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.