Optics on handguns

[.38 Special]

I've put hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange with a dot.

I don't believe they are more accurate than irons, for a properly-trained man. They are slightly faster for the same man, and if you are playing a game where tiny fractions of a second count, then a dot may be a requirement.

For the fellow who is not thoroughly trained, a dot can be faster and more accurate. The absolute beginner will usually find a huge difference, in my experience.

I have far less experience with pistol scopes; probably a thousand rounds or so shot through revolvers so equipped. At very close ranges, I don't see significant accuracy gains over irons, but by the time we are talking 50 yards and further, the difference can be dramatic. At 100 yards, for instance, I am capable of holding about 2 MOA with a scope, but with irons, it's closer to 6 MOA. (All of that from the bench, of course...)

I am extremely slow with a scope, at least once magnification creeps up beyond 2x or so. I also dislike carrying them, and shooting them from unsupported positions.

Tl;dr: After a great deal of shooting, I have decided that optics on handguns are specialty items which have their place, but when I am picking out a handgun to accompany me for general-purpose field work, it's almost certainly going to carry iron sights - at least as long as my eyes will allow it!

 

[DMW1116]

I can’t help but think these same discussions were had about 75 years ago regarding optics in rifles.

 

[TonyAngel]

I can’t help but think these same discussions were had about 75 years ago regarding optics in rifles.

I remember too when the same discussion was had on many forums regarding red dots on ARs and many of the same arguments were made and yet, here we are.

 

[Peakbagger46]

I get the comparisons between rifle and pistol optics, but it’s genuinely not the same thing. The AR gives a cheek weld while drawing a pistol from the holster causes genuine issues that require A LOT of reps to mitigate.

 

[tarosean]

I get the comparisons between rifle and pistol optics, but it’s genuinely not the same thing. The AR gives a cheek weld while drawing a pistol from the holster causes genuine issues that require A LOT of reps to mitigate.

Not to mention the RDS doesn't reciprocate with the slide as it does with a lot of modern handguns. Apple vs. Tomato type comparison.

 

[wanderinwalker]

I get the comparisons between rifle and pistol optics, but it’s genuinely not the same thing. The AR gives a cheek weld while drawing a pistol from the holster causes genuine issues that require A LOT of reps to mitigate.

And it wasn't all that long ago "expert shooters" were convinced that red dots were inferior to irons for close-in rifle shooting. I have Glen Zediker's "The Mouse That Roared" and even he mentioned and championed this in one chapter. Yet here we are today and we have plenty of proof that for less experienced to average shooters, the red dot is superior and does flatten the learning curve significantly.

I now have exactly 100 rounds using an RMR on a pistol, and I'm already convinced it's a superior solution for middle-to-long distance handgun shooting. I've always fought the nasty habit of "peeking" for my bullet holes when shooting handguns instead of trying to track the front sight. With the red dot, I can just watch the target and let the dot come into my awareness. I still need a holster and some presentation reps to ingrain the habits, but I think my iron sighted pistols are going to be gathering a lot of dust soon. The red dot sight really does simplify the visual processing part of shooting.

 

[Shivahasagun]

For hunters and Police Officers, absolutely. (RDS for Police)

For concealed carry in a city or suburb I can understand either way.

Holsters are a problem. Many can't accommodate the optic. Often only for the most popular guns.

They do add bulk while carried.

I find an RDS interferes with a natural index at about 10 yds in. I find the dot distracting often because of the intensity and that every heartbeat can be seen in it. (Okay, it seems like it) They are too precise for close ranges like this. That all culminates in slower shooting.

I can target focus with a bright front iron and get A-zone hits just fine until about 15 yds. I start to focus more on the front sight from there. By 25 yds yes, I want that prescision the RDS offers.

Iron sights (and night sights are good!) Cover 95% of regular Joe and Jane's defensive gun needs.

I have 3-4k rnds through a few RDS pistols and a revolver.

The biggest benefit to me is as a training device. They really helped my iron sight presentation, which wasn't bad already.

But per timer, the RDS is as good at best, slower at worst, inside of 10 yds, for me. I find it frustrating and it reduces confidence right in the zone I will most likely need my gun, if ever. I pray never, of course.

 

[Peakbagger46]

And it wasn't all that long ago "expert shooters" were convinced that red dots were inferior to irons for close-in rifle shooting. I have Glen Zediker's "The Mouse That Roared" and even he mentioned and championed this in one chapter. Yet here we are today and we have plenty of proof that for less experienced to average shooters, the red dot is superior and does flatten the learning curve significantly.

I now have exactly 100 rounds using an RMR on a pistol, and I'm already convinced it's a superior solution for middle-to-long distance handgun shooting. I've always fought the nasty habit of "peeking" for my bullet holes when shooting handguns instead of trying to track the front sight. With the red dot, I can just watch the target and let the dot come into my awareness. I still need a holster and some presentation reps to ingrain the habits, but I think my iron sighted pistols are going to be gathering a lot of dust soon. The red dot sight really does simplify the visual processing part of shooting.

Absolutely a RDS makes one better at mid to long range shooting. Unfortunately that’s not where defensive use usually occurs with a handgun.

After thousands of dry and live fire reps over several years, my previous issued Glock .40 is still faster / more accurate for up close point shooting.

Not to mention trying to index sights vs find the dot while moving and shooting.

Unfortunately defensive shooting tends to happen fast and close with movement involved.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

I trained for a muzzle-high presentation to pick up the front sight just as someone said in an earlier post. That works poorly with a red dot and again, like the earlier person posted once I started addressing it as 'point-shooting' using a gun that points naturally for me (with a 1911 grip angle) is started working. After that I was able to transition to other grip angles. There is a definite learning curve but once you get in the groove it works. That being said...

...I'm not slapping them on every pistol I own, and wouldn't even if I could afford it. My nightstand gun? Absolutely. Works fantastic in low-light and allows me to remain target-focused. There are other applications where I want one but my EDC doesn't have one. My next one might because they work better for me if the range stretches out. Irons work for me. RDS work for me. If I want the best speed and accuracy at a variety of ranges an RDS is probably going to be my first choice.

I'm not going to try to convince anyone else though, because they're adults and can make up their own minds about what works best for them.

 

[reddog81]

Really? Because I've been window shopping and see very little if any of that. I hope you're right though; it would be nice to buy it and have it all done vs having to do it myself, although it looks pretty easy on the surface (famous last words)......

Just Google "pistol with optic". There are a variety of links to retailers or review articles with pistols that either come with optics or pistols that come optic ready. Pistols that come with optics are still a small subset of guns being sold today but 10 years ago the options could probably be counted on one hand if any existed. At this point just about any gun shop should have models that are optic ready. Almost all major manufacturers have optic ready versions of their popular pistols - S&W, Sig, FN, Kimber, Taurus, Springfield, Glock, etc.

 

[black mamba]

I've been a handgunner and handgun hunter for about 45 years. I have tried about every type of optical sight on handguns from .22s up to .454 Casulls. To me the red dots come into their own when eyesight declines to the point that distinguishing the front sight becomes difficult. A thin front sight helps the left to right variance, allowing more light between front and rear. But vertical stringing increases with little that can be done to improve it. That single bright dot is easy to put on target and know where you are aiming. For long range handgunning, beyond 100 yards, the horizontal wire on a good pistol scope is a great aid to accurate drop guestimates. The main problem I have found with scopes is the extra weight, so that I only use them when hunting from a stand or hide as offhand shooting is difficult with a 4-5 pound handgun.

 

[Hookeye]

Ran my .35 rem Contender w 2.5-7x TC pistol scope.
7x was a pain at the 50 yard bench. Doable but not ideal. Eye relief shortens up at max.

Dialed it back down to 4x and that seemed to be ideal- magnification and eye relief. 2.5x was lacking for aiming at my small red bullseye center.

So 4x it was. Got it dialed in quickly.
But this was all bench work ( front bag ).

Still think it needs a reddot for hunting.

The scope proved the gun shoots well, but its coming off

 

[CraigC]

7x isn't going to work at 50yds anyway. Serious parallax issues.

 

[Trey Veston]

I did a video review of the Ruger Max 9 that came from the factory with a Crimson Trace red dot. I shot it next to a Glock G19 with a Burris Fastfire III red dot, and my daily carry pistol, a Sig P365, which has no red dot. In slow-fire shooting at 25 yards, both red dot-equipped pistols were more accurate than the Sig.

But, when doing point shooting and quick aimed fired shooting at 7yds, the P365 easily out-performed both. So, for street-carry self-defense, no red dots. For my woods carry and longer shots needed, then I have a 10mm with a Holosun 508T mounted.

 

[5whiskey]

This has been exactly my experience with optics on defensive handguns. I wasn’t given the choice and following a two day training, got issued the RMR equipped Glock. It is a big improvement on distance accuracy, no question. Immediately 25 yard headshots became very doable and repeatable.

Quickly acquiring the dot on the draw took A LOT of practice on my own. After over a decade of carrying Glocks, I never realized they present muzzle pointed up for me on the draw (not a problem for point shooting up close but made finding the dot hard).

A few weeks ago we caught up with a homicide suspect. It was pretty nice to “paint” him with the dot knowing my shots would be true AND being able to remain target focused instead of looking at the front sight.

I don’t know. I’m a couple of years into this dot thing and see both sides. If I’d cut my teeth with one or had a pistol (like an Sig) with a different grip angle, I’d probably favor it. If I could be reissued the Glock .40 with good irons, I’d take it back.

My agency is looking to go to G45s with RMR sights. I don't personally have any handguns with optics, but I shoot in a diverse circle of acquaintances and am fairly familiar with the pros and cons. A few guys that I could shoot with well, if not outshoot most of the time, have come to surpass my abilities after they transitioned to optics. So I have seen firsthand how they can help you shoot better.

I have also heard that there is a significant transition period. I can see this being a thing. While I haven't done more than play around a few times with guns of friends, I have noticed that I seem to have a hard time picking up the dot from the draw as well. While I know they can take you to another level, I'm still ambivalent to them. Gonna have to deal with it soon enough, like it or not, on my duty pistol. And train all the others at my agency on it. We have a lot of good shooters, as I'm in the South and most cops at my agency are "gun people." But there are always that 10% of folks who would just assume to never have to touch their gun that I have to contend with...

EDIT TO ADD: BTW if there is any LE firearms instructor, or heck any instructor doesn't have to be LE, that has taught others to make this transition I am looking for ideas for a transition training plan.