Once you go dot, do you ever shoot irons again?

[Bucky]

Once the tech is small, inexpensive and durable enough - only a matter of time, it seems - I think they'll make a lot more traction.

I would say even two out of three of these would appeal to different end users (depending which 2) and increase their popularity. For a concealed handgun, basically size is my issue. I find it ironic when people put a dot on top of a micro 9mm (43, 365, etc). If I'm going to add that kind of size to a small gun, I'd rather just a bigger gun and forgo the optic. In other words an iron sighted G19 is more appealing to me than a 43 with optic (even if capacity wasn't an issue).

Now the true game changer would be some kind of holographic emitted sight (think Star Wars like holograms - "help me Obi Wan Kenobi"). The emitter could be embedded in the slide, adding no bulk and be totally protected from abuse. Is it possible with future technology? Who knows, but imagine explaining an iPhone to someone in 1980.

[ASH556]

IMO the biggest barrier to widespread adoption of red dot sights on handguns is relative cost.

A $400 Aimpoint PRO added to a $1000 AR-15 seems like a pretty reasonable investment. However, a $500 RMR on top of a $500 handgun effectively doubles the cost - and thats assuming you have a handgun that is optics-ready. Also, as GJM pointed out, a RDS on a Carbine brings about a fairly instantly gratifying improvement, while the pistol RDS only brings with it additional challenge and effort - particularly given that it seems like almost all pistol RDS options on the market have some sort of weakness or another.

Once the tech is small, inexpensive and durable enough - only a matter of time, it seems - I think they'll make a lot more traction.

Cost aside, there are plenty of dudes who put dots on guns and don't see the point or usefulness of them because they aren't proficient enough with the pistol platform as a whole, dot or no dot, and they were expecting the dot to make them shoot like Bill Blowers. I'm not saying the dot doesn't help Bill, but it doesn't make him. Stance, grip, sights, breathing, trigger...RDS only affects one of those.

[Gio]

I am loving shooting a dot this year in USPSA carry optics. I'm having more fun in the sport than I have in awhile (partly due to the high cap mags as well if I'm being honest). I had zero transition time, and went from GM level irons shooting to GM level dot shooting with no loss of speed inside a certain distance and no problem picking up the dot immediately on the draw. I see the flat range performance increase with a dot, but despite all that, I still don't believe dots are quite ready for prime time LE uniformed or swat use without a seriously dedicated program involving multiple guns and optics per officer. I have broken two optics since January (an SRO and a DPP) simply from volume of shooting...no dropping, beating, abusing, slide racking, etc. On top of that, rain and moisture continues to be an issue for them. I shot in a match this weekend and got poured on most of the day. I could barely keep the optic from blooming and being unusable in those conditions. I had the gun covered under a rain coat, a rubber cover on the optic, and would only expose it on make ready, and it still collected enough water in that brief moment to be difficult to use. I've been on miserable swat patrols looking for subjects in rural terrain in rain and snowing conditions enough times to know I wouldn't want a pistol and optic sitting there exposed on my hip like that, especially as a backup insurance policy to my rifle and my nearby teammates. I think the RDS makes a little more sense for a concealed carry weapon or plain clothes/concealed LE, but I would still maintain the two gun/optic minimum rule, and have one gun/optic for training and one gun/optic for carry.