can't help the brain dead. Do you think they test their POA/POI? or do they maintain their pistols, or test their defensive ammo, or use reliable magazines and not promag, or change their batteries, or torque their screws...or...

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
can't help the brain dead. Do you think they test their POA/POI? or do they maintain their pistols, or test their defensive ammo, or use reliable magazines and not promag, or change their batteries, or torque their screws...or...

I take that as a "NO". Looks like red dots aren't for everyone then. Better suited for people that actually train.

I appreciate hearing everyone’s thoughts based on individual experience. Currently using and training on Optic equipped pistols. Older eyes make it an easy choice for me and my needs.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
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.

Same here, first time I couldn't find the dot, then when I found it, didn't have myself presented properly, missed the whole dang target. Handed the gun to someone better trained than me and the gun was making holes in the 10 ring. Sucked to see how shitty I was.

Reading about it transferring to red dot from Irons takes some practice to acquire the dot on presentation, and, moving to optics can expose some of the bad practices on presentation a shooter has that they have developed ways to overcome with irons in order to get on target.
You are going to have to unlearn poor presentation habits, and in a way, it will make a better shooter...

Really good shooters tend to pick them up quickly because they have excellent presentation fundamentals, so it's less about physical aspects as it is getting your eyes trained. Once they make the change they get on target quicker and have faster shot times, as a overall group.

At least that's what I've gleaned from reading articles and talking with folks about the issues I have with converting. Basically if you can't see the dot on presentation, you need to work on re-learning to present the gun to the target with the optic.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'm faster with the first shot at sub 10 yard distances with irons. At 5 yards or less I don't even need sights to get consistent COM hits at speed. Once I break the first shot I'm faster and slightly more accurate with the RDS.

As to shooters who are being raised and trained on handguns with no back up sights, this strikes me as a very bad move. If it's a gamer gun that's only going to see range time, who cares? As a self defense tool you have to be crazy to trust your life to a battery powered sight as your only aiming device.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I think Ken put his foot in his mouth pretty hard. He's right that you need to develop proficiency with them, but to claim that there is "no advantage at 10 yards or less (added the distance for clarity) " is foolish. Maybe there is "no advantage" to someone that has been shooting mostly irons for 50+ years, but there is a whole population of shooters that are coming up on optics and more that have seen the light and not going back (like me).

What is the optic that has the huuuuge circle around the dot so that if you can't find the dot the curve of the circle tells you where to go? The explanation takes longer than the action but it seems like a good idea for some.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
What is the optic that has the huuuuge circle around the dot so that if you can't find the dot the curve of the circle tells you where to go? The explanation takes longer than the action but it seems like a good idea for some.

That’s the ACSS reticle from Holosun, licensed from Primary Arms, I believe.

I’ve never used one, as I prefer just a simple dot, but it seems like a good way to help correct presentation issues as it give the shooter a visual cue about the guns alignment.

If I’m still around in five or even 10 years, one of the things I’ll be watching with interest is the state of the equipment and practice of optical sights on handguns. Will they be ubiquitous, or will they have faded away, or something in between?

My thoughts at present:

First, yes it’s true that many new developments have been resisted at first only to become standard firearms features. Plastic guns, optical sights on patrol rifles, chassis-type rifle stocks, and really advanced (and expensive) riflescopes all come to mind, along with others that I’m not as familiar with.

But there have also been many developments or attempted developments that were never as successful as their fans expected, or at least hoped. Self-propelled bullets, military cartridges with multiple projectiles, electrically primed cartridges, and firearms with electronic controls are the ones I can think of, but there were undoubtedly many others that were never successful enough for me to have ever been aware of. And weird designs and features haven’t been limited to recent times. Unsuccessful strange models and proposals abounded in the nineteenth century.

There are also other things in development whose future is a bit uncertain at present, most notably the rifle sight that promises not to fire the rifle until it’s pointed exactly as required for a hit. The sights that automatically adjust the reticle for the proper hold seem to have gotten off to a slow start, but may still become the thing, as may polymer cartridge cases.

Optical sights on handguns for serious purposes would benefit by better mounting standardization, being smaller, having an Aimpoint-type reliability and ruggedness reputation, and elimination of the open emitters (!!!). (The last is on the way, and will probably become standard, but many of us will wait until that is more common before considering a handgun optic for any sort of serious purpose.) Part of the reason it took literally decades after optical sights were used by the Sơn Tây prison raiders in 1970 for them to be accepted into wide use on law enforcement patrol rifles and by nonprofessionals was because they needed to be improved in many ways.

As it may not be obvious to everyone, I’ll point out again that long guns and handguns are different critters and equating the two except at the most basic, and mostly meaningless level is hardly valid. Optical sights have been used on rifles for at least 160 years, and if their use on rifles was any sort of indication that optics could be used successfully on handguns for regular carry and employment, then why has it taken so long to get to that point?

The answers should be obvious, and they include reasons beyond, “You’re just old and stuck in your conservative ways!” People should stop citing that supposed example of why optics on handguns can be as successful as optics on rifles.

At my hypothetical five or ten year mark, I expect that optical sights will be standard on handguns used by elite forces such as Delta operators or full time SWAT members. Their willingness and ability to use and maintain such systems and their recognition of their benefits in certain situations will probably ensure that. As for the average nonprofessional who is carrying for defensive purposes or even the average law enforcement officer who may take his gun out of the holster just to look at it a couple of times a year, though, I’m not so sure. Will the guy who frets about the size difference between a P365 and Glock 43 continue to put up with an optic in anticipation of having to make a 40-yard head shot from concealment? At least one manufacturer is offering a LE duty holster with a rotating hood to cover an optic, so that addresses one of my concerns about such sights, but we’ll see about the rest.

As I say, the future of handgun optical sights will be interesting to follow.

I picked up one of the 229RX slides a few years ago when Sig was dumping them for $325.
It's worked well and I do like it but I'm not getting any more.
For me it's just a range gun, not something I would put to work.

I don't shoot it enough to stay on top of it, which I can do but not in a hurry.
It seems like every time I have to start over, a few warm up dry fire, then slow live fire.
And it is a training and use issue for me.
If I had the ammo funds and the time to burn it up it would be one thing, but I don't so I stick with what works every time for me.
I would rather put funds for optics towards a rifle that I would get better use out of.

By far, my biggest issue with red dots concern those that are pushing them for everyone.
If most people were as motivated and well trained as folks like Jones, there would be a lot less to debate. The fact is, most are not even close. The average person who purchases a red dot shoots less than a few hundred rounds a year, has unusable iron sights and little to no training. I see the added expense, added maintenance and lack to training as a liability in those cases. I'm sure those that profit from red dot sales would disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by powermad:

I don't shoot it enough to stay on top of it, which I can do but not in a hurry.
It seems like every time I have to start over, a few warm up dry fire, then slow live fire.
And it is a training and use issue for me.
If I had the ammo funds and the time to burn it up it would be one thing, but I don't so I stick with what works every time for me.
I would rather put funds for optics towards a rifle that I would get better use out of.

+1 regarding the "use issue".

Shooting is a perishable skill.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If I’m still around in five or even 10 years, one of the things I’ll be watching with interest is the state of the equipment and practice of optical sights on handguns. Will they be ubiquitous, or will they have faded away, or something in between?

First, I wish you a long life.
Slide mounted optics in general have been around for 20 years or so now. The RMR, still one of leading options, was released in 2007.
We know that, on aggregate, they improve performance.
We know that the industry has put an effort to improve them further.
We know that they have been proven viable in all kinds of pistol uses.
These three things differentiate them from other tech you'd mentioned above.
They are already a standard equipment for SOF units and some SWATs. This is a video of, how you put it, an average law enforcement officer making a use of two huge RDS advantages - distance shooting and shooting in low light
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...80-shots-behind.html

The point is that some of what you see as a near future prediction has already happened. RDS won't be ubiquitous, irons won't go away and are sufficient for most instances of civilian use, but RDS will become more and more prevalent and dominant.
I do wish that optic proponents, and I am one of them, have stopped "advertising" the tech and just moved on with their lives and shooting.

I was going to post the question that I think your post pre-answered. The question is, pistol mounted optics have been a reality in the LE world for a good number of years now. What, if any, problems have been actually manifesting themselves? People here are posting what they see as theoretical problems. But if there are actual problems, we'd be hearing complaints about them. I haven't, but I don't know that I'm in a good position to. We have any number of LEOs and or trainers on this board. What have they been experiencing?

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If I’m still around in five or even 10 years, one of the things I’ll be watching with interest is the state of the equipment and practice of optical sights on handguns. Will they be ubiquitous, or will they have faded away, or something in between?

First, I wish you a long life.
Slide mounted optics in general have been around for 20 years or so now. The RMR, still one of leading options, was released in 2007.
We know that, on aggregate, they improve performance.
We know that the industry has put an effort to improve them further.
We know that they have been proven viable in all kinds of pistol uses.
These three things differentiate them from other tech you'd mentioned above.
They are already a standard equipment for SOF units and some SWATs. This is a video of, how you put it, an average law enforcement officer making a use of two huge RDS advantages - distance shooting and shooting in low light
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...80-shots-behind.html

The point is that some of what you see as a near future prediction has already happened. RDS won't be ubiquitous, irons won't go away and are sufficient for most instances of civilian use, but RDS will become more and more prevalent and dominant.
I do wish that optic proponents, and I am one of them, have stopped "advertising" the tech and just moved on with their lives and shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

Shooting is a perishable skill.

Which is a whole different topic.

I heard that all my life and finally found out just exactly how perishable it is.

I shot trap competitively, not like the big guys but club shoots and local shoots. I averaged around 192/200 at that time.

Then I discovered the world of R/C Pylon Racing and went at it for 10 years or so. Didn't touch a gun that whole time.

Finally went back to shooting trap again. I used to average 24/25.

First round after 10 years, 21, second round 22, 3rd round 23 and 4th round 23.

Not really all that perishable, at least in my case.

I thought about that long and hard and decided that once you get to a pretty proficient skill level, you really don't lose that much and it comes back almost instantly.

I saw the exact same thing with my Dad years before. He was one of the best handgun shooters I ever saw and then he went around 3 years without pulling a trigger. When he finally went out again, he was very close to the skill level he had previously.

So, in my opinon, shooting is a perishable skill only if you don't have that good of a grasp of it to begin with.

There aren’t any. The biggest two issues that have nothing to do with the optics themselves is cost and institutional inbreeding. There is an agency south of us that doesn’t allow optics on rifles. Why you ask? The Chief didn’t have them during his 20 year career with the state police and thinks they are a fad. Iron sights were good enough back then, and they are good enough now.

Cost is the biggest prohibitor.

If you have a training program that teaches the officer how to maintain the optic, which consists of changing the battery once a year and checking the torque values at the end of each range session, they are trouble free.

But like everything, straw man arguments exist for a reason. The truth is that some cops don’t any gun, let alone one with a dot on it. What the untrained May or may not do with a piece of gear simply isn’t a reflection of the utility of the gear.

We were promised 20 years ago that the streets would run red with the blood of those who foolishly put battery powered electric gizmos on a rifle with perfectly good iron sights on it. These days you are hard pressed to find places that don’t have them. Which is largely the reason I’m in disbelief that people could be making the same, tired recycled 20 year old arguments and be expecting different results.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

Shooting is a perishable skill.

So, in my opinon, shooting is a perishable skill only if you don't have that good of a grasp of it to begin with.

That's good to know. All you master class shooters out there can sit on your ass for a year or two and never practice. You'll stay just as sharp.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:


... maintain the optic, which consists of ... checking the torque values at the end of each range session ...

Check the attaching screws with a Wheeler or similar gunsmithing torque wrench?

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:


... maintain the optic, which consists of ... checking the torque values at the end of each range session ...

Check the attaching screws with a Wheeler or similar gunsmithing torque wrench?

Yessir. Most are 12-16 inch pounds. I’ve seen a couple come loose (out of torque specs) after monster round count kill sessions. But most Joe Q. Coppers never have torque issues. (If it starts out torqued correctly with blue loctite on board.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

Shooting is a perishable skill.

So, in my opinon, shooting is a perishable skill only if you don't have that good of a grasp of it to begin with.

That's good to know. All you master class shooters out there can sit on your ass for a year or two and never practice. You'll stay just as sharp.

They could and I doubt they'd lose all that badly. The difference between winning and losing at that level is tenths of seconds and in the grand scheme of things, that's miniscule.

Optic maintenance story from this week:

Got a call the other night on my day off from the night shift guy on the opposite rotation. His optic was dead...no dot. He's a new hire, and got issued a brand new P320F RX when he started 3 months ago. He has good mechanical aptitude, so I talked him through replacing the battery, properly torqueing the cap, confirming that zero hadn't shifted, etc. He was back up and running in minutes.

I'm assuming the battery was just low when we received it, but we'll be keeping an eye on that one to make sure we don't have some kind of excessive draw situation.

A couple of takeaways:

A.) If your optic ships with a battery, even if it's still in the blister pack and well inside the expiration date, don't assume you'll get a full service-life out of it.

B.) Have spares. Change regularly.

C.) I've got at least one guy who's doing it right, checking his gear daily like he's supposed to, and making that phone call when something isn't right. This makes me happy.