Lasers on pistols. Good? Not good? your thoughts?

[BuckeyeScopeCo]

Hello. I'm new on here. I'd like to ask folks if yall prefer to have lasers mounted on your pistols? If so, what kind? What color (Green or red). Does it really help you or is it just more for the asthetics? Does it make you complacent and rely on the laser instead of using the sights?

 

[Skribs]

I don't have a lazer, because I have deemed it to be only helpful in the situation that you are indoors and can't use your sights. Outdoors you will have a hard time finding it if it is not already on target, and if you can use your sights you might as well use those.

 

[silicosys4]

IMO, Lasers are for hollywood and airsoft. For a handgun, I think a tactical light is much more effective. If you really want to be able to make quick, solid hits without looking down the sights, invest in some ammo and practice point-shooting.

 

[Magoo]

I bought a pistol that had a set of Crimson Traces on it. I figured I might as well try 'em out. I ended up selling the CTs and putting on the factory panels. And this is on a gun that has "no sights" (Colt New Agent). I shoot it better without that distracting dot moving around on the target.

It was midly entertaining to watch (or try to watch) muzzle flip and return to target when buddies shot it though. And if I had a cat I might've kept it .

 

[threefortyduster]

If I could afford the CTs, I would probably get them for my snub nose. Much easier in case of a point and shoot situation you can get some sort of idea where you're aiming. Not much of a fan of laser lyte or any of the others that you would have to make a dedicated movement to turn them on though.

 

[browningguy]

Lasers are only good if you want to have an advantage in a gun fight.

Want to be able to get on target without leaving cover? Get a laser.

Want to get on target and pull the trigger faster? Get a laser.

It's a technological advantage that can't hurt but can really help. That's why they are banned in all the shooting competitions, they are faster and more accurate than iron sights. I have pistols with and without, but my HD gun and car gun have them.

 

[Smith357]

On a range toy they are fine, but I would not bet my life on glass or batteries on a combat weapon.

 

[Sam1911]

They can be a useful training tool for dryfire practice. Being able to keep that dot perfectly still (on the wall) as you pull through the trigger is like a high-tech version of the "dime" drill.

They can be useful for officers using shields where they cannot get the gun up into their line of sight, or even properly shoot from retention.

Otherwise, they are a whole lot less useful than the advertising makes them out to be.

I have a friend who did a very long-term, very scientific test of shooters of various skill levels as they learned and trained and used their handguns, both with traditional sights and with lasers. The laser-equipped were never able to get even somewhat close to either the speed or rapidity of accurate aimed fire as they could with iron-sighted weapons.

It has to do with the process by which we learn to see the front sight imposed on the target, and are able to track it as it returns to the target. The "bouncing ball" of the laser sight goes way off track during recoil (because it is at the end of an infinite line the angle of which is sweeping through many degrees of arc rather than a fixed object on the end of the slide, no farther away than the end of your reach). That has shooters NOT seeing "front sight, press, front sight, press" but peering over and around their sights trying to locate that little red dot on Mr. Bad Guy (or the wall behind him...).

Some shooters feel that the laser helps them aim "difficult" guns better, or shoot under conditions they otherwise could not. But these are, generally speaking, training issues that the laser cannot truly solve.

 

[Sam1911]

That's why they are banned in all the shooting competitions, they are faster and more accurate than iron sights.

Said with the best of heart, that's utter hogwash! I've been begging IDPA to allow them because it would be quite a telling thing to have a few more experimental types bring them out ... probably just once -- and I'd be willing to be that within the first year after they were made legal for competition, sales would plummet. In my more conspiratorial moods I've often supposed that it was the laser manufacturers themselves that pushed to have them banned from competition. They do NOT want thousands of shooters losing matches with their products!

A weapon using a laser sight cannot be drawn and fired accurately NEARLY as fast as an iron sighted gun. And when firing aimed rapid fire, the distance between the systems just gets that much worse.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Any carry or HD gun I own has a laser on it. There are some things only a laser can do. There are some things point shooting can do faster which means better. Iron sights are better outdoors in daylight but I think you have to concede that there is a real likely possibility that a self defense situation could happen at night. Its not a magic wand and you need to shoot as many shots in practice with iron sights as with your laser. You need to develop skills at point shooting and the laser will compliment that. There are times where irons will be a faster choice than the laser. Something to keep in mind is if this board existed in the 1800s there would be posts complaining about those new fangled cartridges and they would never last. After shooting a recent night 3 gun competition Michael Bane has been ranting on how important a laser is.

 

[dnilson]

I have a crimson trace on one of my Glocks and on one of my revolvers. I don't use them that much, because I don't want to get too used to using them...in case the battery dies when I really need it. Plus, I also don't want to get lazy by relying on them. However, I do like them. I especially like the one on my Glock. Each model of gun has a specific type of crimson trace and the one on my Glock wraps around the backstrap and is activated by gripping the gun. Also, this Glock is my primary carry gun. In the event that I ever have to pull my weapon on someone at night, it's still more accurate, not to mention more intimidating than not having it.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I don't think lasers would be much use in most shooting competitions particularly in anything with plates. Its going to be very hard finding that red dot with an open field behind it. Besides they are already using red dots there and I think red dots are the killer ap for this kind of shooting.

 

[dnilson]

To the person who mentioned the scientific study, I would be VERY interested in seeing that study. As a physician with a Masters Degree in epidemiology and study design, I'd be interested in seeing how the protocol was designed, how the participants were selected, how the outcomes were determined, etc. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I buy it. FYI, I RARELY use my own laser because I DON'T want to get lazy and lose my skills.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Hello. I'm new on here. I'd like to ask folks if yall prefer to have lasers mounted on your pistols? If so, what kind? What color (Green or red). Does it really help you or is it just more for the asthetics? Does it make you complacent and rely on the laser instead of using the sights?

To answer the OP:
I prefer to have one mounted.
Crimson Trace are about as good as they get. I carry an Armalaser SB5 on my G26 and I've been using it for years. Its reliable, durable and gets good battery life.
Red lasers are generally preferred.
Is it needed is being argued in other posts.
It only makes you complacent if you let it. Unfortunately that means a lot of times it does, but it doesn't have to. I generally shoot 100 rounds a week, fifty with irons and 50 with the laser.

 

[19&41]

I own 3 handguns without lasers and 8 with lasers. I prefer Crimson Trace because of their ease of use and controllability. Their customer service is excellent also.

 

[SKILCZ]

I think for a SHTF scenario if you're injured, shooting from a weird position, shooting with your weak hand, shooting from behind cover, etc., the laser could be very helpful. That doesn't mean I rely on it for routine shooting or even self defense. But if the chips are down and I'm injured or in a situation where I can't rely on sights, I'd rather have the option of a laser than not, especially given how small and light they now are. But I wouldn't use it as a crutch to replace normal training.

 

[Cosmoline]

I shoot it better without that distracting dot moving around on the target.

That's also been my experience. I have given CT the old college try a few times now, and I keep coming back to that fact. I shoot much, much better with the thing switched off. And more importantly I'm able to shoot much FASTER without having to focus on the little dot. Beyond a few feet they're of almost no use, and inside that range I don't really need them anyway.

The only real uses I can see for one are in training a newbie in gun safety (ie imagine there's a laser coming out of the barrel and you can't let it move outside a cone from the bench). And I suppose for someone who is just not understanding aiming concepts.

 

[BSA1]

They sure would be useful in a darken movie theater.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

For shooters that aren't sharpshooters the laser can provide a point of aim and can quickly tell him/her where to put their target. Some people like them and some don't. I personally don't even own one but it really depends on the person. The BG380 is garbage though, stay away from that gun.

 

[Sam1911]

To the person who mentioned the scientific study, I would be VERY interested in seeing that study. As a physician with a Masters Degree in epidemiology and study design, I'd be interested in seeing how the protocol was designed, how the participants were selected, how the outcomes were determined, etc. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I buy it. FYI, I RARELY use my own laser because I DON'T want to get lazy and lose my skills.

That is not my work and I do not believe it has been published anywhere, so I won't be more specific in public. Send me a PM and I can put you in touch with one of the researchers who did that work.

 

[Sam1911]

It only makes you complacent if you let it.

It would be hard to get complacent about a tool that makes you slower.

As Cosmoline said, beyond a few feet they are difficult to use (where DID that tiny bouncing ball go, anyway?) and inside a few feet you do not need it (or sights, for that matter) at all.

I've done night shoot training and you can shoot a lot better than you'd think with very little light. A laser MIGHT be helpful to make a longer range shot at night, but your ability to identify and discern targets drops off enough in the dark that you're rarely concerned with a very long range shot. Whether or not you can see your sights -- or at least the silhouette of the gun -- is a fairly good indicator of whether or not you should be firing your weapon at a target not directly upon you.

Something to keep in mind is if this board existed in the 1800s there would be posts complaining about those new fangled cartridges and they would never last.

Yeah, and the same thing could be said about "Trounds" and the Gyro-Jet. Some things are proved beneficial, some are abandoned. Some are too "cool" to fail, even though they're less useful than advertised.

After shooting a recent night 3 gun competition Michael Bane has been ranting on how important a laser is.

Who? [EDIT: Oh, the TV guy. Ok, so the TV guy says it's the cat's meow.]

Another thing to consider, regarding the idea that new shooters may make hits more easily with lasers: The laser may be easier to put onto the target than a normal sight picture. I don't feel that it really is, but let's say this is so. It does not make it easier to HOLD on target and does nothing to give you good trigger control which is the actual reason new shooters miss. It isn't that they can't put their sights on target! It's a "fix" for the part of the process that's not hard to begin with.

 

[sargents1]

I bought a Streamlight TLR4 which is a light/laser combo. I bought it because it was relatively cheap @ 120$ ish which is about the same as the original TLR1 (light only).

After having it for a while, I dont really think the laser is all that necessary. THe light is a good idea, but remember: Any time you use a weapon mounted light, you are muzzling anything you are shining the flashlight on. So be careful with WMLs.

If money is tight, you are well served by using a hand-held flashlight in one hand with a rope lanyard and a pistol in the other hand.

If money is less of an issue, get a good handheld flashlight And a weapon mounted light/laser. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

One can imagine a situation where a laser is useful, but if you are talking a typical Bump-in-the-night home-defense situation, chances are you are going to be at Bad-Breath distance (or damn near to it) and hitting the target wont be all that hard.

Making a positive identificaion on the target is always important though.

I go back and forth on this myself in my head.
- (Laser good)A laser lets you keep you gun in a close-to-body retention position while still letting you aim effectively.

- (Laser bad) A laser also gives your position away in some circumstances.

- (Laser good)There is a potential Intimidation Factor associated with a laser dot appearing on Mr. Home Invader's chest.

- (Laser bad) Night sights are more sturdy and they work Just fine - as does point shooting (at across the room distances anyway).

In the end, I figured I was best served by having it there on my nightstand gun. Its another tool to have in my quiver and I can use it if I want/need to or I can ignore it. YMMV

 

[Geo47]

I have over 20 handguns, collected over 20 years in law enforcement. Right now I'm in the process of mounting Crimson Traces on ALL my carry guns (as my budget allows). With iron sights, I shoot as well as anyone, and I think better than most cops. Still, the improvement with lasers is ASTOUNDING. The bullet lands right where the dot is at the sighted-in distance, and no more than an inch or two off at different ranges. And you can focus on the target, not on the front sight.

To those who say it's hard to pick up the dot: Where are you looking? The dot falls where the weapon is pointing! Close to where the sights are lined up, if you happen to be looking down the sights. And if you're practicing good gun handling, it's stock-still, not "bouncing" around!

Worried about it failing in a gunfight? YOU STILL HAVE YOUR IRON SIGHTS! Worry about stoppages instead.

 

[barneyrw]

On a range toy they are fine, but I would not bet my life on glass or batteries on a

Our troops do it every day in Iraq & Afgahnistan, not lasers but certainly "glass & Batteries".
Like an earlier post said, a laser would have been great in that movie theater in Colorado for a head shot from a pocket gun in a dark, smoke filled theater.

 

[tarosean]

Our troops do it every day in Iraq & Afgahnistan, not lasers but certainly "glass & Batteries".

Most civilians dont have access to armories, to repair and replace as needed.