Value of Pistol RDS vs other things

[ASH556]

As a comparative example, I shot a carbine match in 2011 where I was holding hard to the KISS iron-sighted carbine principles. I even took a Vickers Carbine class that same year with an iron-sighted carbine and beat out a lot of guys shooting guns with Aimpoints and Eotechs. However, when I gave in after the Vickers carbine class and put an Aimpoint on my carbine, my performance went up quite a bit. The RDS on a carbine is a force multiplier compared to shooting irons. That doesn't mean you cant do good work with irons, but its faster, easier, works better from odd positions, is more forgiving of poor index/head positioning, etc etc compared to shooting irons.

So, with all that out of the way, is it the same thing with an RDS on a pistol? In other words, can I expect to go buy an MOS Glock, bolt an ACRO to it, and see an instant real improvement in my pistol performance (accuracy at distance, speed, transitions, basically the visual part. I realize that grip and trigger have to still be there)?

Or, is it a "nice to have" but you're still better off with 3 G19's with good sights than 2 G19's; one having an ACRO?

Thought partially initialized from this post:

For gaming I would say it needs to go at least 10k+, and even for that, you need to have a primary/match gun with an optic you are gentle with, a training/dry fire gun that can see more abuse, and a backup training/match gun for when one of your others goes down. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like paying close to $1000 in match fees, ammo, gas, and lodging to have my optic die on me and ruin the whole match, so reliability is extremely important.

For LEO/Mil, unless you have vision issues that preclude you from using iron sights, I don't think any current optics are anywhere near reliable enough for use. For a LEO/mil with vision issues I'd still recommend a three gun system like above at the minimum, with the gun you carry every day seeing very low round count and usage.

[Duelist]

I am dot curious. I don’t have enough experience with one to have an informed opinion beyond “that’s going to take some work to get it to be useful.”

[1Rangemaster]

This is probably worth what you will pay for it, but yes, with a few caveats.
1)One needs a handgun of some sort, assuming a positive legal status.
2)Ammunition; the machine needs “fuel” to perform its function. Extra ammo for practice and skill verification.
3)Some form(s) of carriage. For example, I have an ankle holster, multiple belt holster and Wilderness pack for my G19s
4)Stock GLOCK sights don’t work for me. The GLOCK BOLD sights are very useful to me. I would not at this point put an RDS on until:
5) I had a quality handheld light(I’m assuming US CCW here). Then,
6) An ACRO or a Trijicon RMR2. These are the only ones I’m observing are “ready for prime time”. I leaned toward the ACRO for its closed emitter design.
Shooting games, “light” use and carry-whatever you can afford/live with.
I currently am using a Gen5 19MOS with ACRO mounted. Semi-obsessing over buis. I will duplicate setup when I settle on final configuration.
The RDSs give me a little more performance as measured so far.
I could see an argument for a WML before the RDS, particularly in “active” LE/Mil circumstances. JMO, YMMV, etc.

[GJM]

On a carbine, the red dot has basically zero learning curve. If you want the dot on a pistol to be an all around improvement, as opposed to just helping on certain shots, there a significant learning curve. I started and stopped a few times, before I went in completely. Now, iron sights feel about like irons on the carbine.

I believe the dot is ultimately the best current sighting system for a dedicated pistol enthusiast, while for someone unwilling to put in the effort, iron sights are better.

[TCinVA]

So, with all that out of the way, is it the same thing with an RDS on a pistol? In other words, can I expect to go buy an MOS Glock, bolt an ACRO to it, and see an instant real improvement in my pistol performance (accuracy at distance, speed, transitions, basically the visual part. I realize that grip and trigger have to still be there)?

So far I'm about 500 rounds in with my Gen5 Glock 17 MOS with an ACRO mounted and the answer for me is: Yes. I have a couple of thousand rounds through the gun without the ACRO in recent weeks to compare against and so far I've found that the ACRO allows me to shoot more quickly and accurately at 25 yards. Thusfar it has proven to be as beneficial to my performance with a handgun as the use of a laser. Except the ACRO works in all lighting conditions where the laser doesn't.

On drills like "the test" (10 rounds, 10 seconds, 10 yards) I was able to shoot it with a score of 97 or better in a time frame under 7 seconds routinely...and that was done from the draw. My absolute best run was a 100 point score in 6 seconds, with 6 x ring hits, done from the draw. I had plenty of 100's in the 6-7 second range.

My ability to hit a 3x5 card, a 2" circle, or a 1" square at 10 yards at speed increased. 2 shots into a 3x5 at 10 yards in under 2.5 seconds was easily doable. In under 2 was something I pulled of several times, but I'm not consistently able to accomplish that just yet because my presentation isn't quite as efficient as it needs to be to always instantly see the dot. I'm working on it.

Hitting a target at distance with plenty of time is worlds easier.

As I told someone else on the phone the other night, it's shooting with the easy button engaged.

For me, it has dramatically reduced uncertainty in my sight picture and allows me to focus more on working the trigger, which has produced notably better accuracy and speed. Especially when it comes to shooting at distances over 15 yards.

There are some caveats to this:

- Because so much of using a pistol well is proper trigger control anyway, it won't help you very much if you suck in that department. You can succumb to command detonation as easily with the red dot as you can with irons...but because of the red dot it's much easier to see that you've done that because the dot moves wrong. You can instantly tell you shanked that one and you will need to make a better trigger press the next time. For me that translates into fewer shanked shots, especially on 25 yard bullseye.

- I have spent a fair bit of time in my life training to use a laser. I have learned to accept the movement inherent to using a laser on a pistol. The dot works essentially the same way, in that it will be in constant motion on the target and you have to accept the wobble and press the trigger properly.

- I am a pretty fair hand with a pistol to start with. I will never make Bob Vogel stay awake at night, but I don't suck too bad neither. So that helps.

- I don't panic if I can't find the dot instantly. I will look for the front sight and get it to where I can see the dot. I can do that because I have a lot of training in finding the front sight to draw upon, and I've set my gun up with co-witnessing sights.

Or, is it a "nice to have" but you're still better off with 3 G19's with good sights than 2 G19's; one having an ACRO?

Thought partially initialized from this post:

It's nice to have. Very, very nice to have.

I have intentionally waited for a number of years for the right combo of gun and optic to hit the market. I have a feeling the ACRO will become the optic most used in .mil and LE circles for a red dot solution rather quickly.

I know for certain that many future large LE contracts for handguns will require some sort of factory RDS mounting solution.

I've waited for the right combo of gun and optic to hit the market to be essentially version 1.0 of the concept. Pretty much everything else up to this point has been beta testing. I think the Glock MOS guns with an ACRO is going to be version 1.0, and I think you will find that it's a combo that will become much more wide spread in LE use in the next few years.

[ubervic]

ASH556, you're a good shooter with irons. Unless you are having vision issues, you may not see a huge advantage with the red dot. But you owe it to yourself to sample it, somehow.

I moved to rds only a few months ago, after finding my struggle with focus (due to aging eyes) to be a limiting factor. Having rds itself does not make me a better shooter----I certainly must still manage grip, trigger, etc.----but it alleviates the focus issue almost entirely. And even if my vision were perfect, it still shifts the focus requirement away from front sight and onto the target.

I'm not a competitive shooter, so I can't tell you that my 'scores' have increased since running rds, but I can tell you that the pressure to modulate focus entirely to front sight relative to the target itself is virtually gone. I feel much more like I'm looking/viewing much more naturally while shooting. This dynamic opens up the sighting process to be more natural, allowing the shooter to take in much more of the total visual environment at natural focus points. (Kind of like how a quarterback focuses on a receiver during the throwing motion.)

Hope that my references are making sense and are answering your question.

[TCinVA]

I feel much more like I'm looking/viewing much more naturally while shooting. This dynamic opens up the sighting process to be more natural, allowing the shooter to take in much more of the total visual environment at natural focus points. (Kind of like how a quarterback focuses on a receiver during the throwing motion.)

Precisely this, and this is one of the reasons I've argued in the past that an RDS will likely show greater benefit in real fighting circumstances than it does on the range. When we start talking about hitting moving targets in low light, especially keeping in mind our need to keep track of what the threat is doing and whether or not the threat is still a threat before we take up that last little bit of trigger pressure, the RDS may pay dividends beyond what we see in improvements on the range.

Being able to keep one's focus on the target as opposed to having to dial focus back to the sights is beneficial...IF they can see the dot.

[Trukinjp13]

I was terrible at 25 yards with irons and out to 50
was a crap shoot on steel. Instantly I could group at 25 and consistently make hits at 50 if I did my part.

I love how much of the target I have in the dot vs is covered with irons. I did not really notice too much of a difference inside 5 yards for speed but anything over 5 yards was much faster with a dot.

It also is great for shooting at night in the dark, with light or not. And one big plus is it has made me better with irons also. I have been very happy with my investment and have no regrets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

When you start with a red dot, it is easy to focus on things like capability in low light, shooting on the move, and 25/50 yard groups. The other side of the evaluation is how do you do on draws to 5 yards, shooting right and left hand only, and shooting from weird positions.

Overlaying the Givens data base of shootings runs smack into what is harder with a red dot pistol, and argues for a lot of work with the basics of index and acquiring the dot efficiently under duress.

[Magsz]

One thing that needs to be expounded upon here is that if you have trigger control issues, ie a push, flinch, whatever you want to call it, you're going to carry these issues over to a red dot.

If you've never learned how to track a front sight in recoil, watching it lift and return and then knowing the concept of "timing" you're going to have the same issue with a red dot.

Giving someone a gun with a red dot is not instantly going to teach them how to shoot. (I dont think anyone here is saying that it will).

Proper instruction in the fundamentals is what is going to teach them how to shoot.

The caveat being. Moving forward, we are going to start instructing masses of shooters to maintain a threat based focus as red dots become more prevalent. I believe that this fact alone will create a higher skill level baseline as removing that third focal plane makes things SO much easier.

Threat based focus shooting is nothing new in the iron sight world. However, ive never seen it taught with much success unless the student had a fairly high level of prior experience, ie they were taught solid front sight focus and had good recoil control mechanics ingrained in them.

Im excited about red dots. Very excited. Im chomping at the bit to run one at work as I see the advantages but also the disadvantages. I think we are at a point with the release of the acro where the disadvantages are similar in nature to disadvantages that iron sights present and its now six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Pick your poison.