Will Pistol Iron Sights go the way of rifle sights and AR carry handle?

[jmorris]

With RDS's the big decision to make is what MOA the dot should be.

That is one nice thing about the C more, you can change out the dot module with different sizes from 2 MOA-16MOA.

Never shot from the pool but have used it to catch bullets, when I have wanted to see how my coating holds up to being fired.

 

[jmorris]

Jmorris
Interesting pictures, thanks for posting. I’d think finding a holster for that wheelie with a sight would be tough?!

Not really, there are a number of them out there.

 

[Hangingrock]

As to the notion that self-defense/carry guns are always used at distances that make sights irrelevant:

1. Wow, it's really soon after that TX active-shooter-interruption incident to be saying that.
2. Alright, assume 95% of SD gun use is at a range where no sights are needed at all (I think that's nonsense, and the kind of approach that explains why cops hit with less than a quarter of their fired shots, but let's take it as given). That's not an argument against red-dot sights replacing iron sights. I guess it's an argument against sights at all? But, regardless of the distance involved, there is no distance at which irons are better.
3. A lot of people misunderstand how optical sights improve pistol shooting. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the benefit RDS's give is being able to shoot smaller groups. That is hardly the sole - or even the primary - benefit. They are faster than notch-and-post, and they work better when you focus on the target (in contrast to iron sights, where some sighting performance is lost with a focus on the target rather than the front sight). Their biggest benefit comes when engaging a moving target and/or while the shooter is moving. Their area of greatest performance improvement is precisely the sort of mid-close range stuff with an assailant moving and the user moving that one might expect in a self-defense scenario.

There are, for now, valid arguments about the relative durability of RDS's compared to iron sights. There are valid arguments about whether spending the cost of the gun itself again on a suitable, ruggedized optic is worth the performance boost. There are reasonable arguments about whether waiting another year or two will get you dramatically better RDS options or dramatically cheaper options that are the same quality as the most expensive models today. And one could perhaps even make the argument that most gun carriers aren't really that competent and don't really have a good index, and iron sights are somewhat more forgiving of a very poor index. Those are valid arguments.

"I ain't trying to shoot groups" is not a good argument and reflects a failure to understand how RDSs are used at speed.

Ok tell me about the actual shooting incidents you have actually been in, you are speaking from experience are you not?

 

[ATLDave]

Ok tell me about the actual shooting incidents you have actually been in, you are speaking from experience are you not?

I have not been involved in any gunfights. Now if we're done with the ad hominem, can you tell me what I said that you specifically disagree with and why?

 

[Hangingrock]

I have not been involved in any gunfights. Now if we're done with the ad hominem, can you tell me what I said that you specifically disagree with and why?

No, I just wanted to know if you spoke from experience or theory.

 

[ATLDave]

My experience is limited to practical shooting games. I don’t express any view on tactics, I just have views on what works for time pressured shooting when it comes to getting hits on targets quickly. If you think getting hits on targets quickly isn’t relevant to self-defense, I don’t know what to say.

 

[35 Whelen]

How do you think using the sights becomes second nature if not becoming more naturally proficient in properly orienting the firearm to present it to the eye?

It became second nature many years ago. It's not something I have to practice in order to maintain proficiency.

35W

 

[Hangingrock]

My experience is limited to practical shooting games. I don’t express any view on tactics, I just have views on what works for time pressured shooting when it comes to getting hits on targets quickly. If you think getting hits on targets quickly isn’t relevant to self-defense, I don’t know what to say.

Actually my experience is based on actual combat experience in the military, but not the current on going hostilities. At that time we worked with what we had.

 

[tipoc]

Someone stated earlier that Crimson Trace does not make red dot optics. Reflex sights. Actually they do. They are not known for that but they do make red dots.

https://www.sccy.com/handguns/dvg/

DVG-1 RED DOT

For those who seek a faster sight-acquisition and added versatility in low-light conditions, the DVG-1RD comes factory equipped with a Crimson Trace CTS-1500 red dot optic. The CTS-1500 features a 3.5MOA round aiming dot and comes with its own 3-year factory warranty.

https://www.crimsontrace.com/products/by-product-type/electronic-sights

 

[psyopspec]

Ok tell me about the actual shooting incidents you have actually been in, you are speaking from experience are you not?

I'll bite. As someone who has been in gunfights, why would that matter for the sake of this discussion, and for addressing those points in particular?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

It became second nature many years ago.

I don't even know why you are attempting to argue this other than to be argumentative.

Okay, using iron sights became second nature many years ago. How? How did using iron sights become second nature? Was it because your father put a rifle in your hands, a bolt from the heavens struck you and BLAM you used iron sights quickly and proficiently... Or, was it like every other human where repetition built proficiency and over the course of time, the ability to use iron sights rapidly and proficiently became second nature?

It's the second.

It's always the second.

Iron sights, the bead on a shotgun barrel or a RDS. It's always the second. That is how humans work. Driving a stick shift requires training to become proficient. Typing on a keyboard requires training to become proficient. Handwritting requires training to become proficient. Vocal language requires training to become proficient. Pooping in a toilet instead of diapers requires training. Every single thing that a human does that isn't a function of the autonomic nervous system requires training in order to establish proficiency.

Yes, a RDS requires training to become proficient with it. You required training with iron sights to become proficient with them.

 

[35 Whelen]

I don't even know why you are attempting to argue this other than to be argumentative.

Okay, using iron sights became second nature many years ago. How? How did using iron sights become second nature? Was it because your father put a rifle in your hands, a bolt from the heavens struck you and BLAM you used iron sights quickly and proficiently... Or, was it like every other human where repetition built proficiency and over the course of time, the ability to use iron sights rapidly and proficiently became second nature?

It's the second.

It's always the second.

Iron sights, the bead on a shotgun barrel or a RDS. It's always the second. That is how humans work. Driving a stick shift requires training to become proficient. Typing on a keyboard requires training to become proficient. Handwritting requires training to become proficient. Vocal language requires training to become proficient. Pooping in a toilet instead of diapers requires training. Every single thing that a human does that isn't a function of the autonomic nervous system requires training in order to establish proficiency.

Yes, a RDS requires training to become proficient with it. You required training with iron sights to become proficient with them.

You accuse me of being argumentative then proceed to type four paragraphs in an attempt to prove me wrong????

You ask questions, I answer. Nothing argumentative about that.

If your personal experiences are different than mine, just accept it and move on.

35W

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

...then proceed to type four paragraphs in an attempt to prove me wrong????

Attempt to prove you wrong? No no, I don't need to do that. A simple logic check does that. Gun forums are usually quite full of exaggerated claims of skill and ability, but it takes an unbelievably extraordinary amount of hubris to claim, repeatedly, that unlike every other human on the planet, you alone do not required repetition to become proficient in complex physical activities. I'm not arguing with you, I'm keeping you talking. Every time you attempt to reinforce your claim that you became proficient at using iron sights simply by being told how to do that, and learning skills through repetition is for mere mortals, you tell the rest of the forum just how much value should be placed on your posts here. So, please, keep talking.

I would like to remind the rest of the forum that they are highly unlikely to be demi-gods as unto 35 Whelen, and if they want to be proficient with any sort of sighting system, they will need to put in some time with it. This also applies to all other aspects of gun handling such as drawing from a holster, magazine changes, shooting while moving etc. etc. None of you will be proficient in doing those things just because you read how to do it or someone told you how to do it. The only way to become proficient in those things is to do it. Repeatedly.

Which does make me wonder though, if somehow I am wrong, and you indeed did learn to use iron sights just by shown how they work, what exactly is stopping your from becoming instantly proficient with a red dot?

 

[ATLDave]

I continue to think there's a lot of "talking past one another" going on in this thread.

I think some of the harrumph-ers are thinking of handgun proficiency as being something that is binary - either you have it or you don't. You can either hit what you're aiming at or you can't. Because they can generally hit what they are aiming at, they consider themselves to be across that line, and not "need" any particular improvement. Conversely, they know that many people do struggle with handgun shooting and fall short of that "can hit stuff" line - and they (incorrectly) assume that those who are advocating for the benefits of RDS's are those same strugglers.

There's another view - that handgun proficiency is a long scale. And that there's always room to get further out towards the better end of the scale. If that's your view, if an RDS makes you 5% faster, that's an improvement... even if you're already more accurate and faster than the average gun user.

If you're someone who thinks you're currently "good enough" and can "get the job done," understand that, for those of us who are always trying to get a little better, something like an RDS isn't about fixing some deficiency. It's just about incremental improvement of measurable results.

 

[Hangingrock]

I'll bite. As someone who has been in gunfights, why would that matter for the sake of this discussion, and for addressing those points in particular?

The person I addressed the question to has already responded.

 

[35 Whelen]

Attempt to prove you wrong? No no, I don't need to do that. A simple logic check does that. Gun forums are usually quite full of exaggerated claims of skill and ability, but it takes an unbelievably extraordinary amount of hubris to claim, repeatedly, that unlike every other human on the planet, you alone do not required repetition to become proficient in complex physical activities. I'm not arguing with you, I'm keeping you talking. Every time you attempt to reinforce your claim that you became proficient at using iron sights simply by being told how to do that, and learning skills through repetition is for mere mortals, you tell the rest of the forum just how much value should be placed on your posts here. So, please, keep talking.

I would like to remind the rest of the forum that they are highly unlikely to be demi-gods as unto 35 Whelen, and if they want to be proficient with any sort of sighting system, they will need to put in some time with it. This also applies to all other aspects of gun handling such as drawing from a holster, magazine changes, shooting while moving etc. etc. None of you will be proficient in doing those things just because you read how to do it or someone told you how to do it. The only way to become proficient in those things is to do it. Repeatedly.

Which does make me wonder though, if somehow I am wrong, and you indeed did learn to use iron sights just by shown how they work, what exactly is stopping your from becoming instantly proficient with a red dot?

Relax, Francis. Again, for some reason, whether you realize it or not you've selected me to be the one you prove wrong, and I really don't see the point in that. If my not requiring repetition to correctly line up sights goes against your narrative, sorry, don't know what to tell you. I can go years without riding a bicycle or using a stick-shift, months without field dressing an animal, days without taking a dump in a toilet (Admittedly rare) or handwriting and still maintain a static level of proficiency in all those tasks. And so it goes that I've lined up enough sights in the last 50 years that I no longer give it a second thought, focusing instead on grip and trigger control, both of which DO take constant practice on my part. I guess I'm different than you; accept it.

As to your veiled accusation of exaggerate claims, if you'll go to the Revolver section and search my posts, you'll see quite a few nice 50, 75 and even one 100 yd. target fired with handguns from both offhand and sitting positions. And FWIW, the context of posting the pictures was the capabilities of the revolvers, not the fella running them.

What's stopping me from becoming instantly proficient with a red dot? Easy, I have no interest in them. Sights work quite well for me so I have no reason to use anything else.

35W

 

[psyopspec]

The person I addressed the question to has already responded.

Right, saw that. I'm still asking, if you're game, what that has to do with the points raised in your opinion.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

If my not requiring repetition to correctly line up sights goes against your narrative, sorry, don't know what to tell you.

Don't worry, there is nothing you can say, everyone here knows that it took you repetition to become proficient in the use of iron sights. And yes, I have chosen to prove you wrong, mostly because you are the person that made the claim. It would be very odd if I were to say, address ATLDave, in regards to your claim about instant proficiency with iron sights.

I can go years without riding a bicycle or using a stick-shift, months without field dressing an animal, days without taking a dump in a toilet (Admittedly rare) or handwriting and still maintain a static level of proficiency in all those tasks.

And yet, no matter what you say, these are still all skills that required repetition to become proficient in. Yes, you can return to them later because our brains are very good at recalling procedural memories. Episodic memories, such as an interaction between two people are declarative memories. Declarative and procedural memories are processed by the brain differently and even stored in different regions. So, the chances that you are biologically wired different than other human beings is highly unlikely.

Don't worry though, you admitted that it took you repetition to learn to use iron sights proficiently:

And so it goes that I've lined up enough sights in the last 50 years that I no longer give it a second thought

So... at some point you did have to work at it?

Oops. So much for how your dad showed you how to use iron sights and that was that... and anyone that "having to "train" with a type of sight speaks volumes in regards to the practicality or lack thereof, with your average shooter" (your words there)

Also, thanks for finally supporting my statement that your last 50 years of rifle shooting was training.

As to your veiled accusation of exaggerate claims,

Veiled? No, I straight up called BS on you. Because again, you aren't superman. You didn't pick up a rifle and instantly become proficient in the use of iron sights.

What's stopping me from becoming instantly proficient with a red dot? Easy, I have no interest in them.

And I'm straight up calling BS on that claim too. You won't reach any level of proficiency with a red dot instantly. No one does. Also, just for extra LOLs, now that you claim that you could become instantly proficient with a red dot, we must either 1) Accept an assumption that you are superior to all other humans in your ability to learn complex physical skills instantly -or- 2) Assume all other humans are capable of doing this, so there actually isn't a need to train with Red Dot sights, ergo there is no concern what so ever in regards to a need to training to use them.. which makes your whole detour a moot point

So.. Are you a super human who learns complex physical skills instantly, or is that a trait of all humans, and red dots therefore don't require repetition to become proficiently skilled with? (Hint: Neither answer that you've trapped yourself into is a good one)

As I said, all I needed to do was keep you talking.

K'thnx, Bye.

 

[jmorris]

At that time we worked with what we had.

That’s all that any of us can do. I think the topic is about changing what one has to work with.

 

[rskent]

Will Pistol Iron Sights go the way of rifle sights and AR carry handle?

Hay Now! Carry handles are still around.

I shot a match a few weeks ago with my old A2. I was feeling nostalgic. Yes, I shot poorly, even for me. Next match I will have the scoped service rifle out.

 

[35 Whelen]

Don't worry, there is nothing you can say, everyone here knows that it took you repetition to become proficient in the use of iron sights. And yes, I have chosen to prove you wrong, mostly because you are the person that made the claim. It would be very odd if I were to say, address ATLDave, in regards to your claim about instant proficiency with iron sights.




And yet, no matter what you say, these are still all skills that required repetition to become proficient in. Yes, you can return to them later because our brains are very good at recalling procedural memories. Episodic memories, such as an interaction between two people are declarative memories. Declarative and procedural memories are processed by the brain differently and even stored in different regions. So, the chances that you are biologically wired different than other human beings is highly unlikely.

Don't worry though, you admitted that it took you repetition to learn to use iron sights proficiently:





So... at some point you did have to work at it?

Oops. So much for how your dad showed you how to use iron sights and that was that... and anyone that "having to "train" with a type of sight speaks volumes in regards to the practicality or lack thereof, with your average shooter" (your words there)

Also, thanks for finally supporting my statement that your last 50 years of rifle shooting was training.






Veiled? No, I straight up called BS on you. Because again, you aren't superman. You didn't pick up a rifle and instantly become proficient in the use of iron sights.





And I'm straight up calling BS on that claim too. You won't reach any level of proficiency with a red dot instantly. No one does. Also, just for extra LOLs, now that you claim that you could become instantly proficient with a red dot, we must either 1) Accept an assumption that you are superior to all other humans in your ability to learn complex physical skills instantly -or- 2) Assume all other humans are capable of doing this, so there actually isn't a need to train with Red Dot sights, ergo there is no concern what so ever in regards to a need to training to use them.. which makes your whole detour a moot point

So.. Are you a super human who learns complex physical skills instantly, or is that a trait of all humans, and red dots therefore don't require repetition to become proficiently skilled with? (Hint: Neither answer that you've trapped yourself into is a good one)

As I said, all I needed to do was keep you talking.

K'thnx, Bye.

Francis, you are a bit delusional and not even reading my posts. I never said I would become instantly proficient with a RDS. In fact if you'll read my posts, you'll see that I have no interest in them, or use for them, and that has been the extent of my comments where RDS's are concerned.

It's too bad you can't accept how some of become proficient, and maintain their proficiency more easily than others. But you shouldn't think less of yourself because you have to constantly train to maintain proficiency in certain areas. I'm sure there are things at which you naturally excel.

Anyhow, while you're formulating you're next response, I'll be out behind the shop shooting.

35W

 

[ATLDave]

Anyhow, while you're formulating you're next response, I'll be out behind the shop shooting.

Will you have a shot timer out back? Ever play around with those?

 

[psyopspec]

Francis...

What's up with that? Is this like a vague insult that boomers like to use or something?

 

[ATLDave]

What's up with that? Is this like a vague insult that boomers like to use or something?

Pretty sure it's a reference to this:



Doesn't seem particularly applicable here, but what do I know?

 

[35 Whelen]

Will you have a shot timer out back? Ever play around with those?

I don't own a timer, and except in competition against others, I never saw much use in timing ones shooting under controlled conditions. And I've never actually played with one other than when I shot a year or so worth of CAS competition a few years ago.

35W