I went back to just irons and I might like it better

[Kirk]

What is your vision like ?

This was the deciding factor for me switching to dots. I'm young-ish, but my eyes suck, and even with contacts, my ability to focus in/clearly align iron sights deteriorated for whatever reason.

Plus, I'm personally better with a dot. I know a lot of people who really struggled with the transition to a dot, but despite a ton of hours behind irons, the transition was easy for me. I have no idea why that is though.

[HCM]

Full disclosure: I have exactly zero time on a RDS pistol. I do have substantial time on RDS rifles.

I don't like them. I have astigmatism so red dots always look blurry, but I don't find any benefit to the generally tiny dot many use. When I would qualify on my RDS (Aimpoint PRO) mounted patrol rifle I was always faster and scored slightly higher, ~ 98.6 RDS vs 99.3-100 irons, every time. No matter what I did, I always found myself chasing the dot. For all intents and purposes I don't see much point to a single dot RDS on a rifle used for LE patrol work, which is predominantly a CQB environment. I found judging the bore line POI to POA offset more difficult to quickly calculate than with irons.

I view the RDS sight geared more for offensive work, which is more suited for long arms. I suppose if your pistol is a offensive weapon then sure, but with the epiphany realized by the shooting world to use brightly colored front sights and blackout rear sights, which work really well, especially at typical shooting/gunfight distances, I'm not sure it's worth $300-$1,000 to drop a RDS on a pistol.

Who knows, maybe I'll like them, but I generally think they're just another gizmo that some people use as a crutch to offset their poor fundamentals. (Even on rifles to an extent. I see much more benefit and use with a low power prism type optic.)

I know my opinion probably makes me a fudd, but I am open to trying one out on a pistol. I just don't think I'd like the extra bulk. My gun is large enough with a light on it. If I was going to shoot open with a race gun, optic that baby up.

It doesn’t make you a Fudd, however since you admit you were chasing the dot, and therefore not employing the optic properly your opinion on this doesn’t really have any value as to irons vs optics.

You do however raise some common issues. My agency has issued optics on carbines for about 15 years (Eotech and Aimpoint H-1) but Like most agencies, we issue and primarily shoot pistols with iron sights. As such I have seen several shooters express the exact concerns you raise about RDS on the carbine and every time we have determined it is operator error, I.e. focusing on the dot like it is a front sight and “chasing” the dot.

This is a software problem, not a hardware problem. IME taping off the RDS and working with it as an occluded RDS sight helps force shooters to employ a target focus and helps them “get” properly employing the optic much better than any explanation.

It is similar to placing tape over one lens of shooting glasses to help shooters transition to shooting with two eyes open.

There are a small percentage of people whose eyes have problems with accommodation and who are unable to use occluded eye gun sights but this condition is relatively rare. I believe we have a thread on it somewhere, possibly in the RDS section.

When employed properly, the RDS is of greater benefit to those with vision issues than to those with 20/20 or better vision but all sights (iron or RDS) do Is show you what the gun is doing. No sighting system can make up for poorly executed fundamentals, your “crutch” argument is invalid. For someone who knows how to operate the firearm the RDS simply provides more information about what the gun is doing.

For LE agencies which may have an aging workforce in their 40s or 50s This is a real issue. For example, I had to begin wearing glasses about five years ago due to age related presbyopia. As Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face, So I make it a point to shoot our pistol qualification course both with and without RX glasses. With uncorrected vision my scores are noticeably better with the red dot then without. You may recall that one of the best shots among the FBI Agents in the 1986 Miami shooting was a SWAT team member who was rendered ineffective after losing his RX glasses in the vehicle crash that initiated the fight.

As for the RDS being more suited for offenses rather than defensive use that argument is also invalid. The RDS, particularly on pistols, is a target focused siding system. As such it is more appropriate to reactive or defensive use then iron sites which require shifting the focus off the threat. In fact one of the arguments for law enforcement transition to RDS is that a threat focused sighting system allows the officer to stay focused on the threat and therefore gather more information about whether to shoot or not to shoot.

With regards to offset in CQB/CQC Environments that is a training issue. If You put in the work it’s not an issue. Of course,we Americans don’t like work so there are also multiple hardware solutions to this. The 6 o’clock hash mark of the circle dot reticle found in Eotech, SIG and Holosun optics as well as the Vortex UH-1 and the latest version of the MRI All correspond perfectly to the offset at close range with AR15 type weapons.

[JAH 3rd]

So one day while pistol shooting at paper targets, it dawned on me, "Why aren't you buying paper targets with coloring that contrasts with your sights?" You know what, it helped. I shoot black iron sights so now I look for orange or some other color that contrasts with those sights. It does help. I tend to shoot POA/POI as opposed to 6 o'clock.

On my Beretta CX4, I shoot a red dot. I really like that. That sight has the ability to shoot either red or green. Depending on what target I am shooting, one color may show up better that the other.

[Clusterfrack]

I don't like them... Who knows, maybe I'll like them...

I think there's a lot to be learned by shooting handguns with an RDS. I don't regret putting in time with it, and will always have RDS-equipped pistols. Even if you'll never carry it or compete with it, a dot gun is a good tool for improving your shooting. For me, the improvement carried over to my iron-sight shooting.

I can shoot slightly better with a dot in most situations, but it's not enough of a performance advantage to outweigh the disadvantages. So I don't use a dot on my carry guns.

[Hot Cereal]

It doesn’t make you a Fudd, however since you admit you were chasing the dot, and therefore not employing the optic properly your opinion on this doesn’t really have any value as to irons vs optics.

You do however raise some common issues. My agency has issued optics on carbines for about 15 years (Eotech and Aimpoint H-1) but Like most agencies, we issue and primarily shoot pistols with iron sights. As such I have seen several shooters express the exact concerns you raise about RDS on the carbine and every time we have determined it is operator error, I.e. focusing on the dot like it is a front sight and “chasing” the dot.

This is a software problem, not a hardware problem. IME taping off the RDS and working with it as an occluded RDS sight helps force shooters to employ a target focus and helps them “get” properly employing the optic much better than any explanation.

It is similar to placing tape over one lens of shooting glasses to help shooters transition to shooting with two eyes open.

There are a small percentage of people whose eyes have problems with accommodation and who are unable to use occluded eye gun sights but this condition is relatively rare. I believe we have a thread on it somewhere, possibly in the RDS section.

When employed properly, the RDS is of greater benefit to those with vision issues than to those with 20/20 or better vision but all sights (iron or RDS) do Is show you what the gun is doing. No sighting system can make up for poorly executed fundamentals, your “crutch” argument is invalid. For someone who knows how to operate the firearm the RDS simply provides more information about what the gun is doing.

For LE agencies which may have an aging workforce in their 40s or 50s This is a real issue. For example, I had to begin wearing glasses about five years ago due to age related presbyopia. As Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face, So I make it a point to shoot our pistol qualification course both with and without RX glasses. With uncorrected vision my scores are noticeably better with the red dot then without. You may recall that one of the best shots among the FBI Agents in the 1986 Miami shooting was a SWAT team member who was rendered ineffective after losing his RX glasses in the vehicle crash that initiated the fight.

As for the RDS being more suited for offenses rather than defensive use that argument is also invalid. The RDS, particularly on pistols, is a target focused siding system. As such it is more appropriate to reactive or defensive use then iron sites which require shifting the focus off the threat. In fact one of the arguments for law enforcement transition to RDS is that a threat focused sighting system allows the officer to stay focused on the threat and therefore gather more information about whether to shoot or not to shoot.

With regards to offset in CQB/CQC Environments that is a training issue. If You put in the work it’s not an issue. Of course,we Americans don’t like work so there are also multiple hardware solutions to this. The 6 o’clock hash mark of the circle dot reticle found in Eotech, SIG and Holosun optics as well as the Vortex UH-1 and the latest version of the MRI All correspond perfectly to the offset at close range with AR15 type weapons.

You’re saying a lot of my opinions are invalid, but they’re opinions. You are stating your opinions. That doesn’t make one more valid than the other. You obviously have a RDS bias and I have an Irons bias.

I absolutely threat focused my RDS, but the constant bouncing of the dot, which is the same as irons, just more obvious with the dot made me shoot slower. I worked on it, and my time differences were slight, but no matter what I did I was faster and scored slightly higher with irons. I saw no benefit to a 1x optic with a “bouncing” dot. I also shot my aim point occluded. Same experience.

I don’t front sight focus irons at close range. I never have. I threat focus and my sights front and rear are blurry. I know, I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve “Top Gun’d” two academies (whatever that is worth) and I really think Irons are taught all wrong. Sure, at distance and bullseye shooting front sight focus is necessary, but at closer ranges I personally don’t find it necessary. I know, I’m wrong, it works for me on the range and it works for me in FoF training.

You can’t say my opinion or experience is invalid. It is my experience. Just because it doesn’t support your bias doesn’t mean it’s invalid. That is the problem with a majority of firearms instructors. Anything that doesn’t validate their chosen dogma is invalid. My eyes are open. I fully know that I might have a change of heart concerning RDS sights on pistols, I just don’t see a cost benefit analysis that gives me a good reason to spend 2x the cost of one gun for each person. I’d rather spend that money on a primary gun and a backup gun.

To say that calculating the offset between boreline POI and POA is training issue is a legitimate argument, I won’t deny that at all, however, I will counter than a single dot RDS just makes this calculation take too long and brings too much guess work into it. The point of the RDS is to make us faster and more accurate, or a combination of one or the other. If someone made an RDS with two aiming points that accommodate that I am 100% for trying it out.

Don’t be myopic and dogmatic and label opinions and experiences as invalid simply because they don’t align with your bias or your desired result. I’m all for someone or some product changing my mind. (Except for the P320 and Sig. I will never trust that gun and I hate the way Sig handled that. That’s the only position I’ll dig my heels in. &#129322

I will add, I have astigmatism, so RDS looks like a starburst or blob to me. That admittedly plays into my bias against them and perhaps that eye deformity will never allow me to use them to their potential.

[Navin Johnson]

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "I don't use a red dot on my pistol confession thread".

No doubt the red dot is in general a superior sighting system for a pistol.

I've only shot about 1K through red dot pistols...... Much prefer a frame mount.

I have about six of one type of pistol of which for my situation I need to use interchangeably (4 of them).

I don't see myself dotting six pistols at this point.

Also the work to maintain proficiency with both styles of sights if I don't dot all.

I see the major advantages of a dot at distance however as a civilian I'm not likely to use my pistol anywhere near where the dot would make a massive difference. If there is statistics showing many civilian encounters beyond 20 yards.....might change my perspective.

If one uses a dot frequently in competition then I could see how that could mandate it's use on a carry pistol.

When kids get older and less expensive no doubt I will explore it more..... Technology will likely be superior also.

[Hot Cereal]

Someone has a 6 MOA dot RDS for pistols out. Maybe Holosun? I would like to try that. I’d even like to try a 10-12 MOA dot if someone made it. I can understand Navin’s observation about target distance in relation to the dot.

[HCM]

You’re saying a lot of my opinions are invalid, but they’re opinions. You are stating your opinions. That doesn’t make one more valid than the other. You obviously have a RDS bias and I have an Irons bias.

I absolutely threat focused my RDS, but the constant bouncing of the dot, which is the same as irons, just more obvious with the dot made me shoot slower. I worked on it, and my time differences were slight, but no matter what I did I was faster and scored slightly higher with irons. I saw no benefit to a 1x optic with a “bouncing” dot. I also shot my aim point occluded. Same experience.

I don’t front sight focus irons at close range. I never have. I threat focus and my sights front and rear are blurry. I know, I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve “Top Gun’d” two academies (whatever that is worth) and I really think Irons are taught all wrong. Sure, at distance and bullseye shooting front sight focus is necessary, but at closer ranges I personally don’t find it necessary. I know, I’m wrong, it works for me on the range and it works for me in FoF training.

You can’t say my opinion or experience is invalid. It is my experience. Just because it doesn’t support your bias doesn’t mean it’s invalid. That is the problem with a majority of firearms instructors. Anything that doesn’t validate their chosen dogma is invalid. My eyes are open. I fully know that I might have a change of heart concerning RDS sights on pistols, I just don’t see a cost benefit analysis that gives me a good reason to spend 2x the cost of one gun for each person. I’d rather spend that money on a primary gun and a backup gun.

To say that calculating the offset between boreline POI and POA is training issue is a legitimate argument, I won’t deny that at all, however, I will counter than a single dot RDS just makes this calculation take too long and brings too much guess work into it. The point of the RDS is to make us faster and more accurate, or a combination of one or the other. If someone made an RDS with two aiming points that accommodate that I am 100% for trying it out.

Don’t be myopic and dogmatic and label opinions and experiences as invalid simply because they don’t align with your bias or your desired result. I’m all for someone or some product changing my mind. (Except for the P320 and Sig. I will never trust that gun and I hate the way Sig handled that. That’s the only position I’ll dig my heels in. &#129322

IME most LE firearms instructors suck as instructors and are more line safety officers and target graders. There is also a lot of insular, big fish, small pond syndrome. When your training cadre fails you you have to seek out proper instruction on your own. Right or wrong that's the reality.

FI's (LE or otherwise) need 3 skillsets, ability to shoot, ability to communicate / teach and ability to diagnose / analyze/ mitigate (diagnostics). IME the third is the most important and the least common among LE instructors. If you want good diagnostics you will need to seek outside training, likely at your own expense. Ask me how I know.....

Ironically, you are being myopic in your response, I acknowledged that the experience you had with RDS is common and I've had several of my officers report the exact same experience you have with RDS on carbines. However, you are ignoring the part about how that experience is correctable. Once we have gotten them using the RDS properly, they have a different experience and better results with the RDS.

Gunfights are "open class events." There is no such thing as "cheating" or "crutches," just winners and losers. I want my guys and gals to be as effective as possible.

As for opinions, all opinions are not created equal. Ex: "All Glocks shoot left"

Unknowingly using something improperly and complaining about not good results is an "experience" - but it is not a basis for a valid opinion. It should be the basis for questions, such as is this thing junk or am I doing it wrong ?

For example, when I first tried the RMR I had trouble acquiring the dot compared to other RDS. However, what I eventually figured out is that the issue wasn't the RMR but the large Co-witness sights I (wrongly) chose taking up half the window. Once I swapped for lower sights that didn't take up half the window it was fine.

Knowing you are using something improperly and complaining about not getting good results instead of trying to learn how to use it properly is either doubling down on stupid or an excuse for not putting in the work. Americans are lazy and love hardware solutions to software problems. There is nothing unique about that.

Re: Offset,tThe circle dot reticle was a big selling point for the FBI's selection of the Romeo4M in lieu of the Aimpoint and IMHO, the only reason Eotech was able to stay in business after their thermal drift fiasco. The Vortex UH-1 even replaced the 6 o'clock hash mark with a triangle to facilitate this.

As PF's founder said "feelings" lie (https://pistol-training.com/archives/5108 ). My "opinions" are based on the quantifiable performance of both myself and hundreds of shooters I have taught or trained with getting measurably better results in terms of speed and accuracy. The timer and target don't have "opinions" and numbers don't lie.

How long have you been shooting iron sights ? Because, as I can personally attest, it takes more work to re-learn something new than to learn something from scratch. Speaking of Academy classes, The Houston PD just ran an academy class with all RDS pistols to gather data on new shooters vs shooters converting from irons. They do a 3 week block of firearms training. Normally they don't get everyone qualified until the 3rd week (or washed out). The RDS class were all qualified by the end of the first week with no washouts. This mirrors the experience of the U.S. Army which is now starting basic trainees with optics first, then teaching iron sights. The rationale for this is that "reading" iron sights aka calling your shots is it's own skill set. Optics provide more feedback about what the gun is doing with the need for "translating" the feedback from the irons letting the new shooter focus on correcting their fundamentals based on what the gun is doing in response to their inputs.

You're going to do what you want, and I don't expect to change your mind. You also may be one of the people who experiences Phoria ( https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?44872-Phoria ) so your experience may not be comparable to that of others.

However, one of the unique things about PF is the signal to noise ratio here. I'm posting this for those who might read this thread later in search of valid information.

[HCM]

Someone has a 6 MOA dot RDS for pistols out. Maybe Holosun? I would like to try that. I’d even like to try a 10-12 MOA dot if someone made it. I can understand Navin’s observation about target distance in relation to the dot.

SIG offers the Romeo1 PRO with a 6 MOA dot. Trijicon has 6.5 MOA RMRs and 5 MOA SRO's. The aimpoint S-1 micro has a 6 MOA dot.

Leupold offers a DPP with a 7.5 moa triangle.

One of the Holosun K sights has an 8 MOA circle reticle.

Does anyone make a prism optic that fits aimpoint micro footprint ?

For carbines, have you tried holgraphic sights such as teh Eotech or Vortex UH1 ? Many with astigmatism prefer holo sights to LED sights because they are clearer for their eyes.

[HCM]

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "I don't use a red dot on my pistol confession thread".

No doubt the red dot is in general a superior sighting system for a pistol.

I've only shot about 1K through red dot pistols...... Much prefer a frame mount.

I have about six of one type of pistol of which for my situation I need to use interchangeably (4 of them).

I don't see myself dotting six pistols at this point.

Also the work to maintain proficiency with both styles of sights if I don't dot all.

I see the major advantages of a dot at distance however as a civilian I'm not likely to use my pistol anywhere near where the dot would make a massive difference. If there is statistics showing many civilian encounters beyond 20 yards.....might change my perspective.

If one uses a dot frequently in competition then I could see how that could mandate it's use on a carry pistol.

When kids get older and less expensive no doubt I will explore it more..... Technology will likely be superior also.

The advantages of the dot at distance are immediately apparent.

If you put in the work to get over the "hump" RDS will be as fast or (for me now) faster than irons up close. New shooters who start with RDS don't experience that "hump."

Technical marksmanship aside, there are practical advantages to a threat based sighting system. First our natural inclination is to focus on threats, switching focus to irons is something that takes more work than many are willing to put in. Our results with RDS in FOF scenarios has mirrored that of Aaron Cowan / sage dynamics - hit percentages in FOF are higher with RDS than with irons across a spectrum of skill levels. Second a threat focused sighting system provides better feed back about the threat resulting in better UOF decision.

Frame mounted dots are better but the bulk makes them impractical on current designs. We are already starting to see attempts at designing a service pistol with a fixes optic like the Alien. Some have suggested service pistols with bolts and tube receivers like the Ruger 22s to allow a fixed dot.