Gun Guys with Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn

[kimbar1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6FY38XQqOg

[GJM]

Latest:


https://youtu.be/jjlL0hYgdag

[WobblyPossum]

I’m curious about what others with more RDS experience than I have think. I agree with a lot of what Ken said in this video, but I think that denying the red dot has any benefits over iron sights at closer ranges is wrong. At the very least, you’ve still got the benefits of two eyes open, target focused shooting and I think that’s substantial.

[Backspin]

I have seen the RDS being immediately advantageous in two conditions on the flat range within the 10 yard range:
- Shooting while moving aggressively, especially when moving at an angle.

-Low light / variable lighting conditions

[breakingtime91]

Red dots on pistols are the same as optics on rifle. They are a force multiplier. Plenty of people have been killed with iron sights. But as soon as people got widley given an optic ( acog and early aimpoints for the US military) no one missed irons. I'll take one aiming point that allows me to keep both eyes open and target focused in a fight 10 times out 10. Doesn't mean I couldn't win using irons, but I want the advantage.

[breakingtime91]

Also after watching the post I do want o acknowledge he was very well thought out with his reasoning. Will it have me ditch a red dot, probably not but it does make me think harder about my justification for one

[Warped Mindless]

I’m curious about what others with more RDS experience than I have think. I agree with a lot of what Ken said in this video, but I think that denying the red dot has any benefits over iron sights at closer ranges is wrong. At the very least, you’ve still got the benefits of two eyes open, target focused shooting and I think that’s substantial.

I have nothing against red dots (I have several) but what’s to stop you from shooting with both eyes open and target focusing with irons? I shoot target focus with irons. The front sight is blurry and the target is crisp. My shots are no less accurate.

[WobblyPossum]

I have nothing against red dots (I have several) but what’s to stop you from shooting with both eyes open and target focusing with irons? I shoot target focus with irons. The front sight is blurry and the target is crisp. My shots are no less accurate.

Some people have vision issues that make it harder to ignore the phantom image of the gun and sights that appears. Same thing with shooting both eyes open with a front sight focus. Some people just get messed up with the phantom images of targets. The RDS allows you to not have to deal with any of that.

[YVK]

Latest:

Better than the last one.
I don't know if new shooters will pick up the RDS better than seasoned shooters. Maybe, although more and more seasoned guys shoot target focused these days. I do know that new shooters will pick up the RDS better than irons, will have better results, and will not want to shoot irons for any practical purposes.
Speaking for myself only, a quality placement at a responsible speed is well south of 10 yards with irons and well north of it with the dot. Maybe on the next edition of this video we'll come to an agreement of no dot advantage within 5-7 yards.
The analogies with adjustable sights, 40 cal and lasers fell flat for me.
Finally, is there anyone credible out there who says, vision issues aside, that you NEED a dot on a defensive gun?

[JCN]

I’ve stopped even attempting to watch their videos.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Throwing this out for info. https://blog.krtraining.com/red-dot-study-key-points/

It's 2017, I should ask Karl if he thinks this is still the situation. I had asked him about setting up my RDS Glock. I guess I'm in the group that shoot a lot. I don't have 100K rounds in the RDS. Interesting how many I have with irons. Wild guess is probably about 70 K.

I still think the possibility vs. probability argument is misguided. That's for another day. I feel bad that I have a tourniquet in my back pocket.

[Mark D]

I’ve stopped even attempting to watch their videos.

Same here. Their past contributions to pistol-craft not withstanding, the recent videos are often pretty cringey. So I just ignore them now.

[JCN]

Throwing this out for info. https://blog.krtraining.com/red-dot-study-key-points/

It's 2017, I should ask Karl if he thinks this is still the situation

I thought that study was poorly designed and executed.

This in particular:

“There was not time in the testing to give participants significant training time to learn the red dot or the laser. They were allowed 10 or less dry fire presentations before testing began.”

Aaron Cowan’s is much better.

I think blind idolatry of historic trainers who refuse to advance isn’t healthy or productive.

[JCN]

Aaron Cowan also referenced the Norwich 2011 study linked here:

https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2011_Norwich_Study_RMRvIronSights.pdf

That was also a much better designed study.

10 or less dry presentations for the KR study? WTF kind of shit is that.

I understand most CCWrs aren’t going to practice but I think its not unreasonable to say:

“You have 10 minutes to practice dry presentations” and give them some basic drills to do would be more realistic for a newer shooter.

And give them the instruction on how to use the BUIS or ghost ring to get on target at the noob level.

If you’re going to only give 10 or less dry presentations, you’d better use that as a variable and test how the proficiency curve shifts with brief but not stupidly brief intro.

[fatdog]

His point about people with decades and tens of thousands of rounds on irons needing lots of trigger time, and thousands of actual rounds down range to get over the hump of being just as proficient with dots, mirrors my real world experience over the last two years. I don't attribute it solely to an automaticity thing however. And I suspect it is easier for some than it was for me. But 5K rounds get to 3-10 yard performance where my iron sight performance had been sounds about right in my case.

[Clusterfrack]

His point about people with decades and tens of thousands of rounds on irons needing lots of trigger time, and thousands of actual rounds down range to get over the hump of being just as proficient with dots, mirrors my real world experience over the last two years. I don't attribute it solely to an automaticity thing however. And I suspect it is easier for some than it was for me. But 5K rounds get to 3-10 yard performance where my iron sight performance had been sounds about right in my case.

People are really different when it comes to learning to shoot handguns with RDS. I can't explain why there's such a spectrum. Maybe eyesight? Target vs. front sight focus? I found it really easy to match my iron sight performance. ~2k rounds and a few weeks is about what it took. It took longer to get truly comfortable with the new sight picture. For at least 3 months, every now and then my subconscious would rebel for no apparent reason. It was like riding a horse and having it randomly buck "woah... I don't like that..."

I guess when someone talks about thousands of rounds, I'm thinking: yeah, that's what it takes to learn anything in shooting. Five 200 round practice sessions is 1000 rounds.

[HCM]

I’m curious about what others with more RDS experience than I have think. I agree with a lot of what Ken said in this video, but I think that denying the red dot has any benefits over iron sights at closer ranges is wrong. At the very least, you’ve still got the benefits of two eyes open, target focused shooting and I think that’s substantial.

And a single aiming point. While you can train yourself to do both eyes open target, focused, iron site shooting you still need to maintain some sort of sight alignment. When one or both parties are moving, which is the case, in most close range, real world situations having a single aiming point is a substantial advantage.

[HCM]

I have nothing against red dots (I have several) but what’s to stop you from shooting with both eyes open and target focusing with irons? I shoot target focus with irons. The front sight is blurry and the target is crisp. My shots are no less accurate.

Your shots are no less accurate under what conditions? While you are stationary with a stationary target in daylight? or under those conditions my own results are pretty similar too. There is a slight difference in time, and I am now slightly faster with the red dot particularly on multiple targets.

USPSA shooters have been doing both eyes open target focused shooting for years, and I’ve been doing it for years at work as well. Straight target focused is one way to do it.

However, once you introduce movement, especially when both parties are moving at different angles having a single aiming point is a substantial advantage. Even more so under low light or variable lighting conditions.

People move in fights, and they move faster once shots are fired.

[HCM]

Better than the last one.
I don't know if new shooters will pick up the RDS better than seasoned shooters. Maybe, although more and more seasoned guys shoot target focused these days. I do know that new shooters will pick up the RDS better than irons, will have better results, and will not want to shoot irons for any practical purposes.
Speaking for myself only, a quality placement at a responsible speed is well south of 10 yards with irons and well north of it with the dot. Maybe on the next edition of this video we'll come to an agreement of no dot advantage within 5-7 yards.
The analogies with adjustable sights, 40 cal and lasers fell flat for me.
Finally, is there anyone credible out there who says, vision issues aside, that you NEED a dot on a defensive gun?

Need is relative.

Will the average concealed carrier get killed in the streets without a red dot? Probably not.

However, there is a difference between preparing for “get out of trouble” situations and “go look for trouble” situations such as LE / MIL duty.

In the former, I personally want every advantage I can get when I am in a fight by myself with no partners, body armor, limited communications, etc. but the odds are irons will work just fine.

For professional gun carriers (which unfortunately does not equal professional shooters) not only is it an advantage towards their personal survival, but improved accuracy/hit rate reduces misses and in some instances total rounds fired. In reality, every round hits something so increasing the odds it hits bad guy is a good thing.

[MickAK]

Finally, is there anyone credible out there who says, vision issues aside, that you NEED a dot on a defensive gun?

I've seen some credible people advocating that it's necessary to start new shooters on a dot and they can train irons as an accessory and I think they have a pretty valid point. I think vision issues can creep up on people. I wouldn't want to give up the skills I developed with irons but that's becoming more and more just orneriness.

TF iron sight shooting with movement is a lot of work. I'd say there are more and more people that are saying you need a dot without wanting to full on say it and start a bunch of pointless arguing. That makes a lot of sense, frankly.

[HCM]

His point about people with decades and tens of thousands of rounds on irons needing lots of trigger time, and thousands of actual rounds down range to get over the hump of being just as proficient with dots, mirrors my real world experience over the last two years. I don't attribute it solely to an automaticity thing however. And I suspect it is easier for some than it was for me. But 5K rounds get to 3-10 yard performance where my iron sight performance had been sounds about right in my case.


People are really different when it comes to learning to shoot handguns with RDS. I can't explain why there's such a spectrum. Maybe eyesight? Target vs. front sight focus? I found it really easy to match my iron sight performance. ~2k rounds and a few weeks is about what it took. It took longer to get truly comfortable with the new sight picture. For at least 3 months, every now and then my subconscious would rebel for no apparent reason. It was like riding a horse and having it randomly buck "woah... I don't like that..."

I guess when someone talks about thousands of rounds, I'm thinking: yeah, that's what it takes to learn anything in shooting. Five 200 round practice sessions is 1000 rounds.

fatdog

I was where you are at. There is a learning curve to pistol RDS if you are experienced with irons but in both my personal experience and professional experience transitioning in service LE iron sight shooters to RDS it is not as big a hill as Hackathorn makes it out to be. Volume will get you there. Repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

I think the training process (and people’s participation in sane) is really where experiences differ.

What you do and how you do it comes first, volume is second. I personally I found that I had to make changes and clean up my presentation to “find” the dot consistently. This improved my times, not only with the red dot but with irons as well. As far as actually using the dot once the gun is presented, I found occluded practice (with the front of the optic covered) and training with an optics only gun (no BUIS) very helpful.

Most of us like to think we are self taught but true auto didactics are rare. Seeking out a bit of professional instruction, whether a class, a private lesson, or even a video lesson, really helps “round the edges” and avoid wasting effort.

Notice, I said, training and practice not necessarily shooting. While the dot gives significantly more feedback about what the gun is doing, thereby assisting in fixing other issues, acquisition and use of the dot is primarily a visual process. So rather than thousands of rounds you may need a few thousand reps, the majority of which can and probably should be done via dry practice.

[Magsz]

Better than the last one.
I don't know if new shooters will pick up the RDS better than seasoned shooters. Maybe, although more and more seasoned guys shoot target focused these days. I do know that new shooters will pick up the RDS better than irons, will have better results, and will not want to shoot irons for any practical purposes.
Speaking for myself only, a quality placement at a responsible speed is well south of 10 yards with irons and well north of it with the dot. Maybe on the next edition of this video we'll come to an agreement of no dot advantage within 5-7 yards.
The analogies with adjustable sights, 40 cal and lasers fell flat for me.
Finally, is there anyone credible out there who says, vision issues aside, that you NEED a dot on a defensive gun?

I have to watch the video in question. At the risk of being burnt at the stake I find the Wilson content to be as boring as watching old people fuck. (no judgement, if that's anyone's kink).

In response to your last question. No, I don't think there is a single legitimate instructor that will say that red dots are mandatory on all fighting pistols, all pistols etc. Key words being legitimate instructor.

Conversely, I don't think that there is a single legitimate instructor that isn't aware of the benefits and cons of running a red dot. I think that most instructors in 2022 will universally agree that the benefits are well worth the investment and potential involved train up to become accustomed to the dot.

As a part time instructor. When I am working with new students, I introduce them to both options. Iron sights and a Red Dot. I explain the concept of each piece of equipment's use and then allow the student to execute. Universally, the students perform better with the red dot but I don't think that is really news to anyone here.

The key here is that we all strive to be "trained" right? In the hands of a trained individual, I really do believe that the enhanced capability of the red dot is a no brainer and choosing not to use one when the option exists is simply strange in my mind.

[ST911]

Observation: I used an RDS when training with Larry Mudgett along with a few other students and noted that RDS shooters called bad presses at a lower threshold even when coaches called a good press. Movement was easier to discern on the dot vs irons even in target-focus. This higher standard produced better trigger control/awareness earlier, duplicated later in new(er) shooters.

[WobblyPossum]

Observation: I used an RDS when training with Larry Mudgett along with a few other students and noted that RDS shooters called bad presses at a lower threshold even when coaches called a good press. Movement was easier to discern on the dot vs irons even in target-focus. This higher standard produced better trigger control/awareness earlier, duplicated later in new(er) shooters.

That’s what I view as one of the biggest benefits of the MRDS. It’s the best coach you can have. The dot will tell you a lot about what you’re doing right or wrong if you’re paying attention. It becomes much easier to call your shots. If you can call your shots, you can identify problems and implement solutions.

[medmo]

HCM "So rather than thousands of rounds you may need a few thousand reps, the majority of which can and probably should be done via dry practice."

That has been my situation. I've been shooting pistol dots now for 2 years and 2 months. The beginning learning curve pretty sharp which I attribute to lots, and lots of dryfire, getting the presentation and push out the same every time to get the dot aligned every time. Got the muscle memory down pretty quick.

The past few months I've been focusing on and shooting at distance, 25 and 40 yards. Do I think I need a dot around 7 yards? No. Do iron sights handicap me when shooting at distance and is my performance at distance worse with irons? Yes, based on personal experience. My conclusion, based on my current skill and experiences, is to carry a dot. I can comfortably carry a dotted compact pistol aiwb 99% of the time so why wouldn't I?

[YVK]

However, there is a difference between preparing for “get out of trouble” situations and “go look for trouble” situations such as LE / MIL duty.


Yes, which is why I specified a "on a defensive pistol" in my post. Pistol to go look for trouble is a different thing, right?


I've seen some credible people advocating that it's necessary to start new shooters on a dot and they can train irons as an accessory and I think they have a pretty valid point. ]

Yes, and maybe there is another conversation here to be had about pistol training in 2022, but it is not the same as saying "need dot on a carry gun" in my eyes.


This me screwing around with a 1911 recently. I shoot it maybe one month, if that, a year. My index on that is not as good as on CZs or Glocks. I am an OCD so I made sure that the tape that is covering the front sight was black so I couldn't use a white patch to aim. A new mag release I was trying actually contributed to this video by dropping a mag mid-string. Meaning I had to re-index after reloading whatever mag was laying on the bench.


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/POfl7MIlrW8


I think an argument can be made that for 90+% of defensive uses, using Givens' data as a reference, one doesn't need even irons sights and just use the index.The dot is really a visual backup to index anyway.
I guess I am trying to say that introduction of a word "need" invalidates any position for me, whether the guy is favoring or criticizing one sighting system over another or not. Again, this is in a reference to civilian defensive guns.

[JCN]

I think an argument can be made that for 90+% of defensive uses, using Givens' data as a reference, one doesn't need even irons sights and just use the index.The dot is really a visual backup to index anyway.
I guess I am trying to say that introduction of a word "need" invalidates any position for me, whether the guy is favoring or criticizing one sighting system over another or not. Again, this is in a reference to civilian defensive guns.

But that same argument also applies that 97% of people won’t need a firearm at all.

And that 98% of people could make do with a gun shaped object like an Airsoft gun to cause the baddie to break contact.

And that 99% of people could carry 25 ACP or 22 LR and do just fine.

So I think when people say “need” it’s like when they go to the fast food restaurant and say “I need a cheeseburger…”




Your 1911 experiment is off because of the grip angle changing the index. If you’re really trying to compare sighting systems and not gun systems, put irons on a CZ or Glock.

In a pinch, when I have to index with a gun that I know will point low from what I’m used to, I’ll look to a spot higher on the target than I want… in order to get the index on, then snap my eyes to the iron sight that is perfectly on target.



The crux of the matter is when people say “there’s no benefit” to dots over irons at close range.

That may be true for lower level practitioners, where nothing really matters because their index, trigger press and recoil control are so sloppy. Like the Rob Leatham aiming is pointless video. If you can’t hit your sights because of poor mechanics, better sights don’t matter…


But for a higher level shooter, there absolutely is an advantage of dots over irons IMO. Being able to shoot rapidly and precisely with higher level of confidence in the shot calling on one focal plane.


So “need” versus “some benefit” versus “no benefit” is what we have to define as terms.

The only way dots don’t have some incremental benefit over irons for me is if I have my eyes closed.

Or if it’s raining heavily.


That being said, I often pocket carry my Walther Model 9 or Taurus View revolver, both with terrible iron sights.


So I’m in the “don’t NEED but there is a performance decrement with inferior sighting systems.”

[YVK]

But that same argument also applies that 97% of people won’t need a firearm at all.


No, it isnt. One is if a person needs a tool that applies a deadly force with movement of a finger. Another is of a distance to which deadly force can be projected to effectively. There's a qualitative difference between the two, vs quantitative difference between crappy irons, good irons, or dot.

[JCN]

No, it isnt. One is if a person needs a tool that applies a deadly force with movement of a finger. Another is of a distance to which deadly force can be projected to effectively. There's a qualitative difference between the two, vs quantitative difference between crappy irons, good irons, or dot.

Disagree because you quoted the Givens data that doesn’t parse out the differences.

Take the following two scenarios:

Scenario A:
Good guy draws, and sprays 6 shots in the general direction of the bad guy and “doesn’t see his sights.” The bad guy gets hit twice but is still able to get a couple shots off and wound the good guy before running away.

Scenario B:
Good guy draws, sees dot and puts a rapid head shot into the bad guy ending the fight without getting injured.

By the Givens data, both are rated “fully successful” in that they stopped the threat and didn’t die themselves.

Which is better?

The “don’t need sights” in a defensive encounter is based off data that is inadequately powered to make that assumption valid.

Because it doesn’t judge whether more would have been better.

It also HAS to be segmented into people who have the skill to take advantage of the improved vision as well.





Basically, you could say that flashlights “aren’t necessary” but the data aren’t powered for that either.

[JCN]

YVK also think of it this way.

Eli Dickens used irons, but was very fortunate the bad guy didn’t have $100 of body armor or else things could have turned out very differently like the supermarket shooter who took a bullet to the armor and killed the guard and kept rampaging.

In certain (rare) defensive scenarios, the added confidence in vision (if the mechanics were there to support it) could have made a big difference.

Like I said, I accept the performance loss with irons. And it probably won’t matter… but I don’t pretend there isn’t a difference.


https://youtu.be/8E3nehSBpeE


https://youtu.be/zWWNhUf9ILc

[MickAK]

I think an argument can be made that for 90+% of defensive uses, using Givens' data as a reference, one doesn't need even irons sights and just use the index.The dot is really a visual backup to index anyway.
I guess I am trying to say that introduction of a word "need" invalidates any position for me, whether the guy is favoring or criticizing one sighting system over another or not. Again, this is in a reference to civilian defensive guns.

I suppose my response would be that I train to the standards I train to not because I actually expect to have to make those shots at those speeds but because getting shot at, or shot potentially, is going to lower my ability to make decisive hits and the better I can make those hits in practice the better I can potentially make them when it counts.

Switching to fsf and knocking the apple out at 25 makes it more likely that I can do the same at 10 during an adrenaline dump. Dots are easier to reliably do that with with less practice. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know. I agree that it's unnecessary to throw a "need" in there. But reading between the lines, that's what I'm reading.