Or those that have competed. One of the qualifiers yesterday was baseball standards. You have 4.5 seconds to draw, transfer hands and shoot 6 rounds to a 15 yard target. When my dot wasn't where I needed it to be as soon as I reached extension, I knew I was hosed. I am still not 100% on the WHO index clearly.Originally Posted by GJM
This mirrors many of the issues I had when I first tried the dot game. Part of it was me trying to come to grips (literally) with an M&P which doesn't really fit my hand particularly well, I could never, despite months of effort, get a consistent index with that gun, that brought the dot out to where I wanted/needed it, from a primary shooting position, let alone anything remotely awkward.
Still this hit percentage rate difference is compelling and suggests to me that there may be a pretty good benefit for the majority of shooting scenarios.
Out of curiosity, for those who have competed/watched carry optics - are there noticeable differences between the CO shooters and Open Class shooters who are running say a C-More?
That wasn't what I gathered from the paper. One of their points was that physiological stress prevent the eye from focusing near as would be needed to use sights. If true, then it wouldn't matter what type of iron sights were mounted. Their point may or may not be true, but it was key to the balance of their arguments.
Last edited by Jaywalker; 09-24-2017 at 05:34 PM.
Not sure I can add much beyond shooters can struggle with acquiring the dot in awkward positions.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Yup. We have all kinds of indirect comparison data, anything from folks reporting their drill of the week scores to training journals to white papers info to weekly scores from USPSA matches. I thought that in FoF context it would've been cool to have actual force iron on force dot data. Obviously, we will never have a methodologically spotless research on this subject and any data point is a data point, including % hits. That said, I would like to see more global outcomes measured.
I've seen people lose dots executing every aspect of shooting game. One of most recent lasting impressions was seeing a strong (A class) shooter lose a dot during a level II match because of variable (shooting from dark area at a well lit targets) and shifting lighting conditions. I even told GJM yesterday that if I carried an optic enabled gun, I would probably not want an auto-adjust feature.
I shot a very challenging match today with Carry Optics (Q5/DP Pro/no BUIS) designed as a warm-up for next weekend's AZ PCC state championship match. Featured all sort of mischief, including eight inch plates at 50 yards shot through a low, but not prone-able, port. I did not have a single instance of any problem acquiring the dot. Yesterday, I also shot a CO match without a single instance of problem acquiring the dot. These are the first matches I have shot since April. However, playing with a spinner after yesterday's match, twice I had a brief delay reaquiring the dot, in the confusion of watching the spinner.
Hit rates are interesting, but only in the context of accuracy and speed. I am faster with the dot at all distances, but I believe that is the exception not the rule. Especially so with shooters that don't shoot and/or dry fire nearly every day.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I hope my point is clear, if not then
Yos dude.
The open guys are still significantly faster. But a comped gun from a race holster with a fixed dot is a pretty solid advantage in tracking the dot too.
Still...shoot a match or two in McHenry and you might bump into Matt Koyak. He runs a CO rig fairly well. Good shooter.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Last edited by 45dotACP; 09-24-2017 at 09:52 PM.
Are we being overly concerned about how a dot compares to iron sights in the Carry Optics division? The study the study looked at how a cop would perform using dots vs. iron. I think it also lends itself to the question of how advantageous, or not, the dot would be for civilian self defense. As such, I think the study neglects the other obvious piece of hardware, the green laser. At "average" self defense distances, call it 3 to 7 yards, the laser will beat the other two for target acquisition hands down. Personally, I'd prefer the laser out to about 15 yards.
I bought a RMR07 that I mounted via a rear sight mount on my HK45C. As such, I can't co-witness the red dot with iron sights. A disadvantage I know, but I'm not going to have a slide cut up while I'm still experimenting. I intend to use this setup almost exclusively for Steel Challenge for at least the next year to decide if I want to mill a slide. I've spent the last year and a half both practicing my draw and doing timed fire at 25 yards. I love the accuracy, but at least 10 percent of the time on a draw, I experience that "Oh shit, I can't find the dot!" Can you imagine if you really needed the gun, the stress levels were off the charts and you couldn't find the dot?
Between RMR, dovetail mount, .45 acp, short sight radius and heavy trigger on the HK45C, I can't imagine a less competitive set-up. Any special reason you decided to go that way?
Nothing special about Carry Optics, except it is a chance to see a bunch of people try to work a dot under some stress, shooting in unusual positions, all on a clock.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Reply With Quote