Value of Pistol RDS vs other things

[ASH556]

As a comparative example, I shot a carbine match in 2011 where I was holding hard to the KISS iron-sighted carbine principles. I even took a Vickers Carbine class that same year with an iron-sighted carbine and beat out a lot of guys shooting guns with Aimpoints and Eotechs. However, when I gave in after the Vickers carbine class and put an Aimpoint on my carbine, my performance went up quite a bit. The RDS on a carbine is a force multiplier compared to shooting irons. That doesn't mean you cant do good work with irons, but its faster, easier, works better from odd positions, is more forgiving of poor index/head positioning, etc etc compared to shooting irons.

So, with all that out of the way, is it the same thing with an RDS on a pistol? In other words, can I expect to go buy an MOS Glock, bolt an ACRO to it, and see an instant real improvement in my pistol performance (accuracy at distance, speed, transitions, basically the visual part. I realize that grip and trigger have to still be there)?

Or, is it a "nice to have" but you're still better off with 3 G19's with good sights than 2 G19's; one having an ACRO?

Thought partially initialized from this post:

For gaming I would say it needs to go at least 10k+, and even for that, you need to have a primary/match gun with an optic you are gentle with, a training/dry fire gun that can see more abuse, and a backup training/match gun for when one of your others goes down. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like paying close to $1000 in match fees, ammo, gas, and lodging to have my optic die on me and ruin the whole match, so reliability is extremely important.

For LEO/Mil, unless you have vision issues that preclude you from using iron sights, I don't think any current optics are anywhere near reliable enough for use. For a LEO/mil with vision issues I'd still recommend a three gun system like above at the minimum, with the gun you carry every day seeing very low round count and usage.

[Duelist]

I am dot curious. I don’t have enough experience with one to have an informed opinion beyond “that’s going to take some work to get it to be useful.”

[1Rangemaster]

This is probably worth what you will pay for it, but yes, with a few caveats.
1)One needs a handgun of some sort, assuming a positive legal status.
2)Ammunition; the machine needs “fuel” to perform its function. Extra ammo for practice and skill verification.
3)Some form(s) of carriage. For example, I have an ankle holster, multiple belt holster and Wilderness pack for my G19s
4)Stock GLOCK sights don’t work for me. The GLOCK BOLD sights are very useful to me. I would not at this point put an RDS on until:
5) I had a quality handheld light(I’m assuming US CCW here). Then,
6) An ACRO or a Trijicon RMR2. These are the only ones I’m observing are “ready for prime time”. I leaned toward the ACRO for its closed emitter design.
Shooting games, “light” use and carry-whatever you can afford/live with.
I currently am using a Gen5 19MOS with ACRO mounted. Semi-obsessing over buis. I will duplicate setup when I settle on final configuration.
The RDSs give me a little more performance as measured so far.
I could see an argument for a WML before the RDS, particularly in “active” LE/Mil circumstances. JMO, YMMV, etc.

[GJM]

On a carbine, the red dot has basically zero learning curve. If you want the dot on a pistol to be an all around improvement, as opposed to just helping on certain shots, there a significant learning curve. I started and stopped a few times, before I went in completely. Now, iron sights feel about like irons on the carbine. :D

I believe the dot is ultimately the best current sighting system for a dedicated pistol enthusiast, while for someone unwilling to put in the effort, iron sights are better.

[TCinVA]

So, with all that out of the way, is it the same thing with an RDS on a pistol? In other words, can I expect to go buy an MOS Glock, bolt an ACRO to it, and see an instant real improvement in my pistol performance (accuracy at distance, speed, transitions, basically the visual part. I realize that grip and trigger have to still be there)?


So far I'm about 500 rounds in with my Gen5 Glock 17 MOS with an ACRO mounted and the answer for me is: Yes. I have a couple of thousand rounds through the gun without the ACRO in recent weeks to compare against and so far I've found that the ACRO allows me to shoot more quickly and accurately at 25 yards. Thusfar it has proven to be as beneficial to my performance with a handgun as the use of a laser. Except the ACRO works in all lighting conditions where the laser doesn't.

On drills like "the test" (10 rounds, 10 seconds, 10 yards) I was able to shoot it with a score of 97 or better in a time frame under 7 seconds routinely...and that was done from the draw. My absolute best run was a 100 point score in 6 seconds, with 6 x ring hits, done from the draw. I had plenty of 100's in the 6-7 second range.

My ability to hit a 3x5 card, a 2" circle, or a 1" square at 10 yards at speed increased. 2 shots into a 3x5 at 10 yards in under 2.5 seconds was easily doable. In under 2 was something I pulled of several times, but I'm not consistently able to accomplish that just yet because my presentation isn't quite as efficient as it needs to be to always instantly see the dot. I'm working on it.

Hitting a target at distance with plenty of time is worlds easier.

As I told someone else on the phone the other night, it's shooting with the easy button engaged.

For me, it has dramatically reduced uncertainty in my sight picture and allows me to focus more on working the trigger, which has produced notably better accuracy and speed. Especially when it comes to shooting at distances over 15 yards.

There are some caveats to this:

- Because so much of using a pistol well is proper trigger control anyway, it won't help you very much if you suck in that department. You can succumb to command detonation as easily with the red dot as you can with irons...but because of the red dot it's much easier to see that you've done that because the dot moves wrong. You can instantly tell you shanked that one and you will need to make a better trigger press the next time. For me that translates into fewer shanked shots, especially on 25 yard bullseye.

- I have spent a fair bit of time in my life training to use a laser. I have learned to accept the movement inherent to using a laser on a pistol. The dot works essentially the same way, in that it will be in constant motion on the target and you have to accept the wobble and press the trigger properly.

- I am a pretty fair hand with a pistol to start with. I will never make Bob Vogel stay awake at night, but I don't suck too bad neither. So that helps.

- I don't panic if I can't find the dot instantly. I will look for the front sight and get it to where I can see the dot. I can do that because I have a lot of training in finding the front sight to draw upon, and I've set my gun up with co-witnessing sights.



Or, is it a "nice to have" but you're still better off with 3 G19's with good sights than 2 G19's; one having an ACRO?

Thought partially initialized from this post:

It's nice to have. Very, very nice to have.

I have intentionally waited for a number of years for the right combo of gun and optic to hit the market. I have a feeling the ACRO will become the optic most used in .mil and LE circles for a red dot solution rather quickly.

I know for certain that many future large LE contracts for handguns will require some sort of factory RDS mounting solution.

I've waited for the right combo of gun and optic to hit the market to be essentially version 1.0 of the concept. Pretty much everything else up to this point has been beta testing. I think the Glock MOS guns with an ACRO is going to be version 1.0, and I think you will find that it's a combo that will become much more wide spread in LE use in the next few years.

[ubervic]

ASH556, you're a good shooter with irons. Unless you are having vision issues, you may not see a huge advantage with the red dot. But you owe it to yourself to sample it, somehow.

I moved to rds only a few months ago, after finding my struggle with focus (due to aging eyes) to be a limiting factor. Having rds itself does not make me a better shooter----I certainly must still manage grip, trigger, etc.----but it alleviates the focus issue almost entirely. And even if my vision were perfect, it still shifts the focus requirement away from front sight and onto the target.

I'm not a competitive shooter, so I can't tell you that my 'scores' have increased since running rds, but I can tell you that the pressure to modulate focus entirely to front sight relative to the target itself is virtually gone. I feel much more like I'm looking/viewing much more naturally while shooting. This dynamic opens up the sighting process to be more natural, allowing the shooter to take in much more of the total visual environment at natural focus points. (Kind of like how a quarterback focuses on a receiver during the throwing motion.)

Hope that my references are making sense and are answering your question.

[TCinVA]

I feel much more like I'm looking/viewing much more naturally while shooting. This dynamic opens up the sighting process to be more natural, allowing the shooter to take in much more of the total visual environment at natural focus points. (Kind of like how a quarterback focuses on a receiver during the throwing motion.)


Precisely this, and this is one of the reasons I've argued in the past that an RDS will likely show greater benefit in real fighting circumstances than it does on the range. When we start talking about hitting moving targets in low light, especially keeping in mind our need to keep track of what the threat is doing and whether or not the threat is still a threat before we take up that last little bit of trigger pressure, the RDS may pay dividends beyond what we see in improvements on the range.

Being able to keep one's focus on the target as opposed to having to dial focus back to the sights is beneficial...IF they can see the dot.

[Trukinjp13]

I was terrible at 25 yards with irons and out to 50
was a crap shoot on steel. Instantly I could group at 25 and consistently make hits at 50 if I did my part.

I love how much of the target I have in the dot vs is covered with irons. I did not really notice too much of a difference inside 5 yards for speed but anything over 5 yards was much faster with a dot.

It also is great for shooting at night in the dark, with light or not. And one big plus is it has made me better with irons also. I have been very happy with my investment and have no regrets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

When you start with a red dot, it is easy to focus on things like capability in low light, shooting on the move, and 25/50 yard groups. The other side of the evaluation is how do you do on draws to 5 yards, shooting right and left hand only, and shooting from weird positions.

Overlaying the Givens data base of shootings runs smack into what is harder with a red dot pistol, and argues for a lot of work with the basics of index and acquiring the dot efficiently under duress.

[Magsz]

One thing that needs to be expounded upon here is that if you have trigger control issues, ie a push, flinch, whatever you want to call it, you're going to carry these issues over to a red dot.

If you've never learned how to track a front sight in recoil, watching it lift and return and then knowing the concept of "timing" you're going to have the same issue with a red dot.

Giving someone a gun with a red dot is not instantly going to teach them how to shoot. (I dont think anyone here is saying that it will).

Proper instruction in the fundamentals is what is going to teach them how to shoot.

The caveat being. Moving forward, we are going to start instructing masses of shooters to maintain a threat based focus as red dots become more prevalent. I believe that this fact alone will create a higher skill level baseline as removing that third focal plane makes things SO much easier.

Threat based focus shooting is nothing new in the iron sight world. However, ive never seen it taught with much success unless the student had a fairly high level of prior experience, ie they were taught solid front sight focus and had good recoil control mechanics ingrained in them.

Im excited about red dots. Very excited. Im chomping at the bit to run one at work as I see the advantages but also the disadvantages. I think we are at a point with the release of the acro where the disadvantages are similar in nature to disadvantages that iron sights present and its now six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Pick your poison.

[MGW]

Great poll and follow on discussion. Following.

[ubervic]

I'll add:

Shooting rds has made me a better irons shooter. Seeing that dot constantly move/wiggle/jump is comparable to having a full-time shooting coach who points out what you're doing during presentation and trigger press-----much more than focusing on front sight alone can. This visual indicator offers huge feedback on grip/hold/press/technique, which helps build discipline, and that greater discipline translates to shooting irons.

[Bart Carter]

I changed due to eyesight. It was difficult for me when I started as I was trying to look for the front sight and then find the dot as I would do to align irons.

Then I started working on NPOA. What a revelation for me. The dot just is there when I point to a target. And as others have said, my irons got significantly better using NPOA.

If you are already using NPOA, the transition to a dot should be relatively quick and easy. If not, I feel you should, no matter what you shoot.

Thank you Tactical Performance Center.

[1Rangemaster]

Yes. Todd Jarrett, USPSA and IPSC champion remarked years ago that shooting a dot(on pistol) improved his iron sight shooting. The OP asked of improvement could be expected. Answer, IMO, yes, if you work through familiarization with whatever you choose. In my case, very fortunate to have a department range and access to same. I believe a few hundred rounds over a day or few to get the zero, indexing, etc.-AND DRY FIRE.
Read GJM, Dr. Roberts and others here; they all have deep experience in their respective spheres. My relatively limited experience indicates around a 10% improvement. Harder to quantify, but shooting also “seems easier”.
Come on in-water feels pretty good...

[gtae07]

If you've never learned how to track a front sight in recoil, watching it lift and return and then knowing the concept of "timing" you're going to have the same issue with a red dot.

I'm certainly no expert shot by any stretch, and I suck badly compared to most here. But I have never been able to "track a front sight in recoil" and watch it return. My rapid fire with irons starts degrading into rapid semi-aimed point shooting because I just can't track the sights. But with a dot I can see the thing snap up and as it comes back down into view I can watch it track to the target and time the trigger press. Assuming I do my part there, it works a whole lot better. I've noticed an improvement in accuracy for the same time standard, and an improvement in speed for comparable accuracy. In short, tracking a dot is feasible for me; tracking irons never worked.


AI moved to rds only a few months ago, after finding my struggle with focus (due to aging eyes) to be a limiting factor. Having rds itself does not make me a better shooter----I certainly must still manage grip, trigger, etc.----but it alleviates the focus issue almost entirely. And even if my vision were perfect, it still shifts the focus requirement away from front sight and onto the target.
I find myself struggling more with irons now past 5-7 yards or so. It's not seeing the front sight--I can see it fine, though I don't think I'm judging well whether I'm perfectly aligned with the rear or not--but seeing the target. Past that 5-7 yard distance, the target gets so blurry and indistinct when I'm focusing on the front sight that I can't pick specific aiming points. Put a printable B-8 at 25 yards and the black pretty much disappears; I see a really fuzzy white blob (the letter-size paper it's printed on) on a really fuzzy brown blob (the target backer) and no black at all. I aim for the really fuzzy blob and hope for the best. I think some of it is age (I'm only 34, but I work a desk/computer job)--I used to like to plink spent shotgun shells at 25 yards with irons and a .22 rifle and now I can't even see the darned things at that distance if I'm trying to shoot with irons. Basically, with irons I aim at what seems to be where my desired aim point should be and I think the sights are aligned. With a dot, I can aim an a specific point on the target and there's no sight to align.

The dot takes all that visual stuff out of the picture (get it?). My distance shots are much improved. I can shoot at a moderate pace with the dot about almost a well as I could with untimed slow fire and irons. I can now call a fair number of my shots (vs. pretty much never with irons) and self-diagnose while I'm shooting. I still need to work on presentations; my times may be a little slower with the dot right now but my sight picture and shot is much improved vs. with irons. My shooting still sucks, but it's better than it was and I think that improvement in my case means the iron sights and sight picture part were components of my suckiness. I've eliminated a variable, in other words.

[GJM]

Shooting iron sights is an art, where shooting a dot is closer to science.

[YVK]

can I expect to go buy an MOS Glock, bolt an ACRO to it, and see an instant real improvement in my pistol performance


You can expect an instant real improvement. You can also expect to instantly feel like a retard; if not, you're either lucky or you haven't tested all aspects. Read GJM's post # 9 carefully. "Shooting" is multifaceted, as is "performance" validation. Optics are different too, and what's pressed into one type of use, with its unique performance measurements, may never be used in other shooting circles. Try to understand what's your circle and type of shooting because it will matter. The overwhelming chance is that by going that route and sticking to it, you will get a net positive even if your eye sight is 20/20. How positive would be very individual.

[GearFondler]

I'm certainly no expert shot by any stretch, and I suck badly compared to most here. But I have never been able to "track a front sight in recoil" and watch it return. My rapid fire with irons starts degrading into rapid semi-aimed point shooting because I just can't track the sights. But with a dot I can see the thing snap up and as it comes back down into view I can watch it track to the target and time the trigger press. Assuming I do my part there, it works a whole lot better. I've noticed an improvement in accuracy for the same time standard, and an improvement in speed for comparable accuracy. In short, tracking a dot is feasible for me; tracking irons never worked.


New guy here but I had to chime in... I could have written your post, word for word. I've been working with a G19/RM06 for a few months now and it is night and day vs irons: finally I can track the dot during recoil!
Add in the expanded field of view you get with the dot... now the target is in focus plus it is not being obscured by a "large" front sight post.
And unless you have already mastered perfect trigger control the Dry Fire aspect can not be overlooked... you get instant feedback with every trigger press. Irons always hid small deflections during my dry fire practice leaving me unable to progress past what I could not see. Now I can see and track every "shot" when I dry fire and KNOW whether it was a good hit or not. This of course also translates directly to live fire allowing me to actually call my shots. Finally.
So did I "buy" skills improvement? Maybe. But I feel the main reason I have seen large improvements in my shooting is better trigger control due to better dry fire practice. Either way, I don't care... I am a better shooter with an RDS and am confident my skills will continue to improve at an increased pace versus sticking to irons.

[HCM]

If you have good vision, which the OP appears to have based on his iron sight performance, then RDS is nice to have.

If your vision is “not what it used to be” then it is a game changer.

YMMV.

[miller_man]

Yes. Todd Jarrett, USPSA and IPSC champion remarked years ago that shooting a dot(on pistol) improved his iron sight shooting. The OP asked of improvement could be expected. Answer, IMO, yes, if you work through familiarization with whatever you choose. In my case, very fortunate to have a department range and access to same. I believe a few hundred rounds over a day or few to get the zero, indexing, etc.-AND DRY FIRE.
Read GJM, Dr. Roberts and others here; they all have deep experience in their respective spheres. My relatively limited experience indicates around a 10% improvement. Harder to quantify, but shooting also “seems easier”.
Come on in-water feels pretty good...

I voted 100% sell your soul, bla bla, - but I believe it is a healthy dose below that.

I held off for a long time, but wished I would have jumped in sooner. What is said above resonates with what I have experienced and feel like could be expected.

Most of us that are DEEP into pistol shooting/training (aka pistol forum members) - we are going to spend the money on ammo or training or matches anyways. I think taking some of those dollars and investing them into a dot gives a lot of independent coaching + training. Like having a little coach on your slide.

For example, I have found Stoegers trigger control at speed with a dot immensely valuable for gaining ground in trigger control and grip.

[Darth_Uno]

It doesn’t automatically make you a better shooter. It just helps you be a better shooter.

I haven’t shot a match in a good while so I can’t gauge it anything by that. But I could tell right away that I was better at longer shots (15+ yds or so), and after some practice finding the dot I’m faster on multiple targets (steel). The biggest advantage to me is that for years, and even now, I would always try to see over my sights and look at the target. With an RMR, that’s eliminated. Just look at the target and put the dot over it.

You’re probably going to be just fine if you live your whole life without an RDS, but there’s no reason not to get one either.

[ASH556]

I shot 113 rounds through the ACRO today on a new GEN 5 MOS G19. It was a 180 rnd session total with 55 of the other rounds put through my other new GEN 5 MOS G19 confirming Ameriglo irons zero, and then 12 rnds through my G45.

Honestly at this point I'm inclined to go with Option #3. My 25yd groups were a bit tighter with the ACRO gun, but I struggled hard on closeup speed work like draw - 2H @ 7yds and Bill Drills.

At this point for me an RDS on a fighting gun would be a liability unless all the bad guys are at least 25yds away. Hmmm.

[1Rangemaster]

Not a criticism, but a recommendation: I would give it more rounds and time, to include dry fire. Does the ACRO replace my irons? Nope, still got BOLDs on G26, irons on G43, fiber optic on a 17, gold bead on another 17, XS on a snub, etc., etc.
For me, the ACRO has definite, measurable benefits. I’m working on single hand shooting dry firing every other day. My primary carry piece has an ACRO with a Streamlight forward.
Keep shootin’!

[karmapolice]

I shot 113 rounds through the ACRO today on a new GEN 5 MOS G19. It was a 180 rnd session total with 55 of the other rounds put through my other new GEN 5 MOS G19 confirming Ameriglo irons zero, and then 12 rnds through my G45.

Honestly at this point I'm inclined to go with Option #3. My 25yd groups were a bit tighter with the ACRO gun, but I struggled hard on closeup speed work like draw - 2H @ 7yds and Bill Drills.

At this point for me an RDS on a fighting gun would be a liability unless all the bad guys are at least 25yds away. Hmmm.

That is not enough rounds to properly evaluate at close up distances. Also I know you are most likely hunting for the dot as in focusing on the dot, rather than the target and letting the dot appear in your vision. With some practice in a short time your speed will be back as I know you also have a legitimately good index on your presentation. Imagine how many repetitions you have on irons vs the dot, again the transition won't be hard because you are already a solid skilled shooter.

[Caballoflaco]

With a dot imagine that your front sight is attached to a 25 yard long dowel that’s taped to your slide. The negative is you have to be more precise to get the sights lined up.

The positive is that practicing presentations with the dot will only make your iron sighted shooting better and faster, not take anything away, since it requires more precision in the presentation to get the dot in the window.

[ASH556]

And here we go. I'm not going to say "I've got it" yet, but it's definitely better than yesterday. Basically trust the index, confirm visually, press the trigger cleanly. I am still chasing the dot some, but it's significantly less than yesterday and just a slight vertical dip instead of all over the place. 70 more rounds fired today, 59 of which were focused on draws and close speed stuff.

20 reps draw to 8" circle @ 7yds. See that little cluster around the "-0?" That's called getting it right!

https://i.imgur.com/Qn6VQKMl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cZZy2thl.jpg

10 reps draw to "head" @ 7yds.

https://i.imgur.com/ffxvNpFl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TQ2w3cQl.jpg

Then I worked through some segments of the Gabe White tests. The 2H is where I could never quite get there. I'm not sure if it's trigger or sight tracking, but I'm thinking more sight tracking since it's purely vertical.

https://i.imgur.com/gVagPVbl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TU6WC2el.jpg

Here's the whole target with all the times. All the misses were just like the 2H runs above where they were just below the scoring area:

https://i.imgur.com/FeRVxpBl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Yy0i92Zl.jpg

And then of course I had to shoot at least one 25yd group. Almost hit that 100 today dangit!

https://i.imgur.com/ymq1T4Ol.jpg



There’s (and I’m sure you realize) an offset. Might be worth a few rounds slowfire on a dot or paster to “see” that...

[ASH556]

1Rangemaster

Some offset, yes, but not that much. Not sure if this corresponds to the low hits. I'm still thinking there may be some dot chasing. 10 shot Freestyle groups @ 7yds. Iron-sighted G45 vs G19.5 + ACRO:

https://i.imgur.com/D3gjTv7l.jpg

ACRO @ 25 trying to hold on the gray square (crappy execution, 4" spread)

https://i.imgur.com/4EUfPe9l.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wGAWtkHl.jpg

B8's with both for comparison:

https://i.imgur.com/O4zNLYkl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/YX81yzNl.jpg

[1Rangemaster]

A very valuable line GJM said to me one time was “Don’t worry about dot movement-as the dot moves into the target area, work the trigger”,(something like that). Seems simplistic, but I think he’s one of our “field experts” around here, and it was a bit of an epiphany for me. When I dove into dots a couple of months ago, that really helped.
The 25 yard bull with ACRO looks good. I read somewhere, right ammo, Gen5 guns are sub 3”@25. IMHO, one would need to fire the gun off sandbags/rest to approach the “mechanical accuracy”. That said, I’d be happy with that 25 yarder...

[ASH556]

Having confirmed the offset and zero yesterday, I pushed speed again today on draw 2rds to 3x5 @ 7yds, and then some Bill Drills. I tried to measure the same exercises across the following 3 platforms for comparison:
1. G19.5 + ACRO
2. G19.5 w/Ameriglo's (that yellow front/operator rear I've posted before)
3. G45 w/Dawson adjustable Tritiums

Here's a table showing the cumulative performance. The numbers in blue are the average of the clean runs and the number below that is the average with the unclean runs included:

https://i.imgur.com/P75afIyl.jpg

Broken down with visuals the runs look like this:

https://i.imgur.com/Hsfo9T9l.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3lBUIkGl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/IMh4zqnl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/b0DBjwNl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vtPDhEal.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/u90p6O0l.jpg

Bill Drills:
https://i.imgur.com/9qupMPCl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EFGoKLil.jpg

That one baaaarely out with the iron-sighted G19 hurt me:
https://i.imgur.com/B5izFWIl.jpg

Anyway, here are some summarizing thoughts now that I'm a whole 260 rounds into shooting with an ACRO and a total of 450 rounds this week (YIKES!) I think the pistol-mounted RDS definitely offers some advantages and is not nearly as difficult to work with up close at speed as the naysayers have purported. Not saying there's not a learning curve, but basically in 3 range sessions, my draws and sight tracking are at least equal to my iron sight stuff. At 25yds, the RDS shows some opportunity for improvement over iron sights as well. Even if you have good eyesight (I've only had one vision test that I can recall, it was several years ago and I had to go to an eye doctor because of an infection in my eye due to some fiberglass insulation that fell into it while I was installing a new attic staircase for my in-laws. Anyway, my infected eye, also my dominant eye, tested 20/20 with the infection present and my non-dominant eye tested 20/15.) the dot can be a big help in aiming at distance because (1) it is not as sensitive to lighting conditions as iron sights, and (2) you can see the whole target with the dot superimposed, so you can see your actual hold better, and (3) you're only worried about 2 planes (dot and target) instead of 3 planes (front sight, rear sight, target).

Now, all that said, I don't think (at least not for me at this time) the pistol-mounted RDS is a "sell your soul" level game changer. If you have bad vision, it probably is. If you have disposable income, it certainly makes some things easier. However, it's not so next level that I'm willing to give up what I would have to (in my case, my 3rd pistol) to do it. I still have a pair of MOS guns, and so down the road if I have the disposable income I may be inclined to give it another go, but for now, I'm at a point where I'm ready to be done fiddlefucking with gear and simply focus on building skill. I'd rather have twin G19's (one for carry and a backup) and my G45 (main training/competition gun) than just the 19's + one of them wearing an RDS. Further, I'm not someone who carries a gun for a living. If I were, maybe my priorities would be different. However, as it is, concealment is of a higher concern that a little more shooting performance; hence the 19 over the 45 to begin with. Adding a dot to my 3:00 IWB carry is going in the wrong direction. Maybe once I finally get in shape and can carry AIWB that issue will disappear.

So, to summarize in a sentence: I'm not saying "no" to Pistol-mounted RDS's; just "not right now."

Feel free to judge, critique, criticize, etc. There is a part of me that kind of wants the "new hotness" of it, but I think reality says I'm better off continuing to work my ass off with irons.

[Doc_Glock]

So, to summarize in a sentence: I'm not saying "no" to Pistol-mounted RDS's; just "not right now."

Feel free to judge, critique, criticize, etc. There is a part of me that kind of wants the "new hotness" of it, but I think reality says I'm better off continuing to work my ass off with irons.

I tried Red dots a few years back when I was not nearly as good a shooter as now. I saw no benefit. I am at the point where I have plateaued in my skills and think the coaching of a dot would improve and refine my trigger press further. Seeing my misses is extremely helpful, and I don't see enough of my misses with irons. It is not a sell your soul issue to me as I see and shoot irons fine. But I think the ACRO will pull me back.