I had one on my Ruger MK4, absolutely hated it. To be fair, the grip was uncomfortable for me, and the rds made it worse. Be sure to have a rds that you don’t have to turn on, for self defense! lol

The truth is, you can mask a lot of flaws in your grip, draw, and presentation with iron sights. As you’re pushing to the target your eye and mind are making adjustments all the way. With a red dot sight you aren’t able do that. I admit that I was humbled when I got into red dot sights. It was hard training myself to not transition my eyes from the target to the sights. Once that was overcome, not having the dot appears on every presentation was proof that I had other issues that could be improved. I broke down my grip, draw, and presentation the way one might break down a golf swing. Where and how my primary hand made contact with the sidearm and how my hands connected together for the grip I was trying to achieve. That was followed by how I pressed my hands to the target. Then I worked the whole process backward. I also shoot competitive clays and I am an avid bird hunter. These very same concepts of consistency and target focus need to be present when shotgunning. Even the most experienced shooters have bad mounts but those mistakes get smaller and less and less noticeable. The same could be said of shooting red dots.

Red dot sights are not some magic elixir that is going to fix 30 plus years of compensating and muscle memory. The truth is, you can not get good with a red dot unless you got boringly consistent with everything else. Good enough is different for everyone and most people don’t practice over a shot timer. I have become so much faster in my iron sights since I started working with a red dot. My sight alignment is near perfect on every presentation, to the point that I can do it with my eyes closed, dot or no dot.

To answer your question, it depends. I am faster on both since I started working with a red dot. I am considerably more accurate as well. My transitions from target to target are faster with a dot and my splits have a tighter spread. With that said, I still CCW exclusively with iron sights. Although I’m not opposed to carrying a concealed red dot I just haven’t chosen to do so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dking271,

I’ve been in the MRDS world since 2014-15 or so.

I have learned-

-Iron sights allow you to get away with being sloppy due to a lack of feedback.
-to master the MRDS it takes work.
-forcing MRDS on everyone is stupid (talking more about mass issue to a police force)
-after you adopt the MRDS, you become faster with irons than you were before.
-FoF and low light is way faster.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
-forcing MRDS on everyone is stupid (talking more about mass issue to a police force)

For the sake of those who might be forced into having an optical sight on their duty handguns against their interest, much less against their will, I can only hope that that obvious fact becomes universally recognized among those who make the decisions about such things.

One of the things that always surfaces in discussions about this topic is how “hard” and difficult it is to become proficient with using an optical sight on a handgun as compared with irons. Their fans will (correctly) point out that once such a sight has been mastered that it offers benefits in accuracy, and (perhaps for some) even speed. What should be glaringly obvious, however, is that most handgun shooters, and that includes the vast majority of law enforcement officers, aren’t—and never will be—“masters” of the weapon.

We’re also told time and again that shooters of iron-sighted handguns can get away with not having perfect “presentation” (Oh, how I love that word ) because of how we can use our peripheral vision to get on target when that’s not possible with an optical sight. Well, that is yet something else that reminds me of the adage to not let perfect be the enemy of good enough. When I train others or myself, what I’m striving for first and foremost is being good enough, and if I’m good enough, then I don’t have to be perfect—especially as we are never going to be perfect with the time, resources, and physical abilities that we have available.

If I’m being held hostage and an LEO needs to make a perfect shot to save my life, I’ll hope that she’s become perfect through dedicated effort, and I’ll congratulate anyone else who is, but it’s not something I’ll expect, and certainly not demand in this life.

Added: Because my remarks here are so often misunderstood, I’ll emphasize that I am not criticizing the idea of optical sights on handguns or that I don’t understand their possible benefits. What I am saying is that it would be a mistake to force them on someone who was not interested and dedicated enough to do what is necessary to use them at least as fast and effectively as iron sights. And based on my experience of the moment, that includes the vast majority of handgun shooters.

When I started playing around with pistol red dots I hated them. The dot made it clear that my draw, presentation and body mechanics sucked. I embraced the dot as a training tool, refined my draw, presentation and body mechanics and it has made me a better, faster shooter with irons or dots. If I chose to look at it in simple terms (it slowed me down) I would not have improved to where I am now.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete K:
When I started playing around with pistol red dots I hated them. The dot made it clear that my draw, presentation and body mechanics sucked. I embraced the dot as a training tool, refined my draw, presentation and body mechanics and it has made me a better, faster shooter with irons or dots. If I chose to look at it in simple terms (it slowed me down) I would not have improved to where I am now.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete K:
When I started playing around with pistol red dots I hated them. The dot made it clear that my draw, presentation and body mechanics sucked. I embraced the dot as a training tool, refined my draw, presentation and body mechanics and it has made me a better, faster shooter with irons or dots. If I chose to look at it in simple terms (it slowed me down) I would not have improved to where I am now.

Shooting cowboy revolvers REALLY helped me hone shooting with NO sights! Or ignoring the sights.

Everything previously posted on this thread is 110% true.

It's as fast as you can acquire the sight.

How do you acquire the sight quicker? The same way you get to Cargnee Hall: Practice.

Practice picking up a perfect sight picture on your irons, this gets you into the habit of bringing the gun right into your sight plain. This works the same way to acquire the dot/triangle/circle on a RDS.

Be honest with yourself when you're practicing! Go slow coming up from the draw /low ready/ holster making sure the gun it pointed to the target- if it's canted up-right-left... Even just a little bit, you're not going to see the dot in your optic.

This is where shooters new to a RDS struggle. You see them spending 25 minutes searching for the dot.


CHOWSER- as far as your "it's been slower for us old timers":
You've been shooting "this way" for how many years? How many thousands upon thousands of times have you shot "this way"?
If I come by and just tweak your style just a little bit, now you're shooting "that way", how long is it going to take you to re-adjust? How many thousands of rounds, thousands of trigger pulls until you get comfortable doing it "that way"?
Oh, it's gonna take a minute!

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG

CHOWSER- as far as your "it's been slower for us old timers":
You've been shooting "this way" for how many years? How many thousands upon thousands of times have you shot "this way"?
If I come by and just tweak your style just a little bit, now you're shooting "that way", how long is it going to take you to re-adjust? How many thousands of rounds, thousands of trigger pulls until you get comfortable doing it "that way"?
Oh, it's gonna take a minute!

1/3 of us have been here 25+ years and have been shooting front sight front sight front sight since the ol' S&W 4046 days (only two here still remember using the S&W model 66). I actually switched to an RMR a few years before the city did so I've gotten used to it and have been doing my best to help those that don't want to.

Even with the young kids, very few people want to train. I've given them unlimited access to the range and ammo and very few take me up on it. As it is, I'm in charge of night shift. Once a week, I'll have my shift go down and practice and do different drills to get them used to the rmrs. I even have an occluded one for them to practice with.

Last weekend I got some bowling pins donated and we hung them up and I finally got them to actually have some fun with it. They're seeing how much faster it is to use the red dot. We're having mini competitions to keep it going.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
-forcing MRDS on everyone is stupid (talking more about mass issue to a police force)

For the sake of those who might be forced into having an optical sight on their duty handguns against their interest, much less against their will, I can only hope that that obvious fact becomes universally recognized among those who make the decisions about such things.

One of the things that always surfaces in discussions about this topic is how “hard” and difficult it is to become proficient with using an optical sight on a handgun as compared with irons. Their fans will (correctly) point out that once such a sight has been mastered that it offers benefits in accuracy, and (perhaps for some) even speed. What should be glaringly obvious, however, is that most handgun shooters, and that includes the vast majority of law enforcement officers, aren’t—and never will be—“masters” of the weapon.

We’re also told time and again that shooters of iron-sighted handguns can get away with not having perfect “presentation” (Oh, how I love that word ) because of how we can use our peripheral vision to get on target when that’s not possible with an optical sight. Well, that is yet something else that reminds me of the adage to not let perfect be the enemy of good enough. When I train others or myself, what I’m striving for first and foremost is being good enough, and if I’m good enough, then I don’t have to be perfect—especially as we are never going to be perfect with the time, resources, and physical abilities that we have available.

If I’m being held hostage and an LEO needs to make a perfect shot to save my life, I’ll hope that she’s become perfect through dedicated effort, and I’ll congratulate anyone else who is, but it’s not something I’ll expect, and certainly not demand in this life.

Added: Because my remarks here are so often misunderstood, I’ll emphasize that I am not criticizing the idea of optical sights on handguns or that I don’t understand their possible benefits. What I am saying is that it would be a mistake to force them on someone who was not interested and dedicated enough to do what is necessary to use them at least as fast and effectively as iron sights. And based on my experience of the moment, that includes the vast majority of handgun shooters.

While I agree that I wouldn't want to see guys get forced into using them that don't want them, or aren't going to put the time in to learn and properly maintain them, I haven't seen that here.
I was honestly the hardest sell of anybody...I wouldn't say that I got dragged kicking and screaming, but I had quite a few concerns, and definitely put the brakes on and made sure that we were going to put in the time and money to do the transition right and actually get people proficient. All our guys love them, including my Chief and Sgt. who are both nearing retirement and have a full career with iron sights behind them. Halfway through the transition course, my Sgt. (who was the one I was most worried about not liking them) turned to me with a big grin on his face and said "these were definitely worth the money!"

I still don't have one on my personal carry gun, and have a couple of lingering concerns (mechanical zero shift with our Romeos being the biggest), but sticking dots on issued duty guns has not been a problem for us. I'm continually harping about checking batteries and confirming your dot's zero against your irons before you come to work...so maybe they're listening. But we've had them for about a year and a half and haven't seen any major issues.

As to the issue of "perfect presentation" (why the dislike for that word? IMO it's pretty descriptive of what you're doing with the gun): it doesn't have to be perfect. If anything, the dot, when used properly, is all about not being "perfect". It does allow a narrower degree of tolerance on the draw and extension towards the target, as the dot will not be visible in the window if the angle between the glass and the shooter's eye is too extreme. However, if you can develop your technique to where you can see it somewhere in the window, that's close enough.

The parallax-free nature of the dot is where you can generate speed. From what I've seen, most people who are struggling to shoot it fast are trying to center it perfectly in the window, or worse, align it perfectly with their irons. That's unnecessary...look at your target, see the dot over your intended point of impact, squeeze the trigger. There's not much else to it.

Even for slow-fire precision shooting, the dot visually amplifies your wobble-zone, and forces you to accept it. Using the dot correctly is exactly the opposite of the pursuit of "perfect"...rather it's accepting and embracing "good enough."

Well, now I’m puzzled.

If it’s so much easier to get on target and fire with an optical sight on a handgun because the reticle can be anywhere in the optical window as long as it’s on target, then why do so many users continually talk about how practice is so vital because the sight does not permit using one’s peripheral vision (as if that was somehow cheating) to bring the gun into proper initial position? Time and again I’ve seen optical sight users stress the need to perfect (sometimes even using that word) the process of aligning the gun with the target to permit being able to see the reticle. The difficulty I see referenced all the time is finding the reticle in the first place, not knowing what to do with it after it’s found and on target. That has certainly been the problem I’ve had in my limited experience with the sights.

And I’m not going to change how people, especially shooters, use the words they like regardless of how much they change an original meaning. But “presentation” refers to giving or showing something to someone. If I “present” my gun to someone in a defensive situation there’s a danger that he will deflect it or take it away from me. That’s something I always stress when teaching the techniques to be used in shooting an attacker who is very close to us. There is the military command “Present arms,” but that refers to moving and showing the rifle in a position of salute, and I must believe that most honorees would prefer that the weapons not be aimed at them as part of the process.

But someone sometime decided that “presentation” should also refer to drawing and/or raising a gun to engage the target and because it struck enough people as being a neat way of referring to the action, now it’s part of the lexicon. I recognize that, but it doesn’t mean I think it makes any sense.

Added: I do appreciate your comment about how shooters misuse the reticle after they’ve found it. I’ve had enough users believe that it was necessary to position an Aimpoint red dot over the front sight of an AR when shooting that I’ve had to add that as a specific instructional point to the training. It hadn’t, however, occurred to me that shooters might think the same when using a handgun sight. Thanks for that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

If it helps, I've always understood "presentation" in this context to mean how you are "presenting" the gun to your own eye, or into your own line of sight. The gun is coming from the holster or the low ready, and at some point needs to be brought into alignment between the shooter's eye and the target. That whole process is the "presentation." I get that the word has other meanings as well, but I'm at a loss for a better term to describe what we're talking about here.

I agree that one of the hardest things to overcome when learning the dot is the initial acquisition of the dot as the gun comes up on target. Because of the small window of the optic, it is less tolerant of poor alignment with the shooter's eye, and like you pointed out you don't have the benefit of peripheral vision to align it properly like you do with iron sights. It still doesn't have to be "perfectly" aligned, but it has to be closer than you need to be with irons. This was incredibly annoying to me when I started working with the dot. Over time and with practice it's become much less of a problem. Not only has my grip and technique improved to where I'm almost always able to see the dot immediately, but I've also gotten better about determining where it is if I don't see it, so corrections can happen faster and with less "hunting". I believe I'm at a point now where I'm at least equally as fast with the dot as irons on that initial shot, if not even a bit faster with the dot. What it potentially costs in acquisition time gets made up for with the simplicity and easy visibility of the sight picture, and as you whittle down that acquisition time through training you really start to see the benefits.

I guess what I'm saying is don't write it off because some folks have told you it requires perfection in order to become proficient with it, because it doesn't.

quote:

That has certainly been the problem I’ve had in my limited experience with the sights.

Purely out of curiosity are you a two eye open or one eye closed shooter?

The reason I ask is I have always shot two eyes open and more or less "target" focused, picking up the front sight in what I think is called a flash sight picture. Even slow, methodical fire, which I enjoy the most, I shoot both eyes open. I think, because of this, and the fact that I have done a lot of dry fire/ready up type drills in my life that I literally never had one issue grabbing a dot sighted gun and finding the dot in the glass. The transition, if you can say that as I am not planning to transition to all optical sights, was seamless more or less.

When I have worked with other folks I have found most who have issue finding the dot are one eye shooters and or tend to have less practiced/mechanical/I don't know how to say it draw stroke so to speak.

Now all that said I don't think dots on pistols are a literal "game changer" for defensive handgun shooting in my, albeit uneducated, opinion nor do I think they should be forced on folks. They have a ton of benefits but lots of drawbacks as well and some folks do have a hard time with them.

As for the word "presentation" I've always taken it to mean how I present the gun up to my eye level not necessarily as presenting to the target.

At the end of the day I am an iron sighted guy at heart. I like simple on my defensive firearms, although I am using a dot on a bedside gun as it makes a HELLUVA night sight

I just shot my first match with a P320MAX. The optic is life-changing for me. I was able to shoot most stages with about six rounds more than a perfect run. The dot on the target made it simple to impact tiny swingers, clear a plate rack, and finally, to enjoy shooting.

The P320MAX is amazing. No irons at all. Big optic window.

I think that the eye-grip-target alignment is so much easier. I would much rather be target focused than front sight focused.

I was faster, by far, on the first try. Can't wait for next month.

After a bit of dry fire work, I found the dot sights to be about the same speed as iron sights but more accurate. Dry fire, dry fire, and dry fire some more and the RDS will be easy to use. As JLJones and Bruce Gray have told me in the OpSpec classes, dry fire dozens or hundreds of times for each live fire. It is so true, and much less expensive than burning up ammo.

I also found that the large optic on my range pistol led me to be lazy. Now I have a smaller window on my other pistols and that is pushing me to have better form.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Well, now I’m puzzled.

If it’s so much easier to get on target and fire with an optical sight on a handgun because the reticle can be anywhere in the optical window as long as it’s on target, then why do so many users continually talk about how practice is so vital because the sight does not permit using one’s peripheral vision (as if that was somehow cheating) to bring the gun into proper initial position?

Because the truth of the matter is most shooters are graduates of the school of good enough. And egos are tied to how things are perceived, and not the results on the target or the timer.

The “community” has invented trends to explain away poor performance. My personal favorites include “it isn’t bullseye” and “spread your shots around, don’t try to shoot a group”. The shooters that struggle fit into this category. They haven’t been held accountable to driving the sights aggressively. The dot is directly connected (relatively) to the sights. If the dot is way off, the sights are way off. With irons, there is no accountability like there is with a dot.

The ability to drive the gun precisely is dismissed by “tactical” shooters as an unnecessary skill. And somehow the perception of actual skill is subjective.

The simple fact is if you drive iron sights well, the dot transition is something that is easier than if you don’t.

If I look for a dot, I can't find it. If I look at the target, the dot is there. I did steel match where we started at the low ready. Freaked me out because I was having trouble finding the dot at the low ready aimed at a cone. The buzzer went off and there was my dot painting the steel target.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:


The “community” has invented trends to explain away poor performance. My personal favorites include “it isn’t bullseye” and “spread your shots around, don’t try to shoot a group”. The shooters that struggle fit into this category. They haven’t been held accountable to driving the sights aggressively. The dot is directly connected (relatively) to the sights. If the dot is way off, the sights are way off. With irons, there is no accountability like there is with a dot.

.

JL, a few things, my friend:

First- Happy (belated) Birthday to you and your son. Hopefully he's doing well and having fun!

Second- Wait, WHAAAATTTTTT?
"Don't try to shoot a group"? Who in the hell is saying that?

I get the difference between "Bullseye" shooting and "Combat" shooting...
But WTF?


Irons v. RDS- oh yeah! There's a lot more "room for error" on irons. You see every single tiny micro movement on that little dot (My case, a triangle).

One too many cups of coffee? A few too many (or not enough if you're diabetic) Snickers bars? Got the pre-competition jitters? Adrenaline dump because things just got serious? That little dot is shaking more than Michael J Fox in the Icecapades. Fundamentals are lacking or weak? You'll see it in the dot... After about 5 minutes of searching for it.

A red dot is not faster to acquire than iron sights for me, it is about the same if I present correctly. Where I really find an advantage with a red dot is shooting 15-25 yards at speed under time pressure. It is much easier for me to track the dot on target further away than to focus on the front sight with a smaller target background. It may be familiarity with using an aimpoint on rifles, but the longer shots are significantly easier and faster with a dot.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

"Don't try to shoot a group"? Who in the hell is saying that?

I get the difference between "Bullseye" shooting and "Combat" shooting...
But WTF?

I’ve read different versions of it here. “You want to spread the damage out and not shoot all in the same spot”. The nature of gunfights are that the shooter and opponent are rarely both standing still necessitating the need to “spread the shots around”. With movement thrown in, that is how you get the 13 percent hit rate that LE enjoys in actual shootings. That spread becomes misses.

I first heard it at a SWAT school at Chattanooga PD in the early 2000s. It was really overused at our academy up till about five years ago. You’d have a student that had a target that looked like a shotgun blast. The instructors would explain to him that hitting the target all over was solid to hit as many bleeders as possible. They’d finish it off with “I’d ride with you”

And the boy lands at Pendleton about 1400 today fresh from Camp Butler. Supposed to get to Nashville around midnight on Friday for Thanksgiving leave.