Video summary

Why aren't more optic manufacturers doing this?

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Product reviewed / topic

The video isn’t reviewing a single product. It reviews modular scope mount systems that can be configured to mount an additional collimator (red dot-style optic) on top of a rifle scope—covering alignment/height considerations and how different ecosystems handle them.

Key problem the video focuses on (why modular ecosystems matter)

A collimator must be mounted at the correct height relative to the scope’s upper barrel/turret.

  • If it’s too high:
    • The aiming workflow becomes harder.
    • The rifle gets slightly taller (which may be inconvenient for transport/bag storage).
  • If it’s too low:
    • The collimator’s window can be partially blocked by the scope turret.
    • This is especially problematic with small pistol collimator window sizes.

Because manufacturers don’t standardize turret height/mounting geometry, the practical solution is:

  • Use components from the same manufacturer ecosystem to reduce trial-and-error failures.

Modular mount systems discussed (and unique points)

1) Scalarworks LEAP + Kick (Fuse mount + Kick adapter concept)

Main features / user experience

  • Scalarworks previously used a LEAP design with a hinged top ring, which was considered not very suitable for collimator attachment.
  • Fuse/Kick is described as a more traditional ring approach.
  • Fuse mount is not quick release: it uses a simple cross bolt (“reliable”).
  • Uses two-piece rings with one side marked “no gap” to help avoid alignment/tightening issues.
  • Includes Level Drive leveling system:
    • A small aluminum screw used during tightening to keep the scope level.
  • Kick mounts come in multiple height options and different mounting interfaces (e.g., RMR/DeltaPoint Pro, or extended 1913-bar options for certain rangefinders).

Pros

  • Lightweight and sturdy
  • Strong feature set
  • Price is in line with expectations (but still expensive)
  • Possible savings vs some competitors, because you may not need to replace top rings as often; the Kick adapter is described as relatively cheap (aluminum plate + a few screws).

Cons

  • Biggest drawback: limited collimator plate heights, with some heights not available yet.
  • Example issues:
    • The creator started with a low RMR plate, causing the red dot to sit too low.
    • Later, a high plate became available, but it was “too damn high.”
  • Verdict: it’s a great system, but height selection is the limiting factor.

Verdict for Scalarworks

  • “Overall, I think Scalarworks LEAP is very good,” with height availability as the primary frustration.

2) Primary Arms PLx / SLx mounts with interchangeable top rings

Main features / user experience

  • Primary Arms sells mount “tiers”:
    • PLx (top/high segment)
    • SLx (entry-level)
  • Compatible interchangeable top rings exist for collimators on both PLx and SLx.
  • The PLx mount is described as aiming to resemble “Geissele Super Precision” style.

Pros

  • High quality fasteners
  • Lightweight, durable
  • Made in USA
  • “Pretty decent price” compared to premium alternatives
  • Advantage: the collimator-compatible top ring is monolithic, replacing the existing top element without extra screws.

Cons

  • Collimator top-ring selection is described as small.
  • Initially, only a low RMR mount was available—criticized because Primary Arms hadn’t previously made RMR-mounted collimators.
  • A new option is mentioned: RS-NR (the creator installed a Holosun after another setup “didn’t do very well”).
  • Later added compatibility:
    • Aimpoint T1 via an “Aimpoint Micro mount.”
  • Trade-off mentioned: using a full “real rifle scope” collimator instead of pistol-size can improve performance (light transmission/brightness/runtime/parallax/lens tint), but:
    • increases weight and size and likely kit cost.
  • Disadvantage: monolithic top ring “buy then discard” approach:
    • replacing an existing ring with the new ring for collimator compatibility.
  • A humorous note suggests the per-ring cost is small relative to the kit total (it mentions a joked figure like “$4,” though the exact cost breakdown isn’t confirmed).

Verdict for Primary Arms

  • Best for people who want interchangeability with better value, but the collimator ecosystem isn’t as complete as you’d want (especially early on).

3) Trijicon scope mount ecosystem (new mounts for Trijicon scopes)

Main features / user experience

  • Appeared about a year ago.
  • Offered in:
    • QD version using Trijicon Q-LOK screws
    • Fixed version
  • Comes in ring sizes 30 / 34 / 35 mm
  • Offered in multiple heights:
    • 1.535 in (lower third)
    • 1.59 in (near “intermediate”)
    • 1.93 in (tall; described as very high and problematic when adding a collimator on top)
  • Collimator mounting system described as ambiguous/annoying:
    • Standard ring tops have holes “for aesthetics,” not functional collimator mounting.
    • You must buy a replacement top ring that accepts a collimator plate (plate sold separately).

Pros

  • Very flexible top positioning:
    • Collimator plates can be set in three positions: 12 o’clock and offset left/right.
    • The creator contrasts this with Scalarworks and Primary Arms, both of which are described as more limited in offset capability.
  • Trijicon makes RMR plates in three heights, increasing the chance of compatibility with their optics.
  • Strong compatibility with Trijicon optics: you’ll likely find a matching plate option.

Cons

  • Requires buying extra parts:
    • need a separate replacement ring (feels like paying for the wrong part, then discarding it).
  • Collimator compatibility is limited to RMR and RMRCC mounting standard.
  • Creator strongly discourages RMRCC as an additional sight:
    • suggests many buyers got it thinking it was RMR, but resale value is poor.
  • “Trijicon tax”:
    • mounts, upper sections, and collimator plates are very expensive, even when they look simple.

Verdict for Trijicon

  • Works well functionally (offset positions are a major win), but:
    • limited mounting standards (RMR/RMRCC only),
    • extra-part requirements,
    • and high cost make it one of the most difficult/expensive options.

Additional mention: Midwest Industries Mark II system (not fully demonstrated)

Main features / user experience

  • Wide selection of modular mounts with collimator top mounting options.
  • Mark II described as:
    • lighter than older Midwest mounts (old ones were “incredibly heavy”)
    • no quick release, but not considered a big drawback.
  • Supports 1.5 or 1.93 inch scope heights.
  • Includes options with 1913 bar for rangefinders.
  • Supports several collimator mounting standards and has side versions.

Pros

  • Good variety
  • Slightly better weight profile than older Midwest systems
  • Suggested to be cheaper than the other systems mentioned

Cons

  • No major downsides emphasized beyond missing QD.

Comparisons explicitly made

  • Scalarworks vs others
    • Trijicon allows offsets; Scalarworks is said not to.
    • Primary Arms may force 12 o’clock depending on the ring design (solid top ring).
  • Primary Arms vs mounting standards
    • Primary Arms selection is described as small despite modularity.
    • Trijicon’s ecosystem is broad for Trijicon optics but narrow for other brands of collimators.
  • General performance vs form factor
    • Using a full tubular rifle scope instead of a pistol-size collimator can improve optical performance (light transmission/brightness/runtime/parallax/lens tint), but increases weight/bulk/cost.

Pros / Cons summary (overall)

Overall pros mentioned

  • Modular ecosystems can solve the biggest real-world issue: proper collimator height/alignment relative to scope turrets.
  • Multiple height options and leveling/alignment features improve repeatability and usability.
  • Offset mounting options (notably Trijicon) can improve ergonomics/eye alignment.

Overall cons mentioned

  • High cost across premium ecosystems (especially Scalarworks and Trijicon).
  • Compatibility limitations:
    • Scalarworks: limited plate height options
    • Primary Arms: fewer collimator ring/plate options
    • Trijicon: narrow support limited to RMR/RMRCC
  • Sometimes you must buy extra parts and replace existing components just to mount the collimator (Trijicon complaint).
  • Potential transport concern: higher overall rifle profile when the collimator sits too high.

Overall verdict / recommendation

  • The video frames these as a “best practice” approach: use a single manufacturer ecosystem to avoid alignment issues.
  • Recommended highlights:
    • Best broad functional configurability with offsets: Trijicon ecosystem (but expensive; limited to RMR/RMRCC).
    • Best value/practicality among premium modular systems: Primary Arms (lighter and cheaper, but fewer collimator ring/plate options).
    • Best premium build/engineering: Scalarworks LEAP + Fuse/Kick (excellent quality and leveling, but frustrating collimator plate height availability).
    • Worth considering alternative: Midwest Industries Mark II (more standards/variety, lighter than older models, possibly cheaper).

Speakers / contributors

  • Single main speaker/host: “Hop” (the only clearly identified voice).
  • No other reviewers’ distinct viewpoints are presented beyond the host’s narrative comparisons.

Original video