montgomery wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:32 am
Makes sense - agreed it is hard to beat ACOG if money is not a factor. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
You’re certainly welcome. But don’t overlook options like the Primary Arms or Burris fixed or variable magnification optics for ARs as a viable alternative to the Trijicon. They may run on batteries for illumination, but they do have etched reticles with a valid bullet drop compensator regulated for the .223/5.56 cartridge. I have owned both companies’ options now (a fixed 5x powered Burris Prism sight, and a 1-6x PA scope, and I have to say that I prefer the PA reticle. But my ACOG is better than either. It’s notable that Trijicon now offers an ACOG using Primary Arms’ ACSS reticle, so there is something to it, and if I were able to buy the same ACOG today but with the ACSS reticle, I’d choose that one even over the TA31F reticle I currently have.
Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:58 pm
Here is my most recent. CAA (Israeli) Micro Roni brace for G19 with Vortex SPARC RDS. of course, if RDS fails can always just pull G19 out I reckon
I was happy when they brought out the pistol version of that chassis, because I had no desire to permanently convert my Glock pistol into a registered SBR. I guess that now you can get a “folding” Glock 19 that makes it even easier to fold the whole thing up. I am kicking around the idea of a building a 9mm AR pistol that will take Glock magazines. Alternatively, I might build a 9mm upper and add a mag-well adapter for my already registered SBR. I kind of like the idea of a multiple caliber platform on a single lower. BUT ... and this is the main reason I haven’t sprung for the Micro Roni brace ... I don’t see a practical benefit to a long gun / hand gun fusion unless one takes advantage of the ability to have a longer barrel for better ballistics - and the Roni doesn’t provide that. Whether I build or buy, I want at least an 8” barrel, if not longer, AND I want to be able to mount my pistol suppressor on it.
LONG before the ATF or the NFA existed, people who carried a pistol and a rifle in the same caliber didn’t buy rifles with the same barrel length as their pistols, and for a good reason. It wasn’t enough to just get a more stable shooting position, but a longer barrel gave improved terminal ballistics (and range), and a longer sight radius improved accuracy. Hence the development for example of lever action rifles and pistols chambered in .45 Long Colt. Of course there were compromises, like the mounting of a carbine stock onto a Mauser pistol.
So it seems to me that, at any range at which I am likely to deploy a firearm chambered in a pistol caliber which I already carry, it makes more sense to have either an SBR or carbine which takes my pistol’s magazines. I already own a Keltec Sub-2000, but I’m a little frustrated with a couple of its “features” like unacceptable accuracy. I can actually shoot my G17 more accurately than I can the Sub-2K with the G17 magazines in it, and that’s just ridiculous. So the only benefit it has is greater velocity, but that velocity is meaningless if it doesn’t hit where you want it to. If I regulary carried my .357 revolver, I’d just go get myself a .357 lever action and be done with it. Likewise my .44 magnum revolver (which I never carry). I made the decision for a number of reasons a while back to carry 9mm Glock pistols. So, a long gun chambered in 9mm that accepts my Glock mags is what I’ve settled on, and my principle inner debate is over whether to buy/build a dedicated 9mm AR pistol that takes Glock mags, or to buy/build a 9mm upper + mag-well adapter to fit my existing SBR.