I mounted a Trijicon RM08 on my S&W 625. I put abot 70 rounds through it today and I have to say I'm not all that impressed. I don't know yet if it's a learning curve issue or I really don't like it, but I found it difficult to find the dot compared to my other RDS's. I'm sure the small size of the window has something to do with this, but am I missing something here? Any advice?

[URL= ]

Congratulations, you've discovered the first frustration of anyone who put a RDS on a handgun. Everyone has issues learning how to shoot a RDS after spending lots of time shooting irons. Check out this video on your draw from Travis Haley

https://youtu.be/6ULnzq0DIww

That's one way, the other is just to put in practice. The reason why a lot of people will run suppressor height sights too is to help index the gun with the dot. Hope that helps a bit.

I put a Vortex on my Buckmark to see what all the whoop la was about.
My first few trips out the RSO were wondering what was wrong with me. Took me quite a bit to get used to it and not contort my neck in all sorts of whacky directions.
Now I figured it out it is pretty slick.

Yes, not as mindless as a RDS on a rifle, where your eye easily finds the dot because you have a stock to position your head behind the RDS properly.

Once you figure out where you need to be behind the pistol, it isn't too hard.

I do not get it. It's like the laser craze. Only one gun that I benefited with a crimson trace laser. My 442 revolver harder than hell to shoot. Then you relize it is a defensive weapon designed to engage at feet and not yards.

Everyone thinks they are supposed to engage targets with at handgun at 25yds. Nope. It's feet. 20 feet and less. I acquire targets quicker with regular sites as that as what I have doing for over 40 years.

It took me about a month of dedicated daily practice before it clicked. When it did, I was 25 seconds faster over a 5 stage steel match with a dot vs without

quote:

Originally posted by featherweight:
I do not get it.

I do. I'm near-sighted, with glasses corrected for distance. This means that with glasses I can see the target clearly but not iron sights. Without glasses I can see the sights clearly but not the target. With a RDS and my glasses, both are sharp. Even with progressive lenses this would not otherwise be possible. YMMV.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:

quote:

Originally posted by featherweight:
I do not get it.

I do. I'm near-sighted, with glasses corrected for distance. This means that with glasses I can see the target clearly but not iron sights. Without glasses I can see the sights clearly but not the target. With a RDS and my glasses, both are sharp. Even with progressive lenses this would not otherwise be possible. YMMV.

This. I noticed the same thing when I first put an EOTech on my AR about 10 years ago. Focus on the target and everything is sharp. That and where to align the gun without an easy visual reference is probably the biggest change. Irons let you correct gross misalignment much faster than a red dot because you see the barrel. With an RDS all you see is the optic which looks similar from almost any angle.

quote:

Originally posted by featherweight:
Everyone thinks they are supposed to engage targets with at handgun at 25yds. Nope. It's feet. 20 feet and less.

Better hope anyone who shoots at you has read this post.

I had an RDS on a FN 45 Tactical, took a little bit to get used to it. The RDS was quicker to target than standard sights.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by featherweight:
Everyone thinks they are supposed to engage targets with at handgun at 25yds. Nope. It's feet. 20 feet and less.

Better hope anyone who shoots at you has read this post.

I practice from 3 feet out to 40 yards, I want to go further out. I don't know what my adversary is doing but I better be more accomplished than they are if I hope to survive our encounter.