Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Redcoat3340, May 11, 2019.
Good luck finding the dot on presentation with it sitting all the way up there....
I’m seeing a lot of suggestions. I don’t see a lot of top end stuff.
Luckily I tried this, before I read opinions on how it would work from people that never tried it!
Yeah, the OP said top end but then set a $2000 price range, which is somewhat contradictory.
But $2000 does buy a nice pistol.
OK, what are your times with it from the holster to 1st shot on an IPSC target “A” zone at say 10 yards? What do your split times look like on something like a Bill Drill? Do you have a comparison of times on the same pistol with the iron sights?
Curious because most guys shooting red dots on pistols who are serious about it want the slide mounted red dot sight buried as deep in the slide as they can get it to make presentation from the holster and sight tracking easier.
My experience with an RMR on a Freedom Arms M83 demonstrated that having the sight way up high was not fast on target without a ton of practice. Conversely a few trips to the range with a Glock 19 MOS with an RMR and finding the dot quickly and getting the first round on target wasn’t much of an issue. A bit slower than the iron sights, but still in the hunt and with some cleaning up presentation and grip should be equal.
What to buy? A house in another state.
Seriously. Just another step towards making life difficult for gun owners. Go where it’s more friendly.
You can get an awesome gun for $2000.
Realistically there becomes a point of rapidly diminishing returns on a handgun where price versus mechanical quality and performance potential is concerned. Right around that $2000-$2500 mark is about where it currently lies in my estimation. As noted $2-2.5K can get you an outstanding production or semi-custom pistol that will be well made, accurate, reliable, and fun to shoot.
Spending more than that might get you better performance or cosmetics, but the performance or cosmetic improvements become much more incremental and the price becomes hugely more expensive.
I’m speaking to new guns, collector guns or other investment oriented firearms are not my bailywick.
Under $2000. I would give the P210A a hard look since that seems to appeal to you. Pretty much everyone I have read about that has reported owning one loves it. American Rifleman did a review on it and the accuracy they got was pretty impressive with 25 yard groups as small as .49 inch. I was able compare the P210A and CZ Shadow 2 side by side dry firing at my local gun store and the trigger on the P210A Target I tried was definitely superior to the Shadow 2.
You clearly don't know how WA state operates, it's geography, or it's demographics.
Here's the reality: the controlling population (in terms of number of people/voters/political representation) is from the Seattle metro area (King and Snohomish counties and the City of Seattle). They are blue. Very, very blue. Completely blue. And even if the entire rest of the state votes red/gun rights/2A rights/no gun control laws, (which it does on every gun issue) the Democratic majority in the State Senate, House, and Governor's mansion, elected by the numerically superior anti-gunners in Seattle area, rule.
It's that simple.
No amount of money is going to change that. Because no candidate, even with a fortune behind him or her, is going to overcome the anti-gun majority in "Western Washington." (And the money behind the anti-gunners is the billionaires who've made a fortune in tech and spend like they has money to burn...which they do. A lot of it.)
Further we have an initiative system here. A required number of voters can put anything up as an "initiative" to be voted on by the whole state. The last two major sets of gun laws were voted in this way. Again, the overwhelming population advantage of Western Washington anti-gunners simply overwhelms the rest of the state, which voted "NO!" And it was funded by Bloomberg and a couple of guys with more money than even him.
So a much as I dislike what's going on here politically, my $2000 or so ain't gonna change it. And there have been a couple of semi-serious attempts to start a new state (Eastern WA State) but the legislature ain't gonna let that happen.
So unless you can fund some candidates here in WA...please, couch your comments in somewhat more polite terms. I will be happy go engage in any debate on 2A rights and gun control...but civilly.
You want to know why that is? The amount of time a skilled craftsman has involved in a particular project. Same as any other material good that is customized by a professional in their field of expertise .
We are not talking about mass produced production items, shelled out by robots, min wage workers or foreign sweat shops.
Your dimishing returns statement only reflects your opinion. Probably tied closer to wallet size than factual info.
Whereas, I don't believe there is such a thing. I can spend a 300.00 bucks and have a decent gun or I can spend 10000.00 and have a unique one.. They will both do the same thing. Yet one could argue that a High-Point does it too.
Yeah I’m perfectly aware of all of that.
I don’t need you to tell me what skilled craftsmanship is worth or how much per hour it costs, I've paid for some over the years. I own more than a few firearms worth quite a bit more than $2K.
That said they are not generally twice as good as a similar firearm costing $2K. Diminishing returns.
At any rate thanks for the personal attack implying that I'm a peasant. I'd report you, but unlike many here I don't go crying to the mods every time someone insults me. I'm guessing you do, so go ahead and report me for something.
I think you read it wrongly or I stated it wrongly? Not attacking you at all.
Well then maybe I mistook what you wrote.
To clarify my position: I’m not criticizing expensive firearms. Far from it, I own a few relatively expensive firearms and will continue to acquire more.
I just have a realistic understanding that in order to get those sometimes subtle improvements to durability, shootability (not sure that is an actual word..), mechanical accuracy, or reliability; that I’m going to pay a lot more money than for a firearm that may be 95% as “good” as the object of my desire. That extra 5%, to get the absolute bleeding edge of the best you can get from a skilled craftsman seems to cost way way more than an extra 5% in $$$. This applies to firearms, optics, automobiles, and probably a host of other products I’m overlooking.
I’d go with something different like a Colt Python or a Dan Wesson to compliment your BHPs. But that’s just me.
Unless the guys shooting red dots on pistols are so serious that they've got frame-mounted red-dots, which generally sit quite a bit higher than slide-mounted dots. Open guns are generally the fastest of all handgun types, and are clearly not hindered by the high dot. There is nothing inherently easier (or harder) about finding or tracking the dot by height. Nothing. NOTHING. And the objective data from USPSA/IPSC shows it. This is very clear cut.
However, the further from the "usual" height of the sights you are "used" to, the more work it will take to build a good index (i.e., draw gun/throw gun up coming from movement, see sights/dot approximately oriented with target/aiming spot). When I picked up an open gun earlier this year, I did a couple hundred dry-fire draws to get used to stopping the gun just an inch lower in the presentation.* I've shot several matches since then and have yet to experience the dot-hunting problem with the exception of a weak-hand-only string in the first match. Of course, I suck at WHO shooting, so I often go sight-hunting with my iron-sighted guns left-handed!
If someone's intention is to be able to switch back and forth between a dotless and dotted gun that is otherwise very similar - say, someone who is shooting both Carry Optics and Production divisions in a single weekend of a USPSA match - then getting the two guns to index as similarly as possible may matter. Otherwise - height of dot has nothing to do with speed. Slide-riding dots that are lower in the slide may have other advantages for something like concealability, though.
*And that's all a high-mounted red-dot means - you stop the vertical element of the draw just a touch lower. In other words, the gun gets to the firing position about an inch earlier than with a low-mounted dot or iron sights. Theoretically, this should ultimately slightly favor a high-mounted dot, but there's likely no actual advantage.
Since a 1911 is not in your wants, I would get the Sig 210. I own one and it is a great pistol, the rest of my 9mm do not come out of the safe very often these days.
A lot depends what you plan to do with it, the CZ's are very heavy, the 210 carries about like a 1911.
The standard model has come out with different grips and fixed sights and is a bit cheaper, but I like the adjustable sight and also like the target grips.
For $2000 you could buy the gun, holster, and several rounds of ammo.
I'd go with something that was built for competition - those are usually guns designed and built with a focus on delivering the best shooting performance possible. Presumably you're not looking for a $2k gun to drag through the mud, nor a $2k gun to be your carry piece. You are either looking for a wall-hanger, in which case I have no ideas for you, or you're looking for something to shoot for pleasure. The nicer Tanfoglios would fill that role very well.
The P210A is reportedly a good shooter, even though it gives up that Old World Craftsmanship in favor of better ergonomics. (My -6 Switzer is an accurate gun but the controls are awkward and it is just a matter of my narrow hand avoiding the hammer bite that makes my friends willing to hand it back after a very few shots.) The American Cousin has better placed safety, magazine catch, and a beavertail.
I use that 210A for NRA Bullseye.
Because I'm not limited by co-witnessing, it is also fun for shooting steel targets at longer range, holding over, without being obscured.
You're not going to be able to put a red dot on a 210 and co-witness anyway, unless you butcher the slide. I can swap my sights back, on my unmodified slide, via one pin and one screw.
If I wanted to play in IPSC Open, I'd go with a double stack 2011.
Comparing a compensated open division race gun with a frame mounted non reciprocating full size red dot sight to any slide mounted miniature red dot sight is like comparing apples to dump trucks. I think you know that, and you’re being disingenuous. Other than using a red dot as an aiming device what does an open gun that barely moves under recoil, and has a sight setup that doesn’t move back in forth have in common with a slide mounted micro RDS? The answer is basically nothing from the user’s perspective.
OK as a former bullseye shooter I see how it would work. Generous time limits and starting one handed at the low ready for timed fire and rapid fire, no holster work.
The point is that if low slide-mounted red dots were faster, then that's what people would be using on open guns. And/or draw times would be slower for open guns than iron-sighted guns - a compensator has nothing to do with time to first shot.
Again, dot height has nothing, in and of itself, to speed of dot acquisition... unless you've built a different index.
Dot height does mean that you have to worry about hold-over on close, small targets. But other than that, having the dot a full inch or even two inches above the bore is not inherently any slower.
If some CO guys are focused on getting the dot lower, that's just so they can keep the same index they've built with their other guns.
Tracking a slide mounted dot that is way up in the air so to speak is quite a bit slower in my limited experience, and seems to be the experience of most others who have tried dovetail mounts for slide mounted optics.
OK, so it's not acquisition on the draw, it's tracking in recoil? What's your conjecture as to why that would be fundamentally harder to track? Are you sure it's not just the user returning to their "old" index during a course of fire?
Separate names with a comma.