What can you tell me about them? Seems I've seen them in several movies and thought they were just cheapies until i looked them up, and yeah..they're not too cheap. So are they any good or what's up with them? Thanks.

I noticed them in film a lot as well. I wonder why they are picked so much..


What movie were you watching that made you curious about them OP?

FN seems to have a working relationship with them.  if i remember correctly there was a promotion where you could get one with the purchase of certain FN rifles.  i like how open the sight is but i'm not a fan of electronics and the battery life (300 - 1500 hours) is far less than i'd prefer.

I ran one in Iraq for a year or so...it was just about indestructible*.

As for the sight picture:  2nd to none in my book...just that ring and the dot...fast acquisition...easily adjustable dot size (replace a $30 or something diode module).  The only thing close is the EoTech.

They actually pitched the A-TAC as a replacement or in addition to the Army issue EoTechs and Aimpoints due to the problems both were having early on in the wars.  Had they won a contract, things might have been different.

The only reason I stopped using it (I still have it, but not with me) was it wouldn't fit in our weapon mounts.

* One bad thing about them are the az/el adjustment screws/locks...they are TINY and take a TINY allen wrench.  Both the screws and the wrench are easily damaged...I damaged one and they fixed mine at no cost.

C-Mores were really popular on the USPSA circuit because they are very tough.    Believe me, it takes a tough scope to sit on top of a .38 Super loaded to major (which used to be a 175 power factor) and take the beating.  I had one that sat mounted directly to the top of a glock slide that I shot 140gr projectiles loaded to major out of.  My round count on that rig stopped at 40,000.  I quit shooting the gun because the frame was beat to hell, but the scope was still running.  It's been a while, but if I recall, the downsides were that you had to remove the scope from the mount to change the batteries and sighting it in was a real PITA.  On the plus side, the scope was built for BAC.  Absolute unobstructed field of view.

I used one for many years on SWAT. Also used one in Asskrackistan and have one now on a select fire 16.
The "tactical" model that mounts to the flattop uppers holds its zero the best. The scout model moves around a bit.
They are a pita to zero.
The newer aluminum bodied models are tougher than the polymer bodies.
I prefer them to the EOTEC and tube type units because they are very low bulk- no blind spots caused by the sight housing.

Cmores are still the RDS of choice for open guns in USPSA.

If I recall, CDNN had the polymer body models dirt cheap.  I don't know if they still have them.

Works for John Connor on his 416

actually the previously mentioned terminator salvation^^^and i was watching the punisher: war zone and he used one on his m4 as well. I've probably seen them in others but just can't think of any right now but those are the main two that stuck out to me.

That's where I noticed them.


I wonder if they are worth getting over a Trijicon Reflex 2..  I haven't seen either in person, unfortunately

Happy owner here!

is it a good alternate to the trijicon reflex like edvvard was asking? or an eotech? I'm sure it won't be quite as good but seems a good, cheap alternative

Well the Trijicon Reflex would be a step up from the C-more. Trijicon equipment is great quality. I say go for it.

I was heavily involved in USPSA/IPSC in the late 80's through '99, during the era of the first RDS on open division pistols.  I have a huge amount of otherwise obsolete experience with RDS's to share!  Jerry Barnhart won the nationals mounting a Tasco PDP1 and the race was on (late in the 90's he began competing with early Bushnell holosights, or what is now Eotech).  NOTHING lasted back then.  At my first nationals I had one Aimpoint (5000?) on my pistol and two spares in the range bag.  On the trip home the last spare was in the pistol's mount....  The dots just were not reliable enough to be on a two way range.  However, competition has a way of developing technology...

As I recall the first reasonably reliable RDS solution was a setup by Dave Dawson where he dovetailed the side of a Tasco PDP2 to match a mount he made.  The theory was you could have two scopes fitted and pre sighted for a spare, but the mount on the main body seemed to improve reliability over mounts that employed rings on the front and rear tubes.  It was also widely accepted that a failed scope sent back for service came back much more reliable as the repairs were hand done and wiring was reliably repaired...

Ira Kay developed the SeeMore next and it was not universally accepted at first.  Initial units had some development problems with reostats loosening up and other issues, but the sights were practically dead nuts reliable.  Todd Jarret was an early supporter of the sight.  The major issue most of us had in transitioning to them was losing the tube reference of a traditional scope.  In effect, the tubes allowed us to be sloppy with our draw and presentation, as the tube provided an instinctive alignment of the pistol with our eyes when addressing the targets.  Unfortunately, that was slow.  The SeeMore forced us to harden up our presentations of the pistol and get more consistent, once that was accomplished our times improved noticeably, and combined with the reliability of the units, the SeeMore soon became dominiant.  It was still a common sight to see a shooter, particularly in an awkward position, doing the "SeeMore Dance" rotating the pistol around a downrange axis trying to find the dot...  we learned quickly to pick up other indexing points on the pistols....

Tasco went bankrupt and Aimpoint got serious.  They came out with their Comp series of smaller and more reliable dots and a devoted following stuck with them, not the least of which was Rob Leatham (a future, if not current, legend on the order of Ed McGivern [sp?]).  I think many people liked the Aimpoints because the tube sight gave them that instictive alignment that was so hard to acheive with the SeeMore on a pistol platform.  That issue is never a problem on a long arm, since the stock and eye alignment are all part of the system...

I cannot comment on the SeeMore in combat, but it was a reliable sight in competiton. It is hard to order a SeeMore with a rifle appropriate dot size, as you normally have to order the module for the smaller dot seperately.  Still, the economics are attractive, and the ergonomics with its uncluttered FOV are very attractive. I think the body is a bit long, so there may be rail space issues with some platforms.

While active in IPSC I shot an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 rounds in practice and competition. I replaced or reparied a lot of Tascos and Aimpoints (NOT current milspec), but I never had a SeeMore go down.   Based solely on competition experience, I would not hesitate to use a SeeMore on a serious carbine if the rail space was available. Note, however, that I have not mounted or used a SeeMore on an AR platform myself.

The why does c more get such a bad wrap?

The C-More is nowhere in the same realm of "toughness" as the current day Aimpoints and Trijicon ACOG's. If the companies would release a "MTBF" analysis, one would see the difference. I shot IPSC for 13 years, used a C-More, had failures and witnessed a whole lot more. It's a competition only sight not designed for SHTF usage. The elevation and windage adjustments are mickey mouse at best. Yes, they look "cool"in the movies, but thats all. C-More tried to get ito the military/law enforement market with an aluminum bodied version but it still reflected the design flaws of the plastic units and was not well received either.

If one is just going to the range to shoot paper or an IPSC match, the C-More is fine. For more serious use, get a optic thats designed for that.

See Singlestack_wonder's Post below yours....

I've seen a failure... a guy dropped his OPEN-class race gun, and the lens thing snapped off his Cmore.

The adjustments are also very difficult to get and keep.... My Docter Optics MRD had the same style, BUT the included screwdriver had a little "adjustment" wheel on it so you could measure how many MOA you were actually adjusting it.

One things is they are very light, so there is less mass for when they ride on the slide of a gun. But they dont have the strength of an EOTech, Trijicon or of course aimpoints. They are also a little cheaper than the 'gold standard' 1x sights, which is what attracts more people to buy them.

One big thing I dislike about their design, is that the LED emitter is "open" and so is the lens. So getting mud and dirt on the inside can interrupt the reflection of the dot. With a "sealed" unit even if you get dirt on the lens, you can wipe it off and still see the dot without getting out Q-tips


I DO like the replaceable dot size retical housings though, so you can have one unit and have a couple different dot sizes, or backup LED's is something ever happened to one.