Red Dots-Who Wears Them On Their EDC Pistols?

[SwampWolf]

With iron sights, one has to focus on the front sight AND the target.

No, as explained earlier, when it comes to aiming with iron sights, be it on a rifle or a handgun, the human eye cannot bring into focus simultaneously the target and the sight. All of which is why when shooting with irons, the front sight should be focused on; the out-of-focus target is relegated to "the sidelines".

 

[12Bravo20]

deleted

 

[Nuclear]

I’ve been shooting handguns since the 1980s, and a tube style red dot mounted on a 22lr target pistol about 15 years ago helped me with accuracy. I tried a few slide mounted red dots that took the place of the rear sight on center fire pistols, but they either got beat to death or would shear the mounting screws. So I stopped using them until a few years ago when they got more durable. It took me awhile to quit chasing the dot (again), but now I’m shooting not just accurately, but faster.

When I took my non-shooting wife to the range for her first time ever, I went over the safety rules, trigger control, and told her to just put the dot on the target. Using the aforementioned target 22, she shot out the bullseye, and said it was boring just punching holes in paper. That is how easy it is to use a red dot if you have never been taught to use irons.

 

[bigger hammer]

If you're not going to take any of what I say seriously and objectively, I guess calling me closed minded is one of those pot and kettle situations.

First, I have taken virtually everything that you've said, "seriously and objectively."


Second, how many times have you told us about the shortcomings of RDSs? I commented about your redundancy just a few posts back. That redundancy is a sign of a closed mind. Yet I'm not redundant except in response to you. My answers to your questions or suggestions are redundant because you keep asking the same questions. It's almost as if you think that repeating them will make them true! You keep putting up the same arguments and I keep putting the lie to them. Some of them you've mentioned THREE TIMES.

But now that you're explaining your an instructor, I completely understand why you're advocating so hard for red dots and correct instruction for their use. Makes perfect sense. Don't worry, I'll play along....


You've convinced me! I need professional instruction with my new RDS!

I gotta admit that was some keen investigatory work there. Yessir, I was gonna get rich off this scheme, roping hundreds of members of this forum into taking classes from me so they could be the new RDS Deadeye! But now, you've dashed my plans for complete domination into the dust. Darn you WrongHanded, Darn you all to heck! Lol


Let's remember that you told us that you tried to figure out the RDS by yourself, but failed. And you then complained that the dot was too hard to find and that your failure was inherent in the design of the sight and NOT YOUR FAULT. I'll suggest that you take some responsibility for your failure. People who DO get professional help find that the dot is EASY to find.


Heck, you coulda asked here, on the forum, and I'd have been happy to fill you in.

 

[bigger hammer]

Interesting... I put a lot of value on "muscle memory" as well, in getting fast sight alignment. That's why I carry defensive semi-autos with all the same grip angle, rather than switching between something like an M&P and a Glock. (I find that when switching between the two, after getting familiar with one, my sights are always presented either too high or too low when shooting with the other model... and requires that added fraction of a second to visually align them.)

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.


Stay with the concept that it's your muscles that are causing this and the issue will continue. Realize that it's in your mind, not your muscles, and it's easy to eliminate the issue. It will make you faster because you won't have to "add fractions of a second to visually align them." Sighting with any system is a visual exercise. 'Trying to assume the same position as last time' can, as you tell us, cause issues.

Well, per your information I am now testing my "muscle memory" sight alignment in various awkward postures. Going up the steps, feet on different steps, and aiming up... I punch out with the gun from the low ready position with my eyes closed. When I open my eyes, the sights are in near perfect alignment with my eyes.


So, I tried again, going downstairs, feet on two different steps, aiming down..... same 'good' results.


So, I tried again, laying down, aiming horizontally... still getting sight alignment with my eyes when I punch the gun out.


So, I tried again, laying upside down on the steps, aiming down the steps... still working for me.


So... I think you're wrong.

You can't measure this phenomenon this way. You know what you're going to do and how you're going to do it. You can move at a comfortable speed of your own choice. You have to be put into situations where the uneven ground comes fast and is unexpected.

With this "muscle memory" it's as easy as pointing your finger to get sight alignment... unless you're not supposed to be able to accurately point your finger at something when in an unusual position?

Memory resides in one place in your body. In your brain.

 

[bigger hammer]

I'm always a little suspect of anyone having a vested (financial) interest in trying to convince me that I need something. I have red dot sights and I understand their benefit as I pointed out.

Pointing out the benefits of a product, that I have no financial interest in, is "trying to convince [you] that [you] need something?" I don't sell such products and I don't own stock in Trijicon. I have no fiscal interest in them.


My motivation is simple. I'm a retired LEO. I think that constitutional carry should be the rule across the US. I want good people to win in confrontations with evil. This is just a tool that will help with that.


Do you think that it's better if unsupported opinions and an endless array of "what if's" rule the day in these discussions?

I'll file your post away under I need this and $____ to get trained to use it. Fill in the blank. Nice sales pitch by the way.

ROFL. Nice personal attack "by the way."

 

[bigger hammer]

As an appeal to authority was made, namely that a certain person is an instructor at a very busy school, let's review what some other authorities on defensive pistol use have to say:





And then let's remember that for most of us, the goal is self protection from a violent attack. Because that's the point of an EDC pistol.

Oddly I didn't see either of those "authorities on defensive pistol use" say that one should not use a RDS. Can you refer us to the time on the video where that happens?


I'm still waiting for you to show us some videos that demonstrate the stoppages that you predict due to failure of these sights. Is this the third or fourth time that I've asked you to support your predictions of doom with some facts? If they're as common as you say there has to be a large number of YouTube, Rumble and other videos by reviewers showing these failures, right?


At least a couple of times now you've told us of RDS battery failures, emitter occlusions and windows blocked by debris of various kinds. Each time I've responded to your false claims that these would 'bring down the RDS.' Each time I've pointed out that (except for battery/emitter failures) these are not only easily cleared but that your beloved irons are subject to the exact same issues. A couple of times I've asked how you would handle a long distance self‒defense situation where you brought you gun up only to discover that your iron sights are not usable, situations that have happened to me. Still waiting.


If I bring my RDS equipped gun up, and discover that for some reason it's not working, I immediately shift to the iron sights. I have back up, but you don't. Let's assume that you now have a long distance shot or one that is closer but requires great accuracy. What do you do?

 

[bigger hammer]

No, as explained earlier, when it comes to aiming with iron sights, be it on a rifle or a handgun, the human eye cannot bring into focus simultaneously the target and the sight. All of which is why when shooting with irons, the front sight should be focused on; the out-of-focus target is relegated to "the sidelines".

If you're shooting at paper, steel or some other object "relegat[ing the target] to 'the sidelines; " is not a big deal. Bullseye shooters have been doing this for decades. But if you're in a self‒defense situation you have to be paying attention to the threat, that is now out of focus, because you're looking at the front sight. Is he pointing his rifle at you, or has he lowered it to the ground? If he's fallen down, does he still have his gun in his hand? Is he still being the "imminent threat" that you can shoot again, or has he dropped the gun and is surrendering? Those thing will become important if you continue to shoot without regard to his actions. Once he's no longer an imminent threat, you have to stop shooting. You may win the gun fight but you may not win the police investigation or the subsequent trials that often follow these situations.


RDSs make this task easy because the entire time you're aiming and then shooting, you're looking and concentrating on the threat. Your attention isn't divided between your front sight and what he's doing. You don't have to shift your focus to the front sight if he becomes an "imminent threat." You just keep watching him as you put the dot where you want your bullets to go.


In testing this we've found that it gives the armed defender sometimes as much as a full second advantage! That's an eternity in a self‒defense situation.

 

[bigger hammer]

... When I took my non-shooting wife to the range for her first time ever, I went over the safety rules, trigger control, and told her to just put the dot on the target. Using the aforementioned target 22, she shot out the bullseye, and said it was boring just punching holes in paper. That is how easy it is to use a red dot if you have never been taught to use irons.

My experience mirrors yours. I've given many friends and acquaintances "the shooting experience." That involves taking a noobie shooter, someone who has never fired a gun, to the range and having them shoot with minimal explanation of the mechanics of shooting. No talk of stance, grip, sight picture, recoil control, breath control, trigger control or anything else to do with shooting. They only get a safety briefing. Basically all that's done is to put a gun in their hands, guide them into a safe and secure grip, and tell them to shoot the bullseye. Those people who are given a gun with iron sights often struggle to keep their rounds on the paper. Those who are given a gun with a RDS not only keep their rounds on the paper, but many of them shoot respectable groups. Both groups have fun. The RDS groups are much more interested in learning more about shooting and guns, than the iron sight groups because as I've been told repeatedly, "Shooting is much easier and more fun than I thought it would be."

 

[CDW4ME]

I have some astigmatism and still use a dot. The dot looks like a starburst and it's not symmetric.
With some astigmatism and no corrective lenses, what I see with a Trijicon is like the image in the middle:

View attachment 1107029

I have prescription glasses to correct astigmatism and far-sightedness. They're awesome. I'm still 20/20 without my glasses, but the glasses sharpen things up.

I had 20/20 vision in the past, but not anymore at 55 years old.
I'm a bit nearsighted and I have to hold print away from my face to read it (progressive lenses).
Without glasses I can see front sight just fine, glasses fuzz it.
Without glasses the dot is fuzzed, 2nd from right is a fair representation; with glasses the dot is clear.
Out in public, glasses are an asset and they work best for me with the dot.

 

[Buzznrose]

Funny, that's exactly how every pistol I own (all with iron sights) works too. It's almost like I spent time to build muscle memory so that I could present a handgun and have the sights line up with a target. What's really shocking [sarcasm] is that at closer distances, I can do it one handed without looking at either the target or the gun as I bringing it up. And yet, when I look, the sights line up with the target.

But I didn't develop that muscle memory overnight. And I'm sure I could do it with red dots on all my guns if I put in the time and effort.

Sure. The advantage I experience with a red dot is I don’t have nearly as much blur as I have with iron sights. The dot is a bit fuzzy but still way better than iron sights.

 

[WrongHanded]

Let's remember that you told us that you tried to figure out the RDS by yourself, but failed. And you then complained that the dot was too hard to find and that your failure was inherent in the design of the sight and NOT YOUR FAULT. I'll suggest that you take some responsibility for your failure. People who DO get professional help find that the dot is EASY to find.

Err... Yeah. I didn't say that. I said I tried it, and didn't see a benefit that would outweigh the costs. I've freely admitted that with enough time I believe I could become proficient with one, but I don't see any reason to do so, give all the negatives and potential negatives that come with transitioning to and maintaining dot on an EDC.

The problem I see with all of your responses to my legitimate concerns about potential failure, is that you'd prefer to marginalize the issues or just outright lie about the reality of them. For example, if I dunk my gun into fresh powder snow (which I have by the way), I can wipe off enough to make the iron sights usable with a quick brushing. If an RDS gets dunked in snow and ends up with snow covering the front of the lens, back of the lens, emitter, and the backup irons, it will not be nearly as quick to clean off.

This is not a matter of how likely that may be to happen (though where I live it's reasonably likely in winter), it's about what it would take to be able to use the sights again. And you try and claim it would take no longer to clear an RDS, than irons. Logic dictates that you are incorrect.

Then you start talking about 50 yards shots with no front sight. Firstly, there aren't a whole lot of people taking 50 yard shots in self defense with an EDC pistol, and I'm certainly not going to bother investing time training for such an unlikely scenario. Secondly, I have never in my life pulled a pistol from my holster and found the front sight missing. I've never come to one of my guns, ever, and found the front sight missing. I've never broken a front sight on any occasion where ai have dropped a gun. So the idea that my front sight is somehow just going to disappear from inside the holster, is just ridiculous. It's a strawman argument.

I am however confident that people who use an RDS do occasionally find the dot is not present when they have expected it to be. Which would seem like a great time to blow on the emitter, just in case there's dirt in it, except maybe that's not the problem and now you need to troubleshoot the issue....or transition to the iron sights that anyone who uses an RDS surely trains with just as much as the dot itself, just in case they need them. That's providing the front sight hasn't broken off, because that happens all the time apparently.

Here's another one of your flawed points. Dots need professional training because they're new technology. So if I wait 10 years, I won't need training because they won't be new technology any more? Or I need training with a dot because it's new tech, but not with irons because they're old tech? Either the system is intuitive, or it's not. Others have already spoken of how they have used backup irons to learn to aim the gun with the dot. But apparently that's wrong, and we should all come learn the special secrets from you.

Then you start making claims about the video and what it does or doesn't say. Bill repeatedly says, instead of worrying about getting this new dot or that dot, buy ammo and go shoot your gun. They don't care if you use a dot or not. But they're sure not advocating it. Why not? Because they don't think it's necessary for practical purposes. Nor do they think training to make 50 yard shots is terribly important.

But who cares about those guys right? You're the real expert. /s

 

[WrongHanded]

Sure. The advantage I experience with a red dot is I don’t have nearly as much blur as I have with iron sights. The dot is a bit fuzzy but still way better than iron sights.

And that is an absolutely great reason to consider one. I fully recognize that as people age, their eyes stop working as well as they once did. At some point it will probably happen to me, and I will begin to consider an RDS. But (unlike some), I won't start pretending there are no downsides to such a system.

I don't wear eye glasses. Not because they don't improve my vision, but because they don't make enough of a difference for all the hassles they cause me in daily life. As my eyesight gets worse, the scales will shift and I'll start wearing corrective lenses.

 

[Buzznrose]

Agree.

This is going to sound backwards, but hear me out. A red dot doesn’t necessarily help for long distance vision…there is no magnification. It is the near vision that makes it most effective. If someone relies on reading glasses, then the dot helps immensely.

If I’m shooting at a 6” round target 25 yards away, I can keep my eyes focused on that target so it is clear, and simply place the red dot over it and make pretty solid hits.

With iron sights, I have to try and focus on the front sight, and these days, it just won’t be clear…and the target gets very blurry.

So I guess I’m saying I don’t have to really sweat the short range because the optic seems to be on the same plane of view as the target.

I probably said that wrong…but hopefully the point comes through.

 

[WrongHanded]

Agree.

This is going to sound backwards, but hear me out. A red dot doesn’t necessarily help for long distance vision…there is no magnification. It is the near vision that makes it most effective. If someone relies on reading glasses, then the dot helps immensely.

If I’m shooting at a 6” round target 25 yards away, I can keep my eyes focused on that target so it is clear, and simply place the red dot over it and make pretty solid hits.

With iron sights, I have to try and focus on the front sight, and these days, it just won’t be clear…and the target gets very blurry.

So I guess I’m saying I don’t have to really sweat the short range because the optic seems to be on the same plane of view as the target.

I probably said that wrong…but hopefully the point comes through.

I completely understand. Although I have no issues with my near vision, there's plenty of that in my family, and it's been well explained to me. It's honestly what I was referring to in my original post, where I said something along the lines of I won't consider an RDS on an EDC pistol until I can't see high viz irons well anymore.

 

[.38 Special]

Just going by the competition circuit, it's hard to argue that dots aren't faster and more accurate, regardless of a fellow's vision.

The question is whether they are enough faster and more accurate to justify the cost, bulk, retraining requirement, questionable reliability, etc.

That's a question we all have to settle for ourselves. I personally come down slightly on the "for" side, and completely understand those who are on the "against" side. I don't, though, understand the desire to argue about it all that much one way or another.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Pointing out the benefits of a product, that I have no financial interest in, is "trying to convince [you] that [you] need something?" I don't sell such products and I don't own stock in Trijicon. I have no fiscal interest in them.


My motivation is simple. I'm a retired LEO. I think that constitutional carry should be the rule across the US. I want good people to win in confrontations with evil. This is just a tool that will help with that.


Do you think that it's better if unsupported opinions and an endless array of "what if's" rule the day in these discussions?





ROFL. Nice personal attack "by the way."

I never said you had a financial interest in Trijicon. They are only a few of the popular RDS available. Not sure where you came up with that one unless you do actually recommend that product in your training.

It isn't personal. I don't know you and you don't know me. So lets end the personal here.

I've already given you my opinion about "trainers" who use RDS as a must have. Sorry if you have objections to that.

CC and 2A doesn't incorporate red dot sights. You may be getting the cart before the horse.

 

[SwampWolf]

If you're shooting at paper, steel or some other object "relegat[ing the target] to 'the sidelines; " is not a big deal.

I was simply responding to this incorrect statement: "...With iron sights, one has to focus on the front sight AND the target." In terms of self-defense, there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat; everybody has the right and obligation to determine which sighting discipline best accommodates their own way of ending a threat. Neither your advocacy or mine necessarily addresses everybody's individual circumstance.

 

[Ethan Verity]

First, the concept of "muscle memory" is a non sequitur. There is no such thing. Muscles do not have memory. Memory ONLY resides in the brain.


Second, I understand the concept of muscle memory, but it's flawed. As long as you are standing on a relatively flat, level surface, you'll be able to bring your gun up and align the sights with the target. But if you are ever on uneven ground, stairs large rocks, or the like, your sights will not align as well as when you are on even ground. The body can't line up the same way when you're on uneven ground, as when you're on even ground. And so, since your body isn't in the same place as when you train, your sights may not come to you eye, properly aligned.


That's why the best technique for the RDS DOES NOT rely on it. Instead, it's a combination of proprioception and a technique that brings the dot into the window and onto the target.





Fact is, you NEVER "develop[ed] that muscle memory." Your brain remembers approximately where your body is in space, but change the footing, which makes the body realign to keep balance, and it goes out the window.


I've heard this disinformation many times and have demonstrated to those who have said it, that it does not work, except in the limited circumstances where one is on the same sort of footing as when they trained. Change the surface and, all of a sudden, they're having trouble either finding their sights or putting them on target.





More than likely you'd get a similar result to what you have now with irons. But if you learned the proper technique YOU WOULD have it virtually "overnight." it's not beyond you, it's just that your mind is closed.

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.


Stay with the concept that it's your muscles that are causing this and the issue will continue. Realize that it's in your mind, not your muscles, and it's easy to eliminate the issue. It will make you faster because you won't have to "add fractions of a second to visually align them." Sighting with any system is a visual exercise. 'Trying to assume the same position as last time' can, as you tell us, cause issues.





You can't measure this phenomenon this way. You know what you're going to do and how you're going to do it. You can move at a comfortable speed of your own choice. You have to be put into situations where the uneven ground comes fast and is unexpected.





Memory resides in one place in your body. In your brain.

I studied biology and anatomy in college, I probably understand the human nervous system better than the average person... muscle memory is a well known term though; taking so much time to explain that it's not literal is pointless, it doesn't change how the phenomenon is experienced in this context. Also, I don't see how uneven ground would effect this as you claim, it has nothing to do with balance or what your feet are doing. It's the relation of the gun's grip angle and how it interacts with the palm, the brain will memorize roughly where the sights are pointing just by the feel of the gun in the hand, to the point that you instinctively know where the muzzle is pointing as though it were your own finger. So, when you bring it up to your eye, it's already in proper alignment right off the bat... rather than being initially canted up/down and being corrected once you see the sights.

I can visually align sights, and I do, once the gun is brought up to my eye (never your eye down to the gun)... but the point I'm getting at is with "muscle memory" the sights are immediately presented in near perfect alignment to my eye before my eye even sees the sight in the first place... to the point where I can bring the gun up with my eyes closed... open my eyes, and I'm immediately looking clean down the sights. This cuts down on sight acquisition time, even if just by fractions of a second.

 

[bigger hammer]

I've freely admitted that with enough time I believe I could become proficient with one,

I have no doubt of that. It's an easier system to learn than iron sights and I'll assume that you've got that down.

but I don't see any reason to do so, give all the negatives and potential negatives that come with transitioning to and maintaining dot on an EDC.

The fact is that some of your "negatives and potential negatives" reside not in reality, but in your imagination. They are so farfetched, one requiring "fresh powder snow" and a very high level of clumsiness/poor gun handling such that the gun is plunged into a snow bank with reckless abandon to "cover the front of the lens, back of the lens, emitter and the backup irons!"



Your argument is nearly identical to those made against telescopic sights for rifles when they first came on the scene. And yet, rifle scopes now abound with most folks realizing that they help shooting with accuracy and speed. Many of these sights now incorporate battery powered red dots or reticles. Seems that lots of folks like them.



BTW, it occurs to me that not every RDS is battery powered. At least one manufacturer uses tritium to power a dot or reticle. Some of them use light gathering arrays to power the dot. So your "dead battery" argument does not apply to all RDSs.

The problem I see with all of your responses to my legitimate concerns about potential failure,

They simply aren't "legitimate." They are farfetched and some of them are just plain ol' wrong.

is that you'd prefer to marginalize the issues or just outright lie about the reality of them.

Calling me a liar is unbecoming especially when YOU are the one who is GREATLY exaggerating the problems with RDS. I'm pretty sure that it's a violation of the rules of this forum. It's especially telling, because you have next‒to‒no‒experience with them. But I'd appreciate it if you'd show us some of those lies. You seem to be one of those folks who likes to make accusations without any support for them. Notice that when I disagree with you, I post your own words as support for my comments. OTOH, you present no such evidence.

For example, if I dunk my gun into fresh powder snow (which I have by the way), I can wipe off enough to make the iron sights usable with a quick brushing. If an RDS gets dunked in snow and ends up with snow covering the front of the lens, back of the lens, emitter, and the backup irons, it will not be nearly as quick to clean off.

I'm wondering why you "dunk[ed] your gun into fresh powder snow?" Let me suggest that you not do that again?!



But here's where we are, you have defined a problem so narrowly that it's going to be extremely rare for it to occur. In this example, the snow has to be "fresh powder." and the criticism is that if this were to occur with iron sights v. the RDS, "it will not be nearly as quick to clean off."



When you have to define a problem so narrowly, making the chances of it occurring and then the criticism is "not nearly as quick to clean off" you've lost the plot. You're starting a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussion.



ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that you have consistently run and hidden from my simple direct questions about failures of iron sights!

This is not a matter of how likely that may be to happen (though where I live it's reasonably likely in winter),

You think that it's "reasonably likely" to occur again?! This is confirmation that you HAVE lost the plot.



Many of us wear holsters, many of them concealed under clothing that will protect the gun from snow until it's needed. And it's highly UNlikely that EVERY essential element of the RDS would be covered in snow. Since you specified "fresh powder snow," more than likely it could be blown off with a puff.

it's about what it would take to be able to use the sights again. And you try and claim it would take no longer to clear an RDS, than irons. Logic dictates that you are incorrect.

This is just silly. No one knows, in your hypothetical, how long it will take to clear one sight v. the other. Yet you pretend to have the answer. ALL THE WHILE hiding from my questions. Let's try it again. How would you cope if you brought your gun up only to discover that the front sight was missing? What if the blade of your rear sight was broken and no longer present. If my RDS stops working, I can IMMEDIATELY transition to the iron sights. But you don't have any B/U for your irons. You have a single sighting system. I've got redundancy should one fail.



You pretend that you will ALWAYS be able to clear snow from your sights, when we all realize that it may take far more than a "quick swipe." I'd say that you'd be in far more danger from a plugged barrel if somehow your sights or a RDS were to be blocked by snow. Clearing that would take far longer and might even be dangerous if you tried to shoot with your barrel blocked.

Then you start talking about 50 yards shots with no front sight. Firstly, there aren't a whole lot of people taking 50 yard shots in self defense with an EDC pistol

Love how you completely dismiss the possibility of a "50 yard shot" while you invent the most outlandish situations in efforts to make RDS sights unable to function. I wonder, if you were in a match would you dismiss the longer shots? Would you just dismiss the active shooter in the mall if he was 50 yards away?

and I'm certainly not going to bother investing time training for such an unlikely scenario.

What tripe. 50 yard self‒defense shots are hardly "unlikely." They aren't as likely to occur as the 3-7 yard average self‒defense encounter distance, but they can occur anytime.

Secondly, I have never in my life pulled a pistol from my holster and found the front sight missing. I've never come to one of my guns, ever, and found the front sight missing. I've never broken a front sight on any occasion where ai have dropped a gun. So the idea that my front sight is somehow just going to disappear from inside the holster, is just ridiculous. It's a strawman argument.

AGAIN you twist my words in an effort to make yourself right. I've NEVER said that my front sight simply "disappear[ed] from inside the holster." I have said that the tritium vial fell out of the sight, rendering the front sight useless in a dark environment. OBVIOUSLY I banged the gun into something that damaged the glue holding the tritium vial and it fell out.



It's called a hypothetical situation. Dismissing it, because it's never happened to you, and you can't conceive of it happening in a holster, is absurd. In effect, it's happened to me, and when I was the Rangemaster for my LEA, I saw it several times with other officers. It's doubtful that it happened in the holster. More than likely it happened when I accidentally banged the gun into a hard object. So it's HARDLY a strawman argument. This is just your way of dodging what you know reveals one of the problems with your chosen sighting system.

I am however confident that people who use an RDS do occasionally find the dot is not present when they have expected it to be.

Yep, it happens occasionally. How is that I can easily admit that an issue exists, but you refuse to do the same? But this is an easy issue to resolve. Simply use the proper technique to find the dot and it's there, every time.

Which would seem like a great time to blow on the emitter, just in case there's dirt in it,

Good grief. Do you really think that is the appropriate action for a dot that's not showing in the window, "blow on the emitter?" Let me assure you THAT IT IS NOT the proper immediate action. The action that IS appropriate is to simply transition to the iron sights. You are revealing a lack of common sense and knowledge of basic gun handling.

except maybe that's not the problem and now you need to troubleshoot the issue....or transition to the iron sights that anyone who uses an RDS surely trains with just as much as the dot itself, just in case they need them.

Since it's a rare occurrence, one isn't going to train for it as much as other movements. It's similar to how often folks train for any rare occurrence, like a double feed malfunction. I doubt that even you, train for that as much as you simply draw and fire. Transitioning to the sights is an easy fix for a RDS that isn't working. It doesn’t take hours of doing it to become competent.

That's providing the front sight hasn't broken off, because that happens all the time apparently.

NOW we have the strawman argument. LOL

Here's another one of your flawed points. Dots need professional training because they're new technology.

A rather complete distortion, that's closing in on being a lie, of anything that I've said. "Dots [DO NOT] NEED professional training …" But since they are enclosed, while iron sights are not, they require a different technique than for irons. People can get that for free by asking on a forum, like this one. They can get it from a friend who understands the system, as I did. They can get it by watching free videos on YouTube, or other such platforms. "[P]rofessional training is but one way."

So if I wait 10 years, I won't need training because they won't be new technology any more?

Since you seem to think that I've made this statement and you have put it forth as if I had, please show us my words. This is the SECOND time that you've tried to put words into my mouth. Yet ANOTHER accusation without the slightest bit of support.

Or I need training with a dot because it's new tech, but not with irons because they're old tech?

Simply absurd. AGAIN, please show us where I've made this statement.

Either the system is intuitive, or it's not.

Anyone who thinks that using iron sights is "intuitive" is badly confused. Usually the explanation uses drawings or photos because it's so UNintuitive. Even when it's explained in detail, using those visual aids, some don't get it. This is a common issue in classes with new shooters.

Others have already spoken of how they have used backup irons to learn to aim the gun with the dot. But apparently that's wrong, and we should all come learn the special secrets from you.

There is no trick to be learned using the iron sights "to aim the gun with the dot." it's so simple that a child can do it. "Put the red dot where you want the bullets to go." As someone has been saying since the start. There's the "special secret." LOL



FINDING the dot in the window during the presentation is difficult for some, but that's separate from "aim[ing] the gun with the dog." That's because it's inside the mechanism and not visible as are irons so there are specialized techniques to help find it. Some folks will just try to move their wrist around, in an effort to locate the dot. That's slow, inefficient, and in a self‒defense situation can get you killed.

Then you start making claims about the video and what it does or doesn't say. Bill repeatedly says, instead of worrying about getting this new dot or that dot, buy ammo and go shoot your gun.

A rather complete MISStatement about what is said on the video. What Bill ACTUALLY is saying is that one should not make purchases of guns or gear in the hope that doing so will make one a better shooter. His emphasis is on the mistaken belief that THE PURCHASE alone will improve the shooting skill. The RDS, as we know DOES make it faster and easier to shoot accurately. it's been proven repeatedly. Competition has shown that folks using iron sights simply can't compete evenly against those who are using RDS. That's why they put RDS user into a separate class where they compete only against others who are using the same sight system.

They don't care if you use a dot or not. But they're sure not advocating it. Why not? Because they don't think it's necessary for practical purposes.

I've said repeatedly that RDSs are not necessary. So here's ANOTHER of YOUR strawman arguments.

Nor do they think training to make 50 yard shots is terribly important.

But they don't say to never train at that distance do they? If someone is shooting at you from 50 yards away, making that shot is VITAL. If you're competing, you know that most every match has at least a couple of longer range shots, than where the average self‒defense situation occurs. We don't know where a self‒defense situation will occur. It just happens, and we're in it. While making those shots in competition isn't a vital as in that self‒defense situation, if you're interested in winning the match, you pretty much have to make those shots.



This is nothing but yet ANOTHER dodge to my very simple question. Not to worry I'm sure that the readers understand that in the two instances of iron sight failure that I've personally experienced, if they had happened in a self‒defense situation, I'd be screwed. I'd be trying to compensate for not having sights by using the outline of the slide to stop the threat. But it would take a lot of luck for me to prevail. You just refuse to admit the obvious. It really cheapens your arguments when you hide from such obvious facts.

But who cares about those guys right?

I do. They're a couple of old guard guys. I listen to them. But you've tried to twist what they've said to fit your argument. Problem is you failed.

You're the real expert. /s

One of us has training, education, and experience on this topic and teaches it professionally. The other is making logically fallacious arguments, one after another, twisting my words, twisting the words of his own experts, and hiding from questions that he knows puts the lie to much of his argument. Not unusual for the Net. But rather unusual for this forum, where folks usually behave with honor and honesty.

 

[bigger hammer]

And that is an absolutely great reason to consider one. I fully recognize that as people age, their eyes stop working as well as they once did. At some point it will probably happen to me, and I will begin to consider an RDS. But (unlike some), I won't start pretending there are no downsides to such a system.

Here's a GREAT example of a lack of honor and honesty that I just mentioned. So far in this discussion NO ONE is "pretending there are no downsides to such a system." That is a complete lie.



Allow me to list just a few, in no particular order:

1. RDSs are expensive.
   
2. They often require expensive mods to the gun to allow the RDS to be fitted.
   
3. They require batteries that have to be changed and can fail.
   
4. The are more prone to breakage than iron sights.
   
5. They are bulky which can lead to snagging on clothing, etc.
   
6. They may require a new holster, to accommodate them.
   
7. They require learning a new skill.
   
8. They add weight to the gun.
   
9. Some can't use them due to vision issues.
   
10. if you're using a very bright WML (weapon mounted light) it can wash out the dot, making it just about useless if you haven't turned it to an appropriate setting.
    
11. More training time is required to maintain proficiency with BOTH sighting systems (RDS and the irons) on the gun.
    
12. In order to have a back‒up iron sight system, one must purchase and install suppressor height sights.

One the plus side:

1. They're faster to target than irons.
   
2. They allow for greater accuracy, especially at long distances.
   
3. They allow for faster transitions between shots.
   
4. The concept of using the dot is much simpler than with irons.
   
5. They place the sights and the target on the same optical plane, allowing for a single point of focus.
   
6. They allow people to keep both eyes open, increasing their situational awareness.
   
7. They allow people with failing eyes to still shoot quickly and accurately.
   
8. The body of the sight can be used in manipulating the weapon.
   
9. They make use of night vision gear possible.
   
10. For the most part, no one carries a rifle for self‒defense. But a RDS will make long distance shots faster and easier, if that situation arises.

Neither list covers all the bases.

I don't wear eye glasses. Not because they don't improve my vision, but because they don't make enough of a difference for all the hassles they cause me in daily life.

At one time, I was in that same boat. My vision hadn't deteriorated to the point where the glasses gave me back enough vision to make them worth the "hassle." They certainly are a PITA.

As my eyesight gets worse, the scales will shift and I'll start wearing corrective lenses.

I hope that can be put off for a long time. But as it becomes the reality, a RDS will make your shooting easier.

 

[bigger hammer]

I never said you had a financial interest in Trijicon. They are only a few of the popular RDS available. Not sure where you came up with that one unless you do actually recommend that product in your training.

LOL. You had accused me of benefitting financially from my arguments here. I was showing how absurd that statement was. I also don't own stock in any other RDS manufacturer. I do recommend Trijicon products because they are excellent and so is their customer service. I once returned two of their sights in which the tritium had aged out and was no longer glowing. Both sights were decades old and long out or warranty. They replaced the tritium in one sight free of charge. They couldn't replace the tritium in the other sight since they no longer made it. And so they gave me a new sight!

It isn't personal. I don't know you and you don't know me. So lets end the personal here.

The fact that we don't know each other is irrelevant. You accused me of doing something that is unethical. That's personal.

I've already given you my opinion about "trainers" who use RDS as a must have. Sorry if you have objections to that.

Some of you folks REALLY are invested in the strawman arguments. I've NEVER "use[d] RDS as a must have." I'd object to it as well. But since you've made this statement, alluding to the fact that you seem to think that I'm "that guy" please show us where I've made such a statement. Simply quote my post and link to it. Some are making lots of accusations, some of them thinly veiled. No one is providing supporting evidence for them, even when asked to do so.

 

[bigger hammer]

I was simply responding to this incorrect statement: "...With iron sights, one has to focus on the front sight AND the target."

You quoted something I said and then wrote this (above) statement as if you were responding to me. I didn't say this, 12Bravo20 did. But he's not incorrect, if you look deeper. "With iron sights, one [DOES] ha[ve] to focus [his eye] on the front sight AND focus [his attention] the target." It could have been written more clearly, I'll agree.



I have said this,

Since the eye can only focus on one plane at a time, looking at the front sight places the threat at least, a little bit, out of focus. The RDS allows you to keep the threat in sharp focus while the dot floats at infinity.

And this,

AND if the gun is used for self‒defense, it allows the defender to focus on the threat, not to have to transition to the front sight should deadly force be needed. It makes the shooting easier, faster, and more accurate, no matter how fast and accurate you already are. AND that focus on the threat makes it easier to tell when to stop shooting, because the threat is not blurry, due to focusing the eye on the front sight. I used to say that in a self‒defense situation I'd be able to tell if the threat had surrendered or was no longer a threat. But sometimes making this assessment in FOF training, especially in low light, was often difficult. Now it's easy.

And this,

… if you're in a self‒defense situation you have to be paying attention to the threat, that is now out of focus, because you're looking at the front sight. Is he pointing his rifle at you, or has he lowered it to the ground? If he's fallen down, does he still have his gun in his hand? Is he still being the "imminent threat" that you can shoot again, or has he dropped the gun and is surrendering? Those thing will become important if you continue to shoot without regard to his actions. Once he's no longer an imminent threat, you have to stop shooting. You may win the gun fight but you may not win the police investigation or the subsequent trials that often follow these situations.



RDSs make this task easy because the entire time you're aiming and then shooting, you're looking and concentrating on the threat. Your attention isn't divided between your front sight and what he's doing. You don't have to shift your focus to the front sight if he becomes an "imminent threat." You just keep watching him as you put the dot where you want your bullets to go.

In terms of self-defense, there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat; everybody has the right and obligation to determine which sighting discipline best accommodates their own way of ending a threat. Neither your advocacy or mine necessarily addresses everybody's individual circumstance.

I’m pretty sure that I've "addresse[d] everybody's individual circumstances" as they came up. If there's any one that I've missed, please let me know.

 

[bigger hammer]

I studied biology and anatomy in college, I probably understand the human nervous system better than the average person...

Me too. I was a Pre Med major for a while.

muscle memory is a well known term though; taking so much time to explain that it's not literal is pointless,

I'll disagree.

it doesn't change how the phenomenon is experienced in this context. Also, I don't see how uneven ground would effect this as you claim, it has nothing to do with balance or what your feet are doing.

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.

It's the relation of the gun's grip angle and how it interacts with the palm, the brain will memorize roughly where the sights are pointing just by the feel of the gun in the hand,

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.

I can visually align sights, and I do, once the gun is brought up to my eye (never your eye down to the gun)... but the point I'm getting at is with "muscle memory" the sights are immediately presented in near perfect alignment to my eye before my eye even sees the sight in the first place...

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.

to the point where I can bring the gun up with my eyes closed... open my eyes, and I'm immediately looking clean down the sights. This cuts down on sight acquisition time, even if just by fractions of a second.

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.

 

[WrongHanded]

To all the regulars: I appreciate the discussion. I think I'm done now.