View Full Version : Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathon's Crystal Ball Predictions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364LC7_HOaw
Is it me, or is Ken's understanding of what RDS offers and how to work out its presentation without 1000 rounds lacking?
Is it me, or is Ken's understanding of what RDS offers and how to work out its presentation without 1000 rounds lacking?
No, it's lacking.
It's also biased. It's only logical that someone who has spent decades shooting pistols with irons at a high level isn't going to magically reverse that in a thousand rounds, or a few thousand though, most of the work necessary to overcome that can be done in dry fire.
IME new shooters take to RDS like ducks to water and starting them with RDS then laying iron sights.
Personally, having put the work in, I am now faster with a dot. Timers and targets don't lie.
I've also found that while I can somewhat keep up with iron sights with RX glasses, when the Mike Tyson factor comes into play, i.e. no more RX glasses, I perform significantly better with the RDS.
Also while we haven't returned to 2019 prices, 9mm ball isn't anywhere near $700 a case.
The only two things in that video I agree with are the significance of the interface between the gun and the RDS and that closed emitter optics like the Aimpoint P2 are the future.
The only two things in that video I agree with are the significance of the interface between the gun and the RDS and that closed emitter optics like the Aimpoint P2 are the future.
I did agree with dot people sometimes having issues with transferring gun to support hand. I see issues with that all the time in shooters up to G level. I also think he's right that dot means more involved maintenance.
Overall, tho, what I've observed as a pattern in people who have spent some time with the dot but not truly invested in it is that their thought process is reduced to "dot is better past xx yards but I am good until then and that's kinda is all that's needed". Things like target/opponent focusing, superior low light capabilities, superior hit / miss reading (i.e. shot calling), big advantages in shooting on the move / moving targets is never a part of their opinion.
Jared
01-01-2022, 08:26 AM
I watched the whole video and other than a couple of chuckles I didn’t get much out of it. Well, there was that one pitch/plug for the Wilson P320 grip modules.
I’ve got a lot of respect for both of these men for all they’ve contributed to the industry over all the years but that video wasn’t exactly their finest hour.
I watched the whole video and other than a couple of chuckles I didn’t get much out of it. Well, there was that one pitch/plug for the Wilson P320 grip modules.
I’ve got a lot of respect for both of these men for all they’ve contributed to the industry over all the years but that video wasn’t exactly their finest hour.
Ego isn’t going to let them go quietly into the night.
My crystal ball says that they’ll hang onto glory days and get cringier and cringier with their videos…
mmc45414
01-01-2022, 03:33 PM
I did agree with dot people sometimes having issues with transferring gun to support hand.
It is funny, but in my case off-hand shooting the dot is a huge help. But my off-hand shooting is really weak, so probably anything helps. And Ken mentioned having more difficulty doing a press-out, I think doing a press-out helps me.
Overall, tho, what I've observed as a pattern in people who have spent some time with the dot but not truly invested in it is that their thought process is reduced to "dot is better past xx yards but I am good until then and that's kinda is all that's needed". Things like target/opponent focusing, superior low light capabilities, superior hit / miss reading (i.e. shot calling), big advantages in shooting on the move / moving targets is never a part of their opinion.
Yeah, I am the toe in the water phase, but I can do pretty much everything better, and pretty much did from the first range day with one. I think the times when I couldn't find the dot I made a crappy draw and was just fixing to miss the target anyway. I think with new shooters they also wouldn't be able to get the sights properly aligned either.
Seems like topics like this there is a tendency in the enthusiasts community to make absolute proclamations on stuff like this.
CCT125US
01-01-2022, 03:43 PM
Hopefully all the new dot users obsess over sealing plates, batteries, screws, torque specs, proper sun angle, lockout / in modes...etc
Really, I hope they do.
ViniVidivici
01-01-2022, 03:58 PM
Ego isn’t going to let them go quietly into the night.
My crystal ball says that they’ll hang onto glory days and get cringier and cringier with their videos…
Unfortunately this is the trend I'm seeing with Hackathorn.
Hate saying it...I'm "old school", and back in the day, learned a hell of alot from his writings and demonstrations. And I do respect the hell out of the man for his career and contributions to The Way.
But he's making himself less and less relevant these days. Last few vids I've seen posted have me rolling my eyes.
Caballoflaco
01-01-2022, 04:12 PM
Ego isn’t going to let them go quietly into the night.
My crystal ball says that they’ll hang onto glory days and get cringier and cringier with their videos…
And all it would take is a “let’s talk to x” who’s been working with dots, and bam. Both sides could get some new viewers from their respective age groups.
Sometimes, putting two teenagers together, can bring out the worst in them. Maybe this applies to all age groups.
I don’t know Ken, but Bill is very inventive and constantly looking for the better mousetrap. The 1911 in 9mm is a perfect example — Wilson Combat really jumped on it and made these pistols sing. .300 HAM’R, 320 grip modules, the improved Brig Tac’s and on and on.
Jared
01-01-2022, 05:29 PM
Unfortunately this is the trend I'm seeing with Hackathorn.
Hate saying it...I'm "old school", and back in the day, learned a hell of alot from his writings and demonstrations. And I do respect the hell out of the man for his career and contributions to The Way.
But he's making himself less and less relevant these days. Last few vids I've seen posted have me rolling my eyes.
With this one, after he took a jab at everything that’s been happening with regard to advancements in the last 5 years or so, including AIWB (yes, I know aiwb has been around since forever, bear with me) I was just waiting for him to point at the camera and say “all you need is a 45 auto LW Commander and a Summer Special.”
Like I said, I respect both of them for their contributions to the industry and the craft, but that video was 30 minutes of “Get off my lawn,” and not even the funny way either.
Like I said, I respect both of them for their contributions to the industry and the craft, but that video was 30 minutes of “Get off my lawn,” and not even the funny way either.
We all get old and eventually irrelevant. The key is to adapt or else we become Charo… a caricature of who we think we are in our head.
82209
Ego isn’t going to let them go quietly into the night.
My crystal ball says that they’ll hang onto glory days and get cringier and cringier with their videos…
The sad part is it doesn’t have to be that way.
People tend to forget that for a long time Jeff Cooper was an innovator. The problem is he was an innovator until at some point he stopped trying new things.
Contrast that with Pat Rogers who retained a if there’s a better way let’s find it attitude and was making positive contributions to the shooting world right up until he passed.
Sometimes, putting two teenagers together, can bring out the worst in them. Maybe this applies to all age groups.
I don’t know Ken, but Bill is very inventive and constantly looking for the better mousetrap. The 1911 in 9mm is a perfect example — Wilson Combat really jumped on it and made these pistols sing. .300 HAM’R, 320 grip modules, the improved Brig Tac’s and on and on.
Which makes the resistance to Pistol and Optics all the more curious.
Both of these guys were around 20 and 30 years ago when the same arguments they are now making with regard to pistol optics were made with regard to carbine optics.
Not to mention the fact that pistol optics benefit older shooters and otherwise vision compromised shooters more than those with perfect vision. This is not exactly a revelation, older bull’s-eye pistol shooters figured this out 20 years ago. It just took a little while for the technology to catch up on the Timmy side.
Pistol optics and more significantly mounting systems are not the equal of carbon optics at this time. But pistol mounted optics today are at least where carbine optics were in the early GWOT i.e. Not yet perfected but of enough practical used to be worth the trouble.
The sad part is it doesn’t have to be that way.
People tend to forget that for a long time Jeff Cooper was an innovator. The problem is he was an innovator until at some point he stopped trying new things.
Contrast that with Pat Rogers who retained a if there’s a better way let’s find it attitude and was making positive contributions to the shooting world right up until he passed.
Which makes the resistance to Pistol and Optics all the more curious.
Both of these guys were around 20 and 30 years ago when the same arguments they are now making with regard to pistol optics were made with regard to carbine optics.
Not to mention the fact that pistol optics benefit older shooters and otherwise vision compromised shooters more than those with perfect vision. This is not exactly a revelation, older bull’s-eye pistol shooters figured this out 20 years ago. It just took a little while for the technology to catch up on the Timmy side.
Pistol optics and more significantly mounting systems are not the equal of carbon optics at this time. But pistol mounted optics today are at least where carbine optics were in the early GWOT i.e. Not yet perfected but of enough practical used to be worth the trouble.
Great points.
Ego is a killer but all it does is fool themselves. It doesn’t fool anyone else like they think it does.
The issue really is:
They need red dots but can’t swallow the pride long enough to work the learning curve to realize the benefits.
It’s clear to anyone who has put in the work that they’re just fooling themselves.
I appreciate the innovators and history, but at some point if you’re not moving forward and continuing to advance you get left in the dust. People scrabble and fight to hold onto their past glory but that’s a fool’s errand.
It’s no different than in any field. Nobody really cares about what you did 2, 5, 10 or 20 years ago if you fail to stay relevant.
I was pleasantly surprised when they started offering factory optic mounts and cuts to their EDC X9s. I can only assume that wise decision was made in the business office.
Back in the day I had to have mine milled by Nighthawk.
The sad part is it doesn’t have to be that way.
People tend to forget that for a long time Jeff Cooper was an innovator. The problem is he was an innovator until at some point he stopped trying new things.
Contrast that with Pat Rogers who retained a if there’s a better way let’s find it attitude and was making positive contributions to the shooting world right up until he passed.
That's exactly right. I would've given this 10 likes if I could.
I don't mind them bitching a bit about things because some stuff they said was fair. The youtube personalitrainers, people who run AIWB without any clues how to, even the optics part since we are just getting to where they are maybe trustworthy. What makes it so negative in my eyes is that rather than using his experience and position in community to improve on things, whether it AIWB curriculum or optics use development, Ken just presents it that he wished that those things has never happened.
People moved to classes that allowed junk carry about the same time when Vickers, and Pat Rogers for that matter, banned even IWB in their classes for liability concerns. So maybe Ken could own up to his generation of trainers of not giving their students what they wanted.
That's exactly right. I would've given this 10 likes if I could.
I don't mind them bitching a bit about things because some stuff they said was fair. The youtube personalitrainers, people who run AIWB without any clues how to, even the optics part since we are just getting to where they are maybe trustworthy. What makes it so negative in my eyes is that rather than using his experience and position in community to improve on things, whether it AIWB curriculum or optics use development, Ken just presents it that he wished that those things has never happened.
People moved to classes that allowed junk carry about the same time when Vickers, and Pat Rogers for that matter, banned even IWB in their classes for liability concerns. So maybe Ken could own up to his generation of trainers of not giving their students what they wanted.
It's not like AIWB is a recent development. Both Chic Gaylord and Bruce Nelson were carrying AIWB and making AIWB holsters in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't AIWB myself but done properly there is nothing wrong with it.
I'm not sure how much actual cop work KH did or did not do but I am aware Nelson spent 20 years working the street as a state narcotics agent.
82222
It's not like AIWB is a recent development. Both Chic Gaylord and Bruce Nelson were carrying AIWB and making AIWB holsters in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't AIWB myself but done properly there is nothing wrong with it.
I'm not sure how much actual cop work KH did or did not do but I am aware Nelson spent 20 years working the street as a state narcotics agent.
82222
Whose photo is that, HCM?
My recollection is Bruce Nelson designed a “Summer Special” before Milt Sparks popularized it. His had one strap as I recall, and he carried AIWB. Bill Jeans used the same holster to carry AIWB, before many of our current trainers were born. I also have a Nelson OWB holster for a 1911. You corresponded with him by mail to purchase a holster. Believe his wife was a lawyer and President or Chairwoman of the NRA.
Warped Mindless
01-02-2022, 10:19 AM
Regarding pistol red dot optics, I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about them….
The average concealed carrier should probably not bother with them.
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons. Yes this can be overcome with training but the average person is simply not going to train that much.
The same is true in force on force with both iron and RDS equipped sim pistols. Newer guys have a lot of trouble finding the dot during a dynamic situation where another person is shooting back at them and they do better with irons.
Again, the average poster here is going to train enough where the pros of having a RDS comes into play but the average concealed carrier is not.
Just an observation from training newer shooters.
Regarding pistol red dot optics, I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about them….
The average concealed carrier should probably not bother with them.
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons. Yes this can be overcome with training but the average person is simply not going to train that much.
The same is true in force on force with both iron and RDS equipped sim pistols. Newer guys have a lot of trouble finding the dot during a dynamic situation where another person is shooting back at them and they do better with irons.
Again, the average poster here is going to train enough where the pros of having a RDS comes into play but the average concealed carrier is not.
Just an observation from training newer shooters.
What is interesting about that, is Stoeger says if you don't have a dot, you are far better to post up and shoot. Devil is, of course, in the details, and there are a wide variety of shooter skill levels and target objectives. Hilton Yam once remarked, that in a tactical situation, you are better off to shoot, run full speed, stop and shoot again, because the IDPA shuffle that is often observed is hardly moving.
Whose photo is that, HCM?
That is Bruce Nelson drawing a 1911 from a summer special holster AIWB.
As GJM noted Nelson designed and used the “Summer Special” as an AIWB holster. My understanding is that Nelson licensed the design to Milt Sparks since as a full time LEO with a part time holster business Nelson could not keep up with demand.
Regarding pistol red dot optics, I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about them….
The average concealed carrier should probably not bother with them.
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons. Yes this can be overcome with training but the average person is simply not going to train that much.
The same is true in force on force with both iron and RDS equipped sim pistols. Newer guys have a lot of trouble finding the dot during a dynamic situation where another person is shooting back at them and they do better with irons.
Again, the average poster here is going to train enough where the pros of having a RDS comes into play but the average concealed carrier is not.
Just an observation from training newer shooters.
Sage Dynamics (Aaron Cowan) has been tracking FOF results with his students using both irons and RDS for a few years. His results show higher hit rates with RDS in FOF.
GlockenSpiel
01-02-2022, 10:57 AM
Regarding pistol red dot optics, I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about them….
The average concealed carrier should probably not bother with them.
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons. Yes this can be overcome with training but the average person is simply not going to train that much.
The same is true in force on force with both iron and RDS equipped sim pistols. Newer guys have a lot of trouble finding the dot during a dynamic situation where another person is shooting back at them and they do better with irons.
Again, the average poster here is going to train enough where the pros of having a RDS comes into play but the average concealed carrier is not.
Just an observation from training newer shooters.
This reflects my observations as well. To be honest I think this forum is getting a little group think going regarding red dots and the abilities of average, lightly trained shooters to benefit from them in the most likely defensive scenario.
CCT125US
01-02-2022, 11:16 AM
Sage Dynamics (Aaron Cowan) has been tracking FOF results with his students using both irons and RDS for a few years. His results show higher hit rates with RDS in FOF.
Curious what demographic his students are made up of.
Who is most likely to attend: FOF? Using optics? WIth Aaron Cowan?..... Genuine questions?
Most likely not the new owner of an off the shelf optics equipped micro pistol.
Warped Mindless
01-02-2022, 11:17 AM
Sage Dynamics (Aaron Cowan) has been tracking FOF results with his students using both irons and RDS for a few years. His results show higher hit rates with RDS in FOF.
Aaron has certainly trained more students than me but I would wager the average skill of his students at the start of his class is still higher than the skill of the average concealed carrier overall and certainly higher than the newer students I teach.
Warped Mindless
01-02-2022, 11:19 AM
This reflects my observations as well. To be honest I think this forum is getting a little group think going regarding red dots and the abilities of average, lightly trained shooters to benefit from them in the most likely defensive scenario.
I think when you train a lot and only talk to people who train a lot it’s easy to forget that the average carrier shoots like 50 - 100rds a year.
Kanye Wyoming
01-02-2022, 11:25 AM
I was probably best described throughout my life as a young fogey, and am now bordering on old fogey. Unless there is an obviously intelligent and rational basis for thinking something is a better mousetrap, not a fad or gimmick or the manifestation of a psychological disturbance, stick with what has worked. And get off my lawn. Temperamentally, then, I’m right there with Ken Hackathorn, not to mention that he’s forgotten more about firearms and shooting just in the past week than I know or will ever know.
I first picked up a handgun 6 years ago so in gun years I’m a young fogey. But still a fogey. After putting in 4+ years of reasonably hard work to become minimally/moderately “old school” proficient - iron sights, IWB at 4 o’clock - I got my first red dot and taught myself. Within 3 to 4 months over 2 or 3 cases of ammo I got to the point where I felt confident in my draw and on a consistent basis I’d knocked a good 1/4 second + off my times on the drills I use as a baseline, like The Test and FAST, and maybe .15 seconds on Bill Drill. Better mousetrap. Started carrying with a dot.
I took Scott Jedlinski’s (Jedi) class a few months ago. Since then I’ve knocked off another good 1/4 second on a consistent basis (another .15 or so on Bill Drill). Carrying IWB at 4 o’clock meant I was the slow normal kid in the class. Ashamed and embarrassed, I dipped my toe into AIWB, practiced like hell, and I’ve since knocked 1/4 second off my draw on a consistent basis. Better mousetrap - now an average of about 2.85 with a 1.75 draw to first shot on Bill Drill versus about 3.30/2.10 18 months ago. And now I carry AIWB exclusively. Psychologically, one thing that helped me immensely was this John Johnston YouTube video explaining that if you do it properly, you’re not muzzling the meat and two veg when reholstering.
https://youtu.be/JGU7HbgDIvE
You don’t know what you don’t know until you know it. All of this being a long way of saying that Ken Hackathorn hasn’t yet taken Jedi’s class; if/when he does, he will change his tune. The timer doesn’t lie.
Since matriculating to the dot, I’ve worked with a few relative newbies and 150 rounds/year guys. The speed at which their performance and confidence advances after I’ve introduced them to the red dot is kind of astounding.
This reflects my observations as well. To be honest I think this forum is getting a little group think going regarding red dots and the abilities of average, lightly trained shooters to benefit from them in the most likely defensive scenario.
I have never heard the pistol red dot recommended for non enthusiast shooters.
While I didn’t listen to every word of the original video, I understood they were saying a red dot was not ideal for skilled shooters?
I think when you train a lot and only talk to people who train a lot it’s easy to forget that the average carrier shoots like 50 - 100rds a year.
This straight into the question of whether this is a shooting problem or a tactics problem.
If that. In my experience those people would get the same results in force on force or moving and shooting with no sights at all. They are eye level point shooting / indexing the gun at best.
Most of our officers shoot about 2500 rounds in the Academy and about 800 to 1000 rounds a year there after. Even at that level the vast majority are better off planting and shooting when necessary. Run when it’s time to run stop and shoot when it’s time to shoot. That’s based on the results with irons.
Given those results your average carrier is going to be better off planting and shooting when necessary as well.
Curious what demographic his students are made up of.
Who is most likely to attend: FOF? Using optics? WIth Aaron Cowan?..... Genuine questions?
Most likely not the new owner of an off the shelf optics equipped micro pistol.
The FOF student base is primarily from his open enrollment civilian active shooter class.
Cowan provides the FOF pistols Including the optics equipped ones.
So not a bunch of gun nerds showing up with their own Optics equipped force on force pistols.
Regarding pistol red dot optics, I have a somewhat unpopular opinion about them….
The average concealed carrier should probably not bother with them.
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons. Yes this can be overcome with training but the average person is simply not going to train that much.
The same is true in force on force with both iron and RDS equipped sim pistols. Newer guys have a lot of trouble finding the dot during a dynamic situation where another person is shooting back at them and they do better with irons.
Again, the average poster here is going to train enough where the pros of having a RDS comes into play but the average concealed carrier is not.
Just an observation from training newer shooters.
Actually even though I am all in on dots and have been for over 10 years now, I agree. Sometimes we here forget what the "average" concealed carrier or potential defensive use gun owner is like. Here by me they will shoot around 50 rounds or less to get their CPL and then after that they will shoot a couple times a year maybe a box an outing. It really makes no sense to go to the extra cost, complication, fragility, and maintenance of a dot equipped pistol if you aren't going to reap any of the benefits. Don't forget we are talking about people who may not even know if they are cross eye dominant or not. I work with beginners at my local club (I don't teach for money anymore) and I hand some people a dot gun and they find it right away. Others can't find it to save their life. Literally. I think sometimes we enthusiasts do get in our own echo chamber. That being said, this video was terrible.
I have never heard the pistol red dot recommended for non enthusiast shooters.
While I didn’t listen to every word of the original video, I understood they were saying a red dot was not ideal for skilled shooters?
I haven’t heard anybody recommend the red dot for minimally or unskilled shooters either.
In both my own experience, and that of other agencies in my state new shooters going through police academy type programs reach a higher level of proficiency faster when they start out with the dot and then learn iron sights after. It’s no mystery, “reading” iron sights aka shot calling with irons Is it’s own skill set which takes time and effort to develop. The dot gives more / more immediate feedback about what the gun is doing and when first learning to shoot. Having one less skill set on top of grip and trigger control just makes things easier.
The army found similar results with Carbines and switched from teaching irons first then optics to teaching Optics first then irons a few years ago.
Regarding the conversation, yes the claim was that skilled shooters do not benefit from the dot inside of 15 yards. Which sounds like every other skilled or semi skilled shooter who has dabbled with the dot before they put in the work necessary to use it properly.
Part of the process of putting in that work is learning what an acceptable “flash” Site picture looks like. I’m sure both BW and KH are acquainted with an acceptable flashlight picture with irons at a subconscious level. However rewiring to an acceptable flash sight picture being a red streak instead of a settled perfectly round dot requires putting in work, Just like changing a grip or stance that you’ve used for years.
CCT125US
01-02-2022, 12:18 PM
The FOF student base is primarily from his open enrollment civilian active shooter class.
Cowan provides the FOF pistols Including the optics equipped ones.
So not a bunch of gun nerds showing up with their own Optics equipped force on force pistols.
At $650 plus time, travel, and other expenses, I would argue his "data" is gathered from outside the norm.
https://www.sagedynamics.org/civilian-active-shooter-respon
Warped Mindless
01-02-2022, 12:23 PM
Actually even though I am all in on dots and have been for over 10 years now, I agree. Sometimes we here forget what the "average" concealed carrier or potential defensive use gun owner is like. Here by me they will shoot around 50 rounds or less to get their CPL and then after that they will shoot a couple times a year maybe a box an outing. It really makes no sense to go to the extra cost, complication, fragility, and maintenance of a dot equipped pistol if you aren't going to reap any of the benefits. Don't forget we are talking about people who may not even know if they are cross eye dominant or not. I work with beginners at my local club (I don't teach for money anymore) and I hand some people a dot gun and they find it right away. Others can't find it to save their life. Literally. I think sometimes we enthusiasts do get in our own echo chamber. That being said, this video was terrible.
I need to find where I read it (think it was a white paper from Sage Dynamics) but someone took the results of highly skilled competition shooters and compared their shooting times and scores with a RDS compared to their scores with Irons shooting the same stages and found that at most the benefit of a RDS was 8% (if I’m remembering correctly) improvement with a RDS out past 10 yards and almost no improvement at distances less than 10yds.
I can understand some people like Ken who is already very skilled with irons not wanting to deal with something new for a small improvement especially if you main concern is not competition.
All that said, I do have a dot on my edc gun because I personally am better with one than without but not by very much.
At $650 plus time, travel, and other expenses, I would argue his "data" is gathered from outside the norm.
https://www.sagedynamics.org/civilian-active-shooter-respon
The norm are the people shooting up the walls and ceiling of their local indoor range.
These are also the same people who claim it is “impossible “to see iron sights in real UOF or a force on force situation. Using sites of any type is a trained response. Their inability to use red dots effectively without training is no different than their inability to use iron sites without training. As such it’s not relevant.
Warped Mindless
01-02-2022, 12:45 PM
The norm are the people shooting up the walls and ceiling of their local indoor range.
These are also the same people who claim it is “impossible “to see iron sights in real UOF or a force on force situation. Using sites of any type is a trained response. Their inability to use red dots effectively without training is no different than their inability to use iron sites without training. As such it’s not relevant.
You don’t think there is a middle ground? While I’ve seen my fare share of newbies not use any sights during FoF I’ve also seen people use their irons successfully but then not be good with a RDS due to a lack of training with it.
I think there is a middle ground and it’s not as black and white as “they can either successfully use a RDS or they won’t use sights at all.”
I need to find where I read it (think it was a white paper from Sage Dynamics) but someone took the results of highly skilled competition shooters and compared their shooting times and scores with a RDS compared to their scores with Irons shooting the same stages and found that at most the benefit of a RDS was 8% (if I’m remembering correctly) improvement with a RDS out past 10 yards and almost no improvement at distances less than 10yds.
I can understand some people like Ken who is already very skilled with irons not wanting to deal with something new for a small improvement especially if you main concern is not competition.
All that said, I do have a dot on my edc gun because I personally am better with one than without but not by very much.
Two things I have found with regard to red dots as we have use them more within LEO agencies.
The first is that people with 20:20 or better vision seem to see less benefit from RDS than people with compromised vision whether that is congenital or age related.
The second is that some people, like myself can pretty easily switch back and forth between iron sights and RDS. While other people have difficulty and require reacclimating when switching back-and-forth even if they are skilled with both signing systems.
I had to start wearing RX glasses in my mid-40s. With my RX glasses there is not much difference in accuracy inside of 15 yards but I am faster with the dot.
However, as Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. As such I make it a point to shoot without RX glasses on a regular basis. When I started in law-enforcement the FBI 1986 Miami shooting was still a significant influence. I recall that the “best shooter “among the agents at that scene was a swat team member who wore RX glasses and was compromised because they lost those glasses during the vehicle pin.
For me, without my RX glasses, the dot is the clear winner.
Clusterfrack
01-02-2022, 12:55 PM
The first is that people with 20:20 or better vision seem to see less benefit from RDS than people with compromised vision whether that is congenital or age related.
The second is that some people, like myself can pretty easily switch back and forth between iron sights and RDS. While other people have difficulty and require reacclimating when switching back-and-forth even if they are skilled with both signing systems.
That's my experience. I'm been super lucky in retaining excellent vision (except for reading), and they tell me that won't change. Less benefit (but still faster and more precise on challenging targets), and no problem switching back and forth between irons and RDS.
You don’t think there is a middle ground? While I’ve seen my fare share of newbies not use any sights during FoF I’ve also seen people use their irons successfully but then not be good with a RDS due to a lack of training with it.
I think there is a middle ground and it’s not as black and white as “they can either successfully use a RDS or they won’t use sights at all.”
The middle ground can be found in two places, and I think this applies to both irons and to red dots.
The first is that people with some training like my 1k per year LEOs will report that they were not seeing the sights but because of continued training they are using or seeing the sights at a subconscious level to make hits. The classic example being subliminal advertising in movies. Movie film moves at about 26 frames per second. Your subconscious mind could pick out one frame out of 26 with a picture of popcorn and soda and make you want to go buy some Even though you did not consciously recall seeing that image.
A threat focused siding system is going to be more effective for these people.
The other part goes to what I have seen in reviewing thousands of dash cam and body worn camera videos of officer involved shootings. I’ve seen three basic responses. They are a combination of training and emotional control.
At one end of the bell curve you have People who go into “condition black@ expanding their ammunition as quickly as possible without using sights.
In the middle you have the majority who won surprised or reacting to a quickly developing threat Will send off a burst of unamed fire, then see it is not working, calm down use their sights/default to their training and make their hits.
The opposite end of the bell curve are those who are highly trained and or demonstrate high emotional control they default to their training use whatever sighring system they have and solve the problem quickly.
Sum of the first group could benefit from more training and some are going to panic no matter what.
I think the middle group are the ones who will benefit from RDS the most because it is a threat focused sighting system.
The nerd assassins in the last group will Benefit from the RDS to a lesser degree but they are the most likely to be early adopters since they are always swimming around like sharks looking for any advantage.
Caballoflaco
01-02-2022, 01:22 PM
I need to find where I read it (think it was a white paper from Sage Dynamics) but someone took the results of highly skilled competition shooters and compared their shooting times and scores with a RDS compared to their scores with Irons shooting the same stages and found that at most the benefit of a RDS was 8% (if I’m remembering correctly) improvement with a RDS out past 10 yards and almost no improvement at distances less than 10yds.
I can understand some people like Ken who is already very skilled with irons not wanting to deal with something new for a small improvement especially if you main concern is not competition.
All that said, I do have a dot on my edc gun because I personally am better with one than without but not by very much.
If he was just a shooter that would be one thing, but as an instructor if you don’t adapt to new technology you become far less relevant. As you said, most people taking classes are enthusiasts, and enthusiasts have embraced the dot life to a large extent. It’s similar to if he was a firearms instructor in the eighties who refused to learn or teach auto pistols because he had too much time on revolvers.
I think most of the criticism you’re seeing here is a sadness in watching someone who was a respected member of the training community choose to make himself less relevant due to lack of a growth mindset, which isn’t something we have to give up as we age. I was more of a curmudgeon at 22 than I am now at almost 40 because I chose to hold folks with similar outlooks in life (not just firearms) in more esteem than I should have.
Clusterfrack
01-02-2022, 01:49 PM
...a sadness in watching someone who was a respected member of the training community choose to make himself less relevant due to lack of a growth mindset, which isn’t something we have to give up as we age. I was more of a curmudgeon at 22 than I am now at almost 40 because I chose to hold folks with similar outlooks in life (not just firearms) in more esteem than I should have.
Excellent post. I know so many people who need to embrace this.
Warped Mindless
01-02-2022, 02:11 PM
If he was just a shooter that would be one thing, but as an instructor if you don’t adapt to new technology you become far less relevant. As you said, most people taking classes are enthusiasts, and enthusiasts have embraced the dot life to a large extent. It’s similar to if he was a firearms instructor in the eighties who refused to learn or teach auto pistols because he had too much time on revolvers.
I think most of the criticism you’re seeing here is a sadness in watching someone who was a respected member of the training community choose to make himself less relevant due to lack of a growth mindset, which isn’t something we have to give up as we age. I was more of a curmudgeon at 22 than I am now at almost 40 because I chose to hold folks with similar outlooks in life (not just firearms) in more esteem than I should have.
All very good points.
There is an instructor not to far away from me that refuses to carry more than a 6 shot stubby because “why would anyone need anything else?” And his classes always seem to be full of other 60+ year olds who feel the same.
Some people are stuck in their ways I guess but to each their own.
MickAK
01-02-2022, 03:10 PM
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons. Yes this can be overcome with training but the average person is simply not going to train that much.
The same is true in force on force with both iron and RDS equipped sim pistols. Newer guys have a lot of trouble finding the dot during a dynamic situation where another person is shooting back at them and they do better with irons.
Again, the average poster here is going to train enough where the pros of having a RDS comes into play but the average concealed carrier is not.
Just an observation from training newer shooters.
I think a lot of that is mental and some people struggle even with training.
Trusting that your picture is going to be there is easier for some people with irons because they're visible at all times. There's a mental block that seems to happen with optics where the same motions aren't as trusted because the references are less obvious.
Sig_Fiend
01-02-2022, 03:28 PM
That was like watching some late night televangelist show lamenting how the kids are listening to devil-worshipping music these days. Painful.
I do respect the history and contributions to the community, which is what makes this all the more painful to watch.
The video is on the Wilson Combat channel.
They don't even sell a firearm less than $1K.
Their audience isn't the average untrained.
The video was either tone deaf, or worse yet, was right on the money that their audience might have more money than sense...
I'll continue buying from them (mostly 92 parts) since they make some good products, but their videos are growing increasingly cringey.
Excellent post. I know so many people who need to embrace this.
Some people think of themselves as "instructors," and others as "students." I suspect those that view themselves principally as an instructor have a harder time with new concepts.
Clusterfrack
01-02-2022, 04:13 PM
Some people think of themselves as "instructors," and others as "students." I suspect those that view themselves principally as an instructor have a harder time with new concepts.
Agreed--and the best instructors are lifetime students.
Glenn E. Meyer
01-02-2022, 05:18 PM
I need to find where I read it (think it was a white paper from Sage Dynamics) but someone took the results of highly skilled competition shooters and compared their shooting times and scores with a RDS compared to their scores with Irons shooting the same stages and found that at most the benefit of a RDS was 8% (if I’m remembering correctly) improvement with a RDS out past 10 yards and almost no improvement at distances less than 10yds.
This help?
https://blog.krtraining.com/red-dot-study-key-points/
As far as the video, being as HCM describes me as a hobbyist and a FOG, it was just two old guys. I have to say whenever I hear someone say (even a highly respected figure) say they can't shoot a Glock because of the grip angle and when they grip it, they point the gun at the sky - that removes a lot of credibility.
I haven't bought a RDS set up. Nowadays, I don't shoot enough to make it worthwhile as putting in the time. At the USPSA and IDPA distances around here, I shoot my iron EDC Glocks decently. I'm tempted to try as an experimentalist but sloth/cost intervenes.
Diversion question - I have a 4th Gen Glock 17. It would seem to try one, getting a new slide would be the best option. Milling the current side doesn't appeal. I have the barrel and spring obviously. However, I didn't see just a factory slide for sale. Saw a Brownell but are they any good? With two slides, might be fun.
This help?
https://blog.krtraining.com/red-dot-study-key-points/
As far as the video, being as HCM describes me as a hobbyist and a FOG, it was just two old guys. I have to say whenever I hear someone say (even a highly respected figure) say they can't shoot a Glock because of the grip angle and when they grip it, they point the gun at the sky - that removes a lot of credibility.
I haven't bought a RDS set up. Nowadays, I don't shoot enough to make it worthwhile as putting in the time. At the USPSA and IDPA distances around here, I shoot my iron EDC Glocks decently. I'm tempted to try as an experimentalist but sloth/cost intervenes.
Diversion question - I have a 4th Gen Glock 17. It would seem to try one, getting a new slide would be the best option. Milling the current side doesn't appeal. I have the barrel and spring obviously. However, I didn't see just a factory slide for sale. Saw a Brownell but are they any good? With two slides, might be fun.
The brownells slides are good. I’m planning on getting one for my G26.
They are true stripped slides so you will need to have the channel liner tool or have someone install the channel liner for you.
When parted out, there is more demand for factory slides than for frames due to people building Glocks from 80% kits And this is reflected in the prices.
DDTSGM
01-02-2022, 05:59 PM
Saw a Brownell but are they any good? With two slides, might be fun.
I have a Brownell slide on a G17. I'm running an older RMO on it. I have no complaints other than had a hard time getting screws to mount the dot when I lost the ones that came with the slide.
I did this over a couple month period and I had all the internals for the slide and the RMO; I used one of three stripped Glock 17 frames I had bought earlier. I added a threaded barrel and Dawson FO sights to complete it. Not too bad when you don't think about it all at once. But the price surprised me when you add it all up.
You are going to be out $239.00 for the stripped slide (I'm pretty sure I paid $189.00 on sale), plus roughly another $75.00 to $100.00 for internals, plus around $90.00 for sights. About $500.00 for the slide setup, you will still have to swap out barrels and slides and buy a red dot.
On the other hand, BigTex has the MOS slide with barrel for $499.00 (when in stock)
https://www.bigtexordnance.com/product/glock-gen-4-oem-slides-stripped-complete-g17-19-26-34-43-43x-48/
Additional food for thought, you should be able to pick up a G17 Gen 4 MOS for under $650.00.
DDTSGM
01-02-2022, 06:01 PM
The brownells slides are good. I’m planning on getting one for my G26.
They are true stripped slides so you will need to have the channel liner tool or have someone install the channel liner for you.
Even though the Brownell's description clearly states no channel liner, mine had one installed. Never could figure it out.
That was like watching some late night televangelist show lamenting how the kids are listening to devil-worshipping music these days. Painful.
I do respect the history and contributions to the community, which is what makes this all the more painful to watch.
The video is on the Wilson Combat channel.
They don't even sell a firearm less than $1K.
Their audience isn't the average untrained.
The video was either tone deaf, or worse yet, was right on the money that their audience might have more money than sense...
I'll continue buying from them (mostly 92 parts) since they make some good products, but their videos are growing increasingly cringey.
One other thing that struck me from the video. They mentioned Dave Spalding fully retiring from his training business As if it was attributable to current conditions such as Covid, ammunition availability and current trends. While those may have contributed or slightly accelerated things, I recall Mr. Spaulding announcing two or three years ago, prior to Covid that he was planning to retire And that those who wanted to train with him should do so sooner rather than later.
With regard to the training industry, while ammo cost an availability and the general state of the economy will affect it like any other business the training industry is not collapsing or going away. There are instructors currently booking dates in 2023 and 2024.
One other thing that struck me from the video. They mentioned Dave Spalding fully retiring from his training business As if it was attributable to current conditions such as Covid, ammunition availability and current trends. While those may have contributed or slightly accelerated things, I recall Mr. Spaulding announcing two or three years ago, prior to Covid that he was planning to retire And that those who wanted to train with him should do so sooner rather than later.
With regard to the training industry, while ammo cost an availability and the general state of the economy will affect it like any other business the training industry is not collapsing or going away. There are instructors currently booking dates in 2023 and 2024.
I caught that too. Dave Spaulding has been cutting back and telling people he would be retiring for years. It got to the point where I thought it was just talk. I had my first class with him in 2013 and then was there for his last class under Handgun Combatives on Nov. 7, 2021. He does have a couple of week long things scheduled for this year. Now I am definitely not speaking for Mr. Spaulding and I know he and KH are friends, that is just what I have observed following him over the years on social media.
Sig_Fiend
01-02-2022, 07:14 PM
One other thing that struck me from the video. They mentioned Dave Spalding fully retiring from his training business As if it was attributable to current conditions such as Covid, ammunition availability and current trends. While those may have contributed or slightly accelerated things, I recall Mr. Spaulding announcing two or three years ago, prior to Covid that he was planning to retire And that those who wanted to train with him should do so sooner rather than later.
With regard to the training industry, while ammo cost an availability and the general state of the economy will affect it like any other business the training industry is not collapsing or going away. There are instructors currently booking dates in 2023 and 2024.
On top of that, what, 8M+ new firearm owners over the past year, or whatever the stat is people keep throwing around? LOTS of first-time owners, different demographics, lots of training opportunity. In my own layman's opinion, that's one of the best signs for the strength of 2A support we've seen in years. Maybe not all of it "support" in the traditional sense. More like a gateway of more people figuring out what really matters, and more opportunity for 2A supporters to encourage and engage them.
That is, if providers and the industry are willing to adapt and support it rather than bitching about "the good old days".
David S.
01-02-2022, 07:15 PM
Along those lines, I believe that Bill Blowers is planning to retire at the end of this year.
If you wanted to wager, the safe bet is that things will not be as bad as the pessimist believes, nor as good as the optimist believes. People and the earth have shown to be quite resilient, and willing to innovate and adapt to all sorts of challenges.
On training, there will be plenty of opportunity for basic instructors to teach the many new shooters beginning gun ownership. On the high end, I think things will become more specialized. The days of sitting around telling war stories and doing basic marksmanship oriented drills are likely largely behind us. An instructor needs to offer specific expertise, like with a red dot, or offer other value added instruction that goes beyond what any of us can pull up on YouTube.
Along those lines, I believe that Bill Blowers is planning to retire at the end of this year.
Yes, however that is for different reasons and there are people trying to talk him out of that.
It is interesting And someone relevant to this discussion though. My understanding is that when Blowers retired from law-enforcement and begin training full-time He self-imposed five-year limit on Conducting training because he primarily see some self as a trainer for law-enforcement and military and he believes his relevancy in that world has a five year shelf life.
I don’t necessarily agree with that in regard to Bill Blowers. There are people in law-enforcement and military Organizations firearms training units who have minimal real world experience and are essentially hiding in the training unit. These people are problematic but I don’t think the issues they have translate to someone with 20+ years of real world experience who then transitions into full-time training as long as that person makes the effort to stay current.
The late Pat Rogers would be the example of this done right.
If you wanted to wager, the safe bet is that things will not be as bad as the pessimist believes, nor as good as the optimist believes. People and the earth have shown to be quite resilient, and willing to innovate and adapt to all sorts of challenges.
On training, there will be plenty of opportunity for basic instructors to teach the many new shooters beginning gun ownership. On the high end, I think things will become more specialized. The days of sitting around telling war stories and doing basic marksmanship oriented drills are likely largely behind us. An instructor needs to offer specific expertise, like with a red dot, or offer other value added instruction that goes beyond what any of us can pull up on YouTube.
I think red dots will continue to become more and more main stream but I agree with you about the days of war stories and supervised drills passing as highly regarded training are fading.
I believe coaching and feedback on how to improve performance via actual metrics are the new standard in higher end training.
Both of these factors are relevant to why class size is reducing and instructor ratios of 1 instructor to 25 students are no longer acceptable.
flyrodr
01-02-2022, 07:36 PM
Felt a bit of pain when I watched that video, 'cause I'm about Ken's age. My embrace of red dots was based, I suspect, on coming from the opposite perspective of many. I've always been very nearsighted, and have strong correction to even get near 20/20. And that prescription, for every day "living", has to be focused at greater-than-front-sight distances. Shooting with irons and front sight focus had become very difficult - - - to the point where I wasn't enjoying pistol shooting much. I finally tried a red dot (my first was an M&P, before any factory cuts were available), and as tough as the initial acquisition was, once accomplished, getting good hits was a piece of cake, compare to using irons - - - at most any distance. Thus motivated, I worked hard to be able to draw quickly and present the pistol with the dot on the target. It was so revolutionary for me, I had trouble understanding why there wasn't a mass movement to red dots. Sure, I've had failures (disappearing dots, screws coming loose/breaking, batteries prematurely failing, etc.). But I gladly put up with those because of the improvement in accuracy, and, primarily, in the confidence gained that I could again shoot quickly and accurately.
Also, while not an instructor, I took a few family members and friends to the range, gave them safety briefings, explained the differences between sight alignment between irons and the red dot, and the explained the need to have a non-sight-disrupting trigger press. To a person (OK, there were about 3-4 total), they embraced the dot as a sighting method, over trying to align the irons.
And, in my curmudgeonly thinking, I could not - - - and still can't - - - figure why more people weren't going to them, more quickly.
If you wanted to wager, the safe bet is that things will not be as bad as the pessimist believes, nor as good as the optimist believes. People and the earth have shown to be quite resilient, and willing to innovate and adapt to all sorts of challenges.
On training, there will be plenty of opportunity for basic instructors to teach the many new shooters beginning gun ownership. On the high end, I think things will become more specialized. The days of sitting around telling war stories and doing basic marksmanship oriented drills are likely largely behind us. An instructor needs to offer specific expertise, like with a red dot, or offer other value added instruction that goes beyond what any of us can pull up on YouTube.
I hope you are wrong. Not about the sitting around and telling war stories, but about being more specialized. I see that in many fields and it almost never ends well. (for the consumer) I think what is really needed are a lot of very good instructors of the essentials who can diagnose and actually teach. What we have right now are too many people teaching outside their lanes because that is where the cool stuff is. I realize that is driven by consumer demand, but unfortunately the consumer in large part don
't really know what they need. I can't count the number of classes I have been to and at wrap up the student says this was great! It was the best class I have ever been too! How many have you been to? Well, this one or maybe, a couple is typically the answer. Well if that is the case how do you know what a good class is.
I hope you are wrong. Not about the sitting around and telling war stories, but about being more specialized. I see that in many fields and it almost never ends well. (for the consumer) I think what is really needed are a lot of very good instructors of the essentials who can diagnose and actually teach. What we have right now are too many people teaching outside their lanes because that is where the cool stuff is. I realize that is driven by consumer demand, but unfortunately the consumer in large part don
't really know what they need. I can't count the number of classes I have been to and at wrap up the student says this was great! It was the best class I have ever been too! How many have you been to? Well, this one or maybe, a couple is typically the answer. Well if that is the case how do you know what a good class is.
I have had a bunch of instructors, some very good, that conducted a class by teaching you their methods. I have had only a handful of instructors, and Rob Leatham is at the top of that small group, that can look at you, and zero in on things, small or large, that can really move the needle on improving your shooting. That doesn’t happen in a 20 person class, but rather in a very small class.
I hope you are wrong. Not about the sitting around and telling war stories, but about being more specialized. I see that in many fields and it almost never ends well. (for the consumer) I think what is really needed are a lot of very good instructors of the essentials who can diagnose and actually teach. What we have right now are too many people teaching outside their lanes because that is where the cool stuff is. I realize that is driven by consumer demand, but unfortunately the consumer in large part don
't really know what they need. I can't count the number of classes I have been to and at wrap up the student says this was great! It was the best class I have ever been too! How many have you been to? Well, this one or maybe, a couple is typically the answer. Well if that is the case how do you know what a good class is.
While not a “basic” instructor a counter example would be Chuck Pressburg. When he first retired from the military he talked about doing nothing but night vision-based classes and specialized classes. Fast-forward a year or two and he’s teaching : coaching fundamentals executed at a high-level via his No Fail pistol in No Fail rifle classes. And those classes are in high demand.
I have had a bunch of instructors, some very good, that conducted a class by teaching you their methods. I have had only a handful of instructors, and Rob Leatham is at the top of that small group, that can look at you, and zero in on things, small or large, that can really move the needle on improving your shooting. That doesn’t happen in a 20 person class, but rather in a very small class.
To clarify, it could happen in a 20 person class if that class is broken into two relays and the instructor has good assistant instructors taking the admin burden.
Instructors doing private lessons either in person or increasingly via video can also be productive.
To clarify, it could happen in a 20 person class if that class is broken into two relays and the instructor has good assistant instructors taking the admin burden.
Instructors doing private lessons either in person or increasingly via video can also be productive.
It could happen. However, in for example a two day class, I would rather have 1/3 or 1/6 of my instructor's attention, than 1/20 or 1/25 of their attention. There is also the reality that the shooters that really suck get a disproportionate amount of attention. My days of 20 person classes are, fortunately, way in the rear view mirror.
I have also noticed, the older an instructor gets, the more they seem to prefer talking to shooting. I have been in two day classes, when the first shot isn't fired until 2pm on day one, when it is 100 degrees, and most would prefer a nap!
TCinVA
01-02-2022, 08:42 PM
They're right. Putting an electronic sight on top of your gun and using the right fasteners to the right torque and the right thread locker and witness marking everything to hopefully keep everything there so it doesn't give an inaccurate reference when you need it or snap screws off in your slide requiring a complicated extraction procedure...well all of that can be described as extra complication. The typical person toting a pistol doesn't even lubricate the motherfucker or change springs in it. Think of your typical police officer's maintenance and ponder giving them an RMR.
They're wrong. Dots on handguns are complicated because we're still in the early days of the concept and we're stuck with a lot of options that suck. It's like cars. Prior to the 1930's controls on vehicles weren't standardized and everybody had their own approach. The RMR was the first widely successful optic for this and so it's sub-standard mounting methodology got out there. A couple of little fasteners with minimal thread engagement is not how you want to mount an optic on a slide, but people started doing it and it's become a thing.
S&W makes a 2.0 M&P that comes with a slide already machined for the Aimpoint Acro. That's what the future looks like. Leaving behind all this screw fasteners down into the slide and adapter plate bullshit and having the slides built with mounting lugs not too dissimilar to the top of an M4 receiver. Enclosed emitter optics will likely become more and more popular since they care less about environmental factors.
It will reach the point where mounting an optic to your pistol is no more complicated than mounting a dot optic to your carbine.
They're right. You don't need a dot to do realistic defensive shooting tasks. Iron sights work just fine. Even if you can't see them as good as you used to, with the right techniques and maybe even an occasional low-tech bodge (https://pistol-training.com/archives/376) you can do quality work at the typical fighting distances.
They're wrong. When I trained with Ken in low light lo those many years ago, he called lasers a game changer in low light. Dots on handguns provide the same benefits in keeping up with a moving target and keeping track of the background that lasers provide in low light situations...assuming you can find your dot. I don't visit many shoothouses these days, but I have used my dot-equipped pistol to track moving targets trying to evade death through the woods. It's much easier to track and make a precise shot in the fleeting moments when your background is good using a dot on top of your pistol than irons. Dots do not do anything to stop mistake of fact shootings (that claim is nonsense) but it does give an advantage in keeping track of what's happening downrange, especially in less than ideal lighting.
They're right. Given what we know about defensive uses of handguns by people who aren't doing uniformed police work, average joes AIWB carrying a gun with a mounted light are adding bulk for almost no identifiavle practical reason.
They're wrong. AIWB carry in general works well because it allows you to carry the widest part of a handgun on the widest part of your body, meaning you can effectively conceal more gun more of the time. This is why I switched to it almost 14 years ago and why I've stuck with it ever since. The ability to carry what I can use the best in non-permissive environments and has saved my ass on a number of occasions where otherwise I'd be making the choice between not having a gun or being exposed to life-altering consequences.
But I don't carry with a weapon light because whatever my odds of needing to use the pistol are, the odds of a WML being useful to me in those circumstances are a tiny fraction beyond that.
They're right. There are a lot of people out there who have great backgrounds and legit skill who can't teach their way out of a wet paper bag. Being able to do something doesn't automatically make you a good teacher or a good coach as well.
Institutional training in the police world especially is ate the fuck up with instructors who have that job because it's a better one than doing the actual mission of the organization they work for, not because they have any passion or interest in teaching. It's banker's hours and holidays off in the biggest institutions. And the ones who are in it for all the wrong reasons are convinced they're experts because it says so on this here certificate where they went and learned how to run a qual. So they're master instructors now. Just ask them. They've been to that one agency's program and that means they understand everything there is to understand because every other institution on planet earth is full of drooling idiots who have no idea how things are supposed to be done.
Or you get guys who were in Unit X who come out and hang a shingle and start running the range with fat office workers (guilty) the same way they ran a range in Unit X. Except nobody in the civilian world passed selection like the guys they used to have on the range in Unit X. And there's no 18D personnel on standby with helicopters and ambulances and emergency response plans. And there's no curriculum that's been chopped off on by 9 layers of command, no lesson plan that's been approved by 9 levels of command, and none of the fat office workers signed pieces of paper saying their lives are expendable in the service of the United States Government. So hey, cool! Bounding overwatch drills on uneven terrain for people who don't actually do infantry stuff ALL AROUND!!! Because people like it and it looks killer on instagram.
Ability? Opportunity? Intent? Immediate jeopardy? Preclusion? What the fuck is that? This ain't law school, bruh! Now let's get these people who can't zero a carbine doing some Australian Peels! (true story. Been there. Done that)
And I won't even get started on the dearth of coaching skills across the board. It suffices to say that encountering someone who can coach...as in look at you, see what you are doing, make a suggestion for improvement that yields immediate results...is so rare as to be like seeing a unicorn. This forum was founded by one such individual.
They're wrong. It doesn't take 2,000 rounds to acclimate to the dot. It might if you are trying to figure it out on your own, but if you find somebody who knows what they're doing it can take nothing more than some dryfire. What really helps is having someone who understands why most people can't reliably find the dot during their presentation give some coaching. The individual in question can actually learn what they need to do to find the dot in as little as five minutes. I know because I've done it. In Performance Pistol or Pistol Proficiency or our RDS class we have folks reliably finding their dot on presentation in far less than 2,000 rounds because they learn the components of a more reliable, better draw.
Rebuilding the presentation to get rid of problems will absolutely take some work. And there's a lot of other benefits that come along with rebuilding the draw in a manner that just happens to result in finding the dot reliably. It's worth the squeeze, even for people who are very proficient with iron sights. It don't have to be perfect to be better, and better is what we're striving for.
But the dot isn't the important part because the gizmo on top of the gun doesn't shoot the fucking gun. It's just the thing you look at to make sure the gun is where you want it. No different than the sights.
We like the visual part of shooting the most because it's the only part we can see. But what we can see on top of the gun is the least important part of the shot process. And before anyone yells at me, I said least important part of the shot process. Not unimportant. There's a purposeful distinction there. Don't fight with me about shit I didn't say.
They're right. I've been involved in formal firearms training in the private sector for 20 years. I've seen legions of people who wanted to do cool stuff with guns. I've watched guys strip out of thousands of dollars of carefully color matched multicam gear, put their expensive custom 1911 pistols away, and then go to dinner completely unarmed or with a J frame stuck in a pocket. You have no idea how often I've gone to dinner after a class and been the sole motherfucker at the table actually carrying a gun. The same gun I just trained with. In the same holster. With the same mag pouch.
The stuff people actually need is boring. Your average joe needs to learn how to recognize the circumstances likely to result in criminal assault, the pre-assault cues that tell him violence is imminent, a couple of tactics to help him avoid the fight if at all possible, some hard skills to win the fight if he has no other choice, the ability to do something useful if he's injured in the fight, and how to deal with the immediate aftermath of a use of force without getting himself locked in prison or sued out of his house. (And the only program I know of that exposes people to all those thing is John Murphy's)
You know what he doesn't need? Team-based vehicle ops classes or bounding overwatch or more goddamn Australian Peels.
I had one person complain to me that all we'd done so far is stand in front of a target and draw. I responded "Yes. And to this point you haven't landed a good draw to an accurate shot in a useful time frame two times in a row. So maybe it's a little premature to start fast roping out of helicopters." I mean, you might have to do ninja hatchet-throwing backflips, but if you need a handgun I can pretty much guarantee you are going to have to draw the fucking thing.
But that doesn't look cool on instagram, at least not unless we're doing some one second draw theatrics. There's guys with a legit one second draw and then there are people shooting a uselessly huge target at close range with the gun a their fucking chin as the shot breaks but nobody on instagram has enough of a coach's eye to see that the draw was a complete shitshow. It's all about that sweet sweet timer number, baby!
In case it isn't clear, my point is that you can argue either depending on how you take what was said and expand on it beyond what was said and assume intentions.
It was popular for a while to spend time shitting on Jeff Cooper because he was old and he was grumpy and he didn't seem to like that handguns other than the 1911 existed. But he's also the person who essentially re-started non-institutional training in lethal force, codified safe handling practices that work on the range and in a crowded mall full of innocent people fleeing from a malevolent narcissist with a gun, and his work on the defensive mindset is foundational to our understanding of armed self defense. A lot of police officers today would be far better off spending a couple of weeks at Gunsite under his tutelage than they are in their academy training.
Cooper got a lot more right than he did wrong (ironically if people would listen to some of what he actually taught they wouldn't struggle to find a dot) and we have the luxury of standing on top of those achievements plus a better understanding of adult learning and having massively improved equipment to let us see farther. No man is infallible, Cooper included. But people eager to shit on Cooper sound a lot like Mike Bloomberg stating that farming isn't hard.
While not a “basic” instructor a counter example would be Chuck Pressburg. When he first retired from the military he talked about doing nothing but night vision-based classes and specialized classes. Fast-forward a year or two and he’s teaching : coaching fundamentals executed at a high-level via his No Fail pistol in No Fail rifle classes. And those classes are in high demand.
Yes that definitely counts. I have cut way back on attending big classes, but his is on my radar.
This is a great thread. I wish Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorne would read it.
What I’ve noticed when training newer shooters is that a RDS greatly helps their stationary shooting skills over irons but when I have them rapidly move while shooting they do worse with a RDS compared to irons.
The question that I have about this is whether newer shooters should even be shooting when rapidly moving, regardless of the sighting modality, especially in defensive training. Hence, whether better hits from a static position are a higher priority and more valuable skill than something that even skilled shooters should probably avoid doing unless absolutely necessary.
ST911
01-02-2022, 09:37 PM
The stuff people actually need is boring. Your average joe needs to learn how to recognize the circumstances likely to result in criminal assault, the pre-assault cues that tell him violence is imminent, a couple of tactics to help him avoid the fight if at all possible, some hard skills to win the fight if he has no other choice, the ability to do something useful if he's injured in the fight, and how to deal with the immediate aftermath of a use of force without getting himself locked in prison or sued out of his house.
Boom.
I knew Jeff Cooper from 1991 until the time of his death. My wife and I hunted in Botswana on our honeymoon with “his” outfitter, Vira Safaris. My wife and I took multiple classes with him. I have a gold medal from him, celebrating my lion hunt, and exchanged countless letters with him. He deeply influenced my life and those of many others that trained with him. In particular, his writing inspired me, and it was his ability to write about shooting and hunting, that differentiated him from other skilled shooters, and did so much for modern firearms training.
One thing he told me, was that it was a failing to use profanity in written communication, and I have tried to follow his guidance ever since. I think I did use “bitches” recently on the forum, but it was in jest. That said, I cringe when people use profanity in written communication, and wish more people heard Jeff’s advice, because written profanity detracts from otherwise well expressed opinions.
MickAK
01-02-2022, 10:06 PM
The question that I have about this is whether newer shooters should even be shooting when rapidly moving, regardless of the sighting modality, especially in defensive training. Hence, whether better hits from a static position are a higher priority and more valuable skill than something that even skilled shooters should probably avoid doing unless absolutely necessary.
I would vote yes, because just like shooting with speed if newer shooters don't get comfortable shooting with movement they never will.
Lots has been said about the value of shooting faster than your comfort zone. I think it's also applicable to movement. Not because movement is that much of a tactical advantage but because there's a lot of tactical advantage to running the fuck away as fast as you can once your people are clear. Getting out of static mode helps maintain that as an option.
This is one of the reasons the Law Enforcement UOF thread is so valuable. These are trained people, some of whom have decades of experience. They have a rough time with it. I train to engage multiple targets often but I keep booking it as an option after reviewing those shoots.
I would vote yes, because just like shooting with speed if newer shooters don't get comfortable shooting with movement they never will.
Lots has been said about the value of shooting faster than your comfort zone. I think it's also applicable to movement. Not because movement is that much of a tactical advantage but because there's a lot of tactical advantage to running the fuck away as fast as you can once your people are clear. Getting out of static mode helps maintain that as an option.
This is one of the reasons the Law Enforcement UOF thread is so valuable. These are trained people, some of whom have decades of experience. They have a rough time with it. I train to engage multiple targets often but I keep booking it as an option after reviewing those shoots.
That’s why it boggles my mind that some people think the stand and shoot Timmy drills are all they should practice and that gaming will get you kilt in the street.
I also question how much we should dumb down or tailor our philosophy to the lowest common denominator.
MickAK
01-02-2022, 10:54 PM
That’s why it boggles my mind that some people think the stand and shoot Timmy drills are all they should practice and that gaming will get you kilt in the street.
I also question how much we should dumb down or tailor our philosophy to the lowest common denominator.
The 'gaming will get you kilt in the street' people have good points honestly.
The reason they're wrong is people who game reliably shoot, because people who game make shooting a part of their life instead of an intrusion on their lives.
Shooting used to be fun. Now it's more like noisy taxes. There's no amount of gaming bad habits that outweigh not going to the range for a year because the yard needs mowed.
I would vote yes, because just like shooting with speed if newer shooters don't get comfortable shooting with movement they never will.
Question is if, realistically, they ever have to. Do I take these on the move or do I post and shoot is something that is tested every weekend. The more I see of it, the more I am leaning towards "if you have to run - run, and if you have to shoot - shoot" for outside of USPSA applications.
MickAK
01-02-2022, 11:22 PM
Question is if they ever have to. Do I take these on the move or do I post and shoot is something that is tested every weekend. The more I see of it, the more I am leaning towards "if you have to run - run, and if you have to shoot - shoot" for outside of USPSA applications.
Well, you might not get that choice that clearly.
I'd stand and die for my wife and kid. Once they're out of the way, I'm better off running a lot of the time. Which is which is unlikely to be as clear as a stage no matter how well designed.
Shoot poorly on the move or shoot well posted is an easy choice, but I think having other choices is better.
Just like with speed, there's going to be a balance, and people will end up on the wrong side of it often. But if you don't tip that scale you don't ever get there.
Well, you might not get that choice that clearly.
I'd stand and die for my wife and kid. Once they're out of the way, I'm better off running a lot of the time. Which is which is unlikely to be as clear as a stage no matter how well designed.
Shoot poorly on the move or shoot well posted is an easy choice, but I think having other choices is better.
Just like with speed, there's going to be a balance, and people will end up on the wrong side of it often. But if you don't tip that scale you don't ever get there.
Indeed. Well stated. Perhaps I shouldn't be that binary. Probably a personal bias from having to go a lot more often to a public indoors range during the winter and seeing many shooters barely able to hit standing still.
All of that doesn't touch on my experience of seeing people do much better on the move with dots rather than irons. But those are not newer shooters.
Nephrology
01-03-2022, 12:21 AM
Indeed. Well stated. Perhaps I shouldn't be that binary. Probably a personal bias from having to go a lot more often to a public indoors range during the winter and seeing many shooters barely able to hit standing still.
All of that doesn't touch on my experience of seeing people do much better on the move with dots rather than irons. But those are not newer shooters.
Once I switched to dots there was absolutely no going back. There was no context specific advantage for me - literally everything I could possibly do with a handgun I did better. Draw to accurate first round, faster splits, insanely improved accuracy at distance. Like everything better. the "2000 round learning curve" was also not an issue for me. I dry fired for a day and got 85% of the way there. a couple range trips later and I can't even imagine using irons ever again.
I am not a prodidgy or especially gifted shooter by any means but with my presbyopia the red dot just took all of the struggle out of shooting handguns for me. I had actually basically stopped caring about shooting handguns until I converted to the dot. Now my eyes are no longer strained and tired at the end of a day at the range. Dry fire gives me substantially more useful feedback than it did before and my trigger press has improved too.
Just about the only downside is my glock 43s are a lot harder to pocket carry than they used to be ...
MistWolf
01-03-2022, 02:25 AM
This is a great thread. I wish Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorne would read it.
Don't think they haven't.
That's my experience. I'm been super lucky in retaining excellent vision (except for reading), and they tell me that won't change.
Pro tip: They lie. :cool:
On topic - Great discussion. High SNR threads like this that make average at best shooters like me think are what p-f should be about.
The 'gaming will get you kilt in the street' people have good points honestly.
The reason they're wrong is people who game reliably shoot, because people who game make shooting a part of their life instead of an intrusion on their lives.
Shooting used to be fun. Now it's more like noisy taxes. There's no amount of gaming bad habits that outweigh not going to the range for a year because the yard needs mowed.
My general issue with “gaming kilt” crowd is that they’re basically like Wilson and Hackathorn commenting on red dots with only a dabblers understanding of it. Half-baked and arrogantly ignorant.
Most “gaming kilt” ilk think that gaming has to be taken in entirety rather than component training. The more advanced tacticians understand that it’s fun component training.
As an aside, I also agree that red dots are easier to train people and with proper training that includes: you don’t have to see the dot in the window to pull the trigger if the target is close enough….
It’s one of the reasons I bought an AimCam to demonstrate what an acceptable red dot sight picture is at speed on a close-ish target.
NEPAKevin
01-03-2022, 04:47 PM
My crystal ball says that they’ll hang onto glory days and get cringier and cringier with their videos…
Half a lifetime ago, I took classes at a place called PPS LTD that was run by a guy named Aron Lippman. One of Aron's quirks was that he was always trying to sell you something. One of those things was a subscription to training video tapes (Yes, long before youtube and streaming, they put stuff like that on VHS and betamax) featuring many of the popular trainers of the day. I didn't buy into that scam but years later, happened to see almost the entire set of tapes on ebay for next to nothing. On an impulse I bid and got the set. I only watched a couple of the videos but distinctly recall Ken Hackathorn sporting some 80's skinny jeans (Think William Petersen in Live and Die in LA). Maybe adds a little perspective to the cringe time line? :)
Half a lifetime ago, I took classes at a place called PPS LTD that was run by a guy named Aron Lippman. One of Aron's quirks was that he was always trying to sell you something. One of those things was a subscription to training video tapes (Yes, long before youtube and streaming, they put stuff like that on VHS and betamax) featuring many of the popular trainers of the day. I didn't buy into that scam but years later, happened to see almost the entire set of tapes on ebay for next to nothing. On an impulse I bid and got the set. I only watched a couple of the videos but distinctly recall Ken Hackathorn sporting some 80's skinny jeans (Think William Petersen in Live and Die in LA). Maybe adds a little perspective to the cringe time line? :)
Funny you mention that. In the video they give praise to one modern gun, the SIG P365. Now Wilson has “a big announcement.” I bet one of GJM ‘s P-F Dollars that will be a Wilson P365…..
vcdgrips
01-03-2022, 05:14 PM
Slight thread drift/Often at the edge/beyond my lane. FWIW.
Re Charo:
I was a Johnny Carson Junkie as a kid and show her in that show many times. IMHO, she never took herself so seriously such that she became a caricature let alone a caricature of a caricature.
She, however, has a character and that character has earned her a purported net worth in excess of 50 million. Dolly Parton, whose writing/acting/singing chops are std deviations higher that that of Charo did the same thing. Her net worth reflects the deviation.
Here is Charo playing in 2013 at 60+
https://www.chonday.com/5258/charoguitar3/
I hope I am that good at anything I like to do involving bodily kinesthetics at 60+.
Re the subject at hand- Random thoughts follow;
1. While I never trained Cooper, I was mentored by those who did train with him beginning in the late 70's/ early 80's. Two folks in particular repeatedly stated that he was much less strident and "close minded" in advanced classes and those in a tutorial setting. They felt that he felt shooters needed a solid common baseline from which to grow. After, safety and proficiency on demand, could be executed his way, stance/gear and even caliber took a back seat to fast, accurate hits on demand.
2. There are a finite amount of folks who have been in the game since the game began. Givens, Hackathorn and Wilson are three. That earns then a wide berth even when I respectfully disagree.
3. PMRDS is here to stay
4. SW M&P 2.0 milled from the factory will be the way within 5 years max.
5. Closed emitters will be the way for tactical applications in 5 years max.
Jared
01-03-2022, 06:20 PM
My search Fu sucks, someone got a link to this M&P 2.0 variant that is all set up for the ACRO P2?
vcdgrips
01-03-2022, 06:48 PM
https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/mp-m20-1?sku=13353
My search Fu sucks, someone got a link to this M&P 2.0 variant that is all set up for the ACRO P2?
From vcdgrips link:
82299
The other side i.e. the ACRO P-2 body:
82302
Picture is snipped from here:
https://optics-info.com/footprints-on-red-dot-sights/
https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/mp-m20-1?sku=13353
Those sights are so tall, while waiting for your Acro P2 to reach you after fulfillment to the influencers, you could stretch a cable and slack line off them.
82300
Once I switched to dots there was absolutely no going back. There was no context specific advantage for me - literally everything I could possibly do with a handgun I did better. Draw to accurate first round, faster splits, insanely improved accuracy at distance. Like everything better. the "2000 round learning curve" was also not an issue for me. I dry fired for a day and got 85% of the way there. a couple range trips later and I can't even imagine using irons ever again.
I am not a prodidgy or especially gifted shooter by any means but with my presbyopia the red dot just took all of the struggle out of shooting handguns for me. I had actually basically stopped caring about shooting handguns until I converted to the dot. Now my eyes are no longer strained and tired at the end of a day at the range. Dry fire gives me substantially more useful feedback than it did before and my trigger press has improved too.
Just about the only downside is my glock 43s are a lot harder to pocket carry than they used to be ...
I can tell you one spot I struggled on with red dots. It was 2014 in an Ernest Langdon Tactical Pistol class, no I think it was 2015 in the Advanced class, either way. In 2014 I was the only guy in the class with a dot gun, in 2015 there were 4 people running dots, I saw a recent video of his and the whole class had dots. Wait, where was I ? Oh ya, one thing that was harder for me with a dot. Towards the end of class Ernest set up a mover. On the moving targets no problem with the dot but when the target was moving and he had us moving, ouch.
SouthNarc
01-03-2022, 09:28 PM
The technology of the dot is fairly uninteresting to me as is the equipment. I'm dot ambivalent.
What's more interesting is the conversation the dot has forced on the community of "three focal plane" shooting versus "single focal" plane shooting and the implications that has for congruency in training regardless of the sighting system.
Wondering Beard
01-03-2022, 11:53 PM
The technology of the dot is fairly uninteresting to me as is the equipment. I'm dot ambivalent.
What's more interesting is the conversation the dot has forced on the community of "three focal plane" shooting versus "single focal" plane shooting and the implications that has for congruency in training regardless of the sighting system.
Could you expand on that last paragraph?
SouthNarc
01-04-2022, 08:39 AM
Could you expand on that last paragraph?
Sure.
There are still a TON of agencies and private sector businesses that are teaching traditional sight alignment and sight picture with "hard front sight focus" language. As the dot becomes more and more common...and we see more people beginning their education on shooting with a dot....will we see a shift in orthodox iron sight marksmanship pedagogy? A mainstream shift that facilitates greater congruency across sighting systems?
Sure.
There are still a TON of agencies and private sector businesses that are teaching traditional sight alignment and sight picture with "hard front sight focus" language. As the dot becomes more and more common...and we see more people beginning their education on shooting with a dot....will we see a shift in orthodox iron sight marksmanship pedagogy? A mainstream shift that facilitates greater congruency across sighting systems?
Do you mean both iron sight and red dot shooters will use target focus?
If I had to bet, it would be the majority of red dot shooters actually use the dot like a front sight, rather than target focusing. When I shoot iron sights these days, which is infrequently, I unconsciously shoot with a target focus because that feels natural.
SouthNarc
01-04-2022, 09:10 AM
Do you mean both iron sight and red dot shooters will use target focus?
If I had to bet, it would be the majority of red dot shooters actually use the dot like a front sight, rather than target focusing. When I shoot iron sights these days, which is infrequently, I unconsciously shoot with a target focus because that feels natural.
Exactly and I agree with you that the majority of dot shooters are probably using the dot like a traditional front sight.
It's interesting to me that the top shooters in the world almost to a man say that they target focus....the best practice for utilizing the dot is target focus and a lot of people either don't realize or have forgotten that Jeff Cooper said a LONG time ago that sights confirm stroke.
With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.
shane45
01-04-2022, 09:12 AM
Does that result in a decrease in performance when shooting irons or does the abundance of shooting repetition hold it together for you, sort of like how you can still hit even if ya forgot to turn the dot on ;)
SouthNarc
01-04-2022, 09:21 AM
And a bit more information from a different source with the FSRC "gaze pattern" study.
https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10/major-new-study-how-your-eyes-can-cast-your-fate-in-a-gunfight-part-1/
https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10/point-shooting-clarificationplus-what-new-gaze-pattern-findings-mean-for-your-training-part-2/
My general issue with “gaming kilt” crowd is that they’re basically like Wilson and Hackathorn commenting on red dots with only a dabblers understanding of it. Half-baked and arrogantly ignorant.
Most “gaming kilt” ilk think that gaming has to be taken in entirety rather than component training. The more advanced tacticians understand that it’s fun component training.
As an aside, I also agree that red dots are easier to train people and with proper training that includes: you don’t have to see the dot in the window to pull the trigger if the target is close enough….
It’s one of the reasons I bought an AimCam to demonstrate what an acceptable red dot sight picture is at speed on a close-ish target.
Recently while listening to the 3 hour podcast on the state of LE that John Hearne shared here I heard a point made by Erick G that caused me to think differently about "kilt in the streets". https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?51039-Gelhaus-amp-Hearne-on-Primary-Secondary
What if the habit acquired for pure performance and efficiency is not so much a risk to the shooter as it is a risk to someone else that might best not be shot?
A for example Erick mentioned was a competition inspired "ready" position of rolling in with gun high and muzzle towards the target's chest area. (whether semantically that is what a "ready" position is supposed to be doctrinally is a separate question)
He explained it was adopted a good bit quite some years ago because it was faster on the timer to roll in and make the shots. But other modeling found that when muzzle down positions were used while the time to make a hit after assessing was incrementally longer the number of shoots based on mistakes in assessment went substantially down.
Perhaps the caution ought to be to be careful of ingraining unconscious patterns that could get someone else mistakenly kilt on the streets?
Well Hell, since we're just spit balling here, this is a doodle I put in my General Notes logbook:
82323
I'd like to see a new, industry-standard "ACRO-Slim" 1" closed-emitter optic with a footprint leveraged from the Aimpoint ACRO standard.
The new optic/footprint would feature:
- "Sideways slide-on" OEM milled slides, retention being by horizontal engagement surfaces. These would resist recoil natively, without fasteners.
- New ACRO-slim 1" closed emitter optic, with a body to use a tool less install, secured using a small rotating clasp mechanism, which in turn is held in place by a simple spring-loaded bail
- Standard "ACRO-slim" adopted by:
Glock (MOS slides replaced by ACRO P-2, Slimline Glocks refactored to use new "ACRO-Slim" feature),
Sig (P365 starts to be milled for the ACRO-Slim, as a factory option, in addition to the RMSc), and
S&W (offers the Shield Plus OR as a "ACRO-Slim" sku.
Hey a guy can dream, can't he. :cool:
blues
01-04-2022, 09:54 AM
Recently while listening to the 3 hour podcast on the state of LE that John Hearne shared here I heard a point made by Erick G that caused me to think differently about "kilt in the streets". https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?51039-Gelhaus-amp-Hearne-on-Primary-Secondary
What if the habit acquired for pure performance and efficiency is not so much a risk to the shooter as it is a risk to someone else that might best not be shot?
A for example Erick mentioned was a competition inspired "ready" position of rolling in with gun high and muzzle towards the target's chest area. (whether semantically that is what a "ready" position is supposed to be doctrinally is a separate question)
He explained it was adopted a good bit quite some years ago because it was faster on the timer to roll in and make the shots. But other modeling found that when muzzle down positions were used while the time to make a hit after assessing was incrementally longer the number of shoots based on mistakes in assessment went substantially down.
Perhaps the caution ought to be to be careful of ingraining unconscious patterns that could get someone else mistakenly kilt on the streets?
JHC
Good points.
This is the very reason why I try to ensure that I have my trigger finger off the trigger (and on the slide) when I practice with my blue guns at home.
It's too easy to come from the holster with finger immediately to the trigger since we know the gun is inert and no one is at risk...and I force myself to train to avoid that error.
Sort of like going on the trigger immediately during qualifications since the course of fire calls for x number of rounds in x number of seconds, instead of assessing first.
One of the shortcomings many in LE face with standard training protocols.
CCT125US
01-04-2022, 10:01 AM
RJ checkout the Nighthawk IOS system. It is similar-ish? to what you are describing. Unfortunately they will not do it to non 1911 style guns. I asked them to name the price and was turned down, multiple times. A buddy of mine has NHC on speed dial and we still couldn't convince them to do it.
It's a beautiful system, retains zero and can swap from optic to irons in seconds.
Question is if, realistically, they ever have to. Do I take these on the move or do I post and shoot is something that is tested every weekend. The more I see of it, the more I am leaning towards "if you have to run - run, and if you have to shoot - shoot" for outside of USPSA applications.
Paul Howe has published that exact opinion based on a lot of shooting in actual combat.
Bergeron
01-04-2022, 11:05 AM
RJ checkout the Nighthawk IOS system. It is similar-ish? to what you are describing. Unfortunately they will not do it to non 1911 style guns. I asked them to name the price and was turned down, multiple times. A buddy of mine has NHC on speed dial and we still couldn't convince them to do it.
It's a beautiful system, retains zero and can swap from optic to irons in seconds.
I got a 5" bald, no-stirrup-cut slide from Nighthawk with IOS for an upcoming project. It is certainly beautifully done.
The plates slide on from the rear of the slide, and are supposed to return to zero. It's a big tapered dovetail with a pin and a set screw. If you had a sufficiently strong relationship with a talented and willing smith, you might be able to get the cut duplicated on other slides.
As far as I know, Nighthawk will convert other 1911 slides to IOS, as long as the existing sight cuts make it possible.
MickAK
01-04-2022, 11:13 AM
With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.
I have wondered this a lot myself.
I also wonder how many people taught FSF while predominantly using target focus because FSF shows results faster in beginners.
With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.
No doubt they figured that out at the same time they decided you should pin the trigger and listen for an audible reset.
Recently while listening to the 3 hour podcast on the state of LE that John Hearne shared here I heard a point made by Erick G that caused me to think differently about "kilt in the streets". https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?51039-Gelhaus-amp-Hearne-on-Primary-Secondary
What if the habit acquired for pure performance and efficiency is not so much a risk to the shooter as it is a risk to someone else that might best not be shot?
A for example Erick mentioned was a competition inspired "ready" position of rolling in with gun high and muzzle towards the target's chest area. (whether semantically that is what a "ready" position is supposed to be doctrinally is a separate question)
He explained it was adopted a good bit quite some years ago because it was faster on the timer to roll in and make the shots. But other modeling found that when muzzle down positions were used while the time to make a hit after assessing was incrementally longer the number of shoots based on mistakes in assessment went substantially down.
Perhaps the caution ought to be to be careful of ingraining unconscious patterns that could get someone else mistakenly kilt on the streets?
I’ll offer the counterpoint that as a private citizen coming from a gaming background that I will NEVER come rolling into a position with gun up on the offensive despite that being how I game.
But the counterpoint of how I retreat as a gamer might be used to make hits while retreating and exiting hard after putting a hit on target.
Gaming is contextual and a good gamer uses techniques specific to the context at hand and has the bandwidth to adapt.
Gaming as a LEO or military probably has a different set of challenges like you suggested.
davisj
01-04-2022, 11:56 AM
Speaking of Wilson and dots…
https://youtu.be/7lpP9b7dWl8
TCinVA
01-04-2022, 12:04 PM
Exactly and I agree with you that the majority of dot shooters are probably using the dot like a traditional front sight.
It's interesting to me that the top shooters in the world almost to a man say that they target focus....the best practice for utilizing the dot is target focus and a lot of people either don't realize or have forgotten that Jeff Cooper said a LONG time ago that sights confirm stroke.
With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.
I think it escaped from a laboratory.
The sights are the only part of shooting we can see. They're the only part of shooting we can draw a picture of. I think this video illustrates the lab escape theory.
https://youtu.be/PK2eoQInk4E
Captain McMillan spends a lot of time discussing grip and trigger control in that video, with only a very brief mention of sights. There's absolute gold in what he's presenting there if you're skilled enough to see it. I don't think many are. How many people would notice that his grip on the gun is somewhat unusual and would go on to question what he's accomplishing that way? I don't think many would notice what his emphasis on a "tight" grip really means.
Most of all, I don't think most who haven't achieved a high level of skill with a handgun would realize that his presentation is telling them that the sights are a consequence of other actions...not the primary driver of marksmanship. It's stated, but he's not structuring the entire presentation around communicating that central theme...which means lots of people will miss it.
Hence the lab escape theory.
There are gaps between what a Captain McMillan understood about what he was doing and what other instructors he doubtlessly taught understood. And then the gap gets wider between that first generation of instructors and the next, etc. I know of an agency that brought in a top level competitive shooter a long time ago to help them restructure the way they teach defensive pistol. I would wager the program as it sits now would be largely unrecognizable to the talent that helped inspire it because it's been continuously fucked with by people who weren't there for the original learning and who don't have the same level of skill to draw on. (You can't be a guy working on doctrine and not fuck with it right? If you don't put at least three more bullet points on that slide and four extra pages in the manual how are you going to prove you're doing your job?) Things have doubtlessly been complicated and there's an emphasis on the wrong things.
The program has mutated and would likely be unrecognizable to the originators. The coaching element of it is certainly almost completely gone because any actual coaching might not align completely with what's laid down as doctrine in that manual that has 400 extra pages of complication on the least important parts.
Everybody think back to your time in government schools of whatever sort and ask yourself how many good teachers you had. I mean people who stand out for their ability to make a subject comprehensible to you and who had the ability to see a gap between their lecture on something, your understanding of it, and then take some sort of useful corrective action. You can probably name a handful, right?
Apply that ratio to institutional firearms instructors and cut it at least in half because at least teachers willfully set about to teach. Most institutional firearms instructors didn't.
I think it mutated away from a part of shooting bullseye accurately into Holy Writ because it's something you can see and it's easy to point at when you don't know what the fuck is actually going on. If the bullet hole doesn't end up in the right spot, it's because the sights weren't at the right spot...so the reason they missed low left is because they're not focusing on the front sight! Let me yell that at them over and over and over again and see if that works.
Recently while listening to the 3 hour podcast on the state of LE that John Hearne shared here I heard a point made by Erick G that caused me to think differently about "kilt in the streets". https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?51039-Gelhaus-amp-Hearne-on-Primary-Secondary
What if the habit acquired for pure performance and efficiency is not so much a risk to the shooter as it is a risk to someone else that might best not be shot?
A for example Erick mentioned was a competition inspired "ready" position of rolling in with gun high and muzzle towards the target's chest area. (whether semantically that is what a "ready" position is supposed to be doctrinally is a separate question)
He explained it was adopted a good bit quite some years ago because it was faster on the timer to roll in and make the shots. But other modeling found that when muzzle down positions were used while the time to make a hit after assessing was incrementally longer the number of shoots based on mistakes in assessment went substantially down.
Perhaps the caution ought to be to be careful of ingraining unconscious patterns that could get someone else mistakenly kilt on the streets?
USPSA is not gun fight training, beyond learning to press the trigger well, while under something approaching stress. USPSA is points per second, and anything that allows you to shoot earlier helps you get more points per second. I can think of 50 things done in USPSA that would get you killed in the streets, starting with taking on 16 bad guys by yourself with a pistol.
I have been told that if you want to learn how to gun fight, IDPA is your game.
USPSA is not gun fight training, beyond learning to press the trigger well, while under something approaching stress. USPSA is points per second, and anything that allows you to shoot earlier helps you get more points per second. I can think of 50 things done in USPSA that would get you killed in the streets, starting with taking on 16 bad guys by yourself with a pistol.
I have been told that if you want to learn how to gun fight, IDPA is your game.
re bolded - I see what you did there. :D
I agree with that and realized that long ago. Which is not to say that individuals who lose a sense of "context" cannot mis-apply what they use in one for training in another (I think that was the scenario referenced in the podcast) or be so unconscious competent that they don't apply context.
I've been told with a high degree of confidence that emotional control is very challenging in one's first gunfight.
Caballoflaco
01-04-2022, 12:24 PM
I think it mutated away from a part of shooting bullseye accurately into Holy Writ because it's something you can see and it's easy to point at when you don't know what the fuck is actually going on. If the bullet hole doesn't end up in the right spot, it's because the sights weren't at the right spot...so the reason they missed low left is because they're not focusing on the front sight! Let me yell that at them over and over and over again and see if that works.
That’s the best explanation of that I think I have seen.
If you don’t mind I’d like to draw a couple of examples from another “accuracy sport”.
The guys who shoot bows at the Olympics are shooting at a target where the bulls eye is the size of a CD at 70 yards. I’ve yet to see an Archer from the Olympics promote focusing on the sight rather than the target.
I competed at what would be USPSA Master level in Barebow 3D archery. We shoot at a 10 ring that is the same size as the black of a B8 bullseye out to thirty yards on non-contrasting targets. We use the arrow as our sight in that discipline. I’ve been lucky enough to shoot with some of the best archers in the country.
The other interesting thing is that the coaches who know tell beginners to focus on and practice every other part of the shot besides the sight while they’re learning. The idea is that if all the other parts of your shot are executed correctly as long as you have decent sight float your going to hit what you’re shooting at.
El Cid
01-04-2022, 03:15 PM
[/B]
That’s the best explanation of that I think I have seen.
If you don’t mind I’d like to draw a couple of examples from another “accuracy sport”.
The guys who shoot bows at the Olympics are shooting at a target where the bulls eye is the size of a CD at 70 yards. I’ve yet to see an Archer from the Olympics promote focusing on the sight rather than the target.
I competed at what would be USPSA Master level in Barebow 3D archery. We shoot at a 10 ring that is the same size as the black of a B8 bullseye out to thirty yards on non-contrasting targets. We use the arrow as our sight in that discipline. I’ve been lucky enough to shoot with some of the best archers in the country.
The other interesting thing is that the coaches who know tell beginners to focus on and practice every other part of the shot besides the sight while they’re learning. The idea is that if all the other parts of your shot are executed correctly as long as you have decent sight float your going to hit what you’re shooting at.
It was my understanding the front sight focus was just because of the Mk1 eyeball. We can only focus on one thing at a time, so pick the one in the middle (target/threat, front sight, rear sight). This also comes from a time when sights were mostly just black. Using a target or threat focus on all black sights would be closer to point shooting for many folks. The first time I heard an instructor talk about a threat focus with pistol iron sights was in a Frank Proctor class in 2013. It worked well, but most of us had iron sights like the Trijicon HD or Ameriglos with brightly colored front sights. We also didn't do it past 15 or 25 yards if I recall.
Caballoflaco
01-04-2022, 03:34 PM
I competed at what would be USPSA Master level in Barebow 3D archery. We shoot at a 10 ring that is the same size as the black of a B8 bullseye out to thirty yards on non-contrasting targets. We use the arrow as our sight in that discipline. I’ve been lucky enough to shoot with some of the best archers in the country.
I’ll quote myself because I forgot to finish that thought since I’m posting at work.
And pick those guys (top archers) brains and they all shoot with a target focus. It’s really hard to get the precision you need to hit a target that looks like this at 25 yards without target focus
82340
When your actual scoring zone is this
82341
David S.
01-04-2022, 07:30 PM
Exactly and I agree with you that the majority of dot shooters are probably using the dot like a traditional front sight.
It's interesting to me that the top shooters in the world almost to a man say that they target focus....the best practice for utilizing the dot is target focus and a lot of people either don't realize or have forgotten that Jeff Cooper said a LONG time ago that sights confirm stroke.
With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.
jlw. I see podcast content opportunity. ;)
It was my understanding the front sight focus was just because of the Mk1 eyeball. We can only focus on one thing at a time, so pick the one in the middle (target/threat, front sight, rear sight). This also comes from a time when sights were mostly just black. Using a target or threat focus on all black sights would be closer to point shooting for many folks. The first time I heard an instructor talk about a threat focus with pistol iron sights was in a Frank Proctor class in 2013. It worked well, but most of us had iron sights like the Trijicon HD or Ameriglos with brightly colored front sights. We also didn't do it past 15 or 25 yards if I recall.
To that end, we saw a noticeable aggregate decrease in agent firearms qualification scores when we switched from the SIG P229 to the G19M, and its common for agents to have better scores with the Glock 26.
Our 19Ms have the Ameriglo Agent sight which is so attention grabbing that you can basically shoot it target focus like a RDS, and I'm convinced many agents seem to have trouble focusing on the front sight post because of this.....hence them dropping shots at 25 yards, as groups absolutely open up in dispersion when not focusing on the front sight. And, to double down, why it's common to see our agents shoot just as well or better with the Glock 26 (within the parameters of the qualification), as they were bought off a DOD contract and have Trijicon sights, same as the old P229s, and easier for the middle of the bell curve shooter to focus on the front sight.
Personally I love the 19M's Ameriglo Agent sight, as for rapid/close range stuff it allows me to drop significant time by using a target focus and using it akin to an RDS...it drops almost a quarter second off my shots to COM at 7 yards from concealment (best consistent time on paper being a 1.06s), while I still have the proficiency with front sight focus to exploit the Glock Marksmen Barrel well at distance and have had no trouble making torso hits at 100 yards, and consistently some of the highest 25 yard 200-Drill scores I've recorded with a semi-auto (neck and neck with my Beretta 92, only a couple points lower than my S&W Model 19).
El Cid
01-04-2022, 09:07 PM
To that end, we saw a noticeable aggregate decrease in agent firearms qualification scores when we switched from the SIG P229 to the G19M, and its common for agents to have better scores with the Glock 26.
Our 19Ms have the Ameriglo Agent sight which is so attention grabbing that you can basically shoot it target focus like a RDS, and I'm convinced many agents seem to have trouble focusing on the front sight post because of this.....hence them dropping shots at 25 yards, as groups absolutely open up in dispersion when not focusing on the front sight. And, to double down, why it's common to see our agents shoot just as well or better with the Glock 26 (within the parameters of the qualification), as they were bought off a DOD contract and have Trijicon sights, same as the old P229s, and easier for the middle of the bell curve shooter to focus on the front sight.
Personally I love the 19M's Ameriglo Agent sight, as for rapid/close range stuff it allows me to drop significant time by using a target focus and using it akin to an RDS...it drops almost a quarter second off my shots to COM at 7 yards from concealment (best consistent time on paper being a 1.06s), while I still have the proficiency with front sight focus to exploit the Glock Marksmen Barrel well at distance and have had no trouble making torso hits at 100 yards, and consistently some of the highest 25 yard 200-Drill scores I've recorded with a semi-auto (neck and neck with my Beretta 92, only a couple points lower than my S&W Model 19).
Amen! And I noticed steel match times decrease after I started using Trijicon HD’s and Ameriglos. Before that my favorite was a gold or brass bead front and U notch rear.
The rear is another aspect I find can help. Lining up 3 dots took me longer. The all black rear and U notch works for me. The eye centering something in a circle works even with just the lower half of a circle for me.
The technology of the dot is fairly uninteresting to me as is the equipment. I'm dot ambivalent.
What's more interesting is the conversation the dot has forced on the community of "three focal plane" shooting versus "single focal" plane shooting and the implications that has for congruency in training regardless of the sighting system.
Sure.
There are still a TON of agencies and private sector businesses that are teaching traditional sight alignment and sight picture with "hard front sight focus" language. As the dot becomes more and more common...and we see more people beginning their education on shooting with a dot....will we see a shift in orthodox iron sight marksmanship pedagogy? A mainstream shift that facilitates greater congruency across sighting systems?
Exactly and I agree with you that the majority of dot shooters are probably using the dot like a traditional front sight.
It's interesting to me that the top shooters in the world almost to a man say that they target focus....the best practice for utilizing the dot is target focus and a lot of people either don't realize or have forgotten that Jeff Cooper said a LONG time ago that sights confirm stroke.
With all that said where did the idea of hard front sight focus originate from in pistol marksmanship and how did it become so prevalent? I actually had a long conversation recently with Andy Stanford about this very issue.
And a bit more information from a different source with the FSRC "gaze pattern" study.
https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10/major-new-study-how-your-eyes-can-cast-your-fate-in-a-gunfight-part-1/
https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10/point-shooting-clarificationplus-what-new-gaze-pattern-findings-mean-for-your-training-part-2/
@jlw (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=136). I see podcast content opportunity. ;)
I take note that the first few paragraphs of part two of the Force Science articles referenced above were dedicated to "clarifying" an inaccurate conclusion among some readers that FSI was endorsing point shooting. Nothing in the first article made any such endorsement.
As I read through this thread today, I am struck by the fact that opinions are being assigned to Mr. Hackathorn that he did not express in the video. They are opinions that he most certainly did not express to me when he and I discussed the video, among other things.
"We" on this forum and others like it are super-consumers. If we were/are golfers, we would try every new driver or ball to hit the market. We're the same people who buy every accessory for a Jeep and then rip it apart the very next month to install something else. It's natural that "we" would gravitate toward the dot just like we have tried every trigger system to hit the market.
"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.
Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.
If we were all to gather on the range for a "loser buys lunch" match, I'd run my CZ P10 C topped with an SRO, but when we leave the range, I'd be packing my iron sighted Glock. I can post a higher score with the dot gun, but I have yet to take it through low light work, and I have not run a dot in a force on force setting, and I am not willing to give up the known for speculation.
Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?
I don't know Bill Wilson, and I have never had an interaction with him, but I doubt that his company is selling dot capable pistols and he hasn't grabbed a sample, walked outside to his range, and put in work with one. It's not like Wilson Combat operates on the same scale of production as Glock, Sig, or S&W. Not continuing to innovate? He built his name on custom building a design that's 100 years old but has also come out with a grip module and custom options for the hottest design to come out in the last decade.
Now, as for the Force Science gaze study, Erick Gelhaus, John Hearne, and I are all graduates of Force Science. We are trying to align our schedules this week to discuss the study and related topics for an episode. SouthNarc, if you are free and wish to play along, you are cordially invited. Hit me up on Messenger or give me a call/text.
Erick Gelhaus
01-05-2022, 12:57 AM
"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.
Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.
The above reminded me about the need to get my hands on a S&W SDVE because of the sub-$500 retail pricing.
jlw's interview with Jerry McCown hit on when, year-wise, he picked up on the doctrinal change to hard front sight focus rather than "just using the sights." It might be interesting to hear from PPC shooters what their visual attention was on by decade from post-WWII to the eighties.
I take note that the first few paragraphs of part two of the Force Science articles referenced above were dedicated to "clarifying" an inaccurate conclusion among some readers that FSI was endorsing point shooting. Nothing in the first article made any such endorsement.
As I read through this thread today, I am struck by the fact that opinions are being assigned to Mr. Hackathorn that he did not express in the video. They are opinions that he most certainly did not express to me when he and I discussed the video, among other things.
"We" on this forum and others like it are super-consumers. If we were/are golfers, we would try every new driver or ball to hit the market. We're the same people who buy every accessory for a Jeep and then rip it apart the very next month to install something else. It's natural that "we" would gravitate toward the dot just like we have tried every trigger system to hit the market.
"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.
Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.
If we were all to gather on the range for a "loser buys lunch" match, I'd run my CZ P10 C topped with an SRO, but when we leave the range, I'd be packing my iron sighted Glock. I can post a higher score with the dot gun, but I have yet to take it through low light work, and I have not run a dot in a force on force setting, and I am not willing to give up the known for speculation.
Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?
I don't know Bill Wilson, and I have never had an interaction with him, but I doubt that his company is selling dot capable pistols and he hasn't grabbed a sample, walked outside to his range, and put in work with one. It's not like Wilson Combat operates on the same scale of production as Glock, Sig, or S&W. Not continuing to innovate? He built his name on custom building a design that's 100 years old but has also come out with a grip module and custom options for the hottest design to come out in the last decade.
Now, as for the Force Science gaze study, Erick Gelhaus, John Hearne, and I are all graduates of Force Science. We are trying to align our schedules this week to discuss the study and related topics for an episode. SouthNarc, if you are free and wish to play along, you are cordially invited. Hit me up on Messenger or give me a call/text.
Can someone post the exact time in the video where they discuss red dots?
Can someone post the exact time in the video where they discuss red dots?
10:36 mark should do it.
I just got to it. I'm finding it quite an enjoyable discussion so far and really like Hack's candid opinions style.
ETA - completed and enjoyed it thoroughly. Who cares if I like Glocks and resent the M17 contract? :D
I should also ask if the EDC X9 and the SFX 9 are innovations or yelling at clouds?
The AR line from Wilson sure screams, "Get off my lawn!!", doesn't it....
I have shot with Bill multiple times, and he shoots with a very high level of accuracy. So much so, my wife calls Bill “snake eyes Wilson.” My guess is he just doesn’t want to invest the effort to make the change to an optic, when his skills with irons are so strong.
I did chuckle about the training guy, Ken, arguing that the red dot took so much training, and the purveyor of high end pistols, Bill, lamenting the cost of a red dot.
SouthNarc
01-05-2022, 09:50 AM
I take note that the first few paragraphs of part two of the Force Science articles referenced above were dedicated to "clarifying" an inaccurate conclusion among some readers that FSI was endorsing point shooting. Nothing in the first article made any such endorsement.
As I read through this thread today, I am struck by the fact that opinions are being assigned to Mr. Hackathorn that he did not express in the video. They are opinions that he most certainly did not express to me when he and I discussed the video, among other things.
"We" on this forum and others like it are super-consumers. If we were/are golfers, we would try every new driver or ball to hit the market. We're the same people who buy every accessory for a Jeep and then rip it apart the very next month to install something else. It's natural that "we" would gravitate toward the dot just like we have tried every trigger system to hit the market.
"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.
Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.
If we were all to gather on the range for a "loser buys lunch" match, I'd run my CZ P10 C topped with an SRO, but when we leave the range, I'd be packing my iron sighted Glock. I can post a higher score with the dot gun, but I have yet to take it through low light work, and I have not run a dot in a force on force setting, and I am not willing to give up the known for speculation.
Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?
I don't know Bill Wilson, and I have never had an interaction with him, but I doubt that his company is selling dot capable pistols and he hasn't grabbed a sample, walked outside to his range, and put in work with one. It's not like Wilson Combat operates on the same scale of production as Glock, Sig, or S&W. Not continuing to innovate? He built his name on custom building a design that's 100 years old but has also come out with a grip module and custom options for the hottest design to come out in the last decade.
Now, as for the Force Science gaze study, Erick Gelhaus, John Hearne, and I are all graduates of Force Science. We are trying to align our schedules this week to discuss the study and related topics for an episode. SouthNarc, if you are free and wish to play along, you are cordially invited. Hit me up on Messenger or give me a call/text.
Heading out to CA. Lee so I can't make it happen this week but I'm game when all our schedules align.
"We" on this forum and others like it are super-consumers. If we were/are golfers, we would try every new driver or ball to hit the market. We're the same people who buy every accessory for a Jeep and then rip it apart the very next month to install something else. It's natural that "we" would gravitate toward the dot just like we have tried every trigger system to hit the market.
"We" would price a prospective gun purchaser right out of the market. There was a time when we'd take a friend or someone seeking help to a gun store and pick out a trade-in wheelgun and a decent holster. That old Model 10 became a third generation Glock.
Now, those people can't buy that trade-in Glock. They must add another $500 or so to the price of admission even though that Glock would meet their needs. Their needs; not "our" needs.
I’m trying to be kindler and gentler so I’m trying to offer a different opinion without being inflammatory.
When I recommend things for friends, I try and respect their use pattern and budget.
It’s not about what I would buy, it’s about what I would recommend for them if they ask my opinion.
A factory optic cut gun these days can be had for 300-500 and a Romeo Zero that would be good enough for most casual users can be had for $160.
Add to that, training with a dot can save a new shooter money by cutting off time and ammo from their learning curve… IMO it pays for itself.
Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?
I kind of do think that.
But I’m a skeptic and have seen ego make intelligent and high functioning people avoid things that make them uncomfortable. Some SMEs have a really difficult time not being an SME and that blocks their open-mindedness and learning.
It’s not that he spent an insignificant amount of time on dots, it’s that he MIGHT have a bajillion hours with irons and proportionally the amount of time he spent on dots might not have been sufficient to form a truly informed decision because of his established biases.
If you get a chance to ask Mr. Hackathorn, you can ask him for us:
How many rounds / hours has he spent with dot guns.
And how many rounds / hours has he spent with irons.
That’s not meant as an insult or a dig. It’s just a fact finding question.
I make an assumption. You make a different assumption.
Why don’t we just find out?
I would guess that he has spent less than 10,000 rounds and under 1000 hours with dots.
And I would guess that he has over a million rounds shot with irons and countless hours.
I don't know Bill Wilson, and I have never had an interaction with him, but I doubt that his company is selling dot capable pistols and he hasn't grabbed a sample, walked outside to his range, and put in work with one. It's not like Wilson Combat operates on the same scale of production as Glock, Sig, or S&W. Not continuing to innovate? He built his name on custom building a design that's 100 years old but has also come out with a grip module and custom options for the hottest design to come out in the last decade.
I have one of the early EDC X9s and optic cuts were not an option. I don’t get the feeling that they would have offered optic cuts from the factory without other companies like Nighthawk (who cut mine for me) eating their lunch. It took them years to offer it.
Just like it took IDPA getting their lunch eaten by USPSA AIWB to consider it.
I really like Wilson Combat guns. These “opinion” videos come off as tone deaf and I wager will eventually hurt their brand. I don’t want to see that happen.
CCT125US
01-05-2022, 08:41 PM
I respect what Ken has been able to accomplish and appreciate his dedication to the craft.
Many years ago, I was able to attend a 2 day course with him.
I have written here, both publicly and in PMs regarding my thoughts. Those will not be rehashed here.
Would I attend another class with Ken? If I was paid, alot.
Does anyone really think that one of the most accomplished trainers in the history of training forged an opinion without putting in the work to form a basis for that opinion. Do you really think that a guy who has trained special forces and the like all over the world has an insignificant amount of time on a dot gun?
After I read your comment I went back and listened to him again, Lee. If he indeed spent enough time on the dot, then he didn't show it in that talk. I already mentioned the things I agreed with him in regards to criticism of the dots. However, he chose to concentrate on negatives and perceived difficulties, some of which can rectified with training investments of not very high magnitude, whether time or live fire. Not losing a dot on transferring to support takes less training than what it takes to shoot basic at RSS. I've zero problem with people not liking or not choosing the dots. I've zero problems carrying dots or irons myself; the situation dictates. I do have a hard time accepting expertise without seeing it in the depth of discussion; such discussion is lacking when the only positive mentioned is accuracy past 18 yards.
After I read your comment I went back and listened to him again, Lee. If he indeed spent enough time on the dot, then he didn't show it in that talk. I already mentioned the things I agreed with him in regards to criticism of the dots. However, he chose to concentrate on negatives and perceived difficulties, some of which can rectified with training investments of not very high magnitude, whether time or live fire. Not losing a dot on transferring to support takes less training than what it takes to shoot basic at RSS. I've zero problem with people not liking or not choosing the dots. I've zero problems carrying dots or irons myself; the situation dictates. I do have a hard time accepting expertise without seeing it in the depth of discussion; such discussion is lacking when the only positive mentioned is accuracy past 18 yards.
Yes. Those issues can be rectified with training, etc, but "we" are not the people he is referencing. He's talking about the cop that draws his pistol on annual qual day and who has to knock the dust bunny and french fry off of the sights before firing the first shot and the person without the technical ability to maintain a 1911.
Rocky Racoon
01-05-2022, 10:04 PM
Strange thread in one way.
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
Strange thread in one way.
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
It is not just this forum, there is a red dot revolution going on.
Strange thread in one way.
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
There’s a difference between saying the Dot is not for me and saying the dot is not viable. The former is a personal decision the latter requires putting in the work necessary to make a valid evaluation.
blues
01-05-2022, 10:41 PM
Is there no end?...it took 28 years for you guys to cajole me into installing night sights on my Glocks...now this...
(I've got an H2 on my AR. That's as far as I'm going down this road.)
:cool:
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
This site lists 1600 active members. I would be surprised if more than 160 carried RDS. I don't think that the group thinks they are a necessity.
The other part, well, I am the guy that Hack is being so subtly sarcastic about. I gots a dot, a kydex holster, both are in a junk position, I certainly have gone to classes wearing LBVs, and I am almost a pharmacist. Seems like I been canceled first.
Caballoflaco
01-05-2022, 11:16 PM
Yes. Those issues can be rectified with training, etc, but "we" are not the people he is referencing. He's talking about the cop that draws his pistol on annual qual day and who has to knock the dust bunny and french fry off of the sights before firing the first shot and the person without the technical ability to maintain a 1911.
I bet a cadet who starts at the academy with a dot like he was talking about would learn a more consistent drawstroke and trigger press faster than one using irons.
One thing Hackathorn didn’t mention at all about dots is that they’re one of the best dryfire diagnostic tools out there, and it might be that he didn’t notice because he has such a good trigger press that the dot didn’t show him how he was screwing up like it did for me.
All that said, I don’t carry a dot day to day because of not wanting to be arsed with the extra maintenance and cleaning, like he mentioned. But I do have one on my dry-fire gun/range gun.
MickAK
01-05-2022, 11:18 PM
This site lists 1600 active members. I would be surprised if more than 160 carried RDS. I don't think that the group thinks they are a necessity.
More of an annoyance.
Enough 'Well, that sucks, but I won't get old' things have come true that thinking vision won't is foolhardy.
Future proofing is better than playing catch-up.
ST911
01-05-2022, 11:30 PM
I bet a cadet who starts at the academy with a dot like he was talking about would learn a more consistent drawstroke and trigger press faster than one using irons.
One thing Hackathorn didn’t mention at all about dots is that they’re one of the best dryfire diagnostic tools out there, and it might be that he didn’t notice because he has such a good trigger press that the dot didn’t show him how he was screwing up like it did for me.
Noticed this during a week with Larry Mudgett this summer. During a particular skip-loading drill, my partner and I called some bad presses Larry asked about - thinking they were fine. With the PMO shooter could call the bad press but the partner (or observer) couldn't confirm. I had debated taking an iron or dot gun, and am glad I took the latter for this reason.
Hard work with my PMO has also benefitted shooting with irons, but the reverse isn't true.
Strange thread in one way.
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
1) I don't have an RDS on any of my pistols
2) I don't have a strong desire to put an RDS on any of my pistols at this time.
With that out of the way, that I'm not in whatever perceived cool kids group you think is going on........
Stop being a little bitch.
WobblyPossum
01-05-2022, 11:49 PM
Strange thread in one way.
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
This isn’t the first time many forum members disagreed with something Ken Hackathorn said in one of these Wilson Combat videos. I remember a thread about the retention shooting video they did a little while back. The techniques being taught were outdated and not found to be as effective as some of the more recently accepted techniques. I’ve taken one class fro Ken Hackathorn. I enjoyed it but not because of the instruction received. I just liked talking to the man and picking his brain about gun stuff. Ken Hackathorn is a national treasure because he’s seen and done so much and his knowledge base is enormous. He’s not a national treasure because he’s the best instructor around.
Is there no end?...it took 28 years for you guys to cajole me into installing night sights on my Glocks...now this...
(I've got an H2 on my AR. That's as far as I'm going down this road.)
:cool:
Since LE work involves more computer screen time than trigger time by a factor of a million, I figure the blue light from the screen ruined my eyes so that when I retire they need to pay for both my hearing aid batteries AND my pistol RDS batteries ;-)
I wonder if 5 years is enough lead time to get a true custom .38 Super Commander cut for a P-2.......
Rocky Racoon
01-06-2022, 12:20 AM
There’s a difference between saying the Dot is not for me and saying the dot is not viable. The former is a personal decision the latter requires putting in the work necessary to make a valid evaluation.
Again with the assumption that that he hasn't put in the work.
Rocky Racoon
01-06-2022, 12:22 AM
This site lists 1600 active members. I would be surprised if more than 160 carried RDS.
Most of the 1,600 aren't active. There's what? A couple hundred here that post with any regularity? I don't know how many of those carry dots.
Rocky Racoon
01-06-2022, 12:24 AM
Stop being a little bitch.
Where did that come from? Did I insult you?
Again with the assumption that that he hasn't put in the work.
Based on both my own experience and my experiences training experienced iron sight shooters transitioning to the dot at work, his statements in the video are exactly what they (and I) said before "getting over the hump." I literally used to be that guy and I know it when I hear it.
Speaking of that hump, based on both my own experiences training new shooters and those of three LE Academies I'm aware of, new shooters do not experience that hump and starting them on Dots followed by irons results in them becoming competent with irons faster as well. This mirrors the U.S. Army's experiences with Dots on carbines.
Rocky Racoon
01-06-2022, 12:43 AM
The techniques being taught were outdated and not found to be as effective as some of the more recently accepted techniques.
I’ve taken one class fro Ken Hackathorn. I enjoyed it but not because of the instruction received. I just liked talking to the man and picking his brain about gun stuff. Ken Hackathorn is a national treasure because he’s seen and done so much and his knowledge base is enormous. He’s not a national treasure because he’s the best instructor around.
I've never met the man.
And I don't disagree with what you wrote.
I do think it's strange that for a national treasure we are quick to dogpile on him because he's perhaps behind the times on RDS. We are seemingly convinced he hasn't put in the work and is incapable of evolving. Maybe he hasn't put in the work. And maybe he is too old to evolve. But we don't know. It's possible he has put in the work and is capable of evolving, but still doesn't like RDS.
Either way, so what? State your opinion once and drive on. He's not stopping anyone from carrying anything. But no. Can't do that. Got to flog this to death and keep flogging. Make sure everyone knows you never liked Hackathorn in the first place.
If I've hit a nerve and feel the need to attack me, then yeah, I might be on to something.
Yes. Those issues can be rectified with training, etc, but "we" are not the people he is referencing. He's talking about the cop that draws his pistol on annual qual day and who has to knock the dust bunny and french fry off of the sights before firing the first shot and the person without the technical ability to maintain a 1911.
I believe the new generation of closed emitter optics, cross-bolt/weaver/ 1913-ish mounting and factory direct milled guns will make RDS pistols no more "fiddly" than adjustable rear sights on a blued revolver. Of course nothing is cop-proof.
PS- In GA wouldn't it be a boiled peanut stuck to the rear sight via dried Coca Cola ?
One thing Hackathorn didn’t mention at all about dots is that they’re one of the best dryfire diagnostic tools out there, and it might be that he didn’t notice because he has such a good trigger press that the dot didn’t show him how he was screwing up like it did for me.
Same here. I recently started doing dry practice using a course of drills centered around Steve Anderson's Refinement and Repetition book. In evaluating my shot picture at the time the timer goes off, I see/do not see the dot and only "count" my rep as good if I have a good sight picture. It's really helped me a lot.
For people like me, average at best shooters transitioning to dots as a medical necessity with aging eyes, the improvement in the quality of my dry practice has been one of the more surprising benefits of using a dot.
Hambo
01-06-2022, 07:01 AM
Strange thread in one way.
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
I just hope Scott Reitz hurries up and puts a dot on his 1911. I'd hate to see yall try to cancel him too.
Lighten up, Francis. I used to spend a fair amount of time with Ken, and what's in his head is a national treasure. However, regular YouTube videos predictably head downhill. The video of Ken/Bill talking about the Registered Models and Shooting Masters is gold. Their click bait crystal ball, not so much. At one time he was a regular in American Handgunner, and I recall him saying that he told the editor that he would run out of material and that the gig would have a finite life. He has probably said the same about this video series.
I am very glad that someone decided to get Bill, Ken, and Mas on camera, but I would rather Ken became a regular on Forgotten Weapons.
To me, these videos are preservation projects. Too often I find that younger people, including shooters, seem to have no idea about the past beyond their own memory. Although I doubt they're intended that way, these videos are a preservation project, and that's their greatest value. Ken is a great guy, and off camera I'll bet he'd say that some videos were just to keep the ball rolling.
ETA: I've got a Holosun coming, and I'll do whatever I need to do to sort it out.
Jared
01-06-2022, 07:04 AM
I've never met the man.
And I don't disagree with what you wrote.
I do think it's strange that for a national treasure we are quick to dogpile on him because he's perhaps behind the times on RDS. We are seemingly convinced he hasn't put in the work and is incapable of evolving. Maybe he hasn't put in the work. And maybe he is too old to evolve. But we don't know. It's possible he has put in the work and is capable of evolving, but still doesn't like RDS.
Either way, so what? State your opinion once and drive on. He's not stopping anyone from carrying anything. But no. Can't do that. Got to flog this to death and keep flogging. Make sure everyone knows you never liked Hackathorn in the first place.
If I've hit a nerve and feel the need to attack me, then yeah, I might be on to something.
I took him to task over some of the remarks in the video and I don’t have a single pistol with an RDS on it.
For me, watching the video, it wasn’t just the RDS thing. There were some snide little comments about how the pistol has to be pointed at your junk to be “cool” and other unnecessary bullshit like that. I get it, they don’t like Instagram celebrities, for that matter I really don’t either. My solution is to not have an Instagram account. Maybe if it bothers them so much they should try my approach.
But what that video was, when I watched it, was 23 minutes of bellyaching about the new trends, right up until time to plug things Wilson Combat was selling. I mean, the pistol mounted RDS is unnecessary but the Wilson P320 grip module is a game changer? Gimme a break.
Here’s the thing, no one is unassailable. Ken may be a national treasure, but that doesn’t make him infallible. It also doesn’t mean he can’t be questioned. It doesn’t mean he can’t be flat wrong.
And I’ll say it for the third time: I respect both of these guys for what they’ve contributed to the industry and the craft. I don’t think this particular video is their finest hour.
I took him to task over some of the remarks in the video and I don’t have a single pistol with an RDS on it.
For me, watching the video, it wasn’t just the RDS thing. There were some snide little comments about how the pistol has to be pointed at your junk to be “cool” and other unnecessary bullshit like that. I get it, they don’t like Instagram celebrities, for that matter I really don’t either. My solution is to not have an Instagram account. Maybe if it bothers them so much they should try my approach.
But what that video was, when I watched it, was 23 minutes of bellyaching about the new trends, right up until time to plug things Wilson Combat was selling. I mean, the pistol mounted RDS is unnecessary but the Wilson P320 grip module is a game changer? Gimme a break.
Here’s the thing, no one is unassailable. Ken may be a national treasure, but that doesn’t make him infallible. It also doesn’t mean he can’t be questioned. It doesn’t mean he can’t be flat wrong.
And I’ll say it for the third time: I respect both of these guys for what they’ve contributed to the industry and the craft. I don’t think this particular video is their finest hour.
They were quite complimentary in the whole segment about the highly impactful pistols (365, 320/M17, Staccato). That was a good long bit of the video. I was impressed they emphasized the improvements that resulted in the Staccato's success and impact; on a Wilson Combat video. I give them props for that.
As far as Hack busting people's balls for junk carry of an optic sighted Staccato P with a WML - the context of Hack is he speaks extremely candidly and will dunk on folks old school. He said it to our faces that if we didn't own at least one 1911 (I didn't at the time and raised my hand) we were a "Communist [expletive]". To those who dry fired 30 minutes every day "Get a [expletive] life!"
To me that was the charm of the discussion. Very much like being in a class with him during the breaks. Except for the lack of F-bombs which is a whole 'nuther Ken story.
CCT125US
01-06-2022, 07:27 AM
Seems like it wasn't long ago that folks said fawningly "Hack is getting old and cutting back on classes. Go train with this national treasure while you can before we are diminished."
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
In another way it's not a strange thread since groupthink is strong in this forum.
Initially I felt like a heretic. Following the class several years ago, it was as if all the desire to shoot was knocked out of me. The trainer, the one everyone suggested, was not up to task, it was ugly. I eventually reached out to ToddG and we traded some messages. Once I posted some thoughts, others began to question. Not in an accusatory way, but just running some things by me, seeing if it matched up. It was very enlightening to see the public vs private opinion of him. He lost his luster many years ago.
But now that he went against PF conventional wisdom regarding RDSs, he's an old man yelling at the clouds and folks are dogpiling on him?
I think that’s probably the first time anyone has suggested I have any sort of conventional PF wisdom….
Hehehehe.
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 09:10 AM
They need red dots but can’t swallow the pride long enough to work the learning curve to realize the benefits.
Can you expand on this?
Can you expand on this?
I respect you immensely and don’t want to say anything that seems disrespectful or is meant to be irritating.
Watching Ken’s shooting videos in the past year, he’s not shooting that great. Especially at speed.
He will often miss shots but the slow motion shows excellent trigger presses and mechanics as you would expect.
Which suggests that the limiting factor is vision.
He wears glasses and is of the age where vision and focus can get difficult.
Many competition shooters experience this decrement, only to have immediate restoration of vision and accuracy of hits with red dots.
So that’s my assessment. If Ken wants to shoot better (basically to his mechanical potential), he “needs” a red dot.
Most of the 1,600 aren't active. There's what? A couple hundred here that post with any regularity? I don't know how many of those carry dots.
I presume we can set up a poll but percentages don't really matter. We've a number of folks who do dots, some more vocal and some less, but I think that regardless of the denominator - 200 actively posting, 1600 actively listed, or 10,000 listed as members - there still will be more people carrying irons than dots. I don't think that your characterization of opinion of more enthusiastic dot proponents as a "PF groupthink" is really that accurate.
The reaction to Ken's opinion is rather predictable. Somebody says something publicly and that something sounds questionable or biased - people will call you out regardless of your reputation. Has happened time and time again. More recently, I don't know if Bruce Gray has fixed his rep to pre-drop safety 320 scandal level even now; he certainly has not returned to his previous online presence.
Anyway, Ken's right in that future will show. I wish him good health so he's around to see what happens.
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 10:01 AM
I respect you immensely and don’t want to say anything that seems disrespectful or is meant to be irritating.
Watching Ken’s shooting videos in the past year, he’s not shooting that great. Especially at speed.
He will often miss shots but the slow motion shows excellent trigger presses and mechanics as you would expect.
Which suggests that the limiting factor is vision.
He wears glasses and is of the age where vision and focus can get difficult.
Many competition shooters experience this decrement, only to have immediate restoration of vision and accuracy of hits with red dots.
So that’s my assessment. If Ken wants to shoot better (basically to his mechanical potential), he “needs” a red dot.
I appreciate your respect for my reputation and you haven't said ANYTHING I've found to be personally disrespectful. So we're fine.
I'm not sure that a 75 year old man who is retired from training really cares about improving his shooting. You may very well be correct in that a red dot could improve his speed and accuracy.
My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?
:p
My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?
Like many things, I bet it is multi factorial. Awareness of the growing pains with dot technology, living in an area with rain and snow, a reluctance to invest in the significant dot learning curve, satisfaction with where his shooting is now, and part being curmudgeonly.
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 10:21 AM
Like many things, I bet it is multi factorial. Awareness of the growing pains with dot technology, living in an area with rain and snow, a reluctance to invest in the significant dot learning curve, satisfaction with where his shooting is now, and part being curmudgeonly.
I think that's fair.
blues
01-06-2022, 10:28 AM
I think that's fair.
Hell, even I could use all of those excuses explanations.
(Being of a certain age and generally not giving a crap about the new hotness. Besides, who said being curmudgeonly is a bad thing? Get off my lawn. ;))
My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?
My impression that it’s primarily ego and I’ll tell you why.
The visible pain on his face when he misses a shot on video then quickly tries to hand wave it away, knowing full well he wouldn’t have missed that shot in his prime.
It’s not that I think he wants to work at improving his shooting.
I think he’s deathly afraid of losing what he currently has because so much of his identity (ego) is built into that.
At work, I talk with a lot of elderly about their losses of function and I recognize that pain (with a hint of fear) on the face.
To use a different analogy, it’s like erectile dysfunction.
And red dots are Viagra.
If you don’t believe in taking pills, you might not admit you have ED.
If you embrace what it is, you might opt for Viagra even if you don’t have ED…. hehe.
I appreciate your respect for my reputation and you haven't said ANYTHING I've found to be personally disrespectful. So we're fine.
I'm not sure that a 75 year old man who is retired from training really cares about improving his shooting. You may very well be correct in that a red dot could improve his speed and accuracy.
My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?
Would he be improving his shooting or restoring his shooting? The latter is how many similarly aged bullseye competitors described their experience going to red dots.
I have a co-worker who is in his late 50s and similarly situated to JCN’s description. He is a firearms instructor and his physical condition is good but his shooting ability has declined noticeably to the point he now declines to participate in our quarterly shoot off during our instructor day. Yet he refuses to use both RX glasses and/or red dots. His arguments mirror those previously discussed. The difference is, while there is certainly some ego involved at a personal level, he has not extrapolated that to red dots not being viable for others.
Wondering Beard
01-06-2022, 11:14 AM
I just want to point out that ascribing motivation (i.e. knowledge of a person's mind on any topic) is the very definition of ASS-U-ME.
Speculating is fine, coming to a conclusion shouldn't be.
Glenn E. Meyer
01-06-2022, 11:20 AM
Fundamental Attribution Error:
In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are",[1] that is, to overattribute their behaviors (what they do or say) to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. The error is in seeing someone's actions as solely reflective of their personality rather than somewhat reflective of it and also largely prompted by circumstances.
I am still personally torn about spending the bucks for a new RDS set up. Money doesn't grow on trees but I could see it's utility. I shoot irons OK, IMHO, for my SD needs - my goal in shooting nowadays. If I can shoot 25 Alphas and 5 Charlies on a stage with a stock Glock with the Glock factory sights - that would work for most likely scenarios. I'm not winning anything - running and gunning on move - tell my back and knees. I kind of sadly chuckle at some older folk who try to hurry up between positions as they see the young ones flash step to each. Not me, I'll get there when I get there. Maybe this is geezer whining, perhaps - FAE.
My impression that it’s primarily ego and I’ll tell you why.
The visible pain on his face when he misses a shot on video then quickly tries to hand wave it away, knowing full well he wouldn’t have missed that shot in his prime.
It’s not that I think he wants to work at improving his shooting.
I think he’s deathly afraid of losing what he currently has because so much of his identity (ego) is built into that.
At work, I talk with a lot of elderly about their losses of function and I recognize that pain (with a hint of fear) on the face.
To use a different analogy, it’s like erectile dysfunction.
And red dots are Viagra.
If you don’t believe in taking pills, you might not admit you have ED.
If you embrace what it is, you might opt for Viagra even if you don’t have ED…. hehe.
“Red dots are Viagra” is sig line material.
However, in all seriousness your post mirrors my question of improving vs restoring.
Glenn E. Meyer
01-06-2022, 11:45 AM
If you use your RDS for how many rounds - when do you need to go to the ER? If a match is longer than 4 hours?
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 11:53 AM
The difference is, while there is certainly some ego involved at a personal level, he has not extrapolated that to red dots not being viable for others.
Did Ken do that in the video? If so I missed it.
blues
01-06-2022, 12:15 PM
“Red dots are Viagra” is sig line material.
Well, now you've opened the floodgates...
Honey, does this optic make my dick look big?
:rolleyes:
Well, now you've opened the floodgates...
Honey, does this optic make my dick look big?
:rolleyes:
Good thing this discussion of ED is in GD, or we would have to move it to long guns.
blues
01-06-2022, 12:35 PM
Good thing this discussion of ED is in GD, or we would have to move it to long guns.
The next cover story should be a doozie:
Barrels: Length or Girth? An SME Opines
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 12:50 PM
Well, now you've opened the floodgates...
Honey, does this optic make my dick look big?
:rolleyes:
Optics, WMLs, appendix carry.....
Freud would have had a ball with all this.:D
Jared
01-06-2022, 12:52 PM
Like many things, I bet it is multi factorial. Awareness of the growing pains with dot technology, living in an area with rain and snow, a reluctance to invest in the significant dot learning curve, satisfaction with where his shooting is now, and part being curmudgeonly.
I’ll second this. Matter of fact, I’d be willing to wager that “satisfaction with where his shooting is now” is a big driver.
This part is not aimed at you GJM, just something I’ve noticed here and other places: Some people never stop wanting to improve their shooting. Some work very hard at it and burn out. Some just reach a level where they’re happy, whatever level that may be, and decide they have better things to do than dry fire an hour a day or whatever to reach the 99.9 percentile.
Now me, personally, I don’t care too much where anyone falls on that spectrum. Their lives their business. However, should one choose to make public declarations, especially public declarations that throw shade on someone that calls into a different category they should then expect there will be a reaction.
Did Ken do that in the video? If so I missed it.
I got that from his statements to the effect that at realistic handgun distances there is no advantage to the dot.
In contrast, BW’s statements in the video were dot ambivalent but that he found no advantage for himself.
I agree with GJM’s take that it’s an amalgamation.
blues
01-06-2022, 01:49 PM
Optics, WMLs, appendix carry.....
Freud would have had a ball with all this.:D
https://static.scientificamerican.com/blogs/cache/file/8D211AE7-04BC-45EF-ADAEE419F1061C7A_source.jpg?w=590&h=800&1066C572-B547-47CF-A0FDCDC271374F6E
"Sometimes an optic is just an...oh, who am I kidding?"
The technology of the dot is fairly uninteresting to me as is the equipment. I'm dot ambivalent.
What's more interesting is the conversation the dot has forced on the community of "three focal plane" shooting versus "single focal" plane shooting and the implications that has for congruency in training regardless of the sighting system.
Sure.
There are still a TON of agencies and private sector businesses that are teaching traditional sight alignment and sight picture with "hard front sight focus" language. As the dot becomes more and more common...and we see more people beginning their education on shooting with a dot....will we see a shift in orthodox iron sight marksmanship pedagogy? A mainstream shift that facilitates greater congruency across sighting systems?
Thinking about these questions brought up another, related issue.
My own experience with red dots included a period of time where we were working with the red dots for training and development but still carrying irons on duty. My personal experience was I had little to no difficulty switching back-and-forth between irons and red dot. However, among skilled shooters in both my own agency and other agencies we work with some people were able to shift back-and-forth easily and some people could not despite being competent with both sighting systems. They would require a period to re-acclimatize themselves to one sighting system or the other.
I initially thought this might be an “everybody’s eyes are different” issue but this seemed less common with new shooters who started on the dot. That raises the question of whether this is an eye issue or a mental / programming issue. And if it’s not a congenital eye issue then is it residual to the experienced shooters being “wired” to hard front sight focus ?
This question has me wanting to pull up and go through Gabe White’s old PF postings on vision and visual accommodation.
awp_101
01-06-2022, 02:10 PM
Good thing this discussion of ED is in GD, or we would have to move it to long guns.
Would 11.5s still be considered shorties? Would 16”+ be what what the cool kids started running?
mmc45414
01-06-2022, 02:22 PM
I like Ken, I am almost 63 and have known him since I was about 20 (he was probably there the day my avatar pic was taken). If you said my name he may or may not say "Oh yeah, how is MMc doing" but I am pretty sure he would know me if I walked up to him. I have always enjoyed talking to him, and I appreciate the help he has given me in the past. IMO this video probably suffers from having a bad title, they were discussing (complaining?) about the present and talking about the past as much as predicting the future. If the title was Two Guys Chatting it would probably be perceived differently.
And red dots are Viagra.
“Red dots are Viagra” is sig line material.
However, in all seriousness your post mirrors my question of improving vs restoring.
I shoot irons OK, IMHO, for my SD needs - my goal in shooting nowadays.
Another thing I thought about was that they both talked about shooting better with irons in a very specific situation, the situation that most likely mirrors self-defense. But my thing on this is that BOTH of these guys have developed TONS of skill from shooting MILLIONS of rounds over DECADES of practice. THEY might still be a little better at one segment of the task with them, but they do not represent a typical human. Me, OTOH, is a dude that is pretty happy to make it out once a week to shoot timed drills with my buddies, or hit an occasional match, maybe sneak out once during the week, but I am at the high end of getting trigger time compared to most people. And I do not have much trouble transitioning, and I can do many things better with a dot.
I have one M&P setup with a Swampfox to stick my toe in the water, it was a gun I already had that I bought a CORE slide for, converting a 40 I wasn't shooting into a 9mm in the process. I like shooting it indoors, it really helps me there. And most weeks I at least take it along and wear a compatible holster, because the group of buddies that gathers on Sundays includes one young whippersnapper that uses a dot and is blazingly fast. When he shows up I quietly swap out to my dot pistol even if I wasn't planning to shoot it, I need all the help I can get if I am going to try and keep him honest. But I am shooting three gun once a month, and want to continue to shoot in TacOps, so especially the Sunday prior to match week I try and shoot irons. Well, Dawsons with FO rods in both front and rear...
I am still personally torn about spending the bucks for a new RDS set up.
Yeah, that is reality. I want to buy another fresh M&P ($5-600) and send it off for direct mill ($150) for a RMR ($500) or SRO($600), and just like Viagra ($25, so I have heard...) I do not want to get to the point where I am NEED all that! :cool:
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 02:56 PM
Thinking about these questions brought up another, related issue.
My own experience with red dots included a period of time where we were working with the red dots for training and development but still carrying irons on duty. My personal experience was I had little to no difficulty switching back-and-forth between irons and red dot. However, among skilled shooters in both my own agency and other agencies we work with some people were able to shift back-and-forth easily and some people could not despite being competent with both sighting systems. They would require a period to re-acclimatize themselves to one sighting system or the other.
I initially thought this might be an “everybody’s eyes are different” issue but this seemed less common with new shooters who started on the dot. That raises the question of whether this is an eye issue or a mental / programming issue. And if it’s not a congenital eye issue then is it residual to the experienced shooters being “wired” to hard front sight focus ?
This question has me wanting to pull up and go through Gabe White’s old PF postings on vision and visual accommodation.
See that stuff to me is more interesting than just the tech itself. How it relates to training.
Hambo
01-06-2022, 02:57 PM
“Red dots are Viagra” is sig line material.
Or an epitaph. ;)
Thinking about these questions brought up another, related issue.
My own experience with red dots included a period of time where we were working with the red dots for training and development but still carrying irons on duty. My personal experience was I had little to no difficulty switching back-and-forth between irons and red dot. However, among skilled shooters in both my own agency and other agencies we work with some people were able to shift back-and-forth easily and some people could not despite being competent with both sighting systems. They would require a period to re-acclimatize themselves to one sighting system or the other.
I initially thought this might be an “everybody’s eyes are different” issue but this seemed less common with new shooters who started on the dot. That raises the question of whether this is an eye issue or a mental / programming issue. And if it’s not a congenital eye issue then is it residual to the experienced shooters being “wired” to hard front sight focus ?
See that stuff to me is more interesting than just the tech itself. How it relates to training.
I think for me the key point is:
"This seemed less common with new shooters who started on the dot."
That has been my experience for a number of reasons (and Aaron Cowan's hypothesis in his White Paper).
You could take that to mean that the more universal shooting skill is developed with dots rather than irons.
From my personal observations, I think that is the case. Which then begs the question of which one should be the fundamental system to learn on and which one is the "advanced" skill?
One of the things that I've posted on before is what happens with a red dot towards the edge of the window versus an iron sight towards the edge.
Would you take that head shot with an iron?
82456
But you would with a dot. And you train your brain and vision to accept good index with alternate vision besides just the most narrow post in notch iron sight picture.
82457
That’s why I think dots rule. They train actual index better than irons.
Without practicing irons, with dot training I could do this without any adjustment.
https://youtu.be/C8vdt9u3uvs
https://youtu.be/M1MqgvDVRaI
NEPAKevin
01-06-2022, 04:26 PM
But what that video was, when I watched it, was 23 minutes of bellyaching about the new trends, right up until time to plug things Wilson Combat was selling. I mean, the pistol mounted RDS is unnecessary but the Wilson P320 grip module is a game changer? Gimme a break.
And as others have noted/speculated, there may be a Wilson P365 in the near future and probably a grip module, etc. And what is one of the features of the P365XL? ... pre cut for SIG's Romeo zero dot. What's to say that in a few months there won't be a click bait video with a title something to the effect of "The (insert brand name, now available at Wilson Combat) has changed our minds about red dots. It's a game changer...." It's just marketing, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Like a new born baby it just happens every day.
Ken and Bill are obviously both characters. I might ping Joyce to get Bill a 365 and a RMSc for following up on hogs, and go meet Ken over a beer and thrash this out, when Charlie and I are in Hamilton shooting matches in the summer.
SouthNarc
01-06-2022, 05:45 PM
Ken and Bill are obviously both characters. I might ping Joyce to get Bill a 365 and a RMSc for following up on hogs, and go meet Ken over a beer and thrash this out, when Charlie and I are in Hamilton shooting matches in the summer.
Who knows? Ken or Bill might be reading this thread right now.
Who knows? Ken or Bill might be reading this thread right now.
Bill is out hunting, but I can't speak for Ken!
Good thing this discussion of ED is in GD, or we would have to move it to long guns.
Optics section, amigo, optics. It is not about if you use 7 inch rail or 11 inch. It is about how long your battery lasts.
Optics section, amigo, optics. It is not about if you use 7 inch rail or 11 inch. It is about how long your battery lasts.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and a a like for this, because English is not your first language and I figure as a doctor you probably know something that I don't understand.
because English is not your first language and I figure as a doctor you probably know something that I don't understand.
That's kinda my excuse to my admin for every bad patient's survey I get.
Back to the topic at hand, as a smaller sub-topic, I wonder what Ken's opinion on target focused shooting in general might be. Not just the dots, any sights.
MistWolf
01-06-2022, 11:12 PM
I respect you immensely and don’t want to say anything that seems disrespectful or is meant to be irritating.
Watching Ken’s shooting videos in the past year, he’s not shooting that great. Especially at speed.
He will often miss shots but the slow motion shows excellent trigger presses and mechanics as you would expect.
Which suggests that the limiting factor is vision.
He wears glasses and is of the age where vision and focus can get difficult.
Many competition shooters experience this decrement, only to have immediate restoration of vision and accuracy of hits with red dots.
So that’s my assessment. If Ken wants to shoot better (basically to his mechanical potential), he “needs” a red dot.
Ken never does a re-shoot for his videos. When he shoots a drill, he does only one take and lets the hits fall where they may.
Ken has his flaws, just like everyone else I know, myself included. But he's a man of good character, much to be admired for his accomplishments.
If I ever had to go into a dark place, Ken is high on my list of those I'd want with me.
And as others have noted/speculated, there may be a Wilson P365 in the near future and probably a grip module, etc. And what is one of the features of the P365XL? ... pre cut for SIG's Romeo zero dot. What's to say that in a few months there won't be a click bait video with a title something to the effect of "The (insert brand name, now available at Wilson Combat) has changed our minds about red dots. It's a game changer...." It's just marketing, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Like a new born baby it just happens every day.
Changed their minds about what? They are offering optic ready pistols already.
Ken has his flaws, just like everyone else I know, myself included. But he's a man of good character, much to be admired for his accomplishments.
If I ever had to go into a dark place, Ken is high on my list of those I'd want with me.
I think the two statements can be exclusive of one another.
I’ll give you an example. There was a cardiovascular surgeon who was an honorable man and a pioneer in his field. He earned and deserved much respect.
But at about the same age as Ken, I would not pick him to operate on me if I needed it. Not to be ageist, but because the visible decrement of ability was apparent.
Same goes for any sport or technical skill.
I think the two statements can be exclusive of one another.
I’ll give you an example. There was a cardiovascular surgeon who was an honorable man and a pioneer in his field. He earned and deserved much respect.
But at about the same age as Ken, I would not pick him to operate on me if I needed it. Not to be ageist, but because the visible decrement of ability was apparent.
Same goes for any sport or technical skill.
In fairness, you may be applying your standards of USPSA technical shooting to a person who could care less about USPSA technical shooting. There is also the inference that Ken’s skills have degraded, presumably because of age — and I don’t understand what is your basis for that belief.
At this point, it feels like this thread has run its course.
In fairness, you may be applying your standards of USPSA technical shooting to a person who could care less about USPSA technical shooting. There is also the inference that Ken’s skills have degraded, presumably because of age — and I don’t understand what is your basis for that belief.
I think that’s fair.
I tried to assess his ability based off just the drills he was demonstrating in his videos rather than off any gaming specific things, but you’re right that my standards are probably skewed.
I don’t think a good coach needs to possess active skills above a B class level to be an effective instructor and coach.
My estimation for the belief that his shooting has decreased due to age-related vision changes are that I have a difficult time believing that someone in the million-round shooting club wouldn’t have better peak skills than he demonstrates currently.
If I look at someone like Chuck Pressburg who is not a gamer, who can demonstrate the no fail on demand and has special forces background… that’s an impressive level of skill to me. Of note Pressburg uses a red dot.
There are a few lines of discussion here that have gotten kind of mixed and jumbled together.
The overall context is that I think Ken is a better mechanical shooter who is vision limited at this point but I’m not convinced has actually committed to improving with dots but I don’t know for sure.
I’m a little scared to see what videos come next from “The Gun Guys” though.
I’m a little scared to see what videos come next from “The Gun Guys” though.
Don’t worry, unless “JCN” is in the title of their video, at which point I hope there are some other initials you are fond of.
It is not just this forum, there is a red dot revolution going on.
It's not often we get the opportunity to buy the illusion of skill.
NEPAKevin
01-07-2022, 02:28 PM
Changed their minds about what? They are offering optic ready pistols already.
Sorry, I assumed the terms "click bait" and "marketing" would infer that the hypothetical video title was not intended so much to express accuracy of a concept as to get a potential viewers/customers to "click on the new video" which obliquely references the dot controversy from the video being discussed. It's a relatively common technique used by content creators who are both catering to an established audience and trying to draw in new viewers.
ETA, I would also note that I am not saying that this "is" what they were doing in the current video as I do not personally know either of the gentlemen but rather that rant/rave is one way I have seen stuff get marketed.
"I firmly believe red dots are the future. But we're not there yet." - K.H.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXi9tYIaBY
7:00
If you can't figure out the context he's getting at . . . I don't know what to tell you.
TCinVA
10-20-2022, 08:33 AM
https://youtu.be/jjlL0hYgdag
We Lazarus this thread because apparently they decided to do a red dot specific followup on the predictions video.
As before, there's stuff to agree with and disagree with depending on perspective.
There are a lot of people out there selling smoke and mirrors on dots. Mostly out of innocent misunderstanding, but at least some of it is designed to boost some personal financial prospects.
People completely new to shooting handguns may well find acclimation easier than folks used to irons. The dot changes how you present the gun for a good chunk of the population. One can argue about the efficiencies of various approaches to the draw, but if you don't already have a pretty L shaped draw that gets the gun into your eyeline level, you'll find dot use considerably more frustrating.
There is a marked gap between the capabilities and habits of the "one percenters" discussed and the typical person who has a handgun purchased or issued for home defense. For them using the gun is not a hobby any more than most of us find the intricacies of hand tools to be a hobby. When I need a wrench, I just want one that works because having the wrench isn't the ultimate goal. The more typical person is like some folks I'm related to who routinely carry their pistol, but the last time they cleared leather with it and shot it is something they couldn't tell you offhand. If they shoot 200 rounds a year I'd be shocked. Now, they're doing better than most because they have absorbed the need to follow Tom's advice and "carry your damn gun", but in terms of proficiency in its use, that's another question altogether.
Luckily most criminal threats are terminated by even the effort to present a gun. Based on years of watching people draw handguns from concealment I'm convinced one of the reasons we don't see more rounds fired in self defense is simply because so many people are so slow to get the gun into action that the bad guy has time to recognize what's happening and shift into escape mode. The number of people who have a true 1.5 second or less draw from concealment is so incredibly small that it's basically a statistical rounding error.
Dots as they exist right now is the wrong call for these people. If we see evolution toward the standard I mentioned earlier (and have manifested in my own personal carry gear) then perhaps, but even if the gun comes from the manufacturer with the dot mounted and zeroed (Anyone teach carbine classes? Tell the class how much of your life is spent dealing with shit that isn't zeroed) that optic still has to be maintained and these people aren't cleaning or lubricating their firearms, much less keeping up with a dot.
In a typical use of a handgun, a dot doesn't have a huge delta in performance over iron sights. I often say that dot equipped pistols are best for what we do the least with a defensive handgun. I don't think we will see the stats change radically on where bad guys do their business. But I am seeing indications that the far end of the bell curve is getting a little higher off the X axis:
https://youtu.be/lv5Q8WNpVfk
Two officers dead, this officer already wounded and thanks to the officer's ability to still maneuver the suspect presents an opportunity to stop the fight 36 yards away from the officer's position. Can you make that shot in low light conditions with a night-sight equipped pistol? I've made a shot similar to that on the range so I possess the physical capacity for it. Of course, I wasn't bleeding and in the middle of a gunfight when I did it. But if I set that shot up on the range, put $1,000 dollars on the line with the rules being if you make it you get $1,000 and if you don't you pay me $1,000 and gave the shooter the choice of doing it with an irons gun or an RDS equipped gun...who would pick the irons over the optic?
Yeah. Me neither.
So, yes, at typical defensive handgun stuff irons aren't any real handicap. But when we start looking at atypical situations are we dealing with the chicken or the egg? Do we not see more atypical handgun work because it's that rare to have an opportunity for it, or do we not see more of it because people know they can't do it? In the video above you see an officer who took an opportunity he otherwise might not have taken if he didn't have an optic on his gun. So it's not just inappropriate masturbatory bullshit over the Dicken incident.
The expense issue will always be there. The best optics to bet on are always going to be a significant chunk of the price of the handgun itself, adding somewhere between 25-75% of the price of the pistol on top of the pistol's purchase. The "tactical" world has gone from "LOL, if you carry a custom 1911 you'll lose a multi-thousand dollar pistol to police evidence" to "I will absolutely buy a $2,500 gun and stick a $500 optic and $300 light on it because that's what I need to fight with" real fuckin' quick. The bang for the buck proposition of a dot is a thing.
The training issue mentioned is multi-faceted. I, too, have watched a lot of people present their pistol expecting to find a dot, not find a dot, and uselessly prevaricate trying to find it before making a shot. Typically they were not under pressure to perform or else. I've found that not having my dot in the middle of shooting a scored course with something on the line doesn't prompt me to stand there helplessly looking for the dot. There's a slight delay and then I just switch to the sights...which if your presentation of the dot is correct are right there already aligned under the spot where the dot would be...and get to work. The delay ranges from 1/2 to 1/10 of a second. Is that likely to get me kilt in the streets? Probably not. Would I like to eliminate that? You betcha...which is why I have an Acro with a 2032 on my carry gun. And I routinely practice drawing with no dot, just looking for the irons.
If someone has literally decades into looking for the sights at a high level I can see how they would find dot skills to be perishable. If you've habituated something over literally your entire adult life then it gets harder and harder to change it. Today you can still see the ruts from wagon wheels on what used to be the Oregon Trail. A similar phenomenon has happened inside the brain and muscles of someone who has spent decades presenting a pistol from the holster a specific way that now makes it more difficult to find a dot. If you don't actively manage the process you end up doing what you are accustomed to and having to fix it somewhere in the middle. Someone who is very skilled with irons might well struggle with a dot and find the whole thing not worth their time.
Now the idea that you lose the dot between shots...that's not true anymore than you lose sights between shots. And that's not happening because of the thing mounted on top of the gun because the things mounted on top of the slide aren't shooting the gun.
I don't think dots will fade like 40 S&W. I do think we will hit a point of sanity where folks recognize that DOT ALL THE THINGS is not actually a good answer for everybody's situation, but I don't think you're going to see people who have dots now getting rid of them in large numbers. I think the concept is here to stay.
We probably need to merge this thread with the other one I posted this video link in, as we are having parallel conversations.
I don’t want to Dot all the things and was thinking that the other day. I was pondering to myself “Yeah, I don’t want all RDS on all of my guns”. Then I started thinking about a .22 LR pistol for my boys when they’re older and I was specifically looking for models with rails to attach a dot and it occurred to me - I’m just planning to put dots on everything.
The performance is there - is it the standard? Do I look at basically all pistols now and consider how I’m going to put a red dot on it subconsciously now? Basically.
I’ve been on a podcast binge (listening to a lot of Q podcasts). We said there was minimal weapon development in the GWOT and it’s been widely portrayed that kinetic guns are near their apex. But, when you look at it. The development has been in sighting systems really. RDS on a pistol? Yes. Iron sights to RDS to LPVO on Rifles? Yes. Night vision, IR lasers, IR illuminators and now digital night vision rapidly progressing to mainstream and driving down cost comparative to analog night vision? (If you have lots of time listen to the podcast Q did with EoTech most recently in the second/ third hour and also listen to the interview with KAC he did with Trey Knight. Both are indicating digital night vision is the future and is markedly less expensive. EOTech plans (per their Product Manager) to release digital binocular tube night vision tubes in 18 months).
Sighting systems have been where the development has gone in the last two decades.
I don’t think RDS will be on everything or should be. But, it is the future for professional weapons it seems.
Trooper224
10-20-2022, 10:44 AM
I agree with much of what Ken says, at least as far as his disdain for those "all the dot, all the time" folks. Over the years we've seen the same attitude regarding the Tazer, Pepper Spray, etc. It's all treated like the second coming and the cure for every problem. We all know how that typically turns out. That being said, my old agency is shortly going to RDS use and if I was still working midnights I'd be embracing that wholeheartedly. It was an absolute game changer when we put it on our rifles. Right now it doesn't interest me. My eyesight is still fine. I'm also an old bullseye competitor and handgun hunter. Using pistol irons at extended ranges is a developed skill. However, when the eyes finally start to go south, I'll have no hesitation in adopting the technology. While I think this is one of the more considered videos I've seen in this series, I can't agree that it's a fad or a misfire.
Pistol red dots are not the. 41 Action Express.
Steve m
10-20-2022, 12:35 PM
Ops,
I posted a thread in the RDS section referencing the above video. Please remove so we dont have redundancy.
Thanks
Steve
Jared
10-21-2022, 04:07 PM
I thought this video was a lot more nuanced and less cringe worthy than the last one. I pretty much agree with the long analysis posted by TC on it. I know I took Ken to task pretty hard for the first video (and I still stand by what I said before), but I think this one actually had some decent points both ways.
Paul Blackburn
10-21-2022, 04:37 PM
I appreciate and enjoy their perspective because of how long they've been in and around the industry. We all have a perspective based on our experience and insights.
And we'll be old to...if we're lucky.
Stephanie B
10-21-2022, 05:31 PM
With my nearsightedness and using progressive lenses, the dots look kind of fuzzy unless I have them directly centered. I seem to have less troubles with a laser.
Bolt_Overide
10-22-2022, 05:25 AM
Ive been shooting irons since my grandpa gave me a 70 year old 1911 when I was 12. I'm not some high speed operator, but I'm better than average. It took me 3 tries to start using an MRDS on a pistol worth a damn. I had a hell of a time figuring it out and not chasing the dot, then I had an epiphany, just catch the front sight in your lower peripheral and the dot will be there when you get it level. Sometimes its just overthinking it thats the issue.
TCinVA
12-06-2022, 12:14 PM
They're right. Putting an electronic sight on top of your gun and using the right fasteners to the right torque and the right thread locker and witness marking everything to hopefully keep everything there so it doesn't give an inaccurate reference when you need it or snap screws off in your slide requiring a complicated extraction procedure...well all of that can be described as extra complication. The typical person toting a pistol doesn't even lubricate the motherfucker or change springs in it. Think of your typical police officer's maintenance and ponder giving them an RMR.
They're wrong. Dots on handguns are complicated because we're still in the early days of the concept and we're stuck with a lot of options that suck. It's like cars. Prior to the 1930's controls on vehicles weren't standardized and everybody had their own approach. The RMR was the first widely successful optic for this and so it's sub-standard mounting methodology got out there. A couple of little fasteners with minimal thread engagement is not how you want to mount an optic on a slide, but people started doing it and it's become a thing.
S&W makes a 2.0 M&P that comes with a slide already machined for the Aimpoint Acro. That's what the future looks like. Leaving behind all this screw fasteners down into the slide and adapter plate bullshit and having the slides built with mounting lugs not too dissimilar to the top of an M4 receiver. Enclosed emitter optics will likely become more and more popular since they care less about environmental factors.
It will reach the point where mounting an optic to your pistol is no more complicated than mounting a dot optic to your carbine.
Interesting note on this specific topic.
At least a couple of large federal agencies are moving quickly in the direction of purchasing factory Acro cut Glock pistols and Acro P2 sights for at least limited issue to units within them. I expect that to be the camel's nose under the tent and for more widespread adoption to happen thereafter.
When you think about the logistics of issued gear, there's really no other way. Mounting the optic needs to be stone simple and the optic itself needs to require minimal if any maintenance. As it succeeds in these agencies the concept will spread to other agencies and the market in general.
This is likely going to move fast.
Interesting note on this specific topic.
At least a couple of large federal agencies are moving quickly in the direction of purchasing factory Acro cut Glock pistols and Acro P2 sights for at least limited issue to units within them. I expect that to be the camel's nose under the tent and for more widespread adoption to happen thereafter.
When you think about the logistics of issued gear, there's really no other way. Mounting the optic needs to be stone simple and the optic itself needs to require minimal if any maintenance. As it succeeds in these agencies the concept will spread to other agencies and the market in general.
This is likely going to move fast.
I hope this causes Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hackathorn to update their thinking to this decade.
And maybe Mrs. Wilson to move IDPA to this decade also, where “stock service pistol” might just be wearing an optic for a good portion of the LEO/Mil.
If they had 15 round SSP+optic, I’d very much consider that as a division I would play in.
Ive been shooting irons since my grandpa gave me a 70 year old 1911 when I was 12. I'm not some high speed operator, but I'm better than average. It took me 3 tries to start using an MRDS on a pistol worth a damn. I had a hell of a time figuring it out and not chasing the dot, then I had an epiphany, just catch the front sight in your lower peripheral and the dot will be there when you get it level. Sometimes it’s just overthinking it thats the issue.
Acquiring the dot during presentation and “chasing the dot” are two separate problems. You seem to be talking about acquiring the dot.
If one has trouble acquiring the dot it’s because their presentation / index is not as good as they think it is. When presenting a gun with irons we often don’t realize how much we are using our lower peripheral vision to pick up the sights and guide the gun before it comes up into the eye line and / or if we are excessively moving our head during presentation. It’s easier to line things up when only one is moving vs both moving. With the red dot you can only see the gun in peripherals and can’t see the dot till the window is in the eye line so to acquire the dot quickly we need an efficient and consistent presentation.
One of the side effects of working with a red dot is it forces you to clean up your presentation making you a better / faster iron sight shooter as well.
Iron sights are a three focal plane sighting system. Your eye is changing focus accommodating between the target, the front sight and the rear sight because your eye can only focus on one thing at a time. This is why classic iron sight technique is to focus on the front sight, because it’s the compromise in the middle.
One of the biggest advantages of the red dot is it’s a single focal plane sighting system. You are target focused and the red dot is floating in your field of view. It’s faster and easier to do one thing vs three things.
The problem with using the front sight as training wheels to find the dot is you are taking a single focal plane sighting system and turning it into a four focal plane sighting system I.e. making it slower than irons.
The two predominant methods of acquiring the dot are the classic index (escalator ride) presentation and the Modern Samaurai Project (Scott Jedlinski) “wave” technique where the dot drops consistently from 12 o’clock in the widow during presentation. You can see Scott explain it on YouTube. IME the index can be slightly faster but takes more work to perfect and maintain. The wave is easier to learn and be consistent with.
The “pressout” used with DA guns can work but is slower than the above methods for most. There are other methods which involve the dot presenting from 6 o’clock the biggest thing is consistency.
While a clean presentation will usually give a somewhat centered dot, the minimal parallax of the dot I.e. the bullet going where the dot is regardless of where it is in the window, is an advantage of the dot.
If dot acquisition was your issue disregard below.
Chasing the dot involves being sight focused instead of target focused. It entails the error of focusing on the dot like it’s a front sight and winding up with groups that look like shotgun patterns. This can be compounded, if shooting with one eye instead of both eyes open.
Red dots aside, in general shooting with both eyes open is superior to closing one eye, particularly with shotguns and pistols. Even with Iron sights. As a target focused sighting system the red dot works best when shooting with both eyes open.
Bolt_Overide
12-07-2022, 03:18 AM
Acquiring the dot during presentation and “chasing the dot” are two separate problems. You seem to be talking about acquiring the dot.
If one has trouble acquiring the dot it’s because their presentation / index is not as good as they think it is. When presenting a gun with irons we often don’t realize how much we are using our lower peripheral vision to pick up the sights and guide the gun before it comes up into the eye line and / or if we are excessively moving our head during presentation. It’s easier to line things up when only one is moving vs both moving. With the red dot you can only see the gun in peripherals and can’t see the dot till the window is in the eye line so to acquire the dot quickly we need an efficient and consistent presentation.
One of the side effects of working with a red dot is it forces you to clean up your presentation making you a better / faster iron sight shooter as well.
Iron sights are a three focal plane sighting system. Your eye is changing focus accommodating between the target, the front sight and the rear sight because your eye can only focus on one thing at a time. This is why classic iron sight technique is to focus on the front sight, because it’s the compromise in the middle.
One of the biggest advantages of the red dot is it’s a single focal plane sighting system. You are target focused and the red dot is floating in your field of view. It’s faster and easier to do one thing vs three things.
The problem with using the front sight as training wheels to find the dot is you are taking a single focal plane sighting system and turning it into a four focal plane sighting system I.e. making it slower than irons.
The two predominant methods of acquiring the dot are the classic index (escalator ride) presentation and the Modern Samaurai Project (Scott Jedlinski) “wave” technique where the dot drops consistently from 12 o’clock in the widow during presentation. You can see Scott explain it on YouTube. IME the index can be slightly faster but takes more work to perfect and maintain. The wave is easier to learn and be consistent with.
The “pressout” used with DA guns can work but is slower than the above methods for most. There are other methods which involve the dot presenting from 6 o’clock the biggest thing is consistency.
While a clean presentation will usually give a somewhat centered dot, the minimal parallax of the dot I.e. the bullet going where the dot is regardless of where it is in the window, is an advantage of the dot.
If dot acquisition was your issue disregard below.
Chasing the dot involves being sight focused instead of target focused. It entails the error of focusing on the dot like it’s a front sight and winding up with groups that look like shotgun patterns. This can be compounded, if shooting with one eye instead of both eyes open.
Red dots aside, in general shooting with both eyes open is superior to closing one eye, particularly with shotguns and pistols. Even with Iron sights. As a target focused sighting system the red dot works best when shooting with both eyes open.
Thank you for the wisdom, you've given me much to consider. Let me know if you make it down San Antonio way, I'd love to hit the range with you.
https://youtu.be/HQHgbltzGdA?si=GIi18DvA0QlwXtY8
https://youtu.be/HQHgbltzGdA?si=GIi18DvA0QlwXtY8
So a red dot pistol can't pass the air marshal qual? Surely someone here can get that on video.
So a red dot pistol can't pass the air marshal qual? Surely someone here can get that on video.
Ken knows how to stir the pot, too!
feudist
01-30-2024, 09:44 AM
https://youtu.be/HQHgbltzGdA?si=GIi18DvA0QlwXtY8
That...was a meandering series of straw men, red herrings and false dilemmas.
Were it anyone else my reaction would be mockery and very pointed sarcasm, but this was kinda disheartening.
The Rat
01-30-2024, 09:58 AM
That...was a meandering series of straw men, red herrings and false dilemmas.
Were it anyone else my reaction would be mockery and very pointed sarcasm, but this was kinda disheartening.
Saying minimum 10 rounds, max 15 rounds capacity, yikes. Don't show that to the gun grabbers or they'll cite it in their next mag capacity ban push.
Glenn E. Meyer
01-30-2024, 10:14 AM
Gun folks saying you don't need many rounds is showing up in court proceedings quite a bit. All you need is a Bond 50 AE single shot Cyclops!
CCT125US
01-30-2024, 10:22 AM
That video was painfull. Perhaps I found the incorrect qualification, but to make the statement that no one with a dot has passed it, is very, very hard to believe.
Stir the pot, get the clicks.
ccmdfd
01-30-2024, 10:51 AM
It brings on the clicks/views as well as the comments on YouTube.
Just what they wanted
Default.mp3
01-30-2024, 12:35 PM
So a red dot pistol can't pass the air marshal qual? Surely someone here can get that on video.
That video was painfull. Perhaps I found the incorrect qualification, but to make the statement that no one with a dot has passed it, is very, very hard to believe.
Stir the pot, get the clicks.One of the local GMs posted this up where he basically cleans it. He states that he barely squeaks by, and uses some incorrect scoring, but ultimately, it doesn't matter, as his targets are much smaller than the bottle in the QIT-99 target, so his groups would have passed just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyERfa1sBFk
Edit: Reading more, I might have been looking at an incorrect qualification, as the one I looked at showed a QIT-99, but others are saying it uses a QIT-97. That being said, I know @JCN (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=17839) has stated that he's passed it before using an RDS gun (https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/any-previous-air-marshals-here.1797170/?post_id=28017050&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-28017050).
One of the local GMs posted this up where he basically cleans it. He states that he barely squeaks by, and uses some incorrect scoring, but ultimately, it doesn't matter, as his targets are much smaller than the bottle in the QIT-99 target, so his groups would have passed just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyERfa1sBFk
Edit: Reading more, I might have been looking at an incorrect qualification, as the one I looked at showed a QIT-99, but others are saying it uses a QIT-97. That being said, I know @JCN (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=17839) has stated that he's passed it before using an RDS gun (https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/any-previous-air-marshals-here.1797170/?post_id=28017050&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-28017050).
I googled and if what I found was correct, there are many on PF who could pass this test with a dot. What is odd, is that there are very few balanced shooting tests that are harder with a dot, so I am not sure about the premise.
With any test, doing it on your home range or on video where you decide what gets posted doesn't really cut it. Doing it on demand without mulligans like during a match or at a course is where the rubber meets the road.
If we have to reach out to Stoeger other GMs to counter Hack then we’re making his point intentionally or not. 😁
Maybe more local talent can put up some vids.
If we have to reach out to Stoeger other GMs to counter Hack then we’re making his point intentionally or not. 😁
Maybe more local talent can put up some vids.
Can you ask Hack to give us his version of the Air Marshall test? If what I saw is accurate, I can't imagine it is easier with irons.
This it?
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/federal-air-marshal-qualification-test-your-ccw-skills/
SouthNarc
01-30-2024, 05:43 PM
This it?
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/federal-air-marshal-qualification-test-your-ccw-skills/
That's it.
mmc45414
01-30-2024, 06:58 PM
One of the local GMs posted this up where he basically cleans it.
One nit I would pick, that shows the dot negatively IMO, is he assumes a rather gamey ready position peering through the dot (https://youtu.be/TyERfa1sBFk?t=192), at a not very low low ready. The guy is a great shooter and obviously doesn't need this technique to meet the par times, but it seems to support the notion that finding the dot is challenging.
lwt16
01-30-2024, 07:18 PM
https://youtu.be/RykoWVFjPmo?si=gnnNtOPqasiN6fDV
I think this Sawyer guy does it. He starts at about the 10:30 mark.
Borderland
01-30-2024, 08:02 PM
It brings on the clicks/views as well as the comments on YouTube.
Just what they wanted
I didn't watch the video.
Trying to stay relavant even if the world is passing them by. Nothing wrong with a dot unless one can shoot just as well at SD distances with irons.
So far I haven't put one on something that I carry. I'm good at 15 yds. with irons. That's my SD limit. Just more stuff. Why bother with the additional gear and learning to use it?
There has to be some payoff someplace to want to invest in another sighting system. I'm old enough to have hunted with irons on rifles in the 60's. They worked but not very well for me at >100 yds. I put a scope on deer rifle around 1972 and absolutly would not hunt without one today. Probably why the military put dots on rifles for most combat at 100 meters.
For new pistol shooters, I would want to start with a dot. No question about it.
https://youtu.be/RykoWVFjPmo?si=gnnNtOPqasiN6fDV
I think this Sawyer guy does it. He starts at about the 10:30 mark.
If he understood a low ready, he would have shaved time on many runs.
CCT125US
01-30-2024, 08:56 PM
Isn't the official target much bigger than the box they were shooting at, or do I need more coffee?
If we have to reach out to Stoeger other GMs to counter Hack then we’re making his point intentionally or not. 😁
Here is what I would absolutely love to see: two matched groups of new shooters as in zero experience, one day of training, one group taught on dots by Ben or Hwansik, another group instructed on irons by Hackathorn or Howe, compare results at the end of the day.
45dotACP
01-30-2024, 10:22 PM
Here is what I would absolutely love to see: two matched groups of new shooters as in zero experience, one day of training, one group taught on dots by Ben or Hwansik, another group instructed on irons by Hackathorn or Howe, compare results at the end of the day.
I don't think I need a crystal ball to tell you who will be doing better by days end...
Borderland
01-30-2024, 10:50 PM
Here is what I would absolutely love to see: two matched groups of new shooters as in zero experience, one day of training, one group taught on dots by Ben or Hwansik, another group instructed on irons by Hackathorn or Howe, compare results at the end of the day.
Maybe P-F could sponsor something like that. Get that on YT and watch the money roll in.
Isn't the official target much bigger than the box they were shooting at, or do I need more coffee?
The FAMS tend to be “funny” about operational details.
Suffice to say as soon as someone talks about “The FAM qual” I get curious which one because there have been multiple FAM quals. The pre 9/11 FAA FAM qual, and at least two variations of the post 9/11 FAM qual.
The T1C guys re-shot this with the correct targets and Gen5 Glock 19s, the current FAMS gun is a G19 MOS Gen5 which replaced the SIG P229s in .357. The FAMS tend to be heavily influenced by USSS and with USSS finally beginning to run ACRO P-2s on their Glocks I’d be surprised if the FAMS are far behind.
They are running irons in this one but it give a better idea of what the COF should look like.
https://youtu.be/3m26uGpbxjg?si=gPnwk5Zum2zyKYZz
Here is what I would absolutely love to see: two matched groups of new shooters as in zero experience, one day of training, one group taught on dots by Ben or Hwansik, another group instructed on irons by Hackathorn or Howe, compare results at the end of the day.
That would be cool.
Can you ask Hack to give us his version of the Air Marshall test? If what I saw is accurate, I can't imagine it is easier with irons.
I am not inclined to try and pull him into a PF debate on a this topic.
Hambo
01-31-2024, 07:02 AM
So a red dot pistol can't pass the air marshal qual? Surely someone here can get that on video.
If I heard him correctly, he said he hasn't met anyone who could/did pass with a dot. That's not the same as "no one can pass."
Here is what I would absolutely love to see: two matched groups of new shooters as in zero experience, one day of training, one group taught on dots by Ben or Hwansik, another group instructed on irons by Hackathorn or Howe, compare results at the end of the day.
I think you'd see pretty equal results, because both sighting systems will work. A one day train up of novices would have some passing, some failing. What you won't see at the end of the experiment are shooters who can make good decisions. Quals are quals. My French teacher called the grammar worksheets we did "idiot drills." Just because you can combine two sentences doesn't mean you understand directions to the men's room.
What always interests me is how invested people are in defending their favorite thing (dot/iron, Ford/Ferrari, Pepsi/Coke). Ken and Paul said a lot of things in that video that are mantra here at PF (dry fire, for example), but let's flip out about one qual and iron/dot. I'm going to clear my 19 and dryfire...with irons, because I haven't bought a SCS for it yet.
In each of I think three YT videos where RDS sights for carry is touched on, Hackathorn says "if you're one of the 1 percenters that shoot weekly or more and dry fire frequently and consistently then rock on." Instead of butt hurt, RDS aficionados might take that as a compliment. ;)
During most of the past year I've been dry firing training my draw and index with a 407 CO almost daily and shooting it predominantly in live fire weekly or very close to weekly. It's mad fun and I saw significant advantages to precision at 15 and 25 yards both slow fire and under time pressure. It was a damn "easy button" that leaves you grinning ear to ear.
I went back and forth on carrying it. Sometimes I did but if I had a bad range session where I fumbled my index a lot I'd switch off of it until remedial work from the draw got me back on track.
I figured I was one of the one percenters that should be good to go.
During the period of Thanksgiving through Christmas '23 travel and family events disrupted my regimen of dry fire and live fire and coming off of that into the new year I found my dot index to have suffered badly.
I got back to work to get it up to speed but a few other considerations occurred to me in recent weeks.
My index needs to be right on, like really on point, for my first hit from the holster at speed at 5 and 7 yards to match irons. If it's off and I have to shift to irons (excellent co-witness with .315 high vis front sight), I loose a few tenths of seconds in that OODA process. If I don't shift to irons and try and shoot the window, results sucked.
All of this is for my square range free style and SHO.
This engagement range encompasses the vast majority of civilian self defense events. I very much prefer to have long pistol range capability and I do with irons and the RDS, just more so with the RDS.
I've heard way more advanced dot shooters than I say they're still a tick faster with irons up close, but prefer the greater capability of the RDS in other ways (range, low light, movement etc). Cool. One explained that close and very fast iron shooting lets you "cheat" your index as you see the entire slide/sights aligning in the draw towards full index.
Hold that thought.
If my index is spot on my 5 or 7 yard shots at speed can match my irons. On days when the index is off, then the irons are more consistently quick for good hits.
How good is my index going to be if I've taken an incoming round to one of my forearms? Or elsewhere. Or if a family member has grabbed a hold of me in panic contrary to our SOP?
I could do endless scenarios where I'll take the "cheating" of the iron sighted pistol presentation for the ranges I'm most like to be really in the shit.
So these issues have made me realize that
A. maybe I'm not a one percenter after all
B. I've got some preferred venues for the RDS G47 but it's not necessarily primary daily concealed carry.
C. I've got more work to do on "Dot/No Dot" drills which is a way to shorten that OODA penalty of expecting the dot and not immediatly finding it.
Back to Hackathorn vids, his definitions of the one percenters vs Joe average gun owner is pretty plain. One trains a LOT and the other doesn't "train" so much as go out to shoot a few times a year.
After my year of a lot of work with my RDS - then considering the conditions under which I'd like to "cheat" my index at close range, I don't see any controversy at all.
Hambo
01-31-2024, 08:12 AM
In each of I think three YT videos where RDS sights for carry is touched on, Hackathorn says "if you're one of the 1 percenters that shoot weekly or more and dry fire frequently and consistently then rock on." Instead of butt hurt, RDS aficionados might take that as a compliment. ;)
During most of the past year I've been dry firing training my draw and index with a 407 CO almost daily and shooting it predominantly in live fire weekly or very close to weekly. It's mad fun and I saw significant advantages to precision at 15 and 25 yards both slow fire and under time pressure. It was a damn "easy button" that leaves you grinning ear to ear.
I went back and forth on carrying it. Sometimes I did but if I had a bad range session where I fumbled my index a lot I'd switch off of it until remedial work from the draw got me back on track.
I figured I was one of the one percenters that should be good to go.
During the period of Thanksgiving through Christmas '23 travel and family events disrupted my regimen of dry fire and live fire and coming off of that into the new year I found my dot index to have suffered badly.
I got back to work to get it up to speed but a few other considerations occurred to me in recent weeks.
My index needs to be right on, like really on point, for my first hit from the holster at speed at 5 and 7 yards to match irons. If it's off and I have to shift to irons (excellent co-witness with .315 high vis front sight), I loose a few tenths of seconds in that OODA process. If I don't shift to irons and try and shoot the window, results sucked.
All of this is for my square range free style and SHO.
This engagement range encompasses the vast majority of civilian self defense events. I very much prefer to have long pistol range capability and I do with irons and the RDS, just more so with the RDS.
I've heard way more advanced dot shooters than I say they're still a tick faster with irons up close, but prefer the greater capability of the RDS in other ways (range, low light, movement etc). Cool. One explained that close and very fast iron shooting lets you "cheat" your index as you see the entire slide/sights aligning in the draw towards full index.
Hold that thought.
If my index is spot on my 5 or 7 yard shots at speed can match my irons. On days when the index is off, then the irons are more consistently quick for good hits.
How good is my index going to be if I've taken an incoming round to one of my forearms? Or elsewhere. Or if a family member has grabbed a hold of me in panic contrary to our SOP?
I could do endless scenarios where I'll take the "cheating" of the iron sighted pistol presentation for the ranges I'm most like to be really in the shit.
So these issues have made me realize that
A. maybe I'm not a one percenter after all
B. I've got some preferred venues for the RDS G47 but it's not necessarily primary daily concealed carry.
C. I've got more work to do on "Dot/No Dot" drills which is a way to shorten that OODA penalty of expecting the dot and not immediatly finding it.
Back to Hackathorn vids, his definitions of the one percenters vs Joe average gun owner is pretty plain. One trains a LOT and the other doesn't "train" so much as go out to shoot a few times a year.
After my year of a lot of work with my RDS - then considering the conditions under which I'd like to "cheat" my index at close range, I don't see any controversy at all.
Thanks for posting that. I think it's pretty clear from my history here that I am not an early adopter of anything. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 19 Gen 5, especially its accuracy and my ability to shoot it well. My index with one of the added backstraps is very good. I started out with The Test (standard shitty G sights) and found it easy to shoot it cold. Then I installed 10-8 sights. On an outdoor range trip, I shot my 10-12" plate at 30-35 yards and was 100%. That's not B8s, but it sounds like I know WTF I'm doing, right? Maybe not.
SouthNarc's PCP thread has had me thinking about reality vs. square range. What are the odds I'm going to be in stand up gunfight vs. some form of FUT/non-standard stance? Standard skills are good. Sighting systems are good. Quals and drills help us measure our improvement over time, but will any of that matter much when trying not to get stabbed up behind the Tasty Freeze?
I still want an SCS, but maybe on another 19.
Gary1911A1
01-31-2024, 08:15 AM
I didn't see this video posted here, but here's a video with Ken's thoughts on Stage 1 of the Air Marshall Test.
https://youtu.be/Es7ZvlmHkPI?si=lGapGviYBus8f4Jw
feudist
01-31-2024, 09:06 AM
In each of I think three YT videos where RDS sights for carry is touched on, Hackathorn says "if you're one of the 1 percenters that shoot weekly or more and dry fire frequently and consistently then rock on." Instead of butt hurt, RDS aficionados might take that as a compliment. ;)
During most of the past year I've been dry firing training my draw and index with a 407 CO almost daily and shooting it predominantly in live fire weekly or very close to weekly. It's mad fun and I saw significant advantages to precision at 15 and 25 yards both slow fire and under time pressure. It was a damn "easy button" that leaves you grinning ear to ear.
I went back and forth on carrying it. Sometimes I did but if I had a bad range session where I fumbled my index a lot I'd switch off of it until remedial work from the draw got me back on track.
I figured I was one of the one percenters that should be good to go.
During the period of Thanksgiving through Christmas '23 travel and family events disrupted my regimen of dry fire and live fire and coming off of that into the new year I found my dot index to have suffered badly.
I got back to work to get it up to speed but a few other considerations occurred to me in recent weeks.
My index needs to be right on, like really on point, for my first hit from the holster at speed at 5 and 7 yards to match irons. If it's off and I have to shift to irons (excellent co-witness with .315 high vis front sight), I loose a few tenths of seconds in that OODA process. If I don't shift to irons and try and shoot the window, results sucked.
All of this is for my square range free style and SHO.
This engagement range encompasses the vast majority of civilian self defense events. I very much prefer to have long pistol range capability and I do with irons and the RDS, just more so with the RDS.
I've heard way more advanced dot shooters than I say they're still a tick faster with irons up close, but prefer the greater capability of the RDS in other ways (range, low light, movement etc). Cool. One explained that close and very fast iron shooting lets you "cheat" your index as you see the entire slide/sights aligning in the draw towards full index.
Hold that thought.
If my index is spot on my 5 or 7 yard shots at speed can match my irons. On days when the index is off, then the irons are more consistently quick for good hits.
How good is my index going to be if I've taken an incoming round to one of my forearms? Or elsewhere. Or if a family member has grabbed a hold of me in panic contrary to our SOP?
I could do endless scenarios where I'll take the "cheating" of the iron sighted pistol presentation for the ranges I'm most like to be really in the shit.
So these issues have made me realize that
A. maybe I'm not a one percenter after all
B. I've got some preferred venues for the RDS G47 but it's not necessarily primary daily concealed carry.
C. I've got more work to do on "Dot/No Dot" drills which is a way to shorten that OODA penalty of expecting the dot and not immediatly finding it.
Back to Hackathorn vids, his definitions of the one percenters vs Joe average gun owner is pretty plain. One trains a LOT and the other doesn't "train" so much as go out to shoot a few times a year.
After my year of a lot of work with my RDS - then considering the conditions under which I'd like to "cheat" my index at close range, I don't see any controversy at all.
One thing a dot showed me in no uncertain term is that the Glock 19 I've carried for coming up on 30 years indexes high for me. I was apparently shooting slightly out of the notch.
Huh.
I went at it hard for a while and started getting comfortable with it and then left Patrol. I stopped constantly practicing and my presentation fell apart.
So, I could either try a different gun, or just Luddite my way back to irons. Since I was close to the end of my career I just stuck with the Glock.
Had I continued to work the street I would have either endeavored to persevere with my Glock or switched over to something more 1911ey in grip angle.
So I sympathize with an old dog not wanting to learn new tricks.
fatdog
01-31-2024, 09:09 AM
A. maybe I'm not a one percenter after all
B. I've got some preferred venues for the RDS G47 but it's not necessarily primary daily concealed carry.
C. I've got more work to do on "Dot/No Dot" drills which is a way to shorten that OODA penalty of expecting the dot and not immediately finding it.
Your full description of your experience on this subject closely mirrors my own over a longer period, say 3 years. That 3-7 yard distance is where I have never seen a true "timers and targets" dot advantage, and on certain days I am simply not in the groove and it is materially slower by tenths. My dominant hand, non-dominant hand is something I am working on a lot, but my performance still gets much worse in terms of index consistency. Past 10-12 yards that whole timers and targets thing flips and gets better the further I go.
I continue to work on all of it, and plan to do so for the years left in my shooting life, I find it enjoyable and challenging. Something where dry and live fire delivers improvement on all aspects of it.
Something I never read or hear discussed in all of this is the differences in hand/eye coordination that exist in humans, and how that influences our ability to index well and consistently. Being part of that 1%, or the ease with which it is achieved most certainly has something to do with this. We are not all the same.
I always sucked at shooting a basketball, no matter how hard I practiced or wanted to (growing up in KY everybody wanted to) or how many coaches worked with me. But I could aim my whole body well enough to excel at football when it came to tackling or blocking. I am not in any top group of hand/eye skills, and I am convinced that pistol shooting, especially the indexed dot has a lot to do with what level of what we often refer to as hand/eye coordination you have in terms of how easy, or how hard this is. And of course how hard you have to work, how many reps, how often, etc. you must put in Vs what somebody else can do to achieve the same level of proficiency.
The whole "all you need is XXX number dry reps" thing I have heard mouthed by some is simply not true for everybody. It may be for some, but not for me.
For now irons are more frequently in my holster because my irons performance more closely aligns with the scenarios I am most likely to face in a defensive shooting. Not the "Dicken Drill".
I believe that accurate first shot hit is the most critical thing in terms of time in any defensive scenario. I have come to the conclusion that hiking in the national forest is where a dot is now my preferred side arm, because the defensive distances for that first shot could quite easily spread out.
JHC great honest post. I carried a dot 2020-2022 then actually went back to irons in the summer of 2022, due to some honest introspection about my concealment and practice levels with a newborn and another on the way. Going back to irons after lots of practice with the dot was really eye opening. I remember my first range trip with irons was kind of an accident. I just wanted to check out the PX4CC before I sent it to LTT to get cut for a dot. I learned 2 important things- I was absolutely a tenth or two quicker with the irons on draws under 10 yards with what felt like less effort, and I actually had an easier time holding target focus.
Long story short, in the year and a half since then, I've gotten much better dry practice methods and learned much better use of my vision in shooting, and actually started competing which was very eye opening. I've had a lingering thought of, "I wonder how I could do with a dot now that I'm a completely different shooter than I was when I had a dot before". I had the unexpected opportunity to get a dot with minimal expenditure a few weeks ago and did it, so I'm very interested to compare.
I will say, my first range trip out with the dot, with just one or 2 dry practice sessions, I smoked my prior PR shooting a Bakersfield qual on a B8 with hit factor scoring, which I've used as a baseline static shooting test for the last year or so.
I do think the SCS I am using ( Hambo ) has a real advantage in that it is so low to the slide with standard irons that the index feels very easy and just lining up the slide in front of your face is perhaps more likely to give you the dot than with a higher mounted dot which is more "floating up in space". If I mentally "visualize" my established irons index, the dot is in the window and on the target very easily, more effortlessly than the dot setups I have used in the past which as JHC noted, have a very perishable index.
Lots of good discussion here, and I am sure Ken is waking up in Idaho, and enjoying his coffee as he sees all he has stirred up here. A few thoughts:
1) the request for Ken's version of the test isn't to draw him in to a conversation, as I have never seen him post here. It is to understand his version of the test, so when someone goes to the effort to do it, they are doing it as Ken would.
2) lots of discussion about irons vs a dot at "typical" self defense distances. I believe most would be better off with irons, for all the reasons cited above.
3) my interest is in Ken's belief, assuming the "he observed" qualifier doesn't hold, that a dot somehow makes the AM test harder. First, you need to examine the test. This is really a concealed draw and low ready test, with a bit of trigger control, and even less of an accuracy component. My belief is that virtually anyone who can pass it with a dot can do it with irons, and vice versa.
The best way of unraveling this would be to have beers in Salmon with Ken, and then reconvene at the range the following morning to put it to timer.
Trooper224
01-31-2024, 09:42 AM
Thanks for posting that. I think it's pretty clear from my history here that I am not an early adopter of anything. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 19 Gen 5, especially its accuracy and my ability to shoot it well. My index with one of the added backstraps is very good. I started out with The Test (standard shitty G sights) and found it easy to shoot it cold. Then I installed 10-8 sights. On an outdoor range trip, I shot my 10-12" plate at 30-35 yards and was 100%. That's not B8s, but it sounds like I know WTF I'm doing, right? Maybe not.
SouthNarc's PCP thread has had me thinking about reality vs. square range. What are the odds I'm going to be in stand up gunfight vs. some form of FUT/non-standard stance? Standard skills are good. Sighting systems are good. Quals and drills help us measure our improvement over time, but will any of that matter much when trying not to get stabbed up behind the Tasty Freeze?
I still want an SCS, but maybe on another 19.
Yes, those things matter. But, they're artificial metrics created in a fixed environment. Most people have never had the stabbin at the Stuckeys experience and those metrics are their only guage, so they tend to be overemphasized. They do matter though. Because, for most they're the only way to guage progress and ability.
mmc45414
01-31-2024, 09:56 AM
I think this discussion always gets to be too binary. There is no doubt I can do almost everything better and faster with a RDO, but I do not want to be defenseless with a set of good sights.
I think consistency is a factor, I primarily shot M&Ps, almost weekly, for a long time. I had a lovely affair with a 5" 9mm 1911 for a year or two, but in 2019 I switched back to a 5" M&P. In early 2022 I bought a fresh one and had it direct milled for an SRO. I think sticking with the same pistol (it was even the same SKU...) and going with a large window option, combined with a press-out presentation, made for a fairly simple transition. I still struggle weak hand, but that is a universal struggle (I do think the optic helps, but it is tough sledding no matter what). If you trade between a G19 with and a Hellcat without, maybe that is going to exacerbate the challenge.
I never quit carrying guns with sights, and still do, and I can still shoot them well enough to be confident. A few months ago I left my RDO pistol in the safe by mistake and shot the 4" Compact that day at three gun. I gave up a few seconds, but I do not win by a larger margin than a few seconds. I recently bought a couple of the Shield Plus, neither with optics, and am hitting with them pretty well. If I was kicking doors and serving warrants I wouldn't leave home without the optic, but I am OK with going to the grocery with a Shield Plus.
Another thing that is a consideration that is relevant to me and especially new shooters, is the quality optics cost almost as much as the pistols, oh by the way... :cool:
mmc45414
01-31-2024, 10:02 AM
The best way of unraveling this would be to have beers in Salmon with Ken, and then reconvene at the range the following morning to put it to timer.
Keep an eye on him, my buddy Rosco always talked about Ken hosting them at his house the night before a Fort Harmar matches, and eventually figured Ken was laying back on the booze, and everyone else was fuzzy the next day when the timer, I mean stopwatch came out... :cool:
In each of I think three YT videos where RDS sights for carry is touched on, Hackathorn says "if you're one of the 1 percenters that shoot weekly or more and dry fire frequently and consistently then rock on."
You're right, he says this very consistently. I think that he's wrong on that. Maintenance aside, I believe that shooters at low end of skill set will do better with dots, even if they are slow to pick their sight pics.
You're right, he says this very consistently. I think that he's wrong on that. Maintenance aside, I believe that shooters at low end of skill set will do better with dots, even if they are slow to pick their sight pics.
This could be an interesting thread. First, define "better" -- do you mean better at some marksmanship test or better at using a handgun defensively?
Me talking about defensive gun use is quite a bit out of lane. That said, I didn't separate the two when I said what I said. In a context of this thread and my post, I am talking about people with low level of skills and modest marksmanship training who may end up in a defensive situation so it is a cumulative measure. If you want my speculative opinion separating the two, I think the dot shooters will do better on technical skill tests, and no worse or better in defensive uses.
mmc45414
01-31-2024, 11:08 AM
This could be an interesting thread. First, define "better" -- do you mean better at some marksmanship test or better at using a handgun defensively?
In before the thread split!! :cool:
IMO using a handgun defensively is such a spectrum that it will be impossible to ever tie it down a real definition.
Also, IMO, many of the things we hold ourselves to as standards are way beyond the most common (highly improbable anyway) DGU. And IMO (again) are standards derived from matches, matches where things must be difficult enough to determine a winner. I think when BehindBlueI's has stated that he has never investigated a dead body with an empty J-frame laying next to it, may be a relevant data point. Sure, we all to strive to do wayyyyy better, but we are also motivated by desire and amusement. I am very unlikely to die in a gunfight at the gas pump or grocery, and if I do I really doubt if it will be because my pistol didn't have a dot and a light. Though perhaps I might need to shoot past my dogs at a coyote coming at them, so maybe I should buy one of the Shields you have offered, and rig it up with a light, hmmmmm...
That said, until the property recently sold we always did some shooting after Thanksgiving dinner at my in-laws. This was an opportunity to expose many new shooters to pistols, and the combination of the Ruger MKIII, Aimpoint and rack of hanging plates generated a lotta smiles. I use the same approach when trying to orient new shooters, we establish their baseline ability to succeed with a rimfire RDO gun, so that if/when they are yanking the trigger on a centerfire gun you can point over to their group they already shot. I also transition them next to a full size gun, maybe with a RDO, before they shoot the something I can carry barker they think they want(ed).
I like the idea of a 5yards/5shots/5seconds on something like a paper plate, as a baseline goal.
SouthNarc
01-31-2024, 11:45 AM
It's super interesting to me to read the responses here.
I'd like to hear a consensus on a very specific question:
Is the current consensus that the best practice for shooting quickly and accurately is to be target focused versus sight system focused regardless of whether that's irons or a dot and utilize what is commonly refereed to as an "index" to create consistent alignment of the pistol to the preferred point of impact?
It's super interesting to me to read the responses here.
I'd like to hear a consensus on a very specific question:
Is the current consensus that the best practice for shooting quickly and accurately is to be target focused versus sight system focused regardless of whether that's irons or a dot and utilize what is commonly refereed to as an "index" to create consistent alignment of the pistol to the preferred point of impact?
I am less than nobody, but, I do think this is where preferred technique is headed.
I got attuned to the idea of visually focusing on a precise point on the target and then using the sights or dot to confirm the index of the gun to that spot through Ben Stoeger about 2 years ago, and it completely changed my shooting process for the better. This technique allows your brain to subconsciously bring the sights back to that point of aim during recoil or a transition, and also allows for better shot calling, per Steve Anderson. Before this, when front sight focused, I'd get locked on the sight and drift up in recoil, or drift off target if I was moving. Likewise, when shooting a dot, I'd start looking at it as it moved in recoil vs staying locked on a spot on the target.
It is a very flexible technique where you employ the needed level of visual confirmation based on the shot at hand.
Shooting this way has definitely made shooting a dot vs good irons a more similar experience than if one is shooting with a front sight focus.
It's definitely coming from a competitive angle (Anderson, Stoeger and PSTG and surely many others I'm not exposed to) but I really think it works.
I can't overstate how much this has changed how I shoot and how I think about shooting, compared to years past when I shot with a hard front sight focus (BB gun days til 2020) and then shot a dot (2020-2022) believing target focus meant "opening my vision and seeing the whole target" then being surprised when my brain got distracted by the bouncing glowing ball.
https://youtu.be/W3SMuwlc_O8?si=fYuRLRnJetcRNilA
SouthNarc
01-31-2024, 01:00 PM
I am less than nobody, but, I do think this is where preferred technique is headed.
I got attuned to the idea of visually focusing on a precise point on the target and then using the sights or dot to confirm the index of the gun to that spot through Ben Stoeger about 2 years ago, and it completely changed my shooting process for the better. This technique allows your brain to subconsciously bring the sights back to that point of aim during recoil or a transition, and also allows for better shot calling, per Steve Anderson. Before this, when front sight focused, I'd get locked on the sight and drift up in recoil, or drift off target if I was moving. Likewise, when shooting a dot, I'd start looking at it as it moved in recoil vs staying locked on a spot on the target.
It is a very flexible technique where you employ the needed level of visual confirmation based on the shot at hand.
Shooting this way has definitely made shooting a dot vs good irons a more similar experience than if one is shooting with a front sight focus.
It's definitely coming from a competitive angle (Anderson, Stoeger and PSTG and surely many others I'm not exposed to) but I really think it works.
I can't overstate how much this has changed how I shoot and how I think about shooting, compared to years past when I shot with a hard front sight focus (BB gun days til 2020) and then shot a dot (2020-2022) believing target focus meant "opening my vision and seeing the whole target" then being surprised when my brain got distracted by the bouncing glowing ball.
https://youtu.be/W3SMuwlc_O8?si=fYuRLRnJetcRNilA
Fair enough.
One thing that is strictly a theory of mine, is that it's a little easier to "course correct" a poor index from a compromised draw position with irons than it is from a dot.
STRICTLY a theory and I acknowledge I have no data to support this and more often than not the actual answers to things are counterintuitive.
Clusterfrack
01-31-2024, 01:02 PM
Fair enough.
One thing that is strictly a theory of mine, is that it's a little easier to "course correct" a poor index from a compromised draw position with irons than it is from a dot.
STRICTLY a theory and I acknowledge I have no data to support this and more often than not the actual answers to things are counterintuitive.
I agree with this.
Fair enough.
One thing that is strictly a theory of mine, is that it's a little easier to "course correct" a poor index from a compromised draw position with irons than it is from a dot.
STRICTLY a theory and I acknowledge I have no data to support this and more often than not the actual answers to things are counterintuitive.
Oh I don't think that's even debatable- let me soften that, I would have just taken it for granted that a dot requires a less forgiving index.
Shooting both with a precise target focus and an index presentation, the cone of error where you get the dot in the window is tiny compared to the "cone" where your front sight is somewhere in the notch, let alone a little high or left or right and then you'll intuitively correct it as you go.
It would be really interesting to put actual data to that comparison.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.