SRO false dot with a low sun angle

[Archer1440]

I guess you've never seen the Dawson MOS co-witness sights for the DPP and Cmore / Romeo 3 MAX ? C&H makes an agency sales only MOS plate for the DPP to let the optic sit lower as the required co-witness sights with a standard plate are too tall for available duty holsters.

I guess perhaps we have a failure to communicate, there. My point is, it requires a silly, super-tall blade to fully co-witness (not that anyone who knows anything would want more than a lower 1/3rd-1/4 max)?

And it’s not as if the Dawson is all that low-profile, either.

[HCM]

I guess perhaps we have a failure to communicate, there. My point is, it requires a silly, super-tall blade to fully co-witness (not that anyone who knows anything would want more than a lower 1/3rd-1/4 max)?

And it’s not as if the Dawson is all that low-profile, either.

I agree with you but there are institutional users who are not full sold on RDS and require true co-witness.

[Clark Jackson]

What’s the difference between the Max and other dots that eliminates this issue? Do other recent Romeo MRDS have this issue? I’m thinking specifically of the new Romeo Pro that looks very similar to a DPP.

I have experienced false dot with both the original Romeo and the newer Romeo Pro but from low sun angle behind the shooter and not from the front or a front oblique, FWIW.

[EricM]

Using the irons in the way you describe is possible if you have true co-witness irons but it is impractical.

Like using irons to find the dot, it’s slower than simply using irons alone.

Personally, I hate true co-witness irons on pistol RDS. The optic is supposed to be your primary sighting system, IME taking up half the window to have co-witness irons (vs lower 1/3 or lower 1/4) compromises the effectiveness of the optic. At least with rear mounted BUIS.

I didn't mean to imply an absolute cowitness, I was thinking more along the lines that given a normal low-as-possible cowitness, if the dot is roughly centered in the window the front sight will appear high above the rear notch by a distance that might become familiar to an experienced shooter. Similarly, if the dot is to the left side of the window, the front sight blade is probably just leaving the notch (dependent on the specific sight configuration and sight radius), and so on and so forth. The question then being what is the likelihood of recognizing abnormal iron sight alignment in the background of your mental processing while putting the dot on target as your primary sighting system.

In case a fuzzy picture would better illustrate things, consider the sight alignment below. If I saw a false dot on the left and real dot on the right but the dots themselves looked identical, the irons would give a strong indication which is the correct dot, and then I'd have the choice of shooting to that dot or transitioning to irons (on the chance that dot too could be false). Now what if only the false dot was visible, say the real dot was off the window as it were...might an experienced shooter pick up on the misalignment of the irons subconsciously while treating the dot as the primary sighting system? Maybe it's unlikely or unrealistic at speed, I don't know, but if we're looking for every clue we could give the brain that something isn't right, could there be a potential benefit to backup irons even on a training/competition gun...both to potentially help with recognizing a false dot and to train the brain what correct orientation of irons looks like when shooting the real dot in various positions.