All posts by Howard

Optic of the Week: C-More Tactical Reflex Sight

C-More ARW-4.  Black aluminum body, 4 MOA dot.

Around 2003ish I learned about the C-More Tactical Reflex sight which paired a C-More Reflex Sight along with a cut down adjustable rear sight carry handle base for the AR15.  I’ve wanted one since then.  Back in 2017 I learned they were discontinued, so I found a used one and purchased it.  I fully expected to have it for two weeks before deciding that I didn’t like it, just to turn around and sell it.  Instead I really love it.

The C-More sights never seemed to gain much ground in the tactical market as they were seen as fragile and unreliable.  Yet they were very common place, and still used a good bit on the competition side of things.

First thing of note with the C-More sight is that there are a huge number of variations of them.  The body can be plastic or aluminum.  It can be a rail mount, slide mount (for pistols) or a bridge mount (for pistols).  The sight can be purchased in different colors, Black, Grey, Red, Blue, and Green.  Also you can change the dot size by replacing a module giving you the choices of 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, or 16 MOA dots.  Then there are also differences in the battery compartment and, the intensity switch between models.

I think the C-More is popular in the competition market for several reasons.  Being able to choose a dot size that works best for you(E.G. larger dot for use on a pistol) is a major plus.  Some of the C-More models are rather inexpensive, down to about $240 list price right now.  Also being able to get them in a color that matches your competition gun doesn’t hurt.

Now I don’t know for sure why the C-More Reflex Sight never really caught on in the tactical community.  From what I’ve read it sounds like early on the Army and some individuals tried the polymer C-More and decided it was not durable enough for combat.  I believe this was also done back in a time before reflex sights had become mainstream for combat weapons, and they were still rather untrusted.  In any event, the C-More seemed to have found its home primarily in the competition environment.

For me, my C-More sight found a home on a Colt 6933 upper.

This C-More model gives me a standard rear sight.  If I wanted to I could remove the optic from this base and attach it to a rail mount base.

The Iron Sights provide a lower 1/3 co-witness.

Looking over the sights give an awesome sight picture with a crisp red dot in a thin circle.

Brightness is adjusted by a knob behind the emitter.  On this model the brightness knob has distinct clicks and the first couple of settings are for night vision.  On many C-More models this is just a click-less rheostat.

The battery compartment is in front of the emitter.  On this model there are 2 non-captive thumbscrews holding the top plate on.  Other C-More models use Allen screws.  I don’t think these screws would come loose on their own, but if they did they would be easy to lose.

Windage and Elevation adjustments each have a locking screw.  Neither adjustment has clicks, so you just turn the screw the amount you hope is right, lock it down, test fire, then adjust again.  While click less adjustments are sometimes heralded as superior due to the ability to make smaller adjustments than a set click value, but in reality it tends to just make the zeroing procedure guesswork.

When I came up with the idea of doing the optic of the week posts, I planned to do side my side speed and handling comparisons of the various optics.  For example, in years past it used to be considered common knowledge that the Eotech was “faster” than the Aimpoint.  I believed this for a while and that is why I started with Eotech.  Finally the multiple personal Eotech failures drove me to Aimpoint.  Now when I try these various optics side by side, I don’t notice a measurable speed difference, they all just work (with a few notable exceptions).

I really love this sight, but in the end I do not recommend it.  It has been discontinued, so that makes it hard to recommend in the first place.  Now days we have newer and smaller optics that have proven to be very durable and have much longer battery life(such as the Aimpoints) that render this old design obsolete.  The open design of the C-More allows the chance of dirt or debris to block the emitter.  In the past the light from the emitters of reflex sights were often considered a major deal breaker as it might compromise your location to the enemy.  Over time the massive force multiplier that optics function is considered to well offset the risk of your location being revealed to the enemy by the sight.  I find the C-More red emitter and glare from the lens is very visible from in front of the optic.  It seems more so than newer alternatives.  I tried to get some pictures of this but I was unable to get it to show up well.

I think the C-More is a really nice sight, but it has been eclipsed by newer, better options.

Optic of the Week: Elcan Specter DR

I was going to review the Glenfield 4×15 scope.

But when I went to remove the cap on the elevation adjustment, the whole set of adjusters broke right off the old scope.  Guess that means I don’t have to say that I could see better with out this old cheap scope than with it.

So, I guess I’ll have to review some other scope, something less interesting.

The first thing people tend to notice about the Elcan Specter DR is the price tag.  With a MSRP a little over $2200 it puts well above the cost of the majority of carbine optics.  What isn’t as obvious until you pick it up is that is fairly heavy.  That said, nothing else offers quite the same capability.

The main draw to the Elcan Specter DR is the ability to quickly switch between 1x and 4x with the throw a of a lever.

It is very easy and quick to flip between the two settings.  A spring pushes the lever up and holds it in place.

Zeroing is easy, adjustments are in 1/2 MOA.  A coin or screw driver can be used to adjust the windage screw on the left front of the scope, elevation is adjusted via a dial that has a lock on it.

 The lock on the elevation wheel slides up and down to allow for adjusting elevation.

Glass clarity and brightness are excellent.  Raytheon Elcan uses great glass in these optics.  While the eye relief is longer than an ACOG, it is still rather unforgiving like an ACOG.

There is a combination reticle, 1-600 has hash marks for either 5.56 or 7.62 depending on the model.  700-1000 marked for use on squad automatic weapons.  On the civilian and military models the reticles differ slightly as the civilian models add circles in the 700-1000 markings.  The civilian Elcan Specter DR is also a different color tan than the military model.  The calibration is only accurate on 4x.

Using the scope at 1x with the red dot illumination it feels very much like using a reflex sight.  But if you move your head away from the sweet spot, it becomes very apparent you are not using a reflex sight.  Yet it is still quite usable with out ideal head positioning.  Keeping the optic on target during rapid fire is easy in both 1x and 4x.  The added weight of the optic even helps reduce recoil slightly.

It even comes with emergency sights for use in case the optic is damaged or heavy rain.

I found at 25 yards the iron sights hit on for elevation, but about 4 inches left.  I don’t know if they are adjustable for windage or not.  It looks like the front sight might be adjustable.

The reticle can also be illuminated, I found this illumination option photographed poorly doing the day, so I put my hand over the object lens so it would show up in the photo.

So many awesome features are stuffed in the Specter DR.  I owned a Gen 2 Military Model in the past, and got rid of it over 2 reasons.  First were the built in ARMS throw lever mount, the second the Elcan base.

In the past I’ve seen the levers on ARMS mounts break, and have had multiple issues with ARMS mounts not fitting on various firearms.  The first ARMS scope rings I had would either be too loose or so tight they couldn’t be mounted on my various firearms.  When I asked about this, I was told that my firearms were out of spec.  So I asked if my Armalite, Bushmaster, CMMG, Colt, Daniel Defense, S&W, and etc stuff was all out of spec.  Now this was some years ago, and I had this issue with several different ARMS mounts including the Elcan Specter DR I owned.  Now I own a set of ARMS rings that work fine on multiple brands of uppers, and I tried this Elcan Specter DR on multiple brands of rail (including some Russian stuff) and it has worked fine.  While ARMS thrower levers would not be my first choice, I could settle for them now.

I really don’t like the external adjustments on the Elcan.  It relies on a spring to take up all the slack.  I worry that grit or debris could get in the external adjustments throwing off your zero.

This is a really cool optic with a couple of built in weaknesses.  Price, weight, ARMS mounts, and external adjustments are what I could say are the downsides.  It is up to you if the capability of the Specter DR are worth it to you, but I’d bet the majority of people do not be using their carbines in a way that would get them their monies worth from the Specter DR.

Optic of the Week: Trijicon RX01

This weeks optic of the week is the Trijicon RX01.  This particular model has the rail mount, they are also seen with a gooseneck mount for fixed carry handles.

I wouldn’t say that these old reflex sights are bad, but I do not recommend getting one.  I was under the impression they were discontinued and out of production, but I see that there are plenty new ones for sale for about $430ish.

I owned a RX01 back in 2005ish.  The main reason I bought it back then was that it did not use batteries, and most battery operated sights of the time use odd sized batteries and had poor battery life.  I had used it on M16A2s, M249s, and my personal rifle.  I later replaced it with an Eotech 512.

The RX01 Reflex Sight uses Tritium and fiber optic to illuminate the reticle.  There are two major downsides to this sight.  First is that the radioactive Tritium has a half life and the Tritium is not replaceable and dims over time.  Second is that due to the nature of how the sight works, there are many times when it can wash out.  Most noticeably is if you are in a dark room looking out into a bright area, the dim reticle will not be very visible.  My having that issue is why I ended up selling the RX01 I owned.

When I received this RX01, I took it out with a target at 25 yards for zeroing.

I don’t know why the camera didn’t pick up the amber reticle well, but it was very visible to my eye.

Windage and Elevation can be adjusted using a coin/screwdriver or Allen wrench.  The adjustments are very positive clicks that are suppose to be 1 MOA.  When I zeroed this sight I found the adjustment seemed to be closer to 3/4 MOA per click.  The housing is loose on this sight, and I don’t recall it being loose on the one I owned all those years ago.  I wonder if there is any sort of mechanical damage or issues with this particular sight.

I shot very poorly with this site when zeroing it.  I shot the same rifle with a difference sight that day and did much better so I rather like to blame this optic.  As I said previously, I wonder if this particular one is damaged.  I am tempted to contact Trijicon and see about sending it in for inspection.  Pictures of the zeroing target omitted to protect the embarrassed party.

After obtaining a zero I tried some rapid fire on clay pigeons on the berm at 25 yards.  In the sunlight the reticle was bright and crisp.  The reticle was easy to follow during recoil.  I would say that shooting the pigeons was easy, but the blue tint of the lens made the orange clay pigeons invisible against the dark dirt berm.  I had to use the Bindon Aiming Concept where I spotted the clays with my left eye and overlayed the reticle with my right.

*Mental note:  If the enemy is using a Trijicon Reflex wear orange.”

I tried using the RX01 with an Aimpoint 3X magnifier and they worked together excellently.

I found shooting with the RX01 in daylight very fun, easy, and it performed awesomely.  But I know that I have had issues with the reticle washing out in real world situations.  I don’t know the reticle size on this particular unit, but in the artificial light at my home it seems too tiny dim to spot well, and outside at the range it seemed bright and huge.  There is a polarizer available to try and deal with this issue, but the real solution is to use a different modern sight design.

The RX01 was pretty cool for its time, but it is obsolete now and there are far better options for the price.

Brand Trijicon
Magnification 1x
Adjustments 1 MOA Clicks
Weight 4.2oz
Power Source Fiber Optic & Tritium
Aperture Size 24mm
Reticle Options 4.5 MOA Dot/6.5 MOA Dot/12.9 MOA Triangle

And to wrap up, here is a teaser for a future optic of the week article:

M203 9″ vs 12″ barrel velocity

B.L.U.F.:  Negligible difference in muzzle velocity between the 9 and 12 inch M203 barrels.

About 2 years ago I decided I was going to buy a M203.  I had the extra cash and realized if I didn’t then, I never was going to.  Not to mention I had wanted one for years.  I searched out dealers in my state that had one in stock, and both dealers that I found wanted about $400 over MSRP.  MSRP being about $1600 for a LMT M203.  I went to my local NFA dealer, talked to them, and they ordered me a M203 and sold it to me for far less than MSRP.  Dealer made a profit, I saved a good bit of money, we both were really happy.

Still it took a while.  Took a long time for my dealer to receive in the M203, then with the 43P changes making things confusing for me, and the like, it took about 2 years from when I decided to buy a M203 to when I was able to take it home.

I tell you, going around and telling all my friends that I own a M203 was worth the cost and weight right there.  The fact that I get to shoot it just icing on the cake.

I ordered a standard mount M203 with a 12 inch barrel, while I waited I picked up a 9 inch barrel.  Really glad I did.  Also got the LMT stand alone stock for it.

Now to cut down on the rambling, I will get to the point.  I was recently contacted by someone from forums asking about muzzle velocity on the M203.  Military manuals claim that the 14.5 inch barreled M79, the 12 inch barreled M203, the 11 inch barreled M320, and the 9 inch barreled M203 have the same muzzle velocity.  That seems a little hard to believe.

The muzzle velocity is said to be 250fps.  So, I have both barrel lengths and a chronograph so it is easy enough to test.  I fired a chalk round though each barrel length.  Lot Number on the ammunition is MTL13G614-034.  The Chronograph was set about 10 feet in front of the muzzle.  Rounds were fired into a 50 yard berm.

These training round consist of a zinc “pusher” base, a blue plastic cap filled with chalk.  The case is polymer with a .38 blank inserted into it.

From the 12 inch barrel, I got a result of 238.6 FPS.

For the shot from the 9 inch barrel, it was 233.5 FPS.

Now a sample size of 1 shot from each barrel is far from statically relevant.  But with only a difference of 5.1 FPS, I’m ready to call the difference between the two barrels negligible.

The picture doesn’t show it well, but these training rounds are horribly dirty.  Crud, sealant, unburned power, and all manner of gunk are left in the barrel after a single shot.

In any event, shooting a M203 is fun.  Little less fun shooting off the bench.  I used to own a .45-70.  I loved shooting that gun off hand, but when I shot it from the bench it would recoil straight back and be rather uncomfortable.  The M203 is similar.

Video: AK12

This video shows off the AK-15.  The same rifle as the AK-12, but in 7.62×39.  One notable change in the AK-12 and AK-15 over the venerable AK-47/AKM/AK74 is a free floating barrel with the gas tube fixed to the receiver.  It also has a side folding collapsing butt stock.

But the most interesting thing about this video is over at 27 seconds the target they show appears to show key-holing.  This is where the bullet impacts the target sideways.  Not very impressive from any rifle.

M203 Information

I was asked by someone on to find some information about the M203.  I am posting it here so it will be available for everyone.

I weight a 9 inch and 12 inch barrel on a precision scale.  Both barrels had grease on them which I did not clean off.  I can’t tell you how much the grease threw off the measurements, but this should still give  you a fair comparison on weights.

The 9 inch barrel is 14.7 oz, or 416.6g.

The 12 inch barrel is 17.54 oz or 497.5g.

It makes me think that since the 12 inch barrel is so close to 500 grams that may have been a target weight for the barrel.  When I first put the 12 inch barrel on the scale it said 500 flat, but when I moved it and wiggled the barrel it ended up settling down to 497.5g.  So in the end, the 9 inch barrel is about .18 pounds lighter than the 12 inch barrel.

LMT M203 with unknown brand 9in 40mm barrel.  LMT Stand Alone Stock, Daniel Defense Front Sight, and unknown rail mount leaf sight.

Also, the Army says that the muzzle velocity of the M320 is 236.22 fps, and the M203 is 250 fps.  But I don’t know what barrel length they are referring to in that.

Setting AR15 Iron Sights for the IBZO.

I know that I have talked about this before, and I promise you I will talk about it again.

While I was in the Marine Corps we shot a qualification course of fire at the distances of 200, 300, and 500 yards.  Using the 8/3 sights of the M16A2 we used the markings on it for 300 and 500, and adjusted it 2 clicks down from 8/3 small gap for 200 yards.

When I got out of the Corps, I found much to my dismay that the carry handle sights I used would bottom out on 8/3 or 6/3 if it was a detachable sight.  Turns out they come from the factory that way.  The intent is that the small peep is used from 300+ and you would use the larger 0-2 aperture on 6/3 or 8/3 for a 200 yard zero during low light or close range shooting.

Turned out the Marines would modify the sights to allow for a 200 yard zero.  And this modification is as simple as loosening a screw.

Now to back track for a moment.  On a rifle length AR15, a fixed carry handle with the 8/3 sight will have a 1 Minute of Angle (MOA) change in impact per click of the elevation wheel.  The detachable carry handle will have an adjustment of 1/2 MOA.  On the carbine, this adjustment is about 3/4 MOA.

So from the factory, the AR rear sight will bottom out on 8/3 or 6/3.  We call this small gap.

One full turn puts you on a 800 yard zero on a fixed carry handle, and 600 on the detachable carry handle.  We call this the large gap.  That size of the gap lets you quickly identify which of those settings the sight is on.

To allow you to set the sight for a 100 or 200 yard zero, you need to allow the drum to rotate below 8/3 or 6/3.  You will need a small Allen Wrench.  I’ve found that this wrench size is not the same on all brands of carry handles.

When the rear sight peep is up and the sight is aligned on 6/3 or 8/3 , you can insert a small Allen Wrench into a screw.


Just loosen it a turn or two.  This will allow you to rotate the bottom section of the elevation drum.

On a 8/3 drum, -2 clicks gives a 200 yard zero.  8/3 -3 for 100.

For the 6/3 drum, double the number of clicks.  -4 for 200, and -6 for 100.

Snug the screw back down, and double check that you have the right number of clicks.  Zero your rear sight normally and then you will be able to dial your rear sight down for a 100 yard zero.

Voiding warranties and breaking Glock parts

Previously I wrote about my new Surefire light.  I didn’t like the sharp crenelation on the bezel so I threw it in a lathe and turned them off.  I really like how it turned out.

Pretty sure I voided my warranty doing that, but very worth it.


Recently I had someone ask me if I had a spare Glock 19 locking block.  Of course I did.  Turns out that they had a broken locking block in their Gen 3 G19.

The owner of that Glock has realized that their trigger pin had broken.  They continued to use the pistol with the broken trigger pin for at least several thousand rounds.  When they were going to replace the broken pin, they found that the 3rd pin had bent and the locking block was broken.  The pistol functioned fine during this time.

My guess is that the broken trigger pin allowed the locking block to flex a little until it failed.  The pins and locking block were replaced and the pistol is back in action.

On that note, when reassembling a 3rd gen Glock, the slide stop goes in after the third (top) pin.  The trigger pin is the last pin installed.  Failing to do so can leave the slide stop spring in the wrong place causing it to not function or to prematurely lock the slide open.

Review – Craft Holsters LT 21/1 Appendix Carry Holster

Holsters are a very personal thing.  Most people who concealed carry will have a box or bin full of holsters because of the nature of holsters.  Most universal holsters end up being universally lousy.  So we end up getting holsters for individual guns and for various purposes.  That excellent drop leg tactical holster fits a completely different niche than a deep concealment holster for use with a suit.  Then there are all sorts of little things like how a holster may require wearing different size clothing.  Unlike for my normal rig, I had to buy a pair of pants one size larger to accommodate a 1911 in my waistband.  I’ve heard from women that there can be some issue trying to mesh good fashion and conceal carry, fortunately for me, fashion is not something I know.  In any event, it is always good to have multiple options for concealed carry.

We were contacted by Craft Holsters asking if we would like to do a review.  I hadn’t heard of Craft Holster before, so I look into them and learned that they are a distributor of several European brands.  I ended up getting from them a LT 21/1 black leather appendix carry holster for the Colt M45A1.  Craft Holsters also offered a variety of other options for the M45A1.

It took about two weeks for the holster to ship.  I received the Falco branded holster in nice plain easy to open packaging.  Right out of the package the retention was good, no fitting or stretching required.

The belt loop is mounting on a strap allowing you to tuck your shirt in over the holster.  I didn’t try doing this as I prefer to wear my shirts untucked.

Retention is very important.  It could range from awkward to disastrous if your pistol falls out of the holster unintended, yet you need to be able to quickly and easily get the weapon when it is necessary.


The classic test for retention is to place an unloaded pistol in the holster and shake it above a pillow.  This isn’t always a test that will accurately reflect how well the holster will hold a pistol, but it is considered the standard test.  This holster holds the pistol well and the draw is easy.  It has loosened up a little after the hundred or so draws I have done from it, but it still holds the pistol well.

Some inside the waistband holsters will collapse when the pistol is drawn, making holstering nearly impossible.  Not the case with this holster.  I found reholstering to be easy.

Appendix carry has grown in popularity recently, and there are some good arguments that it is the most superior form of concealed carry for the fighting handgun.  I don’t think I would suggest it for the pure novice as the muzzle stays near and points at parts of body we would rather not harm.  Once someone is competent and confident that they can handle a firearm doing tasks like holstering and unholstering with out shooting them selves, then appendix carry is something to look into.  Appendix carry keep the firearm in a location less likely to be touched by others in casual interaction, and provides a very fast draw even in adverse situations such as when in a grappling fight.

I believe it was Jeff Cooper that said something along the lines of, “Handguns aren’t suppose to be comfortable, they are suppose to be comforting.”  Now days we prefer to have both.  When you first wear a new holster, you are not going to be used it is, and it is likely to be uncomfortable.  This usually changes over time.  I’ve never concealed a 1911 before, so that is a fair sized chuck of steel next to my groin that I was not used to.  I found the LT 21/1 immediately comfortable when standing or laying down.  I even slept with it on.  Sitting was not so comfortable, I found my self slouching to try and get more comfortable.  This will change as I wear it more, and perhaps adjusting how far left or right it is worn.  When wearing a new holster, there is a bit of time when your body has to get used to it.  I hadn’t quite found the sweet spot.  But this is fairly common when trying out a new holster.  You need to take time to get adapted to it.

I usually find it easy to be critical of stuff I work with.  I didn’t find anything that I thought was an issue with the LT21/1 Holster.   I’d prefer for the magazine catch to be covered on a concealment holster, but adding leather there might make it harder to get a high firm grasp on the grip when drawing.  While wearing this I never had the safety swipe off or the mag catch get pressed.  So it is a non-issue.

I like this holster and would recommend it, but for me, I think I will stick to carrying my plastic wonder-nines.  But it is comforting to know that I have a good option for the 1911.