Rogers RDS experiment

[GJM]

My wife and I just finished up the Rogers Shooting School handgun course this past week. Besides all the other incredible attributes of a Rogers course, their 125 round school test, administered six times over the week, provides incredible performance tracking for how you are progressing as a shooter.

Our objectives for the week were:

1) For my wife to shoot intermediate, which requires a minimum score of 90 out of 125.

2) For me to evaluate the RMR RDS, which I have been shooting since December.

3) For me to shoot Advanced, which requires 110 out of 125, ideally on each of the six tests.

Here is the relevant background. Our first trip through Rogers, a year ago, was an incredibly humbling experience, not unlike experienced by many their first time through. Despite thinking we were pretty good shooters, I only could score 80, and that on just one test, making just the basic rating. My wife fell 2 points short of the basic on that trip. In particular, the extremely demanding one hand shooting, which comprises half of the overall test was a complete blow out for me. My wife really struggled with the fast times required on all the shooting exercises.

Over the summer, we practiced hard, and returned to Rogers this past fall. My wife did much, much better, with a high score of 88, just 2 points shy of an intermediate rating. My average test score went up to about 95, and on the last two days, I shot a 104 and 105, although the support hand tests were still holding me back.

At the course, Bill Rogers mentioned that he thought the red dot was the future for handgun sighting systems, and that the few students that had been through Rogers, using an RDS, scored higher than they would have with iron sights. Always interested in improvement, I decided to start shooting a RDS, and by December was almost exclusively shooting an RMR on either a Glock 17 or M&P 9 FS. The little iron sight shooting I did from December until the course, was slow fire shooting of M&P 9 pistols at 25 yards, trying to find one or two that would shoot acceptably. Between December and the March Rogers course, I shot over 10,000 rounds thru my RMR pistols, and did one training course at Universal Shooting in Florida, where I used an RDS, although the instructor was not familiar with the RMR. BY the time of the Rogers course, I was shooting better and more consistently than I was back in the fall.

At Rogers, using the RMR/M&P, I shot 106 on Monday, 102 on Tuesday, and 102 on Wednesday. Wednesday night, I had a hard time sleeping, as I tossed and turned, trying to figure out how I was not shooting any better than my last two days at Rogers back in the fall with iron sights. I finally got to sleep, woke up Thursday morning, and despite being tired, decided right then that I would switch to my M&P with iron sights, despite the fact I had hardly shot iron sights since the late fall.

On Thursday the test is given twice, and generally students do better in the morning, as they are fresher. On Thursday morning, using iron sights, I shot 106. On Thursday afternoon, despite dragging, and the test partially happening during a torrential rain storm that made it hard to hear range commands or the target pumps, I shot a 109. Thursday night also has a night shoot, and on Friday, I just didn't have any zip, but shot a 104 with iron sights. Quantitatively, my RDS average was 103.33, and my iron sight average was 106.33, despite having hardly shot iron sights for over three months.

So what does it all mean? First, I think the Rogers test is a RDS friendly course of fire. Second, I think if you are unable to see the front sight, the RDS is a god send. In fact, one shooter there that did extremely well, shooting Advanced with a high score of 117, had a previous high score in the 80's shooting iron sights. He not only had trouble seeing the front sight, but was cross eye dominant, and for him the RDS was like a night and day difference. For me, once I switched to iron sights on Thursday, I felt this incredible feeling of relief, as there is so much more steering information that we get from the slide and iron sights, where with a RDS you basically have to accept the dot will be there at full extension, and much prior to extension you don't see the dot. While practice is relevant, it often takes something like shooting a Rogers course under stress, six times, to really evaluate a concept. It pains me to say it, but my RDS experiment probably set me back in my shooting development, and there is almost no shooting problem that can't be solved by a Glock 17 and a truck load of 9mm ammo to practice with. In terms of looking at the bright side, my wife shot Intermediate Thursday and Friday, and averaged about 15 points higher on each test than during her previous visit in the fall, showing that our training is paying off. I shot 629 points for the week, and averaged 105, 10 points higher each test than in the fall, also showing our training is helping me. I learned that for me, still able to see the front sight, this generation of RDS in the form of the current RMR is not an advantage over iron sights as I realistically think I would use a pistol. I also realized that the M&P 9mm, with its accuracy problems, has been a major distraction. Given the difference in how you shoot an RDS compared to iron sights, I need to devote some focused training to regaining my ability to focus hard on the front sight, rather than floating the dot on the target.

[JHC]

Very interesting analysis. Congrats on the scores.

[Al T.]

Thanks for the write up. :)

[YVK]

G., first of, congratulations on an excellent performance. Even though you didn't meet your own expectations of shooting multiple advanced scores, you have clearly progressed a ton, and missing advanced by 1 point out of 125 shows that you getting that rating is a matter of time. Special congrats to C. on meeting her goals!

Second, kudos on analysis of RDS vs irons. In our private discussions, you've been an optimist about RDS and I've been a skeptic. It takes honesty to come out and say that stuff you've invested so much into may not be what you hoped for. Having said that, I find myself in an interesting position of "defending" RDS, based on your report, for those users like you who adapted well to it:

- 3 points average and peak-to-peak difference could've been easily explained by other factors, like your performance, "grooving" into a course of fire towards the end of the class or any other random things

- I know you like Rogers course of fire. However challenging and stimulating it might be, it is just one course of fire, there are many more out there. I have taken classes where RDS would've been a massive advantage - just from last year, T.A.P.S comes to mind. RMR may not get you advanced on FAST or Rogers, but in a practical sense, who knows what's more important - mow down 7 appearing targets WHO one bullet at a time, or being able to hit target at 75 yards in Alaskan wilderness. It is not even worth argument that RDS is better for pure accuracy when time constraints are relatively lax. The night shoot - how did RDS do there? That story about a dude going from below intermediate to high-shooter advanced is telling too.

I guess I am trying to say that your report to me was more of a validation of technology which is only in its second generation rather than an indictment against it - even though I myself remain committed to irons for the time being.

[GJM]

A few thoughts. While shooting 110 once gets you the Advanced pin, my idea of Advanced is someone that consistently shoots above 110 throughout the week, as opposed to having one special day. My training objective is to increase my average for the week by 10 points a test.

While six applications of a 125 point test may be closer to data than anecdote, I agree that the small difference between my RDS and iron sight scores is hardly significant. However, since I can use iron sights, to accept the drawbacks of an RDS (expense, battery dependency, subject to rain/snow, holster issues, and issues with reserve sights), I am looking for a measurable, significant increase in performance in the order of 15-20 per cent. Clearly, I did not get that level of performance increase. Now if you can't use iron sights, and your options are a laser, RDS or the Judge, the RDS is clearly the choice. I am not pessimistic about RDS technology, it has just not matured to the level of an Aimpoint on a carbine, where the benefit is enormous and there are virtually no downsides.

My guess is the TAPS program is like it is, primarily because that instructor carries a custom 1911. If I primarily wanted to shoot 50-100 yards, I would rather carry one of my good 1911 pistols with iron sights than a Glock/M&P with a RMR, since bullseye type shooting will always favor a match barrel and light trigger pull. That said, my wife and I were just shooting at 25 yards with our iron sight Glock 17's, and we could keep all our hits in the head box of a PF target, and most in the 3x5 area, which certainly translates into A zone hits at 50 yards. In dim light, the RMR is certainly an advantage, but in darkness I would rather have iron sights and a weapon light, as I do fine at night, and the RDS dot is much harder to find at night without index cues that require seeing the pistol.

In summary, I think the RDS handgun technology is still evolving, and very promising, but for my eyes, today, shooting iron sights is the best way for me to improve my ability, and be proficient with a practical weapon system that is likely to be most durable in the weather extremes and mountainous areas that I often frequent.

[jetfire]

So, an interesting point: I've noticed that I will generally perform 15-25% worse in "match" conditions than I do in practice. It wouldn't surprise me if you were able to shoot the Rogers course without any pressure that you'd be able to get over your 110 pretty easily. A thought.

[PPGMD]

So, an interesting point: I've noticed that I will generally perform 15-25% worse in "match" conditions than I do in practice. It wouldn't surprise me if you were able to shoot the Rogers course without any pressure that you'd be able to get over your 110 pretty easily. A thought.

Some people are the opposite, under test pressure they are able to deliver better results (a few percentage points, nothing huge), as they aren't trying to think things through like they do in practice, but instead are just doing it.

[farscott]

That sounds just like me as I am both cross-eye dominant and having tons of trouble focusing on the front sight. I hope the RDS makes as much difference as I am really struggling right now. New eyeglasses have helped, but that is a short-term fix only.

Thanks for the great course review. I have been interested in Rogers, and I am going to need an RDS course.
Second, I think if you are unable to see the front sight, the RDS is a god send. In fact, one shooter there that did extremely well, shooting Advanced with a high score of 117, had a previous high score in the 80's shooting iron sights. He not only had trouble seeing the front sight, but was cross eye dominant, and for him the RDS was like a night and day difference.

[DocGKR]

FYI--Mac shoots both a 1911 and a Glock, depending on which organization he is training; he shoots them both very well... TAPS is NOT set up for a particular pistol type--I shot an M&P when I took it last summer and had no problems with the course of fire.

[Leozinho]

So, an interesting point: I've noticed that I will generally perform 15-25% worse in "match" conditions than I do in practice. It wouldn't surprise me if you were able to shoot the Rogers course without any pressure that you'd be able to get over your 110 pretty easily. A thought.

Even if true, I don't think it's matters. Lot of golfers shoot even par in the middle of the week when practicing, but when the club championship is on the line they choke. Or I can shoot GM level classifier all day long in practice, but that doesn't mean anything. What matters is how I do on the classifiers in matches.

(I can't actually shoot GM level classifiers in practice. Just making a point. )

[GJM]

If one can perform 15-25% better in practice than on a test/match, it would seem that figuring out the psychology that would allow you to perform as well on a test as in practice would yield one of the biggest performance opportunities. Since it has been 15 years since I shot in formal competition, I definitely felt stress during the Rogers tests.

I think Rogers results are probably more statistically "reliable," in that there are six separate 125 shot tests, given over five days. For giggles, I just calculated what my score would have been if my worst and best performance on each of the nine separate shooting tests was combined into one test. My score for combining my worst performance on each of the nine tests would have been 94, and combining my best score on each test would have given me a 116. Comparing this visit to my two previous ones, I had much less variability in daily performance, with a range of only 102-109, or 7 points, for the six tests. Visit one, I had a range of 25 points, and visit two a range of 23 points.

Mostly, I need to figure out how to better on test 8, the support hand 23 shot blast drill, where I did the worse of all the nine tests. What is weird, is I shot test 7, another support hand test clean the last three tests, so clearly I need to see the support hand blast shrink. Maybe HeadHunter is available.

[ToddG]

First, major kudos to Mrs. GJM!

Second, thank you for the objective and honest evaluation of how the RDS did for you at Rogers. Anyone who's been reading this forum for the past few months knows that wasn't just some random off the cuff assessment and that you've invested a significant amount of time and money into making RDS work for you.

Finally, in terms of your disappointment about not seeing more improvement: dude, seriously, you switch your gear too much. You're an experimenter and tinkerer at heart and if that's where you want to be, so be it. But if you really want to see the kind of improvement necessary to make yourself a consistent 110+ shooter at RSS, you need to stop fiddling with hardware and start fiddling with software.

[GJM]

Todd, my only disappointment was that the RDS did not deliver the performance gain over iron sights, that I had hoped for. It has almost been accepted as "settled science" that once you learned to acquire the red dot reliably, the red dot would do almost everything better. My experience did not support that theory.

In that my average test score went up 10 points, since the last time I was there, and I had devoted the bulk of my training time to the RDS, I was actually pleased with my continued improvement. That said, I agree with your assessment that my, and most shooter's opportunity for continued improvement is in software and not hardware, and essentially said that in my initial post with a reference to a Glock 17 and a truck load of 9mm ammo. It would be a lot easier if you could buy ability with hardware, but while hardware makes for lots of fun internet discussion, ultimately the hardware is irrelevant, and it really gets down to hard work.

[High Country]

GJM,

Any possibility that you did better with the irons since you had already shot the COF four times that week?

[HeadHunter]

The jump from ~100 to 110 is the hardest hurdle at Rogers, IMO. At that point, it becomes less technical skill and more mental Zen that makes you or breaks you. Even Rob Leatham demonstrated that when he shot it.

Test 8 can be a bear. While it represents 18% of the targets in the Test, statistically you can still only miss 2(.76) targets and stay on track for Advanced. The difference between Tests 7 and 8 is that 7 is easily programmed in your mind but 8 is not. None of the instructors, nor Bill, attempt to memorize the Test 8 sequence; it has to be shot on a reactive basis.

Reactive shooting has a significant mental component to it. If you think about it, you probably won't do it well. You have to let your subconscious mind run the gun; the conscious mind cannot help the effort once the action gets started. In that sense, I will echo Todd about software development, but we may mean different things in using that term. The Book of Five Rings might provide some useful insight.

I agree that the Testing program can probably be shot with a higher score out of the class environment. My highest practice score was 118, but my high Test score in a class was 115. The pressure cooker environment of the class is what makes it worthy.

[GJM]

Headhunter, that is very helpful. On most of the tests, and for example test 7, there is no time to think -- so I performed at a subconscious level. On test 8, I tried to think my way through it, and that obviously didn't work so well. When I shot 109 in the rain, I dropped 10 points on test 8, meaning I only dropped 11 points on the other 8 tests combined, comprising 102 points.

[HeadHunter]

When I shot 109 in the rain, I dropped 10 points on test 8, meaning I only dropped 11 points on the other 8 tests combined, comprising 102 points.
If you dropped 10 points on Test 8, I think more likely you dropped 6 points on the other tests combined, which is very respectable.

[GJM]

Oops, my bad on the math -- you are correct.

[DocGKR]

GJM—I must be missing something here. If I understand your narrative correctly, on this third trip to Rogers, after only a few months practice and only 10K rounds split between two different pistol types you successfully shot an RMR equipped pistol essentially the same as an iron sighted one (3 points difference) and both your RDS and iron sight scores were substantially better than your initial trip to Rogers only one year ago. I would be thrilled at such performance gains and am utterly unclear why you think your RDS experiment was a failure. I have to ask what your expectations were and whether they were realistic. In addition, I am curious why your performance at Rogers is the standard you are comparing yourself against.

I have not had an opportunity to attend Rogers as yet, but many military and LE colleagues have done so. Rogers is very good at teaching and testing one particular marksmanship task-set fired against a sequence of generally non-random targets. Unless you erroneously plan on standing basically stock still while in gunfights with multiple opponents who thankfully appear in the same sequence most every time, then Rogers, as good as it is for specific marksmanship skills, may NOT be a realistic measure of combat/self-defense shooting competence when looked at in aggregate.

You wrote:

” It has almost been accepted as "settled science" that once you learned to acquire the red dot reliably, the red dot would do almost everything better. My experience did not support that theory.”

I have been involved with RDS handgun trials for a bit over 2 years now. In our experience it takes a lot of dry firing/drawing and thousands of live rounds to become proficient with an RDS. After 2 years, I am still not as quite as fast using the RDS as I was with iron sights, however, I am substantially more accurate with the RDS, especially at longer ranges. Anyone who claims an RDS equipped pistol is as fast as irons is delusional, but pure speed is NOT the only factor in real world shooting incidents. Shooting at moving targets and when moving is substantially easier with the RDS. The RDS also offers advantages in reduced light shooting. In addition, the RDS allows the shooter to remain fully focused on the threat and not have to transition back to the front sight prior to firing—this is an incredibly SIGNIFICANT factor in the real world!

Again, what were you expecting to occur? How is your accuracy at ranges 25 yds and beyond with an RDS vs. irons? What is the difference when shooting at targets moving laterally and at oblique angles when using an RDS vs. irons? How is the comparison when you are moving and shooting? Have you noticed any difference in shooting an RDS vs. irons in low light conditions?

Until those types of questions are addressed, I am not sure you should be so critical of your attempts with an RDS. Keep in mind I am NOT stating that an RDS is better or superior than irons.

More importantly, as noted above, you might be better off to pick one pistol type, one sight type, and then go shoot and train with it for at least a year and preferably a decade or so over a wide array of shooting conditions. Only then will you truly begin to get a good measure of your shooting abilities.

[GOP]

Excellent review of the RDS at Rogers, GJM. Very enlightening.

Can someone give the COF used by Mac at TAPS? I'm very interested.

[DocGKR]

Try this: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1254-Pat-McNamara-TAPS-Pistol-6-30-amp-7-1-in-Castro-Valley-CA

[GJM]

My responses are in bold type and underline, interspersed with your comments, and then following at the end in regular font.


GJM—I must be missing something here. If I understand your narrative correctly, on this third trip to Rogers, after only a few months practice and only 10K rounds split between two different pistol types you successfully shot an RMR equipped pistol essentially the same as an iron sighted one (3 points difference) and both your RDS and iron sight scores were substantially better than your initial trip to Rogers only one year ago. I would be thrilled at such performance gains and am utterly unclear why you think your RDS experiment was a failure. I have to ask what your expectations were and whether they were realistic. In addition, I am curious why your performance at Rogers is the standard you are comparing yourself against.

I set a minimum of 15 per cent improvement, as measured on the Rogers School test, as my personal threshold to compensate for the negatives of the RDS (battery dependency, rain/snow/dirt susceptibility, BUIS compromises, etc.). I used the Rogers test because it is a comprehensive shooting test, with enough shots (125) and enough applications of the test (6) to offer more than anecdotal data.

I have not had an opportunity to attend Rogers as yet, but many military and LE colleagues have done so. Rogers is very good at teaching and testing one particular marksmanship task-set fired against a sequence of generally non-random targets. Unless you erroneously plan on standing basically stock still while in gunfights with multiple opponents who thankfully appear in the same sequence most every time, then Rogers, as good as it is for specific marksmanship skills, may NOT be a realistic measure of combat/self-defense shooting competence when looked at in aggregate.

Rogers is a shooting school, and I was trying to measure the pure shoot ability of the RDS.

You wrote:

I have been involved with RDS handgun trials for a bit over 2 years now. In our experience it takes a lot of dry firing/drawing and thousands of live rounds to become proficient with an RDS. After 2 years, I am still not as quite as fast using the RDS as I was with iron sights, however, I am substantially more accurate with the RDS, especially at longer ranges. Anyone who claims an RDS equipped pistol is as fast as irons is delusional, but pure speed is NOT the only factor in real world shooting incidents. Shooting at moving targets and when moving is substantially easier with the RDS. The RDS also offers advantages in reduced light shooting. In addition, the RDS allows the shooter to remain fully focused on the threat and not have to transition back to the front sight prior to firing—this is an incredibly SIGNIFICANT factor in the real world!

Shooting on the move feels easier with the RDS, but I didn't see that reflected in hits being measurably better compared to shooting irons on the move. In reduced light, I agree the RDS is a benefit. In full dark, I think the RDS is harder to shoot, because the dot is harder to acquire without being able to see the slide and BUIS.

Again, what were you expecting to occur? How is your accuracy at ranges 25 yds and beyond with an RDS vs. irons? What is the difference when shooting at targets moving laterally and at oblique angles when using an RDS vs. irons? How is the comparison when you are moving and shooting? Have you noticed any difference in shooting an RDS vs. irons in low light conditions?

Accuracy beyond 25 yards is better with the RDS. As stated above, I prefer the RDS in dim light, but irons in the dark. Transitions can be better or worse with the RDS -- easier within a certain range of movement because of the single aiming point, harder with large movements where you lead with your eyes and have to reacquire the dot.

Until those types of questions are addressed, I am not sure you should be so critical of your attempts with an RDS. Keep in mind I am NOT stating that an RDS is better or superior than irons.

More importantly, as noted above, you might be better off to pick one pistol type, one sight type, and then go shoot and train with it for at least a year and preferably a decade or so over a wide array of shooting conditions. Only then will you truly begin to get a good measure of your shooting abilities.

Shooting over 10,000 rounds thru an RMR between December and early March, in focused practice, and attending a class at Universal Shooting Academy, is a significant commitment to training. That my average Rogers test score increased 10 points, with both irons and RDS, over the period November 2011 to March 2012, and my wife's score increased by an average of 15 points, underscores that our training was effective. I was frankly surprised that my experience yielded the results it did, as I expected the RDS to meet my 15 per cent performance increase threshold. However, I also felt the responsibility to accurately report what I experienced.

Most reports and reviews I have seen on the RDS on a handgun are anecdotal in terms of actual performance. I attempted to test the RDS is the most analytical way I know -- shoot a lot of rounds in focused training and go test it on a known test, repeated a number of times. I would love to see others test the RDS over known tests and report back.

I had an discussion with the red pin shooter at this month's Rogers class on the platform focus issue, as he primarily shot a Glock but also shot a Sig 226 during the night shoot. His opinion is that he shoots a Glock, 1911, Beretta and Sig, as a military trainer, and it really doesn't matter what he is shooting -- since it comes down to aligning the sights and pulling the trigger. Bill Rogers and HeadHunter obviously feel the same way. You and Todd feel differently. No big deal, different strokes for different folks, but ultimately I look at results on standardized tests like Rogers, the FASTest, etc., as the proof of whether my training and equipment choices are resulting in continued improvement in my shooting.

I continue to be optimistic about the RDS on a handgun, and feel it is the future of handgun sighting systems. For someone that can't see the front sight or is cross eye dominant, it is a god send. However, I have to be realistic about my experience with the RDS, and wonder whether there will be technology improvements that will cause the RDS to perform better for me and have fewer downsides.

[DocGKR]

"I was frankly surprised that my experience yielded the results it did, as I expected the RDS to meet my 15 per cent performance increase threshold."

This is the part I am not fully understanding--why did you think it would give a 15% performance increase?

Our experience has been that you are doing quite well if a handgun RDS can EQUAL iron sight performance when quickly shooting at 15 yds and closer; the real benefits of the RDS occurs at longer ranges, with movement, and in low light. I thought you did very well shooting both irons and RDS equally well.

I concur that with a handgun RDS in total darkness it can be difficult to acquire the dot, but in low light, it is advantageous. Lasers can also be useful in such situations, but give your position away, if that is a concern.

[ToddG]

As an aside, I do not concur with the assertion that a RDS works better shooting on the move. When real dynamic movement and obstacle considerations come into play (e.g., the figure eight barrel still), I've consistently seen most RDS guys either miss a lot or slow WAY down.

[DocGKR]

Quick movement up close under 12 yds or so could pose an issue, just like with rapid static shooting at close range; moving toward and engaging an active shooter in a larger open area such as a school, shopping mall, airport, etc... the RDS appears to offer a substantial advantage in the practice drills I've witnessed.

[JodyH]

Mission determines the loadout.
For a ccw the rds seems to be less than optimal.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

It all depends. Many have found it quite optimal for CCW.

[JodyH]

Quick movement up close under 12 yds or so could pose an issue, just like with rapid static shooting at close range;
So it's sub-optimal for both quick movement and static shooting at close range, yet is optimal for CCW?
:confused:

Sounds to me like a RDS on a revolver is what you're looking for.
:D

[GJM]

This is the part I am not fully understanding--why did you think it would give a 15% performance increase?

Our experience has been that you are doing quite well if a handgun RDS can EQUAL iron sight performance when quickly shooting at 15 yds and closer; the real benefits of the RDS occurs at longer ranges, with movement, and in low light. I thought you did very well shooting both irons and RDS equally well.


I really like a red dot on a carbine, shotgun shooting slugs, and even my stopping heavy caliber bolt rifles. The red dot definitely allows me to shoot better than just iron sights, and brings virtually no negatives in terms of battery life, durability, mounting, and the ability to be quickly removed. In contrast, the current generation of red dot optics for handguns, as typified by the RMR and Delta Point, bring negatives in terms of battery life, ease of replacing batteries, mounting, the ability to be quickly removed, and most critically -- in the size of the optic's windows as regards getting the dot reliably.

In addition, my personal threat assessment may be different in that I believe my biggest risk of injury is by a bear or other dangerous four leg adversary. For an animal to hurt me, it must be close enough to touch me. In terms of long range threats, I have always maintained proficiency in the 50-100 yard envelope, and I am frequently accompanied by my wife, who shoots even better than I do at long range.

For my assessment of the perceived negatives of the red dot on a handgun, unlike on a long gun where there are essentially no negatives, combined with my own threat assessment, I arbitrarily established a minimum performance threshold of increased performance necessary with the RDS on a handgun to offset the negatives. Further, in that the Rogers school test is relatively RDS friendly, comprised of steel targets from 7-22 yards, without the necessity of multiple shots to the same target, unlike for example stopping a charging moose or bear, I decided that I needed that performance difference to make sense for me and justify not carrying a solely iron sighted handgun.

As someone that has closely followed red dot sights on a handgun, what I have not seen is quantitative data comparing the relative performance of the red dot versus iron sights on known drills by the SAME shooter. Doc, what would be helpful would be if you, and other experienced red dot handgun shooters, would shoot a series of known drills with the RDS and iron sights and present that data. That would help me, and others, understand whether the RDS in its present form makes sense, or whether a shooter able to see their front sight should hold off for a new generation of red dot sights for the handgun that has a less critical optical window, better battery life, and different mounting options.

[rsa-otc]

As an aside, I do not concur with the assertion that a RDS works better shooting on the move. When real dynamic movement and obstacle considerations come into play (e.g., the figure eight barrel still), I've consistently seen most RDS guys either miss a lot or slow WAY down.

Not that I'm considering RDS at the moment, but I find this discussion interesting. Todd, why do you think there was such a performance problem while navigating around obstacles? Do you think the shooter lost sight of the DOT while splitting his attention between the target and the obstacle and then had trouble reacquiring the DOT?

I really like the idea of being able to be threat focused with the RDS system. That to me is the largest advantage I can see for RDS sights in any real world confrontation. In an article in the Force Science news I read that experienced shooters who have put many rounds down range develop a good reference for their iron sights actually look through their sights focusing on the threat in real life confrontations. An experienced shooter has yet to develop that reference point and needs to focus on the front sight to make the hit. If we can develop a way for the inexperienced shooter to be able to reliably acquire the DOT quickly this may be a quantum leap for them. At this point though I'm hearing that thousands of rounds need to go down range to be able to reliably use RDS systems on a handgun. Might as well spend the money spent on RDS on ammo and develop the point of reference with iron sights.

Of course RDS on defensive handguns is in it's infancy and as with all systems will get better with time and development.

Thanks to DocGKR and GJM for taking the time and money to help this system along. Without people such as them we would still be shooting cap and ball single shot pistols.

[ToddG]

Not that I'm considering RDS at the moment, but I find this discussion interesting. Todd, why do you think there was such a performance problem while navigating around obstacles? Do you think the shooter lost sight of the DOT while splitting his attention between the target and the obstacle and then had trouble reacquiring the DOT?

That's one part of it, and I think an important part.

There's also the fact that when the shooter is moving in a chaotic manner changing distance and angle to target constantly it is much harder to keep the gun and sight aligned with the target well enough to stay on the dot.

In my admittedly limited experience, the RDS works swell when folks are moving straight forward or backward or they're moving at what I would consider a useless pace. Once you start moving with a purpose -- why else would you SOM? -- the RDS just doesn't give enough visual feedback to aim properly at speed.


I really like the idea of being able to be threat focused with the RDS system.

I'm with you 100% and it's why I'm such a big fan of lasers. But of course lasers don't work under nearly as wide a set of environmental parameters.

[rsa-otc]

In my admittedly limited experience, the RDS works swell when folks are moving straight forward or backward or they're moving at what I would consider a useless pace. Once you start moving with a purpose -- why else would you SOM? -- the RDS just doesn't give enough visual feedback to aim properly at speed.

Now I'm probibly going to answer my own question here but, RDS has been used in USPSA open for years with sucess. Could that be because while they are running with purpose for low percentage targets they stop to shoot and any they shoot on the run were targets so close they are actually point shooting and not using the sights iron, RDS or otherwise?

[ToddG]

RDS in IPSC is a whole different animal. The RDS is mounted to the frame (in part because they figured out long ago that reciprocating red dot sights don't work as well) and the pistol is usually powerfully compensated to keep muzzle rise -- and thus sight lift and misalignment of the dot -- to a minimum. If you've ever shot a really well put together Open gun with match ammo, muzzle flip is comparable to a flashlight's.

[DocGKR]

"Doc, what would be helpful would be if you, and other experienced red dot handgun shooters, would shoot a series of known drills with the RDS and iron sights and present that data."

There is a lot of quantifiable data available here at this forum, as I have shot every DOW with an RDS and posted the results...


"In contrast, the current generation of red dot optics for handguns, as typified by the RMR and Delta Point, bring negatives in terms of battery life, ease of replacing batteries, mounting, the ability to be quickly removed, and most critically -- in the size of the optic's windows as regards getting the dot reliably."

Our first batch of RMR's are now at 2 years, 3 months on their first batteries and still going. Changing batteries is not a huge deal. I have taken them on and off several times to check for zero shift--there is not much on a properly installed sight. There are some end-users running RMR's on their long guns, just like on handguns. Also a fair number of folks are experimenting with using the same type of micro-Aimpoints they use on their carbines on their handguns--one optic, one battery...


"I'm with you 100% and it's why I'm such a big fan of lasers. But of course lasers don't work under nearly as wide a set of environmental parameters."

I think the combination of an RDS with an ergonomic, reliable, bright green laser is going yield substantial benefits.


So it's sub-optimal for both quick movement and static shooting at close range, yet is optimal for CCW?"

Sub-optimal? No, just different strengths--bet the initial off-duty responder at Trolley Square wishes he had an RDS equipped handgun...

[joshs]

RDS in IPSC is a whole different animal. The RDS is mounted to the frame (in part because they figured out long ago that reciprocating red dot sights don't work as well) and the pistol is usually powerfully compensated to keep muzzle rise -- and thus sight lift and misalignment of the dot -- to a minimum. If you've ever shot a really well put together Open gun with match ammo, muzzle flip is comparable to a flashlight's.

The most popular RDS for Open also has a much larger window than any of the current slide mounted RDSs. Even so, it is not uncommon to see an Open shooter dot hunting, especially when shooting SHO/WHO or on stages that require awkward positions.

[NickA]

muzzle flip is comparable to a flashlight's.
Awesome



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[GJM]

There is a lot of quantifiable data available here at this forum, as I have shot every DOW with an RDS and posted the results..

What we need is for you and others to shoot these drills with BOTH a RDS and iron sights, so we can compare performance.

[joshs]

GJM -- I think he answered your question, although not with actual data, here:


Our experience has been that you are doing quite well if a handgun RDS can EQUAL iron sight performance when quickly shooting at 15 yds and closer; the real benefits of the RDS occurs at longer ranges, with movement, and in low light. I thought you did very well shooting both irons and RDS equally well.

If you look at the DotWs, I think that Doc's observation is reflected in his scores.

[vandal]

Great thread.

Has anyone run a RMR-equipped Sims gun in FOF and reported on their findings? Draw & shoot and even shooting on the move against known static targets probably isn't revealing the fully important set of advantages and disadvantages. Given the reduced range of Sim & airsoft guns, it would be the characteristics of the RMR -other- than pure accuracy that would be brought to the surface.

I'm on my second RMR experiment and only carry that gun when longer-range shots (50yds+) are more likely (mall or church). I don't require any vision correction so my RMR experiment is focused on whether it gets me solid hits at equal or better speed in a realistic situation. I don't want to optimize for the low-likelihood long-range shot if doing so detracts from my higher-likelihood short-range performance.

[DocGKR]

"What we need is for you and others to shoot these drills with BOTH a RDS and iron sights, so we can compare performance. "

Sorry, but I can't be of much help with that one. As I noted in the previous threads (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1763-RDS-on-a-SemiAuto/page3 and http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1059-Use-of-RDS-on-service-pistols) if I still had perfect vision, I might consider staying with iron sights due to the speed advantage up close; however, given the vision changes following my bicycle accident induced basilar skull fracture in 2 years ago, as well as the onset of middle-age presbyopia, my iron sight capability is no longer at a level I find acceptable.

In addition to regular training, during 2011 I shot several handgun classes including ToddG (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?405-AAR-Photo-Thread-for-TLG-Get-SOM-Speed-Kills-Sacramento-CA-March-12-13), Pat McNamara (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1254-Pat-McNamara-TAPS-Pistol-6-30-amp-7-1-in-Castro-Valley-CA), as well Kyle Defoor (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1729-AAR-Kyle-Defoor-2-Day-Advanced-Handgun-Sept.-14-15-2011-Castro-Valley-CA). Even though I am still a bit slower with an RDS equipped pistol than I used to be with irons, at no time did using the RDS leave me feeling I was performing "sub-optimally during quick movement or static shooting at close range"--in fact I was among the top shooters for many of the drills in the classes and feel perfectly well armed using an RDS equipped pistol for daily CCW carry.

[lcarr]

RDS in IPSC is a whole different animal. The RDS is mounted to the frame (in part because they figured out long ago that reciprocating red dot sights don't work as well) and the pistol is usually powerfully compensated to keep muzzle rise -- and thus sight lift and misalignment of the dot -- to a minimum. If you've ever shot a really well put together Open gun with match ammo, muzzle flip is comparable to a flashlight's.

...and a C-More has a much larger, more forgiving lens than the smaller red dots people are mounting on slides. As for red dots somehow not working in principle when moving quickly or erratically, I'm your huckleberry--with my Open gun. :^)

[joshs]

As for red dots somehow not working in principle when moving quickly or erratically, I'm your huckleberry

The slide mounted RDS can definitely work well, especially on a properly compensated pistol, but I don't think you can claim that it works as well as a frame mounted RDS. You only have to look at the pistols used by the winners of major matches in Open. At least here (USPSA), all of them use a frame mounted dot.

[ToddG]

Had a student come through AFHF with a RDS this weekend. He was legitimately invested and tried sincerely to make it work for him. At the end of the class he opted to re-shoot a few drills using an iron sighted gun and -- not surprisingly -- decided the RDS wasn't working for him as well as the traditional metal sights. A few other students took the opportunity to try the gun and came to similar conclusions unanimously.

[DocGKR]

If you don't need it, don't use it.

On the other hand, those who do, find them quite helpful.

[JHC]

If you don't need it, don't use it.

On the other hand, those who do, find them quite helpful.

My day is coming for sure. A pal has gotten the LED RMR mounted on a dedicated G19 upper and I was stunned at the "crispness" of the dot. My eyes don't tolerate Aimpoint "dots" at all and this RMR would be a serious contender for my lightweight BCM carbine.

[GJM]

Had a student come through AFHF with a RDS this weekend. He was legitimately invested and tried sincerely to make it work for him. At the end of the class he opted to re-shoot a few drills using an iron sighted gun and -- not surprisingly -- decided the RDS wasn't working for him as well as the traditional metal sights. A few other students took the opportunity to try the gun and came to similar conclusions unanimously.

Assuming the student was well transitioned to the RDS, I think that is another interesting data point. What others with no experience with a RDS think is almost irrelevant, since it is not like a Aimpoint on an AR, where the transition is the time it takes to mount the carbine to your shoulder the first time. When I handed my RMR M&P to Grand Master, Manny Bragg, he handled the pistol for 30 seconds and then asked how to turn the dot on, underscoring the issue around the difficulty acquiring the dot.

[ToddG]

If you don't need it, don't use it.
On the other hand, those who do, find them quite helpful.

Doc, as I've said in the past when we talked privately, I really wish more folks understood this and said it publicly. Most of the folks who use and advocate the RDS are turning it into a religion and acting as if the rest of us "just don't get it." You're the only person I know who uses an RDS, shoots it well, and still understands -- and says! -- that it isn't the answer for everyone.

In contrast, I probably usually come off as being an RDS hater. But in reality I'm in 100% agreement with you. If an RDS is something a shooter needs due to vision issues then absolutely it's better to shoot well with an RDS than shoot poorly with iron sights.

[DocGKR]

Check.

If you have vision issues, a handgun RDS can be the answer.

Likewise, for certain specific operational requirements and mission sets, a handgun mounted RDS is an excellent tool.

Finally, the ability to fully focus on the threat at hand can be a significant advantage in lethal force situations.

If you can't find the RDS dot, just shoot using the BIS, exactly as on any other pistol...

[GJM]

Doc, as I've said in the past when we talked privately, I really wish more folks understood this and said it publicly. Most of the folks who use and advocate the RDS are turning it into a religion and acting as if the rest of us "just don't get it." You're the only person I know who uses an RDS, shoots it well, and still understands -- and says! -- that it isn't the answer for everyone.

In contrast, I probably usually come off as being an RDS hater. But in reality I'm in 100% agreement with you. If an RDS is something a shooter needs due to vision issues then absolutely it's better to shoot well with an RDS than shoot poorly with iron sights.

More than just for someone that can't see the front sight, and/or is cross eye dominant, I was led to believe that the RDS, in its current state of technology, offered a performance gain over iron sights. Obviously that did not to turn out to be the case for me.

Now, to read if you don't need it, which I take to mean having vision issues, don't use it, is a far cry from what I understood at the time I started using a RDS back in the late fall.

[ksxdguy]

Had a student come through AFHF with a RDS this weekend. He was legitimately invested and tried sincerely to make it work for him. At the end of the class he opted to re-shoot a few drills using an iron sighted gun and -- not surprisingly -- decided the RDS wasn't working for him as well as the traditional metal sights. A few other students took the opportunity to try the gun and came to similar conclusions unanimously.

Hello everyone,

I'm the student that Todd mentions above. Before I comment, thanks again, Todd, for a great weekend.

I'm relating how I came to the "RDS on a handgun" strategy, because I don't want others to make the same mistakes I did. In other words, go to an RDS for the right reasons. It started for me when I saw a picture on the cover of a gun magazine of a stunning M&P with a Deltapoint buried in the slide. This was a "I want that!" moment. In fact, it was a "I want three of them!" moment; 1) service size 45, 2) FS 9 and 3) compact 9. All of these were intended for carry, not competition.

Not being a complete idiot, I knew that I was not getting enough practice with the concept, so when the opportunity came to take Todd's class, I jumped on it to get some serious trigger time with the RDS. As expected, I continued to have trouble finding the dot (delta) at first, then later and then all day. At this point, I was thinking the dot was a great tool for teaching how much the gun wobbles while still getting a good hit, but not much else. This was especially apparent with the pressout. Todd, to his credit, took every opportunity to explain where I should deviate from his iron sight instruction to a better RDS technique. After a lot of soul searching that night, I came to class the next morning pumped to make another go. Right off, I was rewarded with a much improved FAST drill. As the day wore on, and I began to tire, the whole thing started to go bad again. Todd and I had an interesting conversation about the figure 8 barrel drill. His observation was that the RDS made this especially difficult. I said that I didn't find this to be the case necessarily, so he told me to mention this because he used this as an argument against the RDS. However, I think the difference in our speeds (think dragster vs. bicycle) and the fact that I felt about as mediocre regardless of the drill, negates my argument. The following are my conclusions:

1. I would like to take an RDS only class someday. I can't rule out a concept because I had a complete FAIL.
2. When I switched to an iron sighted slide assembly, my confidence and scores dramatically improved.
3. The RDS is a jealous mistress. For me, I would have to 100% practice with my RDS guns. As I said, these aren't competition guns, so where is most of my shooting? My Limited M&P Pro.
4. I know the concept of picking up your backup sights not the RDS, so that the RDS automatically appears above the rear sight. In other words, don't pick up the dot, pick up your irons. However, nothing about this changes the fact that after every single shot was made, my sight picture completely disappeared. This will never work for me until that issue is solved. Period.
5. Right now, my guns are iron sighted ones. Hmmm, what to do with RDS slides?
6. This was one ^&^&%(&ing expensive experiment.

My best to all,
Jeff

[DocGKR]

I shot FAST today with irons and RDS, clean scores below:

G19 w/RMR07: 5.93/5.92/5.01
G19 w/Warrens: 5.33

[HeadHunter]

I shot FAST today with irons and RDS, clean scores below:

G19 w/RMR07: 5.93/5.92/5.01
G19 w/Warrens: 5.33

That would be a mean of 5.62 and a median of 5.92 with the RMR. Interesting.

[goteron]

I did an experiment with irons / RMR02 like doc and was slightly faster with irons initially, after running the drill a few times however I became MUCH quicker with RDS.

[ToddG]

I shot FAST today with irons and RDS, clean scores below:

G19 w/RMR07: 5.93/5.92/5.01
G19 w/Warrens: 5.33

Not to volunteer your time, but I think it would be very interesting to see either a significant one-day dataset (shoot it ten times each way) or perhaps a longer-term dataset (shoot it twice each way every time you go to the range for the next 5-10 range sessions).

[EVP]

Just wanted to bump this old thread and see if any input can be added.


GJM I know you have started to favor Running a RDS and feel it has improved your iron shooting.

How do you feel about it now since you have dedicated more time to running RDS?

[GJM]

Just wanted to bump this old thread and see if any input can be added.


GJM I know you have started to favor Running a RDS and feel it has improved your iron shooting.

How do you feel about it now since you have dedicated more time to running RDS?

Wow, 2012 thread, time passes!

Circa 2017, I enjoy shooting a red dot pistol and long gun more than irons, and shoot them better than irons. I carry an iron sighted pistol, because there is not a red dot that meets my standards for carry (except the T1, which brings with it certain limitations).

I still believe the red dot makes me a better iron sight shooter, because it makes me more visual and helps me better understand trigger control. I look forward to Aimpoint or another manufacturer making a dot that allows me to go to a dot for EDC carry.

[EVP]

Thanks GJM

I have thought about playing around with a RMR but may hold off till better options are available.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

Wow, 2012 thread, time passes!

Circa 2017, I enjoy shooting a red dot pistol and long gun more than irons, and shoot them better than irons. I carry an iron sighted pistol, because there is not a red dot that meets my standards for carry (except the T1, which brings with it certain limitations).

I still believe the red dot makes me a better iron sight shooter, because it makes me more visual and helps me better understand trigger control. I look forward to Aimpoint or another manufacturer making a dot that allows me to go to a dot for EDC carry.

Do you think the RMR "2" that are hitting the market now (by market I mean Amazon Prime) are better suited and adequate for carry compared to their predecessor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

Do you think the RMR "2" that are hitting the market now (by market I mean Amazon Prime) are better suited and adequate for carry compared to their predecessor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I only know what I read here, but they seem a better RMR, as opposed to being a better pistol optic. For my use, I want a larger display, less curved/tinted display, and a dot that doesn't sometimes do funny things in weird sun angles and in visible moisture.

Regardless of whether you carry a dot, I believe serious students of shooting will benefit from having a red dot pistol, and incorporating it into their training. This afternoon, due to rainy conditions, I set up four eight inch steel plates, that I was shooting as fast as I could at 20 and 25 yards. I started with a Q5 with iron sights, went to a Q5/DP Pro, and then when I went back to irons, my speed was way faster than when I started with irons. I am sure this was due to seeing what trigger I could get away with, using the optic.

[Sigfan26]

Do you think the RMR "2" that are hitting the market now (by market I mean Amazon Prime) are better suited and adequate for carry compared to their predecessor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have MUCH better battery contacts (at least the ones I handled did).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JCN]

RDS context.

2012 initial posting by GJM
2017 update
2021 context on performance and utilization.

Note that the 507k and RMSc have smaller windows than the original RMRs.

“Best practice” and current state of skills march on.

Looks like DocGKR was ahead of his time.

These days when teaching new shooters, I train them on RDS to improve their irons.

[M2CattleCo]

I’ve been trying like a sunuvabich to love my 19X/RMR gun and it just ain’t happenin.

I’m very hesitant to get rid of it and not train with it at all because I’m 41 and the time may come, here pretty quick, where irons aren’t so great for my eyes and whatever I can manage with a dot is the best I can do.

But in the meantime…

I’ve watched a lot of videos, done a lot talking, done a lot of dry work, and launched about 4K rounds down range. I’ve come to the conclusion that pistol mounted red dots, are for me, a frustrating PITA with a lot of drawbacks, and one real advantage. Long range slow fire accuracy.

Low/no light, shooting while moving/moving targets, multiple targets up close, I’ve seen zero improvement and feel like I have to work harder to use the dot, and actually have begun to get into the habit of ignoring the dot and point shooting. One handed shooting has suffered.

The wobble zone perceptible with an RMR is CRAZY. The dot wobbles around from my hand shaking, and the image in the window has a strange slightly magnified/distorted mirrored wobble that moves in the opposite of the dot. Absolutely infuriating.

[Lon]

I’ve been trying like a sunuvabich to love my 19X/RMR gun and it just ain’t happenin.

I’m very hesitant to get rid of it and not train with it at all because I’m 41 and the time may come, here pretty quick, where irons aren’t so great for my eyes and whatever I can manage with a dot is the best I can do.

But in the meantime…

I’ve watched a lot of videos, done a lot talking, done a lot of dry work, and launched about 4K rounds down range. I’ve come to the conclusion that pistol mounted red dots, are for me, a frustrating PITA with a lot of drawbacks, and one real advantage. Long range slow fire accuracy.

Low/no light, shooting while moving/moving targets, multiple targets up close, I’ve seen zero improvement and feel like I have to work harder to use the dot, and actually have begun to get into the habit of ignoring the dot and point shooting. One handed shooting has suffered.

The wobble zone perceptible with an RMR is CRAZY. The dot wobbles around from my hand shaking, and the image in the window has a strange slightly magnified/distorted mirrored wobble that moves in the opposite of the dot. Absolutely infuriating.

Unless you need a true DUTY grade RDO like the RMR, switch out the RMR for an SRO. May make all the difference in the world.