That's great for you and for Aaron. I don't need to be dropping any of my guns on a regular basis to see if they'll break. I also don't need to fire magazine after magazine as fast as I can to make the gun hot enough to cook with.
Your post was a rather complete condemnation of RDSs based on
" time money and effort, and also a bad idea regarding … reliability." Aaron regularly demonstrates how reliable RDSs are, contrary to your opinion. Do you have any actual cases of one breaking such that it could not be used?
I remember when scope sights were coming on the scene for everyday use by hunters. There were grave warnings issued describing how fragile they were and how they'd not be there when the trophy
(fill in the animal of your choice here) stepped out of the tree line and you missed the shot of a lifetime! But now there are LOTS of hunting rifles out there that have scopes on them. While scopes have disadvantages (everything is a compromise ‒ right?) they were overcome by the benefits. I think the RDS is similar.
Of course, reliability isn't just a measure of how hard of a hit something can take. It also has to do with continuing to function under adverse conditions. With an RDS, the light emitter must continue to be powered, continue to be unobscured in order to project a dot, project it in the correct place relative to the barrel (meaning keep zero and not come loose), and the lens onto which it is projected must remain unobscured by whatever may come (blood, mud, snow, dirt, salsa, vomit, etc).
Much of this comment is DIRECTLY related to
"how hard of a hit something can take." The only part that was not, was about 'obscuring the emitter.' And there you're right. In some designs the emitter is protected from the things you mentioned,
"blood, mud, snow, [etc.]" so it's not an issue. But with the other designs the emitter is out there, in the open, inviting obstructions. But it's usually fairly easy to clear many of these obstructions. If it can't be done, the irons are still right there.
And let's not forget that iron sights can also be obstructed by the same objects that you mentioned.
I don't need the extra hassle or the extra questions about whether it will all function as intended when I need it most.
No body
"needs" a RDS. But many folks find them helpful, useful and FASTER AND MORE ACCURATE than irons, particularly those of us with certain vision issues, many of which come with age.
It's telling though that many LEAs are issuing handguns with RDS mounted on them and many more are allowing their officers to carry them if they pass a qual test. They seem to think that the advantages (such as greater accuracy and speed) outweigh the disadvantages.
I also do not want to have to add extra tall sights that can co-witness through an RDS, which adds yet more bulk and possibility of snagging. It also strikes me that a significantly taller front sight is much more likely to break under impact, due to the additional leverage the present.
There is no need for a
"co‒witness." The irons just need to be tall enough so that they can be lined up (front and rear sight) through the RDS window. In fact, many prefer that they NOT be set up with a co‒witness. It allows for a larger, unobscured window.
Remember when ALL sporting rifles came with iron sights? Many hunters kept them on, even though they mounted a scope, in case the scope could not be used. We even have hunting rifle scope mounts that have a "quick release" function so the scope can be removed in the field w/o tools.
But nowadays we see rifles intended for hunting sold, not only without iron sights, but not even a provision for mounting them! Scopes only baby. Lol
BTW, RDSs are far more rugged than early scope sights, especially the top of the line models that are intended for carry.
You're obviously correct that
"[a] taller [sight] is much more likely to break under impact," since the ground will have more leverage than against a standard height sight. But then, since it will have come from a
"hard hit" your RDS would still be working and you'd not need that front sight. (If I did emoticons there would be a smiley face here).
But as things can and do fail, I carry a backup gun. That way if I have any kind of failure with my primary (including dropping it and breaking off the front sight), I still have a functional firearm to defend myself.
That's not a bad idea, no matter what one carries as their primary. I'd bet that you practice transitions from your primary to your secondary too. Good onya.
