Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

New CHPWS RMR/SRO Mounting Plate for X5 Legion, M18, M17


Recommended Posts

On 4/26/2020 at 12:10 PM, jliew08 said:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Here's my pre RMR slide just for informational purposes.  It's one big pocket and even thinner where the left RMR hole would go.

IMG_20200501_142039.jpg

 

Also, I posted this in the Legion thread but figured I'd share it here too since it was being discussed. On a whim I called Sig retail yesterday to see if they have started including the RMR/SRO holes on the p320 full size slides they sell like are now coming on the x5 Legion and the guy I talked to said yes. I reconfirmed then went ahead and ordered a full size Pro-cut slide and barrel to use on my Legion with the SRO I already have.

 

Edited by Michael303
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, SickSilverado said:

What size screws for the RMR to Legion. Having trouble finding the correct ones. Its not M4 70, not 6-32, not m3 50.  Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

6-40 x 1/2 fits

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the newer Legions do have holes for an RMR pattern sight, the SRO and RMR don't appear to fit tight to the front of the slide cut. I'd be worried that after many rounds the lack of support for the sight as the slide returns to battery may put too much shear stress on the mounting screws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed the Springer plate puts the SRO to the rear of the slide, well away from the ejector port. The CHPWS plate puts the SRO much closer to the port, almost as if you did not have a plate. I myself have decided to go with a plate regardless of the hole pattern in my slide accepting the SRO. 

My question is this. Which plate puts the SRO in a better position for CO division based on tracking the dot. Does it even matter that much? I get that the further back it sits, the less chance of interfering with ejection and debris on the lens. Am I overthinking it?  I do not plan on running mine with iron sights so the dovetail on the CHPWS would be lost on me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Is there an opinion as to which mounting plate is "best" ? Does the weapon function well with the forward mount SP, or is it better further back? Thanks for any replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the Springer forward mount. I had a few jams until I replaced the extractor to the Lone Wolf one. When my SRO went out and i got it replaced, I got the newer, further back mount. It has been working fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, terrydoc said:

Is there any reason that these plates wouldn't work on an X5 non Legion model?  Is there any dimension differences between the iron sight plates? 

Springer Precision makes a plate for the non-Legion X-five. The Non-Legion X-five is set up for a Romeo1 optic. Not the Pro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I was simply asking if it "could " be used bearing in mind it doesn't use any of the threads in the slide I don't believe so it would be a matter of spacing and I know people have mounted the R1 on M17 slides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 6/1/2020 at 1:41 AM, terrydoc said:

Is there any reason that these plates wouldn't work on an X5 non Legion model?  Is there any dimension differences between the iron sight plates? 

 

I realize you may have found the answer by now but I thought I'd mention the following:

 

I have this exact situation. An "old" pre-Legion X5. 

The following CH plate works for a RMR/Holosun footprint RDS: https://benstoegerproshop.com/sig-p320-optic-plate-for-romeo1-to-rmr-sro-holosun-by-chpws/

 

It mounts up nicely and the plate is, as noted, very thin.

 

One issue I see is that the included screws, 6-48, intrude into the extractor spring/pin channel far enough to make contact with the spring and/or pin.

 

So you can't install or remove the extractor after the sight is installed. 

 

Plus the interference as the gun cycles probably isn't a good thing either although there is not a lot going on there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Good info there, If I get one I'l shorten the screw a bit. I have an Outer Impact multi plate as a back up in case my R1 crapps out at least I'll be able to keep shooing depending on availability of RDS down here in Australia.

 

Edited by terrydoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, terrydoc said:

Thank you. Good info there, If I get one I'l shorten the screw a bit. I have an Outer Impact multi plate as a back up in case my R1 crapps out at least I'll be able to keep shooing depending on availability of RDS down here in Australia.

 

 

Yeah, I'll need to shorten that screw before I can actually use this thing. I ordered some extra 6-48 screws in case I mess that up.

One thing I've discovered is that the 6-48 screw size is not all that popular.

None of the online suppliers I checked carry 6-48. I ended up buying some off of Ebay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 7:12 PM, tyr264 said:

Is there an opinion as to which mounting plate is "best" ? Does the weapon function well with the forward mount SP, or is it better further back? Thanks for any replies.

 

I have used both Springer Precision versions on my Legion.  The first version actually mounted the SRO as indicated before slightly over the back of ejection port.  This never caused an issue with ejection of brass from my Legion.  The gun never malfunctioned due to the position of the optic.  I had an early version of the Legion that had the LCI (Loaded chamber indicator) cut in the barrel.  The first Gen Springer Precision mount mounted the optic over the LCI and thus powder residue would directly build up on the underside of the optic. The optic case not the optic lens itself, not the lens just the case.  I did find I had to clean the optic every 500-700 rounds to remove mild powder residue buildup.  I have since bought and installed the new Springer Precision version where the optic is completely mounted towards the back of the slide.  I think this is a better location.  Very rarely do I have to clean up powder residue from the optic.  As far as difference in performance of the optic in either location in aiming the gun I did not see any difference between the two plates

 

On 6/1/2020 at 1:41 AM, terrydoc said:

Is there any reason that these plates wouldn't work on an X5 non Legion model?  Is there any dimension differences between the iron sight plates? 

 

As far as the Springer Precision adapter  plates are not interchangeable between the X5 (non Legion versions) and the X5 Legion.  The way the front of the plate is inserted in the slide cut is different.  I also believe the sight plates are different lengths.  I have only heard this about the sight plate lengths I have not verified this for myself.  It would seem the plate CHPWS has created will work on both  the Non Legion X5, and the X5 Legions slides.  The position of the SRO using the CHPWS seems to be the same exact location as the first gen Springer Precision adapter plate.  Slightly over the back of the ejection port.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Been reading all morning, is there any consensus on which plate is “best practice”.  I have a thick springer plate on my x5 which mounts dot in conventional position and have had zero issues. Concerned that the offset springer mount will present different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a CH plate last week to mount an SRO. I have all of 30 rounds through it, just sight in and a few extra. From just mounting and handling, I like the thinnest of the plate, and the steel T nuts the sight screws into. The plate itself is secured to the slide with included screws through the bottom of the slide, but into aluminum, I wish there was steel there also. The included dovetail to put a supressor height Glock rear sight is needless for competition shooters, I wish there had been an option to get it without. It was $20 more than the Springer, but you get a little lower sight mount, and the Zev style sight mounts that go up into the sight body. I’ll have to keep an eye on if the forward location of the sight causes any smoking on the glass, but I haven’t seen it yet in limited shooting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...