Comments by "geodkyt" (@geodkyt) on "One Cartridge Two Zeros: SIG Romeo 9T" video.

Yeah, for the civilian self defense role, set the "normal" brightness for indoor evening artificial illumination. Should you find yourself facing a break in during a bright sunny day, the "Oh crap!" setting is a button push away, and even if it's a little "bleedy" for your exact lighting conditions, the target is probably what, 10 yards away, maybe? Even a 15 MOA smear is only an inch and a half at that range.
4
Or at least, two uppers, if you're using an AR based system. In a world where great RDS exist at <$500, it's not hard to match or beat the total cost by simply building a dedicated upper for each round with identical setups, and still use the exact same lower (and thus trigger, stock, stock setting, etc.) Now, I can see definate niche cases for this, but primarily for the kinds of folks who would be running "company" hardware to begun with (so the shooter isn't worried about cost, and having just one upper per shooter is almost certainly a better logistics solution versus having a duplicate upper for every shooter).
4
Loterally cheaper and a better fit to the centerfire to build a dedicated .22LR upper with an identical (much cheaper) bombproof RDS. What you spend on the upper (including a dedicated .22LR barrel that has the correct dimensions and twist rate for .22LR, as opposed to trying to use a 5.56mm barrel with ridiculously long lead, the wrong twist, and a gas port) adds up savings fast, when you're looking at an optic that is north of $2K versus 2x identical RDS at $500 or less that are even better optics if you're willing to forgo the dual zero reticle function.
4
For use by folks who are reaching into their own wallets for these, I see a limited utility. I mean, other than something that has an integral and permanently mounted can, it should be easy to build two identical uppers with a less expensive (but still excellent) RDS, and meet or beat the "total system cost" for the same gun equipped with this sight. Now, if you honestly are the kind of person who is going to need to be able to switch between supers and subs on the fly, well, a $2K sight is better than trying to swap uppers in the middle of a firefight, so, sure. But those guys generally are using a government purchase order to get their sights, not their Navy Federal Visa debit card. The feature I really see taking off for private citizens is the idea of the "maximum overdrive" button tap for brightness. Having someolthing like that in an otherwise less complex sight that only has one emitter would be awesome. That is a useful capability for folks using a carbine for home defense and not in a super-nichey use case.
2
It's pretty clear that suppressors are slowly going to become the standard for line grunts. I agree with you on subsonics pretty much remaining a snake eater thing.
1
Except the EOTech doesn't allow you to zero each dot separately - they are physically a set distance apart, and so adjusting one reticle to zero it automatically moves the other the same exact displacement. So it only helps if your ballistics for both cases match exactly with what the factory set in the reticle. I mean, thats certainly good enough for most grenadiers, and probably for most folks who might have to flip from subs at CQB ranges to supers at 200 meters, on the fly, but still doesn't accomplish what this particular sight offers to people who have a need to be precisely zeroed for BOTH cases on the same gun and cannot accept workarounds suitable for your average civilian user like buying two identical uppers with a $500 sight on each. So a niche use case. But a very valid one, if you're one of the people in that use case (and, by and large, those folks aren't required to pay for their optics out of pocket.)
1
@minekush1138 You don't issue every line grunt a $2K red dot on the off chance PVT Snuffy is going to tomato stake his carbine. Snuffy can deal with the zero shift (which is minimal) until he gets a chance to rezero (which, yes, you can do in the field, so long as you are clear to fire shots).
1
For most folks, yeah. I can see niche cases (almost all government users) where this makes a Hell of a lot more sense for the user. And, of course, in those cases, they aren't putting it on their own Mastercard.
1
Yeah, someone other than NCStar or Vism. Hey, Holosun, where you at? 😁
1
Honestly, it would be cheaper to build a dedicated .22 AR upper with a RDS that just stays on the .22 upper. Probably a lot lighter, too, even if you have a pig of an optic (like the older, "full size" Ainpoints).
1
@jeremyallen1260 OK, how many uppers are you building that the same upper, but with a dedicated .22LR barrel (if you're that worried about an exact match, well, you don't want to use a "conversion kit" because the 5.56mm barrel is a lousy choice, ballistically,for .22LR), that exceed about $1000 *for the upper alone*?
1
Eh, rattlecan OD is surpringly easy to apply and maintain.
1
Thats a valid use case. But... most grenadiers with rifle mounted GLs are doing fine without that level of precision (and EOTech, probably others as well, have been offering a setup for those guys for years.) But, I will happily concede it is a good fit for this type of optic.
1
No, its a real solution to a real problem. It's just a problem that realistically only applies to a tiny segment of niche users. For 99% of even the professional users, it's about as relevant as the extreme Arctic capabilities of your sight when you live in Miami and don't spend any time north of the frost line.
1