testtest

HEX Wasp Torture Test: Did It Survive?

conax

Elite
If I do my part the Hellcat RDP prints some decent groups for me. My trigger technique still needs work. I had an East German made Makarov that I could shoot better but it didn't hold 12 rounds and was quite a bit heavier. Even so, the Hellcat has me going out to the range more often, grinning like a kid with a new toy.
The RDP has attracted some attention out there. The old guys marvel at the sight and the capacity.
Over all I love it.
 

Bassbob

Ronin
If I do my part the Hellcat RDP prints some decent groups for me. My trigger technique still needs work. I had an East German made Makarov that I could shoot better but it didn't hold 12 rounds and was quite a bit heavier. Even so, the Hellcat has me going out to the range more often, grinning like a kid with a new toy.
The RDP has attracted some attention out there. The old guys marvel at the sight and the capacity.
Over all I love it.
The East German and Russian Makarovs are VERY accurate in my experience.
 

Bear007

Elite
Did I miss mention of a drop test?
Not sure here but banging it against the timber wall 110 times should cover a drop test from 3 or 4 feet high for me. 🤔

I'm glad Paul is testing it because I wouldn't want to spend all that money to do that to mine.

Also, if it wasn't a firearm I'd say give it to my 3 yo grandson to play with, he can break anything! 🙄 Then you will know its limits.
 

conax

Elite
Not sure here but banging it against the timber wall 110 times should cover a drop test from 3 or 4 feet high for me. 🤔

I'm glad Paul is testing it because I wouldn't want to spend all that money to do that to mine.

Also, if it wasn't a firearm I'd say give it to my 3 yo grandson to play with, he can break anything! 🙄 Then you will know its limits.
I don't remember which one, but when I was deciding on the Hellcat I saw one video where they dropped one (sight down) onto rocks. They only dropped it once. It was a nasty fall.
The Hex is made of 6061 aluminum and pretty thick metal at that. Paul gave it a good test. It was under water for a half hour.
Sold!
 

conax

Elite
The East German and Russian Makarovs are VERY accurate in my experience.
I got mine a stainless barrel (lots of corrosive ammo in those days) and a cushy rubber grip. It had a fine front blade and a narrow notch rear sight so (if you had the eyes) you could take a fine bead. Excellent trigger, too. They are very under-rated. It seems shooters are looking for SA/DA autos now. Look no further.
You could buy the Bulgies for $149 when I paid $300 for the E German, but it looked like new and the Bulgarians were pretty rough.
 

TSiWRX

Custom
Not sure here but banging it against the timber wall 110 times should cover a drop test from 3 or 4 feet high for me. 🤔

Well.....yes and no..... 😁 :p

Using the slide/sights/optic to cycle the weapon is actually a very, very common drill -and occurrence- during/in training classes, especially if the focus (oh man, that pun! 😅 ) of the class is towards weapons-manipulation in terms of stoppages and even more so if it is geared towards the "injured shooter" context.

In my view, it's harsh, for-sure -I've got paint-transfer from barricades and other physical structures that have marred the rear-sight on both of my training pistols- but it's not quite as harsh...or is perhaps a different kind of harsh...versus a dedicated "drop-test." To me, cycling the pistol off the optic is more a test of how well the mounting system works/holds, and is more tangential where it comes to the physical toughness of the optic itself.

To-Wit, Aaron Cowan's white-paper specifically breaks out impact-testing versus drop-testing.

I don't remember which one, but when I was deciding on the Hellcat I saw one video where they dropped one (sight down) onto rocks. They only dropped it once. It was a nasty fall.
The Hex is made of 6061 aluminum and pretty thick metal at that.

(y)

------

Also, if it wasn't a firearm I'd say give it to my 3 yo grandson to play with, he can break anything! 🙄 Then you will know its limits.

^ LOL, agreed! :ROFLMAO: :LOL: (y) (y) (y)
 

Bassbob

Ronin
I got mine a stainless barrel (lots of corrosive ammo in those days) and a cushy rubber grip. It had a fine front blade and a narrow notch rear sight so (if you had the eyes) you could take a fine bead. Excellent trigger, too. They are very under-rated. It seems shooters are looking for SA/DA autos now. Look no further.
You could buy the Bulgies for $149 when I paid $300 for the E German, but it looked like new and the Bulgarians were pretty rough.
I got a nice Bulgarian. I got both of mine probably 30 years ago though.
 
Did I miss mention of a drop test?
You didn't. I'm not sure that I'm as worried about the whole drop test deal as we tend to be in the industry. I think that the drop test standard came from a completely different use of red dots that being mounted on a pistol.

When people started mounting a red dot on a rifle as a secondary optic, it was important for that optic to be rugged. Because of how a rifle is used and carried, it is gonna get beat... So the standard was "hey if we can drop this loaded m4 directly on the optic and the optic lives we are gtg."

FFWD to today. The primary use of the small dots is slide mounting on a pistol. Do those dots need to be rugged? yeah. But do they need to be "survive a drop on the optic with gun loaded strong?" I don't think its as important as we make it seem. So I skipped the drop test and focused more on how I actually want to use the optic.

Hopefully that makes sense.
 
So what are the differences between the WASP and the Shield SMSc they look pretty similar to me. What advantage does the one have over the other?
off the top of my head, Wasp has a sturdier housing, front hood to protect the lens, the stronger HEX shape, and serrations on the rear of the housing. I think the WASP is a dot that is designed with serious use in mind and it will stand up to it.
 

TSiWRX

Custom
You didn't. I'm not sure that I'm as worried about the whole drop test deal as we tend to be in the industry. I think that the drop test standard came from a completely different use of red dots that being mounted on a pistol.

When people started mounting a red dot on a rifle as a secondary optic, it was important for that optic to be rugged. Because of how a rifle is used and carried, it is gonna get beat... So the standard was "hey if we can drop this loaded m4 directly on the optic and the optic lives we are gtg."

FFWD to today. The primary use of the small dots is slide mounting on a pistol. Do those dots need to be rugged? yeah. But do they need to be "survive a drop on the optic with gun loaded strong?" I don't think its as important as we make it seem. So I skipped the drop test and focused more on how I actually want to use the optic.

Hopefully that makes sense.

That is a sensible reply that explains your POV. Thank you for taking the time to reply! :)

That said, I respectfully disagree with portions of that line of reasoning.

You're absolutely right in that the way we handle our long-guns versus our handguns typically exposes the former's mounted optic(s) to more risk. However, I do not believe that this paints a complete picture.

I think that the likelihood of dropping the handgun is a risk that needs to be weighed. Be it during actual use (i.e. competition/training...I think that for the sake of the debate, it's easier to simply steer clear of the endless possibilities and "what-ifs" of defensive/duty use) or simple administrative handling, it's not uncommon that a handgun -or just the slide- is dropped, often from somewhere between waist and shoulder height. Servicing one's weapon on a range-bench or literally "spinning the gun out of one's hand" on a draw that was compromised by either gear or clothing snagging the muzzle -or just a simple fumble during a pick-up- these rather common occurrences will (or, rather, should) see the pistol (the slide? I'ma try to catch that!) fall unrestrained to the ground.

To me, the drop-test isn't so much a matter of "how much will the optic survive" in terms of repeated abuse, which, as you noted, is more likely to be in the form of rigorous weapon-manipulations that may at-times occur on surfaces/objects that are less kind to the optic than our soft paws, belt, body-gear, or even shoe/boot-heel. Cycling the slide off a barricade or using the same in an attempt to mortar a stuck round...you're absolutely right in that these are the *most likely* scenarios for which a slide-mounted mRDS will take a (repeated) beating. Rather, to me, the more practical interpretation (again, I'd prefer to keep the what-ifs of "the combat/fight scenario" out of it) of the drop-test is about how far we as end-users should take our our back-up plans for the time when that primary unit needs to be returned to the manufacturer. For a concealed-carrier or hobbyist shooter who may simply substitute in a different weapon altogether, this may not matter much. But for someone who is looking for consistency and may already have a backup gun or slide, it then becomes a matter of "should I look for a third" (because we'll already have packed an identically set-up backup gun in our range-bag) versus spending that money on something that's a bit more frivolous.
 

Bassbob

Ronin
It’s not just dropping the pistol. Banging it off shite, which happens all the time. Constant recoil. Using it to rack the slide. They’re considerations.

Vortex Venom is a pretty highly regarded RDMS. I have one on a range gun. I wouldn’t use it on a carry gun though. Delta Point Pro? Certainly.
 
Top