12 months of data: Irons vs. RMR

[Hunter Osborne]

This post is intended to share data that I have collected over the last year which compares performance on a qual (created by myself and a training partner who is a very skilled shooter, and based off of existing standards) with the exact same gun with Iron sights vs. an RMR mounted. ***FAST FORWARD TO BOTTOM OF THE POST FOR MY CONCLUSIONS***


The guns used for this test were 2x CZ P07 with the same Cajun Gun Works modifications. At the time where Irons were being used, both guns had the same Dawson Precision sights installed. Both guns' triggers measure approx. 7lbs in DA and 2.5lbs in SA. The guns are set up to be identical as the one serves as a training gun while the other serves as a carry gun. The only appreciable difference between the two guns after the RMRs were installed is that the Carry gun has an RM07 and the Practice has an RM06.


The excel sheet where I input each month's scores as well as my conclusions is attached to this post.


The qual was shot once per month, with the same gun and ammo. The only exceptions are for when I either did not yet own my practice gun or the practice gun was out having an RMR installed. August is the first month I had an RMR'd gun available to use on the qual, and every qual after that was shot with an RMR. The conclusions tab has an over view of each month's scores and averages. For the averages, I subtracted the best and the worst month for the Iron sighted scores (2 out of 7 results) to give both Iron sights and RMR 5 months of data each. I did not subtract any months from the RMR results in order to have the same amount of months for comparison and because there were no wild deviations from the mean for the RMR results.


The qual is as follows:


All strings were shot from concealment, in an AIWB holster. Spare magazines were also concealed.


Pistol Forum FAST test x3:


-Scoring zones are a 3x5 "Head" target and an 8" cirlce "body" target. Misses to the head will add 2 seconds to the total time and misses to the body will add 1 second.
-On the beep, draw and fire 2 rds only to the head, perform a slidelock reload and fire 4 rds at the body.
-Overall time is a composite of the raw time plus added time for misses (if any).


Modified Rangemaster Bull Course x1:


All stages are shot on a B8 bullseye, which is scored and taped at the end of each stage.

-25yds, 5rds in 12 seconds.*
-15yds, 5rds in 8 seconds.
-15yds, 5rds in 6 seconds.
-7yds, 5rds, slide lock reload, 5rds in 8 seconds.
-5yds, 5rds SHO (with off hand in handheld lighting technique of choice) in 4 seconds.


-Qual scores are points based, with the FAST times being assigned a point value based on a table next to each month's recorded times. The table assigns a time of 12 seconds or less (for 3 runs total, 4 seconds per run) 100pts, with a every half second thereafter achieving a lower score.


-The modified Bull Course is scored based on scores on the bullseye for each string. There is a 5 point penalty for going over the par times on any given string. For example, if I shot a 50 on a 5rd string but went over par, my score for that string would be 45. The penalties were assessed when the data was input. The Red box shows the overall score for that month's qual.


-Maximum score for the Bull Course is 300.
-Maximum score for the FAST portion is 100.
-Maximum score for the Qual is 400/400


This qual was initially developed with the intent to track performance for what we believed to be a reasonable blend of distance, par times, accuracy and manipulations, over a long period of time. When I decided to transition to RMRs full time, it also proved useful for comparing performance between the two sighting systems.


***I know the sample sizes are not exceptionally large, however I think they will prove helpful to those who are on the fence about adding an RMR***


So with that background out of the way, here are the conclusions I reached after compiling all the data:


The addition of the RMR accounts for a 3.8% increase in accuracy and a 3.6% overall increase in performance while not being appreciably slower than iron sights. It should be noted that the only significant difference in performance between Irons and RMR came in the accuracy portion of the qual, with a 10 point increase in average accuracy in favor of the RMR. While the numbers show that the increase is not much and both the fastest times and most accuracte scores came with the Iron sights, the average deviation from the mean for the RMR was 5.12 and for the Irons was 8.57.


Conclusion:


The RMR proved to be slightly more accurate, just as fast (and accurate at speed) and slightly more consistent overall than Iron sights. When you combine these considerations with the RMR's ability to be easily and precisely zeroed for a specific ammunition and with the annecdotal low light benefits reported by users, as well as the target focused nature of using an RDS equipped pistol, I believe the addition of an RDS to a fighting pistol to be worth the investment cost for all but the highest level of pistol shooters. However the RMR requires a user dedicated to learning to get the most out of the sight (experimenting with brightness levels in different light conditions/with different lighting techniques, precisely zeroing the sight, changing batteries, reconfirming zeroes etc.)

[Hunter Osborne]

Can't seem to upload the excel file from my phone, will get it added when I get home.

[Steve m]

Thanks for the info, i just took the RMR plunge myself and will be running drills to measure my performance from Irons vs RMR

[Erick Gelhaus]

I'm resurrecting my RDS pistols. Thank you for this.

[Edwin]

Can't seem to upload the excel file from my phone, will get it added when I get home.

Maybe host it on something like Google Docs, OneDrive, Dropbox, etc?

[Hunter Osborne]

Maybe host it on something like Google Docs, OneDrive, Dropbox, etc?

I will give dropbox a try. Excel files don't seem to be one of the supported formats for the attachments to posts.

[Hunter Osborne]

OK, so I had to edit the spreadsheets a bit to get them to fit and I then converted the workbook to a PDF. The PDF should be attached to this post. If it would be beneficial to anyone, I can also post screen grabs from the workbook here as well.

[Hunter Osborne]

I'm resurrecting my RDS pistols. Thank you for this.

For 2017 I'm planning on doing a more in depth comparison between the 2 sighting methods. I'm going to be using a G19 MOS with Dawson MOS NON-Cowitness (regular sights, but a shorter rear to account for the different dovetail location for the rear sight on MOS guns) and an RM06 as the test platform. I plan on shooting a new course of fire twice per month, once with the RMR removed (to account for any parallax/sighting issues involving using the irons through the RMR lens) and once with it installed. The course of fire will be setup to eliminate variables such as the draw, reloads etc. and focus on speed at closer distances, accuracy at further distances, and SHO/WHO shooting. I will also have a 2nd shooter who will shoot the same gun and the same course of fire, which will yield more data for comparison.

I will continue to shoot the 2016 qual and record my results for my own personal use and if anyone else is interested, as I feel that I now have a good baseline to compare to. However the new RMR/Irons qual will be recorded separately and will be geared specifically toward comparing performance between sighting systems, not towards overall shooting competency.

[martin_j001]

Having just added an RMR to my carry gun, it's nice to see some actual data on this.

[GardoneVT]

Good analytics data collection.

That said I'm not as sanguine about your conclusion once costs are factored in.

A 3.8% increase in accuracy is a good thing ; but street price for a red-dot ready striker fired pistol such as an M&P CORE/Glock MOS/ etc is between $650.00 - $700.00 dollars. The price for an RMR is an additional $550.00, and we haven't touched holster costs..

The financial outlay to get a red dot equipped gun is $1,250 per example. If one plans on carrying , they'd need a backup-so that's another $1,250 spent. The costs go up if a pistol needs custom gunsmithing to fit a red dot plus downtime for work performed.

Compared to the outlay of buying a standard M&P9 at $550.00 + $100.00 allowance for holster and spare mags, and we get a savings of $600.00 for sticking with irons vs going red dot. Spending 100% more money to gain a 3.8% performance benefit is not quantitatively smart.


Here's two other things $600.00 can buy which would also improve user skill ;

Class tuition + $100 miscellaneous.
2000 rounds of 9mm ammo(at my local retail prices).

[Hunter Osborne]

I should also note that I believe that the reason I experienced an accuracy and consistency increase with the addition of the RMRs is largely due to the way my eyes interact with the front sight. I use prescription lenses full time and have an astigmatism as well as scarring on my right eye. My eyesight started noticeably deteriorating a few years ago. The result is that even with prescription lenses and full daylight, I do not have the ability to intensely focus on my front sight for more than 1-2 seconds without my eyes going haywire and causing the image to go into and out of focus multiple times or to switch focus to things in the foreground or background, namely either the target or the rear sight notch.

I can still shoot Irons fairly well. Last range session I turned in several 4.6 and one 4.4 clean runs for the FAST and a 94 on a 10rd B8 string at 25, with my G17 with Dawson sights. However it requires significantly more effort on my part in order to turn in a performance like that, and it's not something I can replicate all day long because it requires more cognitive effort than shooting with an RMR does. The front sight was also slightly blurry for the FAST runs, and I was using the red fiber optic as a pseudo red dot and maintained a target focus the entire time.

It's my opinion that the RMR was beneficial to me because I am no longer asking my eyes to do something that is physically difficult for them (focus on the front sight for extended periods of time), combined with the ability to get the optic precisely zeroed, and the target focused nature of using an RDS (focusing on the target is not an issue for me). Anecdotally, I've noticed that it requires much less effort to achieve the same, or greater, levels of accuracy at distance, as well as accuracy while shooting SHO/WHO.

The only downsides to RMR use that I have identified so far have been a reduction in speed while shooting SHO/WHO, the optic's parallax, and the fact that with a cheek/neck index handheld lighting technique (my preferred technique), you have to be very meticulous with setting dot brightness. In my experience, if the dot is not centered in the window, you will experience a POI shift. For an easy reference, when shooting the head portion of the FAST, if the dot is towards the top of the 3x5, and the top of the RMR window, my rounds impact towards the bottom of the 3x5.
You'll need to experiment in order to achieve a useable dot that is neither washed out by the handheld light or so bright that the glare occludes sighting through the lens. For my RM07, this means I have to manually set the brightness to 3 positions down from the max when it starts to get dark, and my RM06 is 2 positions down from the max. The auto adjust setting works fine the majority of the time, and in my experience it will adjust to the light coming from the cheek/neck index, however if I use my WML (TLR-1 HL) it will not adjust and trying to use the dot becomes more trouble than it's worth. With the brightness settings mentioned above, I'm able to use either WML, or handheld in a low light/no light setting, as well as maintain a useable dot should I walk indoors into a brightly lit setting (my house, gas station, grocery store etc.) The setting is not sufficient for use during bright sunlight, which is when I will resort to the auto adjust feature. This is why I suggested in the conclusion that in my opinion, RDS use on carry guns require a dedicated user, similar to Hilton Yam's thoughts on users of 1911s.

I'll continue to update this thread periodically with more findings and my experiences with RDS on pistols. Hopefully this can help serve to educate those on the fence about the pros and cons for RDS usage on defensive pistols.

[Hunter Osborne]

Good analytics data collection.

That said I'm not as sanguine about your conclusion once costs are factored in.

A 3.8% increase in accuracy is a good thing ; but street price for a red-dot ready striker fired pistol such as an M&P CORE/Glock MOS/ etc is between $650.00 - $700.00 dollars. The price for an RMR is an additional $550.00, and we haven't touched holster costs..

The financial outlay to get a red dot equipped gun is $1,250 per example. If one plans on carrying , they'd need a backup-so that's another $1,250 spent. The costs go up if a pistol needs custom gunsmithing to fit a red dot plus downtime for work performed.

Compared to the outlay of buying a standard M&P9 at $550.00 + $100.00 allowance for holster and spare mags, and we get a savings of $600.00 for sticking with irons vs going red dot. Spending 100% more money to gain a 3.8% performance benefit is not quantitatively smart.


Here's two other things $600.00 can buy which would also improve user skill ;

Class tuition + $100 miscellaneous.
2000 rounds of 9mm ammo(at my local retail prices).

Those are all excellent points. I would never suggest that someone by an RMR and have it installed vs. going to a class or buying more ammo to practice with, if this person is not already a competent shooter. I should have amended my conclusion to reflect my post above, which explains why I think I benefited from the RMR installation. If my eyesight was better and I could use a front sight, I would not have invested in the RMR setup. It is very costly initially, there is no doubt. However for people like me, it really is a game changer and it allows me to do things with ease that I could not do at all, or not do easily with just irons.

Sometimes, there really is a hardware solution that can have measurable benefits to a shooter. Is it often times the case? Probably not, and it's up to the individual to do their due diligence to figure out whether or not that applies to them. Hopefully this thread can help people figure out ahead of time whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze.

[Luke]

Gardone what price do we put on performance? $100 per 1%? More? Less?

[Dave Williams]

I'm resurrecting my RDS pistols. Thank you for this.

Back to M&P?

[breakingtime91]

Cool thread. I firmly believe red dots are the future for pistol sights. Come on aimpoint, most of us are ready.

[23JAZ]

Gardone what price do we put on performance? $100 per 1%? More? Less?
12706

[SLG]

I really enjoy shooting my dot guns, and have been spending more time with them lately than I probably should. That said, I'm not sure they are the way of the future, though I would never say they don't offer some significant benefits. You have to keep in mind what the purpose of a pistol is. Other than a target focus benefit, I'm not sure that dots actually offer anything on the defensive end.

Now on the fun end...lots to like.

[Hunter Osborne]

I really enjoy shooting my dot guns, and have been spending more time with them lately than I probably should. That said, I'm not sure they are the way of the future, though I would never say they don't offer some significant benefits. You have to keep in mind what the purpose of a pistol is. Other than a target focus benefit, I'm not sure that dots actually offer anything on the defensive end.

Now on the fun end...lots to like.

I would mostly agree with that. I do not think they are mandatory for effective defensI've shooting, however I do think that for certain populations, they would definitely make things easier so long as the user is dedicated to ironing out all the wrinkles that can pop up beforehand. I think a dot in the hands of someone who is not dedicated to learning the optic and how best to utilize it in their specific circumstances would actually be detrimental to their performance.

For the general population without eyesight issues, the only clear advantages I see are the target focus, zeroing, having the same sight picture day or night (in theory). For the hobbyist who cares, shooting small percentage targets (like the 1" square on Find Your Level or 1, 2, Reload 3) the dot also has been beneficial in that it does not obscure the target. This also applies to distant targets where holding over becomes necessary.

[Gray222]

Good personal experience thread and data points.

As I have pointed out before, those of us who have invested in traditional iron sights, training, carry, reps, etc will probably have to start from a few steps back in order to attain the same level of speed and/or performance with an RMR.

If we had started out on RMR'd guns I have absolutely zero doubt that most of us would default to them.

However the fact being that most LE carry non-RDS pistols and even though it may be better to carry an RDS equipped pistol, that is a very long ways away for the general pistol population (like LE).

[Luke]

What would it say about the shooter if he was instantly better with a dot vs irons that he had a lot more reps on?

[Hunter Osborne]

What would it say about the shooter if he was instantly better with a dot vs irons that he had a lot more reps on?

It depends on what you mean by "better", but I would assume that since it was a sighting method that changed, it would say that the shooter interacts with the dot better than the irons. Depending on their skill level, it could be a simplicity thing (easier to put a dot where you want to hit vs. aligning a post in a notch and getting equal height/equal light, and then super imposing that sight picture on the target) or it could be a physical limitation like mine. I consider it to be a "setting the gear up to work for you" equation (because I have the liberty to do so) and not a "struggling to make what you have work" equation (like some whose employers mandate that they use certain equipment).

[busdriver]

Computers and video games.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Back to M&P?

So, that is a definite maybe. I've got a -17 with an Aimpoint T1 on it and a M&P with a RMR. I need to get another of one of the optics so both designs have the same one and sort through it from there. Pretty much waiting to see if there is anything at SHOT in this area worth considering or delaying my decision for. Duty holsters that will work with the idea are another factor.

[Hunter Osborne]

So, that is a definite maybe. I've got a -17 with an Aimpoint T1 on it and a M&P with a RMR. I need to get another of one of the optics so both designs have the same one and sort through it from there. Pretty much waiting to see if there is anything at SHOT in this area worth considering or delaying my decision for. Duty holsters that will work with the idea are another factor.

A friend of mine who is a Deputy and the Rangemaster for his department has an M&P 9 with an RMR as a duty gun. He is currently using a Bladetech for his duty holster. I've also read somewhere, I believe on the P&S forum, that someone managed to modify a Safariland 6354DO to fit an M&P 9.

[Erick Gelhaus]

A friend of mine who is a Deputy and the Rangemaster for his department has an M&P 9 with an RMR as a duty gun. He is currently using a Bladetech for his duty holster. I've also read somewhere, I believe on the P&S forum, that someone managed to modify a Safariland 6354DO to fit an M&P 9.

I carried a full size M&P 9 with a RMR on patrol throughout 'all' of 2012 and a 'fair amount' of 2013. The ' and ' are there because the different RMRs I used were back @ Trijicon multiple times for repair, up-grade, etc. I know the execution is viable on-duty.

Holster wise, I modified and used 6280s. I'm familiar with the 6354DO, I also bought (silly me) the 6354DO based duty holster for the M&P and a RMR which did not come with the ability to use a WML. I've heard rumors that there may be some red dot friendly L/E duty quality holsters unveiled at SHOT this year.

I'm hoping the community can get past having to engineer solutions for this in our garage with heat guns and dremel tools.

[Hunter Osborne]

I carried a full size M&P 9 with a RMR on patrol throughout 'all' of 2012 and a 'fair amount' of 2013. The ' and ' are there because the different RMRs I used were back @ Trijicon multiple times for repair, up-grade, etc. I know the execution is viable on-duty.

Holster wise, I modified and used 6280s. I'm familiar with the 6354DO, I also bought (silly me) the 6354DO based duty holster for the M&P and a RMR which did not come with the ability to use a WML. I've heard rumors that there may be some red dot friendly L/E duty quality holsters unveiled at SHOT this year.

I'm hoping the community can get past having to engineer solutions for this in our garage with heat guns and dremel tools.

Truth.