quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

Second, for me, this is a much slower aiming solution than open sights. It takes me a second or two to find that dot in the window.

This is diagnostic of an under-developed draw with iron sights. Doesn't mean you have a bad draw with irons, it could be OK. Does mean that in 45 years of shooting you haven't developed a skill to bring the gun up with iron sights already aligned. As well shown in your own pics (nice photos, btw), your dot is sitting right on top of your front sight. If you were bringing your gun up with irons already aligned on a basis of a well-developed kinesthetic reference that we call index, you'd see the dot nearly as fast as irons.

Instead you, and 95%+ of shooters out there, are micro-steering your irons into alignment on a basis of a visual reference. You adjust the alignment as you present the gun. Easy to do with irons, impossible with the dot, and is the reason why people can't find the dot fast enough.

Posted as a food for thought, no reply necessary.

I can pretty confidently predict what the responses will/could be to some of what I’m going to offer for consideration here, so unless I read something that I haven’t considered before, I’ll say my piece and leave it at that.

There have been many, many technological and methodological innovations relating to firearms in general and defensive weapons in particular over the past 60 or so years that I’ve been following them. Some have been so phenomenally successful that it’s hard to even imagine what it would be like if we had to go back to the way it was at the beginning of my era. Other things, though, have not been so successful. The Weaver shooting stance/method is one that I can think of that enjoyed a spell of high popularity, but others were so forgettable that that’s what’s happened to them in my mind: I don’t remember them even well enough to use as examples.

One of the things that makes me wonder how successful and universally accepted optical sights on defensive handguns will be in, for example, 20 years is somewhat of a dirty little secret that has nevertheless been mentioned in this thread: the need for what seems to be an inordinate amount of practice to master their use on a genuine practical level.

Perhaps the people who are saying how much practice is necessary are exaggerating or falling prey to the unnecessary demand for perfection is the enemy of “good enough” thinking, and therefore I may be giving the subject too much importance. If none of that is true, however, I’m amazed that anyone would seriously believe that the average shooter who mounts an optical sight on his handgun will spend 20 minutes to an hour per day to develop the skill to be able to use the sight as fast and as confidently as most of us can use iron sights.

We are told to do countless things that will supposedly improve our lives: eat more fiber; drink eight, twelve, or perhaps 400 glasses of water a day; walk at least five miles daily, uphill both ways if possible; get all the vitamins and minerals we need by eating right, not through supplements; get eight hours of sleep every night; obey all traffic laws; practice meditation for 20 minutes a day—unless you’re busy, then make it an hour a day; get regular colonoscopies and dermatology and dental exams; etc., etc., etc. And specifically pertaining to firearms, make sure we get good, professional training. We’ve also been told that we should dry fire regularly and frequently, and that was before optical sights were nothing more than curiosities or limited to top tier competitors. The question is, though, how many of us do all those things to the degree that their proponents recommend?

I am mostly retired and often have to seek things to do to hold boredom at bay. I tell myself I should dry fire my precision rifles, and some days I do after my computer calendar reminds me. On the other hand I cannot possibly imagine spending an hour day after day drawing and perfecting my sight acquisition so that I can begin to use an optical sight with the same proficiency as what I’m accustomed to using the conventional sights. Some, and even perhaps many shooters would benefit by such an effort, especially if they are top tier competitors whose scores hinge on deciseconds and single points. All of us, though? I certainly would not, and I don’t have children or dogs in the house, a demanding spouse with a never-dying honeydo list, or a real job that includes commutes and overtime requirements.

So if, as I believe, that even a dedicated daily 20 minutes of practice “presenting”* the gun and acquiring the reticle of an optical sight is unlikely to be anything most of us will ever invest in an attempt to master the device, what does that mean for the future of the devices? Will shooters change their old habits and invest the time and effort required to be as fast and accurate as they are with conventional sights? Will they settle for good enough rather than mastery? Or will they, like some shooters I know who have made the effort simply say, “Eh; not for me”? If that happens, then what? Will other factors have an effect as well?

My and the other carry guns I inspect on a regular basis become highly contaminated with environmental dust and debris in relative short time; will that inevitable result affect optical sights’ popularity and usefulness as they become more commonly used by shooters who are just going along with the band wagon rather than being true believers in their value? Will the officers who are issued optical sights and whose practice with them is limited to a few qualification sessions a year rather than 20 minutes daily dry fire practice continue to do better with them than their old irons? Better sights will address some of those issues, but not all. I believe that common, continuous use of optical sights on handguns is still too early to know the answers to those and other questions, so it will be very interesting to see what the future holds.

Most of those questions are rhetorical from my standpoint, or more accurately just musings. I don’t expect any answers because right now only the future will reveal what the future holds.

* (“Yes, Jeeves, you may present the crème brûlée now, but only with the second level Tiffany spoons.”)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

So if, as I believe, that even a dedicated daily 20 minutes of practice “presenting”* the gun and acquiring the reticle of an optical sight is unlikely to be anything most of us will ever invest in an attempt to master the device, what does that mean for the future of the devices?

The future of any new tech is not defined by the lowest common denominator users who don't practice (or barely shoot their guns at all), or users who are content with "things are adequate as they are, I've done that all my life". If the tech [or results it affords] is not validated, the future is questionable.
In the case of MRDS the results have been validated and quantified and tabulated. It might continue to be a choice only for advanced users, advanced as defined by willingness to dry fire and practice regularly, or for users with declining vision who have to choose between seeing a target or seeing a front sight, or some other groups, and that's totally fine. This is no different from any other endeavors where equipment corresponds to a skill level, and skill level corresponds to amount and quality of invested time and effort.

I appreciate your analysis of what I'm doing wrong. But understand that I am talking about the RDS from the standpoint of a self defense tool, and not a firearm that is used principally for competition.

I don't disagree that the RDS is superior in certain circumstances. There is no question that it is superior for accuracy once the dot is acquired, particularly as range increases. It's superior in that you don't have to change your eyes to different focal planes as you do with iron sights. It is superior for people with aging eyes. All these things can be determined in testing on ranges with paper targets that aren't trying to do you any harm.

But that vast majority of self defense shootings happen up close - within 30 feet - about the length of an average living room or closer. They often happen in the dark. They often happen after a life threatening action has already taken place. They are reactionary by nature. Under the majority of these situations, you only need to see what you need to see, and what you need to see may not be a perfect sight picture. You may have to take your shot well before you get into a perfect Weaver stance (or whatever stance you use). In one of Masaad Ayoob's works he speaks to having had to take shots before he had a proper presentation. I suspect that happens in a lot of self defense shootings - and that was the basis for my saying that in those circumstances sometimes the type of sight doesn't matter (no, that does not mean "sights don't matter" ). And if you do obtain a sight picture on an adversary who means to do you harm, a red dot will be slower to acquire than iron sights, and it will applify shake, more so than iron sights will applify shake. At least you won't lose sight of your iron sights when shaking, and you very well may a dot. Also, the added mass of a RDS can affect reliability. There are more than a few reports out there about pistols not going back into battery reliably with a RDS mounted on the slide.

Red dots have benefits for a lot of shooters. Hunters. Competitors. Police who go into situations with handguns already presented. But civilaims aren't police. Our defense handguns are just that - defensive. And history has shown that the majority of the situations where they will be employed that that role, it appears a red dot will give the shooter no advantage. The only way you're going to make the red dot advantageous in most defensive situations is to change the circumstances of most situations, and that ain't gonna happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

...history has shown that the majority of the situations where they will be employed that that role, it appears a red dot will give the shooter no advantage.

I don't know that to be true or false. History is lacking here because RDS are relatively new and haven't seen enough defensive use.

People can rationalize anything. You have Mas as your preferred expert, I may have others. Tom Givens has described civilian defensive shootings out to 21 yards. A number of people that I listen to very carefully on this subject reduce appropriate hit area from ambiguous "COM" to fist/palm size areas, and past 5-7 yards dots are faster and more precise on such targets. Being target focused and not having to move your eyes away from the adversary is an immense advantage. Shooting on the move or moving target, low light stuff are all within civilian defensive realm.

I don't think irons are inadequate for the defensive use. I carry an iron sighted gun much more often than a dot gun. I also hope that RMRcc could help me change that. I don't want to speculate what my defensive shooting, if that ever happens, would require of me. Having put in my time in both, I have found the dot to be more capable system across wide range of shooting tasks, including those that might be required in a defensive scenario. I have same guns with and without optics, two brands, and found no reliability differences between respective optic enabled and irons enabled units. YMMV.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
I don't know that to be true or false. History is lacking here because RDS are relatively new and haven't seen enough defensive use.

It's been 4 years since the article, but in 2016 Ayoob said there had been zero known instances of a self defense shooting with a pistol with a slide mounted red dot, and solicited information on any instances of one. There could have been some since, but I've yet to hear of one.

quote:

People can rationalize anything. You have Mas as your preferred expert, I may have others. Tom Givens has described civilian defensive shootings out to 21 yards.

Again, we're back to range, an area of advantage I immediately conceded. And while there may have been recorded self defense shooting at 21 yards, and longer, it's rare. Something of the neighborhood of 80%+ of self defense shootings are inside of 30 feet.

quote:

A number of people that I listen to very carefully on this subject reduce appropriate hit area from ambiguous "COM" to fist/palm size areas, and past 5-7 yards dots are faster and more precise on such targets.

They are faster with respect to follow-up shots, not necessarily the initial shot. In fact, most of what I have read from experienced shooters say the initial shot is slowed with the red dot versus iron sights. That's my experience. One very experienced shooter wrote that he never got any faster with a red dot on the initial shot than a fraction of a second slower than he was with irons, enough for a bad guy to fire one or two shots at him before he acquired the dot. Once the dot is acquired, follow up shots can be faster and more accurate, but that advantage is principally at longer ranges. At very short range, there is likely no advantage at all. And when having to fire before proper presentation, before you even have a chance to use sights, there is absolutely no advantage.

quote:

Being target focused and not having to move your eyes away from the adversary is an immense advantage. Shooting on the move or moving target, low light stuff are all within civilian defensive realm.

That's all very true. But it also doesn't mean you don't see your sights before you use them. I can see my sights when my gun comes into my periphery. I can't see my dot when the RMR comes into my periphery. That's a significant advantage of iron sights. And it's one of the reason I went to a big dot front sight over Trijicon HDs I use on another G19 I have which was my carry gun. While I could see the bright green dot on the HDs coming up, for me there is simply no missing the big dot. I can hold my gun almost down at 45 degrees while looking at something straight ahead and see my dot in my periphery.

Okay.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

Second, for me, this is a much slower aiming solution than open sights. It takes me a second or two to find that dot in the window.

This is diagnostic of an under-developed draw with iron sights. Doesn't mean you have a bad draw with irons, it could be OK. Does mean that in 45 years of shooting you haven't developed a skill to bring the gun up with iron sights already aligned. As well shown in your own pics (nice photos, btw), your dot is sitting right on top of your front sight. If you were bringing your gun up with irons already aligned on a basis of a well-developed kinesthetic reference that we call index, you'd see the dot nearly as fast as irons.

Instead you, and 95%+ of shooters out there, are micro-steering your irons into alignment on a basis of a visual reference. You adjust the alignment as you present the gun. Easy to do with irons, impossible with the dot, and is the reason why people can't find the dot fast enough.

Posted as a food for thought, no reply necessary.

I should probably listen to JDJones but for the benefit of others who might read this, YVK is spot on here.

If you are hunting for the dot it is an indication your index and presentation are not what you thought they were.

Consciously or unconsciously you can see your irons in your peripheral vision and many people make up for poor index by "steering" the gun using peripheral cues.

It's actually a training scar. New shooters who are started on the dot don't really experience this issue.

Speaking of old habits, those of us whose eyes are not what they used to be often develop the habit of presenting the muzzle high to acquire the front sight and drop it into the rear notch aka "casting." If you are casting for the dot, you will find that without those peripheral cues Irons provide, you will over correct and find yourself hunting for the dot.

In all sincerity, if you are interested in red dots on pistols invest in some professional instruction specific to red dots, even if it is just a video consult.

The reward will be that once you no longer have to hunt for the red dot, that improved presentation will translate and you will find yourself noticeably faster with irons.

Comments about peripheral vision and how we use it.

Although I can’t cite any scientific metrics, I estimate that 95% of what I see and am therefore visually aware of with my eyes open is with my peripheral vision. To estimate what it would be like without it, we could don a pair of goggles whose lenes were totally blacked out except for two small holes in the centers to see through as if we were looking through narrow tubes. Our visual experiences would be far different and far less valuable for providing information about our environment and everything the vast majority of us do would be profoundly affected and limited without peripheral vision.

So, what does that have to do with shooting? Like countless other things we do, being able to identify and acquire targets quickly is dependent upon our peripheral vision. There is no way we could find our targets as fast as we do if it were necessary to scan through a large area if our field of view was limited to what we could see through those small holes in the goggles I described above.

And if our target represents a deadly threat that we must neutralize or otherwise respond to once we’ve found and focused on it, then what? Our natural evolution-driven reaction will be to keep it sharply and continuously in sight in the center of our vision. Losing focused sight of a threat by turning our gaze down to the ground to ensure we don’t fall off a cliff could have led to one of my ancestors’ becoming Smilodon lunch and my not being here to discuss the subject.

To return to shooting, then, what’s better when using a gun to deal with a threat? Is it better to change our focus from the target, find the sights, and then try to find the threat again while keeping the sight in primary focus? That actually works if we’re standing on the 25 yard line with one hand in a pocket and the other holding a highly precise pistol while positioning the front sight at the bottom edge of a stationary black bull’s-eye circle. That was the reason generations of shooters were told to focus on the front sight as if they would never face anything more dangerous than a sheet of paper. If, however, the target is someone who’s trying to kill us and who may be moving and/or partially concealed, it’s not such a good practice. Nor is it something that we’re actually likely to do when fighting for our lives—despite the “front sight, front sight, front sight” mantra many of us were exposed to at some time during our training.

Because anyone who is defending his life with a gun is far more likely to be focused on the threat than his weapon’s sight, I accept and tell my students to accept the inescapable: Keep your eyes on the target, and use your peripheral vision to move the sight to the target, not the other way around. That is the natural method of acquiring and engaging the target and yes, it often involves last millisecond corrections of the gun to guide the gun’s sight to where we’d like to put the bullets. None of that is a failure, but rather simply doing things in the natural way that millions of years of evolution have made it possible for our brains and bodies to accomplish.

I wasn’t going to beat the red dot optical sight any more, but to tie it in to all of the above, the reason they are hard for some people to use and why others must practice extensively with them just to aim quickly is because we can’t use our peripheral vision to acquire the reticle. We aren’t looking through small viewing circles on a pair of goggles, but now we’re looking through the equivalent: a narrow optical vision cone.

None of that means that optical sights don’t offer significant advantages that are worth the time and effort to exploit, but we shouldn’t be blind to their disadvantages and believe that their limitations are somehow the fault of the shooters who are struggling to master them without the benefits of their own natural vision advantages.

I have a question for you all who carry an RDS equipped pistol for self defense.


Do you practice (dryfire and/or live) frequently (maybe at least 2 x week) with that exact handgun/RDS, or one very similar?


If not, and maybe you shoot other handguns often, are you confident you'll be able to present and aquire under stress when you need it?

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

Do you practice (dryfire and/or live) frequently (maybe at least 2 x week) with that exact handgun/RDS, or one very similar?

Yes and no. I practice, currently mostly dry, very regularly, as in most days of the week, with my competition guns. I practice less with my carry gun. They are different in many ways but the choice of sighting option doesn't factor in. When you put tens of thousands reps and rounds into Shadow 2 and then pick a G43X up, the post vs dot is the last thing that you're concerned about.

Red dots have always been a double edged sword for me.

I feel they are really cool and I like the tech involved with them. I also like the "threat focusing" that you can do with them.

BUT it's difficult to change over when you have 20 years of practice under your belt with irons. I'm also hard pressed as my gun is covered with lint after a day of carrying, I couldn't imagine looking through an optic after that.

With that being said....I want one, but I'd take it on another slide so it wasn't dedicated on my carry gun.

The rmr window is tiny, didn't care for it. Holosuns window is larger, has a new feature that helps with "chasing the dot", and is cheaper.

literally the size of the window means nothing. really. you are not looking through it like its a magnified optic. you can like or not certain features of every option.But once you are chasing the dot the issues are on you for technique.

I current have and use the RMR, SRO, and Romeo1. My next pistol red dot is going to be a Holosun with the Primary Arms ACSS reticle. I wish a domestic manufacturer got on board, but I'll pick up a Chinese sight to try this concept out.

It includes an oversized ring which should be invisible to the shooter. Unless you're off-center, you then are given a portion of the ring which you can then intuitively "steer".

I don't want this to fix bad draw and presentation, but to maintain target-focused vision when in less than ideal shooting positions that interrupt the draw/presentation. Like shooting while suppine, around barriers/barricades, etc. If distances are close enough where point shooting is all that's required so be it, but if any precision is required I'm hoping this setup will be faster, especially since you won't be shifting focus back to the iron sights to get alignment cues that the peripheral can't deliver.



https://www.thefirearmblog.com...mary-arms-507c-acss/
https://www.primaryarms.com/ho...t-sight-acss-reticle

Totally disagree with you. Size of window allows for more error in presentation. Or shooting from a less than advantageous position. To pretend like every draw and presentation will be just like it is at range day is short sighted at best.

A bigger window is advantageous. The Deltapoint micro sight will show this in spades when it’s gets out in wide usage.

We had an SRO fail today in class when a pistol was dropped. We didn't have time to trouble shoot it so we just grabbed another gun. We're mainly shooting with RMRs, an ACRO and the SRO.

I am lost on how. The dot is the same size no matter what. It is physically in the same part of the window no matter the size of the window. When you have lost it while trying to reach around a barricade exactly how does more real estate around it help? I've shot both an RMR and an SRO in all kinds of conditions and I can't tell any advantage. But maybe that's just me. If huge windows helped one would think we would see 4x4" windows in competitions and we don't.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
literally the size of the window means nothing. really. you are not looking through it like its a magnified optic. you can like or not certain features of every option.But once you are chasing the dot the issues are on you for technique.

I think it comes down what you are used to, as well as what you are willing to accept. For instance, in doing close quarters stuff with a rifle, I get less tunnel vision with an EoTech and I "see" more inside a room. Compared to a Aimpoint T1. I think that some people have strong opinions about this or that because that is what they know, and it maybe the only thing that has worked for them.

I personally can go back and forth between a Romeo1 and a RMR06 with little or no issue. I used to not be able to do that. Under extreme stress, I have seen some things using an RMR that I would have sworn a year ago that would be impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
The dot is the same size no matter what. It is physically in the same part of the window no matter the size of the window.

The dot is the same size in relation to your eye (but not the window), but it's not always in the same part of the window. If that were the case, the dot would be useless unless you were directly behind the window with a dot-picture in perfect alignment with your sights.

As it stands, due to very little parallax, the dot floats on the glass and moves as you move the gun, with dot always on whatever your pistol is aimed at, even if you aren't seeing that point of aim over the iron sights. Turn the gun too much, and the dot sweeps off the glass and is no longer visible. A larger window would keep the dot visible over a greater range of pistol movement or head movement. A larger window is absolutely more forgiving. The reason you aren't seeing bigger windows isn't because they wouldn't work, it's because at some point their size makes them impractical. There's no reason you couldn't put an Eotech on a handgun. It's just isn't practical.