Gun Guys with Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn

[HCM]

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.

@fatdog

I was where you are at. There is a learning curve to pistol RDS if you are experienced with irons but in both my personal experience and professional experience transitioning in service LE iron sight shooters to RDS it is not as big a hill as Hackathorn makes it out to be. Volume will get you there. Repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

I think the training process (and people’s participation in sane) is really where experiences differ.

What you do and how you do it comes first, volume is second. I personally I found that I had to make changes and clean up my presentation to “find” the dot consistently. This improved my times, not only with the red dot but with irons as well. As far as actually using the dot once the gun is presented, I found occluded practice (with the front of the optic covered) and training with an optics only gun (no BUIS) very helpful.

Most of us like to think we are self taught but true auto didactics are rare. Seeking out a bit of professional instruction, whether a class, a private lesson, or even a video lesson, really helps “round the edges” and avoid wasting effort.

Notice, I said, training and practice not necessarily shooting. While the dot gives significantly more feedback about what the gun is doing, thereby assisting in fixing other issues, acquisition and use of the dot is primarily a visual process. So rather than thousands of rounds you may need a few thousand reps, the majority of which can and probably should be done via dry practice.

[Magsz]

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?

I have to watch the video in question. At the risk of being burnt at the stake I find the Wilson content to be as boring as watching old people fuck. (no judgement, if that's anyone's kink).

In response to your last question. No, I don't think there is a single legitimate instructor that will say that red dots are mandatory on all fighting pistols, all pistols etc. Key words being legitimate instructor.

Conversely, I don't think that there is a single legitimate instructor that isn't aware of the benefits and cons of running a red dot. I think that most instructors in 2022 will universally agree that the benefits are well worth the investment and potential involved train up to become accustomed to the dot.

As a part time instructor. When I am working with new students, I introduce them to both options. Iron sights and a Red Dot. I explain the concept of each piece of equipment's use and then allow the student to execute. Universally, the students perform better with the red dot but I don't think that is really news to anyone here.

The key here is that we all strive to be "trained" right? In the hands of a trained individual, I really do believe that the enhanced capability of the red dot is a no brainer and choosing not to use one when the option exists is simply strange in my mind.

[ST911]

Observation: I used an RDS when training with Larry Mudgett along with a few other students and noted that RDS shooters called bad presses at a lower threshold even when coaches called a good press. Movement was easier to discern on the dot vs irons even in target-focus. This higher standard produced better trigger control/awareness earlier, duplicated later in new(er) shooters.

[WobblyPossum]

Observation: I used an RDS when training with Larry Mudgett along with a few other students and noted that RDS shooters called bad presses at a lower threshold even when coaches called a good press. Movement was easier to discern on the dot vs irons even in target-focus. This higher standard produced better trigger control/awareness earlier, duplicated later in new(er) shooters.

That’s what I view as one of the biggest benefits of the MRDS. It’s the best coach you can have. The dot will tell you a lot about what you’re doing right or wrong if you’re paying attention. It becomes much easier to call your shots. If you can call your shots, you can identify problems and implement solutions.

[medmo]

@HCM "So rather than thousands of rounds you may need a few thousand reps, the majority of which can and probably should be done via dry practice."

That has been my situation. I've been shooting pistol dots now for 2 years and 2 months. The beginning learning curve pretty sharp which I attribute to lots, and lots of dryfire, getting the presentation and push out the same every time to get the dot aligned every time. Got the muscle memory down pretty quick.

The past few months I've been focusing on and shooting at distance, 25 and 40 yards. Do I think I need a dot around 7 yards? No. Do iron sights handicap me when shooting at distance and is my performance at distance worse with irons? Yes, based on personal experience. My conclusion, based on my current skill and experiences, is to carry a dot. I can comfortably carry a dotted compact pistol aiwb 99% of the time so why wouldn't I?

[YVK]

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

Yes, which is why I specified a "on a defensive pistol" in my post. Pistol to go look for trouble is a different thing, right?

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. ]

Yes, and maybe there is another conversation here to be had about pistol training in 2022, but it is not the same as saying "need dot on a carry gun" in my eyes.


This me screwing around with a 1911 recently. I shoot it maybe one month, if that, a year. My index on that is not as good as on CZs or Glocks. I am an OCD so I made sure that the tape that is covering the front sight was black so I couldn't use a white patch to aim. A new mag release I was trying actually contributed to this video by dropping a mag mid-string. Meaning I had to re-index after reloading whatever mag was laying on the bench.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/POfl7MIlrW8


I think an argument can be made that for 90+% of defensive uses, using Givens' data as a reference, one doesn't need even irons sights and just use the index.The dot is really a visual backup to index anyway.
I guess I am trying to say that introduction of a word "need" invalidates any position for me, whether the guy is favoring or criticizing one sighting system over another or not. Again, this is in a reference to civilian defensive guns.

[JCN]

I think an argument can be made that for 90+% of defensive uses, using Givens' data as a reference, one doesn't need even irons sights and just use the index.The dot is really a visual backup to index anyway.
I guess I am trying to say that introduction of a word "need" invalidates any position for me, whether the guy is favoring or criticizing one sighting system over another or not. Again, this is in a reference to civilian defensive guns.

But that same argument also applies that 97% of people won’t need a firearm at all.

And that 98% of people could make do with a gun shaped object like an Airsoft gun to cause the baddie to break contact.

And that 99% of people could carry 25 ACP or 22 LR and do just fine.

So I think when people say “need” it’s like when they go to the fast food restaurant and say “I need a cheeseburger…”




Your 1911 experiment is off because of the grip angle changing the index. If you’re really trying to compare sighting systems and not gun systems, put irons on a CZ or Glock.

In a pinch, when I have to index with a gun that I know will point low from what I’m used to, I’ll look to a spot higher on the target than I want… in order to get the index on, then snap my eyes to the iron sight that is perfectly on target.



The crux of the matter is when people say “there’s no benefit” to dots over irons at close range.

That may be true for lower level practitioners, where nothing really matters because their index, trigger press and recoil control are so sloppy. Like the Rob Leatham aiming is pointless video. If you can’t hit your sights because of poor mechanics, better sights don’t matter…


But for a higher level shooter, there absolutely is an advantage of dots over irons IMO. Being able to shoot rapidly and precisely with higher level of confidence in the shot calling on one focal plane.


So “need” versus “some benefit” versus “no benefit” is what we have to define as terms.

The only way dots don’t have some incremental benefit over irons for me is if I have my eyes closed.

Or if it’s raining heavily.


That being said, I often pocket carry my Walther Model 9 or Taurus View revolver, both with terrible iron sights.


So I’m in the “don’t NEED but there is a performance decrement with inferior sighting systems.”

[YVK]

But that same argument also applies that 97% of people won’t need a firearm at all.

No, it isnt. One is if a person needs a tool that applies a deadly force with movement of a finger. Another is of a distance to which deadly force can be projected to effectively. There's a qualitative difference between the two, vs quantitative difference between crappy irons, good irons, or dot.

[JCN]

No, it isnt. One is if a person needs a tool that applies a deadly force with movement of a finger. Another is of a distance to which deadly force can be projected to effectively. There's a qualitative difference between the two, vs quantitative difference between crappy irons, good irons, or dot.

Disagree because you quoted the Givens data that doesn’t parse out the differences.

Take the following two scenarios:

Scenario A:
Good guy draws, and sprays 6 shots in the general direction of the bad guy and “doesn’t see his sights.” The bad guy gets hit twice but is still able to get a couple shots off and wound the good guy before running away.

Scenario B:
Good guy draws, sees dot and puts a rapid head shot into the bad guy ending the fight without getting injured.

By the Givens data, both are rated “fully successful” in that they stopped the threat and didn’t die themselves.

Which is better?

The “don’t need sights” in a defensive encounter is based off data that is inadequately powered to make that assumption valid.

Because it doesn’t judge whether more would have been better.

It also HAS to be segmented into people who have the skill to take advantage of the improved vision as well.





Basically, you could say that flashlights “aren’t necessary” but the data aren’t powered for that either.

[JCN]

@YVK also think of it this way.

Eli Dickens used irons, but was very fortunate the bad guy didn’t have $100 of body armor or else things could have turned out very differently like the supermarket shooter who took a bullet to the armor and killed the guard and kept rampaging.

In certain (rare) defensive scenarios, the added confidence in vision (if the mechanics were there to support it) could have made a big difference.

Like I said, I accept the performance loss with irons. And it probably won’t matter… but I don’t pretend there isn’t a difference.