Red Dot Sight Revolver Project: Leupold DeltaPoint Pro

Welcome to the first red dot sight evaluation of the Red Dot Sight Revolver Project! To view previous entries in this series please visit the Red Dot Sight Revolver Project page. The Leupold DeltaPoint Pro is a popular miniature red dot sight. Several features have made it a popular choice for competition and self-defense roles. My primary use for this optics lies on the competition side of the fence. This is a very popular optic on the market, so I wanted to put it through my testing procedure. Here are some of my thoughts on this red dot sight!

DeltaPoint Pro

The DeltaPoint Pro is one of the largest red dots on the market. Perhaps the most notable feature is the optic's large window and shroud to protect the lens. This offers a very wide viewing range. I've heard many complaints regarding the size of red dot windows. This lens allows for very quick target acquisition and tracking. Leupold's lens treatment does not have the bluish tint present in other optics. While I really appreciate the more accurate colors, I did notice a bit of glare in bright sunlight. There are two different reticles available for the DPP: a 2.5 MOA dot and a 7.5 MOA triangle. I wasn't sure I would like the large triangle, so the model I selected featured the smaller dot.

The optic body is very tall to accommodate the top mounted battery compartment. Several optics require removal from the mount to swap the battery, but the DPP's design does not. Changing the CR 1632 battery is quick and easy with the hinged door. The latch requires a deliberate action to open, so I can't imagine the gate popping open of it's own accord. The adjustment button is located on top of the battery door. Pressing the button turns the optic on and adjusts brightness in a linear fashion: all the way up then all the way down. I would have preferred two smaller buttons, but I understand why a single button was used. Before proceeding to my test results, I would like to discuss some of the ways the optic can be mounted to a handgun.

Mounting Options

Allchin Gun Parts

Allchin Gun Parts Mini STS Scope Mounts are available for  several optics for both Smith & Wesson and Ruger revolvers. This model is compatible with both the Leupold DeltaPoint Pro and Sig Romeo 3. Each mount ships with two alignment pins, two optics screws, and three frame screws to securely mount the optic to the pre-drill S&W frames. These are available in clear and black anodized finishes for $45.00 - $55.00. These mounts have not officially launched, but should be available soon and if you are a Ruger fan, a compatible mount is also in the development!

Outerimpact M.R.A

While milling slides for optics is preferred by many shooters, the Outerimpact M.R.A offers a non-permanent solution to mounting several optics on an OEM slide via the rear sight dovetail. The M.R.A ships with a plethora of screws to mount the plate to the slide and various optics to the plate. The M.R.A. is a great way to test optics before committing to slide milling. The DeltaPoint Pro may seem to sit very high on the slide, but this did not hamper shooting in any way. These are available for $50.00 and are a great way to try an optic on your automatic!

  

Raptor Engineering

  

Raptor Engineering offers several mounts for Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Freedom Arms revolvers. Raptor mounts are very low profile and include three screws to mount to pre-drilled S&W K/L/N frames. Due to the low profile nature of the mount, alternative screw may also be include if the optic's factory screws are too long. These are available in a clear anodized finish for $40.oo. 

Glock M.O.S

  

The Glock M.O.S system is available on several Gen 4 and Gen 5 Glock models. The slide is milled wide to allow for several optics to be mounted. Four plates are included to fit the most popular optics on the market. The DeltaPoint Pro requires installation of Plate 04. This is a great way to see if a slide mounted optic is for you! If you decided you don't want an optic anymore, you can simply install the slide cap that replicates the normal slide profile.

Bill Drill Results

Performance

Glock 19: 2.80
S&W 929: 3.20

Glock 17: 3.79
S&W 66: 4.51

Draw

Glock 19: 1.74

Glock 17: 1.74
S&W 929: 2.05

S&W 66: 2.18 

Splits

Glock 19: 0.21 

Glock 17: 0.21 

S&W 929: 0.23 

S&W 66: 0.27

Box Drill Results

Performance

Glock 17: 5.63
S&W 66: 6.72
S&W 929: 7.04

Glock 19: 7.19

Draw

Glock 17: 1.88

S&W 929: 2.28

S&W 66: 2.28

Glock 19: 2.45

Splits

Glock 17: 0.55 

S&W 66: 0.61 

Glock 19: 0.81 

S&W 929: 0.82 

Bullseye Drill Results

Performance

Glock 17: 5.30

S&W 929: 5.53

S&W 66: 5.65

Glock 19: 6.91

Draw

Glock 17: 2.03

S&W 66: 2.54
S&W 929: 2.78

Glock 19: 3.28

Splits

S&W 66: 0.89
Glock 17: 0.97

Glock 19: 0.98
S&W 929: 1.04

Reload Drill

Performance

Glock 17: 3.52

Glock 19: 4.57

S&W 929: 5.74

S&W 66: 6.42

Draw

Glock 17: 1.35
S&W 66: 1.65

Glock 19: 1.71

S&W 929: 1.79

Splits

Glock 17: 2.17

Glock 19: 3.19
S&W 929: 3.96

S&W 66: 4.77

Iron Sights vs. DeltaPoint Pro

The third goal of the RDSR Project is to compare optic equipped and iron sighted handguns. After comparing the optic data averages with the iron sight averages, it appears there is a slight performance increase with the DeltaPoint Pro over iron sighted handguns in several drills. 

 

  

The Bill Drill is only shot once rather than three times. The data suggests that the Red Dot Sight Automatics (RDSAs) performed better than their iron sighted counterparts. On the other hand, the Red Dot Sight Revolvers (RDSRs) performed worse than the iron sighted revolvers. The S&W 929 and S&W 66 times certainly are comparable, but the penalty time doesn't help.

  

Excusing my performance with the S&W 929, the Box Drill results show a significant advantage to the DPP equipped platforms compared to iron sights. The other test subjects showed a thirteen (13) to sixteen (16) percent increase in speed over traditional sights. This performance increase may justify a red dot sight to those unsure of the benefits of optic equipped handgun.

  

  

The Bullseye Drill results really highlight the advantages of a red dot sight over iron sights. Excluding the Glock 19 performance, both optics equipped revolvers saw a five (5) and percent increase in speed. The Glock 17 saw a seventeen (17) percent increase over the iron sight model. These are significant improvements in speed. I am impressed with these results!

     

  

The Reload Drill is included to determine if the presence of the large DeltaPoint Pro would hinder reload speed. After reviewing the data, I would say that the optic does impact the reload. With the exception of the Glock 17 M.R.A., all of the optic equipped platforms saw increased reload times. These results have me considering how the other, slightly smaller, optics will fair?

Revolvers vs. Automatics

The fourth goal of the RDSR Project is to compare and contrast Red Dot Sight Revolvers (RDSR) with Red Dot Sight Automatics (RDSA). After the first optic and iron sight comparison, the data gathered suggests that RDSAs have the advantage over RDSRs. This is especially true if a timed reload is included. The lighter trigger pull and simpler reloads will always be an advantage for automatics, but in just the opening shots of a stage, I believe the RDSRs can hold their own. I am looking forward to more data and further comparisons among the platforms.

Conclusions

  

The Leupold DeltaPoint Pro is a big optic, but the features gained from the large size are well worth it. I was a bit worried that the size of the optic would translate to addition recoil on the automatics. Luckily, the felt recoil did not noticeably change when compared to iron sights. The top mounted battery compartment is a great design that does not require the optic to be removed and re-zeroed when a battery change is needed. 

Most of my dot experience thus far has been with larger 6 MOA options, but I decided to try the smaller dot rather than the larger triangle. The 2.5 MOA dot is significantly smaller than other optics I have used in the past. While acclimating to the small dot required a little trigger time, I found myself just as happy with the smaller dot by the end of my testing process. The smaller dot was actually helpful in making accurate head shots in two matches I was able to shoot with the DPP. I even managed to place top 10 for the first time! I really enjoyed this optic and would definitely recommend for revolvers and automatics alike! 

As always, if you have any suggestions for future posts or would like to share your experience on the current topic please post below!

Red Dot Sight Revolver Project: Iron Sight Results

Can't seem to find the S&W 66 picture.

In the overview of the Red Dot Sight Revolver Project, several goals were established. Today's post will be the first step in answering the following question that was raised in the project overview.

What are the advantages and disadvantages to optic equipped revolvers over iron sighted models?

Data from both iron sighted and optic equipped handguns is required to make any real comparisons. Like most shooters, I have significantly more time behind iron sights, and thought this was a great place to start. The iron sight results will also serve as benchmark data for the project and will be featured in every red dot sight review.

A bit further down the page are the data tables showing the results of iron sight testing in four drills. My job requires staring at spreadsheets off and on all day, so I don't want to punish the readers with that. Instead, I've selected three categories to compare, but the complete data tables are also included. The categories are:

Performance - Fastest to complete each drill. 

Draw - Fastest from the holster to first shot on target. 

Splits - Fastest average split time excluding the draw time.

Platforms

Before moving on to the data tables and interpretation of the results, I've included the stats for each of the handguns in the iron sight test. With the exception of the 929, all front sights feature a fiber optic rod. Both revolvers are equipped with rubber Hogue grips without finger grooves. The Glock 17 sports the factory Gen 4 texture, but the Glock 19 features a stipple job with the finger grooves removed. Here are the specifications for each platform used in this test:

Smith & Wesson 929

Caliber: 9mm

Barrel Length: 6.5 inches

Weight: 44 ounces

Grips Frame: Rubber/Full

Trigger Pull: 7.5 pounds

Sights: Black Front and Black Rear

Glock 17

Caliber: 9mm

Barrel Length: 4.49 inches

Weight: 22 ounces

Grip/Frame Length: Texture/Full

Trigger Pull: 6.5 pounds

Sights: Red Fiber Optic Front and Black Rear

Smith & Wesson 66

Caliber: 9mm

Barrel Length: 3.25 inches

Weight: 33 ounces

Grips Frame: Rubber/Full

Trigger Pull: 8.5 pounds

Sights: Green Fiber Optic Front and Black Rear

Glock 19 (23 with Conversion Barrel)
Caliber: 9mm

Barrel Length: 4.02 inches

Weight: 22 ounces

Grips Frame: Texture/Compact

Trigger Pull: 6.5 pounds

Sights: Red Fiber Optic Front and Black Rear

Bill Drill

Performance

S&W 929: 2.94 

S&W 66: 3.23

Glock 19: 3.31

Glock 17: 4.44

Draw

Glock 19: 1.78

S&W 929: 1.82

S&W 66: 1.99

Glock 17: 2.25

Splits

S&W 929: 0.22
Glock 17: 0.24

S&W 66: 0.25
Glock 19: 0.31

In the Bill Drill, the S&W 929 scored the highest in two of the three categories: Performance and Splits. The 929 was .03 seconds behind the Glock 19 on the Draw. The S&W 66 was second in Performance but third in both Draw and Splits. The Glock 19 had the fastest Draw during this drill but was third in Performance and the slowest Split times. The Glock 17 was the slowest in both Performance (even without the penalty time) and the Draw. The Split times weren't terrible, but this was not stellar performance for a full sized automatic. 

Box Drill

Performance

Glock 17: 6.26

S&W 929: 6.69

S&W 66: 8.02

Glock 19: 8.27

Draw

Glock 17: 2.18

S&W 929: 2.28

S&W 66: 2.38

Glock 19: 2.42

Splits

Glock 17: 0.75
S&W 929: 0.81
S&W 66: 0.83

Glock 19: 0.84

In the Box Drill, the Glock 17 was the best platform in all three categories by a significant margin. The S&W 929 followed closely in second place in all three categories. The S&W 66 and Glock 19 Performance were significantly slower, perhaps due to the compact size. The Glock 19 did not perform well in this drill, finishing in the bottom of each category. 

Reload Drill

Performance

Glock 17: 3.81

Glock 19: 4.45

S&W 929: 4.78

S&W 66: 6.00

Draw

Glock 17: 1.36

S&W 929: 1.53

S&W 66: 1.58

Glock 19: 1.64

Splits

Glock 17: 2.45
Glock 19: 2.81

S&W 929: 3.25

S&W 66: 4.42

While the Performance and Draw are both still important data sets, the Reload Drill is focused on comparing the reload speed of each platform. Let's be honest, unless you are as skilled as Jerry Miculek, a magazine fed automatic is going to reload faster than a revolver loading with moon clips or speed loaders. What I was interested in was exactly how much faster. At my skill level, it appears that my magazine reloads are only 0.80 to 0.44 seconds faster than my moon clip reloads. My speed loader reloads are significantly slower, but again, many shooters already understand that speed loaders are not as fast as the name implies.

Bullseye Drill

Performance

S&W 929: 5.85

S&W 66: 5.98

Glock 17: 6.41

Glock 19: 6.91

Draw

Glock 17: 2.50

S&W 929: 2.63

S&W 66: 2.78

Glock 19: 2.91

Splits

S&W 929: 0.94

Glock 17: 1.12

S&W 66: 1.27

Glock 19: 1.33

In the Bullseye Drill, the S&W 929 was the fastest in both Performance and Splits. The Draw was slightly slower than the full size Glock 17. The S&W 66 earned the second place in Performance, but both the Draw and Splits were near the bottom. The performance of the Glock 19 places it at the bottom of each category. It is interesting that both revolvers results show faster times in Performance than both automatics. 

Conclusions

Some of the red dot sights in scheduled for testing.

  

This round of testing shows the two full size handguns in direct competition for the top position. I can't say that this is particularly surprising. Larger frame handguns are typically easier to shoot more accurately and faster. The results certainly reflect that concept. Gun shop wisdom suggests that "revolvers are more accurate that automatics" but I've never tested this before now.

I've considered the possibility that the non-reciprocating sights on revolvers may result in slightly better accuracy at distance when compared to tracking the sights on a reciprocating slide. After looking at the data from the Bullseye Drill, this might be a reasonable conclusion. I look forward to seeing how the additional data from red dot sight testing will support or contradict my thoughts. 

Many of the conclusions drawn from this testing reinforced my understandings of both the limitations of revolvers and advantages automatics. The results of the iron sight testing will be used to compare irons to optics in future posts. Testing of the first red dot sight is now also complete. Please keep an eye out for this post soon!

As always, if you have any suggestions for future posts or would like to share your experience on the current topic please post below!

The Rose City IDPA Championship 2018

My First Tier 2 Match

I've shot more than my fair share of IDPA matches over the past few years, so it's about time for me to shoot a sanctioned match. As luck would have it, several of the local shooters worked together to put on a match in Tyler, TX so I didn't even have to travel! This was a lucky break as the travel expenses have deterred me from shooting anything but local matches. 

As a wheel gunner, I elected to shoot in the Revolver Division. IDPA's Revolver is divided into two categories; Stock and Enhanced. I typically shoot in the REV - S division with 115 power factor .38 Special ammunition and speed loaders. The REV - Enhanced division allows for a moon clips as long as the rounds meet the higher power factor of 155. Most factory .45ACP that isn't loaded light, but the shooter I borrowed this revolver from was happy to load up some rounds for both practice sessions and the match.

The eight stage event was held at Rose City Flying Clays on July 13-14, 2018. As the match was held on one large bay, the participants were divided into four squads, with a morning and afternoon shoot each day. I chose the Friday morning squad. The arrival time was early, but I figured that was better to get up before dawn than shoot in the heat. I arrived at the range that morning and after a detailed safety brief, we were ready to shoot! 
 

Match Revolver

Before we get to the individual stages, I wanted to discuss my rig for the match. The revolver I competed with was a Smith & Wesson 625 JM. It features an Apex Tactical Evolution IV Hammer and an Apex Extended Firing Pin resulting in a trigger pull between six (6) and seven (7) pounds. The 625 is chambered in .45ACP and while there is a more felt recoil, the Hogue X-frame Tamer grips cushion the recoil. I wish Hogue manufactured a version with no finger grooves, because I hate those grooves. 

I've mentioned before that I am very fond of moon clips and believe that all revolvers should be cut this way. This is especially true with the big round-nose bullets. The full moon clips load and unload incredibly fast compared to speed loaders. Even with the high power factor that is required to use moon clips, this was a lot of fun to run at my first sanctioned match. Now onto the stages!

Should I Stay or Should I Go

Stage One of the match required three shots per target from behind the fault line. There were three levels of priority which required targets to be engaged  from near to far. As the Smith & Wesson 625 cylinder only holds six rounds, I reloaded after engaging every two targets. This was a great warm up stage! Even with a misfire, my total time was 27.41 seconds with no points down. My overall placement was 52nd out of 72 shooters.

  

A 1000 Things to Remember

Stage Two was the standards stage. Targets were engaged in priority from near to far behind a designated fault line with each target receiving only one round. Between each fault line shooters were required to swap from freestyle at ten yards, strong hand only at seven yards,  and weak hand only at five yards. This was challenging, but I was only seven (7) points down with a total time of 50.58 seconds. My overall placement was 42nd of 72 shooters.

Law Breakers

Stage Three required one shot to the body and one shot to the head on each target. The first target array went well, but a misfire on the second array threw off my game a bit. That makes two misfires at this match after just three stages. Luckily, the round went off the second time under the hammer. I was only two (2) points down with a total time of 36.48 seconds. My overall placement was 53rd of 72 shooters.
 

Drop Tubby and Run

Stage Four began with shooters carrying a stuffed giraffe, named Tubby, that must be returned to his tub after engaging three targets. Many shooters elected to hold Tubby by his tail while shooting and drop him into his tub on the way to the next position. We were warned that Tubby was a delicate giraffe and could potentially bounce out of his tub. Those that aggressively released Tubby had to retrieve him from the mud before gently placing him in the tub. Tubby cooperated for me and I finished the stage only two (2) points down with a total time of 29.41 seconds. My overall placement was 44th of 72 shooters.
 

Steel Deal

Stage Five did not require the first array to be shot strong hand only, but the drop turner target moved quickly when the rope was pulled. At that distance, I figured strong hand only made the most sense. This turned out to be a good strategy and several shooters followed a similar plan. At the final position, a mover slide along a cable. I may have been trying to hard to avoid the no shoot because my shoots were on the far edge of the target. My second to last shot was another misfire. That makes three light strikes. I finished with seven (7) points down with a total time of 34.80 seconds. My overall placement was 57th of 72 shooters.

I Surrender...Nevermind

Stage Six was going relatively well until my second reload. I struggled with the moon clip for a few seconds before it seated in the cylinder. This ate up time and moved me way down the list. Upon further inspection, the case mouth had a burr that hung up on the cylinder. I must have missed this when loading that round into the moon clip. At least it wasn't another misfire. I finished one (1) point down with a total time of 35.41 seconds. My overall placement was 71st of 72 shooters. This was my worst stage.
 

Car-Motion

This stage featured for a car prop. We don't usually have vehicles on the range, so I thought that was pretty neat. When making ready for the stage, the moon clip would not seat in the cylinder. I remember the previous stage and rather than forcing it, I swapped to another moon. The first array went well, but the reload was a disaster. After fiddling with it for a few seconds, I chunked it rather than stowing it. Leaving live rounds is a procedural penalty, but my time was so poor the match director didn't give me one. If you listen, you can hear another shooter comment on the misfires that day. Further inspection revealed a split case, so I'm glad it didn't chamber. I finished one (1) point down with a total time of 39.87 seconds. My overall placement was 69th of 72 shooters.  
 

Too Much Junk in the Trunk 

Stage Eight featured an unloaded start and required shooters to stow any ammunition they needed before proceeding. I figured that I would bring the third reload just in case the ammunition decided not to cooperate once again. Thankfully, everything loaded correctly. I tried to leave the first position before engaging the third target and crowded cover after my reload. I was pretty tired at this point. I finished one (1) point down with a total time of 38.08 seconds. My overall placement was 50th of 72 shooters.

Conclusions

 

I finished the match just as it started to warm up around on Friday afternoon. It was a very early morning, but I was glad that I completed the match before the heat of the day. Dinner and a small award ceremony was scheduled for Saturday evening after the conclusion of the match. After a decent burger, I went into the clubhouse for the ceremony. It was a bit warm, but I got to chat with other shooters about their performance on the stages.

Despite the competition (myself), I managed to take home a nice plaque as the 2018 Revolver Division Champion! I don't know if I really deserved a trophy as the only shooter in my division, but it is proudly displayed in my office. I enjoyed my first sanctioned IDPA match and plan to shoot a sanctioned match or two next season. I really hope that this event happens again next year! 

One final note. While receiving my award at the ceremony Saturday evening, another shooter said that several folks planned to join me in the Revolver Division for the 2019 season. This is pretty exciting news! Competing against other revolver shooters is a welcome change. We'll see how many are up to the challenge!

As always, if you have any suggestions for future posts or would like to share your experience on the current topic please post below!