Red Dot Pistol Sight question

[Pasanova]

Several co-workers have purchased Glocks and Sig p320s with RMR and other slide mounted red dot optics. We are in the process of having pistol red dots approved as an optional item. I have been shooting iron sighted pistols for over 35 years and use them pretty well. I've tried a few of the red dot equipped pistols and found an issue that I'm hoping someone here can help me with.

Say I have a Glock 17 MOS with a Trijicon RMR2 and suppressor iron sights. The RMR2 and iron sights shoot point of aim/impact. My target is a 3x3 inch card at 15 yards. I purposely place the left edge of the front sight against the leftmost edge of the rear sight. This means the bullet will impact to the left and completely miss the card. While maintaining the above iron sight alignment/sight picture, I place the red dot on the center of the 3x3 card, I miss the target to the left every time, even though the red dot is in the center of the target.

What am I missing?

[Kirk]

Several co-workers have purchased Glocks and Sig p320s with RMR and other slide mounted red dot optics. We are in the process of having pistol red dots approved as an optional item. I have been shooting iron sighted pistols for over 35 years and use them pretty well. I've tried a few of the red dot equipped pistols and found an issue that I'm hoping someone here can help me with.

Say I have a Glock 17 MOS with a Trijicon RMR2 and suppressor iron sights. The RMR2 and iron sights shoot point of aim/impact. My target is a 3x3 inch card at 15 yards. I purposely place the left edge of the front sight against the leftmost edge of the rear sight. This means the bullet will impact to the left and completely miss the card. While maintaining the above iron sight alignment/sight picture, I place the red dot on the center of the 3x3 card, I miss the target to the left every time, even though the red dot is in the center of the target.

What am I missing?

If your dot is correctly sighted in and the dot is over the target, you will hit the target if you do your part. The bullet will go wherever the dot is if sighted in.

[joshs]

I'm assuming that by "maintaining the above iron sight alignment/sight picture" you mean that you are still aiming off the card with irons and then moving your head behind the gun to have the dot at the far edge of the window in the center of the card. If not, I don't think I understand how you could move the dot while maintaining the same sight alignment/sight picture with your irons.

Red dots still have parallax, some more than others, but I haven't used one that would allow for the type of aiming error that you are getting (seemingly over 10 MOA).

When zeroing the dot, did you zero it in the center of the window or attempt to zero it to the irons?

If you shoot a group with the dot centered in the window on the same card, do you have any similar issues?

[Pasanova]

I'm assuming that by "maintaining the above iron sight alignment/sight picture" you mean that you are still aiming off the card with irons and then moving your head behind the gun to have the dot at the far edge of the window in the center of the card. If not, I don't think I understand how you could move the dot while maintaining the same sight alignment/sight picture with your irons.

Red dots still have parallax, some more than others, but I haven't used one that would allow for the type of aiming error that you are getting (seemingly over 10 MOA).

When zeroing the dot, did you zero it in the center of the window or attempt to zero it to the irons?

If you shoot a group with the dot centered in the window on the same card, do you have any similar issues?

Joshs...I'm referring to exactly to what you spoke about in your first paragraph. If one's presentation/grip is poor it is relatively easy to miss a small target. What are remedies to this?

[joshs]

Joshs...I'm referring to exactly to what you spoke about in your first paragraph. If one's presentation/grip is poor it is relatively easy to miss a small target. What are remedies to this?

Again, I don't think you should be able to induce the amount of parallax that you are getting with a quality red dot. Something may be wrong with either the optic or how it is mounted to to slide.

As far as how to deal with the issue of parallax more generally, it's the same as using an RDS on a carbine or, to an extent, reading iron sights. You still need to understand the aiming device and how it affects what you need to see to make a given shot. If the dot is buried all the way to the side of the window, trying to make a shot that is a very low probability shot (given shooter skill, mechanical accuracy, and ammo) probably isn't going to work. However, I think that this is also something that is very hard to do unless you are artificially setting it up. I find that most shooters tend to automatically center the dot in the window as they complete the trigger press.

[Pasanova]

Again, I don't think you should be able to induce the amount of parallax that you are getting with a quality red dot. Something may be wrong with either the optic or how it is mounted to to slide.

As far as how to deal with the issue of parallax more generally, it's the same as using an RDS on a carbine or, to an extent, reading iron sights. You still need to understand the aiming device and how it affects what you need to see to make a given shot. If the dot is buried all the way to the side of the window, trying to make a shot that is a very low probability shot (given shooter skill, mechanical accuracy, and ammo) probably isn't going to work. However, I think that this is also something that is very hard to do unless you are artificially setting it up. I find that most shooters tend to automatically center the dot in the window as they complete the trigger press.

I’ve been able to replicate the above with a Trijicon RMR 2, Trijicon SRO, and a Holosun.

[Alpha Sierra]

Several co-workers have purchased Glocks and Sig p320s with RMR and other slide mounted red dot optics. We are in the process of having pistol red dots approved as an optional item. I have been shooting iron sighted pistols for over 35 years and use them pretty well. I've tried a few of the red dot equipped pistols and found an issue that I'm hoping someone here can help me with.

Say I have a Glock 17 MOS with a Trijicon RMR2 and suppressor iron sights. The RMR2 and iron sights shoot point of aim/impact. My target is a 3x3 inch card at 15 yards. I purposely place the left edge of the front sight against the leftmost edge of the rear sight. This means the bullet will impact to the left and completely miss the card. While maintaining the above iron sight alignment/sight picture, I place the red dot on the center of the 3x3 card, I miss the target to the left every time, even though the red dot is in the center of the target.

What am I missing?

What you're missing is that the iron sights and the RDS are two completely independent sighting systems and should be used as such.

When aiming with the RDS, disregard the sights

When aiming with the sights, disregard the dot

[joshs]

I’ve been able to replicate the above with a Trijicon RMR 2, Trijicon SRO, and a Holosun.

I attempted to replicate this with both a PA Microdot on a Ruger MKIV and an Aimpoint Acro on a G19G5. I used 2in circle targets at 15 yards. The combo of the ammo I was using and my general rustiness these days created a little more noise in the test, but I don't see any noticeable shift except that shooting with the dot buried on the right side of the window felt very uncomfortable and showed in the results.

49189

ETA: The three hits on the left of the bottom target were not part of the test.

[Pasanova]

Thanks for running that test JoshS. What I'm experiencing is parallax due to a poor grip on the pistol. With iron sights, even with a poor grip, as long as my front sight is in the rear notch I don't experience missing like I described in the first post. With the red dot, I don't have a rear reference point and will have to make sure that the dot is more centered in the glass.

With a rifle mounted red dot, you have contact with your shoulder and cheek to assist with looking through the center of the optic. It's this lack of consistency with the handgun red dot that I'm struggling with.

I understand that when using the red dot you ignore the iron sights. I was only using both in my original post was an example of what I was experiencing.

[SoCalDep]

Thanks for running that test JoshS. What I'm experiencing is parallax due to a poor grip on the pistol. With iron sights, even with a poor grip, as long as my front sight is in the rear notch I don't experience missing like I described in the first post. With the red dot, I don't have a rear reference point and will have to make sure that the dot is more centered in the glass.

With a rifle mounted red dot, you have contact with your shoulder and cheek to assist with looking through the center of the optic. It's this lack of consistency with the handgun red dot that I'm struggling with.

I understand that when using the red dot you ignore the iron sights. I was only using both in my original post was an example of what I was experiencing.


The way you describe this (it’s the internet so words on a screen only go so far) it sounds like you are trying to reference the dot with the irons. Do you miss if you ignore the irons and place the dot in the top, bottom, right, and left of the window with the dot itself still on the target?

When you say you’ve “tried” red dot guns do you mean you purchased one and put in the same amount of time and practice you do with iron sights? Did you get professional training on how to use the equipment like you did with iron sights?

I’m not trying to be confrontational, but at this point, the biggest issue with pistol optics is that we have lots of shooters who only know irons and forgot all the work to get good with them - look at dots and figure they should be just as good as irons when they “try” them. Like Yoda said - you have to unlearn what you have learned, and that means the learning process needs to be approached from a “new” perspective. The problem may very well not be the optic, but may be more because you’re not approaching it the right way. How many people have we had to re-teach because they learned to shoot in a way that isn’t compatible with our methods? This is same.

[Pasanova]

The way you describe this (it’s the internet so words on a screen only go so far) it sounds like you are trying to reference the dot with the irons. Do you miss if you ignore the irons and place the dot in the top, bottom, right, and left of the window with the dot itself still on the target?

When you say you’ve “tried” red dot guns do you mean you purchased one and put in the same amount of time and practice you do with iron sights? Did you get professional training on how to use the equipment like you did with iron sights?

I’m not trying to be confrontational, but at this point, the biggest issue with pistol optics is that we have lots of shooters who only know irons and forgot all the work to get good with them - look at dots and figure they should be just as good as irons when they “try” them. Like Yoda said - you have to unlearn what you have learned, and that means the learning process needs to be approached from a “new” perspective. The problem may very well not be the optic, but may be more because you’re not approaching it the right way. How many people have we had to re-teach because they learned to shoot in a way that isn’t compatible with our methods? This is same.

I don't own a pistol with a red dot. I'm trying to determine if the juice is worth the squeeze. I have shot red dot pistols with other instructors. I shoot my iron sighted handguns better and faster than many of my co-workers with their red dot pistols.

As to my reference in post #1, I'm not referring to referencing the dot to the irons or doing a co-witness. I simply mean deliberately steering the pistol off target. While holding that, place the red dot where you want to hit and press the trigger. I miss every time. For me, I feel the red dot is less forgiving with an improper grip like I might have on the 2 way range.

[SoCalDep]

How do you shoot against the other instructors when they’re shooting irons? A better shooter with irons will beat a lesser shooter with a dot but that doesn’t make the dot bad - it makes a shooter bad. Again - What you describe here on the internet is almost impossible to answer well because it’s like a new shooter saying “I put the sights on the target and miss every time”. I’ve heard it hundreds if not thousands of times and vastly more often than not it’s not the gun. You may be an experienced shooter but you are new to the dot. There is a learning curve as there is with any piece of equipment like a WML, new operating system, etc.

It could be the optic but in my experience it’s usually the shooter. Again - with no reference to the irons, will the dot hit point of aim at 15yds if keep the dot on target but have it in the top, bottom, right, and left side of the window?

Poor grip often translates to poor trigger or poor mental capacity to replicate expected performance. The information you provide is insufficient for me to make any definitive recommendation other than what I can based on my own experience training in multiple classes with and dedicated to the pistol optics, practicing a lot with the optic along with lots of other people, and training a bunch of people to use pistol optics.

Long story short - pistol optics may not be for everyone, but like the firearm itself, if one wants to pursue it, they should seek competent instruction.

[Pasanova]

How do you shoot against the other instructors when they’re shooting irons? A better shooter with irons will beat a lesser shooter with a dot but that doesn’t make the dot bad - it makes a shooter bad. Again - What you describe here on the internet is almost impossible to answer well because it’s like a new shooter saying “I put the sights on the target and miss every time”. I’ve heard it hundreds if not thousands of times and vastly more often than not it’s not the gun. You may be an experienced shooter but you are new to the dot. There is a learning curve as there is with any piece of equipment like a WML, new operating system, etc.

It could be the optic but in my experience it’s usually the shooter. Again - with no reference to the irons, will the dot hit point of aim at 15yds if keep the dot on target but have it in the top, bottom, right, and left side of the window?

Poor grip often translates to poor trigger or poor mental capacity to replicate expected performance. The information you provide is insufficient for me to make any definitive recommendation other than what I can based on my own experience training in multiple classes with and dedicated to the pistol optics, practicing a lot with the optic along with lots of other people, and training a bunch of people to use pistol optics.

Long story short - pistol optics may not be for everyone, but like the firearm itself, if one wants to pursue it, they should seek competent instruction.

Good question about irons vs irons. I'm on the upper end. Sounds like I need to commit and buy a red dot mounted pistol. Thanks to everyone that responded. I was hoping to save $1000. Not gonna happen. LOL

[SoCalDep]

Good question about irons vs irons. I'm on the upper end. Sounds like I need to commit and buy a red dot mounted pistol. Thanks to everyone that responded. I was hoping to save $1000. Not gonna happen. LOL

I know your pain... I didn’t want to spend money on something I wasn’t sure would work and that wasn’t approved. A good deal and some luck got me a G17MOS and an RMR. Now I’m in five optic equipped pistols and I’m a believer... not just because I think the optic is such a game-changer, but also because of how it’s improved and increased perspective on my iron sight shooting.

My department recently authorized pistol optics and The results I’m seeing are making me very proud of the work that went into it. I have also seen and experienced the frustration of the transition so what you have described is not unusual or an indication of under-performance. I think the frustration and learning curve are very worth it in the end.

I’m also three days into four days of pistol optic work (two days teaching and two days as a student with a very good instructor) so I’m probably a bit more emotionally invested than I should be.

[Gio]

I don't own a pistol with a red dot. I'm trying to determine if the juice is worth the squeeze. I have shot red dot pistols with other instructors. I shoot my iron sighted handguns better and faster than many of my co-workers with their red dot pistols.


In my opinion, it is impossible to outshoot an RDS on a pistol with irons given the same shooter. You can't compare yourself to other shooters, you need to compare to yourself.

That said, despite slightly increased performance (especially as target difficulty increases), I do not think RDS are ready or appropriate for duty use at this point. There is so much that can go wrong with them, and at the end of the day, they wouldn't make a difference in 99% of the LEO involved shootings that happen within 5-7 yards. They make even less sense if you use a rifle as primary such as in a SWAT officer role. If you insist on going the RDS route, you really need a dedicated duty gun and RDS that see very little use, and a training/backup gun setup identically that you use at the range.

Everyone is in a rush to justify swapping to RDS because it's the hot trend right now, my agency included. People take an RDS out and shoot nice tight groups on a qual course and then figure out a way to justify it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting RDS pistols and am competing with one as my primary division this year in USPSA, and I do think you'll learn something about your iron sighted shooting by spending time with the dot, but I wouldn't carry one on as a service pistol yet.

[Pasanova]

In my opinion, it is impossible to outshoot an RDS on a pistol with irons given the same shooter. You can't compare yourself to other shooters, you need to compare to yourself.

That said, despite slightly increased performance (especially as target difficulty increases), I do not think RDS are ready or appropriate for duty use at this point. There is so much that can go wrong with them, and at the end of the day, they wouldn't make a difference in 99% of the LEO involved shootings that happen within 5-7 yards. They make even less sense if you use a rifle as primary such as in a SWAT officer role. If you insist on going the RDS route, you really need a dedicated duty gun and RDS that see very little use, and a training/backup gun setup identically that you use at the range.

Everyone is in a rush to justify swapping to RDS because it's the hot trend right now, my agency included. People take an RDS out and shoot nice tight groups on a qual course and then figure out a way to justify it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting RDS pistols and am competing with one as my primary division this year in USPSA, and I do think you'll learn something about your iron sighted shooting by spending time with the dot, but I wouldn't carry one on as a service pistol yet.

I agree with you about the technology not being ready yet. I'm going to stick with irons for duty. Probably pick up a Glock MOS to familiarize myself with the red dot. There's a push with our tac unit for red dots. I'm not against the idea. I just want to be informed.

[SoCalDep]

That said, despite slightly increased performance (especially as target difficulty increases), I do not think RDS are ready or appropriate for duty use at this point. There is so much that can go wrong with them, and at the end of the day, they wouldn't make a difference in 99% of the LEO involved shootings that happen within 5-7 yards. They make even less sense if you use a rifle as primary such as in a SWAT officer role. If you insist on going the RDS route, you really need a dedicated duty gun and RDS that see very little use, and a training/backup gun setup identically that you use at the range.

There is so much that can go wrong with any piece of equipment. In my department’s pistol-mounted optic class last week we had a Glock that lost it’s front sight and the rear slid over a quarter inch in the dovetail. The optic still worked. i’ve seen iron sights move, leave the gun, lose the tritium or fiber optic insert, the gun break - I had a Glock stop working after being thrown in a slightly muddy puddle and being shot in the rain while still making 50yd high torso hits with an “old” type-1 RMR.

I’ve also seen optics go down from failure (DeltaPoint Pros mostly and one -not mine - type 1 RMR at about 18,000 rounds) and screws coming loose or shearing. They are not perfect - neither are iron sights. Neither are rifle optics. Neither are we.

We have optics with 40,000 to 50,000 rounds of use. I just finished four days of teaching and being a student of pistol optics. My M&P 2.0 and RMR went around 2,000 rounds. That’s on top of nearly 11,000 on that optic alone. I’ve never changed the battery since I got the optic in December 2018.

It may not make a difference in extreme close range, but not all shootings happen at close range, and in fact many happen at longer ranges where the ability to transition between target and front sight with any effectiveness is poor. I can’t prove it, but I’m pretty sure at least one former cop/now felon would appreciate a better target focus.

One point we agree... if you’re smart you have a duty gun and training gun. That’s a good idea regardless of whether you use an optic - ask LAPD about that and their Glocks.

[Gio]

There is so much that can go wrong with any piece of equipment. In my department’s pistol-mounted optic class last week we had a Glock that lost it’s front sight and the rear slid over a quarter inch in the dovetail. The optic still worked. i’ve seen iron sights move, leave the gun, lose the tritium or fiber optic insert, the gun break - I had a Glock stop working after being thrown in a slightly muddy puddle and being shot in the rain while still making 50yd high torso hits with an “old” type-1 RMR.

I’ve also seen optics go down from failure (DeltaPoint Pros mostly and one -not mine - type 1 RMR at about 18,000 rounds) and screws coming loose or shearing. They are not perfect - neither are iron sights. Neither are rifle optics. Neither are we.

We have optics with 40,000 to 50,000 rounds of use. I just finished four days of teaching and being a student of pistol optics. My M&P 2.0 and RMR went around 2,000 rounds. That’s on top of nearly 11,000 on that optic alone. I’ve never changed the battery since I got the optic in December 2018.

It may not make a difference in extreme close range, but not all shootings happen at close range, and in fact many happen at longer ranges where the ability to transition between target and front sight with any effectiveness is poor. I can’t prove it, but I’m pretty sure at least one former cop/now felon would appreciate a better target focus.

One point we agree... if you’re smart you have a duty gun and training gun. That’s a good idea regardless of whether you use an optic - ask LAPD about that and their Glocks.

I don't disagree with the fact that many RMR's are going for extended round counts, but I've also seen RMR's with much lower round counts die on the range. I also think the most successful RDS users are going to be dedicated enthusiasts, like yourself, who really stay on top of their equipment. Sure something can still go wrong, but you've likely trained for that, have back up irons, keep the glass and emitter free from dust and debris, stay on top of annual battery changes, have a dedicated training gun, etc. That description does not apply to 95% of LE, including SWAT or special mission teams. When we were issuing 1911's for SWAT personnel, I saw the average non-firearms enthusiast need their hand held just to get them to change the recoil spring and firing pin spring every 6 months. If I wasn't proactively handing them a new spring set and forcing them to measure the feed lip spread on their mags and replacing mags that were getting close to the edge of reliability tolerances, they would wait until the gun started to fail and then send it back to our gunsmiths. The same will be true for RDS, only you'll have officers who don't change batteries, fail to confirm zero from time to time, fail to keep dust and lint off their glass, don't train with their back up sights, and generally won't know there is a problem until they pull the gun out in a shooting or for quals.

Additionally, most shooters aren't high level enough shooters to consistently acquire the dot on a flat range with a strong upright shooting stance. It is taking agencies hours and hours of transition courses just to build a reliable index, when in my opinion they have no business transitioning to an RDS if they didn't have that already. Then after transition school, they go back to a once-in-awhile qual or training cycle, and they will lose the index and repetition they've built. Now add in awkward shooting positions in and around barriers, one handed shooting right or left handed, and these average shooters will be hunting for a dot they will never find.

EDIT: Case in point, I just handed my G34 with SRO to show a coworker, who is a firearms instructor and SWAT, to look at. He extended it out to aim it at a dry fire target on the wall and asked how you turn it on. It was already on.

[SoCalDep]

This is the disconnect with pistol red dots that has the law enforcement firearm world literally repeating history. It’s like the old patrol rifles where you’d hand on optic equipped rifle to an untrained individual and they’d try to put the dot on the front sight. It’s like handing an untrained recruit a loaded gun. If we did that we’d have a lot of holes in people and things. In the “case in point” above, a piece of specialized equipment was handed to an untrained person and they didn’t know how to use it. I don’t understand how this is different from anything else and the fact that he wears black, green, or multi cam pajamas certainly doesn’t make him immune from the necessity for training on unfamiliar equipment.

Add to that we (law enforcement) use tons (literally) of important equipment that requires training and maintenance - to argue that the world would fall apart if we use one small more with one small more battery is sort of overblowing the issue. Patrol rifle optics are basically the same technology with the same maintenance needs. How did we ever survive?

Yep - There is a learning curve. Yep - it’s not for everyone. Yep - some people will fail to maintain the equipment and their survival or lack thereof will depend on well... luck. That is nothing new and the addition or lack of an optic can not and won’t change that.

I will say that I agree with some of the prior posts in part. I don’t think department-wide conversions are a good idea unless they have a very strong training and accountability program and probably a very small number of officers. Forcing an unmotivated individual to use a pistol optic when most of their firearm training (and potentially the only halfway enthusiastic and effort-based training they’ve done) was with iron sights. A two-day class won’t work for them, and I’d doubt a week-long class would be effective without strong accountability to gain and maintain proficiency. I think pistol-optics are excellent as an optional piece of personally purchased equipment for a department with a good training program and accountability. I think there is strong potential for issuing pistol optics right out of the gate in academy training, and may significantly increase effectiveness and the learning curve, but I can’t say that definitively. Hopefully my department will get more answers on that over the next year and a half. The good thing is - we have a plan.

So now let’s talk about finding the dot from a training perspective. The biggest reason people can’t find the dot is that they have been trained to present the pistol using iron sights. I’ve seen many beginning shooters start easily acquiring the dot after only a few minutes of instruction because they don’t have the habits of shooting a different way.

The biggest difficulty in learning to shoot a dot is to let go of the way we did it before. For some that is faster and for some that is slower. Either way it’s a fairly straightforward process with proper training. So if a department is allowing pistol optics without a solid training program, that’s a problem. If a department hasn’t thought about potential ongoing skill issues and created a way to verify competency then that’s a problem. Sure, it’s new and scary and requires actual work and dedication.

[AMC]

I think Gio and SoCalDep are actually more in agreement than not on many of these points. My own desire to explore dots has to do with middle aged vision issues, not a hope for performance gains. I agree that they may represent a future better mousetrap for new shooters right out of the gate, but we've yet to see that played out in any large setting.

Was having a meeting the other day with a Pistol Manufacturer rep, where a couple of our SWAT guys were present. They have made no secret of their desire to pursue a new handgun (Stacatto P Duo) and sight system (Deltapoint Pro). They are strongly of the impression that a 1 day conversion for a new pistol (from a DA/SA gun they've been shooting for years) is okay...and that 2 days to learn a red dot is "more than enough". I personally think that is irresponsible to the point of insanity. Folks are constantly appealing to authority by quoting former Tier 1 guys who have agreed that it shouldn't take more than a 10 hr day to convert a shooter to a new handgun platform (DA/SA to Striker, in the case of our agency). If we're talking about getting them to "qualify" on some C- bullshit agency course, then yeah, sure. If we're talking about having them operate the weapon safely under stress in the real world where NDs can mean loss of career, prison or death? No fucking way.

I'm beginning to see Red Dots for experienced shooters the same way. I get why SoCalDeps agency has the requirement that you shoot expert on their qual before you apply for the PMO program, and it isnt about whether you're a good enough shooter....it's about whether or not you are dedicated and disciplined enough to learn the new system, and properly maintain the equipment. For these reasons, I think LASO has it right.

[Gio]

This is the disconnect with pistol red dots that has the law enforcement firearm world literally repeating history. It’s like the old patrol rifles where you’d hand on optic equipped rifle to an untrained individual and they’d try to put the dot on the front sight. It’s like handing an untrained recruit a loaded gun. If we did that we’d have a lot of holes in people and things. In the “case in point” above, a piece of specialized equipment was handed to an untrained person and they didn’t know how to use it. I don’t understand how this is different from anything else and the fact that he wears black, green, or multi cam pajamas certainly doesn’t make him immune from the necessity for training on unfamiliar equipment.

....

The biggest difficulty in learning to shoot a dot is to let go of the way we did it before. For some that is faster and for some that is slower. Either way it’s a fairly straightforward process with proper training. So if a department is allowing pistol optics without a solid training program, that’s a problem. If a department hasn’t thought about potential ongoing skill issues and created a way to verify competency then that’s a problem. Sure, it’s new and scary and requires actual work and dedication.

I think we are more in agreement than not. My point was this individual, despite being an above average shooter in the organization, will require significant training time to learn to shoot and maintain shooting ability with a dot. For shooters who aren't enthusiasts, I question whether they can maintain that shooting ability with a dot if they pick up the gun to qual 1-4 times / year with no extra effort or dry fire. The difference with patrol rifles is you have 3 points of contact on the gun that are fairly repeatable, so finding the dot is much easier and more consistent for average shooters. The optics are also a lot more durable and have been for a long time. I have a 1980's era Aimpoint 3000 that took a beating as a SWAT MP5/10 optic through the 90's and early 2000's before being retired from service. I have it mounted on a hobby rifle now and it has never lost zero or shut off unexpectedly.

The problem I've seen from working with officers from hundreds of LE departments domestically and world wide is that very few agencies have such a solid training program in place to address skill issues, equipment issues, and verification of competency, and fewer still have the top level management support to spend the money to implement such a program. Kudos to your department if they're able to do that.

[GJM]

A related problem is that installing an RMR requires specialized iron sights, and the design of the RMR makes using the iron sights much harder. The other day, the battery on the RMSc on my 43X died. Between the clear lens on the RMSc, and that it uses regular height sights, I could have carried on indefinitely with the BOLD sights on my 43X, and been hardly any worse off than having a 43X with just iron sights.

[GJM]

49271

[Doc_Glock]

49271

That is remarkable. What a win for that optic.

[SoCalDep]

I would agree the iron sight picture through an RMR isn’t as good as many other optics, and certainly not as good as without, but compared to all those other optics one is significantly less likely to need those iron sights. Secondly, I’m not sure I’d go with the term “much” harder. One of the first things we do in our pistol optic class is have the students shoot the same timed course of fire from 25yds to 4yds that they shoot at the end of the course with the optic. The sights are perfectly useable and more so in low-light conditions with a WML.

My point is not that everyone should have a pistol optic. I agree it takes effort to transition, but I disagree that the effort is so great as to be unsupportable in a general patrol-level law enforcement agency. The example of the SWAT officer taking one look at an optic and failing to see a dot is seriously flawed in this discussion. He is not motivated, did not purchase his own equipment, has no experience with the optic, and was set up for failure in the beginning by being handed an optic with no instruction. It’s not an argument against the optic. It’s an example of a horrible introduction to a new piece of equipment. If my buddy had done that to me when he introduced me to NVGs a month or so ago and I saw he posted about it insinuating the technology sucked because I couldn’t find the focus ring, on switch, etc.... I’d be a bit pissed.

Motivated individuals don’t necessarily need to be great shots, and they may be poor shots due to aging eyes or poor technique. There are numerous reasons the pistol optic can help in these areas by quickly uncovering shortcomings in techniques and supporting remedial training and practice. Pistol optics tend to improve iron sight shooting as well as a side-product of better overall technique. That’s a motivation issue and not a skill issue. Much of that motivation is exemplified by the desire to spend the money on milling or on a new pistol, the optic, holster, and related accessories, not to mention the time in training to achieve proficiency. It doesn’t require a massive amount of training to develop the proficiency. Some agencies may not have the resources to conduct a two-day training class. If that’s the case, maybe optics aren’t on the table for now, but that doesn’t mean other agencies that can train appropriately can’t do it.

I’ve had my fair share of experience working with law enforcement from the US and abroad and while I think that current cops (not the new recruit but people who have already been trained to a standard and are used to iron sights) should not be mandated to use an optic, I think the option has serious validity. It is largely self policing in the motivation department through the initial entry cost of equipment. A good training program will give the student the information and techniques to build skill, and will expose the shortcomings so there is no illusion of competency when it’s not there. An entry requirement such as an “expert” rating or enhanced qualification score can further ensure good students. While I do think some standard for entry into the program can be of benefit, especially in the beginning, if that standard excludes the motivated individual with aging eyes who could clearly benefit from an optic, then it’s sub-par. Our program will very likely lower the shooting standard (we will still have one, but it will not be expert) once our formal evaluation of the program implementation concludes.

I very much agree with AMC’s statements regarding training issues with the pistol and optic transition. I would not recommend a pistol type transition (ie: DA to striker to 1911 pattern, etc.) be combined with learning the optic. Too much going on... and in just a couple days for both? Nope nope nope.

Further, if the SWAT team is standardized and must carry the same pistol, forcing an optic on those who may not be motivated can create serious issues. If it’s for a distinct reason such as the use of NVGs, then accountability for skill must be seriously enforced. Learn it or make room for someone who will. Otherwise, and especially if recommending a minimal amount of training, anything other than it being an option is a recipe for disaster. On our department, a deputy who wants to carry a 1911 with an optic has to shoot expert, take a two day (16hr) 1911 course, AND a two day (16hr) optic course. We learned our lesson when we switched to a striker-fired pistol from a DA/SA platform (on an administrative level - we’d recommended a multi day conversion since the beginning but were overruled). Several of the increased unintentional/negligent discharges during that dark period were from our tactical team guys.

[GJM]

I would agree the iron sight picture through an RMR isn’t as good as many other optics, and certainly not as good as without, but compared to all those other optics one is significantly less likely to need those iron sights. Secondly, I’m not sure I’d go with the term “much” harder. One of the first things we do in our pistol optic class is have the students shoot the same timed course of fire from 25yds to 4yds that they shoot at the end of the course with the optic. The sights are perfectly useable and more so in low-light conditions with a WML.

If your timed standards are the same for BUIS as with the red dot, then you might have an opportunity to tighten up the red dot times. :D

[Gio]

The example of the SWAT officer taking one look at an optic and failing to see a dot is seriously flawed in this discussion. He is not motivated, did not purchase his own equipment, has no experience with the optic, and was set up for failure in the beginning by being handed an optic with no instruction. It’s not an argument against the optic. It’s an example of a horrible introduction to a new piece of equipment. If my buddy had done that to me when he introduced me to NVGs a month or so ago and I saw he posted about it insinuating the technology sucked because I couldn’t find the focus ring, on switch, etc.... I’d be a bit pissed.


I didn’t hand it to him to set him up for failure, I was simply showing him my new uspsa setup. The fact that he couldn’t find the dot isn’t surprising, but considering he is an above average to strong LE shooter and couldn’t get a proper index of the pistol with the dot proves that there has to be some transition training...you and I agree on that.

[SoCalDep]

If your timed standards are the same for BUIS as with the red dot, then you might have an opportunity to tighten up the red dot times. :D

Wait... Are you saying the red dot is an advantage? No way. We’ll get killd in da’ streetz!

[SoCalDep]

I didn’t hand it to him to set him up for failure, I was simply showing him my new uspsa setup. The fact that he couldn’t find the dot isn’t surprising, but considering he is an above average to strong LE shooter and couldn’t get a proper index of the pistol with the dot proves that there has to be some transition training...you and I agree on that.

I do agree. Training is key. I was where he is once. We all were.

[GJM]

I didn’t hand it to him to set him up for failure, I was simply showing him my new uspsa setup. The fact that he couldn’t find the dot isn’t surprising, but considering he is an above average to strong LE shooter and couldn’t get a proper index of the pistol with the dot proves that there has to be some transition training...you and I agree on that.

Five years or so ago, I handed Manny Bragg my Glock with an RMR while doing a tutorial in Frostproof, and he said “how do you turn the dot on.” Response — “Manny it is on.”

[Doc_Glock]

Five years or so ago, I handed Manny Bragg my Glock with an RMR while doing a tutorial in Frostproof, and he said “how do you turn the dot on.” Response — “Manny it is on.”

This is strongly why I went away from dots four years back and have yet to come back into the fold, at least for carry. I trained it a lot initially, but when I failed to stay up on training the index, I lost it. Also, too many times I drew my carry pistol at occasional range sessions to find I was slow to acquire the dot at mid ranges, or that the optic had failed for whatever reason (RMR, usually battery issue), or the optic had lost zero in the carried much, shot little mode.

I am still not sold on dots for carry. I think they are an amazing training tool and when dialed with the shooter clearly increase performance.