Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Decision Point for Switching from Irons to RDO?

  1. #41
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD View Post
    I’m open minded to rdo despite concerns about reliability because I don’t understand the penalties for rdo failure to be very severe. I don’t understand common rdo failure modes to preclude the use of buis, and I currently rely on the functional equivalent of buis on a daily basis. What am I missing? Why would concerns about rdo reliability preclude their immediate adoption for concealed carry applications?
    Obscured glass also obscures your sight picture. With a long gun, you can have offset irons that don't require you to look through the glass. With a handgun, that's not an option. There's also no quick disconnect to ditch the glass if you need to.

    Now, of course we can get into odds/stakes, etc but that's still my biggest concern with optics on a handgun.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    Obscured glass also obscures your sight picture.
    With an open-emitter RDS, obscured glass on the emitter side does screw things up since there's nothing for the LED to reflect on. An obscuration on the target side of the glass isn't an issue because our binocular vision merges the different images that both eyes see into one.

    See occluded eye gunsight.

    Now, if you make the mistake of trying to look "through" the lens at the target you'll see nothing. If you look "past" the sight at the target, then the OEG effect happens and the brain superimposes the dot seen by the strong eye over the target seen by the weak eye.

  3. #43
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha Sierra View Post
    With an open-emitter RDS, obscured glass on the emitter side does screw things up since there's nothing for the LED to reflect on. An obscuration on the target side of the glass isn't an issue because our binocular vision merges the different images that both eyes see into one.

    See occluded eye gunsight.

    Now, if you make the mistake of trying to look "through" the lens at the target you'll see nothing. If you look "past" the sight at the target, then the OEG effect happens and the brain superimposes the dot seen by the strong eye over the target seen by the weak eye.
    I mean if your glass is obscured, so are your irons. If your lens is no longer see-through, then there is no secondary sights to use like offset irons on a long gun.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    I mean if your glass is obscured, so are your irons. If your lens is no longer see-through, then there is no secondary sights to use like offset irons on a long gun.
    I understand that.

    What I failed to adequately explain is that it doesn't matter if you can't see the iron sights. If the back of the lens (side facing you) and the emitter are both clear; but the front of the lens is not, the RDS still works because the dot still reflects on the back of the lens,our dominant eye sees the dot, our non dominant eye sees the target, and our brain's binocular vision superimposes both.

    It's hard to explain in words, much easier to see if you place a strip of tape over or somehow cover the target side of an RDS and then aim the gun while focusing only on the target. It may not work for everyone but it works for many.

    If the back side of the lens is covered in crap, then yeah, the sight is useless.
    Last edited by Alpha Sierra; 01-10-2020 at 06:35 PM.

  5. #45
    For those carrying, or considering carrying a red dot pistol, a good drill might be to cover the back of your display, obscuring the red dot and BUIS, and see how far and how small you can hit through just index.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoo_man View Post
    You missed the point, gaming isn't training.

    Well you're making the argument I've been making for a while on here for me. The only take away from gaming that applies to reality is the fact you pull the trigger and manipulate the gun, other than that, nothing else.


    Only replace punched in the mouth with being shot at, point is that it doesn't matter what type of game you played or what your experience was at it, the moment you get shot at that all disappears and is replaced by an immediate regret of not pursuing real world tactical training.
    This is as tangential reply as I have ever seen. I've hundreds of hours of tactical training, and none of that is relevant here. Technical aspects of putting hits on moving targets while moving are all the same regardless of where they are applied. If you're saying that having your opponent shoot those bibis or sims at you makes you lose your dot but doesn't make you lose your iron sights alignment, moving target, moving you, one handed, well, that's fine by me, I am off to dry fire.
    “Well," said Pooh, "what I like best," and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.

  7. #47
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha Sierra View Post
    I understand that.

    What I failed to adequately explain is that it doesn't matter if you can't see the iron sights. If the back of the lens (side facing you) and the emitter are both clear; but the front of the lens is not, the RDS still works because the dot still reflects on the back of the lens,our dominant eye sees the dot, our non dominant eye sees the target, and our brain's binocular vision superimposes both.

    It's hard to explain in words, much easier to see if you place a strip of tape over or somehow cover the target side of an RDS and then aim the gun while focusing only on the target. It may not work for everyone but it works for many.

    If the back side of the lens is covered in crap, then yeah, the sight is useless.
    During a real world event I was doing cover and move with a SWAT rifleman and (because Murphy) I flopped down right behind a car that happened to have been left running. Exhaust + below freezing temps instantly fogged my glass. I could still target focus and see a dot, I get the two eye superimposing thing. It wasn't fully occluded, but I get it.

    Handguns, though, the back of the lens is what's exposed when it's riding in a holster. For concealed carry it's pretty unlikely to get fully occluded, I get that, but I have seen people drug around in mud, snow, etc. For a duty holster that's openly carried, debris (and climate dependent, ice/snow) becomes more of a realistic concern. If I have mud or snow packed in the lens, I've no redundant sighting system like I would with offset irons on a long gun. I've fallen in icy water during a search. I've rolled around on a muddy creek bank with a suspect. I've had a buddy drug backward in the mud by a dog to the point his holster was literally topped off with mud. Any of these events would have potential to completely occlude the side of the sight facing the shooter.

    For those without the need for open carry, I fully get why it may not be much of a decision point. I get that and am not saying it's wrong. I was simply answering the question about decision points and "failure modes" that play into those decision points.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha Sierra View Post


    It's hard to explain in words, much easier to see if you place a strip of tape over or somehow cover the target side of an RDS and then aim the gun while focusing only on the target. It may not work for everyone but it works for many.
    Pat Rogers used to do it in his carbine classes. For the majority of people that I have personally seen try, it was an absolute shit show. I am talking a diagonal POI displacement of good 3-4 inches, and that's with a carbine and at about maybe 7 yards, if not closer. I did not love it.
    “Well," said Pooh, "what I like best," and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.

  9. #49
    Member MVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    MI
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    During a real world event I was doing cover and move with a SWAT rifleman and (because Murphy) I flopped down right behind a car that happened to have been left running. Exhaust + below freezing temps instantly fogged my glass. I could still target focus and see a dot, I get the two eye superimposing thing. It wasn't fully occluded, but I get it.

    Handguns, though, the back of the lens is what's exposed when it's riding in a holster. For concealed carry it's pretty unlikely to get fully occluded, I get that, but I have seen people drug around in mud, snow, etc. For a duty holster that's openly carried, debris (and climate dependent, ice/snow) becomes more of a realistic concern. If I have mud or snow packed in the lens, I've no redundant sighting system like I would with offset irons on a long gun. I've fallen in icy water during a search. I've rolled around on a muddy creek bank with a suspect. I've had a buddy drug backward in the mud by a dog to the point his holster was literally topped off with mud. Any of these events would have potential to completely occlude the side of the sight facing the shooter.

    For those without the need for open carry, I fully get why it may not be much of a decision point. I get that and am not saying it's wrong. I was simply answering the question about decision points and "failure modes" that play into those decision points.
    I don't disagree with your main point about RDS on handguns for duty use. I do wonder when everyone started using offset sights on their carbines? I mean I haven't been to a rifle class in over a year but I thought offset sights were mostly a competition oriented thing.

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    Pat Rogers used to do it in his carbine classes. For the majority of people that I have personally seen try, it was an absolute shit show. I am talking a diagonal POI displacement of good 3-4 inches, and that's with a carbine and at about maybe 7 yards, if not closer. I did not love it.
    It has its downsides, and it doesn't work for everyone because of vision. It's just another technique when shit goes sideways.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •