This post is intended to share data that I have collected over the last year which compares performance on a qual (created by myself and a training partner who is a very skilled shooter, and based off of existing standards) with the exact same gun with Iron sights vs. an RMR mounted. ***FAST FORWARD TO BOTTOM OF THE POST FOR MY CONCLUSIONS***
The guns used for this test were 2x CZ P07 with the same Cajun Gun Works modifications. At the time where Irons were being used, both guns had the same Dawson Precision sights installed. Both guns' triggers measure approx. 7lbs in DA and 2.5lbs in SA. The guns are set up to be identical as the one serves as a training gun while the other serves as a carry gun. The only appreciable difference between the two guns after the RMRs were installed is that the Carry gun has an RM07 and the Practice has an RM06.
The excel sheet where I input each month's scores as well as my conclusions is attached to this post.
The qual was shot once per month, with the same gun and ammo. The only exceptions are for when I either did not yet own my practice gun or the practice gun was out having an RMR installed. August is the first month I had an RMR'd gun available to use on the qual, and every qual after that was shot with an RMR. The conclusions tab has an over view of each month's scores and averages. For the averages, I subtracted the best and the worst month for the Iron sighted scores (2 out of 7 results) to give both Iron sights and RMR 5 months of data each. I did not subtract any months from the RMR results in order to have the same amount of months for comparison and because there were no wild deviations from the mean for the RMR results.
The qual is as follows:
All strings were shot from concealment, in an AIWB holster. Spare magazines were also concealed.
Pistol Forum FAST test x3:
-Scoring zones are a 3x5 "Head" target and an 8" cirlce "body" target. Misses to the head will add 2 seconds to the total time and misses to the body will add 1 second.
-On the beep, draw and fire 2 rds only to the head, perform a slidelock reload and fire 4 rds at the body.
-Overall time is a composite of the raw time plus added time for misses (if any).
Modified Rangemaster Bull Course x1:
All stages are shot on a B8 bullseye, which is scored and taped at the end of each stage.
-25yds, 5rds in 12 seconds.*
-15yds, 5rds in 8 seconds.
-15yds, 5rds in 6 seconds.
-7yds, 5rds, slide lock reload, 5rds in 8 seconds.
-5yds, 5rds SHO (with off hand in handheld lighting technique of choice) in 4 seconds.
-Qual scores are points based, with the FAST times being assigned a point value based on a table next to each month's recorded times. The table assigns a time of 12 seconds or less (for 3 runs total, 4 seconds per run) 100pts, with a every half second thereafter achieving a lower score.
-The modified Bull Course is scored based on scores on the bullseye for each string. There is a 5 point penalty for going over the par times on any given string. For example, if I shot a 50 on a 5rd string but went over par, my score for that string would be 45. The penalties were assessed when the data was input. The Red box shows the overall score for that month's qual.
-Maximum score for the Bull Course is 300.
-Maximum score for the FAST portion is 100.
-Maximum score for the Qual is 400/400
This qual was initially developed with the intent to track performance for what we believed to be a reasonable blend of distance, par times, accuracy and manipulations, over a long period of time. When I decided to transition to RMRs full time, it also proved useful for comparing performance between the two sighting systems.
***I know the sample sizes are not exceptionally large, however I think they will prove helpful to those who are on the fence about adding an RMR***
So with that background out of the way, here are the conclusions I reached after compiling all the data:
The addition of the RMR accounts for a 3.8% increase in accuracy and a 3.6% overall increase in performance while not being appreciably slower than iron sights. It should be noted that the only significant difference in performance between Irons and RMR came in the accuracy portion of the qual, with a 10 point increase in average accuracy in favor of the RMR. While the numbers show that the increase is not much and both the fastest times and most accuracte scores came with the Iron sights, the average deviation from the mean for the RMR was 5.12 and for the Irons was 8.57.
Conclusion:
The RMR proved to be slightly more accurate, just as fast (and accurate at speed) and slightly more consistent overall than Iron sights. When you combine these considerations with the RMR's ability to be easily and precisely zeroed for a specific ammunition and with the annecdotal low light benefits reported by users, as well as the target focused nature of using an RDS equipped pistol, I believe the addition of an RDS to a fighting pistol to be worth the investment cost for all but the highest level of pistol shooters. However the RMR requires a user dedicated to learning to get the most out of the sight (experimenting with brightness levels in different light conditions/with different lighting techniques, precisely zeroing the sight, changing batteries, reconfirming zeroes etc.)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hunter Osborne
