Talk to me about this style:




vs. this style:

---

Pretend that I know nothing at all about this topic -- that will be a 97% correct assumption.

For context, this will be used on a .22 LR pistol like Ruger Mark IV or SW22 Victory, for target use only. Will not be used for hunting nor competition, just attempting to improve basic skills, accuracy, etc.

Top one is for handguns. Bottom one is for rifles. Go with the top one.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:

Top one is for handguns. Bottom one is for rifles. Go with the top one.

Can you explain for me, why one is more suitable for handguns and the other for rifles?

I am not being argumentative, I really would like to learn a bit about this.

Because the one pictured at bottom weighs several ounces and it's very large in relation to the sight pictured at top.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

Because the one pictured at bottom weighs several ounces and it's very large in relation to the sight pictured at top.

So it's a weight & balance difference?

Is there a difference in ease of use, re optical properties (hypothetically disregarding size and weight)?

Electronic pistol sights are not my thing. Others will be able to give you the answers.

Para and YooperSigs actually summed it up pretty well. The upper sight, usually called an "open" sight, is lighter but somewhat not as robust. Slightly faster target acquisition and light-weightedness lends itself more to handguns.

The lower model is referred to as a "tube" or "tubular" sight. A bit more rugged, and therefore heavier. A little more effort is needed to sight down the tube. It thus lends itself more to a long gun.

However, these are not hard-and-fast rules, and you'll find either on handguns or long guns. For your .22 pistol, you probably would lean toward the open sight as suggested.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:


Is there a difference in ease of use, re optical properties (hypothetically disregarding size and weight)?

Not really.

The largest problem I see is people trying to “aim” the dot. Both systems are designed for you to stare at the target, place the dot where you want the bullet to go, and send the round.

You are focusing on the target not the dot.

Well, looking around, I have found both types used with pistols, probably hundred or more of the first type for each of the tube type that I have found. Here's a photo, posted by got2hav1, in another thread:




I guess the right answer is to try both, and see what works better for me.

I'd assume you'd have a hard time finding a holster to accept that huge sight on the pistol.

^OP mentioned he's be using his .22LR pistol only for target shooting, so probably would not need a holster.

Of course there's always...


Han_Solo_DL-44_TFA by kpkina, on Flickr

If the pistol is not optics ready, this is harder.

You must choose and purchase a mount.

It is a remarkable device, the small reflex sight. Buy and use with confidence.

Back before the modern micro-red-dot was a thing, the larger tube-style sights made sense as it was pretty much the only way to get a red dot optic on a handgun. They were big, heavy, akward, had poor battery life, and pretty much eliminated any chance of ever finding a holster. But if you wanted a red dot for target shooting, that was the way to do it.

These days, with the smaller options available, I don't see any compelling reason to opt for the tube over a micro red dot. You get the same benefits, with a much more manageable footprint, better battery life, and in most cases improved durability. The smaller housing of the sight also obscures less of your view downrange, and IMO facilitates faster transitions.

Your Ruger or Victory will make a great host. The non-reciprocating top strap and low recoil make it so you never lose sight of the dot, and you can transition or make follow-up shots very quickly. I recently mounted a Holosun 407c on my MkIV and it is currently my favorite range toy.