quote:

Seems to me, backup irons are only valuable if the battery or circuitry fails,

I'm guessing you haven't shot one of these RDS guns too much. No matter what the strategy that exists on the dot illumination, manual, automatic, whatever there are simply circumstances where its not usable. And that is when the irons are great. Especially with tritium irons (which is the only acceptable answer for a defensive firearm). the warm glow of aiming.

"If the lenses are opaqued by fog, rain, snow, mud, blood or salt spray, what good are co-witnessed irons"

Well if you have shot irons in most of those conditions you know that pretty much you just wipe off the mess that doesn't enable you to see. Which is exactly what you do on an RDS. Quick swipe of the lens with your finger and good to go. fog, rain and snow don't matter, nor does salt spray in my experience. The mechanics of failure in this are the same for rifles and pistols and you don't see anyone anywhere suggesting we get rid of RDS on rifles that are used in harsh environments.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Also, how are you guys training to deal with water or fog on the lens?

This is a question I’ve asked before and I keep wondering what the answer is.

I warn officers who have optical sights on their rifles that if they’re about to enter a warm, humid environment with their Aimpoint or EOTech that’s been out in sub-freezing temperatures for a couple of hours, they need to consider just removing the sight from the gun entirely. That’s not an option, though, for the handgun optics I’m familiar with. (Wiping condensation off an optical surface, especially if it has frozen to ice, does not work because it reforms almost instantly. And sometimes situations don’t give officers even a few seconds to do all that, and especially not repeatedly.)

Having to draw a gun at all is a rare event for most LEOs and having to do so when there would be some form of water or condensation on the sight would be even less probable. Perhaps having a gun with unusable sights is not considered to be likely enough to worry about.

I can't exactly answer, but given that compared to rifles that might be stored in a subfreezing car and then used a handgun that in almost always stored on a person will be in a different circumstance. I can say absolutely when I leave my competition guns in the trunk of my car at below zero temps and then go to shoot an indoor high temp high temp match they need to acclimate. But I can also say if I leave them in the car (even if in a bag) for the 30 minute trip to the range all is good. So if its on your body this temp shit will not matter.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
So if its on your body this temp shit will not matter.

Because you are so certain about all this, I am curious how much continuous time you have spent in subfreezing temperatures with your handgun in a law enforcement type duty holster that is left uncovered because it might be necessary to use it right away. I can attest from personal experience that when one stands around in single digit temperatures for two hours that a handgun in a duty holster gets pretty chilly.

And when it’s snowing as well, that’s another thing that must be addressed. It would be easy enough to clear snow from the fully enclosed Aimpoint ACRO sight by wiping, but sights with a recessed optic not so much. Plus, a hint: If snow fills up the rear pocket recess in a sight like a Docter or the Trijicon RMR, don’t try to clear it away by blowing on it.

I have spent a zillion hours in subzero temps. And normally I test it at least once per day/trip to make sure all is ok. My holster is IWB so not exactly duty holster but I would never think that would matter. Snow has not been an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
My holster is IWB so not exactly duty holster but I would never think that would matter.

Yes, not exactly ( ). In fact, IWB and a duty belt holster are about as “not exactly” the same as far as the gun’s being exposed to the elements as I can think of.

But you’re just playing with us now, aren’t you?
Good one, and I’ll leave you alone at this point.

To return to the topic, the whole optical sights for defensive handguns movement is somewhat exciting to me because I believe we’re only in its very earliest stages. I’m looking forward to seeing what the future holds.

For what it’s worth, several large departments in Colorado are looking at authorizing or even issuing red dots for sidearms.

quote:

Also, how are you guys training to deal with water or fog on the lens?

...the same way to train for it with rifle red dots.

sigfreund I can only relate to my personal experience. Which is as follows and totally limited to an RMR.
- IWB doesn't matter the temp as you would expect.
- Chest carry on the outside of a L4 ceramic plate in molle holster.Doesn't matter the temp or time. Even if the overgarment is open. low temps for hours no issue.
- backpack carry. holstered glock mos with RMR.
doesn't matter the temp or time. good to go when removed.
- storage in trunk for low temps and long periods Needs some acclimatization when moved to indoor environments. no issues going into outside temps even if mildly different.

Given all that and what I see as the normal conditions of someone with a duty holster I would expect there to be a limited chance of an issue. But you don't know till you test. FWIW>

I put a red dots on my Benelli M1 and Springfield M1A. I was impressed with how fast I can acquire a target vs iron sights, especially now that my eyes are 52.

However, whether or not it improves shooting ability for any given individual depends on this: If you can't pull the trigger without changing the attitude of the gun, a red dot is not going to help.

quote:

Originally posted by DBD226:

However, whether or not it improves shooting ability for any given individual depends on this: If you can't pull the trigger without changing the attitude of the gun, a red dot is not going to help.

I agree with the first part, but not the second, at least as it relates to pistols. On a pistol with a red dot, the extremely fine point of aim and a single focal plane really helps you diagnose bad trigger control (if you're honest with yourself, anyway). With irons, which are comparatively crude and require aligning two sights with each other (sight alignment) and then with the target (sight picture), it's easy to either not see what you're doing wrong or try to blame something else. With a red dot, when you see the dot move just prior to ignition, there is no question. It also makes it easier to call your misses.

I don't think this is quite as prevalent on long guns.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by DBD226:

However, whether or not it improves shooting ability for any given individual depends on this: If you can't pull the trigger without changing the attitude of the gun, a red dot is not going to help.

I agree with the first part, but not the second, at least as it relates to pistols. On a pistol with a red dot, the extremely fine point of aim and a single focal plane really helps you diagnose bad trigger control (if you're honest with yourself, anyway). With irons, which are comparatively crude and require aligning two sights with each other (sight alignment) and then with the target (sight picture), it's easy to either not see what you're doing wrong or try to blame something else. With a red dot, when you see the dot move just prior to ignition, there is no question. It also makes it easier to call your misses.

I don't think this is quite as prevalent on long guns.

Agree that it could possibly be used as a diagonstic tool, but it does not solve the issue. Whether you move the gun with iron or a red dot, you still move the gun.

I have trained a lot of police officers and civilians in the use of handguns over the past 30 years. The number one issue I see is that many concentrate too much on the sites and not enough on pulling the trigger as fast as possible without moving the gun. In a real life scenario, you are not going to slowly squeeze the trigger. You are going to jerk it. So train to jerk it controllably without moving the gun (Dry fire, dry fire, dry fire!).

Cops don't have a low percent of hits in real gun fights because of the sites; sites are barely relevant in most cases as the encounters are very close. They have low hit percents because they move the gun off target while pulling the trigger. A red dot will not fix that.

quote:

Originally posted by dehughes:
Perhaps this will help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULnzq0DIww

Interesting.
So now we return to bringing the gun onto target in an upward “swoop” motion and stopping it at just the right point—not too soon or too late—rather than what some of us have been teaching and practicing for years which is to get the sights up to eye level as soon as possible and then push* the gun toward the target while prepping the trigger.

* Must use the approved term of the day since that guy doesn’t like “punch” or “drive.” He probably wouldn’t like “push” either, but we’re running out of acceptable ways to say it.

These are definitely some fascinating times. I hope never to be forced to learn how to use an optical sight on a handgun, but it will be interesting to see the process develop.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by dehughes:
Perhaps this will help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULnzq0DIww

Interesting.
So now we return to bringing the gun onto target in an upward “swoop” motion and stopping it at just the right point—not too soon or too late—rather than what some of us have been teaching and practicing for years which is to get the sights up to eye level as soon as possible and then push* the gun toward the target while prepping the trigger.

* Must use the approved term of the day since that guy doesn’t like “punch” or “drive.” He probably wouldn’t like “push” either, but we’re running out of acceptable ways to say it.

These are definitely some fascinating times. I hope never to be forced to learn how to use an optical sight on a handgun, but it will be interesting to see the process develop.

This is just another internet guru over complicating the process. Most of the people who have come to me for help improving their shooting skills are overthinking it. Rob Leatham, who has proven his skills over and over, sums it up better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I&t=58s

After reading all the stuff about fogging.... Left my Glock 45/RMR in one of our vehicles overnight outside. Cold enough to freeze solid a bottle of water. Quickly went in our house, no fogging what so ever on the RMR.

When I first started shooting with a RMR I took off the sights of one my G19's. I did not want to have the irons sights to aid me. Spent lots of time drawing and dry firing. The dot showed me my grip, draw could be improved on. Made a slight change to the "clocking" of my grip and got rid of any push out with the draw. Biggest thing I struggled with being a competitive bolt rifle shooter was trying to get the dot to settle for the perfect shot, very very slow. I came across a similar picture to this, pull the trigger when the dot is anywhere on the target. That helped me a lot!! I now have over 20K on one of my RMR's, 100% reliable. Very high percentage of my pistol shooting is on a shot timer. I'm faster and more accurate with the RMR. I believe one the biggest benefit to the red dot on pistol is maintaining target focus.

This is my vote, Gen5 G17 with RMR Type 2.

quote:

Originally posted by DBD226:
Rob Leatham, who has proven his skills over and over, sums it up better than I can:

That’s a good video for the points he’s making, but it doesn’t address what the other was about, which is the problem of acquiring the reticle dot while attempting the engage the target quickly.

And as a (perhaps) final comment about condensation on optical sights, the environmental conditions make all the difference. The relative humidity in most houses in the winter is very low. That is especially true in places like the high mountains where even the outside humidity is usually low as well. Move to other environments, though, and that can change. An obvious example is if someone has had soup simmering on the stove all day and we go into the kitchen.

Tales of hunting in Alaska are full of accounts of people unthinkingly taking their cold rifles into a warm and humid tent and having their scopes fog up. That doesn’t matter if they leave the gun inside until it warms up and the condensation evaporates, but if they go back outside immediately the condensation will remain and possibly turn to ice.

There seems to be a reluctance people to change. We tend to come up with a myriad of excuses on new technology.

The hilarious part is that cops have been here before. When cops started to make the jump to rifle optics we heard all the same excuses.

“They will fog up when you need them most”
“They take batteries and will fail when you need it”
“Grand daddy racked up (japs, Germans, Vietcong) with iron sights. They aren’t needed”

With smart training plans, lens coatings, and better technology none of the arguments are valid.

When I was at the academy years ago, we had a lead instructor named Mr. Baird. At any rifle class, he would spend the first 25 minutes of the first day by pulling an EoTech out of a cooler. It was frozen and fogged. The class could not proceed until the lens were usable. One day, I presented him with a scenario of his daughter being taken hostage by a lunatic. She had a gun to her head and a police sniper is on scene to rescue her-

Do you want the sniper to use iron sights because-
The sight may fog
Iron sights were good enough from grand daddy
The batteries may fail.

Or do you want him to have an optic so he can have the most advantage for success?

No he hemmed and hawed around and would not answer one way or another. Either answer made him look like a dumbass. And rightfully so. Snipers have dealt with fogging since the telescopic sight came into use. And you don’t see them crying about it.

Folks, no matter how much some stick their fingers in their ears and scream out “no, no, no” optics are here to stay. All of the broken excuses died the day that reliability caught up with the platform.

Well I pulled the trigger today, so to speak. I went to the LGS and bought a G17.5 MOS. I was going to go with a G45 but they are out and it will be a while until they replenish their stock. While there they showed me the S&W M&P9 Performance Center CORE, 4.25 inch barrel, ported. Comes with sights that are supposed to co-witness an RDS. So I bought that too. (Don't tell my wife, I didn't) I then came home and ordered three extra S&W mags (shop was out of 17 rounders and gun only came with 2). I also ordered 2 Type 2 RMR06's to mount on both. Will order an aftermarket mounting plate for the Glock along with some Dawson sights. Once the sights come in and everything is set up I will go to the range and try them both and decide which I want to carry on duty.
Like I said in my first post I was unsure which gun to get. Even though I have been carrying Glocks on duty for over 20 years (carried Sig P228 before that) it is amazing that when I pick up the S&W and bring it up on target for a dry fire the sights are perfectly lined up, where I almost always feel like I need to adjust my sight picture with the Glock. We'll see if that stays the same once the RMR is mounted.

Not surprisingly given the general state of science education and knowledge, not everyone understands how and why water condenses out of the atmosphere. That is why we occasionally see comments in tales about hunting in cold, wet conditions that are common in places like Alaska that one must leave a rifle outside rather than taking it indoors to a warm cabin because the scope will supposedly fog up when it’s taken back outdoors in the cold morning.
(That introductory comment is not directed at anyone active in this thread, BTW, because I have no reason to do so, but it is obviously true of many people. It is also an example of a prime reason why bad information gets spread around when something new is proposed.)

Let’s think about the times we removed something like a can of soda from the refrigerator. On a warm, humid day as we might experience in one of the southern states, we expect that water will condense on the can. That’s because cold air can hold less water as vapor than warm air. When the air meets the cold can, it cools and the water condenses out. If the can or other object that’s taken into the warmer, humid air is cold enough, the water that condenses will also freeze to ice or frost.

Does water always condense on a cold can when we remove it from the refrigerator? No. There must be enough difference between the temperature of the can and the air for that to happen, but more commonly the reason it doesn’t is because the outside air isn’t humid enough. For example, as I write this the temperature inside my house is a relatively cool 63°, and the relative humidity is 35%. And remember that “relative” refers to the amount of water vapor the air is capable of holding at a given temperature; the higher the air temperature, the more water vapor it can hold, and the more is available to condense out. An RH of 35% is at the low end of what’s considered ideal for home comfort, but it would be lower if the same amount of water were present, and the temperature were higher.

As an experiment just now, I measured the temperatures inside a refrigerator and a freezer. The first temperature was 42° and the freezer temp was 6°. When I removed a soda can from the refrigerator and a metal block from the freezer that I had allowed to cool to the inside temperature, both remained dry with no condensation.

That simple test demonstrated that condensation does not always occur when a cold object like a glass sight lens is exposed to warmer temperatures. On the other hand, condensation on a can from a refrigerator was almost certain to form on a day when I lived in Virginia with 90° temperature and 90% relative humidity. The reason for the difference was the fact that under 90/90 conditions much more water vapor is in the air that contacts the can and the temperature difference is greater than in my experiment. It’s important to understand all that when discussing condensation that might form on a weapon sight. Some conditions, such as going from a very cold environment to a very warm and humid one will result in condensation; some conditions, however, will not result in condensation.

That type of cold to warm and humid transition isn’t the only way condensation forms. Sometimes it’s because warm, humid air cools and can no longer hold the same amount of water. That’s the process of dew formation that typically occurs as a warm and humid day cools at night. And of course, dew can form not only on the grass we’re standing in, but also on suitable objects that we might have with us, such as a rifle sight.

A major difference between the development of dew and the condensation on a beer can taken out of the reefer onto a Miami patio, however, is the speed of their formation. Dew is a relatively slow and gradual process, while condensation under extreme conditions such as taking a sub-zero object into an 80°, 95% RH kitchen or bathroom environment can occur almost instantly. Furthermore, dew can often be wiped away and won’t reform immediately; the same is not always true when a freezing cold object taken into warm, humid air.

Just as many people will never, ever be faced with clearing snow off their weapon sight, many will never encounter a situation in which condensation forms. But some of us have, and would be foolish to not expect to again.