JGT

I bought the Razor and it arrived this morning. All of this has been said by people far more skilled and experienced than me, but for what it's worth here are my initial impressions and comparison with my two prior scopes, the Burris mtac and Steiner p4xi. The mtac was my first lpvo, I got it 5 or 6 years ago and I've had the Steiner on another rifle for maybe 2 years now. I haven't owned any high-end stuff like kahles, swaro etc so I don't have match experience using scopes further up the ladder. The razor is pretty darn clear. I'm not wowed by the glass clarity because the Steiner's is nearly on par but it is very good. Both leave the mtac in the dust, it seems cloudy and blurry in comparison. Where the razor really stands out to me is that the eyebox is so big I couldn't decide how far forward or back to mount it on the rifle. 1x is by far the best I've personally used, the fov is huge and the ocular ring completely disappears in use. Overall, I see what the fuss is about, this will be fun to use in a match, especially for close-up burner stages. That being said, if you can live with 4x, I think the Steiner is 80% as good (70% on 1x and 90% magnified) for less than a third the cost (I got it for around $400). The eyebox on the steiner is definitely not as forgiving and the 1x isn't quite as good either, but the glass clarity is really impressive for the price. It hasn't broken through many matches and two classes and I bang my stuff around pretty mercilessly. I do think the razor will have a minor advantage up close, but it may not be measurable on a timer. Sometimes the difference in gear is more about confidence / ease and repeatability of achieving a certain standard.

Now that the 1-10 razor is hitting the market, is the price of the 1-6 likely to drop? Are there any good seasonal sales or deals coming up in the next few months? I have seen the 1-6 for around $1k-1100 at times. Should I just get the viper? Is it really 85% of the glass quality for half the price? I shoot to 400 yards max locally. Thank you!

You guys mind putting up some impressions once you get them please? Looking at it for carry optics.

I'm also 6'5" so it makes sense that you'd be in the same boat as me. For 80% of shooters they probably don't have to worry about LOP as much, just pull the stock out a notch and go. I should make it clear that I'm a total FNG in competition shooting and you could fill a tanker with what I don't know. I might learn in 6 months that I have this all wrong. That being said, I try to pay attention and watch what the more experienced people say and do, and I can chime in with my direct experiences from classes or matches with some of the top folks. Flatland shooter, I agree with your point on firing hand grip pressure and the potential effect on trigger finger motor control. I grip the PCC pistol grip pretty much the same way / same pressure I hold a handgun: tight but not so hard it compromises my ability to manipulate the trigger.

I agree with you that in the picture it appears as though the stock is not fully extended on the buffer tube, HOWEVER, look at the distance between his chin and firing-hand thumb. It matches up with the Patrick Kelley video on length of pull or is even longer (3 fingers width distance). Link: In the picture, if Max were to reposition the gun such that the buttstock were parallel with his forearm while keeping the arm bent 90 degrees it appears as if it would approximately reach the crook of his arm / bicep. Further, if you look at his support hand, it is quite close to the receiver with elbow slightly bent, another piece of the evidence that the LOP on the buttstock is sufficiently long for his frame. When guys run the stock too short for their height/reach, they end up with their support hand much further out on the gun, even without doing the extreme Costa grip with the elbow locked and thumb on top of the handguard. Mr. Leograndis messes with his setup a lot and I have no doubt that it evolves over time, but this photo still appears (in my mind) to show a relatively longish LOP despite the apparent positioning of the buttstock on the buffer tube. Remember this is all relative to one's personal anatomy. edit: here's a link to a video where he has his new Limcat held with arm at 90 degrees and the buttstock is actually well past the crook of the arm / bicep. I could be wrong but I think he is not very tall.

Great points here regarding proper stance / grip. I took John Mcphee's 100yard carbine class over the winter and my big takeaway from the slow-motion video analysis was that at the beginning of the class, none of the shooters had their body weight leaned forward enough nor were any of us holding the gun tightly enough or pulling the buttstock back vigorously enough into our bodies. The difference that correcting these two factors made in our group sizes (standing, kneeling and prone) by the end of the class was astonishing. The same applies to recoil control / double-tap speed when shooting quickly. To Acer2428's point, there is definitely a measurable, quantifiable difference between holding the rifle loosely and with bodyweight back on the heels versus pulling buttstock in aggressively and maintaining an athletic stance with the weight forward. Even with my height and (over)weight, the recoil will still bounce me around, making double taps open up (A/C or A/D versus double alpha), if I don't mount the gun properly and get the right cheek weld, buttstock positon and lean into the gun with knees broken, weight on the balls of the feet, and shoulders forward of hips. Getting the buttstock positioned further into the centerline of the body as MemphisMechanic suggests is also helpful, but I still try to roll my strong-side shoulder forward and up toward my ear and drop my chin slightly to form a pocket for the butt of the gun between the pec / shoulder / cheek, then I really pull the gun into that pocket hard with both hands. I also have more of a break in my support-side elbow and that hand a little closer to me, not elbow all the way locked out and hand close to the end of the handguard. You want to maximize your contact with the rifle, kind of wrap yourself around it and get your weight into it. This all gets exponentially harder when you are also trying to move around, I struggle to maintain that upper body tension while shooting on the move. That's something I just need to practice more. I am still new to PCC, but in 5.56 carbine / shotgun I find that adjusting length of pull for your height/reach is really helpful. I'm large and most carbine stocks are marginal LOP for me at full extension.Those wacky stocks with adjustments for comb height, toe drop, cant, LOP etc are popular in 3-gun for good reason. It is far easier to get a consistent mount, proper cheek weld and eye position and thus superior recoil control if the gun is properly fit for your anatomy. Take a few minutes to make sure you have the right setup then practice mounting the gun as MemphisMechanic suggested. I try to get the LOP adjusted so that if I hold the rifle in my firing hand with elbow bent around 90 degrees, the buttstock touches my bicep. Some prefer a shorter LOP but in my experience you are then forced to compensate by pulling the gun in even harder. Over even a short time period, recoil and muscle fatigue will gradually open up a gap and the gun will start to bounce forward and backward as you shoot when seen in slow motion video. I'm pretty sure Max Leograndis had a video about his preferred LOP somewhere, and if I recall correctly he also goes for a longer LOP. edit: found the Max Leograndis thing on LOP buried in 2 year old youtube comments: "BTW I run my stock full out on the A5 tube. There is a noticable different in recoil control between the 6th and 7th positions. Having a longer LOP on a rifle is super super stable"

I'm patient, I'll continue to shoot production or PCC until one of them hits and the initial bugs are uncovered. I'm sure Holosun will eventually release a larger window version of the 507 too. I thought the SRO was shipping already and the Romeo 3 Max was projected for july, but I would certainly believe that either or both could get pushed back. Making a dot durable enough to ride on pistol slides is hard.

Picked up and shot the 17 yesterday. First time shooting a 17 or a gen 5, and it was a pleasant experience. I think I actually prefer the gen4 grip with finger grooves, but I do like the slight magwell flare and the trigger is better out of the box. Now I need an optic! SRO, DPP, or wait for the sig Max?

Definitely search for MemphisMechanic on the CMMG, he seems to have the most experience with that platform and has several great posts about it. The bolt system is innovative but ultimately I went with a standard AR9 for the huge aftermarket support and lack of proprietary parts. I was making the same choice between CMMG/AR9/MPX and ended up with a Taccom complete upper on a QC10 lower. I have been very happy with it. Go look at the thread I started when I was making the decision and you can kind of see me work through it in real time in response to feedback. I don't think you'll be unhappy with any of the 3 choices and at the end of the day what's needed is a ton of practice with the platform. I had expected PCC to be 'easy mode', but that is far from the case. There is a learning curve in terms of movement, positioning, and stage planning. Yeah you never (nearly never) have to reload and long shots are easier, but everything up close is slightly harder in my experience thus far. I think the biggest advantage of the PCC is when shooting while moving, so never stand still with a PCC if you can help it. Just my 2 cents based on my first few matches.

Thank you for the replies, I think I'm going to try out the 17 gen5 as I already have a 34 (gen4). Hopefully it will prove a nice middle ground between the long slide and the 19.

The 45 MOS was just released at the NRA annual meeting and has already shipped to dealers. Why do you say the 17 slide length should be the minimum? Should I get the 34 gen 5 mos? If so why?

I have a Glock 34 gen 4 that I use in production, however I've been wanting to try carry optics. I'd like feedback on what to buy for the purpose. Choices are: 1) brownells RMR cut Glock 17 slide and put it on my 34 frame 2) glock 45 mos 3) gen 5 Glock 17 mos fs 4) gen 5 Glock 34 mos Today I handled (but did not shoot) a Glock 45, it was my first time holding a gen 5 and I really liked the upgrades. It seemed to me that the new gen 5 trigger is quite a bit nicer than the gen 4. It's a more significant difference than I had expected. I also liked the magwell flare. For that reason I'm leaning towards purchasing a new gun rather than an optic-cut slide for my 34. However, I'm kind of stumped as to the ideal barrel length for carry optics. Although the sight radius won't matter with an optic, there are still differences in cycle time, balance and perceived recoil between the 3 slide lengths. I know some people prefer the longer slide even with an optic as it feels smoother, but others have said that a shorter slide is an advantage because you have a shorter cycle time and the dot snaps back on target faster (if you have good grip). Does anyone have experience with the 45 or 19x? Is there much difference in feel versus the 17 or 34? What's the latest thinking on slide length for a red dot pistol? Feedback much appreciated, thank you.

Thanks for the videos! I'd love to see more people posting their match or training footage to illustrate what they are saying. The retreat with weak hand on the rail and barrel pointed uprange while you run the other way makes complete sense. Max Leograndis has a video with the same technique. I would also love to see more PCC classes. Given the growth in the division I'd say there is a market, and the movement / problem solving is sufficiently different to pistol that it really needs a dedicated class.

SRO vs sig romeo 3 max for carry optics? Does sig win based on wider window or does trijicon win due to durability for slide-ride plus compatibility with RMR milled slides?

Any thoughts on this versus the new trijicon SRO? Looks like the window dimensions are similar but the sig is a little wider. SRO fits into the RMR footprint which is nice given the number of slides milled for that pattern.