Boren in Given's Newsletter on RDS

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://d74722.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-01_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf

I found the piece by Jeff Boren in Tom's newsletter to be very interesting but haven't seen any commentary here on it. The intricacies of RDS usage are laid out. Zeroing, keeping zero, of course finding the dot, mounting equipment variances, etc. are points in the piece. There's a difference between professional gun users and the civilian - of different levels of enthusiasm from high level trainees and competitors to casual SD types.

I thought the mounting discussion to be right on. Mounting and zeroing my SRO took a bit of effort from two folks - one - that guy and a gunsmith. I'm a klutz on such. I wonder why a standard rail like system with a throw switch rather than screws, plates and glue couldn't be a standard? But what do I know. To add a sight and have to buy a special, measuring screw driver - huh?

Still dry firing the heck out of the man cave with the gun. However, carry is still Trijicon night sights on a G26. Got too many med expenses to go for another set up. Sigh. I may be a heretic but I like the standard factory Glock sights on my G42 and a G4 G17. I can see the big dot. I had a B19 with some tritium fiber optics, but the front sight disappeared in a match and I let that system go. A match or two ago, another competitor had his front tube fall out.

[MVS]

https://d74722.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-01_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf

I found the piece by Jeff Boren in Tom's newsletter to be very interesting but haven't seen any commentary here on it. The intricacies of RDS usage are laid out. Zeroing, keeping zero, of course finding the dot, mounting equipment variances, etc. are points in the piece. There's a difference between professional gun users and the civilian - of different levels of enthusiasm from high level trainees and competitors to casual SD types.

I thought the mounting discussion to be right on. Mounting and zeroing my SRO took a bit of effort from two folks - one - that guy and a gunsmith. I'm a klutz on such. I wonder why a standard rail like system with a throw switch rather than screws, plates and glue couldn't be a standard? But what do I know. To add a sight and have to buy a special, measuring screw driver - huh?

Still dry firing the heck out of the man cave with the gun. However, carry is still Trijicon night sights on a G26. Got too many med expenses to go for another set up. Sigh. I may be a heretic but I like the standard factory Glock sights on my G42 and a G4 G17. I can see the big dot. I had a B19 with some tritium fiber optics, but the front sight disappeared in a match and I let that system go. A match or two ago, another competitor had his front tube fall out.

You mean like mounting a scope on a rifle?
Anyway, I like RDS but do not think by any stretch they are required. As a matter of fact I still think irons should be for the "average" gun owner the standard. I have been EDC'ing a slide mounted optic since 2009, but I am not an evangelist for them.

I don't think I know the author which tells me how long I have been absent from the Rangemaster events as I feel like I used to know most of the instructors, though that group has grown exponentially in the last decade. Anyway, great article though I did not vibe with one thing. I fear he may be young as the stick-auto comparison was pretty much backwards from the way I would think about it. When I learned to drive the manual was still the norm and auto's weren't trusted to be reliable, of course I did start driving when I was 10 and lived on a farm so that probably slanted things a bit.

[GJM]

Lots of good information in that piece.

If I think back about my last ten years of shooting, a significant amount of my effort, learning and even frustration has been around my relationship and use of the red dot. While I consider iron sights now to be what in aviation we would refer to as an "abnormal" situation, I do believe most people would be better off relying on iron sights on their EDC pistols. Build knowledge and experience with the red dot, but be conservative relying on it too early in your journey. The exception to this would be a mentored situation, where someone selects the equipment, sets it up, teaches and tests you, and turn you loose only after you have reached defined milestones.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You mean like mounting a scope on a rifle?
Anyway, I like RDS but do not think by any stretch they are required. As a matter of fact I still think irons should be for the "average" gun owner the standard. I have been EDC'ing a slide mounted optic since 2009, but I am not an evangelist for them.

I don't think I know the author which tells me how long I have been absent from the Rangemaster events as I feel like I used to know most of the instructors, though that group has grown exponentially in the last decade. Anyway, great article though I did not vibe with one thing. I fear he may be young as the stick-auto comparison was pretty much backwards from the way I would think about it. When I learned to drive the manual was still the norm and auto's weren't trusted to be reliable, of course I did start driving when I was 10 and lived on a farm so that probably slanted things a bit.

Yeah, I think a standard interface would be a good thing for the everyday folk. Whether a RDS is for everday folk is another nuance. I'm not buying a new gun but would I get a Gen 5 G26 with one of the smaller RDS - I can't say.

My AR and Ruger PCC had standard rails without the nuances of handgun RDS mounts.

As far as the side issue of stick. I drove it through the life times of three cars. My awful knees switched me to automatic. I do recall my daughter laughing at me as I tried to get out of a parking space on a steep Portland, OR hill with a stick Civic (not smashing the car in back of me).

I don't do Rangemaster anymore or travel much as I have a care taker role. Such is age. Nor do I do any strenuous training as I can't risk a layup in mobility, etc.

[SCCY Marshal]

...Whether a RDS is for everday folk is another nuance...

I'd say that rather than being a nuanced topic that it flat-out isn't for the masses. They already don't carry guns and making the things bigger, heavier, and more fiddly isn't going to get more people on board. Given the amount of dead batteries I find in people's flashlights, weaponlights, and rifle optics, these won't be treated better. I'm one of very few freaks I l know who puts handguns on paper at all, much less checking for POA/POI relationship with various loads. Normal people won't do that on an optic which has never been so much as factory regulated to be reasonably close and will be like the average rifle shooter who chases his tail in embarassment when the misses start in a gun that was never properly zeroed and is now being loaded with completely different ammo than the last range trip. The people who look at their gun in utter confusion when it has a stoppage will now have the exciting new experiences of washed out, ghosted, dirty, dead dots and not think to use the irons.

Dots are not a simple path to program compliance. If it isn't simple, it won't be done in the big picture.

[Totem Polar]

Very interesting article, Glenn. Thanks for posting the reminder.

[YVK]

Was anybody else left with an impression that an article that lists all the "what's wrongs" with the dots for masses would've delivered better if it didn't end on "I won a turbo pin in Gabe's class" using one?

[MVS]

Was anybody else left with an impression that an article that lists all the "what's wrongs" with the dots for masses would've delivered better if it didn't end on "I won a turbo pin in Gabe's class" using one?

I am sure someone else was, but it didn't bother me. He used it to enhance the point if you aren't putting in the work it might not be what's best for you. I can't tell you how many matches I have shot where the sun messed with someone's ability to shoot a stage well. Along your line of thinking though, it would be interesting to know if he shoots Turbo without a dot. Of course by the time you are going to one of Gabe's classes you are already not one of the "masses".

[YVK]

I am sure someone else was, but it didn't bother me. He used it to enhance the point if you aren't putting in the work it might not be what's best for you. I can't tell you how many matches I have shot where the sun messed with someone's ability to shoot a stage well. Along your line of thinking though, it would be interesting to know if he shoots Turbo without a dot.

Low sun is a problem. I am hopeful that this will be resolved with time. GJM tells me that SIG figured it out on a couple of their optics.

The "not putting the work" part isn't that straightforward for me.

[RJ]

I thought it was a good article. Certainly it enumerated many of the steps of discovery one makes on their dot journey. I had to learn about dots by doing, and asking dumb questions.

Dots certainly help a lot of us geezers (I'm 64) who can't see very well anymore. Obviously this is academic, until one is involved in a self defense shooting. Then shit gets real. But the odds that an actual earth person is involved in a .civ self defense shooting, *and* using a dot at the time? I dunno...must be small.

I kept a dot (EPS Carry MRS) as a means of shooting an optic from time to time, but mostly my shooting is split 50/50 dot/sight. I decided recently to sell the optic since the multi-reticle was bugging me, but I haven't bought another.

So at the moment, my carry P365X has irons, and my tinker / mess around with P365 Macro TACOPS Frankengun has irons. My 1911 and LCR, same. Which I'm ok with. And anyway I have some eye surgery coming up, so I probably won't have to worry about it for a while.

[Erick Gelhaus]

It's a good piece. It covers all that at least some have been saying for a while.

[DMF13]

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there are some problems with the thesis by Mr. Boren. I'll say that he's a much better shooter than me, having earned a Turbo pin from Gabe White, but that greater skill in shooting doesn't mean I will simply defer to his opinion on this topic.

While it's true that iron sights are probably better for someone who buys a gun, tosses it in the nightstand, and won't bother to even swap out batteries, it's not that simple for the rest of the potential users.

Those who will at least do the basic battery swaps, but rarely, or never, train, are a group that won't get all the benefits of a dot, but will also not have much difference, whichever sighting system they choose. However, they now have a sighting system that only requires putting the dot on the target, rather than lining up three items, to make an accurate shot. That alone contradicts the "with traditional iron sights, life is simpler," because for actual use of the sighting systems, that is an aspect where PMOs are "simpler" than "traditional iron sights." I've got more to say about that later.

Then there are the statements about zeroing the optic, which starts with, " . . . it means properly adjusting the optic so that it hits where you are aiming," and follows with, ". . . At this point, the theory of enthusiasts and optics should become clearer." The problem is that needs to be done with iron sights also, but the author neglects that basic fact, and doesn't discuss what's required to zero with irons. It is much "simpler" to properly zero optics, than it is for the iron sights that would be on most "non-enthusiast" handguns, as adjustable irons are not common. Once the optic is properly mounted adjusting zero is easily done, with just a small screw driver. Adjusting the common "fixed" iron sights, most commonly found on "non-enthusiast" handguns, will require having a relatively expensive "sight pushing tool," and either completely swapping the front sight post, or possibly filing it down (but only if you need to raise the point of impact). The author discusses the complexity of optics, and for some reason leaves out the more difficult process of zeroing irons.

The author conveniently placed the "complex" mounting of optics, before discussing the claimed complexity of zeroing the optic. The reality is that once the optic is properly mounted it's much easier to adjust zero with the optic. Also, the same "non-enthusiast" that won't be bothered to properly zero their optic will also not take the time to do it with irons.

However, when we are talking about anyone who cares enough to zero their firearm properly, whether with an optic or irons, irons are not more "simple." Further, once you factor in what's needed to properly adjust zero on irons, not only is the process of mounting, and zeroing the optic, not more complex, the tools are less expensive. A Wheeler FAT Wrench, or the proper Fix-It-Sticks (my preference), needed to properly torque the optic screws are much less expensive even the low end sight pushing tools. The cost of the sighting systems favors irons, but when it comes to tools needed to mount, AND zero the pistol, it's much less expensive, and easier to deal with the optic than it is irons.

Now let's address confirming zero. It's just as necessary with irons as it is with optics. I'm still relatively new to optics, but I've been an armorer with my agency for just shy of a decade, using iron sighted pistols. I've seen sights get shifted in the dovetail, or mounting screws come loose, and sometimes the shooter notices/diagnosis it on their own, but sometimes it's a shooter saying, "hey, I can't hit anything today, what do you think is wrong," which leads an FI to discover the iron sights are off.

For me, when I got serious about shooting, and began transitioning to what the author would call an "enthusiast," I started the habit of beginning every range session with a 3x5 drill, out to 20 yards, and ending with a 5 shot group at either 20 or 25 yards (I'd prefer 25, but some indoor ranges I use don't go out to 25). It serves two purposes; 1) it lets me work on group shooting, and 2) it serves to confirm zero. I was doing that long before I switched to a PMO.

Let's be honest though. For most iron sight shooters, a group slightly high/low at 25 yards, is not likely to result in a bunch of front sight swaps, and people who have a sight pusher will only be adjusting left or right, and not going through the hassle for elevation unless the shots are way high/low. However, because it's so "simple" to adjust for elevation with the optic, people are not just confirming zero, because they can easily/quickly adjust for that slight change at 20 or 25 yards, if a new load makes a very slight difference in elevation.

Now for the car transmission analogy. No analogy is perfect, but the author's use of it on this topic is completely bonkers. Manual transmissions are only less complex for the person building, and maintaining them, not for the driver. There is a reason my mom drove an automatic transmission her whole life, and never learned to drive a manual. She didn't build the car, she didn't repair the car, she only drove the car, and it was much easier to learn to drive an automatic, than a manual. When it comes to the visual aspect of keeping the firearm aligned to the target, using a PMO is easier than "traditional iron sights." Rather than trying to maintain alignment of objects at three distances (rear sight, front sight, target), the PMO allows the shooter to focus on the target, see the dot on that target, without shifting focus, and go to work.

When it comes to learning the most basic aspect of shooting, which is align the gun to the target, and pull the trigger without disturbing that alignment, the optic removes the complexity of having to align three objects, at different distances, and allows the simplicity of maintaining target focus, and recognizing when the dot is there.

To continue with the transmission analogy, my father who drove manual transmission vehicles most of his life, because they were less expensive to buy, from the 1950s through the 1990s. He had a manual when my sibling, and I, learned to drive. However, he had us start on my mom's automatic, because it was "simpler" to use, and allowed us to concentrate on the fundamentals of driving safely, without complicating the learning process, by learning to shift the manual transmission. After we had learned to drive safely, taken the behind the wheel test, and got our licenses, he then added the complexity of driving the manual transmission. It's similar with optics v. irons for new shooters. IMO, it's better to give them the less complex visual system, allow them to get the fundamentals of grip, and trigger pull down, and then add in the greater visual complexity of the irons.

I will agree that acquiring the dot off the draw requires a more refined index, but here again, if a new shooter starts with learning that more refined index, the transition to irons will be easy. When I first started to transitioning to the dot, the only real problems I had were getting over the fact that irons had allowed me be a little sloppy in my initial index, and dealing with my habit of being "front sight" focused, causing me to get "sucked into the dot," rather than staying target focused. This is an area where irons are a little "simpler" than optics, but it is merely letting someone get away with bad habits. However, starting by learning the a more refined index, and a true target focus, will only help when adding in the visual complexity of irons, because the new shooter won't have to overcome bad habits.

However, all of this goes back to my point earlier. In my opinion, for those who won't even bother with periodic battery swaps, the irons are "simpler." For those that will actually zero their gun properly, the pros of the optic outweigh the cons, especially if they start on the optic, even if they aren't meeting the author's definition of an "enthusiast."

[MVS]

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there are some problems with the thesis by Mr. Boren. I'll say that he's a much better shooter than me, having earned a Turbo pin from Gabe White, but that greater skill in shooting doesn't mean I will simply defer to his opinion on this topic.

While it's true that iron sights are probably better for someone who buys a gun, tosses it in the nightstand, and won't bother to even swap out batteries, it's not that simple for the rest of the potential users.

Those who will at least do the basic battery swaps, but rarely, or never, train, are a group that won't get all the benefits of a dot, but will also not have much difference, whichever sighting system they choose. However, they now have a sighting system that only requires putting the dot on the target, rather than lining up three items, to make an accurate shot. That alone contradicts the "with traditional iron sights, life is simpler," because for actual use of the sighting systems, that is an aspect where PMOs are "simpler" than "traditional iron sights." I've got more to say about that later.

Then there are the statements about zeroing the optic, which starts with, " . . . it means properly adjusting the optic so that it hits where you are aiming," and follows with, ". . . At this point, the theory of enthusiasts and optics should become clearer." The problem is that needs to be done with iron sights also, but the author neglects that basic fact, and doesn't discuss what's required to zero with irons. It is much "simpler" to properly zero optics, than it is for the iron sights that would be on most "non-enthusiast" handguns, as adjustable irons are not common. Once the optic is properly mounted adjusting zero is easily done, with just a small screw driver. Adjusting the common "fixed" iron sights, most commonly found on "non-enthusiast" handguns, will require having a relatively expensive "sight pushing tool," and either completely swapping the front sight post, or possibly filing it down (but only if you need to raise the point of impact). The author discusses the complexity of optics, and for some reason leaves out the more difficult process of zeroing irons.

The author conveniently placed the "complex" mounting of optics, before discussing the claimed complexity of zeroing the optic. The reality is that once the optic is properly mounted it's much easier to adjust zero with the optic. Also, the same "non-enthusiast" that won't be bothered to properly zero their optic will also not take the time to do it with irons.

However, when we are talking about anyone who cares enough to zero their firearm properly, whether with an optic or irons, irons are not more "simple." Further, once you factor in what's needed to properly adjust zero on irons, not only is the process of mounting, and zeroing the optic, not more complex, the tools are less expensive. A Wheeler FAT Wrench, or the proper Fix-It-Sticks (my preference), needed to properly torque the optic screws are much less expensive even the low end sight pushing tools. The cost of the sighting systems favors irons, but when it comes to tools needed to mount, AND zero the pistol, it's much less expensive, and easier to deal with the optic than it is irons.

Now let's address confirming zero. It's just as necessary with irons as it is with optics. I'm still relatively new to optics, but I've been an armorer with my agency for just shy of a decade, using iron sighted pistols. I've seen sights get shifted in the dovetail, or mounting screws come loose, and sometimes the shooter notices/diagnosis it on their own, but sometimes it's a shooter saying, "hey, I can't hit anything today, what do you think is wrong," which leads an FI to discover the iron sights are off.

For me, when I got serious about shooting, and began transitioning to what the author would call an "enthusiast," I started the habit of beginning every range session with a 3x5 drill, out to 20 yards, and ending with a 5 shot group at either 20 or 25 yards (I'd prefer 25, but some indoor ranges I use don't go out to 25). It serves two purposes; 1) it lets me work on group shooting, and 2) it serves to confirm zero. I was doing that long before I switched to a PMO.

Let's be honest though. For most iron sight shooters, a group slightly high/low at 25 yards, is not likely to result in a bunch of front sight swaps, and people who have a sight pusher will only be adjusting left or right, and not going through the hassle for elevation unless the shots are way high/low. However, because it's so "simple" to adjust for elevation with the optic, people are not just confirming zero, because they can easily/quickly adjust for that slight change at 20 or 25 yards, if a new load makes a very slight difference in elevation.

Now for the car transmission analogy. No analogy is perfect, but the author's use of it on this topic is completely bonkers. Manual transmissions are only less complex for the person building, and maintaining them, not for the driver. There is a reason my mom drove an automatic transmission her whole life, and never learned to drive a manual. She didn't build the car, she didn't repair the car, she only drove the car, and it was much easier to learn to drive an automatic, than a manual. When it comes to the visual aspect of keeping the firearm aligned to the target, using a PMO is easier than "traditional iron sights." Rather than trying to maintain alignment of objects at three distances (rear sight, front sight, target), the PMO allows the shooter to focus on the target, see the dot on that target, without shifting focus, and go to work.

When it comes to learning the most basic aspect of shooting, which is align the gun to the target, and pull the trigger without disturbing that alignment, the optic removes the complexity of having to align three objects, at different distances, and allows the simplicity of maintaining target focus, and recognizing when the dot is there.

To continue with the transmission analogy, my father who drove manual transmission vehicles most of his life, because they were less expensive to buy, from the 1950s through the 1990s. He had a manual when my sibling, and I, learned to drive. However, he had us start on my mom's automatic, because it was "simpler" to use, and allowed us to concentrate on the fundamentals of driving safely, without complicating the learning process, by learning to shift the manual transmission. After we had learned to drive safely, taken the behind the wheel test, and got our licenses, he then added the complexity of driving the manual transmission. It's similar with optics v. irons for new shooters. IMO, it's better to give them the less complex visual system, allow them to get the fundamentals of grip, and trigger pull down, and then add in the greater visual complexity of the irons.

I will agree that acquiring the dot off the draw requires a more refined index, but here again, if a new shooter starts with learning that more refined index, the transition to irons will be easy. When I first started to transitioning to the dot, the only real problems I had were getting over the fact that irons had allowed me be a little sloppy in my initial index, and dealing with my habit of being "front sight" focused, causing me to get "sucked into the dot," rather than staying target focused. This is an area where irons are a little "simpler" than optics, but it is merely letting someone get away with bad habits. However, starting by learning the a more refined index, and a true target focus, will only help when adding in the visual complexity of irons, because the new shooter won't have to overcome bad habits.

However, all of this goes back to my point earlier. In my opinion, for those who won't even bother with periodic battery swaps, the irons are "simpler." For those that will actually zero their gun properly, the pros of the optic outweigh the cons, especially if they start on the optic, even if they aren't meeting the author's definition of an "enthusiast."

I agree with you on transmissions, but not most of the rest of that. Anyone who bothers to zero their irons has already moved into the enthusiast category. The big elephant in your story is that the "average" gun owner is never going to practice anywhere near enough to pick up the dot on presentation, especially one handed. I still see it all the time in matches and those people are by and large already past "average". Now if we go by the old saw of 3X3X3, it guess it doesn't matter. But that is just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

[Duelist]

Every single pistol dot sight i have ever used appears as a starburst with an oval somewhere near the middle of it. I wear corrective lenses for astigmatism and myopia (with developing presbiopia), and find dots a usable, but not desirable pistol sighting system. I don’t feel like I will get much return out of the expense and hassle of transitioning to a dot, and am much happier with fiber optic rods or tritium night sights, or painted ramp fronts on my revolvers. Plain black sights are about the same usability for me under most circumstances as dots, and sometimes less.

Variable and fixed optical scopes, on the other hand, have appeared on all but two of the rifles in my safe. Both of those are likely to get scoped or sold as time goes on.

I would express myself as sometimes an enthusiast.

[JCN]

I agree with you on transmissions, but not most of the rest of that. Anyone who bothers to zero their irons has already moved into the enthusiast category. The big elephant in your story is that the "average" gun owner is never going to practice anywhere near enough to pick up the dot on presentation, especially one handed. I still see it all the time in matches and those people are by and large already past "average". Now if we go by the old saw of 3X3X3, it guess it doesn't matter. But that is just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

If I were going to set up a novice with an RDS gun, I would have large BUIS plus a huge dot with a huge reticle.

I feel that would mitigate most of the “finding dot” issues.

32 MOA circle dot in a 507comp with an XS front sight.

“Put the XS in the RDS window and your reticle will be there.”

[Noah]

DMF13, for the 99% of gun owners who are not enthusiasts, the factory irons are highly likely to be zeroed "enough" that they will never be adjusted or changed, or the owner will only ever shoot dinner plate size groups at 7 yards once a year and have no idea whether the sights are zeroed to begin with. More critically, while you are technically correct that the dot is a simpler aiming system, this is rendered irrelevant by the fact that very few people will ever put in the dry work to have an index where they get the dot in the window even a majority of the time. You did mention this issue, but you vastly understate the problem that it is.

For someone who cares enough that they would ever actually change or zero iron sights, and who will practice enough that finding the dot wouldn't be a serious issue, then yes, the "complexity/PITA" gap between mounting and zeroing a dot vs swapping and adjusting iron sights becomes a wash.

[GJM]

Every single pistol dot sight i have ever used appears as a starburst with an oval somewhere near the middle of it. I wear corrective lenses for astigmatism and myopia (with developing presbiopia), and find dots a usable, but not desirable pistol sighting system. I don’t feel like I will get much return out of the expense and hassle of transitioning to a dot, and am much happier with fiber optic rods or tritium night sights, or painted ramp fronts on my revolvers. Plain black sights are about the same usability for me under most circumstances as dots, and sometimes less.

Variable and fixed optical scopes, on the other hand, have appeared on all but two of the rifles in my safe. Both of those are likely to get scoped or sold as time goes on.

I would express myself as sometimes an enthusiast.

I would suggest, only half joking, that if you are looking at the dot enough to see imperfections, you are trying to use it like a rifle reticle and not a defensive pistol aiming device. See a streak within the desired aiming area, break the shot!

[Duelist]

I would suggest, only half joking, that if you are looking at the dot enough to see imperfections, you are trying to use it like a rifle reticle and not a defensive pistol aiming device. See a streak within the desired aiming area, break the shot!

You are likely correct about what I am doing when I experiment with dots, George.