Optic Mounted Pistols and Concepts in Application

[Luke]

So your shooting 3 shots in SUB 1 second, and can tell that the red dot is a Little off due to its zero and shooting at close range?

[YVK]

Right, so at the statically probable distances the vast majority of pistol uses have been recorded which is sub 21 feet iron sights will work better for most people.

I think this is a debatable statement. We have a large body of data in regards to irons use specifically as applied in defensive situations and distances and we have no data, as in zero or next to zero, of the dot use in such situations. You have to have two comparable cohorts to draw the conclusions. All I pointed out was that if we're shooting with a target focus, then target focused aiming system should be theoretically superior.
I actually don't think that the emerging data from competition (CO and such) is fully applicable to this argument but if there is something that it showed it was that zeroing at 25 yards doesn't present issues with shots upclose, event tight ones.

[voodoo_man]

I think this is a debatable statement. We have a large body of data in regards to irons use specifically as applied in defensive situations and distances and we have no data, as in zero or next to zero, of the dot use in such situations. You have to have two comparable cohorts to draw the conclusions. All I pointed out was that if we're shooting with a target focus, then target focused aiming system should be theoretically superior.
I actually don't think that the emerging data from competition (CO and such) is fully applicable to this argument but if there is something that it showed it was that zeroing at 25 yards doesn't present issues with shots upclose, event tight ones.

Debate away, I have my experience you have yours, neither are wrong or right, technically.

The statement I made referencing training and investment time is true, as are the statements which speak to the issues of the current types of RDS available for pistol carry.

How time would you have to invest into relearning drawstroke and presentation? To me it simply is not worth it for an extremely marginal precision advantage, if one even exists, at a noticeable speed detriment for the vast majority.

[Hambo]

Thanks for posting Voodoo, as this is a topic I keep considering. My experience with an RMR mounted G is so minimal as to not count but while I got good hits, it felt like a hot mess. I have no idea how long that would take to fix, but at this point I'm not sure the money, time, and ammo are worth the effort.

[voodoo_man]

Thanks for posting Voodoo, as this is a topic I keep considering. My experience with an RMR mounted G is so minimal as to not count but while I got good hits, it felt like a hot mess. I have no idea how long that would take to fix, but at this point I'm not sure the money, time, and ammo are worth the effort.

Thanks for reading.

Unfortunately for those of us who wanted this to be the next step, like I did, were met by harsh reality which has to be considered. I got into it because I wanted it to work, I really did and gave it a shot. Then got away from it and have recently gotten back into it, even carried one for a while. Issue is pretty blatant though, it's just not close to what I am capable of with iron sights and to get there I'd need to make a very considerable investment.

[octagon]

VDM Thanks for the article and sharing your experiences. Can you elaborate on the range you found you are about equal to iron sights and red dot for speed and accuracy? Was this different with the Aimpoint and RMR? I may have missed it but have you tried a red dot without back up irons? If so for how long?

I only recently started the red dot journey and mostly due to aging eyesight and I am always interested to hear others perspective.

[voodoo_man]

VDM Thanks for the article and sharing your experiences. Can you elaborate on the range you found you are about equal to iron sights and red dot for speed and accuracy? Was this different with the Aimpoint and RMR? I may have missed it but have you tried a red dot without back up irons? If so for how long?

I only recently started the red dot journey and mostly due to aging eyesight and I am always interested to hear others perspective.

Thanks for reading.

For me I found that around 20-25 yards my one shot from draw at a 3x5 card was about the same. 20 yards and in I am faster with iron sights and just as accurate. 7 yards and in I am measurably faster with iron sights, in the area of low 1 second to closer to 1.3x-1.5x depending on the size of the target with optic. I like the RM09 because of the small dot, I tried the 3.25moa and it just wasn't accurate enough for me at around 25 yards. I found that the 2moa t1 to be a better fit for distance shooting, especially for accuracy work but you have to preset the brightness so that may be an factor of consideration against it for some.

I have not tried a Glock with an optic but without iron sights. The concept of running a pistol in that configuration is purely fantasy based as I'd never run one or suggest anyone run one in that configuration for real world application.

From guys i respect the opinions of, who have a lot more time on an optic gun than I do, they tend to do the same thing I defaulted to, which is use the iron sights for fast draw and presentation up close and then transition to the dot as you get the time to do so. Same guys also recommend the method of drawing with the front muzzle slightly elevated, deliberately, focusing on the target and the dot from the rmr should appear magically. I tried this method and it was vastly slower for me than simply going to irons and then transitioning to the dot once I found it.

Again just my experience, and while I do not have any eye issues which would make me want to invest in an optic mounted pistol platform, I understand it may be a good option for some with such issues. If you must I would suggest keeping iron sights on the gun regardless, as some form of backup itll better than no form of backup. Also make sure your training and the reps you are burning are deliberate in terms of exactly what your draw stroke should be in order to find the right one for finding the dot each time from any angle, position and movement.

[busdriver]

Here's the thing, it does take a not insignificant amount of dry fire time to get comfortable with a dot. Whether that's due to a late start when compared to growing up with irons or not, I don't know. I also know that dedicated competition shooters (where dots are pretty common) have a warped sense of "a normal amount of dry fire" and the general thought is if the dot is giving you problems, just practice more.

All that said, think about this: What is preventing you from shooting faster at an open 7 yard target and getting all As? Dot or irons and no matter the caliber, a GM is limited by how fast they can pull the trigger, not the sighting system.

[GJM]

Having been down the red dot road for a number of years, with some starts and stops along the way, I have some perspective on the process. Now might be a good time to put the dot aside for a while, and return when you have an open mind, a belief you can shoot the dot better than iron sights at all distances, and you get some expert instruction.

I still remember shooting with Rob Leatham in March 2016, and telling him I was slower with the dot to shot one. He just looked at me with his big kid smirk and told me I was wrong. He told me to press the trigger as soon as I saw the dot on the target, and not let it settle. That was all it took, to fix the dot being slow to shot one issue for me.

Despite having many bouts of skepticism along the way, I am now faster with the dot at all distances. You may or may not get there, but to have a chance of doing it, you need to believe you can.

[voodoo_man]

Here's the thing, it does take a not insignificant amount of dry fire time to get comfortable with a dot. Whether that's due to a late start when compared to growing up with irons or not, I don't know. I also know that dedicated competition shooters (where dots are pretty common) have a warped sense of "a normal amount of dry fire" and the general thought is if the dot is giving you problems, just practice more.

All that said, think about this: What is preventing you from shooting faster at an open 7 yard target and getting all As? Dot or irons and no matter the caliber, a GM is limited by how fast they can pull the trigger, not the sighting system.

Right, none of which has any fundamental place in reality.

Shooting A zones if vastly different from real life carry and application.

The goals are also different here, the conditions of application are different as well.

For the average CCW citizen the goal is to stop the threat and that may mean having to go to guns after you are on the ground, sprinting a different direction and/or retention shooting. An advantage is not gained by having a dot over irons in any of those very real world possibilities.

Furthermore, while I agree the answer to most issues is "train more" or "do more reps" there is a significant amount of time which has to be devoted to this system in order for the average person to become as proficient as they are with iron sights. That may be different for you than for me, but the idea of spending thousands, if not tens of thousands of reps for something I will only use in a game and is poorly applied to real life carry and application is a huge waste of time to me.

Here is another fact for you, iron sights technology may change one or two more ways in the next 50 years, maybe a glow, color, perfect size, etc. None of that will affect anyone who has done the reps of shooting iron sights. On the other hand next year an RDS tech may come out which may drastically change the way dots are used on pistols. Those who put the time in will either stay with their current system and/or begin to do the reps for the new system, as every adjustment, regardless of how minor, will require more reps and more work to become slightly marginally better than iron sights.

I rather invest my time in iron sights and get better overall with a system which does well, if not better than any other, in this platform at the statistically probable distances of engagement