quote:

Originally posted by mlazarus:
This thread has been fascinating for me. It's debate and information like this that make this forum a gold mine of insight.

Here is the beauty in it, old friend. The more you dry fire the dot, and/or live fire, the cleaner your irons presentation gets. I go back and forth a few times a month and shoot my standard battery of practice exercises with irons on an identical pistol. My performance with irons has gone way up. Shooting an occluded dot has also upped my target focus game. What’s not to like? Overall, I’m faster with a dot, but I don’t think my irons game would be anywhere in the same zip code it is with being forced into not accepting mediocre on the presentation. I’m even thinking about taking another run at Production/SSP next year.

I have never had a desire for a red dot on any of my pistols. Years ago I had a Buckmark target pistol that came with a red dot optic, and I hated the thing. After one or two range trips I removed the optic and sold it...

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:


Here is the beauty in it, old friend. The more you dry fire the dot, and/or live fire, the cleaner your irons presentation gets. I go back and forth a few times a month and shoot my standard battery of practice exercises with irons on an identical pistol. My performance with irons has gone way up. Shooting an occluded dot has also upped my target focus game. What’s not to like? Overall, I’m faster with a dot, but I don’t think my irons game would be anywhere in the same zip code it is with being forced into not accepting mediocre on the presentation. I’m even thinking about taking another run at Production/SSP next year.

Mike Voight said something similar years ago. along the lines of, "If you want to get good with iron sights, shoot a red dot." I should have paid more attention to him at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

The more you dry fire the dot, and/or live fire, the cleaner your irons presentation gets. I go back and forth a few times a month and shoot my standard battery of practice exercises with irons on an identical pistol. My performance with irons has gone way up. Shooting an occluded dot has also upped my target focus game. What’s not to like? Overall, I’m faster with a dot, but I don’t think my irons game would be anywhere in the same zip code it is with being forced into not accepting mediocre on the presentation. I’m even thinking about taking another run at Production/SSP next year.

I've experienced the same thing. My presentations are second nature esp with the RD.
I'm curious, have you had an epihany on the type of iron sights you like for pistols without a RD? (example....XS Big dot, regular 3 dot NS or something like Sig Xrays with bold front and subdued rear NS?

I'm running Sig Xray's on all but 1 of my pistols. I'm finding the XRAYS are not as good as I thought before using red dots 95%. Especially in day light conditions. My FN509 LE MRD has night sights with bold white outlines front and rear (pretty basic) and I'm finding I now prefer those if I'm just running night sights.

On red dot guns I'm running Ameriglo with the bold front and like a blacked out rear to keep the sight picture simple.

As an aside, I've had more failures over the years with night sights going dark than red dot failures.
At least I can check a dot in day light if it's on and change the battery every year so no issues.

Regardless of the endeavor, it’s common for people to support whatever activities and ideas in which they have invested a lot of time, energy, effort, equipment, and whatever else is necessary to become knowledgeable and proficient. Novices don’t pick up proficiency with something like optical sights on handguns more easily than experienced shooters only because they lack prior ingrained habits that they have to break or change. They also have no resistance to giving up things they’ve invested a great deal in before.

Who’s more likely to be content with purchasing and becoming proficient with a striker fired handgun: The man for whom that’s his first firearm, or the one who has a safe full of double action/single action SIG pistols? I have been through similar transitions several times: first it was switch from revolvers to DA/SA pistols; then switch from DA/SA pistols to DAO pistols; then it was switch from DAO SIGs to the P320; then it was (partial) switch from no manual safety to manual safety. And the latest thing is that none of all those guns are capable of accepting optical sights. What would I do with them if I decided that dot sights were critical for my needs today?

Fans of optical sighted handguns don’t always help their acceptance by people who actually pay attention to what they say about becoming proficient with them. I can only smile to myself when I read, 1. “You will become proficient if you draw and aim the gun 10,000* times to begin with, and will maintain your proficiency if you continue with 30* minutes of dry fire every day;” then 2. “As an added benefit of becoming proficient with the optical sight, you’ll be better with irons as well.” Well, yes, if I did all that practice with a handgun, I’d expect to become more proficient at drawing and aiming regardless of its sights.
(* And if those numbers are exaggerations for effect, we can change them to whatever we like and the fundamental principle will still be true: practice mo’, get mo’ better.)

The same is true of the other benefits of optical sights such as maintaining better control of the gun or being more accurate at longer ranges. Are optical sights better for those skills? No doubt that’s true if one is proficient with them, but the more we practice with any gun and sight, the better we expect to become. When I’ve had shooters who were transitioning to pistols with optical sights engage a target at 50 yards, I did just as well with my conventional P320, and why was that? Because I have much more practice with my guns than they did with theirs.

The unstated assumption is that everyone who decides to rely on an optical sighted handgun will do what’s necessary to realize the maximum benefits they can provide. The opposite, however, is of course what’s actually true—most people can’t and most of the ones who can won’t. We see less discussion of optical sights from the people who say, “Nah, I can’t do that,” because someone will jump in to signal his virtue with admonitions of how we can do anything if we really want it.

None of all that is intended to discourage anyone from adopting optical sighted handguns or to deny that they offer certain benefits for those who do what’s necessary to realize their benefits. But anyone who is considering one for themselves or who touts their benefits to others should realize the obvious truths that apply to such sights, including the ones I haven’t bothered to reiterate this time. Otherwise disappointment and backlash can be the ultimate result, and that doesn’t do anyone any good.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The unstated assumption is that everyone who decides to rely on an optical sighted handgun will do what’s necessary to realize the maximum benefits they can provide. The opposite, however, is of course what’s actually true—most people can’t and most of the ones who can won’t. We see less discussion of optical sights from the people who say, “Nah, I can’t do that,” because someone will jump in to signal his virtue with admonitions of how we can do anything if we really want it.

Yes, well, this is the point I tried to convey in my remarks, but some of the RDS fans in this thread have simply blown past this entirely valid- and critical- point. If all of us had an agency paying for our ammunition, that would go a long way towards addressing the issue, but even with that, we're still left with other real-world problems, such as having the time to invest, and the range space to use.

I get a sense of snobbishness in the attitude of the RDS fans, along with a degree of condescension towards those who see the problems involved with using these gadgets.

Well that 10,000 round comment is never going to age well. lol

For my BIL probably the biggest turning point was putting painters tape on the front glass. I love the guy but he just couldn't break his obsession with that front sight. I don't think it is as hard as some have described but it does take some effort. How much is based on the individual. It wasn't to practice occluded shooting btw, it was to break his iron sight fixation. I offered to remove them but he was not impressed with that idea.

If I had to start an older guy (like me) to do optics I would pick a good training video to set the table and then I would take his gun and (temporarily) remove the iron sights. My observation is that the combo of irons and optics is the single biggest detractor for new to handgun optics shooters.

Until someone starts paying me for handgun advice though that is just one schmucks opinion. lol

Well, I've decided to try the darned optical sight again.

Sold my last optics sighted pistol to a friend 3 weeks ago but keep reading this thread and think maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not a bad shot by any means, little
old and physically slow for any competition, but I am very comfortable with the irons and finding that front sight. But I was frustrated that everyone was praising the P365 and I couldn't shoot the darned things. So I bought another and a Wilson Grip Module and that was the game changer (that sure is overused, isn't it?) for me.

Yesterday I was in my LGS and decided to try again, with the optics. Bought a new P365 and Holosun 507K which they installed and last night I ordered a Wilson Grip Module online.

Gonna try it and see if I can do better. Regardless, very unlikely I will carry with an optic sight, but I want to improve anything I do with regard to shooting.

Bob

quote:

Gonna try it and see if I can do better. Regardless, very unlikely I will carry with an optic sight, but I want to improve anything I do with regard to shooting.

Honestly that is one of the beautiful things about being a shooter. There are always new toys or techniques to try/learn/experiment with, whether they ultimately work for you or not it’s always a fun journey IMO, and I like having a little knowledge across the board. Doesn’t mean you need to squeeze a square peg into your own personal round hole however.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The unstated assumption is that everyone who decides to rely on an optical sighted handgun will do what’s necessary to realize the maximum benefits they can provide. The opposite, however, is of course what’s actually true—most people can’t and most of the ones who can won’t. We see less discussion of optical sights from the people who say, “Nah, I can’t do that,” because someone will jump in to signal his virtue with admonitions of how we can do anything if we really want it.

Yes, well, this is the point I tried to convey in my remarks, but some of the RDS fans in this thread have simply blown past this entirely valid- and critical- point. If all of us had an agency paying for our ammunition, that would go a long way towards addressing the issue, but even with that, we're still left with other real-world problems, such as having the time to invest, and the range space to use.

I get a sense of snobbishness in the attitude of the RDS fans, along with a degree of condescension towards those who see the problems involved with using these gadgets.

That could be said of any firearm, regardless of sighting system, which requires one to what is necessary to achieve any advantage.

I learned quickly that RDS isn't a panacea for poor handling skills. It became apparent that I needed to work on using the RDS, because using the irons I have learned how to compensate for my physical limitations, ie sight, vision, astigmatism, and the presentation method I developed is to say the least, not good for RDS.

The average Joe could even do themselves harm in a defense situation without enough practice presenting the RDS to target, it's a completely different process, altogether...

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
That could be said of any firearm, regardless of sighting system, which requires one to what is necessary to achieve any advantage.

It can be said about all sorts of things, but what's key here is the degree of the necessary commitment. Learning the rudiments of shooting firearms is something altogether different than what we're discussing in this thread.

For those with lots of time on pistols with red dots. Do you feel more confident taking a low probability shot (low exposure/long range) with a red dot?

Would you feel more confident in the above situation with a red dot sight on a small pistol? (Glock 42,43, etc)?

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
For those with lots of time on pistols with red dots. Do you feel more confident taking a low probability shot (low exposure/long range) with a red dot?

Would you feel more confident in the above situation with a red dot sight on a small pistol? (Glock 42,43, etc)?

I am much more accurate with a dot, especially of the distance exceeds 12 yards. My confidence is much higher as I see more of the low probability target with a 3 moa dot than my irons.
On a small pistol my greater liability is grip not the sighting system.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
For those with lots of time on pistols with red dots. Do you feel more confident taking a low probability shot (low exposure/long range) with a red dot?

Would you feel more confident in the above situation with a red dot sight on a small pistol? (Glock 42,43, etc)?

A. Yes, absolutely.

B. I don't know. I haven't really tried that as I only carry small guns for deep concealment and adding a dot is kinda counter-productive in that regard. I'm a big guy and have an easier time manipulating and controlling a gun with a thicker grip and longer trigger reach. I actually ditched a P365 for a P320SC a while back. Personally I feel (and I say feel because I haven't actually tested it) that I'll see greater returns in performance by putting that extra size into a larger gun with a more substantial grip (even if it only had irons) rather than slapping an optic on a tiny gun that I can't close my hand around.

My current optic-equipped handguns are a P320 full-size, a P320 Carry, and a Ruger MkIV. I've shot a 365 Macro with a dot, and liked it, but that gun is almost G19-sized and not exactly a micro-compact.

I am not some super skilled shooter nor do I have a ton of MRDS shooting under my belt nor do I think they are some kind of necessity. All that said. I am absolutely more accurate, more easily especially past 12-13 yards. Inside 10 yards I am probably not more accurate but I am able to achieve the accuracy a bit more easily.

As to the comments about using dots as a training aid that benefits irons shooting I have absolutely found this to be the case. While dry firing with irons is certainly incredibly valuable and useful the dot more easily shows your grip/trigger pull failings. I just posted about me renting a G48 MOS and while I would have preferred to run a completely iron sighted one it was nice to spend some dry fire time before I started shooting and that dot was able to quickly give me some direction as to what kind of hold / trigger press would work best for that 48.

Yes and yes. Distance shooting is where the red dot shines. For me it takes my biggest handicap into a much smaller handicap. At distance my eyes and irons start to get really squishy. I have trigger control I have sight alignment what I don’t have is the ability to see the target like I used to. With young flexible corneas focusing on the front blade while still being able to have a reasonable picture of the rear sight and the target was easy. Now I can focus on the front sight, it’s fuzzy, and the other two planes are downright hazy. Lol. My far sight is better than my near sight and the dot lets me focus on the target which is also my better focal distance.

My only small gun with a dot is my 365. All the “advantages” of a longer sighting radius are nullified by the dot. Long sight radius means nothing since you aren’t using them.

That is why I say yes and yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
For those with lots of time on pistols with red dots. Do you feel more confident taking a low probability shot (low exposure/long range) with a red dot?

Would you feel more confident in the above situation with a red dot sight on a small pistol? (Glock 42,43, etc)?

Yes and yes.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
<<snip>>
I get a sense of snobbishness in the attitude of the RDS fans, along with a degree of condescension towards those who see the problems involved with using these gadgets.

Amen to that, Para... my sentiments exactly!

Can I ask what optic that you hated came on your Buckmark? I ask because I too got one of those “free add on” deals with an optic. I think it was some kind of Tasco maybe. I may even still have it. Massive piece of shit. My point is that if my only optic had been that Tasco I would hate red dots on pistols. The tech, in every way, has improved to a massive degree.

Funny thing is that C More railway sights seem to still be popular amongst competitors. I still have one on a Ruger. Works great. Uses weird ass batteries that are so short lived most people actually turn off the sight in between stages.

I’m just saying the equipment has had a massive amount of improvement, especially the last few years.

If none of that is true in your situation then disregard.

^^^^^^^^^
It's been too many years to remember now; may have been Tasco. Definitely not a reflex sight; looked like a short scope with a red dot inside...

I have a reflex sight on my Ruger AR556 and it's okay, but still not all that quick to pick up. Thankfully I also love the stock sights and they co-witness perfectly to the reflex. I use them for anything under 100 yards, and the red/green dot for more precision work.