Red Dots-Who Wears Them On Their EDC Pistols?

Ethan Verity · Oct 7, 2022

bigger hammer said:
Me too. I was a Pre Med major for a while.
...
I'll disagree.
...
What you are doing is relying on the brain "memorizing" the structure of the body, how the limbs are aligned, and how the gun is aligned in your hand. If you change the structure, with uneven ground, for example, the brain doesn't know how to compensate. FAR better to use another system to align the sights, no matter if they're irons, RDSs or just about anything else.
...
The brain remembers the angle of your wrist, when you last aligned the sights and tries to duplicate it. If you change guns, as you described, it will put the same angle on your wrist as before, but because you're using a different gun with a different grip angle, the sights are not aligned properly.
...
Not if you're holding a gun with a different grip angle than the one you usually train with. Then your brain will tell your wrist to adopt a certain angle. That angle will NOT have your sights aligned properly with the different gun. That's one of the problem with relying on memory and structure to align your sights.
...
You are relying on structure for this alignment. It's NOT just in your hands/wrists. It's the structure of your entire body, the angle of your feet, the height of one foot relative to the other, your angle to the target, how you're holding the gun, and lots more stuff of this nature. If you change one part of it, the structure is thrown off and your brain can't compensate with the visual lining up of your sights.

I gave you some advice as to how to ensure that your sights line up properly with EVERY gun that you pick up, independent of what your brain is telling your body to do to line up the sights. If you follow that advice, never again will you point too high or too low, depending on what gun you're shooting. If you don't, you'll have that issue most every time that you change to a gun with a different grip angle.

I'll have to disagree as well.. it's not just structure as you are stating here, it's also spatial awareness... the same way you can touch the tip of your nose with your eyes closed. You can do this no matter how the rest of your body is oriented... unless you're dizzy or drunk perhaps, lol.

Also, I think I may have missed the point of your advice...

bigger hammer said:
Ethan, try this. As you're bringing your gun up to your eye (never your eye down to the gun) pick up the front sight as soon as it comes into your peripheral vision, shift where you are looking, from the target to the front sight. Your rear sight will line up with it no matter what grip angle your gun has. Then you don't have to worry about which gun you're picking up. It's not the memory in your muscles that is causing the 'wrong angle' of your sights, it's your brain.

It sounds like you're just saying to look at the sights? In my opinion, that's pretty obvious, and it's what I do anyway... my comments on "muscle memory" are in regards to that initial sight acquisition when the gun first comes up into focus, I'm not completely ignoring the sights while shooting.

browneu · Oct 7, 2022

I saw this video on YouTube and thought of this thread. Both viewpoints from this thread are mentioned in this video and it really helped me understand the situation.

bigger hammer · Oct 7, 2022

Ethan Verity said:
I'll have to disagree as well.. it's not just structure as you are stating here, it's also spatial awareness... the same way you can touch the tip of your nose with your eyes closed. You can do this no matter how the rest of your body is oriented... unless you're dizzy or drunk perhaps, lol.

"[ S ]patial awareness" = Proprioception.

I mentioned proprioception in an exchange with WrongHanded before he left the discussion. He too was talking about "muscle memory."

Ethan Verity said:
Also, I think I may have missed the point of your advice...

It sounds like you're just saying to look at the sights?

What you reported in a previous post, "my sights are always presented either too high or too low when shooting with the other model... " is because you're waiting too long to look at your sights. You're not looking until AFTER you have extended your arms into your shooting position. That's when you discover the misalignment.

The advice I gave tells you to find the front sight as soon as it comes into your peripheral vision. It's works best if you have the muzzle tipped up just a bit to make the sight more prominent. One instructor calls this "muzzle proud." If you look at the sights, as you extend your arms to your final firing position, you'll align the sight properly without thinking about it. If you've been prepping the trigger as you bring the gun up, you'll be ready to shoot as soon as you can see the sights, which will be earlier in the draw. You may not even be at full extension. If the sights are lined up, shoot. Almost universally the stats show that the guy in a gunfight who gets the first hit, wins.

Ethan Verity said:
In my opinion, that's pretty obvious, and it's what I do anyway...

Yes you do look at the sights. But it's not happening until AFTER you're in your final firing position, or very close to it. That's why sometimes they're misaligned. But if you find the front sight as soon possible, it would be much sooner than you're doing now. If you use your peripheral vision to locate the sights, BEFORE you fully extend your arms, that misalignment won't happen. Shooting is a visual sport. The sooner that you see the sights, the earlier in the draw process they'll start to align properly, and doing that will make you faster and won't affect your accuracy.

If you wait till full extension, or near that, your brain will have already told your body to align the gun with the target based on what it remembers best, what you're calling muscle memory, and if you're using a different gun, it will probably not align properly.

Ethan Verity said:
my comments on "muscle memory" are in regards to that initial sight acquisition when the gun first comes up into focus,

The earlier in the presentation process that you can find the sights, the quicker you'll be able to align them and put them on target. If you use the structure to align your sights, changing guns may cause your sights not to align.

I hope that's clearer.

Ethan Verity said:
I'm not completely ignoring the sights while shooting.

I didn't think that you were. But the delay in looking for them, allows your brain to put the structure together such that, with some guns, your sights aren't aligned properly. Looking for the sights earlier in the presentation will allow you to consciously align them, no matter what the grip angle is and no matter how your brain remembers it.

I bet that you can take .25-.50 of a second off your draw‒and‒first‒shot‒speed by just doing this.

To get back to RDSs ‒ one of the best ways to make sure that you find the dot in the window uses this, "muzzle proud presentation so the front sight is visible and track it to the target" technique. As the gun is brought to its final position to engage the threat, the dot comes down from the top of the window. The only difference is that if you're using irons, you focus on the front sight, which has been in your peripheral vision. If you're using a RDS you stay focused on the threat as the muzzle comes down and the dot appears. If this is a self‒defense situation or that's what you're training for, press the trigger as the dot approaches your aiming point and since you're moving the gun, by the time it fires, you'll be right where you want to be. Don't wait until the sights settle before firing. There's another .1 to .3 of a second taken off your time.

CoalTrain49 · Oct 7, 2022

I think you may be missing the point here BH. The fact is you don't need a RDS to be a good shooter. If you're a good shooter you're going to be able to defend yourself from an attack. If you think you need to be shooting people at 25 yds you probably need to have a very good attorney on retainer. That isn't what the general concept of self defense is regardless of what you may think. The general concept of self defense is the distance where most people are shot in a defensive shooting, which is inside 7 yards.

Dots are great for range. I shoot better with a dot at 50 yds. Honestly I don't see any difference at 7-15 yds.

Here's another thing to contemplate. Olympic trap shooters somehow manage to hit targets moving at 60 mph from a station which is 15 meters from the trap. Probably 20 meters from them when they pull the trigger. They do that without a rear sight and all will tell you they don't focus on a their front sight. It's all accomplished with practice and familiarity with the instrument they have in their hand much like a champion golfer or a 300 hitter in MLB.

Most people would be better off spending the money on ammo. Seriously.

bigger hammer · Oct 8, 2022

CoalTrain49 said:
I think you may be missing the point here BH. The fact is you don't need a RDS to be a good shooter.

"The fact is" that NO ONE has said that you "need a RDS to be a good shooter." Do you know what a strawman argument is?

CoalTrain49 said:
If you're a good shooter you're going to be able to defend yourself from an attack.

I'd have to know what your definition of "a good shooter" is before I could either agree or disagree with you. But bering a good shooter doesn’t prepare you for a self‒defense situation. It does'nt mean that you know where to deliver your rounds to achieve maximum effect. The oft repeated "center of mass" is too low on the body. It doesn't mean that you know when deadly force is appropriate. It doesn't mean that you know what to do when the police arrive. It doesn’t mean that you know what to tell them about the incident. It doesn't mean that you know how to draw and fire effectively. It just means that "you're a good shooter." To me, it just means that you can deliver hits on paper with better than average accuracy.

CoalTrain49 said:
If you think you need to be shooting people at 25 yds you probably need to have a very good attorney on retainer.

Actually I DO "have a very good attorney on retainer," several of them, in fact. AND so should anyone who carries a gun for self‒defense. At the very least, they should carry insurance of some kind that provides for a defense in a self‒defense shooting incident. What with the number of ultra‒liberal DAs that we're seeing now, if there's political hay to be made, anyone can be charged in a self‒defense shooting, no matter how appropriate it was. Having that "very good attorney on retainer" might be very helpful. There's little chance that one would be convicted in a political trial of the type that we've seen recently, but meanwhile you have to pay the attorneys. Fees of $150K are not unheard of.

If you don't want to be prepared for a self‒defense situation at 25 yards (or further) that's OK with me. But please don't pretend that they never happen. I DO want to be prepared for it. We don't get to dictate the conditions under which self‒defense situations arise.

CoalTrain49 said:
That isn't what the general concept of self defense is regardless of what you may think. The general concept of self defense is the distance where most people are shot in a defensive shooting, which is inside 7 yards.

I’m not sure that I agree with you on that definition. A self‒defense situation can occur at any distance where someone can be subject to an "imminent threat to life." That can range from kissing distance on out.

Are you going to argue that there are no self‒defense situations that are outside "7 yards?" No one ever needs to take a 25 yard shot?

You might wanna talk to this guy.

His name is Elisjsha Dicken. At an Indianapolis mall he stopped an active shooter who had killed three people and wounded two others. The bad guy had an AR-15 platform rifle. Mr. Dicken had a Glock. It was a 40 yard shot.

Just so I can get an idea of where you're coming from with this part of the discussion, would you have taken that shot(s)? I'll go first. I would have. But I'd not think less of another person if he would not. Wondering where you are on this?

You might want to take a look at this article on Self‒Defense Shooting Distances.

https://tacticaldefenseusa.com/inde...-defense-shooting-distances-the-firearm-blog/

It says,

Being able to defend yourself in short distances is still extremely valuable but I think we often write off the further shots since that’s traditional thinking. The recent mall shooting in Indianapolis is a fantastic example of why it’s important to have a well-rounded training plan so you work both short and longer-distance shooting with your carry gun. You don’t have to spend a ton of time taking longer shots with your handgun, but occasionally giving it a shot to see how things go is a great way to see your abilities. I always say it’s better to practice something for the first time when your life doesn’t count on it.

CoalTrain49 said:
Dots are great for range. I shoot better with a dot at 50 yds. Honestly I don't see any difference at 7-15 yds.

CoalTrain49 said:
Here's another thing to contemplate. Olympic trap shooters somehow manage to hit targets moving at 60 mph from a station which is 15 meters from the trap. Probably 20 meters from them when pull the trigger. They do that without a rear sight and all will tell you they don't focus on a their front sight. It's all accomplished with practice and familiarity with the instrument they have in their hand much like a champion golfer or a 300 hitter in MLB.

I can't think of anything that sighting a SG to hit moving targets has to do with this discussion. Apples and oranges. Another logical fallacy.

CoalTrain49 said:
Most people would be better off spending the money on ammo. Seriously.

There's something to be said for that. Of course, this lifestyle attracts a certain number of "gadget freaks." The caution not to chase excellence with gadgets is sound. That doesn't diminish the usefulness of a RDS in a self‒defense situation.

I predict that, outside of pocket pistols, RDS will become the dominant sight on self‒defense handguns. Just as scope sights edged out irons on rifles and red dots and LPVOs replaced irons on AR platforms. There will always be irons but more and more they'll assume a secondary or B/U role.

hso · Oct 8, 2022

MikeInOr said:
For most self defence situations pointing is more practical

"pointing" is aiming, but not in the typical definition. When you're dealing with life and death fractions of a second, you better be carrying a gun that points to point of impact.

balin · Oct 9, 2022

The guns I am acquiring these days are optics ready. My plan is to practice till they become as natural as iron sights then start carrying them. I am more accurate with them plinking then iron sights. Just need to get up to speed

Balrog · Oct 9, 2022

balin said:
The guns I am acquiring these days are optics ready. My plan is to practice till they become as natural as iron sights then start carrying them. I am more accurate with them plinking then iron sights. Just need to get up to speed

I have a Glock 45 with a Holosun red dot on it. I like it for shooting at the range, but would not want to carry it because I am not experienced enough with red dots on pistols to reliably find the dot quickly when not in a good shooting position. Maybe that would get better with a lot more practice, but I think I will just stick to iron sights on pistols I am carrying for self defense. Its gonna be hard for me at this point to ever approach the same experience level with red dots that I have with iron sights.

And to answer the question about the Indianapolis shooter, I probably would not engage a guy with AR at 40 yards with any handgun with any type of sights. My main reason for carry is for protection of me and my family. I am not a sheep dog. I don't expect someone to come to my defense in such a situation.

CoalTrain49 · Oct 9, 2022

Balrog said:
I have a Glock 45 with a Holosun red dot on it. I like it for shooting at the range, but would not want to carry it because I am not experienced enough with red dots on pistols to reliably find the dot quickly when not in a good shooting position. Maybe that would get better with a lot more practice, but I think I will just stick to iron sights on pistols I am carrying for self defense. Its gonna be hard for me at this point to ever approach the same experience level with red dots that I have with iron sights.

And to answer the question about the Indianapolis shooter, I probably would not engage a guy with AR at 40 yards with any handgun with any type of sights. My main reason for carry is for protection of me and my family. I am not a sheep dog. I don't expect someone to come to my defense in such a situation.

I think that goes to the heart of the matter. It isn't the sight, it's the amount of time a person trains with the firearm/sights. Some SD instructors would say it's a good idea to learn to point shoot, or become proficient shooting without using sights. It has been demonstrated for SD under 10 yards it can be effective.

I'm not sure why an instructor would be promoting the use of one sighting system over another.

bigger hammer · Oct 9, 2022

Balrog said:
I have a Glock 45 with a Holosun red dot on it. I like it for shooting at the range, but would not want to carry it because I am not experienced enough with red dots on pistols to reliably find the dot quickly when not in a good shooting position.

Thanks for your post. I found the same thing and thought the same thing when I first put a RDS on my Glock 19. I'm not gonna go into details but I'm a fairly good shooter. I've been at it for a long time and have taken dozens of classes, I used to compete and I've been an instructor for a long time.

But when I put the RDS on my handgun and started shooting with it, all I had learned was for naught. I could not reliably find the dot when I brought the pistol up to my eye. Sometimes it was there and sometimes it wasn't.

I thought I'd fallen prey to a scam perpetrated by those who sell these tools. And so I made some calls to people who had recommended me the system. I should have realized that since this was a significantly different sighting system, what I knew about irons did not transfer to the use of the RDS. Thankfully I'm not The Lone Ranger on this. A couple of experienced shooter/instructors have written and made videos that discuss having this same thing happen to them. Colion Noir comes quickly to mind. He got professional instruction to help him with the transition, and now he carries with a RDS at least part of the time.

I had to modify my draw stroke and grip slightly to make the dot appear reliably. After making those modifications and practicing it for a while, the dot appeared reliably for over 1,000 dry fire draws. That's when I decided that I knew the method enough to start carrying my RDS equipped gun. But now I'm faster and more accurate than with irons.

Balrog said:
Maybe that would get better with a lot more practice, but I think I will just stick to iron sights on pistols I am carrying for self defense.

It probably will not "get better" unless you find the key to finding the dot. Fortunately, it's easy, both to find that information and then to put it into effect. I'd suggest looking up Modern Samurai Project, Scott Jedlinski, on YouTube and looking for his videos on finding the dot on the draw. He gives away that info for free.

Balrog said:
Its gonna be hard for me at this point to ever approach the same experience level with red dots that I have with iron sights.

That hasn't been my experience, or those of my students. Many instructors now run RDS only classes where they teach students how to ensure that the dot appears in the window on every draw. Like virtually every change in guns gear, methods or stance, it will require learning some new skills and modifications in using old skills. I get the some aren't willing to put in the time or trouble. They don't want to spend the money to take classes. But, as I pointed out, the information is available for free.

Balrog said:
And to answer the question about the Indianapolis shooter, I probably would not engage a guy with AR at 40 yards with any handgun with any type of sights. My main reason for carry is for protection of me and my family. I am not a sheep dog. I don't expect someone to come to my defense in such a situation.

I'm confused. You say you're "not a sheep dog" (I think that you're using "sheep dog" to mean LE ‒ please correct me if I'm wrong on this). And you say that you "don't expect someone to come to [your] defense …"

So, in this hypothetical, you're going to defend yourself and your family, how are you going to do that if you "would not engage … at 40 yards?" Do you plan to wait until he gets closer? If he's got a rifle, he can shoot at you from that distance. Even if he doesn't, if he shoots at you or your family, he might get lucky. Don't you think that you'd be better off engaging him, before that happens?

Stats tell us that for trained people, distance is our friend. Those who train are more accurate, especially at longer distances, than those who do not, and few of these people train much, if at all. If you wait until he's closer, you're giving up this advantage. Often people with absolutely no training can deliver accurate fire at very close distances. If you let him get closer, he's going to be more able to deliver hits on you and your family, so you're better off engaging him at the longer distance. Every step he takes towards you, his advantage grows. At what distance will you "defend [your] family?"

bigger hammer · Oct 9, 2022

CoalTrain49 said:
I think that goes to the heart of the matter. It isn't the sight, it's the amount of time a person trains with the firearm/sights. Some SD instructors would say it's a good idea to learn to point shoot, or become proficient shooting without using sights. It has been demonstrated for SD under 10 yards it can be effective.

I'd not put a "10 yard" label on point shooting. For some it's 10 yards, for some it's 5, for some it's 3. Someone reading this who is only "effective" at 3 yards might say, "OK this guy says it's good out to 10 yards" and may in a self‒defense situation use it, only to discover that it's beyond his skill level and he's not getting the hits he was told would come.

CoalTrain49 said:
I'm not sure why an instructor would be promoting the use of one sighting system over another.

Oddly you just wrote this, "some SD instructors say …" Why are you, who is probably not an instructor, "promoting the use of one sighting system over another?"

In any case, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of YouTube video by instructors who are "promoting the use of one sighting system over another." Similarly, there have been dozens, maybe hundreds of articles written about them. Part of our job entails evaluating new products and letting our students know if one is superior to another, or if something should be avoided. It sounds as if you think that there's something inappropriate or unethical about this. Is that the case?

Tinman357 · Oct 9, 2022

I have RMR sights on two of my carry guns, they do make it faster and easier to get solid hits on target at speed. That said, I train with them just as hard as I did/do with irons.

I consider them enough of an advantage that I've spent quite a bit of money on them, and shopping around for more. Trijicons ain't cheap.

I'm on a fixed retirement income now, they bring enough to the table and are a worthwhile investment for me.

Styx · Oct 9, 2022

Red dots on my Shield Plus, Springfield Hellcat, and Beretta APX. They're easy to use, faster vs irons IMHO. .

Despite what those who don't utilize red dots claim and assume, they do not add noticeable weight being that the regular size red dots for larger pistols are only around an ounce if that, and micro red dots for single stacks and smaller pistols are under an ounce. As someone who actually carries pistols with optics on them, I have not found that they cause any issues whatsoever with concealment or printing. Thicker slides and frames and longer grips are what usually hurt concealment.

CoalTrain49 · Oct 9, 2022

I think I'll take my leave of this debate. If you think the RDS will save you in a SD situation then by all means buy one and train with it. I have several, just not on my EDC.

Some facts to consider before I bug out.

Data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University suggests bystanders stop active attacks about 16% of the time, although typically without using a gun.

From 2000 to 2021, ALERRT researchers studied 464 attacks (434 shootings, 23 knife attacks and seven vehicle attacks) and found civilians — including security guards and off-duty police officers — stopped attackers before police arrived on 73 occasions. In the vast majority of those cases (67%), bystanders subdued the assailant using physical force.

An armed civilian stopped attacks by shooting the suspect in 24 of the 464 attacks recorded, about 5% of all events.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/

So your odds are about 20 to 1. Beyond 10 yards probably a lot worse than that. Roll the dice.

bigger hammer · Oct 9, 2022

CoalTrain49 said:
I think I'll take my leave of this debate. If you think the RDS will save you in a SD situation then by all means buy one and train with it. I have several, just not on my EDC.

Some facts to consider before I bug out.

Data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University suggests bystanders stop active attacks about 16% of the time, although typically without using a gun.

From 2000 to 2021, ALERRT researchers studied 464 attacks (434 shootings, 23 knife attacks and seven vehicle attacks) and found civilians — including security guards and off-duty police officers — stopped attackers before police arrived on 73 occasions. In the vast majority of those cases (67%), bystanders subdued the assailant using physical force.

An armed civilian stopped attacks by shooting the suspect in 24 of the 464 attacks recorded, about 5% of all events.

[Emphasis is mine]

Click to expand...

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/

So your odds are about 20 to 1. Beyond 10 yards probably a lot worse than that. Roll the dice.

Sorry to see you go. Especially in light of this report from Fox News, just last night.

A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) argues that the FBI's data contains "massive errors" when tracking active shooting incidents, undercounting how often armed citizens have thwarted active-shooting situations over the last eight years.

Data released by the nonprofit shows that 34.4% of active shootings were thwarted by armed citizens between 2014 and 2021. However, FBI data show only 4.4% of active shootings were thwarted by armed citizens during that time period.

[Emphases are mine] https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-unde...ens-thwarted-active-shooting-incidents-report

Part of the problem is how the FBI defines "active shooters."

The definition of an active shooter by the FBI is “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” That definition conveniently does not include crimes such as robberies or gang-related incidents along with other criminal activities.

[Emphasis is mine] https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/1...a-reportedly-contains-massive-errors-1292530/

The FBI has changed from being the foremost investigative law enforcement agency in the world into a political machine, highly biased for the libs. It's not surprising that they'd downplay the role that average, every‒day civilians play in this.

Rather than the 5% that CoalTrain49 cited, the ACTUAL figure is over 30% of the time it's civilians who stop active shooters. I'll "Roll the dice" with that knowledge. And realize that unless you're on top of the active shooter when he goes active, chances are that your shot will be at a longer distance than average. GOOD to train at the longer distances as well as the short ones. BETTER to do this regularly. BEST to have the equipment that will allow you to do this with the least fuss.

While you think about this, Here are 10 times legal gun owners recently thwarted crimes in life-threatening situations

Styx · Oct 10, 2022

CoalTrain49 said:
I think I'll take my leave of this debate. If you think the RDS will save you in a SD situation then by all means buy one and train with it. I have several, just not on my EDC.

Some facts to consider before I

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/

So your odds are about 20 to 1. Beyond 10 yards probably a lot worse than that. Roll the dice.

I don't pay to much attention to random anecdotal satistics. What I give more weight to is person real life experience and the first hand experience of experienced shooters. The concensus is overwhelmingly that optics are faster, easier, and allows for more accuracy vs irons especially while on the move.

Then when I look at the times and differences in competitive shooting where players are shooting in somewhat real life type of distances and situations. The proof is in the pudding that optics are faster and quality optics hold up.

Balrog · Oct 10, 2022

bigger hammer said:
Thanks for your post. I found the same thing and thought the same thing when I first put a RDS on my Glock 19. I'm not gonna go into details but I'm a fairly good shooter. I've been at it for a long time and have taken dozens of classes, I used to compete and I've been an instructor for a long time.

But when I put the RDS on my handgun and started shooting with it, all I had learned was for naught. I could not reliably find the dot when I brought the pistol up to my eye. Sometimes it was there and sometimes it wasn't.

I thought I'd fallen prey to a scam perpetrated by those who sell these tools. And so I made some calls to people who had recommended me the system. I should have realized that since this was a significantly different sighting system, what I knew about irons did not transfer to the use of the RDS. Thankfully I'm not The Lone Ranger on this. A couple of experienced shooter/instructors have written and made videos that discuss having this same thing happen to them. Colion Noir comes quickly to mind. He got professional instruction to help him with the transition, and now he carries with a RDS at least part of the time.

I had to modify my draw stroke and grip slightly to make the dot appear reliably. After making those modifications and practicing it for a while, the dot appeared reliably for over 1,000 dry fire draws. That's when I decided that I knew the method enough to start carrying my RDS equipped gun. But now I'm faster and more accurate than with irons.

It probably will not "get better" unless you find the key to finding the dot. Fortunately, it's easy, both to find that information and then to put it into effect. I'd suggest looking up Modern Samurai Project, Scott Jedlinski, on YouTube and looking for his videos on finding the dot on the draw. He gives away that info for free.

That hasn't been my experience, or those of my students. Many instructors now run RDS only classes where they teach students how to ensure that the dot appears in the window on every draw. Like virtually every change in guns gear, methods or stance, it will require learning some new skills and modifications in using old skills. I get the some aren't willing to put in the time or trouble. They don't want to spend the money to take classes. But, as I pointed out, the information is available for free.

I'm confused. You say you're "not a sheep dog" (I think that you're using "sheep dog" to mean LE ‒ please correct me if I'm wrong on this). And you say that you "don't expect someone to come to [your] defense …"

So, in this hypothetical, you're going to defend yourself and your family, how are you going to do that if you "would not engage … at 40 yards?" Do you plan to wait until he gets closer? If he's got a rifle, he can shoot at you from that distance. Even if he doesn't, if he shoots at you or your family, he might get lucky. Don't you think that you'd be better off engaging him, before that happens?

Stats tell us that for trained people, distance is our friend. Those who train are more accurate, especially at longer distances, than those who do not, and few of these people train much, if at all. If you wait until he's closer, you're giving up this advantage. Often people with absolutely no training can deliver accurate fire at very close distances. If you let him get closer, he's going to be more able to deliver hits on you and your family, so you're better off engaging him at the longer distance. Every step he takes towards you, his advantage grows. At what distance will you "defend [your] family?"

If shooter is 40 yards and not engaging me directly, I would use that distance to escape if possible. Not try to make a 40 yd shot with a compact pistol. And I certainly would not try and reduce the distance to engage.

bigger hammer · Oct 11, 2022

Balrog said:
If shooter is 40 yards and not engaging me directly, I would use that distance to escape if possible.

"Try[ing] to escape" might get you shot in the back as you fled. You're at 40 yards now. Even with irons he can easily get hits out to 100 yards, on a human. If he's got any kind of optic, he can get hits at even greater distances.

Balrog said:
Not try to make a 40 yd shot with a compact pistol.

If you had a RDS your accuracy "with a compact pistol" would not be any different than with a full size gun. It DOES make a significant difference to your accuracy with irons due to the shorter sight radius of the compact. But with a RDS that is irrelevant. You're just as accurate as with a full size pistol.

Balrog said:
And I certainly would not try and reduce the distance to engage.

No need to with a RDS, 40 yards is not that difficult a shot. At the end of my day at the range I will spend a few extra minutes engaging steel at 100 yards. From a rest, I'm at about 90%. 40 yards, from a rest, with an RDS is virtually a sure thing if you can make 100 yard shots.

I could not sleep if I tried to escape and that shooter went on to kill others. But I still have the protector gene alive and well in me. I got paid for 30 years to be a "sheep dog," and I've still got the instinct, even tho I've retired.

There's a good chance that if you're in his presence at 40 yards, and he's already killed/ injured some bystanders, that your opportunity to do the "run and hide" part of "run ‒ hide ‒ fight" has passed. If you don't take him out, you're high on the list. The time to "fight" has arrived.

I realize that the chance of being caught in an active shooter situation is less than that of being struck by lightning. But I'd bet that you don't go out in thunderstorms holding a golf club high, over your head.

Styx · Oct 11, 2022

bigger hammer said:
"Try[ing] to escape" might get you shot in the back as you fled. You're at 40 yards now. Even with irons he can easily get hits out to 100 yards, on a human. If he's got any kind of optic, he can get hits at even greater distances.

If you had a RDS your accuracy "with a compact pistol" would not be any different than with a full size gun. It DOES make a significant difference to your accuracy with irons due to the shorter sight radius of the compact. But with a RDS that is irrelevant. You're just as accurate as with a full size pistol.

No need to with a RDS, 40 yards is not that difficult a shot. At the end of my day at the range I will spend a few extra minutes engaging steel at 100 yards. From a rest, I'm at about 90%. 40 yards, from a rest, with an RDS is virtually a sure thing if you can make 100 yard shots.

I could not sleep if I tried to escape and that shooter went on to kill others. But I still have the protector gene alive and well in me. I got paid for 30 years to be a "sheep dog," and I've still got the instinct, even tho I've retired.

There's a good chance that if you're in his presence at 40 yards, and he's already killed/ injured some bystanders, that your opportunity to do the "run and hide" part of "run ‒ hide ‒ fight" has passed. If you don't take him out, you're high on the list. The time to "fight" has arrived.

I realize that the chance of being caught in an active shooter situation is less than that of being struck by lightning. But I'd bet that you don't go out in thunderstorms holding a golf club high, over your head.

Seems like you use a bunch of made up, worse case scenario, improbable, anecdotal, "what ifs" to support your arguments. When it comes to being 40 yards away in what I assume is not in wide open field flat field where you are the fixated target, it's more than reasonable probable that most will have a chance of escaping or at least finding cover.

As to whether to pull your handgun and engage an active shooter when you have a chance to flee to safety, that's a personal decision that I don't fault OR lecture anyone on either way. I carry for my own personal protection and to protect my loved ones. I don't carry to protect everyone else around me or within a 40 to 100 yard radius.

Decisions have consequences. Others made the conscious decision to NOT purchase a firearm, invest in training and ammo, and/or to legally be able to carry. They didn't care enough about their own safety nor did they take it seriously. Because they failed to prepare, now I am supposed to risk my life and my family's well-being. My family comes first and I am the bread winner. I am not going to put my children and family through emotional, mental, and financial hardship that will affect the rest of their lives trying to be a hero. I respect those who feel differently though.

It's a personal decision that each person has to make for themselves and their own situation. Even still, some people who virtue signal that they will engage will do the exact opposite when reality hits, and others who say they wouldn't will. You never know until you're in that situation.

ColoradoMinuteMan · Oct 11, 2022

starling said:
I have a spare upper that I have one mounted on for range fun if I want something different. I am much faster and more natural with open sights though.

I certainly mean no offense, but I'm having a hard time getting onboard with the term "upper" as a description of semi-automatic handgun slides.

Styx · Oct 11, 2022

ColoradoMinuteMan said:
I certainly mean no offense, but I'm having a hard time getting onboard with the term "upper" as a description of semi-automatic handgun slides.

The Glockodile · Oct 11, 2022

ColoradoMinuteMan said:
I certainly mean no offense, but I'm having a hard time getting onboard with the term "upper" as a description of semi-automatic handgun slides.

Don' worry!

Th' "bottom mettle" on mah Tikkah's done plastick!

's all reluhtive!

Innerest youse inna clip? :rofl:

Balrog · Oct 12, 2022

bigger hammer said:
"Try[ing] to escape" might get you shot in the back as you fled. You're at 40 yards now. Even with irons he can easily get hits out to 100 yards, on a human. If he's got any kind of optic, he can get hits at even greater distances.

If you had a RDS your accuracy "with a compact pistol" would not be any different than with a full size gun. It DOES make a significant difference to your accuracy with irons due to the shorter sight radius of the compact. But with a RDS that is irrelevant. You're just as accurate as with a full size pistol.

No need to with a RDS, 40 yards is not that difficult a shot. At the end of my day at the range I will spend a few extra minutes engaging steel at 100 yards. From a rest, I'm at about 90%. 40 yards, from a rest, with an RDS is virtually a sure thing if you can make 100 yard shots.

I could not sleep if I tried to escape and that shooter went on to kill others. But I still have the protector gene alive and well in me. I got paid for 30 years to be a "sheep dog," and I've still got the instinct, even tho I've retired.

There's a good chance that if you're in his presence at 40 yards, and he's already killed/ injured some bystanders, that your opportunity to do the "run and hide" part of "run ‒ hide ‒ fight" has passed. If you don't take him out, you're high on the list. The time to "fight" has arrived.

I realize that the chance of being caught in an active shooter situation is less than that of being struck by lightning. But I'd bet that you don't go out in thunderstorms holding a golf club high, over your head.

I disagree, but am OK if that's what you think. We may have a fundamental difference in the reasons why we carry.

starling · Oct 12, 2022

ColoradoMinuteMan said:
I certainly mean no offense, but I'm having a hard time getting onboard with the term "upper" as a description of semi-automatic handgun slides.

Full/complete slide, barrel, recoil spring assembly. Thats what I am referring to. Any of those things get mixed and matched and you can run into issues in terms of accuracy and/or reliability. Maybe there is a better term for it that I am not aware of. Its the upper half of the pistol.

bigger hammer · Oct 12, 2022

Styx said:
Seems like you use a bunch of made up, worse case scenario, improbable, anecdotal, "what ifs" to support your arguments.

I'll assume you're referring to my "40 yard" question, based on the mall shooting in Indiana where Mr. Dicken stopped an active shooter by shooting him. That's hardly "made up [or] anecdotal" Some of the situations I've proposed are hypothetical. And of course they're "worst case,"" I believe that one should "hope for the best but prepare for the worst." They're "improbable" because active shooter situations are "improbable." That's why I wrote, "I realize that the chance of being caught in an active shooter situation is less than that of being struck by lightning." Nonetheless, they happen and when they do, the time to prepare has passed.

Styx said:
When it comes to being 40 yards away in what I assume is not in wide open field flat field where you are the fixated target, it's more than reasonable probable that most will have a chance of escaping or at least finding cover.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the hypothetical because you think it's "more than reasonable" that some other situation will be the case. In the proposed situation, you do not "have a chance of escaping, or at least finding cover." If you want to play, you have to accept the situation as being as stated. What you've said about the hypothetical is commonly called "begging the question." You don't like what's been proposed so you decide that the situation is something other than what has been proposed.

Styx said:
As to whether to pull your handgun and engage an active shooter when you have a chance to flee to safety, that's a personal decision that I don't fault OR lecture anyone on either way.

Me either. But in the hypothetical, there was no "chance to flee to safety." You changed that and then dismissed the question.

Styx said:
I carry for my own personal protection and to protect my loved ones. I don't carry to protect everyone else around me or within a 40 to 100 yard radius.

I get it. And that's perfectly acceptable. But still, you've modified the hypothetical, rather than to simply answer it. I get why some may be uncomfortable with it, but that's the situation you're in, if you decide to take part in that part of the discussion, changing the question is disingenuous.

Styx said:
Decisions have consequences. Others made the conscious decision to NOT purchase a firearm, invest in training and ammo, and/or to legally be able to carry. They didn't care enough about their own safety nor did they take it seriously. Because they failed to prepare, now I am supposed to risk my life and my family's well-being. My family comes first and I am the bread winner. I am not going to put my children and family through emotional, mental, and financial hardship that will affect the rest of their lives trying to be a hero. I respect those who feel differently though.

Me too. That's why, when I wrote the hypothetical, I added this,

Just so I can get an idea of where you're coming from with this part of the discussion, would you have taken that shot(s)? … But I'd not think less of another person if he would not …

But instead of taking the situation as it occurred, you've modified it because you don't like the thought that you might be trapped in the open and potentially taking fire from someone with a rifle. That allowed you to duck out of the question, "… would you have taken that shot?" rather than simply answer it.

Styx said:
It's a personal decision that each person has to make for themselves and their own situation. Even still, some people who virtue signal that they will engage will do the exact opposite when reality hits, and others who say they wouldn't will. You never know until you're in that situation.

Some of us have already made that decision. YOU may not know what YOU'LL do, OTOH, I do. Waiting until a situation occurs AND THEN making up one's mind, often results in the "freeze" part of "fight or flight." That's about the worst thing that one can do when facing an active shooter.

So the question still stands. You ARE in danger from the gunman, would you take that shot?

Red Dots-Who Wears Them On Their EDC Pistols?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads