I have both a DP Micro and an RMR for my glock. I've been preferring the DP to date for various reasons. After somewhat acclimating to the DP, I wanted to determine how well I could shoot with it off (ie - battery died or failed).

Using the DP as a ghost ring, I actually shot pretty well; group was not as tight as using the RDS but I easily and quickly kept the rounds in a 2" circle (at 7 yards).

The RMR as a RDS is great as well. But I'm having a harder time figuring out how to aim with factory height sights should the RMR fail. What's the trick to use the RMR if it fails? No trick - must use suppressor height sights? Or is there a trick where I can be just as fast and accurate as using the DP as a ghost ring?

If suppressor height sights is a must, that makes RMR so expensive for multiple guns - RMR is more expensive than the DP to start with. Then either need to mill slide or get a new milled slide plus buy suppressor height sights.

In any case, I have an RMR and would like to understand how best to aim should it fail inopportunely. Any tricks?

First I always run backup iron sights on any battery powered optic. Period. So my glocks have suppressor sights and that's what I transition to if the optic is down.Back in the days of the Type 1 I got pretty good at that. However a couple of times we have had tactical matches that required you to shut down the optic and shoot the course of fire. as an experiment I ran it several times covering the irons to be unusable and using just the frame of the RMR and centering the target in the window. Out to 10y or so it was certainly combat effective (a zone hits). (not 2" but that's a silly goal). So I'd have no trouble at close ranges being effective.
But again having said that, not having backup irons on an actual defensive firearm (not a gaming gun) seems silly.
FWIW

A technique to give some thought to and may be worth experimenting with was described by Jim Cirillo in his book about his NYPD stakeout squad experiences.
The method is to visually superimpose the rear of the pistol slide over the target when shooting. The rear of the slide obviously covers a large part of the shooter’s field of view, but for large targets at close distances it’s possible to center it relatively precisely.

In experimenting with the technique myself I decided that it would help to have something smaller than the entire rear of the slide to superimpose over the target as Cirillo described, so I attached the red dot (punched out of tape) as pictured.




In experimenting with live fire I’ve found that it’s possible to get consistent hits on an IDPA target to about 7 yards (as I recall). I’ve had other shooters try the technique with mixed results. Some, usually the more skilled in general, were able to do about as well as I can, while other shooters couldn’t make it work. Because the technique is similar to aiming using only the rear sight, the gun must be held pointed at the target, and that’s something skilled shooters are more likely to do consistently.

The point of aim using the technique is obviously higher than when using the sight(s), but again at close distances it’s usually good enough.

One advantage I’ve found by having a very conspicuous aiming aid on the rear of the slide is that I can see the dot under lighting conditions when I can’t see the sights or the luminous lamps.

I don’t know if it would work any better than just looking through the window of the RMR, but one thing about it is that it can be used even if the sight window is totally occluded and cannot be seen through at all.

Thanks. Ok, always pair RMR + suppressor height sights.

SF - I'll re-read your post a few more times to make sure I understand what you're suggesting. I'd be willing to try it out. Striker fired makes putting a dot back there easy.

I think here's my thing: I think aligning the barrel close enough laterally (for close distances) is probably not too bad. What I've had some difficulty figuring out is how to ensure that I'm aiming sufficiently well in terms of elevation. I'm not sure what a good, quick reference point could be yet.

Or it could be like what I think you and hrc are suggesting - it's good enough to make a hit and 2" is just silly (to which I basically agree).

That being said, I'm hoping to find a path that's a little more deterministic between POA and POI.

Here's my slow fire (1-2 sec cadence) using the DP (RDS vs ghost ring) at 7 yards; 10 rounds each target. Note this was my first attempt at using the DP as a ghost ring. Also - with the DP Micro, there is no rear sight; the DPm replaces the rear iron in the dovetail. Only the factory front iron remains.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
A technique ...

Directly related to what sigfreund suggested, check out a recent video from Mike Glover (Fieldcraft Survival) in which he learns this technique, using the slide rear cap (conveniently highlighted by sigfreund) as an aiming point for flash sight picture from GBRS Group. The guys at GBRS (former SEALs) use the slide rear cap and claim they don't even run irons on their guns, since that aiming point is easier for close work without using the dot.

Part one of the video is here: https://youtu.be/lElS7twnbzU with the most relevant portion starting about 15 min in.

I swear there is a video from GBRS that is much more detailed and shows one of them demoing the concept, but I can't find it on their youtube channel.

A red dot RMR class I was able to attend used this technique in this video. Using the natural dome on top of the design of the RMR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...rv=3XdyPQ3nCbc&t=923

Some people use RMR's "ears" as a huge U-notch rear, without the front sight, of course. Others draw a central white line on the window's hood.

I do have a set of backup irons on all of my carry guns, however, unless it is a really tight shot, I simply shoot looking through the optic as long as my grip is not screwed up. If you think of it, we rely on kinesthetic index to find the dot so the dot is really a backup for the index. If I think that index is on [grip is right] but the dot is not there, I'll just shoot.

Thanks. I’ll check out the videos later. I think lateral is okay, the tricky part to me is elevation.

You might look at ancient "point shooting" techniques as taught by Fairbairn or Applegate back in the dark ages.
And dry fire with a laser can help you to get quick hits with "unsighted" fire by reinforcing proper gun presentation and muscle memory. The old point shooting techniques as taught by the ancients can be very effective. Especially at closer ranges. And should serve well in the case of an optic failure.

I have suppressor height irons, but have also used the ears or horns of the rmr as a backup. Drawing a white line parallel to the slide to the edge of the optic will get you center mass to 15 yards and beyond.

My Romeo Zero comes with a built in rear sight that co-witnesses with the red dot, so I would just use the regular sights in case of a failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Part one of the video is here: https://youtu.be/lElS7twnbzU with the most relevant portion starting about 15 min in.

Thanks for that. I was surprised to learn that the technique I was referring to had spread beyond Cirillo’s old book, and they referred to it as “backplate shooting.” It would be interesting to know if the concept was discovered and developed independently (as is often the case with such things).

I also found it interesting to hear them discuss the strong pushback they’ve gotten for teaching/advocating “instinctive” shooting. They even go on at length about trying to find some other way of labeling it to avoid the stigma of shooting without using the pistol’s sights.

The need for unsighted shooting at close distances is something I did discover independently and decided was important despite the “front sight, front sight, front sight” mantra that I’d been exposed to for years. I even remember reading a comment here on the forum that no competitor was ever successful by using “point” shooting. After thinking about that statement I realized that although it’s probably true, it demonstrates the difference between competitive shooting and defensive gunfighting.

Many (most?) competition and law enforcement qualification courses severely penalize misses. Some of the drills I and a friend have found on the Internet and practice have something like a one second penalty for a miss. The IDPA targets I use for my courses have clearly marked penalty zones. Such scoring schemes don’t permit the real world reaction of, “Oh, that didn’t work, shoot again.”

In many competitions and even some LE qualifications, a single miss can either lose a match or even disqualify the shooter. But that’s simply an unrealistic and unreasonable standard to hold someone to who’s fighting for his life. What I’ve seen with many shooters is that they were conditioned by an unrealistic qualification standard to take as much time as a stage allows to ensure they don’t miss and fail. But as I tell them, “You can’t miss fast enough to win, but you can shoot slowly enough to lose.”

As many Internet videos demonstrate, LEOs aren’t that deliberate in actual defensive shootings, and if they have no training and experience with unsighted fire, they probably are not going to be as accurate as they need to be.

Thanks again.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
You might look at ancient "point shooting" techniques as taught by Fairbairn or Applegate ....

I agree that those pioneers’ works are worth reading.

My only criticism of much of what they advocated is that it did not take advantage of two-handed shooting methods even when that would have been possible. A book that I just finished that referred to their methods mentioned shooting handguns with two-handed grips, but only for long range deliberate purposes. It’s true that when extreme speed is essential and especially from awkward positions, one-handed may be necessary, but most of the time two-handed is just as fast and far more accurate.

808-thanks for posting this video!!

Good idea for RMR users.

The use of a competition bullseye is appropriate to develop skill - the reality is that the Center of Mass target is an 18" circle and only hits count. I can see how that was folded into competition rules where a penalty is assessed and shooters of near equal skills are being sorted out for their ability. In the street, tho, yes, you can pull the trigger again until results are seen.

For those kinda new to this (16 million new gun owners in the last two years and half are women) it's something to be careful with thinking that all the talk about hitting the inner ring of a scoring target is the standard. For training, sure - you fight like you train, shooting at a smaller target than what reality presents will definitely help sharpen skills. It's an artificial standard tho, not what you need to absolutely do in self defense. Targets are actually the whole human torso, plus some, and hits definitely debilitate the average aggressor. In dealing with "mass" shooters movtivated by emotional drives, many will stop their engagement after one non lethal hit - and are predisposed to suicide at that point.

Goes to get that hit as rapidly as you can and the engagement often ceases, which directly saves lives. Every one of their bullets fired is a potential death. Same for ours - know what is behind them.

And if your RMR does go down? One answer for the M4 users was clamp on Back Up Sights, yet the soldier in the field tends to remove any dead weight possible on his weapon and equipment. The idea that the RMR isn't closely cowitnessed to the existing sights and would require specialty ones can be considered a feature - or we might think of it as a defect, too. Optics on AR15's don't cater to installing new higher irons and pistol users shouldn't have to either. The RMR should co witness with the irons about 1/3 up so they can be used.

An alternative are RMRs with an integral sight on top, but that is stacking a snag hazard even higher for CCW. The conversation then goes to how suited RMR's are to deep conceal carry and why they are better suited to OWB - which is their race gun origin.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
I swear there is a video from GBRS that is much more detailed and shows one of them demoing the concept, but I can't find it on their youtube channel.

The part 2 video discusses it a bit more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AYYV38Z1w

What I found especially interesting about part 2 was mention of several of the issues I’ve been emphasizing in my training myself: maintaining focus on the target, prepping the trigger (original thanks to Grayguns), and, very briefly, “metronome” trigger operation. The last is the value of maintaining a consistent cadence in split times in multi shot strings. There’s even mention of putting a white dot on the rear of Glock slides for the same purpose I discussed above.

Those videos did a lot to affirm the validity of my teaching methods, so again: Thank you.

Point shooting

about two or so weeks ago on the 'gram, Mike Pannonne posted a video of him shooting a steel plate at 10 or so yards. He then turns to the camera after something like 14 hits out of 15 and shows the Glock has no sights. And keep in mind, he lost an eye to a breaching accident.

He points out two specific things. 1- Point shooting sucks and doesn't work and 2- He has the skill to properly index the gun if the sights quit working to hit the target without the use of gimmicks.

I've known for quite a while that point shooting doesn't work as a primary technique, and while you can get people good enough to ooooh and aaaaah the simpletons, you can't teach it across a wide array of shooters and expect good things to happen.

But, having SKILL actually allows you to index the gun properly and hit stuff without gimmicks.

Which goes along with what I repeat time and again. I only wish people obsessed, worried and discussed their trigger control as much as they do clearing malfunctions (and now worrying about what to do if their optic goes down).

100 percent guarantee that skill will always save you where luck and gimmicks are a part time repair.

What he its doing is point shooting.

quote:

But, having SKILL actually allows you to index the gun properly and hit stuff without gimmicks.

Which goes along with what I repeat time and again. I only wish people obsessed, worried and discussed their trigger control as much as they do clearing malfunctions (and now worrying about what to do if their optic goes down).

Interestingly enough a fundamentally sound grip and an obsession on running my trigger has made me comfortable in presenting my firearm to a target. The dot just confirms I did everything right to get it on target and running my trigger correctly allows me the confidence to know I can keep it there when the shot breaks. Using the rear striker plate to confirm my presentation to target would absolutely work in an encounter where my optic failed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dking271,