Can you show us, in the rule books, where those types of sights (LIGHTS or LASERS) are even allowed in sanctioned contests like IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, etc.?
The new IDPA rule book has a provision for special item divisions where clubs can run guns that IDPA recognizes are used for defensive purposes but which don't fit into IDPA's six standard gun categories. So we may begin to see more common comparisons.
(I don't think you're using the term "Sanctioned" as IDPA does, by the way.)
I'm still thinking about this overall question and trying to formulate a coherent broad statement that expresses my experiences and thoughts. That isn't easy.
About the best I've come up with so far are a few statements I think are probably true:
1) There ARE
very specific circumstances where a laser is unquestionably better than iron sights for making a shot. These are far more limited than most people suspect, but they do exist.
2) The best use of a laser is still dependent on proper pistol fundamentals, which can best be described as, "
presenting the pistol as though using the iron sights for a high-speed aimed shot, but then -- not able to discern the front sight -- observing the laser dot as a final aiming confirmation." This relies on very good practical shooting habits/training, and discipline in practice and execution so the "observing the dot" step doesn't become "chasing the dot." I.e.: a poor practice and crutch which slows down execution.
3) The very specific circumstances mentioned in item "1" above, may indeed hinder or even make impossible the best practices described in "2." In other words, those times when a laser really IS better, all you may have available to you is the lesser "fishing around to find the dot" capacity, because you really can't see the gun, or can't get it presented well/normally.
4) We speak as though the transition between using the sights in a proper presentation and shot, and switching to laser-dot aim confirmation, is a completely instantaneous thing, with no significant detriment to speed of breaking the shot or ability to react to changing conditions like a moving threat. I do not believe this is so. Or is not often/rarely so. Any complexity introduced into a high-speed highly practiced skill like shooting a handgun in a dynamic situation can cause very surprising failure modes and hangups. E.g:
a) There's a threat! Draw and present the pistol.
b) I can't see my sight.
c) Switch on the laser/laser should be activated because my hand's on the grip button.
d) I do/don't see the dot! Is it on? Where is it?
e) Do I need to move the gun and locate the dot? Or do I need to change my grip and make sure I'm on the button? Or double-check the switch?
f) It's on, now where it is?
g) He's moved/moving! Am I tracking my front sight to keep on him? Or trying to sweep my laser dot across the wall and get it back onto him?
h) Etc., etc.,
5) Many of these things can be reduced in negative impact by extensive practice. However, this is problematic. Few of us practice "enough" with our handguns in very dynamic shooting scenarios, period. Those of us us DO practice a lot with dynamic situations and moving targets probably don't dedicate anything like even 1% of that practice time to shooting with a laser sight at all, especially under the very challenging circumstances which -- we're seeming to agree -- define the times when a laser is more likely to be better than iron sights.
6) For way too many shooters, in fact probably almost every shooter who owns one, (though fortunately none here, of course, of course!) a laser sight is like almost any other tactical add-on: Something that is bought so that "well, now I have the option to use that," and then assumed to be a viable tool at their immediate, seamless, disposal in the fairly unlikely event that it is needed. But that assumption is very probably unfounded. Like buying a trauma kit "in case I ever need it" -- when the most dire need arrives there may be uncomfortable lessons learned about how and how well it does what it was assumed to do, and for most of us, learning its intricacies in the worst possible conditions may be disappointing.