Gun Guys with Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Throwing this out for info. https://blog.krtraining.com/red-dot-study-key-points/

It's 2017, I should ask Karl if he thinks this is still the situation. I had asked him about setting up my RDS Glock. I guess I'm in the group that shoot a lot. I don't have 100K rounds in the RDS. Interesting how many I have with irons. Wild guess is probably about 70 K.

I still think the possibility vs. probability argument is misguided. That's for another day. I feel bad that I have a tourniquet in my back pocket.

[Mark D]

I’ve stopped even attempting to watch their videos.

Same here. Their past contributions to pistol-craft not withstanding, the recent videos are often pretty cringey. So I just ignore them now.

[JCN]

Throwing this out for info. https://blog.krtraining.com/red-dot-study-key-points/

It's 2017, I should ask Karl if he thinks this is still the situation

I thought that study was poorly designed and executed.

This in particular:

“There was not time in the testing to give participants significant training time to learn the red dot or the laser. They were allowed 10 or less dry fire presentations before testing began.”

Aaron Cowan’s is much better.

I think blind idolatry of historic trainers who refuse to advance isn’t healthy or productive.

[JCN]

Aaron Cowan also referenced the Norwich 2011 study linked here:

https://soldiersystems.net/wp-conten...IronSights.pdf

That was also a much better designed study.

10 or less dry presentations for the KR study? WTF kind of shit is that.

I understand most CCWrs aren’t going to practice but I think its not unreasonable to say:

“You have 10 minutes to practice dry presentations” and give them some basic drills to do would be more realistic for a newer shooter.

And give them the instruction on how to use the BUIS or ghost ring to get on target at the noob level.

If you’re going to only give 10 or less dry presentations, you’d better use that as a variable and test how the proficiency curve shifts with brief but not stupidly brief intro.

[fatdog]

His point about people with decades and tens of thousands of rounds on irons needing lots of trigger time, and thousands of actual rounds down range to get over the hump of being just as proficient with dots, mirrors my real world experience over the last two years. I don't attribute it solely to an automaticity thing however. And I suspect it is easier for some than it was for me. But 5K rounds get to 3-10 yard performance where my iron sight performance had been sounds about right in my case.

[Clusterfrack]

His point about people with decades and tens of thousands of rounds on irons needing lots of trigger time, and thousands of actual rounds down range to get over the hump of being just as proficient with dots, mirrors my real world experience over the last two years. I don't attribute it solely to an automaticity thing however. And I suspect it is easier for some than it was for me. But 5K rounds get to 3-10 yard performance where my iron sight performance had been sounds about right in my case.

People are really different when it comes to learning to shoot handguns with RDS. I can't explain why there's such a spectrum. Maybe eyesight? Target vs. front sight focus? I found it really easy to match my iron sight performance. ~2k rounds and a few weeks is about what it took. It took longer to get truly comfortable with the new sight picture. For at least 3 months, every now and then my subconscious would rebel for no apparent reason. It was like riding a horse and having it randomly buck "woah... I don't like that..."

I guess when someone talks about thousands of rounds, I'm thinking: yeah, that's what it takes to learn anything in shooting. Five 200 round practice sessions is 1000 rounds.

[HCM]

I’m curious about what others with more RDS experience than I have think. I agree with a lot of what Ken said in this video, but I think that denying the red dot has any benefits over iron sights at closer ranges is wrong. At the very least, you’ve still got the benefits of two eyes open, target focused shooting and I think that’s substantial.

And a single aiming point. While you can train yourself to do both eyes open target, focused, iron site shooting you still need to maintain some sort of sight alignment. When one or both parties are moving, which is the case, in most close range, real world situations having a single aiming point is a substantial advantage.

[HCM]

I have nothing against red dots (I have several) but what’s to stop you from shooting with both eyes open and target focusing with irons? I shoot target focus with irons. The front sight is blurry and the target is crisp. My shots are no less accurate.

Your shots are no less accurate under what conditions? While you are stationary with a stationary target in daylight? or under those conditions my own results are pretty similar too. There is a slight difference in time, and I am now slightly faster with the red dot particularly on multiple targets.

USPSA shooters have been doing both eyes open target focused shooting for years, and I’ve been doing it for years at work as well. Straight target focused is one way to do it.

However, once you introduce movement, especially when both parties are moving at different angles having a single aiming point is a substantial advantage. Even more so under low light or variable lighting conditions.

People move in fights, and they move faster once shots are fired.

[HCM]

Better than the last one.
I don't know if new shooters will pick up the RDS better than seasoned shooters. Maybe, although more and more seasoned guys shoot target focused these days. I do know that new shooters will pick up the RDS better than irons, will have better results, and will not want to shoot irons for any practical purposes.
Speaking for myself only, a quality placement at a responsible speed is well south of 10 yards with irons and well north of it with the dot. Maybe on the next edition of this video we'll come to an agreement of no dot advantage within 5-7 yards.
The analogies with adjustable sights, 40 cal and lasers fell flat for me.
Finally, is there anyone credible out there who says, vision issues aside, that you NEED a dot on a defensive gun?

Need is relative.

Will the average concealed carrier get killed in the streets without a red dot? Probably not.

However, there is a difference between preparing for “get out of trouble” situations and “go look for trouble” situations such as LE / MIL duty.

In the former, I personally want every advantage I can get when I am in a fight by myself with no partners, body armor, limited communications, etc. but the odds are irons will work just fine.

For professional gun carriers (which unfortunately does not equal professional shooters) not only is it an advantage towards their personal survival, but improved accuracy/hit rate reduces misses and in some instances total rounds fired. In reality, every round hits something so increasing the odds it hits bad guy is a good thing.

[MickAK]

Finally, is there anyone credible out there who says, vision issues aside, that you NEED a dot on a defensive gun?

I've seen some credible people advocating that it's necessary to start new shooters on a dot and they can train irons as an accessory and I think they have a pretty valid point. I think vision issues can creep up on people. I wouldn't want to give up the skills I developed with irons but that's becoming more and more just orneriness.

TF iron sight shooting with movement is a lot of work. I'd say there are more and more people that are saying you need a dot without wanting to full on say it and start a bunch of pointless arguing. That makes a lot of sense, frankly.