so many options out there for the top of an MOS. I chose to forego the plate requirement and try to find an option that was seamless. This doesn't show a back view, but you can see the seamless interaction of the SCS with my G45 MOS.

 

[Moab762]

Both of those are nice. And I agree the SCS is probably the nicest looking dot on a G19. Aren't there other dots coming out that are solely solar?

 

[Moab762]

Jagerwerks says if you have the RMR cut milled it will fit both the Comp and 507c.

 

[G26-Has-my-6]

Just the Chevron. No dot. Though you can get the ACSS Vulcan with a dot instead of a chevron. I really like the chevron. Very easy to pick up visually.


It's not the same thing.

The regular 507c circle is 32-MOA and always visible and used for aiming.
View attachment 1324877


The ACSS Vulcan circle is 250-MOA, and if you can see the chevron, you cannot see the circle. It's not used for aiming. It's used for correcting a grossly misaligned sight where the center dot or chevron is not visible. Think of it as "training wheels" for "finding the dot."
View attachment 1324878
The circle only appears if your alignment is so far off you can't see the chevron.


It is nice how it matches the rear slide serrations.



My optics are mounted on aftermarket slides (milled for RMR) on my P80 builds. So, no MOS for me. My Glocks are older (Gen 2 and Gen 3), so no MOS milling on those slides.

VERY cool. it's weird how this option is not presented on the Holosun website.

 

[racer88]

VERY cool. it's weird how this option is not presented on the Holosun website.

I think it's a Primary Arms (dealer) exclusive.

 

[Moab762]

I think it's a Primary Arms (dealer) exclusive.

I was just gonna say that. I think you are correct.

But again, if your draw and grip are consistent you should not have any problem finding the red dot. If you do, you need to work on your draw. That is the difference between target focus and "front sight/iron sight" focused type shooting. You don't need to work on "finding" the red dot. You need to work on bringing the red dot correctly up from draw into the window.

 

[racer88]

But again, if your draw and grip are consistent you should not have any problem finding the red dot. If you do, you need to work on your draw.

You don't need to work on "finding" the red dot. You need to work on bringing the red dot correctly up from draw into the window.

I agree on both counts. Think of the outer circle as "training wheels" for dot optics. And it works brilliantly in that capacity. It can help a newbie do exactly what you're suggesting by "nudging them" in the right direction when they're off. Rinse and repeat.... many times. Eventually, you DO get your draw / presentation dialed in, and you stop seeing the "training wheels."

The outer circle can be turned off... when you no longer need it or like it. Plus it extends battery life when it's off.

What I DO like is the remaining chevron center "dot." I really like the chevron. Personal preference, of course. I also prefer the green reticle over red. Again personal preference. No right or wrong on that.

I don't search for the dot. I am focused on the target. The "dot" (chevron) just appears. It's VERY fast / efficient.

 

[Moab762]

I agree on both counts. Think of the outer circle as "training wheels" for dot optics. And it works brilliantly in that capacity. It can help a newbie do exactly what you're suggesting by "nudging them" in the right direction when they're off. Rinse and repeat.... many times. Eventually, you DO get your draw / presentation dialed in, and you stop seeing the "training wheels."

The outer circle can be turned off... when you no longer need it or like it. Plus it extends battery life when it's off.

What I DO like is the remaining chevron center "dot." I really like the chevron. Personal preference, of course. I also prefer the green reticle over red. Again personal preference. No right or wrong on that.

I don't search for the dot. I am focused on the target. The "dot" (chevron) just appears. It's VERY fast / efficient.

Totally get what your saying. Color, chevron, first training, etc. I can see where someone starting out might find the circle helpful. And the color and dot size/shape are totally user preference. Everyone reacts to those differently.

But I'm not sure the circle (starting out) would have helped me. I think I may have continued to rely on that to "find" the dot. Rather than developing my grip and aim to the point that the dot consistently came into view each time I presented the weapon.

As long as you only used the circle to see where your natural grip and presentation was off you'd be ok. But for me that was a very short period of time. And I accomolished the same thing by moving the pistol so that I could see which direction my hold on the pistol was off. So that I could immediately correct it. It wasn't very long until I could consistently bring the pistol up and have the dot visible in the window each time.

 

[racer88]

I think I may have continued to rely on that to "find" the dot. Rather than developing my grip and aim to the point that the dot consistently came into view each time I presented the weapon.

As long as you only used the circle to see where your natural grip and presentation was off you'd be ok. But for me that was a very short period of time. And I accomolished the same thing by moving the pistol so that I could see which direction my hold on the pistol was off.

The outer circle does the same thing (you did) more efficiently, IMO. Instead of "wiggling" or "moving" pistol to see which direction you're off... the outer circle tells you (the errant direction) in a way that is instinctively and immediately understood. I'm tellin' ya... it freakin' works. VERY quickly.

I no longer need it, of course. And when you no longer need it (because your grip and presentation are dialed in), you don't even see it. Of course, you can turn it off permanently at that point, if desired.

It's a brilliant design, IMO. I would HIGHLY recommend it for folks who are new to pistol optics.

 

[ronin.45]

I think all the optics you're looking at will fit the rmr footprint. The SRO may need a slight relief in front of the lens housing depending on slide.
You picked the correct option(507c) in my opinion, but you still have options if you change your mind later.

 

[Moab762]

I think all the optics you're looking at will fit the rmr footprint. The SRO may need a slight relief in front of the lens housing depending on slide.
You picked the correct option(507c) in my opinion, but you still have options if you change your mind later.

I wish this was made a little clearer. Every machine shop lists cuts for various optics. Rather than just the various optic mounting patterns. It makes it look like you're only going to get a cut for that specific rds. So swapping rds never comes to mind. I kept thinking that when this sight becomes outdated I'm gonna have to have the cut modified or get a new slide. Glad that isn't the case.