quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
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.

"Discount qualifications" as in ignoring his achievements and reputation, no. Attitudes are hard to convey online so I'll preface this with saying that I respect Hack and I regret not taking a class with him. That out, I've been shooting for 20 years and he was retired from active anything before I got into it. I don't think I can come up with any example of a profession where I'd give the same weight to an opinion of somebody who has been retired 30 years vs opinion of those who are doing it now. Especially so when talking about the tech that got really developed after their retirement.

To the subject of this thread, the way you phrased it your point is unbeatable. Probabilities are that you will never need a concealed pistol at all. If you did, often times no shots are fired for a resolution. For very few who would need to shoot it, there is 95% probability that it will be within 5 yards. Further probability is that almost everyone will panic-shoot it somewhere into a mass, calling it point shooting. So, yes, when you plug in the odds and probabilities, then arguing against "probably don't need" is an exercise in futility. Now, some of us, including those who have shot and became good with irons first, still believe that there are benefits to those things even with these probabilities. That said, when the question is set specifically to make the discussion futile, then what's the point.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
To the subject of this thread, the way you phrased it your point is unbeatable. Probabilities are that you will never need a concealed pistol at all.

Uh uh. Nope. Stop right there. I am not playing this game. You've chosen the wrong cowboy to nitpick. Just cut it out. You're not talking to a boob.

No offense, but you’re probably not going use your sights in a gunfight.

https://www.police1.com/office...it-OfTLuzNO19gsvuEN/

I had a different name for it earlier, another is labeled ‘shooting from retention’. I’m not even against red dots & such. I’m just going a little ‘real world’.

No I’m not an expert, so it’s just my ‘opinion’ if I don’t feel the need for a dot sight. If the next guy has one, fine. My son likes them.

Yes, things change some over time. As a hunting example, let’s take the lever 30-30. It can be an excellent choice, may not be the best tool for watching the open bean field in SC.

Yep. No one NEEDS it. Saying you probably wouldn’t benefit from it is probably false. It’s easy to test though. Grab a gun, get some instruction, practice, get your timer and shoot multiple variations of setups and see what the timer says.

Contrary to Hackathorn it won’t take 101,000 reps. Still can’t believe in a scripted video segment for a for profit business he thought that was a reasonable thing to say, yet he did. Dumb.

The real answer is, if you won’t try you will never know. You are just guessing. That’s just a fact. Without testing a hypotheses remains just that.

Give it an honest effort, if you hate it or it doesn’t work for you, now you actually know. Or you benefit. Another funny thing about that video. Hackathorn says he now shoots as well with the dot as without. His words. He also says he shoots better at distance with a dot. Also his words. Yet he still isn’t sold. I guess you cue the damage/shock/battery life/cost argument. Except all 6 of those “well used” guns looks showroom fresh. No damage, no evidence of even hard testing. That WC gun looks brand new. If he’s so worried about their longevity why not beat them to death and see? I think, my opinion, is that he doesn’t like them and his bias shows. He sells iron sights, he grew up on iron sights, his whole career was teaching iron sights, internal bias is a tough thing to overcome. If he was 40 years younger I think we would be watching a completely different video. Just my guess.

I can see that this is very important to you.

Why? Because I think your argument and linked video are wrong? I think this subject is just as important as the pants thread which I am posting in, which is to say not very important. Absolutely nothing on this forum qualifies as important. It is a discussion board for fucks sake. Discussion boards thrive on discussion, not agreement. Or maybe they don’t.

No, because you're being aggressive about this subject, as you are being aggressive with me right now after I made a simple observation, and because you're posting paragraph after paragraph in an obvious effort to be right.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I think this subject is just as important as the pants thread which I am posting in, which is to say not very important. Absolutely nothing on this forum qualifies as important. It is a discussion board for fucks sake. Discussion boards thrive on discussion, not agreement. Or maybe they don’t.

This is absolutely uncalled for and downright rude.

For the little I've said to you on the subject of this thread, you have now posted some very rude and absolutely uncalled for things. Why do you seem so angry all the time?

Considering what recently transpired, you have no call to behave in such a way.

Y'see, these guys don't know that I contacted you via email recently. After you got your wrist mildly slapped for saying "Fuck you" to another forum member, you disappeared for a month. I care enough about such things to follow up with members who take such things to heart.

What did I do, pedropcola? I emailed you and urged you to not take it to heart. What else did I say to you, pedropcola? I told you that you would always be welcome here, and I urged you to come see us.

And this is how you behave in the face of a kind email, telling you that you will always be welcome. You tell me that my board is nothing, and that nothing contained within it carries any importance.

It seems to me that you took my kind words to you as license for you to come in here and show your ass, and that there would be no repercussions, and if that's really the case, you must really despise us, and if that is so, I feel sorry for you.

I don't know what your problem is, but I'll tell you this: It's your problem alone. You seem pissed off at the world. No one in this forum has created or helped to create your fucked-up attitude and your near-constant seething anger.

My email to you:

From: ******** [mailto:*******@*****]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6:52 PM
To: '*********@******'
Subject: Re: from parabellum

****,
Don’t take it to heart, man. You’ll always be welcome in the forum. Come see us.

Regards,
Mike
_________________


And this is how you repay the kindness and consideration shown to you. Shame on you. You need to grow up.

I never saw your email until you said that or I would have responded with an acknowledgment at a minimum. I searched my email just now and it was in fact in there, unread.

I took a break because I was not enjoying the forum as much as I used to. That's all, nothing big, just that.

I took your post as a passive aggressive jab at me and responded in kind. I shouldn't have, I might have read it wrong. That is on me.

Pointing out Hack saying stupid stuff isn't me being angry. It is me pointing out this guy is saying stupid shit and expecting us to fall in line and not question it because of his resume annoys me. I am sorry I curse so much, it is a bad habit that I have failed to curtail in life and online. Perhaps that is why a post comes off angry while in reality that is just how I would talk to you in person. I will attempt to watch my tone.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
That is on me.

You're Goddamned right it's on you, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at your aggressive attitude even though- as you admit- there was room for interpretation.

My best advice to you is that you need to take stock of yourself, and if you don't like my advice, then you know what you can do with it.

As for me and this forum- if you think this forum is so unimportant and nothing we say here matters, that's your business, but I'll tell you right now pedropcola- don't you EVER take such an attitude with me again. Don't you EVER piss on this forum again. Ever. I don't have to take that shit from you or anyone else, and if you don't like it here, then leave.

I told you that you're welcome and I meant it sincerely, but I'm not eating shit from you. Ever. The day will never come in this forum that I have to take that from anyone.

So no red dot then?

If I get out of line I will expect a response. I will try not to warrant one. I didn't piss on this forum. I have never said a negative word about this forum ever, anywhere, and never will. But I didn't piss on this forum with the above statement. That just doesn't connect with what I actually said.

It's progress already, that you took my admonishment. Perhaps you even understand that my attitude is based upon the fact that this is my venue, and that no man should have to tolerate rude remarks from guests in his home. And it is the rare owner or administrator, who not only notices member's absences after minor dust-ups, but also reaches out to those members to reassure them and welcome them back.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

I appreciate that and will act accordingly. Pete

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
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.

"Discount qualifications" as in ignoring his achievements and reputation, no. Attitudes are hard to convey online so I'll preface this with saying that I respect Hack and I regret not taking a class with him. That out, I've been shooting for 20 years and he was retired from active anything before I got into it. I don't think I can come up with any example of a profession where I'd give the same weight to an opinion of somebody who has been retired 30 years vs opinion of those who are doing it now. Especially so when talking about the tech that got really developed after their retirement.

To the subject of this thread, the way you phrased it your point is unbeatable. Probabilities are that you will never need a concealed pistol at all. If you did, often times no shots are fired for a resolution. For very few who would need to shoot it, there is 95% probability that it will be within 5 yards. Further probability is that almost everyone will panic-shoot it somewhere into a mass, calling it point shooting. So, yes, when you plug in the odds and probabilities, then arguing against "probably don't need" is an exercise in futility. Now, some of us, including those who have shot and became good with irons first, still believe that there are benefits to those things even with these probabilities. That said, when the question is set specifically to make the discussion futile, then what's the point.

Although a dissenting opinion, this is with the upmost respect to move forward with the discussion.

To add onto what @YVK said (and since he won’t toot his own horn, I’ll add that he’s an accomplished shooter in his own right), there’s a litany of dudes with just as impressive a resume as Mr Hackathorn as equally convincingly stating that dots are the future and the future is now. Guys like Mike Pannone, Ernest Langdon, Chuck Pressburg, Steve Fischer, et al, not to mention the dominance in the competitive world. If you listen, they can absolutely explain (Ken even describes some of them) why it’s a superior sighting system. Specifically, the ability to target focus. Anyone with a defensive mindset should be able to appreciate the merit on that point alone.

As to your title, I agree with the probability that you won’t need it- as you probably won’t need the entire gun. As to the point of benefit- I guess I agree with that too. As most gun owners never Really shoot their guns and thusly, won’t benefit from the dot. But it doesn’t take much shooting to realize a benefit. And the work to realize that benefit reduces with a reduction in time spent on a different sighting system. It’s already been established by firearms instructors at LE and military institutions that newer shooters have a quicker progression in skill with dots than with irons.

And lest I be chided for confirmation bias- I don’t currently have Any any weapons with dots. Im now carrying a 365 Macro with factory irons after carrying a M&P and G19 with RMR and Holosun (both guns and dots have been sold) for the past few years. So I'm as unbiased as it gets. I 1000% agree that there are lots of right answers and they might be different depending upon the individual/situation/context.

My issue with YVK has nothing to do with his qualifications, and everything to do with his approach:

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
To the subject of this thread, the way you phrased it your point is unbeatable. Probabilities are that you will never need a concealed pistol at all. If you did, often times no shots are fired for a resolution. For very few who would need to shoot it, there is 95% probability that it will be within 5 yards. Further probability is that almost everyone will panic-shoot it somewhere into a mass, calling it point shooting. So, yes, when you plug in the odds and probabilities, then arguing against "probably don't need" is an exercise in futility. Now, some of us, including those who have shot and became good with irons first, still believe that there are benefits to those things even with these probabilities. That said, when the question is set specifically to make the discussion futile, then what's the point.

Telling me that I phrased the subject line of this thread as some sort of "gotcha", and then telling me - on page 7 of this thread- that "the question is set specifically to make the discussion futile" is damn silly, not to mention suggesting that I have any reason- in my own forum- to create an unwinnable argument out of the blue, against anyone who might oppose it, is a bit more than a little insulting.

Stating one's argument, whether or not one might agree with me, is perfectly fine; accusing me of fucking with members, is not.

Old guy (he described himself that way) on another thread was complaining that his eyes are making it hard to see his sights. Asked about Big Dots as a fix.

I know change is hard but red dots are particularly good for two groups of shooters. Young shooters because it is easier to learn target focus and they have nothing to unlearn and old guys. I don’t know about other old guys but my 20/20 vision lasted till about 50. It has been downhill since then. Old eyes benefit immensely from this technology. It doesn’t hurt you up close (with a reasonable learning effort) and it’s crazy good as the range increases. That’s a win in my book. Even up close, better at distance. Which by the way Hackathorn stated as much in his video. Of course his math didn’t add that up to a win. Hmmm.

I recently went through this very experience with my BIL. Shot all his life, hunter, shotguns, pistols, everything but crossbows probably. He moved to Texas and wanted to update his carry gun. I gave him a bunch of options and he picked what my recommendation was. A Sig 365 with an optics plate. He wanted to try out the red dot stuff. I didn’t press it but his eyes suck and it appealed to him.

Lots of talking, instructing, shooting, retalking, reinstructing, reshooting. Lol. I literally told him at one point to just remove his irons entirely until he got the gist of it. It was a steady stream of overthinking and inability to not try to “cowitness” the dot and the sights. Some guys it just doesn’t click. He was one of them for quite awhile. When it finally clicked he was making shots that he would struggle with using irons. He is an IDPA guy. After much consternation he now would never give it up. He is a believer. Honestly without someone giving him tips, techniques, clarification, he would have given it up early and never gone back.

Did he benefit? Absolutely. Will anyone benefit? My response would be, that depends on if you give it a fair shake.

I am not sure I have anything much to offer here except my own personal reason for wanting an optic on my hand gun.
I am over the hill, I have a rather severe astigmatism and wear progressive lenses to see anything, I have a big old floater in my right eye(looks like seagull shit running down a windshield in a nice shade of black, I am cross eyed donate, and I am a new shooter. My optic is in a box wrapped in Christmas paper so don't know for sure how much it will help me as of yet. I am saving my targets from my range visits to compare once i get the optic installed and sighted. I do not have a carry permit, and I am fairly sure if I should ever get one, I will not have an optic on that gun. My guess is, with CC, less is more, I mean I hate lugging a cell phone around..

As someone who’s had both an Aimpoint T1 fail, and the front sight on a Beretta 92G take a hike mid-stage in a match, I’m solidly in the camp of learning to use both so I have a backup because ANY aiming solution can fail. Dots are not for everybody, but I intend to continue reaching for proficiency with both because redundancy is awesome and I like options. YMMV.

airscapes,

Welcome to the debate. I think you personally are on the right track. You will find that the dot will help you a lot in your shooting and acquiring the target quicker once you get past initially trying to find it. I also agree with you on concealed carry or even carrying open... less is better... it is a burden to strap on a pistol everyday and go out in the world with it... I think a lot of folks actually don't realize how much of a burden both physically as well as morally it is.

This thread has been fascinating for me. It's debate and information like this that make this forum a gold mine of insight.
Summer of 2022 I took Rangemaster Pistol Instructor course. Most students were shooting RDS. I shot a compact CZ 75 with iron sights. I won a coin for the casino drill and top gun. I mention this to give a sense of baseline skill. Summer of 2023 I took a POST RDS instructors course. I'm convinced that RDS are not going away anytime soon and I'm seeing a significant number of agencies either issuing or allowing RDS. So I figured I better board the train. Even if I don't carry a pistol so equipped, I should be intimate enough with the gear to teach it's use. So I decided to use my least favorite duty style gun (Gen 1 M&P with stock trigger and internals) with an RMR to get proficient. To that end I plan to shoot the Steel Challenge course 20 times (about 4K rounds if I limit my misses). I am using the Steel Challenge course because it doesn't change. It is enough shooting that a single stage is not an anomaly, and I can compare previous work with previous guns to the current abilities. I am also dry firing exclusively with the M&P with RMR. I am up to Steel Challenge number 12 and just starting to crack into the B class where I was much faster with other gear. And I am learning a ton about how to use the RDS, why it works and why it sucks.
For starters, the dot on target has a tendency to induce "shoot now" syndrome in me. Where I was more relaxed with iron sights, the RDS ups my visual impatience. Having a mediocre trigger doesn't help. The RDS must be in front of my face to get any sight recognition, where iron sights are viewable in the lower periphery much earlier. The RDS is very good about telling me how the gun recoils. In the beginning I did not trust the RDS in that with iron sights, if the front sight was within the target zone I would send the round. With the RDS I needed the dot to be fully on the target. I am learning that the RDS dot on the edge of a steel plate still gets decent hit. I'm sure there is more but the process has been humbling and fascinating.
I am also sure that if I never shot iron sights, and started with an RDS, I would be well equipped save for the technical issues of battery/electronic failures, poorly mounted wandering zeros and the occasionally self destructing RDS I've observed.