Optic Mounted Pistols and Concepts in Application

[voodoo_man]

I caught that, here's the full quote for anyone following along:

My point is there's no need to ever zero a dot close, you can still shoot accurately at close range with a 25 yard zero just fine, even when the gun doesn't have iron sights at all. You just need to know your hold over at close range and be able to apply it subconsciously.


Not sure what aspect you're referring to as unrealistic; shooting on the move, longer ranges or tight, partially exposed targets? I'll grant you that taking on 16 cardboard targets by yourself, while slinging a 29 round mag holding, 4 pound hand cannon isn't realistic. I get that it's a game. My point is I have actual quantifiable experience that shows the advantages of a red dot. If you don't think you can learn anything at all from competition shooters, so be it.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean you're being judgmental on a personal level. Let me re-phrase, your article (which I did go re-read, just to make sure) seems to paint the optic as a 25+ yard tool, or at least, that with practice can be matched with irons out to 25. It seems you found that, based on your limited time with the dot, 25 yards was the distance where the dot became clearly better. Any shooter new to a dot, but proficient with irons would probably make the same observation. When I started shooting a dot, I was pretty damn slow with irons and found an almost immediate speed increase beyond 10 yards. IF someone puts in the time to really learn how to use the dot (including recoil control, index, etc.), the advantage is much closer than 25 yards, especially with smaller targets.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but don't under-sell what the dot provides for those willing/able to put in the work.

Right, again, I never stated anyone should ever zero an RDS up close, as I already stated several times, a 25y zero is better for various reasons.

As for the game aspect, I did not and still do not want to get into that whole argument again as it will derail the thread. I will just say that gaming and real life do not share any possible connections with ccw experience other than the shooting part. Again, not going to or want to get into it as it not going to help further this conversation.

As a point of reference, I am not slow with irons, I am probably not slow with a dot either, but still see the considerable issues which exist with the current field of optics which are being mounted on pistols. I do not disagree that if someone wants to get better at shooting with an RDS they should practice, that's clear. My point, as I have stated numerous times already, there are fundamental limitations which show no advantage at statistically probably DGU's.

Lastly, as I stated, numerous times, before is the time investment worth it? Especially when the average CCW citizen already has a lot of time on iron sights and moving onto a different system which may not provide them any possible advantage with many possible negatives.

Not all defensive shooting situations are 7 yards and closer, as a reading of recent news events illustrates. When needing to rapidly stop an active shooter perhaps armed with a rifle at location like a long school hallway, a big open mall area, large warehouse, or a baseball field, an RDS will likely give the defensive handgun shooter an advantage over irons...

I never made the statement that all defensive shooting situations are sub 7 yards...if you go through the FBI LEOKA stats on distances for the last ten years or so, you'll see that put together the vast, overwhelming, majority of LE firearms/gun battles are within 7 yards.

Long school hallway? Big open mall area? Warehouse? Baseballfield? That's why LEO's carry rifles and/or shotguns. Wouldn't it be just as prudent for the average ccw citizen to carry a rifle caliber for those specific circumstances? Wouldn't that be more logical than putting an optic on a pistol which stretches that pistol's applicational range out of the distances which the pistols were designed for in the first place?

It would give that person an advantage, but at what level of investment and for what type of statistical probability?

[Hambo]

If you don't think you can learn anything at all from competition shooters, so be it.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but don't under-sell what the dot provides for those willing/able to put in the work.

I know there's a lot I don't know, and I can learn from anybody, so here goes:

How much work, generally speaking?

Second, I know there are competition dudes who shoot optics and iron both, but are they shooting 500 rounds a week?

This is the non-competition part. An initial decrease in performance while trying to learn optics isn't good if I have to shoot somebody. So until I shoot to the same standards or better with optics, I'd have to carry irons. So if it's going to take 10K rounds to get there, that's problematic. Make sense?

[YVK]

This is one of the caveats, if you simply cannot use the irons then using the dot may be the best (and only) alternative.

Problem is that we don't know how many people in the shooting community will benefit from this. There are tons of dudes in a 50+ age group who carry irons, get new prescriptions every other year, get their cataracts cut, retina lazed, glaucoma relieved, who run with irons because irons is all they know. Because of a relatively low penetration of RDS in shooting community at large we simply don't know at what level of eye aging there is a cross-over in speed, accuracy etc. This is the main problem that I have with your conclusion, that vast majority of shooters would be better off with irons under 21 feet. And that's the point that I already made once: to make a comparative conclusion, you need to have an equally large, well matched cohorts, with a decent number of index events.

[voodoo_man]

Problem is that we don't know how many people in the shooting community will benefit from this. There are tons of dudes in a 50+ age group who carry irons, get new prescriptions every other year, get their cataracts cut, retina lazed, glaucoma relieved, who run with irons because irons is all they know. Because of a relatively low penetration of RDS in shooting community at large we simply don't know at what level of eye aging there is a cross-over in speed, accuracy etc. This is the main problem that I have with your conclusion, that vast majority of shooters would be better off with irons under 21 feet. And that's the point that I already made once: to make a comparative conclusion, you need to have an equally large, well matched cohorts, with a decent number of index events.

This wasn't meant to be an immersive scientific study. The study which was posted here mirrors many of my self-described statements, aside from the bad eye sight.

I do have, however, people I train with who have bad eye-sight, and when given an RDS mounted pistol their 25+yard accuracy scores increase, drastically. Just first hand experience and not meant to be scientific.

We can talk about hypothesis all day until we're blue in the face, I posted about personal experience.

What are your theories as to the current non-penetration of RDS mounted pistols into the CCW world?

[flyrodr]

OK, an old guy perspective. I'll be 68 in a couple of months. Bad eyes (genetically), and not improving with age. Correctable only to about 20/30 or 20/40. And without cheaters, front sight is a blur (I do have glasses corrected for front-sight distance, but those are for range wear). Neither a LEO nor competitor. Shoot OK, not great. Last time I shot the Hackathorn "The Test" was cold at an Ernest Langdon course; I think score was a 95 with iron sights (and wearing my range glasses). Score drops wearing normal glasses, and stays about the same or slightly better, those times I have used my RMR-equipped pistol.

There is absolutely no question that I (n=1) can shoot more accurately with the red dot, and the gap between the irons and red dot increases as the distance increases. Speedwise, I'm a little slower with the dot up close, but not too much. Speed differential decreases with distance.

I was motivated to work with the red dot because of my eyes (those I used were all RMRs), and I went through some issues with them (blinking; one died completely but Trijicon fixed promptly at no charge, etc.). Generally, though, they've worked OK. I'd note that I've also had some iron sights come loose or fall off completely, so they're not immune to issues.

What helped me the most was working to ensure that the grip and index of the gun were the same (just as you'd do with irons), and that I practiced a lot with a RMR-equipped M&P .22 auto that had the irons removed. When all you have is the dot (and its housing), you are really motivated to present the gun consistently time after time. That helped me immensely when I switched to my normal centerfire equipped with RMR and irons.

I practice with both irons and dot. When I carry, it's mostly irons, simply because where I carry mostly pretty much demands a smaller-sized gun.

But, I would think some form of electronic single-point ("dot") sight will eventually be seen on the majority of serious-use handguns. If a novice is given a dot-equipped handgun and an iron-equipped handgun, I'd expect they'd shoot better - - - more accurately; speed is not an issue with novices - - - with the dot. And I think as dots become more commonly used (price drop, toughness, etc), people will start out on them; the reverse of what we're seeing now.

Or, I could be wrong. Happens frequently. N=1.

[busdriver]

How much work, generally speaking?

Second, I know there are competition dudes who shoot optics and iron both, but are they shooting 500 rounds a week?

So until I shoot to the same standards or better with optics, I'd have to carry irons. So if it's going to take 10K rounds to get there, that's problematic.

@GJM, have you worked with any new dot shooters?

I'm making this up as I type so call this a rough draft.

My gut answer is a couple months, but it's highly dependant on time spent per day, having a regular routine, etc. I don't have a good, accurate answer for you. Luckily it's 90% dry fire, so ammo isn't a problem.

Shooting the dot doesn't make you bad with irons or vice versa. If I were serious about shooting both, I'd primarily dry fire the dot gun and live fire with the irons gun. You'd want to change that up occasionally obviously.

[El Cid]

I never made the statement that all defensive shooting situations are sub 7 yards...if you go through the FBI LEOKA stats on distances for the last ten years or so, you'll see that put together the vast, overwhelming, majority of LE firearms/gun battles are within 7 yards.

Long school hallway? Big open mall area? Warehouse? Baseballfield? That's why LEO's carry rifles and/or shotguns. Wouldn't it be just as prudent for the average ccw citizen to carry a rifle caliber for those specific circumstances? Wouldn't that be more logical than putting an optic on a pistol which stretches that pistol's applicational range out of the distances which the pistols were designed for in the first place?

It would give that person an advantage, but at what level of investment and for what type of statistical probability?

Come on... you don't think Doc knows that? Nobody is advocating for a RDS handgun to replace a long gun. But as we all know, the handgun is what you have on your person, instantly available. Few people in LE or otherwise walk around with rifles. If the RDS increases the effectiveness of the pistol, and allows you to take shots from greater distance then it's worth having. We don't get to choose when/where bad things kick off. If you are near your vehicle or residence and can get a long gun, then by all means. But if you are at your kids ball game, the mall, school, etc. then you are going to fight with what you have.

[voodoo_man]

Come on... you don't think Doc knows that? Nobody is advocating for a RDS handgun to replace a long gun. But as we all know, the handgun is what you have on your person, instantly available. Few people in LE or otherwise walk around with rifles. If the RDS increases the effectiveness of the pistol, and allows you to take shots from greater distance than it's worth having. We don't get to choose when/where bad things kick off. If you are near your vehicle or residence and can get a long gun, then by all means. But if you are at your kids ball game, the mall, school, etc. then you are going to fight with what you have.

If, think about it from a statistical likelihood, an RDS does not really work its way in when looking at the data...

I was not specifically speaking to Doc as more of in general.

There is a lot of info out and people talking up RDS equipped pistols as if they are the best thing since sliced bread. What they seem to be missing is that reality and training requirements do not agree, not even remotely.

[Hambo]

@GJM, have you worked with any new dot shooters?

I'm making this up as I type so call this a rough draft.

My gut answer is a couple months, but it's highly dependant on time spent per day, having a regular routine, etc. I don't have a good, accurate answer for you. Luckily it's 90% dry fire, so ammo isn't a problem.

Shooting the dot doesn't make you bad with irons or vice versa. If I were serious about shooting both, I'd primarily dry fire the dot gun and live fire with the irons gun. You'd want to change that up occasionally obviously.

Thanks @busdriver, at least it gives me an idea.

[GJM]

@GJM, have you worked with any new dot shooters?

I'm making this up as I type so call this a rough draft.

My gut answer is a couple months, but it's highly dependant on time spent per day, having a regular routine, etc. I don't have a good, accurate answer for you. Luckily it's 90% dry fire, so ammo isn't a problem.

Shooting the dot doesn't make you bad with irons or vice versa. If I were serious about shooting both, I'd primarily dry fire the dot gun and live fire with the irons gun. You'd want to change that up occasionally obviously.

I am a trainee not a trainer, but I did help my wife get going with a G34/DP Pro and Q5/DP Pro for gamey type shooting, and a G19/RMR, which she replaced with a T1 (as the RMR did not meet her spec for carry, and she carries the G19/T1 by herself boondocking in the desert). Almost immediately, with the DP Pro, she shot comparable speed to irons, but better accuracy. She meessed with the G19/T1 over four or five practice sessions and then was carrying it by herself in the desert. Her normal EDC is an iron sighted G26, but she wanted the optic to be able to reach out and better protect our dog from coyotes. Neither her 34 or Q5 have BUIS, but her G19/T1 does, on an Atom slide.

She basically had no problems with the transition, but she had the benefit of watching me shoot a red dot faster and more accurate than iron sights, and therefore had a good attitude. It was completely voluntary, as I never suggested she should do it.