Open sites are reliable 100% of the time. Lasers are reliable only slightly less than that. Some people don't like things that are not 100% reliable and rely on things like batteries and electrical switches even if the overall result is a net improvement.
Gotcha. Makes sense and I agree.
I think the question becomes one of proven reliability among particular brands and models of target aquisition devices. Not all widgets are created equal and only quality gear (showing proven reliability) gets the nod for hard use.
For instance, after many years of using Aimpoint Comp Ms (M68), I regard them as being almost practically reliable as iron sights. Given time, the unproven "new" eventually becomes the new "old reliable" (see MLeake's earlier comments on digital vs. analog aviation cockpit instrumentation). Todays high performance fighter aircraft and passenger stuffed airliners are completely reliant on electronics. Although things like iron sights (reliable, simple, and cheap) rarely go away, many of today's bolt action hunting rifles come from the factory equipped for glass only (no irons). I think that lasers will eventually become standard on a lot of CCW/HD firearms as they inevitably evolve into smaller, more reliable, and cheaper devices.
I remember receiving the initial SOPMOD I kit issue on my ODA back in the early '90s. We got several Pelican cases filled with (then) exotic widgets to include various white tactical lights, Trijicon Reflex tritium dot sights, some M68s, PEQ-2s, etc..
Not enough items were included in the kits to issue one of each per man and nobody was particularly familiar with them. We gradually added the different items to our weapons on a trial basis. Everyone trusted irons. Nobody trusted things that ran on batteries and circuits. After a time, we developed opinions.
White Taclights? Good. Trijicon Reflex sights? Bombproof and streamlined...but the dot was almost never bright enough. M68 Aimpoints? We initially assumed they were "CQB Only" and only gradually began to appreciate them for all distances. IR PEQs and PVS-14s...we began to see the light...and own the night.
Subsequent fieldings brought us ACOGs, ELCANs, upgraded PEQs, better NVDs, ATPIALs, EOTECHs, improved M68s, PVS-22s, etc.
By the time we took the gear to the Balkans, Africa, and to Afghanistan in late 2001, we knew what the kit would do and appreciated the overmatch it offered against our opponents. Certain items got well deserved reputations for reliability (M68 CCO). Other items didn't hold up so well (EOTECHs). IR/Patrol Lasers proved invaluable for night engagements. Today, nobody on a team would willingly conduct a mission without one.
Remembering when I thought M16A1 Promethium (Tritium) front sight posts were cutting edge in the late 1970s or that M68s seemed cutting edge in the early 1990s...I almost laugh when I hear today's young troopers ruefully complain about "Old School" M68 CCO Aimpoints
.
Just like white tactical lights and tritium sights, lasers expand the potential engagement envelope across lighting conditions where using iron sights might be problematic. With practice, lasers can provide increased engagement speed and hit probability. They also provide an instinctive means to place hits on targets when a shooter suffers from target fixation and is unable to focus on his/her irons.
IMHO, if Crimson Trace laser grips cost half as much, they'd sell five times as many. Until retail costs come down, they will never be regarded as "required" accessories by the general shooting population. And the continued justification for not owning them will be a cost / benefit equation showing an imbalance in performance gain vs. price...aggravated by the fact that few folks actually have any experience with them...because they cost too much. A classic self-licking ice-cream cone.
That equation may change in the next decade as a couple of generations of military trained laser shooters become lifelong mainstream gunshop customers.
