I am very close to going back to just irons on the carry pistols, but keeping the dot on the training pistols.Originally Posted by GJM
The dot forces a good index and provides incredible trigger management feedback for training. But I find them large, fragile, and slow up close. I think their strongest benefit on a carry gun is beyond 15 yards, and amazing sight visualization in darkness.
That all depends on the agency but in most organizations they are going to pick for you, Followed by organizations that will make you pick one or the other.
Most organizations are phasing in RDS gradually With tactical team members and firearms instructors usually being the test mules prior to broader adoption.
As noted in the other thread, at least one large organization has found that some people can pretty easily switch back-and-forth and some people even those more proficient in their general LEO population cannot.
I can tell you that locally we are about halfway through transitioning our regular shooter population And we are seeing eye issues that either did not manifest in prior groups or was mitigated by the proficiency and motivation of those prior groups.
Last edited by HCM; 05-11-2022 at 04:08 PM.
There is a learning curve to the dot and once you get over “the hump” dots are faster up close for most people, including myself.
Personally I found the transition from irons to dots to be more significant then transitioning from one platform to another but the results have been worth it.
Both law-enforcement agencies and the US military have found that new shooters take to red dots on pistols or carbines more readily than those transitioning from iron sights. Some LE agencies and the US Army are now starting people on red dots and teaching irons as a follow on skill set. My own agency recently completed its first basic Academy class issued red dots. The class had a 100% qualification rate on the first attempt which is….uncommon.
In transitioning our current officers, we’ve had a handful of people who really struggle with the dot but the vast majority saw qualification scores jump 10% to 20% with several shooting personal best scores. This is on a course of fire where approximately 60% of the rounds are at 7 yards or less.
Nor are quality / duty grade dots fragile. Part of the general learning curve to dots was figuring out that proper mouthing had a significant effect on durability. The duty grade optics do tend to be large but the capability they bring makes the juice worth the squeeze.
To me one of the biggest advantage of dots in real world applications is the simplicity of a threat focused single Aimpoint when one or both parties are moving.
As @Clusterfrak mentioned, one can develop a good index and make surprising hits when both you and the target are still But even a slight lean can disrupt that. That degradation is amplified when both parties are moving.
Last edited by HCM; 05-11-2022 at 04:49 PM.
Learning curve and working with the dot, preferably with an instructor/coach. In my case, it took a full day and 600+ rounds on a Rogers range, before I felt comfortable to carry. As to close in speed, I did a little drill/test a few weeks ago from “Shreck”,a retired military instructor. 3 yards, 3 rounds into a 3 inch circle in less than 3 seconds on a silhouette from concealment. I clearly saw the ACRO dot through the cycling. As someone said, we’re in the early stages with handguns; the USMC resisted dots on long guns for years, but came around with good results. We’ll get there in a few years with dots on sidearms, at least in the US.
As @HCM said, in a defensive context they excel when there is movement. One should practice with both, to include the backup sights, IMO.
Good examples-ACRO, Holosun, Trijicon-with competent mounting are giving good service.
LOL, I’ll let you guys know in a couple weeks…. I’m shooting SS at Classic Nats later this month in Talledega.
I normally shoot Carry Optics with a Shadow 2, but a few times a year I’ll switch to shooting irons for a major match such as Classic or Lo-cap Nats where an optics division is not offered. Last year I shot Prod for a month prior to Low-Cap Nats then stuck with it through mid-July to shoot a State match. I did ok-ish, not great but happy with my performance against the top level guys in Prod especially seeing as I don’t shoot irons full time. But at least the platform was the same: Shadow 2.
This year, in addition to switching to irons I’m also switching platforms, going from a Shadow 2 to a 1911, and minor to major. I used to shoot a lot of 1911s in SS and 2011s in Ltd, so it’s kind of like coming home to that platform. I shot one match in SS (last weekend) and hope to dry-fire like a MF’er between now and Classic Nats. My first stage was…. not pretty. First shot my support hand bumped on my thumb safety until I remembered to grip hard (I run flat safeties on my CO Shadow 2), and then slapped the trigger like a dumbass on a row of poppers which forced me into a standing reload. But by the next stage things started to flow better for me and by the end of the match I was shooting like I should.
So in retrospect, switching to irons AND platforms AND ammo PF took a stage or two to get used to. I have crap eyesight up close (I have to wear readers) so focusing on the front sight (and converting from target focus to front sight focus) takes a tenth or two longer if I draw to a hard target. But I shot a mid-A classifier which is what I am in SS….
You do bring up a good point that transitioning from irons to red dots is hard enough, I would definitely recommend minimizing the variables and going from iron sights to red dots on a platform you are already familiar with.
It simplifies things, and there are lots of things. Optics skills seem to be less perishable as a general rule, so does not dealing with optics simplify things enough to justify the extra practice time? Probably not.
I wonder if some of this is due to people either subconsciously or consciously making the decision to dedicate themselves to a dot because of vision degradation.
I also think some is mental. Seeing things that are difficult to see takes a lot of focus and effort. It is difficult to put in that effort once you're aware there's a way to avoid it. I don't think that's a conscious thought but I think it happens.
Reasons for switching from irons to dot, and I am talking competition, have been rather varied, in my observation. From not being able to see the sights to not wanting to be in low cap minor division to wear and tear from major pf to ammo / components / gear logistics to simple curiosity.
Reasons for difficulty going back to irons, in my observation, is that optic is only harder in index-based aspects, mostly a draw. I don't think it is mental / effort thing. I think that those skills that are easier with optics simply atrophy a bit during optic stints. I also noticed that those competitors who started on optics and got to a decent level very infrequently want to shoot irons divisions seriously. I wonder if it is because their shot calling / low prob shooting / on the move - moving / visual focal shifts with irons never got developed to their satisfaction.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
We are mandated to keep whichever we chose for 1 year. Only ones that are kind of switching back and forth are the secret squirrel unit guys that are not carrying the dept issued weapon majority of the time
I don't quite understand when people say they are slow up close. I think it's more so over confirming.
Reply With Quote