Irons and Red Generational User Question

[GJM]

Assuming the P2 arrives, and does what we think it will, pretty much all the excuses about red dot mounting and optic failures go away.

[1Rangemaster]

We were exposed to using the slide as an aiming tool, but I never used the corners. That's a good thought. I suppose one could incorporate a trench sight into the corner of the slide to make it a bit more precise.

Erick Gelhaus of GUNSITE posted a succinct article where there were several options for dot failed/irons completely obscured and one must take a shot on a practical target. “Horns” of the RMR, an Aimpoint as a big aperture sight or the silhouette of the slide centered on target. Jim Cirillo wrote about indexing by the revolver cylinder, and that seems to follow.
To the OP: maybe the fast guys like their irons and can see them well. Iron sights won’t be going away anytime soon. I wouldn’t/couldn’t pocket carry or ankle carry with an optic. If you can see your sights well, happy for you, drive on. I am 68 and dots help me maintain some semblance of competence. But I can also pass my state’s back up gun qual with a G26 and BOLD sights.
One other reason irons will be around for awhile: the really good ones are expensive.

[Clusterfrack]

Assuming the P2 arrives, and does what we think it will, pretty much all the excuses about red dot mounting and optic failures go away.

Agreed. But the Acro is BIG. I thought I would carry my P-07 with a WML (TLR8), but with my 31" waist it's just a little less comfortable than the P-07 w/o a WML. So, I end up carrying that a lot more. I suspect that adding a large optic would push it over the edge to too big for me AIWB.

Which brings me to an interesting conclusion: I would rather carry a double-stack compact like the P-07 without WML or RDS than a smaller gun like a G48 with them. Shootability is the reason for that choice.

For field use OWB, no problem adding the ACRO obviously.

[MistWolf]

I think red dots on pistols will be like red dots on rifles in 15 years.

2 - 3 years. We've already passed the tipping point, like a rollercoaster shooting down that first drop with the fuse is lit on the JATO bottles.

Us iron sight guys have less than a year to get up to speed or be left at the gate. During that time, we're gonna see makers of cheap red dots get Darwined out of the game as demand explodes for serious use sights.

That's why I picked up a PDP and pre-ordered an ACRO P2 from Euro Optic.

[Default.mp3]

Us iron sight guys have less than a year to get up to speed or be left at the gate. During that time, we're gonna see makers of cheap red dots get Darwined out of the game as demand explodes for serious use sights.

Uh... wouldn't the proliferation of RDS on pistols only drive further development of cheap RDSes on pistols? Most folks don't use their shit for serious use, so they would never spring for a quality RDS; then there's also the question of "what's cheaper than a cop?" that will also drive cheap, shitty RDS sales. Just look at rifle RDSes, plenty of cheap crappy ones out there despite the existence of Aimpoint.

[GJM]

Given the initial post, it is a miracle this thread hasn’t completely gone off the rails. The short answer is no, Vogel, White and Langdon are not dinosaurs, everyone shooting a dot is not an idiot, and nothing is “superior in EVERY WAY...”

With that out of the way, I think the question to ask, is how the benefits of a red dot, like single point aiming, target focus, and low light capability compare to the benefits of iron sights for defensive use of a handgun. That can be an interesting discussion, but at the end of the day, nobody is changing anyone else’s opinion. I will also note that there are two schools of thought:

1) the dot is too expensive, too unreliable, prints too much, takes too frequent battery changes, and is too hard to mount.

2) the dot is my choice, and I will do whatever I have to, to carry a dot equipped pistol.

[PNWTO]

I will also note that there are two schools of thought:

I’d like to add my take/thought(s), which is a little apathetic: I have no doubt that a pistol optic would increase my performance and capability but I’m currently mildly satisfied with my on-demand performance and would prefer to use the time and money necessary for a transition to pursue other experiences in life.

[MistWolf]

Uh... wouldn't the proliferation of RDS on pistols only drive further development of cheap RDSes on pistols? Most folks don't use their shit for serious use, so they would never spring for a quality RDS; then there's also the question of "what's cheaper than a cop?" that will also drive cheap, shitty RDS sales. Just look at rifle RDSes, plenty of cheap crappy ones out there despite the existence of Aimpoint.

Your point is valid. But the really cheap red dots have been falling to the wayside and there are cheap dots that have improved enough that some on this site are willing to to try them and even exchange failed dots with the maker until they get a good one. (I wouldn't recommend this to anyone but I'm not going to rally a crusade either.)

Yes, there will always be cheap RDS sought by Gunshow Bargain Commandos and Mom's Basement Airsoft Warriors, but the lines between cheap, good enough and duty approved are going to grow ever clearer in the coming months.

Given the initial post, it is a miracle this thread hasn’t completely gone off the rails. The short answer is no, Vogel, White and Langdon are not dinosaurs, everyone shooting a dot is not an idiot, and nothing is “superior in EVERY WAY...”

With that out of the way, I think the question to ask, is how the benefits of a red dot, like single point aiming, target focus, and low light capability compare to the benefits of iron sights for defensive use of a handgun. That can be an interesting discussion, but at the end of the day, nobody is changing anyone else’s opinion. I will also note that there are two schools of thought:

1) the dot is too expensive, too unreliable, prints too much, takes too frequent battery changes, and is too hard to mount.

2) the dot is my choice, and I will do whatever I have to, to carry a dot equipped pistol.

There is the third school of thought-

3) Go shoot and find out for yourself.
- a) Irons, red dots and scopes all work.
- b) Familiarize yourself with all three.
- c) Choose what works for you.
- d) Mission drives the gear train.

[BWT]

Assuming the P2 arrives, and does what we think it will, pretty much all the excuses about red dot mounting and optic failures go away.

Agreed - the window / frame will get only better with time too.

I think one distinction in the difference in handguns and rifles.

Rifles are actively held in hands or slung and often kept away from the ground. If someone’s crawling prone they’re going to have the rifle across their back, if they’re walking around, the gun will be exposed to the elements and not heated up (or atleast not appreciably like a pistol RDS) to a point of fogging when brought to the cold. A holster stays in place and is not so much carried as it is attached to a person.

I think this will always be more of a hindrance of the pistol optic versus a rifle. But, carrying a rifle will always be more difficult than a pistol.

I think improvements of all types are inevitable but some things like your body heat on a pistol may just be a bit unavoidable. But! I bet like JCN and others have said - closed emitters and Rain X will offset the difference.

I don’t think RDS are the only way to carry - having put one on a pistol for the first time in the last six months. I do think it’s probably the best improvement we’ve seen in pistols since polymer frames for weight savings and double stack 9’s for capacity. It’s big advantage. Just another incremental improvement IMHO.

[HeavyDuty]

That brings to mind another needed improvement.

Nikon (and I’m sure other photographic and optical companies) have been pushing out new lens coatings that repel spooge and oils. I think I’ve seen them offered on high end eyeglasses, too.

This is something that would be very useful on RDS.