quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
The lens is pretty far forward compared to the RMR.

I don't have an SRO, but I've noticed that and had wondered about the fouling. My 507 Comp fouls much quicker than my other optics, I think due to the fact that it's bigger and closer to the ejection port. The SRO extends even farther forward...in some setups I've seen it even overhang the opening, which would cause me concern that it might interfere with ejection. Great optics to use...nice clear glass and the big, rounded window makes it easy to keep the dot in view, but the design has some downsides when it comes to durability and practical carryability.

I recently acquired a pistol whose slide can take a dot, as well as a holster with the cutout to accommodate it. Might try one someday. It has helped accuracy (or precision) with one rifle I have it on, but I'm still getting the hang of looking at the target with both eyes open rather than focusing on the dot.

If such a sight were to stop working (the battery goes dead, the lens gets fouling or whatever), I see no reason why, at short range, you couldn't use a "'silhouette' point" sighting technique.

Try it at an IDPA or similar match, egregore

Lots of -1, -2, -3's and a hit on a non-threat will show up in your final score,
and put you in the bottom 25% of combined division shooters.
________________________________

I left out something.
There were two shooters in my squad that made similar comments to me at different stages at the safe tables.
Both of them are/were Safety Officers for many years at a local indoor range Friday 'tactical-practical' match.
Typically, 30 to 60 shooters each time, moving and shooting 3 shots each of ten photographic targets in several "rooms" against the clock.

They both said that there was at least one shooter with a red dot sight problem
EVERY Friday.
And no pattern to brand, model, price of the RDS.
Budget, midrange, top tier RDS's were represented.

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

I'm not sure how to take this, but I'll take a stab a it.

quote:

Try it at an IDPA or similar match, egregore

Lots of -1, -2, -3's and a hit on a non-threat will show up in your final score,
and put you in the bottom 25% of combined division shooters.

Taking a lower score is better than the alternative of quitting for equipment failure, is it not? That is a very bad habit to get into. And when, say, figure skaters take a tumble on the ice, do they skate off the ice in shame? No, they get up and finish the routine, even knowing the mistake cost them standing.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I don't have an SRO, but I've noticed that and had wondered about the fouling. My 507 Comp fouls much quicker than my other optics, I think due to the fact that it's bigger and closer to the ejection port. The SRO extends even farther forward...in some setups I've seen it even overhang the opening, which would cause me concern that it might interfere with ejection. Great optics to use...nice clear glass and the big, rounded window makes it easy to keep the dot in view, but the design has some downsides when it comes to durability and practical carryability.

On my G17, the glass is only a few millimeters away from the ejection port. In a hooded duty-style holster, sure, an SRO would be a fine option once you know you've got a good one. For concealed carry? I honestly wouldn't even consider it.

I have a friend who is an SRO advocate who managed to drop his carry piece in the driveway one morning when he was leaving for work. Of course, it was outfitted with an SRO, and of course, it landed on the top edge of the window, and of course, the window shattered. Trijicon either fixed it for him for free or gave him a new one, I can't remember which, but his carry gun was down for a while.

Between that, and other similar anecdotes, I'd never consider carrying mine. I got it purely for shooting matches and using on an NV gun with a TLR-VIR II. Cowitnessed with the IR laser in a Safariland, it's great for night shooting. By the time it's so filthy I'm having a hard time seeing through the window, we're about done for the night anyway. That, or I just use the IR dot and carry on. I never bought one intending it to be a serious hard-use item. I'm sure with cleaner-burning defensive/duty loads or handloads meant to burn super clean, it would be less of an issue, but I'm using Magtech because it's super cheap and I'm getting lots of trigger time on it. I keep a sandwich baggie of clean microfiber cloths and a can of Sprayway in my range box and clean as necessary. It kind of is what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Taking a lower score is better than the alternative of quitting for equipment failure, is it not? That is a very bad habit to get into.

That's getting into a whole conversation about gun games and how applicable they actually are to real life. If your intent is to get some reps in under pressure and use it as a training opportunity and not care about score, that's great. That's how I use them. If you're all about your ranking and going to nationals, it's a very different thing.

The best shooters I know personally shoot a ton of matches and can switch the mindset over to whatever they're doing at will.

But again, the thread is about defensive pistols and I don't see a lot of value in talking about optics meant for gun games in a thread like this. If, in a defensive shooting, you're putting enough rounds through your carry gun to carbon foul the optic window, you may well already be out of ammo before it's a worry anyway. I'm more concerned about lint and dust in the emitter.

While I've got two Glocks I trust outfitted with dots, the Gen 5 19 I picked up a few weeks ago isn't an MOS and I haven't had it cut for an optic. I'm honestly not sure I will. I would migrate my RMR over to it if I did, and my G45 that currently wears it would get a 407 I have sitting new in a box, but after a couple range trips with the 19 and the Ameriglo U notch rear and big green front dot irons, I'm scoring good hits quickly and not sure whether I want to deal with the maintenance of glass on a carry gun. I'll probably end up carrying the G45/RMR combo for a while and see how it does for me with dust and lint and all that and make my decision later. I may very well end up not cutting that 19 and just keeping it set up as a bone-stock carry piece.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I'm not sure how to take this, but I'll take a stab a it.

Taking a lower score is better than the alternative of quitting for equipment failure, is it not?

Quitting? That wasn't my intent; NEVER give up!

I was implying that unobstructed irons ( and properly functioning RDS's) give much better results. That its not even close.

Really interesting to read this thread.

The predictions that have and haven’t come true. How things have changed in the last 5 years.

Good times.

Warning: Old thread

Prepping for a steel match two months ago, the SRO came on but was totally unresponsive to the control buttons, and somehow the dot was not projected on the center of lens.

Weirdness.

Contacted Trijicon, the out of warranty quote was better than the retail price of a new one, so sent it in.

"Due to unforeseen circumstances during the repair process", they sent me a new one for the same $ quote.

Thank you, Trijicon!

Hope to try myself out with it at this month's match.

That's pretty good customer service!

I've had a SIG Romeo-X Compact on my Shadow 2 Carry for around 6 months now. It definitely took some getting used to, but I'm starting to dig it now.

Youtuber Honest Outlaw said he shoots irons as good as optics at normal ranges, but finds the optics better for longer ranges, like hitting steel at 100 yds with 9mm. Maybe useful for hunting, but don't know if they could handle the larger handgun hunting cartridges. If you have a shooting defect though the result would be the same between irons and batteries.

Let’s be honest. Honest Outlaw shoots better then the VAST number of people and the type of sighting system he uses has little to do with it.

Optics provide measurable benefits especially at distance and on moving targets. They are less about “aiming” and more about being able to make hits while seeing your target clearly.

All that said for me personally, while I use, practice with and KNOW optics provide a benefit I still run irons as well and have no fears over them not being adequate for almost any possible situation this side of the pointy ends of the bell curve.

Hell at most self defense distances and speeds I probably won’t see either irons or dot.

I can confidently say without reservation that I am equally untalented with either dot or irons. .

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
Youtuber Honest Outlaw said he shoots irons as good as optics at normal ranges, but finds the optics better for longer ranges.

If this were remotely based in fact, aside from his feelz, there would be at least a shred of evidence to back it up right?

So let’s take a look at USPSA classifiers. They hurt feelings all the time. Classifiers usually don’t have many shots beyond 12-15 yards, and in fact most are in the 4-7 range. Classifiers are scored based upon hit factor scoring, a true measure of speed and accuracy. (Points per second). Each classifier has a HHF (high hit factor scoring) for each division from production (irons) to carry optics to open to PCC.

If there were truly little difference until 50-100 yards in irons and optics, your HHF between production and carry optics would be virtually the same, right? Right?

A random sampling last night showed that even at closer distances, across the board the hHF threshold was always between higher and significantly higher with optics. If there is “virtually no difference” or “as good as” you’d think an organization that’s 50000 strong would be able to show it. But the numbers do not lie. And we are talking some of the best shooters in the world.

The “as good as” club is based on people’s feelings and predispositions. And almost always backed with a “no, hit me like this” scenario as “proof”. And USPSA has a lot of talented production shooters.

In the 20 pages of arguments for both sides of the coin, my opinion hasn't changed. I agree with Kaya on this.

"The Problem With Red Dots Nobody Wants to Admit!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRqP4SbdJs

Jupiter that was an excellent video , thanks for the post.

Jupiter thanks for posting that video. These old eyes enjoy the red dot at the range; I still prefer iron sights on anything I carry. Even with the long life span of today's batteries, I have had a blank display on my range gun, taking that red dot out of the game for the day.

Kaya really did a great job with the video. I didn't know much about the guy but I can see why TFBTV hired him. In middle 2026, saying anything negative about red dots can get you roasted.

Well worth the watch.

Religious-type faith and beliefs about secular matters are not good—but can be just as immune from being questioned or criticized.

I’m just as accurate with irons as a dot. I was convinced I was better with irons. Until a friend brought his Glock with a dot and a shot timer. Shot my Glock vs his on the timer. The dot was far better for engaging more than one target, it is better for distance but I can make the same hits at distance with irons but it isn’t as fast.
I don’t want to like them but I’m a believer now. But I’d prefer a small enclosed emitter optic for my carry gun. I currently run an rmr cc on my p365, and an rmr on my G34 and on my g34 it feels like cheating

So did you agree or disagree?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Well worth the watch.

Religious-type faith and beliefs about secular matters are not good—but can be just as immune from being questioned or criticized.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
So did you agree or disagree?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Well worth the watch.

Religious-type faith and beliefs about secular matters are not good—but can be just as immune from being questioned or criticized.

Do you agree or disagree, SgtGold?

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