Will Optics Overtake Iron Sights on Pistols?

[taliv]

this has been my daily CCW since 2013
carried IWB
no problems with durability as far as the optic breaking, but it has come loose a couple times and needed loctite.

[resize=500] [/resize]

i don't expect optics to overtake irons on pistols any time soon. heck, most AR15s are still irons only. and yes, the price for a quality optic is as much as most people pay for their handgun. and most handguns people ccw are too small and carried in a pocket or purse or something...


to be perfectly honest, i think the next generation of sighting is going to be way cooler. if you don't keep up with technology, you should probably know that facebook bought a new virtual reality company called oculus rift, and google bought a competing one called magic leap, and microsoft is building their own. for a better understanding, I believe fb paid $2 billion for it. and google paid over $500 million for theirs. for an example, watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMHcanq0xM

then consider how a system like that could pretty easily be used for targeting. granted, you have to make it portable like google glass and write an app and maybe add a special laser to your handgun, but it seems an inevitable, and really dang cool future. (no word yet on whether you'll have to unfriend somebody before shooting them)

 

[Walkalong]

Putting optics on a well built and attractive hand gun is like seeing

I used to think the same thing, that a red dot on a handgun was ugly, bulky, and just not needed, but that was back when I had much better than 20/20 vision. I now have red dots on a few handguns, and I am thinking of getting my XDm milled to accept a red dot.

 

[wally]

Does anyone compete in "open" pistol speed shooting events with iron sights? They would if irons were in any way faster or better.

But, for a non-le CCW who is just up and about the town and carries for SD, the point and shoot or irons are the ticket. I coined this phrase some time ago: "While you're looking for the dot you will be shot".

Same will happen if you are trying to find the front sight or fumbling for your reading glasses. "Point shooting" is a skill worth learning and practicing! My claim is if you have time to aim, red dots have proven their superiority in open division pistol competitions.

When you get old and can't focus on the front sight (I'm still 20/20 at distance, but anything inside of about 5 feet is just a blur, focus on the front sight is impossible without reading glasses.

This is my solution for carry:

You need to work on the presentation when using a red dot same as you would for irons so its just there when you look, it takes retraining after you switch.

 

[Sam1911]

For defensive use, I think you'd be better off practicing point shooting.

Ok, that is one "school" of defensive handgunning. Usually promoted most religiously by those who for whatever reason don't understand the idea of a sighting continuum, i.e.: a spectrum of sight picture refinement loosely tied to distance.

The idea that "point shooting" is the way to shoot under practical conditions -- as opposed to merely being a part of a smooth flow of degrees of sight acquisition (as Brian Enos says, "seeing what you need to see to make the shot") -- should be dead by now. But isn't.

Stuff happens (fast), so even if you have a "faster" optic, you may not have time to bring your sights on target for your first shot or two.

You MAY not. So what? How is that a rebuff of this technology? You MAY not have time to get your gun out at all! You MAY not have time to find the sights or dot -- and that might not be the right way to shoot at all under those particular conditions. But almost no one discourages anyone from having iron sights on their weapon, and learning to use them when the moment is proper.

(And to take this in wholly the other direction, we hear from plenty of people who believe that a laser sight has some place in their defensive shooting plans. Talk about slow to acquire!)

 

[kozak6]

I think the biggest barrier is cost. A good red dot costs as much as another pistol.

 

[basicblur]

Ok, that is one "school" of defensive handgunning. Usually promoted most religiously by those who for whatever reason don't understand the idea of a sighting continuum, i.e.: a spectrum of sight picture refinement loosely tied to distance.

Without trying to define exactly what you mean by sighting continuum, I'm going to point out that nowhere did I say every shot in a SD situation should be a point shot - only that in a life / death situation, don't be surprised if in your haste to put the BG on the defensive, your first few shots aren't point shots in order to get him to keep his head down, stop what he's doing, and attempt to put him behind the curve.

I've listened to enough interviews with folks (mostly cops) and have talked to a few at the local gun shop that were involved in shootings. Many report:
1. They never saw the sights.
2. They never heard the gunshots.
3. They have no idea how many shots they fired.

The idea that "point shooting" is the way to shoot under practical conditions -- as opposed to merely being a part of a smooth flow of degrees of sight acquisition (as Brian Enos says, "seeing what you need to see to make the shot") -- should be dead by now. But isn't.

Some of this stuff is all well and good in the classroom / practice range, but I tend to put more weight on how people react under actual life / death situations. I think many have found theory often takes a back seat to what's required to handle the immediate situation.

You MAY not. So what? How is that a rebuff of this technology?

Not rebuffing it per se - just pointing out that when folks get into these discussions, they often try to point out the perfect bad situation (or good situation in the case of speed on target with an optic) to support their arguments.

(And to take this in wholly the other direction, we hear from plenty of people who believe that a laser sight has some place in their defensive shooting plans. Talk about slow to acquire!)

And once again are we not getting into the perfect bad situation (that laser is slower to acquire). OK, you've given me the bad about the laser (as you see it) - what's the other side of the argument?

FWIW, I have a laser on a few of my SD guns.
While it may be "slower" to acquire (and I ain't really buying that), a lot of folks in here will be surprised to find things they thought were set in stone tend to change with aging eyes.

We won't even get into the fact that I focus on the target / threat and not the front sights...
(although I see some folks are now teaching this)

 

[arspeukinen]

No. They add complexity (points of failure), weight and size. They are ugly, with no exceptions. Unlike rifles, pistols are for shorter range and aimed even instinctively.

Optics on pistols are fine for hunting and some disciplines.

 

[wally]

We won't even get into the fact that I focus on the target / threat and not the front sights...
(although I see some folks are now teaching this)

This is another advantage of the dot optics -- you look thru the dot and focus on the target. I don't care who you are, its damn hard to focus on the front sight instead of the threat when the bullets might be flying both ways!


I find laser sights difficult to adjust, and usually impossible to see outdoors in daylight. Where I find them most useful is dry-fire point shooting practice (Airsoft is another nice option if you buy a realistic copy of your carry gun). I pick out my target, close my eyes and draw, I open my eyes as the gun dry-fires and see where the laser is on the target. Those laser trainers that "pulse" on the dry fire click are even better for this, but ~$100 is too much for this purpose for me, I'd rather put the cash toward a realistic Airsoft replica of my carry gun.

1. They never saw the sights.
2. They never heard the gunshots.
3. They have no idea how many shots they fired.

The only two people I know who've actually fired guns in a self-defense situation both report the same, and one used an AR-15!


I think dot optics will quickly become the norm on defensive handguns once the Patents on Trijicon's dual illuminated RMR (no batteries!) expire and they get integrated into the slides instead of being add-ons.

I think the biggest barrier is cost. A good red dot costs as much as another pistol.

Unfortunately this is a showstopper for a lot of folks. The RMR and its mount cost significantly more than did the Shield I have it on

 

[basicblur]

I don't care who you are, its damn hard to focus on the front sight instead of the threat when the bullets might be flying both ways!

It's even harder to focus on the front sight when the bullets are flying ONE way!
You'll probably be behind the curve, so you may be getting shot / aimed at before you can get sights on target.

I'm guessing in a SD scenario I'm going to be:
1. Behind the curve.
2. Moving FIRST.
3. Firing the first few (only required?) shots by point shooting.

Of course, this assumes normal SD distances - the farther away the BG is, perhaps the more time I'll have (and will be required) to bring sights on target.

If I was going with an optic on a SD pistol, it would have to be Tritium (always on, no batteries / on / off switches).

Personally, I like lasers better than optics on a SD gun.
Don't worry about using them during the day (just use the irons) - nice to have for lower light scenarios.

 

[Sam1911]

Without trying to define exactly what you mean by sighting continuum

No need to try.

Sighting continuum is merely a quick way of saying that sometimes you've got the gun pressed right against the bad guy 'cause you're fighting close, maybe even on the ground, and you're trying to shoot him off of you.
And sometimes you're only able to get the gun up to a retention position and using your body index to point the gun at his torso, firing without even seeing the gun in your peripheral view.
And sometimes you're able to get the gun up enough to see the silhouette of the slide superimposed on the bad guy's torso, and that's enough to make your hits.
And sometimes you've got distance/time to see the front sight clearly and press the trigger.
And sometimes you've got distance and time such that you can, and must, see both the front and rear sights and dress that sight picture carefully to hit what you need to.

All a matter of seeing what you have to see to make the shots. And a practiced handgunner does all of them smoothly without conscious decision about which is required for a particular situation.

I've listened to enough interviews with folks (mostly cops) and have talked to a few at the local gun shop that were involved in shootings. Many report:
1. They never saw the sights.
2. They never heard the gunshots.
3. They have no idea how many shots they fired.

Great examples of the mutability of perception and memory under extreme stress. And also why we train and practice so that our conscious mind doesn't have to focus on the mechanics of sighting and making a shot.

You MAY not. So what? How is that a rebuff of this technology?

Not rebuffing it per se - just pointing out that when folks get into these discussions, they often try to point out the perfect bad situation (or good situation in the case of speed on target with an optic) to support their arguments.

And I'm asking why, if the discussion is about the relative merits of sighting systems, you would use instances of NON-SIGHTED fire to evaluate the benefits of either.

Clearly, we sometimes need our sights (ahem... ) so seeing as no one is petitioning gun makers to quit putting nice sights on our sidearms, will RMR style optics become prevalent? That's the question. Not "hey, sometimes you don't use sights..."

(And to take this in wholly the other direction, we hear from plenty of people who believe that a laser sight has some place in their defensive shooting plans. Talk about slow to acquire!)

And once again are we not getting into the perfect bad situation (that laser is slower to acquire). OK, you've given me the bad about the laser (as you see it) - what's the other side of the argument?

There's been a lot written about laser sights, pro and con. I'd rather not drag this discussion off into that ditch. Let's just agree that we're comparing racecars and oxcarts and that debate is for a different time.

FWIW, I have a laser on a few of my SD guns.
While it may be "slower" to acquire (and I ain't really buying that), a lot of folks in here will be surprised to find things they thought were set in stone tend to change with aging eyes.

And, again not wanting to get into a lasers debate, RMR red dot optics actually SOLVE the aging eyes problem that lasers have been propped up as a make-do "fix" for for the last 20 years.

We won't even get into the fact that I focus on the target / threat and not the front sights...
(although I see some folks are now teaching this)

And that's right back to my description of the sighting continuum.

 

[MCgunner]

Educate me. Do these "red dots" have batteries? If not, how do they work, exactly? If they do, do you have to turn 'em on before using 'em? Would work great for games, but in a fight, are you going to have time?

There must be some sort of battery-less technology, here, I'm thinkin'.

I practice ALL defensive shooting at handshake to 3 yards range point shooting from the hip. I've gotten pretty decent at it if I do say so myself. I practice at 3-7 yards point shooting from isosceles ready, no sights. Beyond 7 yards, I use my sights. I think the likelihood of having to use the sights in a defensive shooting is nil. It's likely going to be at handshake to 3 yards. At NIGHT, or in dim light, I can see merit in one of the super compact laser systems like crimson trace, but I don't have such a system on any of my guns. I think I'd rather have tritium sights, which I don't, just sayin'.

 

[taliv]

the RMR pictured above has no batteries

 

[basicblur]

Do these "red dots" have batteries? If not, how do they work, exactly? If they do, do you have to turn 'em on before using 'em?

Trijicon makes models with a Tritium insert (no batteries, always "on") - only thing I'd consider on a SD handgun.

I practice ALL defensive shooting at handshake to 3 yards range point shooting from the hip.

I guess the definition of "point shooting" now enters the picture?
When I say point shooting, I'm referring to bringing the gun up to a normal / almost normal sighted fire position, but shooting before using the sights.
I guess the term can have different meanings / techniques.

One of my old Lenny MaGill DVDs covered point shooting - not a bad little video (The Truth About Point Shooting)
He wondered why all the confusion / vitriol in gun circles over point shooting, so he made a video covering all the scientific aspects and had a number of shooters of varying experience go thru some point shooting exercises.

The person that was the best point shooter of the bunch?
It was a gal that had never fired a gun before the making of the video. They gave her a crash course in firearms, and she racked up the best score / hits of any of the shooters, some of which were IDPA etc. competitors.

I'm a bit like old Lenny - I don't understand why folks want to overcomplicate point shooting or have such contempt for it.

Different tools for different situations...

 

[Sam1911]

... Or why they debate the merits and style of point shooting in a thread about whether optical SIGHTS will overtake iron SIGHTS on handguns.

Now, if we're to have a discussion of "Will Manufacturers Stop Putting Sights On Handguns Because Point Shooting is Great?" I could see it.

 

[Sunray]

Optics have overtaken most hunting rifles, not most rifles, period. There are still competitions where iron sights are required. Ditto for hand guns.

 

[MCgunner]

... Or why they debate the merits and style of point shooting in a thread about whether optical SIGHTS will overtake iron SIGHTS on handguns.

Now, if we're to have a discussion of "Will Manufacturers Stop Putting Sights On Handguns Because Point Shooting is Great?" I could see it.

I only brought up my point shooting practice in the post because at handshake range to 7 yards, I don't use sights, why would I need an optical sight? Defensive shooting for the individual concealed carrier is most probably going to be a very short "point shooting" range. So, why bother with an optical sight on the gun at all? Indeed, many pocket guns like the Seecamps and the new Taurus Curve have no sights at all, just a groove down the top of the slide. Of course, the new Curve has a laser, not real useful in sunlight, but nice in the dark.

I do, however, like having sights on my carries, but they are less important to me than the pointability of the gun in my hand. This is why I prefer my revolvers for carry, they point naturally for me probably because I've been shooting revolvers for such a long time. They have accurate sights on 'em, though, that I can use if needed.

The only red dot sight I own is on a crossbow. Bow season starts Saturday. That sight works rather well, but it does have a battery. You have time to turn it on, though, when a deer walks out of the woods. I wouldn't want that type of sight on a defensive gun. The tritium ones sound a lot more desirable, but I'd rather just put standard tritium sights on the gun if I thought it necessary, more compact, more rugged. Optical sights don't much like getting banged around in a fight. Of course, if you're fighting hand to hand, you don't need a sight. This is why I practice hip shooting at handshake ranges, to keep the gun away from the attacker, as close to me as possible and defended by my off arm extended which I don't practice doing for obvious reasons.

Anyway, I have a feeling it's the gamesters that are all for the optics. My feeling is, I'm very unlikely to be engaged in a run and gun fight ala IPSC at 30 yards. I'm more likely to be wrestling with the guy at handshake ranges. This is also the reason I carry my NAA .22 in folding grip in my weak side pocket, in case my strong side arm is tied up wrestling with a BG's weapon hand, I can use my free weak arm to grab the mini revolver and screw it into his ear or poke him in the eye with it and pop a cap on him.

I really don't think any defensive gun fight I'm likely to be in is going to be as clean as an IPSC or IDPA scenario. It's likely to be more akin to a wrestling match/boxing match to start off with, perhaps a knife involved if not a gun at close range. It won't be pretty and if it ever happens, I hope I can survive it. I really don't think an optic will help, though. If I'm far enough away for an optic to help, I need to be retreating to cover FAST.

JMH none ninja O, though. We can only speculate about such things. Not being a LEO, I'm not out looking for a fight, just trying to be ready in the highly unlikely case that I ever have to defend myself.

But, for the above reasons, optics on carry guns are NOT in my future. However, on hunting guns and, perhaps, gaming guns, SURE, I'm open to the possibility and, indeed, have several scoped handguns. When I belonged to a gun club several years ago, I got my new to me Ruger Mk2 with 2x optic on it. We had these falling plates at 25 yards, long rope to reset 'em, was real fun to shoot. I could take that Mk 2 at 25 yards and mow those plates down so fast I scared myself. Just walk the crosshair plate to plate, no sights to align like my other guns. I can CERTAINLY see the value in optics, red dots and such, for games. I just don't see a future for 'em in a defensive pistol, not a BIG future, anyway. Again, JMHO.

 

[Nuclear]

The battery life on the red dots used by the military, police and competitors are now measured in years. You could also make one powered by the motion of the slide. I can think of several ways to activate a red dot by the act of drawing the gun. Durability has been solved, now prices need to come down. And they need to stop making them so bloody big.

I've competed without optics and with them. No comparison in speed or ease of use. The optics win every time, given users of equal skill and ability.

 

[Sam1911]

Interesting, as I'd have said that the SIZE problem has been solved (don't really see how much smaller these can get and still see through them), but the long-term durability problem is still hung up at ~80%.

I known a fair number of competitive shooters who are using RMR type sights, and the recurring theme is XYZ number of rounds and then back to the manufacturer, with many guys keeping at least one spare in regular rotation on the gun.

 

[taliv]

sam are you saying you've seen the dual illumination trijicon RMR sites fail regularly? or are you saying the battery operated, similarly sized micro red dots fail regularly?

 

[X-Rap]

An RMR with back up sights is definitely in my future, basically need to just figure which slide to have milled first.
I've been shooting with a similar holographic sight (EOTec) on an AR for years and it has no equal for speed and accuracy at 50 yds and under IMO so I'm sold on the concept for a defensive handgun as well.
At further distances the 1 MOA dot on the carbine is far more accurate than open sights and quicker than magnified optics. I would think a 3-5MOA dot on a handgun would be appropriate.

 

[Sam1911]

sam are you saying you've seen the dual illumination trijicon RMR sites fail regularly? or are you saying the battery operated, similarly sized micro red dots fail regularly?

Let me query my pals who are using these and see which ones they're seeing work or fail, specifically.

 

[tarosean]

no problems with durability as far as the optic breaking,

Yours doesn't have the circuit board or batteries like the others on the market.

Does anyone compete in "open" pistol speed shooting events with iron sights?

Sure when they get bumped from their class for having illegal mods. Doesnt work out to well for them though.

but the long-term durability problem is still hung up at ~80%.

That should be clarified as Slide Mounted RDS's. RDS's mounted above the slide, are like the energizer bunny and keep going. Unfortunately the best on the market, C-Moore Serendipity or SlideRide (Not RTS or RTS2), is rather large to be mounted on the slide.


FWIW since NROI approved the Glock MOS for USPSA Production/Carry Optics last month, as mine has been gathering dust.. I will be attempting Carry Optics later this year. (out of the country right now)
I will never carry it thou..

 

[Panzerschwein]

As optics get smaller, lighter and cheaper... who knows what the future will bring? It isn't hard to imagine where pretty much all new guns come with say some kind of micro red dot sight that only weighs half an ounce and is super rugged/has a super long battery life. I could easily see iron sights becoming less common, with these being more popular.

But for now I'm sure iron sights will be around for some time.

 

[Sam1911]

taliv, I got one response back from a pal already:

the big C-more, the slide ride, is still the Gold Standard for Open. Over 12,000 rounds through mine and never had a hiccup. They are big, but they work.

The little C-mores, the STS and RTS, are the ones lasting for a few hundred, or dozen rounds. Battery contact issues from the shock of recoil. Still junk. Seth got like 10 rounds through his first one and it died.

The Leupolds and Trijicons are lasting a real long time so far. Jessie Duff uses the LP on her Open gun.

So that's good news!

 

[taliv]

ok that's consistent with my experience

trijicon has several models that use batteries. i wonder if those are holding up like the non-battery "dual illumination" model