I'm sure glass would be more scratch resistant.I wasn't worried about the polymer lens for clarity, it was for durability. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe the glass will be more scratch resistant than polymer.
But in thinking more about all this, I have hunting guns, range guns, carry guns and safe queens/BBQ guns.
In order of abuse, the hunting guns take the most.
Range guns are often handled by many different people, passed around, etc.
Carry guns are pretty much pampered, they are fired for function and familiarity plenty but they live in a holster, are not dropped, passed around, etc, and not exposed to much risk. What are the odds of scratching an optic of a gun that mostly lives in a holster?
Is the extreme reliability under knock around conditions of a tactical operator really needed for a pampered EDC pistol? Heck for the price of 1 nice Holosun you could almost buy 3 Bushnell optics. So if a Bushnell fails at 3 years just toss it and replace it. You'd be about 8 years into the future before you would break even with the cost of the Holosun and my guess is that most people would have replaced the Holosun optic in less than 8 years, maybe just because they wanted a newer model. Although I do like the Dot inside the Circle optic of the Holosun. As long as the optic is reasonably reliable it should be more than good enough, especially if it co-witnesses with the irons.
Visual clarity of the lens seems trivial between the lower end and the upper end. In the real world the Leupold or Trijicon $500 beautifully crisp optical lens is really not going to make any difference in the self defense shooting situation where the bad guy is 18 feet away and closing distance.
I'm not arguing to buy a crap optic.
But I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic of passing over a lower priced, well reviewed and well spec'ed optic from a legitimate/established provider in favor of an optic that costs 2 or 3 times as much and might have essentially zero extra utility/safety factor in an EDC gun.
Last edited: