Been following that and Im in agreement something is amiss with that company.
They do seem to have an attractive solution for mounting to my specific gun.
Their plate incorporates a small filler to ensure the optic is secure against steel fore and aft.
Because the filler also follows the contour of the optic at the filler there is also some lateral security, perhaps 1%, but the screws will be doing the heavy work if there is any side impact. They also have the "teeth" that fit into the recess at the front of the slide optic cut - a little more security.
And.....their solution includes lugs to fit into the recoil recesses on the RMR.
View attachment 7668435
View attachment 7668434
I think this is Trijicons solution for mounting on my pistol....
Trijicon® products are known for offering legendary reliability, absolute accuracy and industry-leading technology to shooting enthusiasts, law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military and its allies.
www.trijicon.com
View attachment 7668432
The good is that Trijicon is not the shitshow CPHWS seems to be, their design incorporates recoil lugs for the RMR, The plate is bolted to the pistol using the DPP bores in the slide, than the RMR is secured, I assume, through the plate into the slide. They incorporate the "teeth" to bite into the front of the slide cut.
Searching through the internet I have seen reference that Sig and Trijicon reps (ie the guy at the counter) have recommended CPHWS in my application.
Sig/Trijicon need to come together develope a solid solution but I guess they are competitors with different concerns regards what optic to use.
Maybe I could be the guy that uses CPHWS and doesnt get screwed.
Im not like other guys........they would have just bought their shit and had a few thousand rounds on their guns by now.