LaserMax internal laser

have a lasermax on a glock model 22, no problems. it is a mil spec laser on a mil spec gun. more than adequately accurate.
have crimson trace grips on 2 revolvers (s&w model 28 and ruger sp101) no problems; pinpoint accuracy. the ct's are adjustable; the lasermax isn't. my view is that if you can replace the grips, go with the crimson trace grips; if you can't replace the grips, go with lasermax. mcole

love the Laser grips on my 1911 .45

Tried them on my Ruger MKII, and while they worked well, the gun is way more accurate than my .45, and changing distances through POI off further than acceptable, and while there is adjustment there are no "clicks" for repeatable adjustments...

I have tested both types.
THe grip mounted type has serious parallax problems, i.e., it is dead on only at the precise range it was sighted in for. THe bullet wanders at closer and farther distances. The error is horizontal, and quite pronounced.
The internal type is the best engineered, since it has only a miniscule amount of parallax, and that is directly under the center of the bore. Vertical parallax only, and that is a small amount.
The conclusion I reached is that either type is satisfactory if used within the device's limitations. No adjustment necessary on the internal Lasermax and the grip style sighted for 25 feet, both were accurate on a 25 foot target.

I beg to differ....the parallax problems with the CTC is of no problem....the farther you sight the laser in for the less the parallax differential is at any given distance out to the distance its sighted for. If its dead on at 25 yds...the farthest youll be off from the POA/POI is 1"....thats if you shoot something execution style........
Ill take CTC over the laser max.....more controllability, perfect on/off switch location ect.....just a better design.
Just my opinion......nothing else...
Shoot well

In the interest of revealing the truth, I can't let that go unchallenged. You are confusing pistol philosophy with pistol acuracy. You brought up the subject, I didn't, and it requires a rebuttal.
When you shoot on a range, you are shooting at a target that is only a few thousandths thick...in other words, two dimensional. In real life, we shoot at three dimensional targets. Therefore, your great definitive hits on paper may translate as a secondary hit on a three dimensional target.
During a long career as a police firearms instructor I have investigated many shootings and attended several autopsy procedures. So, part of what I'm saying is from the classic literature on terminal ballistics and part is from personal observation.
There is only one hit on a human target that is a one shot stop: a bullet through the brain stem makes all motor function cease. But, if the brain has sent instructions to the muscles, an action begun will be finished. Many gunfights are a dead heat; the winner gets the first definitive stop hit.
In a hit where an oponent is facing you directly, the bullet strike must be on the bridge of the nose to penetrate the head and destroy the brain stem. Then, all motor function ceases immediately.
Unfortunately, your opponent may be at a slight angle to you, making even a precise hit miss the brain stem. And, that's the reason I demand the utmost precision in point of aim and point of impact. It seems counter-productive to willfully introduce any amount of parallax.
If you build a double target carrier with the back target 8" behind the front target, fire from a point to the left and to the right of your head on position ;you will get the exact dimensions of miss due to angularity. A one inch miss means a total miss. Oh, yeah, your opponent will die, but it will not be an immediate stop.
And, since you brought up the s;ubject of executions: I know a thing or two about them, since I saw the aftermath of mass executions of POW's during the Korean war. The act is never at contact distance, unless it is the first one inflicted. The splatter is gruesome. Most executions are conducted at about twenty feet. How much parallax do you have at 20 feet? Add that to the original 1" miss dimension due to possible angularity.
As I said, either type of laser is useful, but I prefer the internal kind for the above reasons; any parallax is vertical and the bullet still strikes the brain stem. When it comes to pistol sights, the best is none too good. Unless you have no intention of using the pistol for its intended purpose. Every defensive use of a pistol is an execution or an attempted execution, in effect.

it is a mil spec laser on a mil spec gun

Click to expand...

"Mil-spec" gets bantied about far too much. The US Military uses neither the Glock pistol nor any internal laser sights. The only lasers to see any widespread usage in the US are infra-red lasers designed to be used with night vision goggles.

The Austrians and British use the Glock 17 pistol, so I guess that makes it "mil-spec" for those two militaries. *shrug*

Ok...good rebuttal..and all good points indeed. I agree with your points chosen to pass on...the 1" differential can be enough to cause substantial error regarding POA/POI.
Ill just add this and you can ponder it if you feel the need.
The parralax created by a CTC laser (different on all guns that have them available) is an issue...admittedly. To MOST shooters..the possibility of getting a better shot off with the added acquisition given by the laser will offset the effect of the differential. Most shooters in a defensive situation are NOT going to be accurate.....nerves, anxiety, shakes, SCARED etc......
I feel the added benefit far outways the negatives in just about all accounts inc. the parralax factor.
With the technique given for checking out the diff. with 8" between targets....with my 2" snub SP...at 25 yds with sighted laser = same distance...the difference wouldnt be more than a fraction of an inch......
Without the laser and in a defensive shooting situation...Ill bet my aim is far worse than that.....
In that regard..the differential is not a point of contention. I really believe that most shooters are like me.
Shoot well

I agree, the differential was too much for my MKII (target gun) but I barely notice it on my 1911. The laser is not as far off as me or the gun so it is totally masked (inside of 40 feet of course).