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.