Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
Yea, some of you guys sound like you think optics on a pistol is a fad. You are nuts if you truly believe that. Optics are very good right now and in 10 years I expect them to be even better. Reliability of most mainstream optics is phenomenal. As is battery life. As for maintenance, damn just change the battery once a year. Seriously overthinking this stuff. They are here to stay. They will improve any shooting you do at distance and up close won’t hurt you. I still use irons because I like irons. I do optics on a bunch and they are easier to hit with. It’s hard to beat physiology especially as your eyes get older. Red dots aren’t a fad. Talking about them in the same sense as self propelled bullets (?) and electronic priming is beyond silly. | |||
|
| Member |
Not only can a shooter be more accurate with a dot sight, but their skills improve. When I put a dot on my range gun, I found that I was not holding the pistol nearly as steady as I had expected. After a few sessions of dry firing, I was able to hold the dot in a very tight group. Probably decreased the size of the group by 3/4's. What if you had to take a very precise shot, like a robber had your kid with a gun to their head and they were using the kid as a shield? With a dot, you can much more easily make a precise shot. -c1steve | |||
|
Member |
Usually at the range, I shoot from the line where you're limited to 1 round per sec. I haven't been shooting much, on average about twice per year so I'm generally a bit rusty. That being said, I had an opportunity to shoot as fast as I want. I tried 3 things at 7 yards and here's the general outcome (all using 10 round mags; 30 rounds total, shoot, reload, shoot, reload, shoot): 1) using Deltapoint Micro on a 19 and a 26: cadence was about 0.25 sec and the tightest group. I didn't measure but I think the group size was about 3". Group seemed "consistent" 2) using Deltapoint Micro but red dot off on a 19; basically using as a ghost ring: cadence was about 0.3s and the widest group. Again, didn't measure but most of the shots were in about 3" however I did some some distribution (25%?) out to about 4-5". In my mind, about the same cadence as #1 but slightly wider grouping. 3) using irons on a 20: cadence was still about 0.3s. Group was more consistent than #2 but had some rounds (few than #2) out to 4" or so. I should mention that the 20 is remarkably easy to shoot; no where near the recoil I thought it was going to be. I think it's easier than the 21 (45) or the 23 (40). I've already proven to myself that the RDS is effective for longer distance shots - much tighter group. Shots are more predictable. I think I've proven to myself that, for close distances, the RDS is fast and results in tighter groups as well. I think I just need more practice with the ghost ring to better understand where the front sight should be in the ring. I think then the ghost ring will be better than irons for me, both close and fast as well longer distance. I'm sold on the DP Micro - RDS and with ghost ring as backup. No problems, at my level, getting on target and keeping a 0.3s cadence. It's no slower than irons for me, and results in better groups, both close and far. I will still practice with irons. But I see no reason not to adopt the DP Micro on any of my defensive guns. But to be fair, not sure how easy it is to break the glass, obscuring vision. Or if the unit will ever come flying off the slide. "Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy "A government is just a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned." Shepherd Book | |||
|
| Member |
I just gave up on my dot sight on my carry gun. I shoot better at distance with iron sights. Constantly having the clean the thing, and having no confidence in my ability to hit anything past 25 yards was a deal killer for me. I do think it’s faster once you acquire the sight picture but I can’t commit to them. If I had dots on all my pistols and did nothing but train with them it might be better but I’m going to keep it simple | |||
|
| Member |
 | |||
|
Down the Rabbit Hole |
I think you're confused about what some of us are saying. The topic of this thread is "Optics vs Iron Sights on Defensive Pistols". We're not talking about Trap Shooting or plinking targets at the range. If someone can't quickly and consistently find the red dot after a day, week or 6 months since they last picked it up, and if they are not willing to periodically inspect and perform the required maintenance, they are better off with iron sights, period. With Iron Sights, you can at least locate the sights and index the pistol as you're coming on target. While the sight picture might not be perfect, it's a shit ton better than searching for a dot you may never have time to find. Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell | |||
|
| Member |
Jupiter - just wanted to reiterate my personal findings and opinions. The RMR took some adaption time but generally fast to acquire the dot once acclimated. At least for 'normal' shooting. Given some adjustment time was required for 'normal' shooting, I'm not sure how fast it would be under duress in less frequent shooting positions for me. I'm sure more proficient shooters may be indifferent. My main hesitations were size and fallback. The DP Micro was intuitive from the get-go. No acclimation time required. It was fast and easy to use from installation. In addition, I've proved to myself that using it has ghost ring, as long as you can center the front sight in the ring, it's also fast and easy. I'm rusty and I could still maintain 0.3s cadence at 7 yards with a reasonable defensive group. The key for me is this: I can do this whether I'm wearing my near sighted or far sighted Rx glasses. Using irons with my near sighted glasses, the sights are very blurry and makes elevation (ie - aligning the sight tops) somewhat difficult. The DP Micro is NOT perfect. And YMMV. But for me, I'd rather have the DP Micro than the rear iron installed. Using it as a ghost ring is easier than irons for me, depending on target distance and precision needed. I may be indifferent at 7 yards for a defensive group, but grouping at 20-25+ yards, I think irons become challenging for me (not when I was younger, but as I've aged and have both near and far sighted Rx). "Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy "A government is just a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned." Shepherd Book | |||
|
| Member |
Hats off to ya. You gave the dot a fair shake and realized it may not be for you. Almost 100% of the naysayers have zero experience with them and “what if” them to death. So many subject matter experts on a subject they have never put any time or work into. It is refreshing to see someone who actually gave them a shot. | |||
|
| Member |
Yes if you somehow can't find the dot you are better off without an optic. I also would say if you can't get your presentation to the point where you can consistently find the dot then I don't know what to tell you. Dots are better than irons. Period. You don't like them, I get it. They aren't going away though because you don't like them and won't take the time to train. I will say the obvious thing that you will hate.If you choose to carry a gun for DEFENSIVE purposes, it is irresponsible to not train for extended periods of time. Your words, 6 months between practice is irresponsible. I would say that to anyone, civilian or cop. If you take the responsibility of a ccw then take the responsibility and be responsible. I think you are confused. I don't shoot trap. I never mentioned trap. Dots are very effective. Just because you can't seem to use them effectively doesn't change the fact that they make a handgun a more effective tool. Maybe not if you won't take the time to learn but if that is the case then that person will suck with irons as well. You guys keep saying stupid shit like inspect and perform maintenance. What the fuck are you talking about? jljones says to check the torque of the screws and change the batteries every year. I would say use a paint pen and draw a line across the screws. If the line stays straight the torque is still good. Oh, and once a fucking year change the battery for goodness sake. Quit making the straw man maintenance argument. I don't hear you saying you check your irons every outing to make sure they didn't get bumped out of alignment. You are making up bs argument from out of thin air. We get it, lots of people don't like them. "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" That quote is the gist of the discussion (he added a maybe but whatever) It is simple. They obviously are useful. I would discount anyone who says they aren't because it is clear that they are very useful. Optics are a gimmick. That is just stupid. Yes, stupid. They aren't a gimmick and they aren't going away. Reading this thread years from now is going to be comical. This is akin to if you go faster than a horse can run you will catch fire stupid. I like irons too. I have way more guns with irons than with optics. That wasn't the question. It was are they useful and reliable or are they a gimmick. That was the poll question. It is a pretty simple answer if you actually think about it. | |||
|
| Down the Rabbit Hole |
^^^^^^^^ I didn't mean to say you were confused. I meant to say you really know your stuff. You never jump to conclusions from the posts you read and have a total understanding of the points people are making. I really like that a lot. Thank you and keep up the good work, pedropcola. Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell | |||
|
| Member |
Me personally, no. My red dots lose less than 1/5 of a volt every 6 months or so. New batteries measure approx. 3.30 volts, and a year later they drop to 3.00 volts. That’s when I change them. Most dots don’t start to flutter until 2.20 volts or so. Changing mine annually is ridiculously often. | |||
|
| Member |
Yea, I can play sarcasm too. You are so right, I totally confused what you meant. The poll literally asked if red dots were useful, reliable, and a gimmick. I am the one who misunderstood the question. My bad. Sorry you can’t understand they ain’t going away. Almost no one shoots them worse if they train with them. I bet by this time next year they won’t even sell red dots for pistols anymore because they aren’t useful, utterly unreliable, and definitely a gimmick. RTFQ. | |||
|
Member |
I wonder how far off lensless holographic sights are for practical, EDC handgun use. That's what I'm looking forward to. | |||
|
| Member |
I shoot with an older buddy who uses red dots on his carry P365XL due to deteriorating vision. I don’t use them as I can still shoot well without needing them. Subject to change of course. If I start struggling to see the front sight, maybe I get an optic. + | |||
|
| Down the Rabbit Hole |
How about "just stick with Iron Sights" maybe? 
It is good to know you've had a change of heart from your previous posts like the one below.
Why would I hate it? I agree that people should train. The reality is most people who slap these things on their pistols don't train or even have usable backup iron sights. This is the whole point I'm making and why I think it's a waste of money for some.
Just a few more things to consider. Confirming zero every once in a while (especially important if the optic was removed for a battery change), cleaning the glass, removing lint from open emitters and adjusting the brightness settings for changing conditions. I'm sure Aunt Betty is going to do all of that even though the gun store forgot to mention it. We know everyone here stays on top of it religiously. 
I'm not one of those people. In fact, I like them a lot.
If you don't mind, point out where folks in this thread have said they were a gimick. Maybe you can provide some quotes. If I said it, I will certainly come clean. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jupiter, Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
I think part of the disconnect is throwing in dots either same argument of the poorly trained. Everyone has a picture of what training means to them. Some people believe that they are a natural born gunfighter and they don’t need to train. The polar opposite is the folks (like me) that feel like they are cheating themselves if they skip one of their three 30 minute dry fire sessions per week. Others fall somewhere in between. Frankly, some people don’t know how to train. Blaming a piece of equipment for the outcome of poor or little training that leads to poor performance is not the fault of the equipment. You just can’t be angry for lack of performance for the work you don’t put in. Iron sights can and will fail too. You have to maintain your equipment. I can tell you for fact positive that someone that is trained will perform better in a defensive shooting with a MRDS. You can claim that you can shoot just as good by using target focus with irons but it simply isn’t true. If it was, no Tier One that uses a firearm with RDS would if they could get the same performance out of irons. We wouldn’t see them on rifles or pistols. And I specifically invoke the top tier outfits for a reason. They don’t care what the internet says. They don’t care the cost. They don’t care about your feelings or mine. They care about performance in dynamic situations. I’ve said it over and over again. We were here with the same arguments 20 years ago. Dots are here to stay. Doesn’t matter your opinion or mine really. They are an advantage. You just have to decide if they are for you. | |||
|
E tan e epi tas |
When did dots become the new gun guy argument? Did we finally run out of caliber arguments, finally agree AR over AK???? Optics are the way forward on all weapon systems. More consistent hits easier is far more attainable then a new projectile or phaser or some such. Pistol optics are still in their adolescence so to speak and still have some things to be ironed out. I would imagine in a decade or two they will damn near be standard. Now for me PERSONALLY I am not there yet. While I don't have a huge problem finding a dot on presentation or recovery I would still have to invest a fair bit of time and money into becoming "natural" with an optic and I don't have that time right now. My general "issues" with MRDS center around the following. -I don't like the added bulk (They will get smaller) -I don't like the myriad of mounting options. (My guess is we will eventually standardize on something) -I think having to remove a site to replace a battery is idiotic (I know this really limited to specific items) -I don't want to keep up with another battery (Thats just me. Runtime is getting into the non issue point) -I like my firearms more or less KISS in nature. (yes I run optics on rifles but they all have back up irons and I still shoot irons) -The cost is an issue, cost of dot, cost of mounting, cost of back up sighting, additional training costs etc. There is no doubt that going to an MRDS represents a fair investment in time and money and for me personally at this point I don't think the ROI is quite there. Rifle optics are true force multipliers, I am not sure pistol optics offer as much of a paradigm shift, at least to me. All that said dots don't mitigate training or indicate poorly trained folks. They do absolutely offer advantages with the proper training those are pretty solid advantages, that said I don't think you are signing your death warrant by not running a dot. Short take they are the way of the future, everybody should at least try them and see for themselves. They are however an individual choice but know that there are benefits on the table with a dot. I would imagine I will have a "dotted" service style pistol within the next decade but right now I am not there and I don't think a device is there for ME PERSONALLY just quite yet. So I am thinking the next thing we should yell at each other about is round vs square magazine releases. I mean you square magazine release people have something inherently wrong with you.  As always take care, shoot safe. Chris "Guns are tools. The only weapon ever created was man." | |||
|
| Sigforum K9 handler |
Another issue is I think the vast majority of RDS users, both pistol and rifle, don’t have a lot of understanding of how the particular system works. Everything is click begging. If they are not properly zeroed, they look at the instructor for “how many clicks boss” and not the understanding of X click equals Y movement. Or what this particular zero does over that one. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
That’s an interesting observation that never occurred to me. I realize that I’ve always more or less just unconsciously assumed that people would know what adjusting a sight meant, but of course if they barely know which end the bullet comes out of, they’re not going to understand how sights work. In thinking about it, it’s a somewhat complex subject to explain, and if I adjust their sights for them they can get along without understanding it, but it is something they should know. Always discovering something new to think about. Thank you. ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
| Member |
Just my .02 worth: As to whether optics are better than irons, i'd like to be made aware of any actual studies doing so, such as has been done with point shooting versus aimed fire (see Barron et al). There are ethical considerations involved, and with large agencies like LAPD adopting optics it may be possible, but who has actually split a randomized selection of an Academy class into dots versus irons and deduced which came out better? Too much of the evidence pro and con is anecdotal and based on samples of one. I am an instructor and wired into most of the intel stream that flows therein, but the cases of optics performing well and performing poorly are often once again nothing but anecdote and leave a lot of variables such as training and experience unaccounted for. There just hasn't been a rigorous, valid assessment of performance in the field. I'm not sure that the success of optics in competition extrapolate into success or lack thereof on the street. I want to like a technology that will enable focusing on a single plane for the duration of a fight. Unfortunately, I went through a crappy RDS instructor's course and still don't have the tools in my toolbox to evaluate them fairly. Equally unfortunately, I worked at a rental range where a t least half of our RDS equipped handguns were down for sight failures. So right now I'm on the bubble. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024