I think you are underestimating how many shitbags are out there

I don't think anyone *wants* to engage with said shitbags, but I want every possible advantage I can get and I think mrds are a plus.

Sights don’t matter.

Ummm, ok.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Sights don’t matter.

Ummm, ok.

I didn't say sights don't matter. So, if you have to set up a straw-man just to have something to knock down, take your comments to another thread.

--

One of the people I look to for advice on matters like this is Masaad Ayood. There is no internet-star that I trust for advice over the venerable Ayoob. From what I can tell, Ayood isn't a huge fan of red dots on defensive handguns. He doesn't dissuade people from them, but doesn't overstate their effectiveness, either. A 3 year old article from Gun Digest by Ayoob:

https://gundigest.com/gun-revi...d-dot-green-dot-iron

A groundbreaking study compared red dot sights with conventional iron sights, green-dot laser sights, and slide-mounted red-dot sights with and without backup iron sights (BUIS) on the pistols. Which sights are best for concealed carry?

What the study showed on concealed carry optics:

The study found optics weren't significantly better than iron sights at 5 to 10 yards.
However, at longer ranges, there is a 10- to 20-percent improvement with an optic.
Time was the biggest factor in muting the effectiveness of optics and lasers.
When visible, shooters spent added time on placing a shot exactly with a laser sight.
Trying to find the dot is the biggest hurdle to an optic achieving a fast, aimed shot.
Rehn finds iron backup sights a must if shooters turn to either aiming solution.
--

I believe my G17 with the RMR would be a better solution if I had to trade shots with someone 200 feet at the end of my driveway who is shooting towards my house. But in a 7-11 when someone whips out a pistol while I am getting my large Coke slurpee and threatens to shoot everyone, I can't imagine that RMR is going to do a damned thing for me at those distances.

So, how much force on force training have you completed? Where and with whom?

So, now the challenge, huh?

None.

Now, you tell me how many verifiable civilian self defense shootings you have been involved in with a person who wasn't made of paper.

Micropterus, you're drawing conclusions about something you don't have sufficient experience with (in reality, you have zero experience with). That's all folks are trying to tell you. Folks who have the experience are telling you your ill-founded conclusions are inaccurate.

You don't have to listen, but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. This has been proven over and over again. If you want to surmise that you likely won't use your sights in a defensive situation (that's certainly what I took from your post) that's fine, but again, you've kinda out in left field.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Now, you tell me how many verifiable civilian self defense shootings you have been involved in with a person who wasn't made of paper.

Seriously?

You know, if you don't like my opinions or the conclusions I've drawn, then either get over it, or get the hell out of the thread. Does everyone have to agree with you? And if they don't, they obviously don't have any experience?

I'm 54 and I've been shooting for more than 45 years. I've competed, I've handgun hunted, I've carried, I've been a collector and repo man in drug-infested cities and I've been drawn on three times in my life, and drawn on someone else once.

I've shot bullseye with red dots and a lot of practical courses with a .45 with pic-mounted surround mount with a red dot.

So don't condescend to suggest I don't know what I am talking about unless I buy into exactly the same thing you buy into. I swear to Christ, if someone made a big black dildo that mounted on a picatinny rail, it would have a cult following telling me its the latest must-have advancement for close up fighting.

These are MY opinions. And I just posted a study that is consistent with my opinion by an author who has more experience than anyone on this board, and most likely more than anyone on this board has trained with. Take issue with me, then you take issue with the study.

So, get over it. It's my opinion. Others have the same. And as for coming into a thread with some stupid straw man argument like "sights don't matter, um okay" that no one ever said, is low class. At least be honest in your arguments.

Truly, my only issue with the article you posted is that it is almost 3 years old. In the world of optics/technology/training with regards to the topic at hand, that is literally an eternity.

In addition, all of the shooters from that study were novices with carry red dots.

quote:

Rehn frankly noted, “A weakness of the test was that no one did a 200-round familiarization with the dot"

They didn't even have 200 rounds through a dot, let alone 2,000 or 20,000 rounds (or dry fire reps, or presentation reps, or draw reps, etc. etc.)

So yes, they're going to be slow with the dot. The new shooters are going to be slow because they're slow with everything, and they're going to struggle with acquiring the dot just like they struggle with acquiring their sights. And the experienced shooters are going to be more noticeably slower on just the dot, because all their training and practice has been with irons so they've become faster with those, but they don't yet have the same foundation with the red dot.

There's overlap between the two, but the bottom line is that red dots require practice with red dots to master, and there are things that are hammered into you with irons (like focusing on the front sight versus the target) that almost have to be relearned when transitioning to optics. Plus as pointed out several times by myself and others, irons can be more forgiving of sloppy fundamentals like your initial grip/draw, which becomes more important as you try to speed up with the less-forgiving red dot in order to be able to achieve that faster potential speed over irons.



That article even then goes on to point out that among high-level competitors who compete with both irons and carry optics, they're up to 10% faster/better with the carry red dot compared to their same competition setup with irons. That's worth reiterating... These are the only ones mentioned in the article that aren't novices with the red dot, and they're appreciably faster with the dot than irons.

Me thinks you're the one who needs to "get over" something. If you're going to specifically state you have zero experience with force on force training and then say there is no use for a red dot in a self defense situation, you kinda need to expect to have people call you on it. You literally have no idea of what is useful in force on force, you are a complete rookie at it by your own admission. How long you've carried a gun on your hip or many times you've shot paper means nothing in the context of the conclusion you drew.

It's not personal. This is a discussion board. Some folks think you're giving bad information and we are trying to set the record straight for future readers; that's all.

quote:

It's not personal. This is a discussion board. Some folks think you're giving bad information and we are trying to set the record straight for future readers; that's all.

Also, assuming Massad Ayoob has been in more gunfights, or is more experienced than every individual on this board or even in this thread may be a miscalculated conclusion. There’s some pretty remarkable and humble people who participate on this board.

Training and tactics evolve. Slide mounted red dots have evolved and have become much more robust just in the last two years or so.

Red dots are not forgiving if you've got a grip that is not consistent. I don't have much experience with them, but I'm thinking a red dot can be a very effective tool at distances less than 10 yards when you're target focused.

Maybe listen to Yong Lee's interviews with Arik over at Firearms Nation. I found them very informative.

Again, a really good master grip from the get-go is important.

I've also spoke with a few shooters I trust and they have insisted shooting the dot is faster for them, but when they shoot irons they have improved overall since their grip is better. Getting the grip right so the dot is in view does help when shooting irons ... since the front sight is also better positioned.

quote:

Red dots are not forgiving if you've got a grip that is not consistent.

Same with presentation. took me a while to get that down. Made me realize how sloppy and inconsistent I was all these years. Once you get that down, the red dot is stupid fast. For rookies who have to chase/look for the dot, yeah, it won't be much faster. But once you've got your presentation consistent, you never chase the dot, it's always right there.

Any study done of shooters who haven't mastered their presentation is like saying a study revealed that shooting 3 pointers is not a winning strategy because they studied 12 dudes off the street who never practiced shooting 3's and found that they only made 5% of them. lol, no shit?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

They didn't even have 200 rounds through a dot, let alone 2,000 or 20,000 rounds (or dry fire reps, or presentation reps, or draw reps, etc. etc.)

and

That article even then goes on to point out that among high-level competitors who compete with both irons and carry optics, they're up to 10% faster/better with the carry red dot compared to their same competition setup with irons. That's worth reiterating... These are the only ones mentioned in the article that aren't novices with the red dot, and they're appreciably faster with the dot than irons.

Quote it all: "Rehn frankly noted, “A weakness of the test was that no one did a 200-round familiarization with the dot. Last summer, USPSA had Production and Carry Optics National Championships, many competitors using the same gun for both. This provided a fair amount of data since many stages were exactly the same. There were no dramatic changes in hit factors. Even at top shooter level, we didn’t see the 10-20% improvement we saw with frame mounted optics. At best, scores were 5-10% higher with carry optics. Don’t expect miracles. At best you’ll get 10%, in reality probably less than that.”

These are top level shooters on a course shooting paper that isn't shooting back.

Now, got to the YouTube channel I referred to and find a video, or any other video of a bona fide self defense shooting, and show me one where a RDS would have made the difference.

The fact is, the vast, vast majority of self defense gunfire is going to be at 30 feet or less, under very stressful and often surprising conditions against someone else who is armed and trying to kill you. I'd bet in 98%+ of these situations, a RDS would do nothing for you.

So the absolute best shooters in the world are 5-10% better with a dot and you're arguing that's not significant? ok, now you're just being obstinate. It would be easier to just admit you talked out of your backside.

you realize a pro in any sport would toss their Grammy down a flight of stairs for a 5-10% improvement right?

If pro is picking up 5-10% improvement, and he or she is already a master of their craft, an amateur will pick up more than that. If you don't want a carry optic, that's fine, but you're kind of embarrassing yourself here.

and you've already said you have zero force on force training. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Go get some training. Get proficient with a red dot and tell us what you found in your training. Otherwise you're an internet dude making up stuff and guessing...and talking to people who've trained with them. I assume you can see the absurdity of that?

There's no need to "quote it all". The rest is just filler. It still says exactly what I stated...

Rehn admits that those tested for his study had no experience with red dots, and that other data has shown that those with extensive experience with both are up to 10% better with red dots compared to iron sights.

That guys' study doesn't conclude what you think it concludes. All it's able to conclude is that red dot is a poor choice for shooters who haven't trained with a red dot.

And that, I'm in agreement with.

You guys are wasting your time.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

... or any other video of a bona fide self defense shooting, and show me one where a RDS would have made the difference.

I'm sorry, but even in hindsight, how could you definitively state "if the shooter had a RDS, the outcome would be different." IMO, that's not reasonable.

I'll take 10% better any day of the week and with my 60 year old eyes an optic is without a doubt world's better for me. I spent many, many evenings drawing and dry firing to learn the dot. At this point I'm faster and better with an rmr than I am with irons.