I have had the opportunity to speak with dozens of LE agencies, including my own, that have adopted pistol mounted optics. Without exception, all have reported higher qualification scores. As far as the phenomenon of “searching for the dot”, this has more to do (IMHO) with lack of proper instruction in how to shoot PMO’s.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I guess I'm going to be one of the few contrarians here. I'm faster with a dot at any range that one would use sights.

You seem to have forgotten that in a Defensive Shooting the one who has the first COM HIT wins. That time spent looking for a red dot may not be very long but it will be slower than pulling the trigger at the instant the gun is presented. Take note, during WWI and WWII the US Military trained shooting from the hip at close ranges. Because the time required to get the gun to eye level was considered too long.

I think a lot of people can agree on, esp for shooters accustomed to irons it does take a lot of practice, but it doesn't necessarily need to be shooting ammo.

What I've found is practicing the draw/presentation of the gun is important in developing consistency and speed in using a dot. It made it apparent to me, I needed consistency in grip and presentation that I wasn't paying as much attention to with irons.

For a few years now, I've been doing a drill to compare sighting systems, gun etc from concealment. Draw, fire one round center mass, one head shot (10 yards) and transition to a 8" target out to 40-50 yards. With the dot the head shots are nearly always in the box and I'm probably 8 out 10 at the 8" target. With irons, center mass is hits, head shots take longer and probably like 4 or 5 out of ten at speed on the 8" plate and all except for the center mass take longer. So I committed to the dot.

Inside 10 it's all basically point shooting, so I don't agree with the assertions that a dot is slower than irons. Some how having a dot is going to make that process slower? Especially not true if you find the combo....

An often overlooked topic is gun/optic combo. I can't remember a single person discussing the importance of finding a combo that works for a shooter. Ken didn't mention it either and his combos provide some insight that he may have been looking for, or trying to get better with a dot.

I understand this can get expensive, but I've found my setups.

For me, the Trjicon RMR on my Glock G45 does not present well for me, compared to the EOTECH on the G45. Same type of experience with my G43X. The Vortex Defender is much better for me than the Romeo Elite (POS) and the 407k. Thus these 2 combos are ones I carry and practice with most.

That same Trijicon RMR is much better on my FN509 MRD LE and it's always right there from a draw like the G45/EOTECH combo. I just prefer to carry Glocks, I'm better with the trigger.

Any optic on my P320 Xcarry is not as good for me as the Glock EOTECT/FN RMR combos.
Of course YMMV because we are all different.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
No, blowhards make comments that are void of introspection, without knowledge of other people’s learned experiences and make absolute statements (without providing evidence) that his opinion is the only one that matters.

You've decided to take a magnifying glass to one thing the man said. And now you've had your say on the matter and if you will kindly avoid derailing my thread in your effort to be right.

It's rather amazing to read the efforts to discredit someone like Hackathorn who has rather impressive credentials. You do yourself and your argument no favors of any kind by trying to make him sound like a doddering old fool, something which he most certainly is not. Given this, I am not inclined to take your remarks seriously, because it's apparent that you're just trying to be right.

I should have expected stuff like this to pop up in this thread.

quote:

You seem to have forgotten that in a Defensive Shooting the one who has the first COM HIT wins. That time spent looking for a red dot may not be very long but it will be slower than pulling the trigger at the instant the gun is presented. Take note, during WWI and WWII the US Military trained shooting from the hip at close ranges. Because the time required to get the gun to eye level was considered too long.

Point shooting with an RDS equipped gun is no different that point shooting with an iron-sighted gun. If you're not using the sights, you're not using the sights...it makes no difference what sights are mounted to the gun in that scenario.

As to hip-shooting...there are reasons we don't teach that anymore. Not even addressing the liability concerns, it has many of the same limitations that people are criticizing the red dot for...it requires a consistent index and trained body mechanics to perform effectively (with the added negative that there's zero chance of getting any kind of confirmation from your sights before firing the shot). And this takes time and practice to develop. In that respect they had the same problem back then that we do today...most guys either wouldn't put the time in to learn it, or the technique was such that many just couldn't learn it effectively. I've heard tons of stories from GIs about how the 1911s they were issued wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn. We used to have a whole box of those guns through the LESO program, and not a one of them was that bad...which leads me to believe that the problem has to be with the shooter or the training, not the guns themselves.

Put me in the camp of I don’t care if people choose RDS or don’t choose RDS. I do agree that it took me around 1k rounds to retrain my brain and probably 5k rounds to be proficient. I probably have 5 times that number of dry fire presentations. Losing the dot in recoil is no different from losing the front sight under recoil IMO. When shooting fast, with strong fundamentals, both appear back in my sight plane as I break the next sight. What I never realized about this RDS debate is that I am probably in the 1% of shooters. Never really thought I was because I know plenty who shoot more than me and see a lot of the same guys at my range every week. I also joined a range that allows me the ability to train using a holster and timer which I do. I think the concept of automaticity is the reason so many crap on RDS shooters.

I had a shooter standing next to me at one of the classes I attended shooting a golf ball sized group from holster at speed. When I asked him how long he had been shooting, I was floored that he fired his first shot less than three months earlier. He was shooting a X five legion with a Roemeo 1 Pro. Another testament that new shooters can learn on a dot much quicker. It was obvious this guy was shooting a lot! On the flip side, my father not a shooter bought a gun with a RDS without talking to me thinking it was going to be the magic pill and hated it. He’ll maybe come to the range once or twice a year. My adult son shoots with me frequently but hasn’t made a conscious decision to fix grip and trigger issues that prevent him from moving beyond what he deems good enough has just figured out the dot. It’s his decision to figure out what is good enough for him and not mine to make.

What drives me to train hard is the pursuit of flawless execution. I know that is an impossible goal to achieve but the journey has been enjoyable and something I rededicated myself to about the time my son turned 21. I have RDS pistols that I used that helped me get faster and with tighter groups. I have trained to use the window of the RDS or the rear of the slide in the event the dot were to fail and believe it or not it’s still better than most people’s good enough. I haven’t chosen to CCW any of my RDS pistols and I am not sure if I ever will. I have had holsters made that would accommodate carrying a few of my RDS pistols, so I’m not opposed to it. All this to say I’m on the camp of I really don’t give a crap if someone uses them, carries them, or poo-poo’s them. I got faster and more consistent with all my guns by using the RDS to gain feedback in order to push myself further. Truth be told, the two guns I am shooting better than anything I shoot frequently are both DA/SA neither of which have RDS on them, something I was not expecting. My dilemma ATM is whether I should start carrying a CZ PCR in place of my P365 with XL frame, neither of which have RDS mounted and never will. The reality is that most gun owners aren’t shooters and most are happy a shotgun looking groupings at 7 yards, which I am not disparaging at all. I’ll conclude that those gun owners will probably not be better served with a RDS over traditional sights in a true defensive scenario.

I personally find this video more informative regarding red dots than Ken's "pros and cons".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apILD12giac&t=2s

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
― Epictetus

Dots have been a game changer for me. I have attempted to quantify as much as I can with timer, scoring, accuracy at distance, etc. It has greatly improved my abilities. Thankful that I pushed through the learning curve as I was originally opposed to them.

I don't care who does or doesn't use red dots on their defense guns, but it's not my choice. I'm a worry wort that always thinks about things breaking, batteries dying, etc. I have red dots on a couple hunting revolvers and even a turkey gun, but my life isn't on the line in any of the hunting I do.

Starting from nowhere I think red dots would be a great choice but I've been using firearms for 30+ years.

I do use them on carbines/rifles but I feel those are meant for 50-100+ yard shots

I don't need to be a better shot at this point.

I've cited a study before that shows non-LE that have years of amateur shooting experience were better shots than the average LE who qualifies each year etc.

If I need to post that study again I will but that and this research paper below supports :
if you're a long time shooter with mostly concealed carry concerns you shouldn't need a red dot, at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068418/


Quote from the USA Federal Government National Institute of Health's research - as a former engineer and current federal officer I believe scientific papers that allow peer review and are openly published to further allow discussion and cite sources + have actual statistical data gained in the correct way from real world testing over some YOUTUBE VIDEO LOL.

QUOTE of a paragraph from the summary :
"No performance shooting differences were found depending on the date of birth. Moreover, when absolute average values of performance between pistol and rifle events were compared, an inverse RAE trend was observed in relation to sport performance in male senior rifle shooters. The shooters born in Q4 earned better scores than those born in Q1 (without Q4 over-representation). The explanation for this finding could be in the use of different weapons. A pistol requires shoulder and grip strength [38,39], while a rifle requires balance skills [32,40]. This implies that the younger rifle shooters in the senior category compete under lower physical demands regardless of the maturational development associated with chronological age. It seems that technical and motor factors could be more important than conditional ones."

That's an interesting snippet from the summary about younger shooters (28 +-7 years) and senior shooters.

Performance/Accuracy is in reverse through age groups.

The oldest men are the best shooters, again why I don't need a red dot, and that was even accounting for the physical advantages young adults have.

I've watched Hack's videos on RDS before so I'm not going to waste my time watching it again. There were two. One when he asserted his expertise on RDS because he has some and shot some. The second is when he walked back some of his stuff from the first, like shortening the distance after which the dot is advantageous. That's all great, I respect him and I leave it to his own introspection to decide when rejecting new stuff is a sign of wisdom and prudence, and when it makes one's opinion irrelevant, see Jeff Cooper.
My only comment is that when a dot discussion begins and ends with how fast one out of holster vs irons, it is time to tune out and move on.
I'm also genuinely envious of those who don't feel like they need to better shots than they already are.

To me, ANYTHING that uses batteries is not something you bet your life on.

I have learned to shoot to the point I don't even look at the sights, but target only and maybe the front sight on the first round.

I've gotten so used to my six guns, I just point and fire. It will definitely hit the 8" at 10 yards every time.

An RDS will merely slow me down hunting for the little red dot.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
I've watched Hack's videos on RDS before so I'm not going to waste my time watching it again. There were two. One when he asserted his expertise on RDS because he has some and shot some. The second is when he walked back some of his stuff from the first, like shortening the distance after which the dot is advantageous. That's all great, I respect him and I leave it to his own introspection to decide when rejecting new stuff is a sign of wisdom and prudence, and when it makes one's opinion irrelevant, see Jeff Cooper.
My only comment is that when a dot discussion begins and ends with how fast one out of holster vs irons, it is time to tune out and move on.
I'm also genuinely envious of those who don't feel like they need to better shots than they already are.

just takes time and tons of ammo over time eek, I keep regular training to keep my skills up and perhaps exceed them but yes for most defensive scenarios I'm set.

BUT do you have 30+ years of real firearms experience, are you a long time federal officer who trains with special agents for fun, if you do and you think you need real heavy training still you did something exceptionally wrong along the way.

But of course incorrect training/training the wrong way is a thing.

Many shooters could have not learned much at all from their range sessions, especially true for younger people, newer to firearms, could ingrain different ways of jerking the gun/flinching etc.

I stick with real scientific research papers over anyone's opinion.

Shows that elder shooters/long time shooters are way better and this has been proven in multiple research papers, if you're 35 and under you just haven't had the time/practice to really have conditioned your body to guns, regardless of how great your eyes and muscular control are compared to senior shooters (over 36 and much older, 36 would be worse than 50 etc) who've just had way more years of practice on average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068418/

+++ to NOT adding another point of possible failure by adding a RDS, I don't need any more possible points of failure, but I learned that from a marine sniper(reason he didn't do extended mags, other things) and its solid advice, make your CCW a simple, practical, minimize points of failure and small for EDC (for your body type/size).

now a nightstand gun I can see.

quote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068418/

I'm certainly a bit lost by that reference. What on earth does that study have to do with the question at hand. Its a study about age and gender in ISSF competitions. Using ISSF equipment rules. That equipment has ZERO (emphasis added) ZERO to do with the issue of personal defense equipment and sighting options under discussion. ZERO.
I am unaware of any published study of the issue at hand (irons versus optics in pistols at self defense ranges with cross tabs on experience, age, gender, etc.) I suspect that some testing does exist as militaries the world over are working overtime on getting optics into their front line inventories, but I've not seen one. Maybe you can find some in line with your research orientation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
To me, ANYTHING that uses batteries is not something you bet your life on.

I have learned to shoot to the point I don't even look at the sights, but target only and maybe the front sight on the first round.

I've gotten so used to my six guns, I just point and fire. It will definitely hit the 8" at 10 yards every time.

An RDS will merely slow me down hunting for the little red dot.[/

I think that is a little extreme. My batteries die in my RDS. Use my irons. My red dot dies in my rifle. Use my irons.

quote:

Originally posted by Austin228:
That's an interesting snippet from the summary about younger shooters (28 +-7 years) and senior shooters.

quote:

Originally posted by Austin228:

I stick with real scientific research papers over anyone's opinion.

Shows that elder shooters/long time shooters are way better and this has been proven in multiple research papers, if you're 35 and under you just haven't had the time/practice to really have conditioned your body to guns, regardless of how great your eyes and muscular control are compared to senior shooters (over 36 and much older, 36 would be worse than 50 etc) who've just had way more years of practice on average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068418/

In this study that you're presenting as evidence of senior shooters' superiority the 28 year olds were the senior shooters. The juniors were under 21. The fact that younger shooters these days shoot better than older ones is not particularly disputable, and dots is one thing that helps them to grow faster. I now shoot USPSA as a "senior" and I experience ass-kicking from kids half my age every match, including on stages that don't require much if any movement.
Reality checks, if one can implement them with an open mind and not for confirmation of own biases, can be very helpful, whether the use of dots, age discussions, etc, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068418/

I'm certainly a bit lost by that reference. What on earth does that study have to do with the question at hand. Its a study about age and gender in ISSF competitions. Using ISSF equipment rules. That equipment has ZERO (emphasis added) ZERO to do with the issue of personal defense equipment and sighting options under discussion. ZERO.
I am unaware of any published study of the issue at hand (irons versus optics in pistols at self defense ranges with cross tabs on experience, age, gender, etc.) I suspect that some testing does exist as militaries the world over are working overtime on getting optics into their front line inventories, but I've not seen one. Maybe you can find some in line with your research orientation Maybe you can find some in line with your research orientation.

HRCJON,

My research orientation, passive aggressive/coward's way of demonizing me.

You're contribution here was near nothing unless personal attacks are considered a contribution.

You say the research is something that doesn't apply at all to this subject which is either due to stupidity or you're being dishonest.

Say theres no reports on red dot sights vs irons the subject and I found one in a literal 15 second search on google.

You are demonizing/discrediting me by saying I have some hidden "agenda". HRCJON says anything I post is worthless/has no merit, because I formulated these research papers.

YOU GOT ME HRCJON, I HAVE ALL THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, I MAKE PH.D's work on research papers that I want to turn out a certain way for the government.


No wait, that's not right at all, I have no powers like that at all.

HRCJON says I'm effictively trying to keep my older well trained shooters can shoot better "agenda" alive.

You're right HRCJON, decades of training, 10K rounds + fired (who knows really at this point), none of that effects skill enough just put the red dot on and you're Shooter McGavin.

That's some passive aggressive coward shi'ite hrcjon, cut that out before you get kicked in your vagina, which doubles as your mouth, figuratively of course.

My own opinion (for me personally) shared is that a person in my particular situation doesn't need a RDS on a CCW gun.

Maybe you're a novice shooter that's old with no real initial training, course y'all suck.

I also said for brand new LE/MIL and shooters they are a boon, so my agenda must be some amazing conspiracy huh HRCJON?

Especially since I was talking about on a CCW weapon.

It's dishonest of you HRCJON not to try and show fact data or post quotes from an article that support your statements on what is or isn't in the research.

Anyone can just do a contradiction "OH YES IT DOES RELATE FEMALE DOG HRCJON" etc

Instead you demonize me by using ad hominem attacks passive-aggressively, it shows a lack of character and cowardice even online which is the truest sign of weak men.


It barely took a second for me to find some counter research for my "RESEARCH ORIENTATION".

Searched on this place called Google, not sure if HRCJON or you other moron's know what a search engine is.

A moron is just a person with less than 70 IQ.

Just kidding some of you may be 100 IQ, I doubt many above 110.


RIDDLE ME THIS HRCJON

What about the trend of older trained shooters for accuracy do you not understand in the article?

Also, if you haven't fired many thousands of rounds in the wild or killed many animals (like 100s) at least....

I really doubt you know how good you're going to react trying to kill a person, most will freeze up honestly, even the supposed best.

I'm 40+, been training all my life, I'm a officer (fed) , WHY DO I personally NEED THE RDS ON MY CCW Weapon, like I was saying in my opinion?

I guess I've got an agenda for me personally because of my circumstances to not want a RDS on any CHL gun.

Show me some research to show older trained shooters are worse, if not go back to your basement and stop misinterpreting my posts.

++all you idiots, Leave the passive aggressiveness for when you talk to your family or possibly friends if you have any.

Since everyone on the pro RDS side is all about ANECDOTES , I'll throw you morons a bone

(remember it just means under 70 IQ, and honestly I think you guys are probably just stupid and that's why y'all only do anecdotes and ad hominem attacks).

Maybe you can find some in line with your research orientation Done took legitimately less than a minute to find the article simply searching iron vs red dot (OMG I know sooo hard to do).

QUOTE BEGIN (from a news article partially but quote from the authors of that research)

" The first formal university study (that I know of) has concluded THAT FOR NEW shooters the use of red dot sights on a pistol leads to statistically significant higher hit ratio on paper and higher accuracy over irons.

Authors James E. Ryan and Robin Adler or Norwich University provide the following Executive Summary:

This project examined the comparative effectiveness of traditional iron pistol sights with Trijicon, Inc.’s red dot optic sight. Twenty-seven students from Norwich University participated by undergoing a simulated training course of fire using International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) silhouette targets for four different stages. Thirteen students used iron sights and 14 students used the optic. The results of the project indicated that there was a statistically significant difference favoring the optic for “hits on paper” in Stage 1 (15 yard slow fire) and for accuracy (hits near the center mass of the target) for all four stages of fire.

Of note, the shooters were all students simulating new recruits for military or law enforcement. To help account for the small sample size (only 25 shooters), the authors used surveys to gauge shooting experience. Detailed breakdowns of survey results and analysis of shooting performance are included in the study text. "" - END QUOTE

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...dots-vs-iron-sights/


Your mileage may vary.

A quote from an article examining cons of CCW optic pistols that I agree with, lets debate, I'll call you cowards out for what you say if you just want to troll but I'd prefer if someone actually formulates an argument instead of being douchebags, close your damn p***y lips because that's where that kind of talk comes from HRCJON.


article on some cons of CC with "Carry Optic" term used which is weird

Concealed Carry
Looking at it from the viewpoint of a concealed-carry practitioner considering a CO for their everyday-carry (EDC) handgun, there are a few points of concern to be addressed. Larger than iron sights, carry optics are also set higher than irons. Some shooters wrestle with the CO feeling somewhat cumbersome and weighing more than irons. Window size and overall unit profile are a consideration for those who may be concerned with printing through a cover garment. Still others debate the value of longevity in terms of battery replacement and dot brightness based on changes in environmental conditions such as no or low light.

PS I'm not passive aggressive, I'm aggressive aggressive if you want to say go to hell and have some good reason for it, go for it, but attacking someone personally + passively is such a cowardly thing to do, and you guys started all this, I wasn't insulting anyone until I've now been insulted way too many times.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Austin228,

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:


In this study that you're presenting as evidence of senior shooters' superiority the 28 year olds were the senior shooters. The juniors were under 21. The fact that younger shooters these days shoot better than older ones is not particularly disputable, and dots is one thing that helps them to grow faster. I now shoot USPSA as a "senior" and I experience ass-kicking from kids half my age every match, including on stages that don't require much if any movement.
Reality checks, if one can implement them with an open mind and not for confirmation of own biases, can be very helpful, whether the use of dots, age discussions, etc, etc.

Wow, nearly everything you said about the research here was wrong and you missed some crucial things about how standard deviations work.

You also fudged/oversimplified the numbers for what really encompasses a junior shooter and senior shooter.

You said :

"The fact that younger shooters these days shoot better than older ones is not particularly disputable"

Effectively you're saying: its NOT DISPUTABLE (no way to dispute) that YOUNGER SHOOTERS ARE BETTER THAN OLDER SHOOTERS

Wait, so you're saying, with only ANECDOTAL evidence (personal)....

That - Young shooters are better and that it really can't be disputed.

The research I show proved there is a reverse trend in accuracy vs age, I quoted exactly from that part in the summary.

28 year old wasn't the only seniors.

21 wasn't the base junior either.

Junior is 18.35 years +- 1.383 years.

IN FACT 21 YEAR OLDS DON'T EVEN FALL within one standard deviation or 68% of juniors, if we decide both categories only had 1 deviation then junior ends at 20 with 21 being senior.

(68%) of Junior Shooters fell between the ages of 16.967 - 19.7, then by 2 standard deviations which covers 15.584 years of age to 21.083 you have 95% of all Juniors.

If the shooter was above 21 years of age and one month you're NOT EVEN WITHIN 2 standard deviations or 95% of all shooters considered juniors, 2.35% of juniors are 19.7 - 21.083 years of age.

21.083 works out to almost a month of being 21, almost.

So you see this data for seniors and it shows : 28.7 +- 7.9 years.

This is likely a "normal (Gaussian) distribution" with 7.9 years being the "standard deviation".

Heres an example of how a normal distribution works using IQ which is a normal distribution from 100 baseline +-10 for each standard deviation.

Math's Empirical Rule states most people (68%) fall within 1 "standard deviation" or have an IQ of 90 to 110 or , then 95% are between 80 - 120 or 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% fall within 70-130 or 3 standard deviations, my IQ is over 140 fyi so the chance someone having a higher IQ than me is way less than .15% (because the other .15% is people with 70 or less IQ IQ)

NOW LETS APPLY THAT TO THE RESEARCH PAPER I POSTED - 28 + 7 years (for simplicity) means 21-35 covers 68% of senior shooters, then 14 - 42 covers 95%, and 7 - 49 (probably 50 because it more like 7.5 a deviation) and you've now got 99.7% of what was tested.

There's also how big the sample size is to compute how close to "perfect" in probability their answer should be, tends to +-X% , or 95% accurate etc, like when you see polls that say they are within 3 percent or whatnot.

7-15 years olds may have not been part of the testing etc, and other factors like sample size effect how far off a normal distribution is vs "real world".

The study PROVED that there is a reverse trend in accuracy where younger people are definitely worse than older peers , 28 is just a starting point with 21 - 35 being 68%..

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Austin228,

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
I personally find this video more informative regarding red dots than Ken's "pros and cons".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apILD12giac&t=2s

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
― Epictetus

Massad Ayoob's opinion is pretty much spot on with how I view RDSs, including the portion about using them in a post-cataracts world. I had my surgery done on both eyes back in the spring of this year, and life without astigmatism has made illuminated dot use so much more compelling. I too prefer green over red but I can work with both, and I think I'm getting to the point that I'm close to being as proficient with an optic on a handgun as I am with open sights. It's been all about practice, and LOTS of it. It's "getting there", and while I sometimes would think that I have to work through decades of 'unlearning', with the right optic it's not as arduous as I initially allowed myself to believe.

My carry firearm is a Glock. Decades of shooting cause my Glocks to be presented in a specific way. The MOS way of mounting a RDS has never been complimentary to that ingrained way that I bring up that Glock. Those RMRs that I initially used with its obligatory adapter plate plainly sucked, because of all of that usage and training and endless rounds with regular sights on a 19 or 23 for decades on end suddenly didn't jibe with the higher sight plane that the RDS brought to the table. I found the muscle adjustment damn near impossible, because what was automatic now required conscious consideration. Unlearning to relearn...and yeah, it wasn't happening.

However on non-Glocks I found the opposite effect, even before the eye surgery, and with guns that I've had thousands of round through them, mainly because despite the round counts, I never shot any of those guns with the same sort of effort and intensity as I did with the compact Glock frame. Those were and always will be more casual shooters to me, and with those guns I can far more easily adapt to the dot sight plane, something that I just couldn't do with much consistency when it came to working with a G19 simply because there wasn't really all that much to unlearn or readapt to.

Then there's the discussion on whether a RDS is necessary at all on a defensive pistol. In most shooting circumstances that I might dream up for a civilian, it's still rather hard for me to say that a RDS is a must have need, even if the user is well-trained with one. Ayoob brings up some very valid points about the vulnerabilities of RDS optics on pistols. And while I haven't yet busted one of my own yet (the night's still young), I've personally seen and replaced broken RDS pistol sights on customer guns. But if someone is truly good with a red dot, who's to say that it's not a benefit for that person? Certainly not someone who's otherwise sitting on the proverbial sidelines when it comes to an optic's benefit to another individual.

As for my issues with RDSs and Glocks. Well that pesky company Holosun really addressed the issue for me when they came out with the their SCS model. Game changer moniker applies here, because they brought everything down to iron sight height. No MOS plate. No suppressor height sights. No high base rim to impede a set of factory standard height irons. No unlearning, at least with my draw and pistol presentation.

Downsides? I have to find new gun hosts for three RMRs. Man I tell you...First World problems...

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:

As for my issues with RDSs and Glocks. Well that pesky company Holosun really addressed the issue for me when they came out with the their SCS model. Game changer moniker applies here, because they brought everything down to iron sight height. No MOS plate. No suppressor height sights. No high base rim to impede a set of factory standard height irons. No unlearning, at least with my draw and pistol presentation.

I've been looking at the SCS lately. Direct mounting is always my preferred method and why the Vortex Defender/G43x combo is probably my best current setup.

Sounds like it's working well for you. Any negatives so far?