Pistol optics have officially arrived

[NeverEnoughFDE]

While the idea of technology replacing training should always be considered generally tenuous, those special reticle Primary Arms red dots really are a shortcut to minimum proficiency with RDS in my opinion. Pretty much impossible to lose the center. And at closer range, red = hit.

But c-more footprint...***?

 

[Crosshair]

They used to say the same about optics on rifles.

Because it was true for the optics of the day. Small eye boxes, small FoV, eye relief that shifted significantly with magnification changes, poor low light performance, loss of zero, etc.

Sure the old Leupold scopes were solid and still fetch good prices used. That's not what most people were using though. Scopes eventually got good enough though where that adage no longer applied.

Just like people laugh at how some said the iPhone wouldn't catch on. Forgetting that the initial iPhone and iOS was pretty poor even by the standards of the day. It was only when it massively improved did it catch on.

The reservations people have with RMRs are more towards issues with their fundamental usability in high stress environments. The durability is still a concern though.

 

[Crosshair]

That's a training issue and good Lord, I would hope a cop (carrying a pistol with an optic or otherwise) would be shooting a lot more than once a year.

They're not. That's the problem.

 

[Rodfac]

The handgun RDS has an accuracy advantage over handgun metallic sights at distance. What that distance is, depends on your ability and your eyesight. For the competent shooter, it starts at 25 YARDS. That shooter can accurately aim and fire with an RDS-equipped handgun faster at 25 yards and beyond. For the "less skilled", that distance might be much closer.

However, the RDS is slower and less reliable than metallic sights, at the distances typically encountered in self-defense and LE shootings with handguns. The median distance is between 10-20 FEET. The RDS offers no advantages, and several notable disadvantage, especially in speed and accuracy in kill-or-be-killed fights inside 30 feet. Finding that dot repeatedly within the relevant close distance in 3 seconds or less is not happening without teh amount of regular and repeated training, which LEO does not get.

The typical LEO in the US gets one (1) week of firearms training at the academy, and re-qualifies once (1x) a year. That is not nearly enough time to be competent with that system, and the street results show it: many many more incidents of unsighted mag dumps, and plummeting hit percentages in actual the street shootings. Fun fact: If they can't find the dot, they are just gonna keeping yanking that trigger fast until the target reacts, which is usually during the reload from the mag dump. All those rounds are going somewhere, and mostly not where intended.

BTW...since most LEO start out in their early 20s and finish up by 50... the "aging eyes" argument doesn't hold much water. If you can't see the sights and hit a human-sized target 70% of the time at 30 feet, it's time to retire.

So the questions is, what point does the RDS offer for practical LE or self-defense work? That answer is, nothing at all. The RDS craze is driven by three phenomena: 1) Industry needs to sell new guns and accessories, 2) ex-.mil types - where the average engagement distance is 100 yards - influencing out of their lane, and 3) LE management wanting to spend less time on firearms training, making it easier for officers and especially recruits to qualify on a known time and distance course of fire. Note that "qualification" does not equal real-world competence, it is merely a legal liability standard.

The typical LEO in the US gets one (1) week of firearms training at the academy, and re-qualifies once (1x) a year. That is not nearly enough time to be competent with that system, and the street results show it: many many more incidents of unsighted mag dumps, and plummeting hit percentages in actual the street shootings. Fun fact: If they can't find the dot, they are just gonna keeping yanking that trigger fast until the target reacts, which is usually during the reload from the mag dump. All those rounds are going somewhere, and mostly not where intended.

In my 30+ years of LE firearms instructor work, most of it as principal firearms instructor for my agency, on the whole the revolver trained LEOs were better shots. Mostly because firearms training was more of a priority then, and also because they the they had to make the hits count as less rounds were available in the weapon, and reloading was slower. The pistol is an excellent tool, but which requires just as much training to be disciplined and effective. The RDS is a step backwards.

PS. Making popcorn while waiting for all the RDS sycophants to chime in with their meaningless competition and square-range stats, from quasi-professional shooters who spend every week shooting hundreds of rounds through the same RDS gun.

PPS. RDS on rifles is an entirely different animal than a handgun. There is no comparison in speed, repeatability and consistency between 4 points of contact when shooting a rifle, and 1 point of contact with a handgun (2 hands in one place is 1 point of contact).

Well said Boom.

For me, as a civilian, IMHO, optics on a handgun hinder concealed carry with their add'l bulk & weight, while offering questionable usefulness inside 15 yds in defensive applications. Beyond that distance, as a civilian, the probability that I'll need an optic's supposed increased accuracy, is greatly diminished.

For me, a handgun's historic usefulness is portability w/concealability, offering immediate access to lethal defensive power, & all at a moment's notice. The added bulk of an optic hinders concealability, without improving the percentage of close in defensive hits. I just don't see the addition of an optical device....again, inside 15 yds, improving any of those attributes and may in fact diminish some.

For those who follow the handgun competitive games, they will probably, if not already, redefine the competitive gun and offer some advantage....as they did 40+ years ago in Bullseye competition.

But their use in competitive sports, doesn't necessarily equate to improvements for defensive civilian use. And too, for hunting, range fun, or recreational plinking...some will find an optic a welcome addition to their hobby; it's an individual's choice for sure. Just not for me.

Best regards, Rod
(BTW, I have one of the "Romeo" RD's on my M4 look-alike AR and like it...but then it's a carbine for farm varmint dissuasion, and I'm not trying to hide it under my shirt tail, nor stuffed down my crotch. I'll also add, that I'd have loved having an RD Romeo on the CAR-15 I carried 50+ years ago.)

 

[Old Dog]

Another THR thread that is proof positive that most of those posting do not read, comprehend nor refer to previous posts in the thread.

 

[JDeere]

Another THR thread that is proof positive that most of those posting do not read, comprehend nor refer to previous posts in the thread.

Happens all the time don't it...As far as dots, you either do or you don't. I was in that I don't need no stinking dot until I tried one and learned the ins and outs...

 

[bluejeans]

I’m not crazy about them but started using a rds because of eye issues. Without glasses I’m faster with iron sights but with glasses a dot is better. Proficient either way . It’s all a matter of training; use whatever tickles your fancy just put in enough time to use it well.

Came here to say… one advantage of the dot which I haven’t seen commented on it that it eliminates sight radius limitations. I read comments about accuracy between the two equalizing at 10-25 yards but I assume that would be on a duty sized gun. A dot on a micro 9 (like a P365) gives it the same (theoretical) accuracy as a full size at 50 yards which would not be possible to achieve with irons. Because of this is see a dot a being very relevant to small carry guns

 

[Walkalong]

Dots are hands down faster, and easy to see vs blurry irons if the eyesight ain't so good anymore. They don't take a lot of training to master.

Embrace the horror!

 

[Big-bore-bob]

I recently purchased my first ever red dot for a pistol ( or rifle for that matter). My purpose was to get faster for uspsa competition. I've been gun Amish my entire life and hated the idea having a battery powered gun ( although I can co-witness with my setup). I have about 400 rounds down range with the dot and I can say for sure its faster/ more accurate on the draw and target transitions. My draw to first round hit is consistently at 1.3 seconds. I see getting even faster is easily possible with the dot. I won't transition all my handguns to red dots but I'm now a believer in the dot!

 

[Rexster]

My problem with a red dot optical sight is my eyes’ astigmatism, which causes dots to flare. This results in less-than-desirable accuracy potential. My latest eyeglasses offer some small amount of improvement. Really, a red dot optic is most helpful when I am not wearing my eyeglasses at all, and so would be unable to aim effectively with iron sights, in which case the illumibnated dot provides some amount of useful visual reference. Astigmatism, in my case, actually causes many different small, bright, round dots to flare, even some white painted dots, that were popular on iron sights for a while, and fiber optic inserts.

The Trijicon RMR, with the tritium-“powered” green triangle, works much better than a dot for me, but only in specific lighting conditions, so, it is at its best as a supplemental sight on a long gun.

The best handgun optic set-up, for my eyes, that I have found, thus far, is an Aimpoint ACRO, with the back-up rear irons in front of the optic. I have such a slide, for the Glock G45, which I can use on my G19x. The name of the company that milled the slide escapes me, at the moment, but it is/was one of the very best, doing that work, at the time. Do I actually dress around this mailbox-atop-a-blocky-Glock? Well, no. The rear of a Glock slide is already difficult to dress-around, because that is the part that is mostly likely to bulge against the drape of whatever cover garment I am wearing. Unless it is raincoat weather, this is an open-carry proposition, or, at best, mere “casual concealment.” (The slightly shorter grip of a G19 would NOT solve mitigate the concealment problem, because I have no trouble concealing the grip of the full-duty-sized weapon. Plus, shorter-gripped pistols have starting really aggravating my right hand/wrist arthritis.)

So, an optic, on a handgun, has its place, in my world, but not really on my daily defensive concealed carry weapon. In some conditions, I would want an optic on an “offensive pistol.” (Sometimes, especially when defending family members, or people in our care, we must move to contact.)

I retired from big-city LEO-ing six years ago, so, have never had an opportunity to sit, fully-geared-up with a red-dot-optic duty pistol, inside one of those infernal Ford Explorer-based coffins that were labeled “Police Interceptor,” so, cannot say whether I would want to use a red dot optic, in that environment. I wonder whether there would be enough space between the optic and the mobile computer terminal, while seated on the driver’s side, to avoid the feeling that I was wedged into a sardine can. (I wore the same 34” duty belt size, my entire career, so, being a “big guy” was not the problem.) A fraction of an inch can make a difference; when I rode on the passenger side of the newer Fords, in those final months of my career, I carried a G19 in my duty holster, rather than a G17, because the right seat bolster would tend to resist my effort to bail-out in the hurry, when wearing a G17. Crown Vics, and especially the police package Tahoe, were nicely roomy; one of the several things that drove me to retire, when I did, was having to start using the compact SUV-ish Fords in 2017.

I was not allowed to use an optic-equipped handgun, during my policing career, (sworn in early 1984; retired in early 2018) though I heard, a year or so after I retired, that the new hires were being started, in the academy, with RMR-equipped G17 duty pistols. (RM06, IIRC.) Presumably, as was the case when Weapon-Mounted-Lights were finally, eventually approved, it would be possible for line officers to attend a certification class to become authorized to use RMR-equipped duty pistols. Personally, an RM06 not being my eyes’ cup of tea, I would not have transitioned.

Edited to add: Conceptually, I am not opposed to optics on handguns, in case that was not clearly stated. It is a matter of my eyes’ compatibility with most of the available illuminated dots that I have tried. Plus, my eyes “want” big windows. An Aimpoint Micro, for example, would be an even better dot than the ACRO, for me, but that would relegate the weapon to “bag gun” carry.

 

[JDeere]

Dots are hands down faster, and easy to see vs blurry irons if the eyesight ain't so good anymore. They don't take a lot of training to master.

Embrace the horror!

Yep and my glasses take care of the astigmatism issue. Without my glasses I still have acceptable center mass accuracy with a little starburst. I use the 6 moa dot on a sd pistol. Of course that's just my preference and everybody is different...

 

[red rick]

My next pistol is going to be a MOS model , basically for plinking . I will see where it goes from there .

 

[Walkalong]

If your eyes are keeping you from shooting like you used to be able to, the dot will let you shoot to your potential again

 

[trackskippy]

My next pistol is going to be a MOS model , basically for plinking . I will see where it goes from there .

To the bank, and then the gun shops and internet shopping most likely.

If your eyes are keeping you from shooting like you used to be able to, the dot will let you shoot to your potential again

This is a big advantage that Im seeing more and more. At this point, with my eyes starting to go, and it seems to be accelerating, I wear safety/sunglasses with a cheater in the upper part of the lens on my strong eye, so I can have clear iron sights. Without it, I get a fuzzy orange blurr between two white ones. Still basically useable, but not the best.

I still shoot with and without the correction, so I can, should I have to, but the difference in hits, especially as the distance opens up, is more and more noticeable.

With the red dots, even with an astigmatism, the dot is always clear and easily picked up, and there is no need for correction. It may not be a perfectly round dot, but its still a very visible and shootable aiming point. And there is no alignment solution needed.

Its also always there regardless of the lighting conditions or the target background. Dark areas or targets that always seem to make iron sights and alignment disappear, arent an issue with the dots.

 

[red rick]

To the bank, and then the gun shops and internet shopping most likely.

I have pretty much made up my mind that I am going to get a Gen5 34 . I was leaning toward the PDP , but after renting both of them I shot the 34 better and I have a GSSF coupon , so that pretty much seals the deal and local purchase . I have been thinking about getting the Gen3 and getting the slide cut through .

 

[herrwalther]

All the major law enforcement agencies in my county went with red dots on firearms about 5 years ago. There are a handful of small towns that didn't, all because of budget. Some of the small towns are still catching up to body cameras though. A few of the oldest and most experienced officers have custom Nighthawk or Staccato 1911/2011s with red dots. Much nicer firearms than the Glock MOS default firearms.

 

[wally]

Recent season of SWAT TV show has them all in for optics on pistols, expect the "cool kids" to soon follow.

Co-witness provides a nice comfort factor, but at least in the beginning it can be counter productive because with a red dot you need to focus on the target and look thru the dot, if you focus on the dot you will generally have poor results. But this might be their best feature as when the bullets might be flying both ways it is damn hard to focus on the front sight instead of the threat!

My EDC Hellcat with red dot does co-witness, but the "comfortable" dot aiming hold has the front site not visible, but the co-witness is very helpful when adjusting zero.

 

[CraigC]

I've gone whole-hog on optics for hunting guns. Whether it's a red dot or a scope. Same reason I'm sitting here with reading glasses. Because my eyeballs ain't what they used to be. Gettin' old sucks.

 

[Peakbagger46]

Dots are hands down faster, and easy to see vs blurry irons if the eyesight ain't so good anymore. They don't take a lot of training to master.

Embrace the horror!
View attachment 1213744

They’re definitely more precise but slower than irons for close up dirty work like self defense. A flash sight picture doesn’t allow finding the dot in a little window. Unfortunately indexing the sights doesn’t work so well with a dot set up.

 

[trackskippy]

Up close, I dont find I shoot the gun any different with the dots than I do with the irons, my focus is on the target where I want to hit and Im not looking at the sights at all, just shooting over top of the gun.

If you have your presentations down, you already have the index and the dot will be there on the target where youre looking if you bring the gun up that high. If you present the gun lower, looking over the top of it, hold that, and then roll your head down slightly so you can see it, and I think you'll find the dot is on, or very close to where you were looking on the target when you presented the gun.

One thing Ive noticed now too with my iron sights, having been focused on getting the dot sights down these past 10 months or so, when I shoot my guns without the dots, Im finding I present the gun like I have been with the dots (as opposed to a more slightly "muzzle up" attitude looking for the front sight I was doing in the past with my irons) and my irons are pretty much dead on lined up when I get them on target.

And where the dot is a bit quicker there is, I don't need to fine tune anything as far as alignment goes, the dot is the alignment.

 

[CraigC]

They’re definitely more precise but slower than irons for close up dirty work like self defense. A flash sight picture doesn’t allow finding the dot in a little window. Unfortunately indexing the sights doesn’t work so well with a dot set up.

That's a training issue. If you're having to "find the dot", you're not training enough. Plus "up close" (depending on what that means), I probably wouldn't be using sights of any kind.

 

[theotherwaldo]

My right eye is far-sighted, with corneal scars astigmatism and a cataract.
My left eye is near-sighted with a detached retina.
I haven't had much success with red dot sights, especially since they are still too large for daily concealed carry in the heat of deep south Texas.
I've had to settle for internal laser sights.

 

[Walkalong]

They’re definitely more precise but slower than irons for close up dirty work like self defense. A flash sight picture doesn’t allow finding the dot in a little window. Unfortunately indexing the sights doesn’t work so well with a dot set up.

You can point shoot a pistol with optics just like one that doesn’t.

 

[Walkalong]

That's a training issue. If you're having to "find the dot", you're not training enough. Plus "up close" (depending on what that means), I probably wouldn't be using sights of any kind.

Yep

 

[Varminterror]

They’re definitely more precise but slower than irons for close up dirty work like self defense. A flash sight picture doesn’t allow finding the dot in a little window. Unfortunately indexing the sights doesn’t work so well with a dot set up.

This is so terribly far from reality as to be read as science fiction...

Acquiring the dot is as fast or faster than a "flash sight picture," and acquiring a target within the rough center of the window is even faster. The speed advantage in every application for RDS's has been well demonstrated and well documented for over 30 years.