Red dot update - June 2019

[Trukinjp13]

I hope the updated deltapoint pro turns out gtg. But it took Leupold a long time to get here.

The Acro really needs a improved battery situation and extending the hood to better protect the glass.

The SRO may have simply just been released too soon. Trijicon should hopefully have the main issues rectified and ready for the RMR 3.0

The RMR type 2 is and will be the best bet for concealed carry and possibly even duty. But maybe have spares available.

I have high hopes that one way or another we will get to a point where we can fully trust and agree on a option. The good thing is companies are making more and more. And we the end users are breaking them to show what needs fixed. We may all have different uses and what our expectations may be. But all data points should be taken seriously. This is how a truly great product is built. I personally can not see one optic that will check every box for everyone. But we all deserve the right fit for us.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gadfly]

HSI has tested pistol red dots twice. Allegedly on round 3... first two times, none passed endurance testing (10k rounds). Third test? I am not holding my breath...

The Dots on rifles are bigger, sturdier, and don’t get slammed at 10 Gs every round...

I expect in our lifetime we will get there. Just not yet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Jackson]

Yea it’s faster at distance and small targets and great on the range. That’s why competition shooters have been using them since the early 90’s. The problem is they don’t really offer any advantage inside 15 yards where most gunfights happen, and they add a massive failure mode to the pistol of something that could go wrong. I think they’re fine for concealed carry use by an enthusiast who maintains and monitors their own equipment, but they are still a poor choice for serious duty use and mass issue.

Disagree.

@karmapolice recently shot "Advanced" using an MRDS in a standardized and objectively scored course, which has a lot of targets closer than 15-yards.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post894923

[Gio]

Disagree.

@karmapolice recently shot "Advanced" using an MRDS in a standardized and objectively scored course, which has a lot of targets closer than 15-yards.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post894923

But would he really not have made advanced with irons?

My agency recently asked me to document some actual performance data comparing the two. Here’s some from this weeks range session: g17 with dpp and g34 with irons. So far I don’t see the difference inside 15.

Each drill shot 4x each
7 yd bill drill (all A’s)
G34 avg: 1.63
RDS avg: 1.68

15 yd bill drill
G34 avg: 2.07
RDS avg 2.03

25 yd bill drill
G34 avg: 2.78 (avg 4A/2C, no clean runs)
RDS avg: 2.51 (avg 5A/1C and a few clean runs)

7 yd FAST
G34 avg: 3.78
RDS avg: 3.81

10 yd El Pres:
G34 avg: 4.47, avg 10A/2C
RDS avg: 4.48, avg 10A/2C

Accelerator drill (2-2-2 reload 2-2-2 on 5-15-25 yd target)
G34: 5.51 avg. 9A/3C
RDS: 5.42 avg 10A/2C
Speed on the 25 yd target was definitely faster for RDS

25 yd doubles drill:
G34: avg .35 splits with 70-75% A’s
RDS: avg .32 splits with ~80% A’s.

[HCM]

HSI has tested pistol red dots twice. Allegedly on round 3... first two times, none passed endurance testing (10k rounds). Third test? I am not holding my breath...

The Dots on rifles are bigger, sturdier, and don’t get slammed at 10 Gs every round...

I expect in our lifetime we will get there. Just not yet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They will fail until someone, who is someone in DC decides they want one, then they will magically pass.

[GJM]

I don’t believe that you can extrapolate from the experiences of karmapolice or Gio to the general population of shooters, and make a definitive statement on the difference in performance with a red dot vs iron sights. There are a number of variables in play including what tests are chosen, shooter skill level, lighting conditions and shooter eyesight.

I look at the red dot evaluation as involving three main different variables.

1) speed. With less red dot experience, shooters are typically faster up close with iron sights, and at somewhere around 10-15 yards, they become progressively faster with a red dot as the distances increase. Greater experience with the red dot brings that crossover distance closer, and ultimately may even it out completely up close. However at longer distances, the red dot will always be faster, and it is why we don’t see shooters using iron sights in open class.

2) accuracy. Less experienced shooters will be more accurate with a red dot, once the shooter understands wobble, as the dot takes less skill, since it is a single aiming point. At somewhere around 10-15 yards, the red dot becomes an accuracy advantage for all shooters. With reduced light, cross eye dominance, or older eyes, the red dot becomes even a greater advantage.

3) technology. Here is where the red dot suffers. While speed with the dot is a training issue, and red dot accuracy gains are nearly a given, the technology is where the rubber meets the road. As we have discussed in this thread, the red dot is expensive, requires an enthusiast level of attention, and the available choices are not as reliable as the service pistols they ride on.

[ranger]

Agreed with GJM - heard same arguments in USPSA about red dots in open and simultaneously optics in the Army. With enough customer demand, the RDS market will improve. We no longer wonder if our rifle RDS will fail.

I remember my first optic equipped Open pistol (single stack 38 Super) with a "Awesome Dawson" scope mount specifically designed to facilitate swapping the TASCO PDP3 RDS - back in those days we had similar failures with RDS.

[1Rangemaster]

I have had experience with Rogers ranges. I can state that there is a learning curve to RDS, but once the work is done, the shooting is subjectively easier and objectively more accurate. Case in point: I have cleaned, for example, a Rogers exercise where the weapon starts with 6 rounds loaded. “Failure drill” on first two targets, a reload, and three plates further down range engaged. I’ve done it with iron sights and an ACRO. Subjectively, the ACRO string “felt” easier; objectively hits were more centered.
I’d add to GJMs list the fact that the sighting is different-that is, focus on target and not have to move eye focus back and forth.
I’m in agreement that the RDS require a dedicated user.

[Clark Jackson]

But would he really not have made advanced with irons?

My agency recently asked me to document some actual performance data comparing the two. Here’s some from this weeks range session: g17 with dpp and g34 with irons. So far I don’t see the difference inside 15.

I'm sure he would have made Advanced with irons because an MRDS doesn't make a bad shooter good. Similarly, I don't believe the MRDS makes a good shooter bad at under 15-yards. Hence the reason I used @karmapolice's recent accomplishment as an example.

IMO, if you can improve your shooting >15-yards (some say >10-yards), and have no or negligible degradation of performance inside that distance real consideration should be given to utilizing that tool.

Gio, I'd be interested in seeing more of your data if you continue your agency's evaluation process and are able to share it.

I don't know your particular situation, but it would be cool if you could get two identical weapon platforms for your data collection and compare a closed emitter MRDS to an open one. I say this because I've heard there may be an advantage with the closed system (ACRO) in regards to dot acquisition over non-enclosed competitors.

I've heard a lot of variance (which is okay) on the time investment with dry-fire required to become proficient with dot acquisition prior to attempting a side-by-side with irons. I'm interested what your dry-fire regimen looked like with your MRDS prior to your data collection and if you are continuing how it differs from your iron sights dry-fire regimen.

What is your take on the time needed (approximately) before an individual can really do a good A/B comparison on their personal performance?

[GJM]

I had heard the Acro’s closed emitter design offered an advantage in acquiring the dot, but I have not observed it. The number one advantage of the closed emitter for me is all weather capability, and the number two for me, is that the Acro doesn’t accumulate debris like the “ash tray” that open emitters become.