First, a caveat for anyone who believes that vast experience is necessary for anyone to offer an opinion about the subject. In the past few months in formal training and personal practice I have fired somewhat less than 500 rounds with an illuminated reticle (“red dot”) optical sight on a full size P320 pistol. I offer that information so that anyone who wants to dismiss the following with, “What does he know?” can do so sooner now than later.

About half of my experience has been with a SIG ROMEO something, and the rest with an Aimpoint ACRO. Except for a few rounds fired to zero the sights, the rest have been in drills shooting at humanoid type targets from a couple of yards to 25 yards and beyond. Most of the drills were also timed either to meet a formal qualification standard or for personal evaluation.

In addition, all this discussion pertains to using a handgun that’s suitable for self-defense purposes in self-defense situations. It’s not about impressing the gang by ringing steel at 200 yards or testing different ammunition to see which produces the tightest groups from a firm bench rest. Although some of my comments would be applicable to professional gun-toters such as law enforcement officers, they are not my focus either. My comments are most applicable to the average nonprofessional who has a gun to protect herself and possibly others from common criminal threats.

With that background out of the way, my observations:

Somewhat surprisingly to me, I haven’t had any real difficulty with the dreaded “find the dot” issue. I just use my usual method of drawing and engaging targets, and the reticle is more or less there, even with the ACRO that has a viewing window that’s smaller than many other sights’.

Find the dot, however, is the most common complaint about using an optical sight. The usual advice is to simply practice more, both with dry and live fire. Practice is always good, no matter what skill we’re trying to develop. Anyone who draws and aims at a target 100, 1000, or 10,000 times (the last being one suggestion I’ve seen) will be more skilled than if he hadn’t done that, regardless of the type of gun or sight.

“Are you a better shot now that you’ve switched to the RDS?”
“Yes, my scores have definitely improved.”
“Did it take much practice to become skilled shooting with the optic?”
“Yes, I practiced 30 minutes a day for six weeks.”
“Have you completely switched to using the RDS?”
“Yes; I don’t recall the last time I relied on the iron sights.”
Notice anything? Is he a better shot now because of the RDS or because of his extensive practice to become proficient with it?

If, however, one is capable of doing what is necessary a different way (i.e., use iron* sights) without 10K repetitions, how likely is it that most people will actually go to that massive effort? This is a question that should be considered by anyone who recommends or can mandate adoption of optical sights for people who may lack the desire and discipline—not to mention just the ability for whatever reasons—to do what’s necessary to achieve an acceptable level of performance.

* “Iron sights” is a term that has been used for generations to refer to nonoptical sights, regardless of what they’re made of. These days it would usually be steel, but some progressive manufacturers make them of polymer.

But then the question is how important is the greater accuracy that’s possible with the optic? Like most shooters who are using an RDS for the first time, my initial tendency was to try to bring the reticle onto the proper aiming point every time, and regardless of the distance to the target. I got over that tendency pretty quickly during my training, but another trainee at the time clearly wanted to put his shots as closely together as possible. That was apparent when watching him take the time for very precise shots. He is a very good and highly experienced shooter, so his times may have been faster than mine despite my making no effort for a tight, precise shot group on the qualification target, but could he have been even faster if he hadn’t taken the time to put each shot into a very tight group?

My point is that he and some other shooters I’ve seen, evidently become fixated on using the sight that permits more precision to aim more precisely than necessary at the expense of getting effective shots on target as quickly as possible. We sometimes see someone’s supposed quotation that, “Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.” I, however, tell my LE students, “You can’t miss fast enough to win, but you can shoot slowly enough to lose.” In other words, accuracy and speed are not a black/white, only one or the other matters. If accuracy is good enough, then the faster the better.

How much accuracy is “good enough”? There is no question that an optical RDS-type sight on a handgun will permit more precise aiming and more precise aiming results in more precise hits. When I shoot certain drills with anatomical targets from 3 to 15 yards and using my optically-sighted pistol, I will sometimes aim at the 15 yard target’s head, something that I never do without the optic. But that’s just to see what I can do; it’s not something I’d even think about if that sheet of paper were a human being shooting at me. Would I still like the precision of the optic for a man-sized target at 15 yards, and especially at longer distances? Yes, probably if the reticle was in my field of view at the same time I was making every effort to become as difficult a target myself.

How about if the target is at 7, 5, or 3 yards, though? At such distances I no longer try to find the illuminated dot because to the extent that I rely on sighting at all (not much), I use the front mechanical sight as my aiming aid. In those engagements, I’d actually prefer that I didn’t have a big chunk of metal and glass making it harder for me to find the iron sights. And to get back to “good enough,” are irons good enough for the accuracy I need and the speed I want at short ranges? Absolutely. Although with practice I expect to become faster while using my ACRO sight, there is no reason to believe I will ever be as fast—and certainly no faster—while having good enough accuracy at close ranges with it as I will be with irons alone.

At this point someone may bring up Mr. Elisjsha Dicken who stopped an active killer in the Greenwood Park mall. It’s reported that he initially engaged the killer from a distance of 40 yards, and ended up hitting the man eight times with 10 shots. What’s usually not mentioned, though, is that he started shooting from a braced position, and he advanced toward his target and achieved most of his hits at closer distances. But would anyone who was skilled with an optical sight have been better off with a pistol equipped with such a sight under those circumstances? Sure, and if such a situation is what someone anticipates finding himself in, then the advantages of an optical sight are obvious.

How many of us, though, realistically anticipate ever being in such a long distance defensive shooting incident? And as it turned out, the Greenwood killer was like most such cowards and basically gave up as soon as he came under unexpected fire. If, however, he had been better prepared by training and expectation, who would have had the greater advantages: someone with any optically-sighted handgun, or someone with an AR-15—optically sighted or not? In the discussions I’ve had about the incident, more than one competent shooter has said that he wouldn’t have been trading shots with a rifleman in such a long distance situation at all. If we keep and bear a gun for defensive purposes, it’s the sort of thing we should anticipate and think through our possible response(s) before it happens.

Sometimes proponents of optical sights on handguns will cite the example of optics on rifles, and specifically mention nonmagnifying illuminated reticle sights on “patrol” rifles or similar weapons intended for use at close to moderate distances. But one of the major differences between optics on rifles and on handguns is that because of how rifles are normally used, there is no difficulty in finding the reticle when the weapon is mounted to engage a target. No one I’ve ever heard of claims that a new shooter with something like an Aimpoint on an AR needs to aim and dry fire a thousand times in order to become comfortable using the sight. Does more practice help make perfect? Sure, but the two types of weapon systems are similar only in that they both use an optical sight.

In short, what sort of defensive shooting situations in which we think we might be involved and in which the greater precision and accuracy provided by an optical sight on a handgun would really be important to the outcome?

At this point I’m reminded of the ancient joke about the old woman who recommends giving chicken soup to a dead relative. When told, “He’s dead, grandmother; it couldn’t help,” her response was, “Could it hurt?” So, could it hurt to have an optic on our handgun even if it couldn’t help in the vast majority of self-defense situations that we nonprofessionals might find ourselves? Well, yes, it might.

For one it’s sort of a tactical mantra that in the real deal we will default to the level of our training, not to what might be best under the circumstances. If all our training with our RDS has been to make us proficient when we need the advantages such sights give us, i.e., precise accuracy at longer engagement distances, what will we do when confronting a home invader across the kitchen? Will we revert to trying to ensure we hit the third button down on his shirt rather than the fourth?

Could it hurt our response if for some reason the illuminated reticle isn’t there at all? “No, just center the target in the field of view through the sight.”
What if the view through the sight is obstructed? “Aim over the top of the sight,” or, “Point shoot.”
Good advice. How often do we practice those things? If you do and you’re instinctively proficient with those methods, great; if not, though ….

The biggest and most likely hurt is if the shooter hasn’t expended the time, effort, and ammunition to become genuinely proficient with the sight. I strongly suspect that is true of a large percentage of individuals who have adopted an optically-sighted handgun more because it’s the hotness du jour rather than that it would be a meaningful benefit to them in an actual defensive situation. (Am I too skeptical? It would be interesting to know, but I can’t think of any way to determine that.)

After experience and much thought, I don’t believe the advantages of an optical sight on a handgun are reasonably likely to be great enough to me to rely on one. Such sights have been described as a “tumor,” and I consider that to be an apt description. Not all tumors will kill us, but none is any sort of benefit.

An optic on a handgun requires at least some modicum of care to be of reliable use and it adds to the bulk, weight, and general unhandiness of the weapon. If my target is far enough beyond point-shooting distance that sighted fire is desirable, and not far enough that I can take the time to rely on the optic’s reticle, then using the iron sights while looking through the sight will be slower than if the optic wasn’t in the way. It may not be much slower, especially if I’ve practiced drawing and aiming the magic ten thousand times, but slower it will be, and slower in a fight for our lives is not good.

If you’re one of the few I imagine has gotten this far and you’ve decided that an optic sight on your self-defense handgun is the best thing since gunpowder, none of this was intended to change your mind because you’ve probably given the question the thought it deserves. But if you’re not certain about any of the things I’ve raised, then I’ll encourage you to think about them and how they relate to your situation.

As a final comment, for the vast majority of nonprofessional gun carriers, none of all that matters in the least because the probability that we will need to defend ourselves with our chosen weapon system(s) is virtually nil. There are countless people who have no defensive weapons at all, much less the training and experience to use them properly, and only a tiny fraction of them will die as a result of that lack. Anyone who tries to convince us otherwise is just dishonest or is demonstrating his ignorance of the facts of life. That doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t be prepared to the best of our ability and desires, but being prepared in any way is the most important thing.

You bring up some valid points. There are definitely upsides and downsides to optics, and I also agree that a lot of the improvements we see on quals after transitioning to optics are more due to the mandated training that we got to make everybody go through when we got them than the optic itself. We're about 3 years in on the optics, and we saw an initial improvement but this spring people seemed to be dropping back off a bit...mainly because I can't get the agency to invest the ammo and time into "extra" training since there's been no new gizmo to qualify on in the past few years.

One question I have for you personally is how many of those 500 or so rounds that you've fired have been in dynamic scenarios rather than static shooting? Apart from the finer and more easily repeatable sight picture for slow-fire "bullseye" type shooting (which is not the purpose of a dot on a defensive handgun), I find the biggest advantage I get from the optic comes from not having to take the time to see and align the irons with the target when I'm dealing with a moving target, or moving between positions myself and engaging targets on the move or immediately after moving. It's much easier to briefly confirm the alignment with the dot and squeeze off the shot. The advantage is even more pronounced in variable or poor lighting where the iron sights are harder to see. Even in good lighting, though, the simpler sight picture is easier to acquire and requires less confirmation under pressure than trying to line up a set of irons. The dot was interesting when we started out working with it on static targets, but it really clicked with me when things got more dynamic.

I still shoot iron sights quite a bit. Both of my usual off-duty carry guns don't have optics. I do have a P320 Carry/Compact set up with an RMR, but I've been spending more time with DA/SA off-duty in the last few years, so I don't carry that one much. I'm considering adding an optic-equipped P229 to the stable because I'd like the option, but that project has turned into kind of a nightmare at the moment as detailed in my thread on the topic. For the time being I'm perfectly comfortable with my P229 SAS and a set of night sights.

You’ve mashed a lot of points together IMO.

At the end of the day, two things matter in shooting a pistol at speed. Grip and vision. Does the MRDS aid in this? That’s the real question.

Thanks for your comments, 92fstech.

I am still sorting out my thoughts about optics on LE officers’ handguns. I’m seeing them very frequently in Internet videos and as I mentioned in another thread my agency plans to make that transition as well. One major pro in favor of their use by LE is that, presumably, the officers will receive adequate training to ensure that my comment about users’ not being proficient with the sights doesn’t apply.

Another is that unlike the people to whom I addressed my post above, police have an obligation to become involved in incidents that everyone else doesn’t. The Greenwood hero could have simply run away rather than taking on someone who was much better armed than he was. Although that’s how some LEOs respond to such incidents, most don’t, and wouldn’t.

On the other hand, law enforcement handguns are usually exposed to more “environmental insults” than those carried by non-LEOs, and I know from long personal experience that many LEOs don’t do a very good job of maintaining their weapons. I cannot predict that anything bad will ever happen because of lack of maintenance of an optical sight and hopefully never will, but ….

To answer your question about engaging moving targets, I don’t have any experience doing that with an RDS. Now that you mention it, I will definitely try to include it in future training for myself and others. That said, when engaging actual live targets during nonlethal training at usual defensive distances I have no trouble scoring hits with irons—to the point of getting complaints that I don’t immediately stop shooting when the exercise is supposed to be over.
But target distance is obviously a key factor, and then that relates back to what sorts of situations the non-LEO will be involved in, and, just as important, how they should act in such situations.

Added: To reiterate in an attempt to make clear, this thread is not about the professionals whose weapons, sights, ammunition, and training time are all covered at taxpayer expense, and therefore will undoubtedly have no concerns about any of the issues I mentioned.

Interesting points. I'm still in the slow transition process of starting to carry red dots on pistols. Started with a Ruger Mk IV 45 with a Holosun 407K to adjust to the different sighting dynamics of dots vs. irons. Had to change my draw cycle a little to make sure I was coming on target. Went from bringing the firearm up, focusing on the front sight and then pushing the firearm out to pushing the firearm out out then bringing it up to superimpose the dot on the target which my vision was already focused on.

It may not be traditional or technique that is taught now, but for me it works. For me it's very similar to my archery shot process, focus on the target then bring the bow up and superimpose the front sight pin over the target face. Since I made his change, "Hunting for the dot" has not been an issue. I've probably got close to 2,000 rounds through that Ruger now.

As far as making the transition from practice range to carry, the first one up for this is my Sig XTen Comp. I've got a Sig Romeo X enclosed mounted on it and just finished zeroing it. Started my, "Experimental carry" today on the daily dog walk. Had it in a Kirkpatrick Red Dot Holster, strong side OWB and it carried just fine. Just received my Gunfighter's Inc. Spectre shoulder holster for it, have done the initial adjustment and tomorrow I'll try it out on the daily dog walk. Another downside for red dot carry, finding holsters to accommodate the sight. Especially true if it's something oddball like the XTen Comp.

Recently purchased a Sig P365 Legion Macro and once it gets back from Sig replacing the front night sight that died after 2 weeks, it'll be getting a dot well. See if I get the same results with it that I did with the Ruger and the XTen.

Why am I doing this?

Well for one thing aging eyes. At 56 I'm finding it more difficult and slower to be able to shift focus between up close and longer distances. With the dot I can maintain a single focus at distance. Also my depth of field isn't what it used to be either.

I haven't tried shooting on a timer lately so I have no idea if my times with a dot would be slower, equal or faster than irons. But I have a feeling there is a delay of changing my focus from the target to the front sight. There is also the situational awareness component of being able to stay focused on the target.

Better accuracy at longer distances. With both the Ruger and the XTen I found my groups at 25 yards were much tighter than they were with iron sights. Not that I plan on getting into a gunfight with a pistol at 25 or 40 yards in a shopping mall, but I think the 21' rule gets extended quite a bit when it's a bear or a pissed off moose. Either one can carry more ground quicker than a methhead with a knife. Given that I spend time hiking, photographing and kayaking in Alaska, that's what I'm setting the XTen Comp up for.

It's been a slow transition. Do I think that dots are the end be all and everyone should have one? No. They're a tool that has a place and purpose.

I have an Echelon with a Holosun. I want to get into Optics so thats the gun I chose. About 1K though the gun and no issues with reliability or sight performance. Was easy to zero. Still working with it. I do have issues with hunting for the dot. The main improvement for me is increased accuracy at longer distances. The main motivating factor for me is aging eyesight and the dot sight may be the answer for that situation.

Like many people who don’t have a particular concern themselves and therefore don’t consider that not everyone is like that, ever since my cataract surgeries I haven’t given much thought to the eyesight issue. Before that, though, my dominant eyesight had deteriorated to the point that the illuminated dot reticles of my rifle sights were multielement clusters rather than single, well-defined dots. A blurred reticle like that will still be more precise than typical iron sights, but I wonder if everyone has good enough eyesight to make full use of the RDS reticle.

There is, however, an obvious advantage to an optical sight if our vision is such that the irons are nothing more than an indistinct blur.

One thing I’ll point out, though, when “target focus” shooting is mentioned, whether we focus on the target or on a front sight blade or optic reticle is the shooter’s choice. Yes, the traditional advice going back to the days when most professional firearms instructors were also bull’s-eye competitors and optical sights were unknown except on a few hunting rifles was, “Front sight, front sight, front sight,” and we still sometimes see that today.

Although that advice is still valid for certain competition disciplines and sights, it isn’t necessarily so for other types of shooting. In fact I teach and try to practice myself that for any serious purpose we should be focusing on the target regardless of the type of sight, including irons.

By coincidence I was reminded of that just today when shooting a series of dot drills with my more-or-less precision 22LR setup.
At the beginning I fell into my old habit of concentrating on the crosshairs of my scope reticle and then moving them to the target. After a bit, though, I reminded myself of what I tell shooters when using red dots on patrol rifles: Concentrate on the target and use your peripheral vision to move the reticle to your desired point of impact. Today when I started focusing on the target as I should have, both my (timed) speed and accuracy improved.

And though target focus shooting is probably somewhat easier and instinctive as well as more precise with an RDS than with old fashioned iron sights, it’s still completely possible with the latter. If you’re still fixated on that old advice to focus on your front iron sight while trying to find the target to move your aim to, try the other way. You may like it. Plus although I haven’t given it a lot of thought, focusing on the target or not may be why it’s easier for some shooters to engage moving targets with an optic: If you’re trying to track and acquire a moving target while focused on the front sight blade, it’s probably no wonder that’s a slower process.

I’m a simple guy. Iron sights work great. They also require you to utilize 3 planes of vision. One hard focus and two in varying levels of fuzz depending on age, vision, etc. An optic erases all of that. You focus on the target. That’s it. You have erased a whole lot of physiological errors out of the equation.

Yes you must train with it to get past your habit patterns with irons. My BIL literally couldn’t erase 50+ years of that DNA in his system and kept trying to cowitness the front sight. I told him to knock out the front sight till he broke the habit. Instead he bought a couple Max Michel X5 320’s which don’t even have sights. That worked for him (I thought it was drastic but the results have been great so I guess I was wrong lol). He has wildly improved his scores in IDPA. Call him a convert. Didn’t hurt that at 60+ his eyesight was hindering his iron sights ability.

I know some think them unnecessary tumors and I partially agree. If my eyesight was as good as it used to be I might have few if any optics. Alas, it is not.

You can argue all day the variables but you can’t really argue that one plane focus is better than three.

Great to see you back, pedro!

At this point eyesight is not a huge concern for me, although I just turned 40 and it seems like I'm approaching that phase of life far faster than I would have thought. My eyes still work but pretty much everything else has broken in the past month, lol.

I've done enough shooting on and off the clock with and without an optic in the past couple of years that it's pretty clear that it offers performance improvements for me. Not night and day improvement, but enough to be measurable.

I like having it on my duty gun. I wouldn't mind having one on a carry gun around town most days, especially if I'm going to be going places where I might have to make a high-liability or potentially long-range shot like church or the store. It's also handy and offers virtually no downsides on a home defense gun.

Sometimes the extra bulk isn't desirable, though. For EDC in most of the rural, sparsely populated areas that I tend to hang out on days that I don't have to go into town, irons are simpler, easier to carry, and adequate. I carry a J-Frame in a pocket around the house, and IMO sticking a dot on that would just be stupid. I also don't want the extra complexity and dependence on batteries and electronics on a gun that I might be taking into the woods for days at a time, so I wouldn't put a dot on those guns either.

Some of that may change as my eyesight ages and deteriorates, but for now it's nice to have options.

Wait till you get old. My eyes stayed strong until my late 50's. After that it became obvious that vision was becoming my limiting factor. What jones said above. I would have said trigger control and vision but I will bow to his superior knowledge in this arena and say that the vision portion backs up my discussion point. My corneas, or pupils, or optic nerve, whatever starts losing elasticity as you age is vision limiting. Erasing the other two focal planes is a win win.

Young buck, great eyes, great grip? Who knows if it is win for them. For my older eyes, it is easily the best way I have found to extend my skill level as I age.

I would go so far as to say it is a game changer for old guys if they are willing to try. Aesthetically they are tumor like but I'm a function over form guy in most arenas.

So I just started my dot journey. Been contemplating it for a long time. Bought a optics ready P320 (already had an iron sighted version). Mounted a Holosun 407 on it.

I did a bunch of dry fire before I tried it at my backyard range. Initial thoughts are it's difficult with the dot bouncing. Need to get a lot more rounds in with this thing.

But wow is it fast to get on target is all I have so far.

I wasn't convinced of the need or even practical use for me until I shot a couple of two gun matches early this year. They happened to be NV matches. Shooting a pistol with irons under NODs is basically a "forget it" proposition, so I had to borrow a red dot equipped pistol not once, but twice. I was raised that if you have to borrow a tool once, you have to borrow a tool once, but if you have to borrow a tool twice, you had best be buying that tool. It really didn't hurt that for having been thrown straight into the fire and having to compete with a red dot pistol without having fired a round through one before that, I did pretty well. A lot better, actually, than I thought I would have. It was quick and intuitive, and I was immediately convinced to at least give it an actual try. I ordered a Holosun 407C 2moa green dot that showed up yesterday. I'll be sending my G17.5 slide off for an RMR cut hopefully this week, then it's figuring out a holster and some intro USPSA matches and steel challenge.

I'm 80 with all the usual age related eyesight issues. I've had a Holosun green dot on my EDC SIG 229 40 for at least 5 or 6 years. Qualified with it for my CCW renewal a couple of months ago - no problems.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One major pro in favor of their use by LE is that, presumably, the officers will receive adequate training

hahahahaha


Our chief mandated optics back in 2020 so we could be the first agency to issue them in the area. No training. Said figure it out. After a year, I finally said we're not doing quals anymore until you send some of us to school and allocate dedicated training sessions because people are not used to these.

He said no. Because we don't have the time and we haven't been able to get ammo in for years (we were still a 357SIG agency at the time we added RDS)
I said fine, if we ever have to go on the stand, I will testify that my optic training is from the Call of Duty, Modern Warfare video game.

He finally sent a few of us to instructor school and we switched to the Glock 45MOS-5. Before that, our 31s had dovetail mounted RMRs.

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:

hahahahaha


Our chief mandated optics back in 2020 so we could be the first agency to issue them in the area. No training. Said figure it out. After a year, I finally said we're not doing quals anymore until you send some of us to school and allocate dedicated training sessions because people are not used to these.

He said no. Because we don't have the time and we haven't been able to get ammo in for years (we were still a 357SIG agency at the time we added RDS)
I said fine, if we ever have to go on the stand, I will testify that my optic training is from the Call of Duty, Modern Warfare video game.

He finally sent a few of us to instructor school and we switched to the Glock 45MOS-5. Before that, our 31s had dovetail mounted RMRs.

Ouch. I regularly complain about not having enough training time and ammo budget, but at least they gave me what I wanted when we switched to optics.

I saw it coming before it happened, so I'd bought an RMR and got a personally owned gun milled for it a year or so before we went to them. I played with it quite a bit, but it never really clicked.

Then we got some money from somewhere and somebody else got a burr up their butt that we needed optics. We met with a Sig sales guy and he really sold them on it. I was initially hesitant based on my experience with the RMR, but agreed on the condition that they sent me to school for it and that we dedicated time and ammo to put everyone through a transition course as part of the implementation.

They sent me to the Sig Academy RDO instructor course, and while I struggled with my times in the class, the whole target-focused shooting concept finally clicked for me. I'd never been trained to shoot that way before, and I'm not sure I would have figured it out without that class. When we got the guns I got to spend a day with everybody putting them through a transition course, and by the end of it everybody seemed to have a decent grasp of the concepts, and I even got positive comments from the older guys who I thought would be a hard sell.

We went with the P320 RX and Romeo 1 from the start. Not my favorite optic but it was an easy transition from our previous P320s, getting the guns from the factory with the optic already mounted was logistically simple, and so far they've been decent. I did have a couple of uncommanded zero shifts with mine that resulted in a warranty replacement, but my gun sees thousands of rounds more than anybody else's. Other than that the biggest problem I've had is guys not checking the optic and carrying the gun around/showing up to training with dead batteries.

We were the first agency in our county to issue them to all full-time officers. The local SO and city PD have since rolled them out department-wide as well.

I believe the biggest benefit to LE is that Dots are a target-focused system compared to focusing on the front sight.

A big window RDS (like an SRO) allows more input regarding the threat.

I convinced admin to let me test an optic a couple years ago, and stuck a trijicon RMR on a Glock 34.

We did a lot of work with drills and Qual courses and after a year, they decided that the increase in raw Qual scores was reason enough to authorize optics…. I’m sure it also looked good, “the latest and greatest equipment for out brave heroes on the line etc,etc,etc”

But two years in, and we have had good results.

One guy just couldn’t get confident with the optic and went back to irons, and one guy who was a die hard hold out swapped over to an optic after a class that had a lot of dynamic move and shoot stuff.

All in all, it seems to work for those who are willing to put in the time with it.

Just like irons only work for those willing to put in the time…

Bill R

So took My XTen Comp to the range tonight to sight in the Sig Romeo X Enclosed. First time shooting more than a rimfire with a dot on it. Did the majority of sighting in at 7 yards cussing up a storm at the tiny Allen wrench for adjusting the sight.

Did not go well at first with the dot intermittently being visible and then not at all. Literally shook it with the slide locked back, dot became visible, inserted a magazine, hit the slide release all the while looking through the sight and watched the dot slowly dim as the slide went forward. WTF? Thought the battery was dying, thought I had a spare in the range bag, I didn't. Removed the battery cover, slid the battery around a little in the compartment, replaced the cover and it worked fine after that. I'm going to get a new battery for it and shoot it some more because this did not inspire confidence in the sight. Reinforces my belief that irons should be cowitnessed if using a dot on a defensive pistol. Overall I found shooting at distance with a red dot I was more accurate than irons.

Below is a 15 round group @ 25 yards with one called flier that I knew was bad just from the way the grip twisted in my hand after being fired. Ammo for this group was 49th Cartridge Company 140gr Xtreme Penetrator Lehigh bullet at an advertised 1,405fps. I was done for the night, especially after trying out some new .44 Magnum loads, just wanted to test the functionality of the ammo in the gun and see if my zero held up at 25 yards. Damn if I didn't shoot a better group than I did with the Winchester White Box sighting in at 21 feet.

That electrical behavior with your RomeoX isn't super confidence inspiring. I have had issues with multiple optics in the past and the supplied batteries from the OEM, though. I'll be interested to hear how it does going forward, especially after you swap the battery out. That optic is on my short list as I really like the low deck height and ability to cowitness with standard irons.

I have been working on optics upgrades to carry and defensive pistols for the last 6 months or more. Since getting into optics I have installed the following:

507k on P365XL
507k on G19 - optics cut by Glock Store
Romeo 1 Pro on a P226 with new Pro Cut Slide
407k on G20 - optics cut by Shooters Supply

All total I have a little more than 1.2k rounds of 9mm and 100 rds of 10mm through the optics. I’ve focused on the 365XL and P226 as these are carry and night stand weapons.

My conclusions are that initial sight acquisition is about a wash for me compared to iron sights, but follow up shots are faster with the optics. Accuracy at 10 yards is about the same as iron sights for me. I would post a target pic, but I forgot how. I still do feel that I have a bit more trouble with sight acquisition with the Glocks than with the Sigs. I am primarily not a Glock shooter and the grip angle thing always has me initially looking over the sights and getting the reticle in view is slower on the Glocks for me. I know someone will say its a training issue, but I only have so many rounds available for training and the 365XL gets the bulk of the ammo right now as its my primary carry pistol. I’ve rotated the G19 out of truck gun usage until I can get past the grip angle issue, if that is possible for me.

I have noticed that longer shots seem easier with the optics. 25 yard groups are better than with irons, especially out of the full sized guns.

I also think the optics are better for night/low light than standard night sights.

I have not formed an opinion yet on the donut of death circle/dot vs just the dot reticles. I tend to prefer the look of the circle/dot reticle, but ironically I shoot better with the dot only display - especially on the Romeo 1 Pro on the P226. Perhaps its the decades of experience on the gun or perhaps its the weight of the full sized aluminum framed pistol with a optic and light vs a very light 365XL with just the optic and a Wilson Combat grip module.

My main conclusion is the optic is not going to make you a better shooter than you already were. If you occasionally push a shot with a straight trigger on a light polymer pistol, the optic is not going to correct that. In fact I have found that sometimes the ability to reacquire quickly results in sloppier shooting than the slower sight picture reacquisition of iron sights. So don’t outrun your ability. You still have to have your basic mechanics in order to make good shots.

YMMV of course.