Lasers for serious use?

[nalesq]

Another issue with lasers I have noted is that if you are accustomed to one level of brightness on the range against paper targets, but experience varying (often lower) levels of brightness in “real life” as the beam encounters varying levels of ambient light and surface reflectivity, the difference can be jarring enough to cause significant delays in mental processing.

Even more delay may be caused by trying to decide on the fly whether to use the laser or sights, especially if iron sight alignment is “hard wired” into your “subconscious.”

I think the best use of lasers, especially given their high cost, is in situations where irons sights are essentially unavailable, such as for people with vision issues, or using NODs, or wearing a pro mask, or shooting little guns with exceptionally crappy sights, like on most j frames. Or for non dedicated personnel who are unlikely to use sights under stress in any case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Erick Gelhaus]

I agree with HCM's comments.

My 'complaint' about most laser designs is that when paired with a WML, they put the laser down below the light. Then, if one goes for an intersecting zero, you get this angle that sees you off a whole heck of a lot more than you are on. I like the Steiner pistol specific version (PBAL?) as the laser is above the light. Unfortunately, there is little holster support for it.

[MVS]

Copied from my recent training journal entry,

Rechecked the zero on my NPE G43 with the Crimson trace green laser. It was off as the mounting screws were a little loose. I am really torn on this. I like the laser for low light and odd shooting positions, but it definitely has its drawbacks. One would be even less grip surface. Another is the fairly short battery life and need to re zero after changing said battery. Perhaps the most annoying to me is the zero itself. It really only has a good zero in a very short window. By that I mean it is far off from the irons at most distances.

[Clusterfrack]

That’s been my experience with lasers with plastic housings also. They don’t keep zero, and aren’t very rugged. I can’t imagine buying a gun with a built-in laser unless the build quality was Surefire level or greater. OTOH my DBAL D2 hasn’t shifted zero in years despite rough treatment.

[Pistol Pete 10]

gimmick.

[PNWTO]

I think @HCM hit it on the head. My wife has the TLR-6 on her 42 and she does well with it and says it makes her feel "better" about aiming, fwiw. To steal a little from Pat Macnamara my experience has been they indeed are "enablers" not "disablers" but are another thing to pay attention to keep operational. For me the cost is worth it. That said, I wouldn't necessarily encourage people to check them out.

gimmick.

Good insight.

[peterb]

I like the CT grips on a J-frame with the tiny factory sights. Reviews for the Glock version are generally poor so I haven't bothered to try those.

[03RN]

Thanks for all the insight guys. I'll see how I like them when I get them.

[HCM]

I agree with HCM's comments.

My 'complaint' about most laser designs is that when paired with a WML, they put the laser down below the light. Then, if one goes for an intersecting zero, you get this angle that sees you off a whole heck of a lot more than you are on. I like the Steiner pistol specific version (PBAL?) as the laser is above the light. Unfortunately, there is little holster support for it.

Isn’t there at new Surefire WML/Laser coming out with the Laser above the light to reduce offset ?

The only downside is MSRP is $700.

[El Cid]

Isn’t there at new Surefire WML/Laser coming out with the Laser above the light to reduce offset ?

The only downside is MSRP is $700.

I saw it a few months ago. I want one - have to pay to play when it comes to some things.