I've tried to stay out of this post lately because lots of the comments just don't match my personal experience. And I certainly don't have the experience of transitioning a whole department or group. But I have some practical experience in this area for myself and others and if you need 10K rounds to transition to a dot you have some other real learning problems. And maybe owning guns in not for you.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I took two classes this past Sept and Nov and in both, RDS prevailed. 14/17 in the first class and 12/16 in the second.

At distance the RDS pistols smoked us non-RDS shooters. No question about it. This is short stuff from 15 to 25 yards, moving targets, 40 yard obstacle course and even at distance from 150 to 150 yds.

My non-RDS pistol was fine but not as fast however at typical SD distances, RDS pistols didn't show an advantage.

On a knife attack system from 21 feet coming at you at speed, RDS was useless. Step back drills was useless too. Time and distance is where they were really good.

But looking at all the RDS guns, the form factor changed quite a bit. An undermount light, such as a SF or TLR7A, along with an RDS might be a formidable package but it's not made for easy concealment. It moved most mid-sized guns into the duty gun category. Compact 9s were now mid sized.

I like them and they are pretty good but I'm not switching over. Irons with night sights and a neon insert work fine.

Some of the instructors who are current LEO with an agency switching to RDS said it will take 10k rounds to switch over and master the RDS. Some thought it might be more.

Ammo paid for by Uncle Sugar v. private pay? That's pricey and you need the time.

10k rounds per guy or department wide? Sounds like a very high amount of rounds. My research and training classes have been showing 500-1,000 rounds per guy to get it locked down for the most part.

10k per. This is not for rank and file people who would need less because they're aren't gun people to begin with but rather people on local SWAT who have tons of experience on irons. They adapted to them quickly but with many years and many rounds with iron sights, they thought it would take them upwards of 10k rounds to get back to the same proficiency as irons. One instructor was at 6k and said he was pretty good but knew he needed more because he was relearning his sighting, head position when on the RDS relative to the irons.

I guess it's kind of like being out of shape - pretty easy to drop some lbs. with basic weight reduction but when you want to drop those last 15 lbs and get to that level, the diet and exercise are more important.

Just a reminder, we’re talking about defensive pistol distances, I’ll accept the zero to ten yards. I’ll wager it’s mostly the shorter half of that.

I’ll go one further, I’m an advocate of ‘bent elbow’ shooting, no real sights required. No I’m not trying to emulate marshal Dillon, just talking defensive pistol range shooting.

As always, it would be boring if we all carried a Savage 110 in 30-06 on the deer hunt. Nothing wrong with a variety of preferences.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
Just a reminder, we’re talking about defensive pistol distances, I’ll accept the zero to ten yards. I’ll wager it’s mostly the shorter half of that.

Yeah. No electronic tumor needed

Still having not gone live fire, I have to say that this is one time in my life when a tiny box is a bad thing.

The Ultradot I mentioned before, no one considers some sort of tactical sight. but the RMR and all these other things have the same viewing area or less.

For 30ft? You guys are out of your fucking minds if you're going to rely on a battery and dot for that distance. Para is elderly and out of touch, but absolutely right on this.

Do what is right for you, but I won't be pursuing this further. A fiber optic or tritium front sight will do.

This tech is great, but belongs in competition or other professional areas.

A lot of people I respect are big advocates for pistol mounted dot sights. If your vision is such that they help extend your shooting fun into older age, that's great!

For me, they introduce another level of complexity and maintenance that I'm just not interested in participating in. Problems with the sights durability and weather resistance, problem with the plates and their screws etc. just make them totally unappealing.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
Para is elderly and out of touch...

What gives you the idea that you have the right to say this here?

Tell me, and don't say that it was a joke.

I am neither elderly nor out of touch, but even if I were, it's not your place to say.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:

For 30ft? You guys are out of your fucking minds if you're going to rely on a battery and dot for that distance. Para is elderly and out of touch, but absolutely right on this.

30 feet, G19 and larger, full body sillhouette as your landing zone, yeah, sure.
30 feet, subcompact or smaller with a short sight radius, and you're holding to a 4-6 inch odd shape area placement within the sillhouette, dot every day of the week. Add low light, it is airplanes vs blimps.

I'd also say that if one has put 10,000 rounds through the same handgun and can't by then hit center mass within 20 yards with out using any sites they need to turn their gun and ability to carry it in.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I'd also say that if one has put 10,000 rounds through the same handgun and can't by then hit center mass within 20 yards with out using any sites they need to turn their gun and ability to carry it in.

For a better understanding, tell more. I get within 20 and no sights. Is center mass 20x20 plate or A zone on a tux target? Five attempts taking the time to align the slide, or out of holster on demand?

Just by chance, I was doing 8 inch plate from holster at 22 last Saturday. A person can't do it with bare slide after 10K rounds, they are supposed to turn in their gun?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVVON_tCr54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y89Yi2_Q5Ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5yueIrAes

10,000 rounds does seem a little hyperbolic especially assuming a high level of basic fundamental competency going in.

That said if I was on a tactical team of any kind I’d probably ask for all the ammo I could get too.

As an aside I personally love that we’ve moved on from 9 vs 45 and AK vs AR and have found a new and exciting thing to argue about as gun folk. . I will again say that dots have merit and tangible benefits but on handguns are nowhere near the paradigm shift they were on rifles and have some drawbacks that might outweigh those benefits individual to individual. Like anything I suggest folks give them a try for themselves if they are able to. They MIGHT work for you. If you cannot try for yourself or don’t want to, I seriously doubt you have just signed your death warrant.

Tools and tech are great but software is what makes it all actually work no matter what.

6-10,000 rounds to be confident in the switch seems like a lot. A lot. To each their own and if someone else paying for it why not I guess… I swear it was at round 637 in a red dot instructor school it went “click” in my brain.

I suppose, in reference to our discussion about the need or no-need of a red dot on a pistol, a hundred some years ago some long time shooter was bitching that you don’t need adjustable sights or dovetailed sights!!! They’ll break off or get bumped!!! Recalling the love of his old guns w/ a front sight that is milled and a notch rear sight. Or when night sights came around… they’ll stop working when you need them!!!! The glowy stuff can fall out!!! Where will you be then MR!! Or when red dots started to become common practice on rifles… it’s going to break off!!! It will be dead when you need it!!!!! And yet here we are moving ahead w/o a lot of the doom and gloom that was supposed to follow w/ the use of these new-fangled whizz-bang doo-hickey things!!!

I suppose that is the way it was and always will be….

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
10,000 rounds does seem a little hyperbolic especially assuming a high level of basic fundamental competency going in.

It is and it shows a complete lack of knowledge on how to train. You can easily master most of the hard stuff (such as presenting iron sights correctly or a dot) without firing a single round. But, because people most often don’t know how to train (majority of cops included), the solution is throwing rounds at the problem and hoping the sausage that comes out the other side is cooked.

Dry fire is boring and not at all sexy. But, it is where the heavy lifting of skill is done.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
10,000 rounds does seem a little hyperbolic especially assuming a high level of basic fundamental competency going in.

It is and it shows a complete lack of knowledge on how to train. You can easily master most of the hard stuff (such as presenting iron sights correctly or a dot) without firing a single round. But, because people most often don’t know how to train (majority of cops included), the solution is throwing rounds at the problem and hoping the sausage that comes out the other side is cooked.

Dry fire is boring and not at all sexy. But, it is where the heavy lifting of skill is done.

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!

Holy shit, I can't believe somebody said 10,000 rounds and you didn't call them a clown on the spot, clearly you have better people skills than I because I would have laughed when he said that thinking he was making a joke. Funny thing is most of you wouldn't benefit from red dots because you are convinced you wouldn't benefit without even putting in much/any effort to figure them out.

How many of you are going to talk about complexity? Why not ask guys who actually use these about the failure rate? I have at least half a dozen on different pistols and have never had any fail. Ever. I have thrown away a couple because they weren't very good (I am looking at you original Deltapoint lol). Nowadays even the cheap ones are good. I currently have one in particular that I refuse to change the battery because I am curious how long it can really go. On a carry gun I just subscribe to the change it every year system and I recognize that is being unbelievably conservative. The others are range or competition guns so I wait till they die, which is a really long time. You guys talk about things like the mounting system being suspect. All of mine are direct mount, I mark a witness line across the screws, if that sight is coming off it is because the screws sheared off. Possible? Sure. Unlikely? Sure. Guess what? If it did fail you would go old school and point shoot, hell it sounds like that's what half of you do anyway. lol

Some of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard are being written down here. "At gunfight ranges I don't even use the sights" yet I am going to argue that the rds is somehow going to slow you down from NOT using your sights. It's comically illogical. So just so I understand, you are absolutely convinced if you fire your gun for real it will be at short distance because that is what the stats say? Ok, what if it isn't? What if your target is moving, at distance, the background against your sights is muted, what if a bunch stuff.

Red dots on pistols aren't going away for one reason. With even a reasonable amount of effort you can get good with them. At short distances they won't hinder you. At longer distances they will help you. Go to any match and watch the times, then come back and tell us how they hinder good and fast shooting at any range. With all respect, LEO's aren't a good test case because the vast majority of them have waaaay less time behind the trigger than most shooters. Most cops carry a lot and shoot a little. No disrespect but the average competitor would ace most LEO quals without blinking. 10,000 rounds. Oh brother.

Hackathorn has an opinion on this. That's it. He's even walked back or qualified some of his earlier stuff because it hasn't aged well. That is the nature of progress, the tippety tip of modern firearms training in 1970 would be laughed off or even booted out of a modern training syllabus. I will take this bet, Hackathorns videos on this subject will continue to not age well. RDS is here to stay and shooting will improve as a result of that. Of course you have to practice and train with it but jljones has said it before and better than I can, most of that training can be in your living room with an empty gun and holster.

To answer the question asked though I will say it is half right. You don't need one. My J frame carry guns will never have one and I am fine with that. Of course most of them barely have sights at all. As for the second part, I think you would benefit from using a red dot. Watching many match results and my own shooting has clearly shown me the benefits. Of course if you carry a lot and shoot a little or practice a little then yep, it won't benefit you. If you actually get some sound training and then practice though you will get the benefit, but you gotta put in some effort which most of you are unwilling to do. So I say this, you (probably) won't see a benefit but that's on you.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Hackathorn has an opinion on this. That's it.

Like everyone in this thread. The difference is that his opinion carries weight. I'd be interested to hear anyone try to discount his qualifications.

The subject line of this thread- "Why you (probably) don't need and (probably) will not benefit from a red dot sight on your pistol"- addresses need and benefit and the probabilities of these things.

Read my last paragraph. I addressed the thread title. If people won’t put in the effort they won’t get the results. Pretty simple.


As for Hackathorn I will say I can quote dozens of old guys in dozens of fields of endeavor that have been left on the sidelines by progress. Not unusual. Are we going to start quoting Cooper again soon?

I personally think jljones has more current solid understanding on this subject than Hackathorn ever will. Apparently you give his opinion less import than Hackathorn.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Read my last paragraph. I addressed the thread title. If people won’t put in the effort they won’t get the results. Pretty simple.

Now who's not reading? I addressed this in my initial post, and it speaks to the real world, and not all the internet commando stuff of claiming to shoot thousands upon thousands of rounds, which most people cannot afford, and this is one of the key reasons why most shooters will not benefit from these gadgets.

quote:

As for Hackathorn I will say I can quote dozens of old guys in dozens of fields of endeavor that have been left on the sidelines by progress. Not unusual. Are we going to start quoting Cooper again soon?

Owning a half-dozen RDS-equipped pistols, I'd hardly say he's been left on the sidelines.

quote:

I personally think jljones has more current solid understanding on this subject than Hackathorn ever will. Apparently you give his opinion less import than Hackathorn.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and that's what it is- an opinion, as you yourself pointed out.

Regarding the subject at hand, I'll say it again- you probably don't need and probably won't benefit from an RDS. Of course, this does not apply for all those who wish to behave as if the average shooter is a complacent dolt with no understanding of the latest fad.

Yes I disagree. You (probably) don't need it. I agree with that first part, that is true. It is the second part I disagree with. If one is willing to practice with it I would say you (probably) WOULD benefit from using one. I am clearly speaking to an audience that has already made up its mind though and won't try it or certainly won't try it EFFECTIVELY.

As for Hackathorn. He is worthy of plenty of respect but watching that video is an exercise in bs. His first point, the very argument he starts the video with, is a classic straw man argument. "Everybody says you have to have one, it's the answer, blah blah blah". Who is this everybody? Some guy whoo responded to his first bs video? Even on this thread I haven't read a single individual who has said you have to add a dot or that it was the answer, you will be left behind without one, etc. Adherents have said if you try it and train effectively with it it will (probably) pay dividends. Thats it.

Hackathorn also works a bunch of nonsense in there as well. He literally word for word says that to overcome your iron sight training in which you have shot 100,000 times you need to shoot the dot 101,000 times. That is utter and complete bullshit. He spouts that line with the complete confidence that a career of firearms expertise and training will cause you to not even question that wildly untrue tidbit. It's not true. At all. He says that literally, "if I have shot 100,000 rounds of iron sights I need to shoot 101,000 rounds to cancel that out". I have been an instructor (aviation) my entire life, I have never heard something so stupid and just outright incorrect in my life by an "expert". He is taking the "how many repetitions to become ingrained" concept and wildly misapplying it. He is wrong wrong wrong. He either misspoke or he doesn't understand the psychology.

He loves the word automoticity. It's a fancy word for muscle memory. He claims you won't easily be able to overcome the muscle memory of searching for the front sight. Do you know what is even more automoticitist (that is a made up word lol) than looking at the front sight? Yup, it's staring at your target. You literally train from birth to stare at the shit you are dealing with. So yes, it will take some effort from you to break the habit of searching for the front sight, however it is fairly easily broken. Broken even easier if you remove your front sight entirely if you find it harder than you think. Replace it when you break the habit. You had to overcome the normal habit of looking at the target when you first started shooting eons ago. You wanted to look at the target, it is how your brain works. So yes, you are breaking one habit but you are replacing it with a much more natural habit that you do instinctively in every other aspect of your life.

He constantly refers to the 1%. I'm sorry. Any discussion of dots as a cure for being a shitty shot or refusing to train/practice, or for being a guy who buys a gun and shoots it on rare occasion isn't this group. Most here shoot and shoot on a regular basis. We aren't 1%ers though. To say dots are only for the 1%ers is silly.

jljones is right. Finding the dot is a presentation issue. Dry fire absolutely can do the heavy lifting. Hackathorn says no. First shot, recoil, search for dot. Which is funny because the same thing happens with irons. Realistically if your presentation is solid the dot comes right back. Once again, watch any match and the dot guys aren't handicapped and they certainly aren't 1%ers either.

He says 0-10 yards there is no advantage. There isn't a disadvantage either though. At any distance accuracy improves. His words. So a tossup at close range a win at distance. The way I was taught to keep score makes that a win.

He does the whole shock and damage and battery life dance. I am no large rds issued department but I would love to see the stats of all the broken red dots out there. As for battery life, come on. I randomly chose an inexpensive well thought of optic, the Holosun 407/507c series. The 407 you can get all day for 260 bucks and it has a battery life of over 5 years for a 2 dollar battery. Are we still going to pretend battery life is a real issue? Change it every year and you will be throwing away perfectly good batteries every year but you won't ever run out of juice.

The funniest part of that video is that he admits/states that new shooters will pick up dots easier and faster than experienced shooters. Well math sucks because new shooters will take over as us old timers drop off.

This is no fad. I agree it certainly isn't necessary or required. It could also improve anyones shooting that was willing to set aside old paradigms and give it the old college try.

Maybe the reason Hackathorn found it so hard to adapt to red dots is the fact that as humans age they don't adapt as well as they did when they were younger. So yes, his age is probably a factor. I bet he hates the new tv remote too. I know I do. lol

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
This is no fad.

That remains to be seen. Only time, the arbiter of all, will tell.