Don't need it

I'm content with the ones on-hand, pretty much. Planning to shoot my G19 next week along with the new to me S&W.

I’ve been wondering what changes they could make to a Gen 6 that would have me interested. The stuff with the COA… I’ll be honest, I don’t like it. I know the MOS system gets some harsh criticism, but I’m seeing some pointed critique about the way the COA clamps the optic in place with the rear sight that may have merit. I hope the Gen 6, whatever they change, is available in a non-COA version, but I imagine the chances of that may be slim.

Thinking I ought to try and pick up a G47 and stick a Holosun EPS carry on it and call the 9mm Glock thing good.

I doubt they will go all COA. Too many LE too many agencies/units using other optics.

I do suspect that it will likely be a lot like the Ruger.

Am I the only one here who has no interest in handgun optics?
I get it that most of you are all in on the experience of finding the best optic for your needs.

I had a Romeo on my P365XL that I removed and put iron sights on.
Still ended up selling it.

I just don't get the appeal of the added bulk to a carry gun and learning an entirely different process other than iron sights.

Maybe I'm just too old to change...

quote:

Originally posted by 1lowlife:
Am I the only one here who has no interest in handgun optics?
I get it that most of you are all in on the experience of finding the best optic for your needs.

I had a Romeo on my P365XL that I removed and put iron sights on.
Still ended up selling it.

I just don't get the appeal of the added bulk to a carry gun and learning an entirely different process other than iron sights.

Maybe I'm just too old to change...

+1 on zero interest and +1 on maybe too old. I guess they are great for some people but I'm adequate with iron sights and at 68 adequate is just fine.

You certainly aren’t the only one. That being said the 507k weighs one (1) ounce and I can’t tell the difference in my waistband between 2 identical 365’s one with and one without the optic.

I also can hit more accurately and at significantly longer range than with just irons.

I get the angst but if you are willing to put in the effort the juice might be worth the squeeze. Plus I think adequate is a poor goal. Adequate should be the floor not the goal. My 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by 1lowlife:
Maybe I'm just too old to change...

I resisted as long as I could. I started shooting USPSA this year and had to accept the fact that I was wrong.

Yep. I was skeptical for several years too, until I finally bit the bullet and spent some serious time with one, plus getting some tips from an instructor who actually knew what they were doing.

Now I'm a firm believer, even training others to use them.

So I get why someone who's been using irons for decades might buy an optic, play around in their basement with it a little, maybe take it to the range a couple times, and then decide that it's not for them and give up.

It's not going to replace decades of ingrained iron sight habits overnight. But for that minority who is willing to put the time and effort into it, I promise it will make you a better handgun shooter. (Partly because it will force you to confront, admit, and tighten up some of those lazy/sloppy shortcuts you've been taking - and kinda getting away with much of the time - while using irons.)

The skill floor is higher, but so is the skill ceiling.

And it's the future of handgun sights. Period.

I mean, I know people - even some prominent folks here on this very forum - who poo-pooed rifle red dots back in the day. But even they've come around to appreciating those now. And rifle optics are basically ubiquitous these days. You'd be hard pressed to find a serious or even moderately serious shooter's modern defensive rifle that doesn't have an optic on it nowadays, with irons being either relegated to backups or left off entirely.

Handgun optics will be the same way in the coming years. (It's just been a slower road to wide adoption than rifle optics, partly due to a lack of standardization in mounting systems and some challenges to do with fully ruggedizing electronic sights that are that small.)

Thank you for the input, gentlemen..

I don't do much long-distance range work.
I keep it at defensive distances..

Nice to know I'm not the only one who fell for the hype.
At least I did try it and decide it wasn't for me.
I just don't think it is needed for my needs..

God bless those who utilize your red dot sights.
You probably spend a lot more time at the range than I do..

quote:

Originally posted by LDB:
+1 on zero interest and +1 on maybe too old. I guess they are great for some people but I'm adequate with iron sights and at 68 adequate is just fine.

When your near-vision deteriorates to the point where you can no longer see the front sight clearly, red dot sights become a godsend.

Gen 3 is where it stopped mattering whether there were more gens. Also, my Gen 1 G20 is just fine..

Glocks have always been, and will forever be to me, something to pound nails with. People are welcome to customize them and all that nonsense, but these pistols are purpose built to poop in, on and around.

People who fail to see the absolutely proven utility of these workhorses.. Their loss.

RE slide mounted optics... I'm 100% on board. The size, battery life and reliability is such that it's an excellent choice.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
these pistols are purpose built to poop in, on and around.

Say, what??

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
these pistols are purpose built to poop in, on and around.

Say, what??

All I mean to say, is that if you manage to stop one from working, you're going to stop any semiautomatic pistol from working, and you're also stupid and probably shouldn't own firearms.

Nothing is Fool proof. Nothing lasts forever.

But if I'm going to pick something tolerant of ammunition, maintenance practice, technique, and conditions... it's a fucking Glock.

Just don't leave it on your dashboard.