Change platforms for red dot. Yes/no

[Port]

The “argument” that is compelling me is that everything gets thrust into one sight plain. You can glum your eyes onto your threat, and still see the dot clearly vs trying to focus on the front sight while keeping your target in view and knowing what’s behind/around your target.

That’s huge. Another semi-huge advantage it can give you is better marksmanship out at distance. Now, maybe in town that’s not a big concern, but out in the openness of the Midwestern country, where it’s so open that cover could easily be 50 yards away, that’s comforting.

Good eyes or not, those reasons appeal to me. I’ve been using a red dot as a backup to my scope on my AR since the day I got it. I’m a fan. But at this point it’s still a pretty darn expensive endeavor! Putting a $400 red dot on a 2K AR seems easier to swallow than a $500 pistol lol! Putting it on and having the gun milled kind of feels like a commitment.

[MGW]

I know you’ve tried a couple different pistols. I wonder though, have you reached the peak of your ability with what you have? Is the pistol you have holding you back?

I know that doesn’t really get to the point of the question you are asking but it’s worth consideration. I think if you really want to explore the dot then you should as long as you are clearing defining what you want to accomplish first.

[GJM]

I know you’ve tried a couple different pistols. I wonder though, have you reached the peak of your ability with what you have? Is the pistol you have holding you back?

I know that doesn’t really get to the point of the question you are asking but it’s worth consideration. I think if you really want to explore the dot then you should as long as you are clearing defining what you want to accomplish first.

This is an interesting philosophical discussion.

I think it is safe to say that most shooters are interested in reaching the peak of their shooting ability as opposed to reaching the peak of their ability with a specific platform.

What is harder to know, because it varies by shooter, and varies by different times with the same shooter, is when a hardware change helps and when a hardware change hinders progress. Certainly changing every few days, or within an individual session is going to retard progress. I am not convinced that shooting the same platform for say ten years is the universal answer either.

Another approach is focusing on your progress line as opposed to an exact method. As long as progress continues, I think that means your method is working. My approach lately, which doesn’t mean it is right for someone else, is to shoot one platform exclusively, and dedicate all my effort to that platform, until I decide to change, then throw all my effort into that next thing.

[RevolverRob]

I answered the poll No. But the reason is because I don't trust the tech - not because I don't think there are substantial gains to be had in red-dot pistols. I think there absolutely are, just that the current tech is not sufficiently mature for me to consider switching platforms just for the dot.

When the technology is more mature, I'll revisit. I know a lot of folks are hot and bothered by the Aimpoint Acro as the next generation of pistol-mounted dots. And to be clear the Acro is the next generation. But I have my doubts that the Acro will resolve all of the issues of MRDS optics. If I'm terribly frank, I think the Acro is at best Gen 1.5. It may increase durability, but by virtue of being a tube-type optic is has all the problems inherent with that as well.

I think the future of good, functional, MRDS optics will actually be holographic reticles. They won't suffer bloom, won't suffer washout as much, and by virtue of the way they function, will have closed electronics, while still offering a more open eye-box and lower profile that doesn't effect concealment. The tech just isn't there - yet. But I think it will get there in the next 5-10 years. I look at the progress we've made with Reflex-type sights in the past 6-7 years and I recognize it's been very impressive.

ETA: Also, one component of the next generation of pistol optics will be internal rechargeable batteries that recharged via a USB-C port. Just like we're seeing now with flashlights. Until someone actively incorporates this technology in - we're just pretending to play the game for keeps. An internal rechargeable battery can be placed anywhere within the optic, really freeing up design possibilities (it can also be higher voltage, higher capacity, or lower capacity, but higher voltage). Plus it removes one of the most fickle parts of the MRDS currently, battery replacement drawers/lids and battery connections. If Trijicon wanted to blow everyone away at SHOT they'll drop the RMR Type 3 Rechargeable, close up the emitter, flatten the glass, embiggen the window and boom.

[Duke]

Great input thus far.

For clarity sake - my vision is very good.

I’m not terribly interested in pursuing the competitive aspect of pistols - though the benefits are many. Nearly all of my trigger time focuses on what (for me ) seem my most likely types of pistol deployment.

Like everyone though....I’m looking for an advantage.

[pangloss]

Never "switch" platforms, just add platforms*. For years I only shot Glocks, but the proliferation of cheap, high quality pistols since the 2016 election has broadened my horizons. Right now I am really enjoying a HK P30. If you want to try something, give it a try. The decision is not irrevocable. You might end up losing a few hundred dollars but the learning experience is worth something.

*not to be confused with having a carry rotation.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[YVK]

Would you adopt or switch platforms to a pistol that you don’t like simply because it is more readily equipped for a red dot than your current/preferred handgun

Yes, not as in "I would" but as in "I have". Glocks aren't most easiest to shoot well but very easy to set with RDS and that's what I've done. Three out of my four Glocks are now have RDS on them, all of them now are carry pieces.
As a secondary benefit, I learned how to shoot Glocks a little better.

Is the dot that much an advantage now that it has aged a few years?


I will say my personal use of these 6 at that time mostly was favorable. I did not find the concept to be as bombproof nor reliable as it was preached by those who marketed them

1. My primary utility for a dot wasn't and isn't an advantage but an incredible teaching tool that it is. There is so much stuff I didn't understand or see until I went this route, it is not even funny.

2. Incidentally, yes, I think it is that much of an advantage but only after certain time investment and skill growth. For me getting the draw down and picking it up at awkward angles were the thresholds. Once I got to the point of hitting a 2 inch dot at 7 yards in 1.2 (PR) to 1.5 (expected average time) from my game rig, I felt that my speed was sufficient enough for any practical use. Once the speed was sufficient, all other benefits such as target focus, shot/miss calling, increased accuracy, and better SOM performance made me reluctant to go back to irons, like maybe ever?

3. I agree they aren't boombrpoof, or as reliable, and some of them are just pitiful. That's why we have backup irons.

[Duelist]

I haven’t played with one that I would invest in yet, so no. When that happens, I will probably put it on a Glock. Or a PX4. So, maybe.

[Bucky]

I voted an emphatic NO!

I went down this path 10 years ago. Wait, what? Yes, except at that time it was laser grips. I wound up moving to guns that were ideal for me, to other guns less ideal, just because a laser sight was made for that platform. LOTS of money spent on that endeavor, and gave up some stuff I wish I could have back.

Ironically, if your current platform does accept a laser grip, that could be an alternate consideration.

[JAD]

. An internal rechargeable battery can be placed anywhere within the optic, really freeing up design possibilities (it can also be higher voltage, higher capacity, or lower capacity, but higher voltage). Plus it removes one of the most fickle parts of the MRDS currently, battery replacement drawers/lids and battery connections.

I would like that, but:
1) secondary batteries have way less energy density than primaries.
2) the optic designer would need to use a shaped pouch rather than a catalog coin cell
3) the optic designer would have to terminate the cell, and the terminations become a non-trivial vulnerability to shock
4) the charge port is a non-trivial space issue and an ingress vulnerability that has to be solved

It’s not a demand from DoD yet that I’ve seen on FBO, but now that you mention it I might do a search later and see if it’s been trod upon. It would have to be funded by government — the consumer market isn’t worth developing stuff like this for.