Originally Posted by
busdriver
My stance is from someone who is not a world class shooter, but I have actually shot matches with several. I know full well what technical shooting situations favor a dot, being able to exploit that is the only thing that occasionally gets me a score better than a world class GM shooting an iron sighted gun, usually I only just barely hang-on.
This is flat out wrong. I zero the dot at 25 yards, you just need to apply a hold over. It does take practice to be able to do that subconsciously.
This is the root of my problem with your argument. You pass judgement based on the above, as if you should be able to just pickup the new sight and be wildly better or it isn't worth it.
I doubt anyone would have a problem with your point if you just said:
The dot's primary advantage is longer range shooting, shooting on the move, and very small targets. Don't expect any advantage on close range, relatively open targets. Expect to be slower at first, have problems picking up the dot, etc. It takes a lot of practice to be capable of taking advantage of the dot, and overcome the initial problems. Anyone unable or unwilling to put in a significant amount of dry practice, should stick to irons unless there are mitigating circumstances like eyesight problems. Consider learning to shoot with a target focus regardless, at typical self defense distances (FBI data shows the majority are inside 7 yards) there is no need to see a sharp front sight. Furthermore, considering the open top reflex sights have been shown to have problems in adverse weather, anyone looking at a dot should seriously consider their environment.