MRDS white paper by Sage Dynamics

[octagon]

1) I just ordered 20 Duracell 2932 batteries on Amazon for just over a buck a piece.

2) missing is an important metric. What I don't see is time to making the shot, which can be a significant issue.

The study and results are impressive and cover many of the concerns often mentions however they are not comprehensive(and not claimed to be by the author so no slight) You already mentioned speed to first shot. The paper also doesn't mention or address with testing the iron sight method of target focus with sight alignment nor laser use for target focus and alternate body positioning factors. It is a great study for sure but more needs to be considered and addressed or tested for a fuller picture. The paper often cites the need to change focus between target and front sight and considers the factors of time and difficulty in this focus change especially under stress. A target focus use of iron sights may have an effect on speed,accuracy and ease or ability to perform. Rob Leatham and Doug Koenig both mention using this technique sometimes out to 25 yards.

Alternate/down/injured shooting positions is another factor that may be faster or slower to get weapon alignment using MRDS or iron sights. Nothing is perfect so it comes down to knowing and weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each and making a decision personally or as an agency.

[YVK]

Not only that, but the number of misses between MRDS and Irons -

MRDS - 262 rounds fired, 70 misses. That's ~26.7%

Irons - 291 rounds fired, 120 misses. That's ~41.2%

In other words, in FoF scenarios, MRDS users missed with 1 in 4 rounds, while iron sight users missed with 1 in 2 rounds.

That's an insane metric and if it holds up

I don't know why this is unexpected. The dot is binary, you either see it on target or you don't. You can also see it better if it comes off the target when you don't want it to. Irons are harder to read and you also need to keep some degree of alignment.

To me the FoF part confirms the conclusions that are already known - dot improves accuracy. The FoF in this case is slightly misleading, IMO. I can't derive what exactly was needed to solve those problems - quick first shot, multiple hits, alternate position hits, SOM, just aggressive movement - and therefore how this or that sighting system applies. George mentioned one metric, first shot; to me the main metrics would have been win/lose, how soon the win was achieved, collateral hits.

When I read the article's contents and saw "FoF", I was hopeful to see dot on irons FoF data, not surrogate accuracy comparison data. Maybe one day.

[RevolverRob]

I'd like to do a conversion on my Gen 3 G17 (once I save up enough belly button lint). I'd probably have my current slide cut - who/where is the preferred source to do this?

The only gun I've ever had that was machined is an M&P9 that was done by Mark Housel at L&M Precision. That gun wears a Deltapoint and is my father's "old man gun". The machining is very clean and the gun runs great.

When I read the article's contents and saw "FoF", I was hopeful to see dot on irons FoF data, not surrogate accuracy comparison data. Maybe one day.

Can you clarify what you mean by "dot on irons FoF data"? FoF scenarios where one user has irons and the other a dot equipped pistol?

[BJJ]

One thing to consider regarding the FOF data is what kind of iron sights were on the guns. In my experience, sims guns are either equipped with standard Glock ball in bucket sights or standard Glock night sights. Neither one of those are anywhere as usable as a high visibility front sight such as Trijicon HD or Ameriglo FBI sights. I would still expect the MRDS to be superior in FOF but higher quality iron sights might narrow the gap.

[GJM]

For most shooters with current dot technology, around 15 yards is the break even distance between irons and a dot. Lots of practice changes that, but I don't think that is realistic for most.

[octagon]

One thing to consider regarding the FOF data is what kind of iron sights were on the guns. In my experience, sims guns are either equipped with standard Glock ball in bucket sights or standard Glock night sights. Neither one of those are anywhere as usable as a high visibility front sight such as Trijicon HD or Ameriglo FBI sights. I would still expect the MRDS to be superior in FOF but higher quality iron sights might narrow the gap.

Page 25 of the study list multiple sights used in the FOF scenarios for irons.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I'd like to do a conversion on my Gen 3 G17 (once I save up enough belly button lint). I'd probably have my current slide cut - who/where is the preferred source to do this?

Mark at L&M would be my number 1, ATEI would be second on my list.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GJM]

1) I just ordered 20 Duracell 2932 batteries on Amazon for just over a buck a piece.

2) missing is an important metric. What I don't see is time to making the shot, which can be a significant issue.

Just to be clear, I was not referring to just the shot on the draw. I meant all shots, especially from awkward positions and one hand. Those that have watched Carry Optics shooters in USPSA will understand what I am referring to.

[Mark D]

Just to be clear, I was not referring to just the shot on the draw. I meant all shots, especially from awkward positions and one hand. Those that have watched Carry Optics shooters in USPSA will understand what I am referring to.

I have not had the opportunity to watch any Carry Optics competitors. Do you mind sharing your observations? It seems like a strong, well practiced presentation from the draw is emphasized with the dot. Do the wheels start to fall off for optics shooters in scenarios where a convention presentation is not possible?

[Mark D]

One thing to consider regarding the FOF data is what kind of iron sights were on the guns. In my experience, sims guns are either equipped with standard Glock ball in bucket sights or standard Glock night sights. Neither one of those are anywhere as usable as a high visibility front sight such as Trijicon HD or Ameriglo FBI sights. I would still expect the MRDS to be superior in FOF but higher quality iron sights might narrow the gap.

Here is what the white paper says for FoF scenarios:

Handguns used during the study: • Beretta 92 • Glock 17

Sights used: • OEM Beretta • OEM Glock • Glock Night Sights • Truglo TFO • XS Big dot • Trijicon NS • Trijicon HD • Dawson Precision (fiber optic front)