[marvin02]

I downloaded the RXM Manual from the Ruger website and the screw pitch info has been corrected(?)

Latest User Manuals here:

Instruction Manuals

ruger.com

 

[copfish]

I’m developing age related dyslexia, went in looking for Charger, left with an RXM… And the Charger…

 

[BigPapa53]

I downloaded the RXM Manual from the Ruger website and the screw pitch info has been corrected(?)

Excellent work @marvin02

 

[Czed]

The sig sauer romeo 0 rmsc fit perfectly.

 

[pasound]

Yes, thanks from me for the 12/24 manual. My manual is 6/24. There are revisions.
I remembered I bought a big set of sight screws from Swampfox a couple of years ago, dug into the sets, and found M4x0.7 10.1mm, and they work perfectly in my RXM. Cycled some snap caps, and all ejected, so nothing is touching, and the screws are long enough to get a good grab and good torque. The M4 sets also had 11.2mm screws, but I didn't want to take a chance that the right one might impact the ejector. Eyeball check outside the frame says they should be good, but sinking them and torque could be close. A little Loctite and all will be good.
The Zero looks tiny on the bigger frame of the RMX. Gap in front of and behind the sight. Low profile, though, ready to go.
Except - my Romeo Zero has been stored away for about a year, and the 1632 battery is dead. Later to finish this up...

 

[PilatusTurbo]

I posted this on my RXM Thread over at GlockTalk. Updated and most recent range rep:

Ok, BIG UPDATE and RANGE REP: I traded something in and got a SECOND RXM. Yeah, because I'm stupid, and I wanted one. Or I love the gun, and I'm gonna be investing in the infrastructure of this platform, so having a second FCU or FCI or whatever they call it is gonna be RAD. The cost on these isn't prohibitive, and with my trade in I didn't have to pay much more. I enjoy the hell outta these things, so it came naturally to me.

So, the same PMAGs are still having issues in the new RXM... Except the PMAGs that it came with are not. Why? I looked very closely at the now 6 PMAGs I have; I sent 3 back to Magpul for their engineers to review soon. Here's all 6, next to each other, as leveled as I could get the photo, with a solid white background. Notice anything?

Yeah, the 3 PMAGs on the right are presenting the rounds higher. You can literally see a small, but very important difference. Even the feed ramp is physically higher in the front, than the 3 on the left. Took them apart, and I'm not able to really discern any major difference. The followers have some minutely different markings, but not consistent among the good vs bad PMAGs. The springs were a little different, but still. I'm gonna be presenting this to Magpul, as well. They've been awesome, but they're leaning towards it being the gun. It's not.

I ran the exact same break in test; no cleaning the new RXM since I didn't clean the first one, and the manual says take it right to the range without cleaning. It ran with 100% reliability, with the 2 PMAGs it came with and that 1 out of the 4 PMAGs they sent that seemingly works, too. Zero nosedive failures, or any other kinds of failures.

Same 100+ rounds of Magtech 115 gr JHP, and 200 rounds of S&B 115 gr FMJ. I ran this test even faster than the first RXM's testing, and the gun got uncomfortably HOT at a couple points.

Also, for good measure, I brought RXM #1 and ran one mag of the Gen 5 Glock 19 through the new RXM #2, and vice versa. A PMAG of the same JHP (one of the working PMAGs) through RXM #1. All smooth sailing, zero malfunctions. It's the PMAGs having differing tolerances, period.

The RXM is a great shooting gun, and I decided to get another one to really run my own test series. All the shops I go to in my area are sold out, and my main Sportsman's showed them in stock. When I went in, I asked how many more they got and they told me they had ONE left. They're selling rapidly. I also decided to get a second RXM, as I'm hopeful that the accessories infrastructure for these from Ruger and Magpul grows rapidly; frames, different slide lengths, the sky is the limit. If it doesn't, this thread won't go anywhere and y'all can make fun of me If it does takeoff and be a hit like I think it will, I'll already have a tested, reliable secondary.

 

[maddmatter1970]

I posted this on my RXM Thread over at GlockTalk. Updated and most recent range rep:

Ok, BIG UPDATE and RANGE REP: I traded something in and got a SECOND RXM. Yeah, because I'm stupid, and I wanted one. Or I love the gun, and I'm gonna be investing in the infrastructure of this platform, so having a second FCU or FCI or whatever they call it is gonna be RAD. The cost on these isn't prohibitive, and with my trade in I didn't have to pay much more. I enjoy the hell outta these things, so it came naturally to me.

So, the same PMAGs are still having issues in the new RXM... Except the PMAGs that it came with are not. Why? I looked very closely at the now 6 PMAGs I have; I sent 3 back to Magpul for their engineers to review soon. Here's all 6, next to each other, as leveled as I could get the photo, with a solid white background. Notice anything?

Yeah, the 3 PMAGs on the right are presenting the rounds higher. You can literally see a small, but very important difference. Even the feed ramp is physically higher in the front, than the 3 on the left. Took them apart, and I'm not able to really discern any major difference. The followers have some minutely different markings, but not consistent among the good vs bad PMAGs. The springs were a little different, but still. I'm gonna be presenting this to Magpul, as well. They've been awesome, but they're leaning towards it being the gun. It's not.

I ran the exact same break in test; no cleaning the new RXM since I didn't clean the first one, and the manual says take it right to the range without cleaning. It ran with 100% reliability, with the 2 PMAGs it came with and that 1 out of the 4 PMAGs they sent that seemingly works, too. Zero nosedive failures, or any other kinds of failures.

Same 100+ rounds of Magtech 115 gr JHP, and 200 rounds of S&B 115 gr FMJ. I ran this test even faster than the first RXM's testing, and the gun got uncomfortably HOT at a couple points.

Also, for good measure, I brought RXM #1 and ran one mag of the Gen 5 Glock 19 through the new RXM #2, and vice versa. A PMAG of the same JHP (one of the working PMAGs) through RXM #1. All smooth sailing, zero malfunctions. It's the PMAGs having differing tolerances, period.

The RXM is a great shooting gun, and I decided to get another one to really run my own test series. All the shops I go to in my area are sold out, and my main Sportsman's showed them in stock. When I went in, I asked how many more they got and they told me they had ONE left. They're selling rapidly. I also decided to get a second RXM, as I'm hopeful that the accessories infrastructure for these from Ruger and Magpul grows rapidly; frames, different slide lengths, the sky is the limit. If it doesn't, this thread won't go anywhere and y'all can make fun of me If it does takeoff and be a hit like I think it will, I'll already have a tested, reliable secondary.

I am a die hard 92fs fan. I have tried many times to change my spots. If a semi auto does not have a decocker, I eventually break out into a sweat.
So me?
I stay here, in 1989:

But....
I hope the RXM becomes the next biggest thing!
I hope glock starts selling their guns as "takes RXM mags!".
I might buy one just to help reach that goal.

 

[PilatusTurbo]

I am a die hard 92fs fan. I have tried many times to change my spots. If a semi auto does not have a decocker, I eventually break out into a sweat.
So me?
I stay here, in 1989:
View attachment 249327

But....
I hope the RXM becomes the next biggest thing!
I hope glock starts selling their guns as "takes RXM mags!".
I might buy one just to help reach that goal.

I had a 92FS a year or two ago, and didn't end up keeping it. It was ridiculously combat hold, almost to a fault (perhaps that one really was out of spec). Couldn't stand how it shot, and it came so highly recommended from my Gun Mentor Paul Harrell. However, I did miss the iconic 92, but I got a commercial M9. It shoots realistically decent combat hold, and I absolutely love the thing. It's as iconic as a 1911, IMO.

And yes, your hutch and furniture does indicate 1989 to me. JK

 

[maddmatter1970]

I had a 92FS a year or two ago, and didn't end up keeping it. It was ridiculously combat hold, almost to a fault (perhaps that one really was out of spec). Couldn't stand how it shot, and it came so highly recommended from my Gun Mentor Paul Harrell. However, I did miss the iconic 92, but I got a commercial M9. It shoots realistically decent combat hold, and I absolutely love the thing. It's as iconic as a 1911, IMO.

And yes, your hutch and furniture does indicate 1989 to me. JK

I wouldn't keep mine either, except the 30 years of trigger time wont leave my muscle memory!
And yes. 1989. I am stuck there.

 

[meistermash]

I owned a 92 about 20 years ago that wouldn't shoot anything but oversized 147 gr cast bullets.
Fast forward, I own an m9a3 and that fancy thing with frame safety. Xi ?
Anyway, the m9a3 went back for the barrel threads being so out from the bore, I've seen Nanners that were more concentric.
Looked at two other U.S. Made 92 variants that both had bad spots at muzzel.

Ehh, I have had plenty of issues with Rugers.
But not with this RxM yet.

 

[Bazoo]

The first I'm seeing it. Not sure what I think yet. Interesting for sure though.

 

[JohnR]

I wouldn’t mind being stuck in 1989. Could be worse.

 

[LarryNBoise]

My olight won't attach unless I change the slot fitment piece to work with a Glock rail. That's not happening. So I'm left with having to buy a separate light just for this where my olight is swapped onto numerous guns I own that have picatinny rails.

Ruger should have offered a picatinny rail as an option over this Glock rail BS. I'm obviously not a Glock fanboy and starting to regret this $400 experiment. Probably an awesome upgrade for Glock guys, but a downgrade for Canik and IWI Masada owners.

 

[maddmatter1970]

My olight won't attach unless I change the slot fitment piece to work with a Glock rail. That's not happening. So I'm left with having to buy a separate light just for this where my olight is swapped onto numerous guns I own that have picatinny rails.

Ruger should have offered a picatinny rail as an option over this Glock rail BS. I'm obviously not a Glock fanboy and starting to regret this $400 experiment. Probably an awesome upgrade for Glock guys, but a downgrade for Canik and IWI Masada owners.

For years I struggled with light envy. I tried extensions, clip ons, even new equipment.
Then, one day about 3 years ago, I said to heck with it. I will just figure out how to use what I got better!
🤷‍♂️

 

[PilatusTurbo]

My olight won't attach unless I change the slot fitment piece to work with a Glock rail. That's not happening. So I'm left with having to buy a separate light just for this where my olight is swapped onto numerous guns I own that have picatinny rails.

Ruger should have offered a picatinny rail as an option over this Glock rail BS. I'm obviously not a Glock fanboy and starting to regret this $400 experiment. Probably an awesome upgrade for Glock guys, but a downgrade for Canik and IWI Masada owners.

You're totally right, and I've not intentionally neglected to mention this, I just forgot it is a downside. Ruger literally even cloned the damn proprietary single GLOCK size light rail slot. I do believe that was a miss.

However.... ALL my Streamlights, every single one, comes with a Glock compatible key slot, and it's perfectly positioned for my 17, 19, 19X. So, it literally hasn't been a problem for me, or anyone using a Surefire or Streamlight. Get a Streamlight brother. Can't believe Olight doesn't include Glock compatible rail slot adapter or whatever. Not like Glock isn't one of the best selling handguns, in ya know, history. Batteries can be replaced. Streamlight>Olight every day of the week, and I'm not all IT's mAdE iN cHiNa nOt ThE u.S. I just don't think Olights are very good.

 

[LarryNBoise]

You're totally right, and I've not intentionally neglected to mention this, I just forgot it is a downside. Ruger literally even cloned the damn proprietary single GLOCK size light rail slot. I do believe that was a miss.

However.... ALL my Streamlights, every single one, comes with a Glock compatible key slot, and it's perfectly positioned for my 17, 19, 19X. So, it literally hasn't been a problem for me, or anyone using a Surefire or Streamlight. Get a Streamlight brother. Can't believe Olight doesn't include Glock compatible rail slot adapter or whatever. Not like Glock isn't one of the best selling handguns, in ya know, history. Batteries can be replaced. Streamlight>Olight every day of the week, and I'm not all IT's mAdE iN cHiNa nOt ThE u.S. I just don't think Olights are very good.

Olight does include a Glock rail adapter but, the issue is this. My Olight is rechargeable and quick release which allows me to swap it from gun to gun with simply flipping open the single release/locking lever. A 1 second change. So, yes I could change to the Glock adapter fitting, but then I lose the 100% Picatinny compatibility. I install and remove the single Olight daily depending on the current light configured gun is going with me as carry (without light) or onto a gun going onto my nightstand at night. Very sweet setup and I recommend Olight 100% over Streamlight which I have owned before. I have owned and used my Olight for years with zero problems, so disparaging it if you have never owned one is a little weak. I don't disparage Glocks because I never owned one. I speak truths when I and hundreds of others agree the triggers suck. In every other department, they pass muster.

I never needed this Ruger RXM for lack of a carry or home defense guns, but I thought I would throw some more money Ruger's way and give it a try just like I did the Sig P320 Carry when it first hit the market. I think the RXM will stick around longer than that P320 did, which was not long at all after, but this guy is quickly becoming a questionable outlay of cash for me at this juncture. I agree, going with the Glock rail is a huge miss except for Glock fanboys that will undoubtedly approve.

At this point, I think I'll just buy the latest Chinese junk Olight mini Valkyrie smaller than the one I have yet rechargeable on the gun and configure it for Glock rail. Cost me less than any Streamlight out there that requires batteries.

 

[PilatusTurbo]

Olight does include a Glock rail adapter but, the issue is this. My Olight is rechargeable and quick release which allows me to swap it from gun to gun with simply flipping open the single release/locking lever. A 1 second change. So, yes I could change to the Glock adapter fitting, but then I lose the 100% Picatinny compatibility. I install and remove the single Olight daily depending on the current light configured gun is going with me as carry (without light) or onto a gun going onto my nightstand at night. Very sweet setup and I recommend Olight 100% over Streamlight which I have owned before. I have owned and used my Olight for years with zero problems, so disparaging it if you have never owned one is a little weak. I don't disparage Glocks because I never owned one. I speak truths when I and hundreds of others agree the triggers suck. In every other department, they pass muster.

I never needed this Ruger RXM for lack of a carry or home defense guns, but I thought I would throw some more money Ruger's way and give it a try just like I did the Sig P320 Carry when it first hit the market. I think the RXM will stick around longer than that P320 did, which was not long at all after, but this guy is quickly becoming a questionable outlay of cash for me at this juncture. I agree, going with the Glock rail is a huge miss except for Glock fanboys that will undoubtedly approve.

At this point, I think I'll just buy the latest Chinese junk Olight mini Valkyrie smaller than the one I have yet rechargeable on the gun and configure it for Glock rail. Cost me less than any Streamlight out there that requires batteries.

View attachment 249384

View attachment 249386

View attachment 249394

So swapping it to the Glock rail adapter makes it not work anywhere else? The Glock slot is thinner, so I can put the Glock key TLR-1HL or TLR-7A on any Pic 1913 railed handgun, so long as forward/rearward position is good for the handgun I'm swapping to. The Glock adapter size will fit any actual 1913/Picatinny rail slot. Trust me.

I did own a Mini Valk, so I disparage with at least a grain of experience; I agree, disparaging stuff without ever having owned one is akin to Taurus Hate Groupthink. The Mini Valk literally popped right off a handgun it did fit, at the range. Couldn't crank it down any tighter, so I returned it. Left a sour taste. I also dislike rechargeable batteries, as once that integral battery craps out, you're done. I can pop new CR123As into my Streamlights, and off we go.

My EDC handheld Streamlight MicroStream rechargeable battery just finally died, after a few solid years of cycling. Under $10 for a new Streamlight rechargeable battery, and my $30 MicroStream is back in the fight

 

[Sr40ken]

It would always be better if “fanboy” implications were left out of conversations. As it rarely leads to peaceful “conversation”.

 

[LarryNBoise]

It would always be better if “fanboy” implications were left out of conversations. As it rarely leads to peaceful “conversation”.

My apologies. I have heard those two words spoken together from others that both owned and didn't own Glocks that I thought is was a common description of people who loved Glocks. Lots of Ruger Fanboys here on this forum or we wouldn't be posting here. Sorry, I didn't think Glock lovers are that thin skinned.

 

[PilatusTurbo]

My apologies. I have heard those two words spoken together from others that both owned and didn't own Glocks that I thought is was a common description of people who loved Glocks. Lots of Ruger Fanboys here on this forum or we wouldn't be posting here. Sorry, I didn't think Glock lovers are that thin skinned.

Dude. He didn't do or say anything wrong; you're coming off as the thin skinned one. Many of us have contributed positively to this thread, in general, and even tried to help you with your issues. Several of which came from fallacious assumptions and You've had some misconstrued points (didn't read the manual at all, initially, either) in this whole discussion; the one that I misinterpreted I owned. You've been getting a little combative and standoffish, here and there. You've been flat out wrong on a couple things, too.

Anyway.