Simple question: Is it really worth it to have a laser on a pistol?

[pintler]

"The key is to do some TESTS..."

My degree is in statistics, so I agree that you want to be careful about perceptions.

That said, from using both in dark shoot houses, my sense is that it isn't a close call. It's like wondering whether bald summer tires or new snow tires are better in the snow. Sure, a valid test would require running carefully crafted side by side comparisons in identical snow conditions and identical vehicles, with careful instrumentation to measure actual traction, etc, etc. But in practice, I think, the differences are dramatic enough that I'd be really surprised to find that the snow tires weren't actually better.

I took guns w/o any night sights, guns with tritium sights, and guns with lasers to the classes, and used them all. We didn't use shot timers, but the difference seemed less in speed - people shot at about the same speed with or without lasers[1] - but the accuracy at that speed was lots better with lasers. If you slowed down shooting with tritium sights enough to maintain the same accuracy as shooting with the laser, you were markedly slower. I don't mean 20% slower, I mean half the speed or less (n.b. I'm talking about 30 or 40 feet down a hallway here; at 5 feet where you aren't really using the sights anyway, the kind of sight doesn't matter).

Just my experience; YMMV.

(and, to be clear, I'm not presenting my experience as the be all, end all. If you've tried both and find the lasers don't work for you, that's fine. That wasn't the case for any of the people in the classes I've had, but if that's the way it works for an individual, it is what it is)

[1]because when someone is theoretically shooting at you, no one spends several seconds getting the perfect sight picture

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I took guns w/o any night sights, guns with tritium sights, and guns with lasers to the classes, and used them all. We didn't use shot timers, but the difference seemed less in speed - people shot at about the same speed with or without lasers[1] - but the accuracy at that speed was lots better with lasers. If you slowed down shooting with tritium sights enough to maintain the same accuracy as shooting with the laser, you were markedly slower. I don't mean 20% slower, I mean half the speed or less (n.b. I'm talking about 30 or 40 feet down a hallway here; at 5 feet where you aren't really using the sights anyway, the kind of sight doesn't matter).

You're the first to offer more than opinion based on a theoretical understanding of the issues. Thanks for that.

While I'm oversimplifying, some of the folks who are LASER advocates here have said, in effect, the best use of LASER sights is to act like they aren't there until you're almost ready to pull the trigger, and THEN look for the red dot as the final step -- it ought to be where you want it. (Doing that keeps you from chasing the red dot, and allows you to remain focused on the target.)

If you can't see the target clearly -- which was the example cited in an earlier pro-LASER argument here, I don't see how a the red (or green) dot can add much. If you follow the regimen/rule cited above (don't really look for the dot until you're almost ready to pull the trigger) I can see where the results COULD be more accurate, but I don't see they can be quicker. If you're ALMOST on the target's center mass before you're ready to look for the LASER dot, it seems that anything that follows is almost superfluous. Maybe no -- maybe the LASER adds a big advantage.

As before, I'd like to see some real-world tests, maybe using a set of IDPA or USPSA targets, which have score zones, so that you can impartially evaluate the differences, while taking into consideration the total time involved. The experience of time is VERY SUBJECTIVE -- scored time with a shot clock much less so. (When shooting competition, I've found it very hard to evaluate how much time I used in a given course of fire...)

I think a LASER sight system might be difficult to use effectively with a moving target -- such as someone peeking from behind cover -- or someone running full out across a room. Seems like you'd just NOT use the LASER, then. Or forget the last stepin the regimen cited above.

I read a lot of gun mags and I've never seen any of them attempt to do anything like this. Don't know why, 'cause it wouldn't be that expensive.

 

[pintler]

Again, just my experiences: whether the dot is visible is apparent soon after the gun clears the holster - there either is or isn't a bright green or red dot sweeping across the room or there isn't. In low light conditions, it's not something you can really miss (or to look at the other way, if it's light enough you have to look hard for the dot, I'm not going to use the dot).

FWIW, the way I sight mine in, the sights mask the dot when I'm on target. If I see the dot during presentation, I shoot the dot; otherwise I'm just using the irons.

I don't follow the moving target thing; my sense is that dots are great for moving targets, just because you're not aligning the front and rear, you're just moving the dot. In that sense, lasers are just like a conventional red dot. I thought that at this point, it was generally agreed that an aimpoint etc. was faster than irons up close.

Maybe that's the best analogy for people who have never used lasers; they are like a red dot (aimpoint, ...) that only works in dim light, and doesn't require even the loose eye/sight alignment that e.g. aimpoints do. In either case, you see a red dot on the target where the bullet will go.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Again, just my experiences: whether the dot is visible is apparent soon after the gun clears the holster - there either is or isn't a bright green or red dot sweeping across the room or there isn't. In low light conditions, it's not something you can really miss (or to look at the other way, if it's light enough you have to look hard for the dot, I'm not going to use the dot).

When the target is moving, a DOT could be helpful if the target moves in front of surface where the dot can offer a point of reference if YOU aren't also moving.

Earlier, the folks who suggested the best way of using the LASER was to (generally) get on target, and then use the dot as the last step in the process. But, if you're both moving, getting the gun AND then the dot where you want them seems especially complicated and time consuming. THAT is a very dynamic undertaking.

I guess that's something else that can be tested, if we ever get around to testing these theories.

 

[pintler]

Just about every SWAT team and military around is adopting red dot sights. They do that because they feel it gives better (faster, more accurate) target acquisition. From the shooter's perspective, a red dot and a laser are the same; for both you see a dot where the impact will be.

I just don't follow the theory of why it's hard to use a laser. If you don't have access to laser sights, maybe try a laser pointer? Putting the dot where you like is a pretty simple process.

 

[JR24]

Just about every SWAT team and military around is adopting red dot sights. They do that because they feel it gives better (faster, more accurate) target acquisition. From the shooter's perspective, a red dot and a laser are the same; for both you see a dot where the impact will be.

I just don't follow the theory of why it's hard to use a laser. If you don't have access to laser sights, maybe try a laser pointer? Putting the dot where you like is a pretty simple process.

Disagree, personally aiming through a red dot or holographic sight is worlds different than distinguishing a laser dot on a target. Perhaps it is my colorblind eyes but the two sighting systems arent anything alike at all.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Just about every SWAT team and military around is adopting red dot sights...From the shooter's perspective, a red dot and a laser are the same; for both you see a dot where the impact will be.

The difference is that on a rifle/carbine, you have 3 points of contact/alignment...whereas with a handgun, you only have 1

 

[9mmepiphany]

Perhaps it is my colorblind eyes but the two sighting systems arent anything alike at all.

It isn't your eyes, they are very different in how they are used to align the gun to the target

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Just about every SWAT team and military around is adopting red dot sights. They do that because they feel it gives better (faster, more accurate) target acquisition. From the shooter's perspective, a red dot and a laser are the same; for both you see a dot where the impact will be.

...you see a dot where the impact will be when the trigger is pressed. Which ma not be where you think it'll be.

Military teams and many SWAT Teams also use long guns and sub-machine guns and sniper rifles, too. The military will use LASERs but their effective range is limited. (I've know a few Special Ops folks and when they were working, they preferred long guns to handguns.) Most military snipers use high quality optics, work with spotters, and shoot at distances that LASERs just can't handle. LEO snipers may use them (and red-dot sights) on long guns at closer distances, but many will continue to use optical systems, as they can remain undetected longer, that way. All of these guys have night vision gear and have night-vision sight systems mounted on their long guns I'm not as sure hat a lot of these folks use LASER sights on their but I know a lot of them use hand-held or weapon-mounted high intensity lights.

I just don't follow the theory of why it's hard to use a laser. If you don't have access to laser sights, maybe try a laser pointer?

I've owned two LASER systems, one a SIG system that let you easily switch, with your trigger finger, from bright light to LASER dot, as needed; I've shot others, but I don't have one presently. Moving targets are always difficult, and I never found that a LASER made them any less difficult.

I don't really think it's hard to use a LASER sight; but I also don't think that a LASER sight makes things a lot simpler, or faster, or automatically offers more accuracy -- although improved accuracy is possible if you have the time to really get things right.. As for low-light conditions: if you can see enough of the target to get the gun positioned so that the LASER's dot is roughly where it should be, I'd argue that you didn't really need that LASER dot in the first place.
.
If I had one now, I'd try some of the things I think need to be tested. (Maybe that'll be my next firearms-related purchase.)

 

[MarkDido]

A bad guy, seeing the shine of your laser, will immediately give up his attack.

Just like the same guy will flee your house upon hearing you rack a shell into your shotgun (as I have heard many people advise).

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

A bad guy, seeing the shine of your laser, will immediately give up his attack.

Just like the same guy will flee your house upon hearing you rack a shell into your shotgun (as I have heard many people advise).

I wouldn't count on it but a laser does add another level of intimidation.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Just like the same guy will flee your house upon hearing you rack a shell into your shotgun (as I have heard many people advise)

Me? I want a round already in the chamber and I don't want to make any more noise than I absolutely HAVE to make...

 

[Hokkmike]

Here is an outtake on the OP. If one does, in fact, have a laser on his/her pistol doesn't that give the shooter two choices, using the gun's sights OR the laser as the situation may demand?

 

[JR24]

Me? I want a round already in the chamber and I don't want to make any more noise than I absolutely HAVE to make...

The first warning an intruder will get in my home (apart from being chewed on by my dogs) would be a tac light in their eyes.

My defense guns are always hot.

 

[Sam1911]

Just about every SWAT team and military around is adopting red dot sights. They do that because they feel it gives better (faster, more accurate) target acquisition.

As Walt mentioned, and I mentioned before, night vision equipment has a lot to do with this. It is hard to use conventional sights with NVG, but an IR laser can give you a world of advantage as the enemy sees neither you nor the lasers.

 

[JR24]

As Walt mentioned, and I mentioned before, night vision equipment has a lot to do with this. It is hard to use conventional sights with NVG, but an IR laser can give you a world of advantage as the enemy sees neither you nor the lasers.

And that is largely on long guns, no? Or does that trend also extend to pistols?

 

[9mmepiphany]

If one does, in fact, have a laser on his/her pistol doesn't that give the shooter two choices, using the gun's sights OR the laser as the situation may demand?

While that would seem logical, in reality it isn't.

A laser isn't truly used as an aiming device, it is more a confirmation device that your sights/muzzle is correctly oriented.

When some of us are talking about how the laser is slower on target, we are referring to folks "trying" to use it as an exclusive aim device...without correlation to the sights or NPA. Using it as a aiming device entails pointing it in the general direction of the threat, finding the "dot" and moving it onto the target

 

[usp9]

I truly use lasers as aiming devices. It isn't rocket science. Dot on the target, pull trigger, hit where dot was pointing. Easy as 1,2,3.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

truly use lasers as aiming devices. It isn't rocket science. Dot on the target, pull trigger, hit where dot was pointing. Easy as 1,2,3.

Agreed. But you've got to be on target to pull the trigger. The argument being chased (dealt with) here was that use of a LASER aiming device was the ideal tool in very low-light/dark situations, where you don't have a good view of the target.

It has been argued here that proper technique with a LASER is to get your gun on the target and then use the LASER dot to refine your proposed point of impact. The dot is insurance! With some practice, that technique could greatly increase your accuracy.

But if you find the DOT isn't on target, as might be the case if you don't CLEARLY see the target, or if the target is moving!, you may lose your ability focus on your real objective (getting centered on the target) and start using the DOT as a search device, rather than ignoring it as you should. If your key interest is positioning the DOT, that is likely to happen..

I'd argue that If the light is very low, or it's very dark, the LASER adds little or nothing. I'll agree that night sights are equally ineffective in those same conditions -- you've got to know WHERE to position the gun for either the night sights or the LASER to be useful. (More than one participant here has made the point that if you can't really see your target well, you ought not be pulling the trigger!!)

In very low light or very dark conditions when it's hard to find the target, the "target" may also be armed, may have already adjusted to the low light conditions, and possibly can see you better than you see him. Then, a hand-held or weapon-mounted light is likely the most practical tool -- particularly if that light can be flicked on or off quickly: used in that way, the light can let you get a better view of the target location, may briefly blind the target, and it may only briefly disclose your general location.

 

[Nanook]

I'm sure there is a more useless pistol accessory out there; I'm just not sure what it is.

I saw a pistol bayonet at a LGS. It goes on the rail under the barrel. That might qualify.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I saw a pistol bayonet at a LGS. It goes on the rail under the barrel. That might qualify.

Post #85

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Simple question: Is it really worth it to have a laser on a pistol?"

Depends on the pistol. I put a conventional pistol scope on a bulky .22 pistol (Charter Arms Explorer II) which would work great for sniping squirrels out of the top of a tree or laying in wait for a varmint. However, at dusk, at close range, acquiring a sight picture quickly was near impossible. I clamped a .22 rifle laser sight on the scope tube and adjusted it to put the projected dot where the crosshairs fell at 12 yards. I call it my "space gun".

I have more conventional handguns, with open sights, for ordinary handgun use. No laser needed. So far. Not to say it would not be useful under certain circumstances to have the option of a laser on the conventional handguns. But quick defensive use of my scope sighted "space gun" would simply not be posssible without a laser to point and acquire target under adverse conditions.

 

[DMK]

Walt, I agree with everything you said.

However, chasing the dot is not a laser problem. It's a training problem. We can't blame the tool because someone doesn't know how to use it properly. I remember similar arguments against red dot optics back in the day. Few complain anymore because tactics and methods have been proven, and when someone uses them wrong we now blame the method, not the tool.

Regarding the light on your handgun, most of the laser manufacturers have products that include both a light and laser integrated together. My XDS and my Shield both have Crimson Trace lasers with an integrated 150 lumen light. It's a pretty handy tool to have on a 24/7 carry weapon. I do admit that if I could keep only one, I'd take the light over the laser without hesitation.

Agreed. But you've got to be on target to pull the trigger. The argument being chased (dealt with) here was that use of a LASER aiming device was the ideal tool in very low-light/dark situations, where you don't have a good view of the target.

It has been argued here that proper technique with a LASER is to get your gun on the target and then use the LASER dot to refine your proposed point of impact. The dot is insurance! With some practice, that technique could greatly increase your accuracy.

But if you find the DOT isn't on target, as might be the case if you don't CLEARLY see the target, or if the target is moving!, you may lose your ability focus on your real objective (getting centered on the target) and start using the DOT as a search device, rather than ignoring it as you should. If your key interest is positioning the DOT, that is likely to happen..

I'd argue that If the light is very low, or it's very dark, the LASER adds little or nothing. I'll agree that night sights are equally ineffective in those same conditions -- you've got to know WHERE to position the gun for either the night sights or the LASER to be useful. (More than one participant here has made the point that if you can't really see your target well, you ought not be pulling the trigger!!)

In very low light or very dark conditions when it's hard to find the target, the "target" may also be armed, may have already adjusted to the low light conditions, and possibly can see you better than you see him. Then, a hand-held or weapon-mounted light is likely the most practical tool -- particularly if that light can be flicked on or off quickly: used in that way, the light can let you get a better view of the target location, may briefly blind the target, and it may only briefly disclose your general location.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

However, chasing the dot is not a laser problem. It's a training problem. We can't blame the tool because someone doesn't know how to use it properly. I remember similar arguments against red dot optics back in the day. Few complain anymore because tactics and methods have been proven, and when someone uses them wrong we now blame the method, not the tool.

Training sometimes sort of disappears when the trainee is stressed/pressure, or faced with a unexpected or unusual situation. (Quick answer: the training wasn't sufficient.)

Have you tried using a LASER in low light with a moving target? Seems to me, based on what I've seen, that would be the hardest situation to deal with -- and the situation most likely to cause failure unless the shooter has PRACTICED a lot to deal with that type of oddball situation.

I've got night sights on my self-defense and home-defense guns and an easy-on small, bright hand-held light, now. This discussion, however, has caused me to think about getting another LASER/LIGHT combo, and giving it another try. Then I've got all three options: night sights/LASER/ and light. I'm also thinking about the type of night sights that have Tritum elements in front of fibre-optic elements..

 

[DMK]

Training sometimes sort of disappears when the trainee is stressed/pressure, or faced with a unexpected or unusual situation. (Quick answer: the training wasn't sufficient.)

Have you tried using a LASER in low light with a moving target? Seems to me, based on what I've seen, that would be the hardest situation to deal with -- and the situation most likely to cause failure unless the shooter has PRACTICED a lot to deal with that type of oddball situation.

Both of these could also be issues with iron sights as well.

I've got night sights on my self-defense and home-defense guns and an easy-on small, bright hand-held light, now. This discussion, however, has caused me to think about getting another LASER/LIGHT combo, and giving it another try. Then I've got all three options: night sights/LASER/ and light. I'm also thinking about the type of night sights that have Tritum elements in front of fibre-optic elements..

That is exactly the setup I have on my XDS and my Shield. Crimson Trace LaserGuard Pros and Truglo TFX Sights. Not a cheap combination though. But comforting to have on you at 0 dark thirty.