First hit of Crack is free . . .Originally Posted by GJM
First hit of Crack is free . . .
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master"
Dots on pistols have been around the .MIL special operations world for about 10 years (shortly after the release of the RMR in 2009). The original .MIL application was use under NVG /NODs for those using Glocks. Prior to that NVG pistol aiming was done via IR laser grips on Beretta & SIG, however, the laser solutions for Glocks at the time were sub optimal.
As many are aware, there are different levels within the special operations community. The introduction of the original unity tactical ATOM slide marked the expansion of red dot pistols from the guys who were “cool” enough to use personally on weapons or to have the slide cut on a duty gun to units who were “cool” enough to use what they wanted but had to be able to restore guns to original condition for turn in.
A couple years after Glock released their Gen 4 MOS guns in 2010, SOCOM modified their existing contract for Gen 3 Glock 19s and procured Gen 3 G19 MOS guns. The contract was subsequently re-issued for Gen 4 G19 MOS guns.
The adoption of the HRS and and RDS as a standard issue item 4-5 years was pretty much just the finishing touch.
Interesting video. I've mentioned that my experience with my newish SRO has been positive. A minor comment on Mas' position with his cheek on his bicep. With my stubby old neck that is not happening. My wife says have have no neck. When the dentist's assistance tried to get the rotating X-ray to go around my head, it hammed on my shoulders. So that's that.
I'm going to continue shooting the dot in matches. My EDC - G26, don't see a dot on it or a similar gun for awhile. Since carry is dead in NYS for a bit, no need to spend the money and I shoot the 26 quite decently.
I do think the overly complex mounting systems with plates, etc. has to go. Saw one fall off in a match.
I don't like the controls with a magic mantra of various pushes for various functions. Kind of like flashlights with similar games for function changes.
About old farts, being one - well, being a scientist - we always were being into new methods. I thought they were neat and would try to learn them. However, I do recall having to push older faculty into the new software, computers and apparatus. Grumble, grumble and lazy.
I remember listening to an interview with Paul Howe (I wish I could remember where) where he said he didn’t really like dots on rifles either, he just used them because his students had them and half the time he was shooting he was just using his BUIS through the dot.
He doesn’t like dots on rifles either. He’s recently stated he uses irons through the optic and only turns on the optic for low light use.
I thought it was a pretty fair assessment of things as they stand. I have no idea why I'm seeing so much butthurt around the internet about it.
Ultimately the thing on top of the slide is not what shoots the gun. It's an aiming reference, nothing more. At best it helps you figure out some stuff a good coach could have told you if you could have found your way to a good coach.
Mounting is the biggest issue and that's getting better pretty quick.
As I mentioned in the thread about the Ken & Bill video, there are at least two large federal agencies that are going to be using Acro P2 optics with factory-cut Glock pistols in the very near future as issue to specialized units and probably eventually to everybody. The P2 on a factory cut gun solves mounting issues and battery life issues. It's durable, reliable, and it will likely be pushed even harder from the instructional cadre because it is "easier for students to understand" and thus pass qualifications with.
The durable, long-life enclosed emitter optic on a factory cut gun will become the standard for dots on pistols and it will eliminate the many issues that result from mounting the optic.
The momentum will increase from there. Once these agencies are publicly doing it, more agencies will look at it and monkey-see, monkey-do it as well. It'll pick up fast.
3/15/2016
Slightly off topic, but do you remember where you saw/heard that? I can’t find it, but I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the same video or podcast.
@SoCalDep, I see that you've seen some of the concerns I had about carry optics in inclement weather. As to your other comment quoted above, I think most of us would agree that aside from equipment issues, "finding the dot" is the biggest problem most people have at the beginning with carry optics-equipped pistols.
I get the impression that you have experience converting a large department over to the concept. Others on P-F have that experience, and still others have been teaching carry optics in the private sector for many years.
Because that "bridge index" I mentioned of chin to bicep of locked gun arm pretty much automatically brings shooting eye in line with gun hand and sights, I have found it to be a short cut to allow those new to carry optics to quickly find the dot. It seems to work particularly well with cross-dominant shooters. Similarly, shooters with long experience finding their front sight do seem to find a co-witnessed dot faster to find at first. I also realize that many carry optics instructors don't care for those techniques.
I offer, seriously, a respectful suggestion.
You, @TCinVA, @Mr.White, @GJM, @HCM and more have VAST collective experience in teaching first-time red dot pistol users how to quickly catch the dot.
If all y'all could put together YOUR "catch the dot" teaching methods and post them here, I have no doubt it would make a great "sticky" here and be an extremely valuable reference for future P-F readers and their students.
Respectfully,
Mas
I have a theory that as more LE agencies issue RDS pistols, the average hit rate with actually DECREASE.
Wait, what?
To many people get a dot, stand static on a square range and shoot at a target. They put a little time in and can pick up the dot under those conditions and loudly proclaim how much better the dot it because of how much faster and more accurate they are.
They never try the dot under stress or during force on force. Many who do realize that finding the dot is harder under anything other than idea situations and they are actually faster with the irons under stress.
Now, this changes when someone puts in a lot time training. Those kinds of people are often found here on the forum and in classes they paid their own money to attend. We put in enough time with our RDS pistols to be able to find the dot under stress.
How much time does the average cop put in with their pistols? Not much at all. Will most of them be able to find the dot under stress of a real gun fight? I suspect many of them won’t.
“They can just use the BUIS.” Someone out there is saying.
That’s the simple “duh” thing to do but under extreme stress of an adrenal dump most people (especially if it is their first gunfight) will lose access to many higher level cognitive functions. I have seen inexperienced shooters do FoF with a RDS gun and not be able to find the dot while trying not to get shot and instead of just using the BUIS their brain kept searching for what it expected to see… the dot. Not finding it made them freak out and panic even more. That’s just FoF, imagine how bad it will be in a real gun fight.
In summary: Pistol optics are great for people who will put in the time on them to become good. Most cops don’t put in that time.
This is my main issue with the rush in some areas to put cops on dots.
Because of how dots work, your presentation from the holster has to be pretty dialed in to reliably find the dot at the end of it. It's not that it is exceedingly difficult to understand what needs to happen or to teach it, but I haven't found many who actually understand what those key factors are...and they're really no different than good practices regardless of what's on top of the slide because the same things that will make a dot appear at the end of the presentation will result in aligned iron sights, too.
It's not just repetition that produces that result. Intelligent practice of a productive, well understood draw will make it happen.
Unfortunately most police academies are not teaching the draw that way. The times given to get out of the holster and get on target in most police qualifications (Most is not all, and there are people out there doing good work but they tend to be exceptions to the rule) are...well....generous. Like generous enough that a skilled shooter can draw, shoot, and get through the opening of the Gettysburg Address before the time runs out.
If the officer does any work on their own the dot will serve as a pretty effective and severe coach telling them they're doing it wrong by not even showing up until they get it at least right enough. But that work on their own is unlikely to happen. I have multiple clients in multiple police departments where they're either the only ones who spend their own time and dime training or they're one of a very small number of people on the department who does and they run into road blocks on training constantly. One of them was seen dry-running his draw before shift in a safe area (meaning he was using a cleared gun in an area where you were authorized to clean and handle guns) and got yelled at for it.
The institutions are ate the fuck up with credentialism to a degree that beggars belief. If you don't have the specific credentials they look at as authoritative, you don't matter and your opinion is worthless. I mentioned I have a client in a police academy right now who has multiple combat deployments in a 20 year military career, and he's being "taught" the patrol rifle by people who have only ever been trained the police academy way with zero operational experience applying any of it. And he's wrong because he's not the guy with "instructor" on his polo shirt. Nevermind his track record, combat awards, or how many literally hundreds of times he's ended a threat in actual combat with the very weapon they're talking about, none of that matters because we say so.
/rant
One potential upside to the dot ending up on cop guns is that people might get used to not shooting if they don't see the dot. If you look at lapel cam footage of police shootings you see a lot of situations where guns are presented to an officer's chest or chin, usually with a bad grip, and then shots are fired. If the dot does nothing more than condition people to get the gun up to their eyes so they actually see the bloody thing, that alone will increase hit rates.
The manufacturers have LE training programs that purport to teach methods for finding the dot. Some of those methods actually kind of work in some situations. Mas' point about using the cheek to bicep with locked out arms actually seems to work in playing with it myself and with some guinea pigs as a "I can't find my dot" quick fix if they tend to go to full lockout on their arms habitually. (Lots of people do) Frankly it works better than one would expect in unconventional positions, too.
But in general I agree with you on the potential downsides of taking minimally competent personnel and putting them on a piece of equipment that might boost qual scores at the cost of not working as well in the real world. The dot is kind of being treated like a shortcut in some institutional settings and that worries me because it most certainly isn't if the right foundations aren't being laid.
3/15/2016
Reply With Quote