The debate about optics on pistols for defensive use, and the fact that gun makers now making optics ready guns, has been popping up in a number of threads that may only be tangentally related to the question. So I thought it might be a good idea to have a central thread for this subject.

I made this a poll, so besides the replies, we can get a numerical idea of what people are thinking

Question:
Do optics belong on a defensive pistol?

Choices:
Yes, optics are useful and reliable enough to be on a defensive pistol (carry or otherwise)
No. All you need are good old fashioned irons, and optics are just a gimmick
Maybe. In some instances (shooters with poor vision, HD guns but not carry, etc.) optics might be useful, but not for eveything.

 

I will be curious to follow this thread, but as the request hasn’t been made yet, here’s mine:

Please leave your egos and insecurities at the door, and don’t get this thread locked because you’re afraid of what someone else thinks and you must get spun up responding to their preferences.

(If I am out of line with this, BBMW, I will delete.)

I think optics on handguns are obviously the future but I am not sure we are there yet. (Not sure what “there is” either)

On a rifle optics / dots add so little relative bulk and add so much extra capability it was a fairly fast adoption.

On a handgun an optic adds a fair bit of bulk relative to the gun and you are still largely using handguns at common handgun ranges where iron sights are not likely as much of a detriment vs a rifle and rifle ranges.

I think it’s a forgone conclusion that eventually some kind of optical aid will be more or less SOP on handguns but I think they need to be smaller/cleaner if you will as well as providing stellar battery life.

For me personally, I do not prefer an optic on a handgun. Much of that is simply being an iron sight set in my ways guy, some of it is what I say above.

So I am in the maybe camp right now. I think there are absolutely good use cases today but I don’t think they are a no brainer for all uses.

Now I’m just an idjit who knows the pointy flashy end goes towards the target. I don’t have the skill or experience to tell anybody else if a use case works for them or for the masses. I just know that for me personally that use case isn’t in play at this time.

Also like most technological aids to shooting, while they can be used by a novice to good effect I still believe solid shooting/sighting fundamentals should be in play before one moves to a laser/dot etc.

Nothing like a mk18 mod 0 Eyeball. That being said RDS make a huge difference!! Yes to having one on a pistol.

I agree that optics are the future and certainly have progressed by leaps and bounds. As for me, I need lots more training and experience before I go to 100% optics carry.

This is fine. I also want this to stay a logical discussion of the issue, not a pissing match. There's no reason for it to become the latter (but, unfortunately, it does happen.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I will be curious to follow this thread, but as the request hasn’t been made yet, here’s mine:

Please leave your egos and insecurities at the door, and don’t get this thread locked because you’re afraid of what someone else thinks and you must get spun up responding to their preferences.

(If I am out of line with this, BBMW, I will delete.)

If they ever get the eyeball out the loop, things will have become MUCH scarier.

quote:

Originally posted by 1flynDO:
Nothing like a mk18 mod 0 Eyeball. That being said RDS make a huge difference!! Yes to having one on a pistol.

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

I think a red dot on a pistol leaves you much more target or threat focused.

Give it another two years or so and we’ll think it ludicrous that a pistol doesn’t have an optic like we do rifles today.

I voted maybe, mostly because of vision issues. I am currently studying optics because I am 59 and I can no longer get a clear focus on iron sights in anything other than bright sunlight. A fuzzy front sight is adequate to get reliable hits at "common defensive distances", ie. 5-7 yards. In fact, I'd have no problem with center of mass at 10 yards or greater. But, precision shots with irons are out the window past those distances with rare exceptions for perfect light.

So, defending myself I have no issues. But, in good light I can make good hits with the P365 out to 25 yards or even greater. So, in the back of my mind, what if I'm eating somewhere and a shooter comes in? Just one scenario, but I normally like to sit far from the front door, back to the wall, so I can see what's going on. In the very unlikely event that someone comes in shooting, and I'm 30 yards away, indoors, I'm leaving a lot on the table as far as my potential ability to help.

On the negative side, for a lot of people, maybe the majority of people, sight alignment is not where they have a problem shooting well. It's trigger control. And I have repeatedly seen people with lasers jerking triggers because of the false sense of security of being "on". At least that's my take on it. Have you ever seen someone shooting with a laser at the range? It's very obvious to observers that the laser 'dips' with every shot, but the shooter can't understand why he's missing. I don't have experience with red dots on pistols, but I expect to see much the same problem as with lasers if they were in common use.

I think a red dot that co-witnesses with irons, or at least with the front sight, really has no downside. Even if the battery is dead, you're still good at close range. And if you can pick up the front sight upon drawing, it seems you'd be right there with the dot. But I can't personally confirm this.

I'm on the fence here...

For Irons I feel that they are tried and true. I've shot with them for 20 years. I'm comfortable with them. I think they are more than enough for close quarters combat that you would encounter with a conceal carry pistol

For Optics I understand the threat focus standpoint. I get that they are accurate at greater distances as your irons will block the target from your vision at certain distances. I also understand that an optic is going to get dirty during the day in a CCW position and that it has a battery and glass, so it's more prone to failure.

I want an optic, but I don't know how long it would take to surpass my skill with irons. They also aren't cheap. I've seen a ton of people run optics and suck at the range and I wonder if that 500 bucks would have been better spent on training.

I recently added the Romeo 1 Pro to my P320 X-Compact which is my everyday carry gun. I've been an iron sight shooter for more than 45 years but am rapidly adjusting to the red dot sight and I can say without hesitation that I really like it. I still have 20/20 distance vision but require corrective lenses to see the front iron sight. With the red dot that is not necessary and I really like that advantage. The other positive for me is its way easier to hit targets at further distances with the use of the red dot. So for me definitely optics on a defensive pistol.

My shooting improved significantly with an optic. Ir really helps with old eyes.

With my limited but somewhat educated experience with RMR on a Glock, I think I agree w/ most sentiments expressed above and honestlou.

Given my age and current vision, irons are sufficient out to 10-15 yards for "quick" work, out to 25 yards if "slow" is okay. But lower light against dark backgrounds are challenging at distance at speed. The RMR is useful for aiming at distance, especially under less than ideal lighting / contrast conditions.

So, for me, the decision at this point in time is whether I think a target is within 10 yards and/or what the lighting conditions are. My general assumption is that I will be attacked at night by someone wearing darker clothes. And while the threat may be known only at immediate distances, I would hope to recognize and see the threat coming when it's still 20+ yards away.

This, for me, suggests that RDS is advocated. While utility is perceived to be less needed at shorter distances, it doesn't hinder efficacy. While it does add benefit for longer distances under variety of lighting / contrast conditions.

At this point I can't even imagine the idea of carrying anything, of any kind (pistol or rifle or defensive shotgun) without an optic. I'm faster, more accurate, do better in low light by a huge amount, can shoot around barriers etc better, etc.. The downside? cleaning lint out of the optic on a regular basis for a carried pistol and an actual minor issue of temperature changes that isn't normally a problem for a carry gun. The double winner is that setup for backup irons you give up essentially nothing.

day 1 of a red dot instructor course was today.

I suck with my RMR for precision shooting.

Anything moving, I'm just fine.

With irons, I'm perfect in both.

Can't figure it out.

quote:

I suck with my RMR for precision shooting.

You mean bullseye type shooting doing slow fire at distance? Jerking the trigger right when the dot is on the target?

I know that I tend to “chase the dot” much more so then I do with an iron sight. I tend to do that with scope reticles vs irons as well.....mostly because well I suck. . But something something admitting is the first step.

I voted that no because a defensive pistol to me means a pistol that needs to be used only in a range that I am in danger. Very close range, find the front sight and pull the trigger.

I do like optics for the range and just plinking around.

Thanks for starting this thread BBMW. I'm sure it will get interesting.

I know everyone is different so I can only speak for myself.
In a perfect world, I believe an optic adds to the overall capability of a handgun. No doubt about it. Most of the speed shooting world records were set using an optic. They keep getting better and better and will continue to grow in popularity.

I'm not sure an optic would ever address my number one concern. Defending myself in that close (under 5 yards), fast scenario. The most likely scenario most people will face in a defensive situation.

Are they the best option for the average person who carries a gun for protection? I don't think so.
For those willing to spend the time and money to train properly, I believe they are a great option.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
I still believe solid shooting/sighting fundamentals should be in play before one moves to a laser/dot etc.

Good advice for sure.