SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Optics vs Iron Sights on Defensive Pistols
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Optics vs Iron Sights on Defensive Pistols Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
With iron sights, there are two steps:

1. Sight alignment (front to back sight)

2. Sight picture (center on target, while keeping front and back sights aligned.

A red dot sight eliminates Step 1 and simplifies Step 2.
 
Posts: 829 | Registered: September 21, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
Self replying with a bit of an update. The video in the previous post talked about a new reticle that Holosun and Primary Arm came up with to deal with the find the dot problems that can arise with red dots. Below is a video showing that reticle in action.



quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
What you posted below goes to the issue of sighted aiming vs point shooting. If the situation is too close and or too dynamic to actually use the sights (and it can be argued either way that any situation is such) then the type of sights are irrelevant.

So the next question is, if the shot it going to aimed using sights, what sight are going to be faster too use. Up until very recently everyone learned to shoot pistols with irons. Even if they later used optics, they cut their teeth with irons. So that's what people are used to. But irons are not simple in concept. The shooter has to pick up and focus the front sight get it on target, hopefully get the rear sight lined up, and get the shot off. Done right the target isn't in focus, the front sight it. That's a lot to do under pressure. And it isn't target focused.

In theory, and optic makes this simpler. Focus on the target, bring the gun up over the target, pick up the dot. The dot is focused to infinity, so adjusting eye focus isn't necessary. Get the dot on target, and fire. But the kicker is, unless the shooter has the mechanics of getting the gun lined up correctly, the dot may not be in his vision. It takes some training/practice to get that. Will shooters do that work????

Technology may deal with this. Watch the first three minutes or so of this video. Primary Arms is teaming up with Holosun to build a version of one of their red dots that has a reticle that addresses the lost dot issue.





quote:
Originally posted by snoris:
My issue with a red dot on a self-defense/duty weapon is this (strictly from my experience and training in law enforcement, and I respect everybody's own experiences and opinions):

In a self-defense situation, there are going to be a lot of things involved. It's not just you and a static target, where you can concentrate solely on putting the little red dot on a specific place on a piece of paper or cardboard.

Along with other variables, the primary issues are:

1) The person presenting you with a deadly threat;
2) The background behind that threat (remember that you might hit innocent bystanders);
3) Things to the side of you that are also imminent threats (such as additional suspects off to the side of your primary threat), or that might affect your decision to shoot (solid cover out of the corner of your eye that you can quickly get to for protection rather than risk an out-in-the-open shootout).

My concern is that with a red-dot on a pistol, one is so focused on that little red dot and the target that the frame of the RMR might block your view of either 2) or 3) at some point during the encounter.

There's no doubt that an RMR can be very useful in a pistol. I've seen people go from being mediocre shooters with no hope of putting five rounds in five seconds on a six-inch target at 10 yards into very good shooters who can place all five rounds in there in three and a half seconds by combining an RMR and good instruction.
I'm just not sure it's the magic answer that some make it out to be for self-defense.
 
Posts: 20415 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
His Royal Hiney
Picture of Rey HRH
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter:
Pistol Optics have come a long way.
I was lucky enough to get a sneak peek at the latest cutting edge technology. In 1985 that is.

Here is some Wilson Combat Accu-Comp LE with Tasco ProPoint action for your viewing pleasure. Smile


Do you think something like that has resale value these days with the frame drilled? The reason I ask is I have a Les Baer 1911 with an optic mount also. I was considering if I have to get it reconfigured if I wanted to sell it.



"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946.
 
Posts: 16680 | Location: The Free State of Arizona - Ditat Deus | Registered: March 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Down the Rabbit Hole
Picture of Jupiter
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rey HRH:
quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter:
Pistol Optics have come a long way.
I was lucky enough to get a sneak peek at the latest cutting edge technology. In 1985 that is.

Here is some Wilson Combat Accu-Comp LE with Tasco ProPoint action for your viewing pleasure. Smile


Do you think something like that has resale value these days with the frame drilled? The reason I ask is I have a Les Baer 1911 with an optic mount also. I was considering if I have to get it reconfigured if I wanted to sell it.



I guess it depends on how much someone wants the pistol and the price. The integrity of the frame is not an issue. It just looks ugly as hell.

This old girl has over 80,000 rounds through her and I've worn much of the finish almost completely off. She has been incredibly reliable shooting almost nothing but 200 gr. HG-68 hand loads. I had to replace the extractor at around 35,000 rounds. At just over 80,000 rounds, the hammer would fall to half cock whenever I chambered a round. Considering it started off with a 2.5 lbs. trigger, that is amazing in my book. The slide to frame fit is still tighter than most. I credit the longevity to applying a few drop of synthetic motor oil in the right places every 100 rounds or so during practice sessions. With a little work, she should be ready for another 80,000.


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

 
Posts: 4019 | Location: North Mississippi | Registered: August 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Down the Rabbit Hole
Picture of Jupiter
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Self replying with a bit of an update. The video in the previous post talked about a new reticle that Holosun and Primary Arm came up with to deal with the find the dot problems that can arise with red dots. Below is a video showing that reticle in action.





This video better demonstrates how it works.
Looks like a very good idea. Patent pending I see.


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

 
Posts: 4019 | Location: North Mississippi | Registered: August 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Sundo, don't you have to turn it on?
 
Posts: 1136 | Location: Northern Nevada | Registered: December 22, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
You just leave it on, and change the battery once a year. Some of these optics are advertising 50,000 hour battery lives.

quote:
Originally posted by ACP1:
Sundo, don't you have to turn it on?
 
Posts: 20415 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of RichardC
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sundo:
With iron sights, there are two steps:

1. Sight alignment (front to back sight)


2. Sight picture (center on target, while keeping front and back sights aligned.

A red dot sight eliminates Step 1 and simplifies Step 2.


No, step one is still there, it's just renamed " Find the red dot."
Step two is also the same,
but renamed " Keep perfect presentation while seeing the red dot on the target."


_____________________
 
Posts: 12998 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RichardC:
quote:
Originally posted by Sundo:
...
A red dot sight eliminates Step 1 and simplifies Step 2.


No, step one is still there, it's just renamed " Find the red dot."
Step two is also the same,
but renamed " Keep perfect presentation while seeing the red dot on the target."


All true. I'm not implying red dots eliminate the need for training and practice, just that for many (I will claim most) people it is easier to learn than traditional iron sights.

As mentioned in a post above, you do have the additional step of turning it on. If we're going to mention that, let's remember to install/replace the battery, too.
 
Posts: 829 | Registered: September 21, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of HayesGreener
posted Hide Post
After attending a red dot sight for duty pistols instructor course last year, I love my Sig Legion with Romeo 1 optic. Using the RDS is a very different experience from iron sights due to where you put your focus. I found that I am more precise with iron sights, but pretty close and a bit faster with the RDS. With all that said, I would not train a new shooter with a RDS until they were proficient with iron sights. I also do not approve of RDS that are mounted in a manner that does not allow you to see the iron sights. Too many bad things can happen to your RDS to make you lose the dot. I saw enough failures in various types of RDS in the course to not put full trust in the optic. But when they are working, those RDS are fast


CMSGT USAF (Retired)
Chief of Police (Retired)
Florida Class K Licensed Instructor
NRA Certified LE Handgun/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
SIG and Glock and Springfield 1911 Armorer
 
Posts: 3916 | Location: Florida Panhandle | Registered: September 27, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Ranger41
posted Hide Post
For what it may be worth I'll share my RDS experience. I have three self defense pistols fitted with with a RDS. All are co-witnessed with the iron sights.

Finding the dot is not an issue. If I can find the iron sights the dot is there. No change in presentation is necessary. With irons I tend to close the off eye and focus on the sights. The target is out of focus. With the dot both eyes are open and focus is on the target.

All of my RDSs either stay on all the time or activate with motion, so no having to remember to turn it on. Batteries last for years and I replace them annually as a maintenance item.

I am more precise with the red dot sights. Shooting quickly at the range yesterday I was consistently cleaning a rack of 6" plates @ 15 yds with my P365XL. The dot also helps me spot technique issues. If the dot moves when the sear releases I jerked the trigger or have a grip issue.

I agree that co-witnessed iron sights are necessary and would not be without them. The two pistols I keep for "things that go bump in the night" also have a weapon mounted light so even if the RDS fails I can see the iron sights in low light.


"The world is too dangerous to live in-not because of the people who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen." (Albert Einstein)
 
Posts: 862 | Location: Rural Virginia - USA | Registered: May 14, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Reasoned discussion is always informative, but I have a question about how illuminated reticle sights are faster or perhaps easier for new shooters to master than irons.

Long ago the legendary instructor George Harris at the SIG Academy pointed out perhaps the most simple fact about firearms marksmanship. He said there were only two things we had to do to hit the target: point (aim) the gun at the target, and keep it pointed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel.

Although most shooters don’t recognize the fact, the devil is in the second factor. Most people obsess over the initial aiming and it’s often to the point that their effort to get the gun aimed perfectly steadily that it actually increases their tremors and other movement. More than one precision rifle shooter recommends reducing the magnification of one’s scopesight down to a midrange setting because higher magnifications tend to make shooters delay their shots and otherwise try to eliminate all movement of the gun.

When I see shooters taking too much time to keep their sights aligned on target before firing a round, I conduct a demonstration in which I engage a silhouette target from 7 yards or so while deliberately shaking the pistol in one hand so that its gross movement is very obvious. As long as I manipulate the trigger properly, all my shots still hit the target accurately enough for qualification purposes.

Keeping the gun aimed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel is much more frequently the hard part for many shooters because they lack proper trigger and grip control as they’re pulling the trigger. They snatch at the trigger and/or change their grip on the gun as they’re pulling the trigger, and that results in gross misses, not their initial failure to aim properly and steadily. When I have them hold and aim the gun while I pull the trigger for them, their hits are usually very accurate.

So, my point is that there’s nothing I know about an optical sight that helps insure that a shooter will keep the gun aimed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel. Aiming at the target? Sure, especially at long ranges. It’s far easier to aim the gun at a small, specific point on the target to achieve high precision and accuracy with a small few-MOA dot reticle than it is with huge mechanical sights that literally cover most of what we’re shooting at. That’s the same principle of why benchrest and other rifle shooters who want their bullets to go to an exact point favor high magnifications and fine reticles.

What no sight or reticle can ensure, though, is that the shooter will keep the gun aimed at the same place for every shot until each bullet leaves the barrel, as I’ve seen countless times.

For example, all my agency’s rifles have Aimpoint sights and I’ve lost track of the times when I could shoot smaller groups with a particular gun—despite my astigmatism—than the officer who was issued the same sight and weapon. Even from a firm rest, small handling errors as they pull the trigger affects where the bullet goes, not how clearly they can see the target and sight reticle.

Or am I wrong? Is there something about an optical sight mounted on a handgun that’s different from similar sights mounted on rifles?




“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
— Bertrand Russell
 
Posts: 44298 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
If you are able to shoot smaller groups with identically equiped rifles, then your mechanical technique is obviously better. It could be breath control, or where you break the shot in relation to you heartbeat. It could be your stockweld, or your trigger control. But whatever it is, it's a sign that your application of the fudimentals is more consistant than the next guy. Distance also plays a factor. Groups that don't look too different at 25 yards look very different at 100 yards.

For pistols I think it's more of the RDS takes much less concentration to master than does irons. The two way axis of allignment, plus the POA\POI question, plus the trigger press is sometimes too much for some shooters to master. It shows in their groupings, or lack there of.


quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
Reasoned discussion is always informative, but I have a question about how illuminated reticle sights are faster or perhaps easier for new shooters to master than irons.

Long ago the legendary instructor George Harris at the SIG Academy pointed out perhaps the most simple fact about firearms marksmanship. He said there were only two things we had to do to hit the target: point (aim) the gun at the target, and keep it pointed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel.

Although most shooters don’t recognize the fact, the devil is in the second factor. Most people obsess over the initial aiming and it’s often to the point that their effort to get the gun aimed perfectly steadily that it actually increases their tremors and other movement. More than one precision rifle shooter recommends reducing the magnification of one’s scopesight down to a midrange setting because higher magnifications tend to make shooters delay their shots and otherwise try to eliminate all movement of the gun.

When I see shooters taking too much time to keep their sights aligned on target before firing a round, I conduct a demonstration in which I engage a silhouette target from 7 yards or so while deliberately shaking the pistol in one hand so that its gross movement is very obvious. As long as I manipulate the trigger properly, all my shots still hit the target accurately enough for qualification purposes.

Keeping the gun aimed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel is much more frequently the hard part for many shooters because they lack proper trigger and grip control as they’re pulling the trigger. They snatch at the trigger and/or change their grip on the gun as they’re pulling the trigger, and that results in gross misses, not their initial failure to aim properly and steadily. When I have them hold and aim the gun while I pull the trigger for them, their hits are usually very accurate.

So, my point is that there’s nothing I know about an optical sight that helps insure that a shooter will keep the gun aimed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel. Aiming at the target? Sure, especially at long ranges. It’s far easier to aim the gun at a small, specific point on the target to achieve high precision and accuracy with a small few-MOA dot reticle than it is with huge mechanical sights that literally cover most of what we’re shooting at. That’s the same principle of why benchrest and other rifle shooters who want their bullets to go to an exact point favor high magnifications and fine reticles.

What no sight or reticle can ensure, though, is that the shooter will keep the gun aimed at the same place for every shot until each bullet leaves the barrel, as I’ve seen countless times.

For example, all my agency’s rifles have Aimpoint sights and I’ve lost track of the times when I could shoot smaller groups with a particular gun—despite my astigmatism—than the officer who was issued the same sight and weapon. Even from a firm rest, small handling errors as they pull the trigger affects where the bullet goes, not how clearly they can see the target and sight reticle.

Or am I wrong? Is there something about an optical sight mounted on a handgun that’s different from similar sights mounted on rifles?


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 6934 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
I don't think you're wrong about the issue of trigger control. But I do see it as being an independent issue from the type of sighting system used. I think any issues having to do with trigger control would manifest themselves as much with irons as optics (especially the unmagnified types of optics being discussed here.)

And since optics are available with different types of reticles and dot sizes, if using a tiny dot encourages a shooter to be overly precise about breaking the shot, they can just move up to a larger dot.

quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
Reasoned discussion is always informative, but I have a question about how illuminated reticle sights are faster or perhaps easier for new shooters to master than irons.

Long ago the legendary instructor George Harris at the SIG Academy pointed out perhaps the most simple fact about firearms marksmanship. He said there were only two things we had to do to hit the target: point (aim) the gun at the target, and keep it pointed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel.

Although most shooters don’t recognize the fact, the devil is in the second factor. Most people obsess over the initial aiming and it’s often to the point that their effort to get the gun aimed perfectly steadily that it actually increases their tremors and other movement. More than one precision rifle shooter recommends reducing the magnification of one’s scopesight down to a midrange setting because higher magnifications tend to make shooters delay their shots and otherwise try to eliminate all movement of the gun.

When I see shooters taking too much time to keep their sights aligned on target before firing a round, I conduct a demonstration in which I engage a silhouette target from 7 yards or so while deliberately shaking the pistol in one hand so that its gross movement is very obvious. As long as I manipulate the trigger properly, all my shots still hit the target accurately enough for qualification purposes.

Keeping the gun aimed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel is much more frequently the hard part for many shooters because they lack proper trigger and grip control as they’re pulling the trigger. They snatch at the trigger and/or change their grip on the gun as they’re pulling the trigger, and that results in gross misses, not their initial failure to aim properly and steadily. When I have them hold and aim the gun while I pull the trigger for them, their hits are usually very accurate.

So, my point is that there’s nothing I know about an optical sight that helps insure that a shooter will keep the gun aimed at the target until the bullet leaves the barrel. Aiming at the target? Sure, especially at long ranges. It’s far easier to aim the gun at a small, specific point on the target to achieve high precision and accuracy with a small few-MOA dot reticle than it is with huge mechanical sights that literally cover most of what we’re shooting at. That’s the same principle of why benchrest and other rifle shooters who want their bullets to go to an exact point favor high magnifications and fine reticles.

What no sight or reticle can ensure, though, is that the shooter will keep the gun aimed at the same place for every shot until each bullet leaves the barrel, as I’ve seen countless times.

For example, all my agency’s rifles have Aimpoint sights and I’ve lost track of the times when I could shoot smaller groups with a particular gun—despite my astigmatism—than the officer who was issued the same sight and weapon. Even from a firm rest, small handling errors as they pull the trigger affects where the bullet goes, not how clearly they can see the target and sight reticle.

Or am I wrong? Is there something about an optical sight mounted on a handgun that’s different from similar sights mounted on rifles?
 
Posts: 20415 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Ranger41
posted Hide Post
Whatever skills I posses were developed long before the advent of red dot sights and lasers, so I can't speak to the question of what a new shooter should learn with. For me even a two-hand grip is a relatively new development. I learned with iron sights and one hand at 25 yards. Trigger control was developed by increasing the pressure on the trigger slightly each time the figure-eight pattern of the gun's movement put the sights where I wanted them. I was always surprised when the gun discharged, but rarely surprised where the bullet went.

Most of my hand guns have iron sights and will remain that way. I still shoot them well and they are primarily range toys. My first pistol with a red dot was a factory custom CZ 75B with a frame mounted OKO red dot. Great shooter, but it was a challenge finding the dot since it was mounted an inch or so above the iron sights on the slide. Great when I had all the time in the world, but otherwise not so much. Sure, I could have developed a presentation that solved that, but for range use it was not worth my time. So red dot and range toy went together in my mind for a long time.

With all the recent unpleasantness plus a home invasion too close to home in my rural county I became much more interested in self defense vs range guns. So I pick up a couple of pistols with co-witnessed suppresser sights and red dots. I wanted sights I could use in low light situations, that would not easily reveal my position. These are the easiest pistols to shoot quickly and accurately, I have experienced.

Moving from target shooting to self defense shooting requires me to change my long practiced trigger control. Now, instead of a series of gradual increasing pressure on the trigger, it is one smooth pull. And that pull occurs earlier with the red dot than iron sights in my case. Dryfiring immediately reveals any tendency to pull the sights off target with poor trigger technique. Dryfiring also showed me I had to change my grip pressure. I have always shot with a relaxed grip. Just firm enough to not lose control of the weapon when it discharged. No matter how smoothly I release the trigger with that grip I will pull the gun off target to the right (I'm right handed). The red dot shows that immediately. The movement is small enough that I never saw it with iron sights. A firmer grip stops the movement as the trigger breaks.

So I'm a believer in Red Dot Sights. They work well for me, but YMMV.


"The world is too dangerous to live in-not because of the people who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen." (Albert Einstein)
 
Posts: 862 | Location: Rural Virginia - USA | Registered: May 14, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Imagination and focus
become reality
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have always shot with a relaxed grip. Just firm enough to not lose control of the weapon when it discharged. No matter how smoothly I release the trigger with that grip I will pull the gun off target to the right (I'm right handed). The red dot shows that immediately. The movement is small enough that I never saw it with iron sights. A firmer grip stops the movement as the trigger breaks.


This is an excellent point! I found the same to be true when dry firing my S&W 642 when I used my Crimson Trace laser grips. A firmer grip kept the dot on target more so than a relaxed grip.
 
Posts: 5954 | Location: Northwest Indiana | Registered: August 15, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of JPD217
posted Hide Post
I’ve been in LE for 42 years, a firearms instructor for about 30 years,I tend to be a bit old school. I used to be of the opinion that red dots on pistols were unnecessary and well, just plain stupid particularly on a self defense pistol. And then my department sent me to an instructor level RDS class.

Boy, was I wrong.

In fact it changed my view on them so much that I put one on my duty pistol, then bought a 365XL for off duty and put one on there too.



"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."

President Theodore Roosevelt

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
 
Posts: 2523 | Location: North Dakota | Registered: August 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ammoholic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by honestlou:
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.

Jones talked me into trying a Romeo One conversion kit. He said, “If you are like a lot of people, you’ll be slower at first, looking for the dot. If you quit there like a lot of people, it’s a loser. However, if you drive the suppressor sights, you’ll find the dot is right where it needs to be.” Of course Jones was right. Pretty soon you’re driving the dot right to the target.

One of the things I like best about the dot is that it works *much* better (at least for me) for diagnosing trigger control. With my eyes where they are, I may not always see the irons go out of alignment, but it is impossible to miss the dot yelling “Wahoo!!! You really jerked that one!” as it goes flying off sideways.

ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter:
I have a few questions for the OPTICS ARE A MUST folks.

I’m not a MUST person, and I haven’t yet come across a solution that fits my carry situation (P228 in a one of Ryan’s great IWB holsters). Going to a P226 or P229 Romeo still wouldn‘t get into an IWB situation. I do think there is tremendous value in the red dot both for training and home defense, but I don’t see the solution that fits my use for carry (yet). I saw an ad for something from Leopold that looked like an interesting low profile RDS, but they were talking Glock and M&P only to start so I didn’t look into it further.

quote:
01. Do you feel the average optics user with limited training will be able to consistently find a dot (as fast or faster) than iron sights if they had a poor grip, transition to the weak hand, shooting from an awkward position, etc.?

I’m going to go with “No.” here. Average sucks. I’ve had *zero* red dot specific training, though I have had what some would say is a lot of training (prolly just a slow learner Wink), mostly pre-RDS, just Jerry’s advice to not look for the dot, just drive the cowitnessing irons until the dot just shows up where it needs to be. I did put in the time, both in dry practice and live fire to get to where the dot speeds me up rather than slowing me down though. The average person probably won’t do that. Also, all the other things you mention are going to be tough even for someone who trains a lot. The only answer to that is going to be train like heck for those situations. That said, most folks are going to suck in those situations regardless of the sighting system. (Not excluding myself here. Smile)

quote:
02. If you draw your pistol and the dot is not there for any reason, do you loose any time at all transitioning to iron sights? How much time does it take for your brain to process and react? I'm talking about cases where it's totally unexpected. I'm not talking about very close targets of course. It's always interesting to see how people react to situations that take them totally off guard. I've seen people fall apart over the years running stages like this.

Of course. Battery crapped in the middle of the morning session of a class. Took a minute to futz with it, decide it was dead, switch to the suppressor sights and drive on. Total non-issue in a class. Could very well have been a life-ender in a defensive situation. Probably something one should train for if they are going to carry a RDS defensively...

quote:
03. Do your Iron Sights co-witness with the dot?

Yes. I’d think this would be a requirement for me in a defensive arm. Having worked in high tech, I am convinced that anything electronic can and will screw you sooner or later. While RDS are fantastic for my stiffening lenses, I cannot imagine depending on them withouta backup.

quote:
04. Do you keep the intensity setting the same or do you change it regularly depending on the time of day/night or weather conditions?

I change it (set it really) at the start of a shooting session or class. I tend not to change it again. That said, I don’t carry a RDS equipped pistol so I am not going through dramatic light changes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: slosig,
 
Posts: 5821 | Registered: February 23, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
The video in the previous post talked about a new reticle that Holosun and Primary Arm came up with to deal with the find the dot problems that can arise with red dots.


Very interesting.

But I'm not sure it's a 100% ideal solution, compared to putting in the work with a current style dot reticle. Rather than being forced to clean up your grip/draw/presentation by dots without this crutch, it's allowing you to be lazy in that regard by enabling you to more easily fix your alignment after presentation. (Like a lot of folks do with irons.)

But sloppily presenting and then correcting will always be slower than cleanly presenting. And there's no longer that major impetus from the red dot to strive towards cleanly presenting.

So it seems like it's something that will let you get to halfway effectiveness with a red dot quicker and easier, but then you may never get to full effectiveness.

But at the same time, it would make red dots more accessible to folks who don't care about getting to full effectiveness with their handgun, and who would otherwise have given up on red dots while still in the "hunting for the dot" phase of the learning curve. And a sloppy presentation with a red dot could very well still be a step up in effectiveness from a sloppy presentation with irons.
 
Posts: 27737 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ammoholic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
What no sight or reticle can ensure, though, is that the shooter will keep the gun aimed at the same place for every shot until each bullet leaves the barrel, as I’ve seen countless times.

As usual sigfreund, you are spot on. I can’t speak for anyone else, but _for me_, red dot sights do two things that make them shine:
1) Make it much faster for my eyes to confirm a clean presentation or move to the next target,
and
2) Make it pretty much impossible to fail to recognize when I fail to keep the pistol still until the round leaves the barrel.

The second doesn’t do anything to prevent whatever I did wrong to fail the second half of George Harris’ marksmanship requirements (Wow, talk about making a thing as simple as it can possibly be and no simpler, great job Mr. Harris!), but it makes it pretty much impossible to miss that I screwed up and what I screwed up. Doesn’t help the shot that just left the barrel, but helps me to know what I need to do to prevent making the same mistake on the next one.
 
Posts: 5821 | Registered: February 23, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Optics vs Iron Sights on Defensive Pistols

© SIGforum 2021