Crimson Trace with Carry -- A Tactical Advantage?

[arch308]

I have a CT on my LCP and I really like it. I feel in a SD situation it would really come in handy. With a little practice the CT is a bit quicker than the tiny iron sights as my eyes were never that good and are not getting any better.
Just FYI, the red dot lines up perfectly with the iron sights and both have the same point of impact.

 

[Eppie]

My carry gun, my car gun, my nightstand gun and my den gun are all equipped with lasers. I bought my first one for my LCP because the sights were so bad, and it helped a lot.

After a few months of using it in practice, it finally occurred to me that I should have a laser on any pistol that I'm likely to use in a home invasion/defense situation. Now the only pistols that don't have lasers are my "range toys".

And, yes, they are useless in the bright Texas sun, and do not replace regular sights. But what a difference they make when the sun is behind the clouds.

The new universal tiny lasers from Laserlyte can be mounted on the picatinny rail that many pistols have and they cost ($80) half of what a CT laser does, and work just as well.

Here's another reason to have a laser, it may save you from having to shoot:

I was out trimming my trees in the front yard, I live at the end of a cul-de-sac, and my Dobermann puppy (6 months) was with me. I was training him to stay close by letting him drag a 25' rope. While I was tying a bundle of branches a pick up truck came in the cul-de-sac and stopped. I had my back to the truck and my dog. When I turned around about a minute later I saw the guy had gotten out of his truck and picked up the rope and was taking my dog back to his truck. I called my dog and he tried to come but the guy held him back, so I called out to him while walking towards him. I asked him what he was doing and he said that he had lost the dog and now was taking him back. I told him that was my dog and he responded that it was his dog. I told him the dog was microchiped and I could prove it was mine and any of my neighbors will attest to that. I was about 20' away.

To put in things in prespective, I'm close to 60, 5'8" and weigh 156 lbs. the other guy, I call Bubba, was about 30 years old and 6'4" and husky. My dog is 6 months old, friendly, beautiful and costs me $3,000.

Bubba looked at me and he said this was his dog and he was going to take him home. I had my LCP with my Crimson Trace laser in the front pocket of my jeans and my hand was on it. I pointed to his zipper and said " Do you see that red dot by your zipper?" He looked down and while he did so I drew my pistol and aimed right on his family jewels. Then in a calm voice I said "That's were the first bullet is going to go if you don't let go of that dog."

He looked up and saw the gun in my hand, Bubba's eyes got as big a silver dollars and he simultaneously dropped the rope and said "!!" and remained frozen. I told him to get back in his truck and that if I saw him again I would assume that he means to harm me and that I would shoot first and ask questions later.

He got in his truck and I haven't seen him once in the last three years.

I am firmly committed to conflict avoidance, deterrence and defense.

 

[whiskyrunner]

as far as low and to the right, my lcp will put differant brands of ammo in differant spots on the paper, the closest ive found to hitting point of aim is using powrball ammo, went through several differant brands of ammo before i found it, just put the crimson trace on yesterday, havent tried it yet, hopefully it will help with the bifocal issue, if it does my kimber is getting a laser also!

 

[valleyforge.1777]

I like the guys who insist that laser sights are bad for all the various reasons that they give, and yet every one of them has an Aimpoint or EOTech on their AR's.

 

[sigcurious]

Valleyforge, I don't see the correlation. Can you expand on that?

 

[valleyforge.1777]

Sure.

The reason to use a laser sight for handguns, and the reason to use a Red Dot sight (for rifles) is to put the reference for the point of aim onto the same plane as the point of impact.

Let me try to state that in more clear terms: the laser dot sights for handguns accomplish the exact same thing that the red dot sights for rifles accomplish. Plenty of our combat troops use the red dot sights for their M4's, and plenty of our civilian forum members have red dot sights on their AR's, but some of those same people bad mouth the laser dot sights used on handguns. The devices accomplish the same goal, but since one of them (red dot sights on rifles) is battle-tested super cool it is "OK" and the other one (CT lasergrips) is seen as a "crutch" for people who don't know how to use iron sights on their handguns.

 

[orionengnr]

There are a lot of opinions on lasers, and some feel very strongly.
I can understand some of the naysayers...but I can also see the potential upside.

If you have trained extensively to focus on the front sight, the laser may or may not be very beneficial...or it may be a distraction, causing you to shift your focus.

If, however, as some say, in a real life SD situation, you focus on the threat, then perhaps that red dot is your best friend...

I only own one CT-equipped gun, and i will tell you what I think the CT's biggest advantage is.

From time to time, I take that pistol (3" alloy framed Kimber 1911), double/triple check that it is unloaded, and then look across the room at a small object--a doorknob, light switch, etc. I raise the handgun and point it at the selected object...not raising to eye level, not using iron sights...just simulating point shooting. Then I press the magic button and see where the red dot is relative to my "point".

Usually, the first time or two I am off by a couple inches... but within five reps, I am amazingly "on". If I do this once a month, it takes very little refresher training. If I do it every two weeks...so much the better.

I seldom carry that pistol, but since I do carry a 1911 every day, the training is very transferrable.

I also try to practice a bit of point shooting each range session. Regardless of handgun, I do fairly well, but the more often I do it, the better I am...no surprise here.

Bottom line...I don't need a CT on every handgun. Not to say I wouldn't take them if they were giving them away.

But having one, and using it to best advantage while training...is not a bad thing.

Best regards, Rich

 

[CraigJS]

If you are being shot at, short to medium range (say 10-40') you will like it or not be looking at the shooter not your front sight. You will be fixated on the BG, point shooting for the most part. Your motor skills and sight will go away (unless very highly trained and sometimes even then). This ISN'T target shooting with a perfect stance, proper sight picture, and the perfect trigger press. This is SD, and you'll be lucky to speak coherently when it's over. Sights are first choice ALWAYS, but at times are useless. CT batteries don't drain by simply being switched on, only when used. I want as many cards in my hand as possible, CTs to me anyway are Face cards..

 

[rodeo roy]

eppie

Where I live you would have been in trouble with the law, for threatening Bubba in that way. In the eyes of street justice, good job you did the right thing.

Consider if Bubba really thought lil' Sparky (the dog) was his and came back ready to fight and fired with vengence from just being threated with a gun and really wanting his dog back. Not really conflict advoidance is it. In this case Bubba was just likely a dogknapper that moved on, but what if... . I would never pull a gun on another person till I had already made the choice to try to kill them, and I'm not going there over a 3k dog, that's me but to each his/her own.

As far as the laser sight I bought a Bodyguard .38 w/laser and I should have saved the money and got the one wo/laser. You gotta switch it on from a top button that is not well placed, it don't work well in daylight, and has to be re calibrated after I shoot 10-15 rounds at the range. The sights on the bodyguard are very hard to see. My wife gave me some day-glo green fingernail polish, sight problem solved and I shoot very well with out the laser, up close.

And don't ask what my wife is doing with day-glo green fingernail polish.

 

[PH/CIB]

I was trained to never ever give your position away…I hate white light, the illumination rounds or parachute rounds while illuminating everything also illuminated you and hopefully no one but the enemy set off the trip flares. Smoking at night was not allowed, the red glowing coal of a cigarette butt could get your head blown off, and yes the red dot of a laser on the target and on your gun gives your position away and invites incoming rounds.

I have three Crimson Trace Laser grips on a Glock 34 and a Sig 239 and a Smith and Wesson 638 Bodyguard, the Glock has no on/off switch just a pressure button on the back of the grip to activate it, the Sig and the Smith grips have an on/off switch and a pressure button on the front of the grip to activate the laser. As I have over twenty handguns you can see I have not ran out and bought seventeen more laser grips for my other handguns and I do not have laser grips on my carry gun, although I have thought about putting them on my carry gun. In a combat situation and self defense is a combat situation, you are probably going to be gripping the pistol tightly which means the laser is on and projected. In room clearing or whatever, if I were to see a red dot on a door jam or projected on a wall or ceiling or floor or anything before you entered the room, you can bet a magazine of rounds will be coming through the wall where I think you are standing.

Take a pair of laser grips into a dark room with an unloaded gun, you can see the red dot on the target and also on the handgun grip, DO NOT look directly into the laser as it could damage your eyes. The projected red dot does illuminate the target area somewhat but not enough for identification purposes, and since we don’t live in a “free fire zone” and most of us don’t own nightvision, you will then have to illuminate your target with white light for proper target identification before firing. Try this in a dark room with your laser grips and an unloaded pistol and your tactical flashlight, try illuminating the target and putting the red dot of the laser on the target, and then try illuminating the target and putting the iron sights on the target, is there to you that much difference in speed because the white light illuminating your target will also have enough spillover light to allow the use of your iron sights. The flashlight or white light is a bullet magnet, my future investment will probably be in nightvision.

We tried some combat drills one night at an outdoor range shooting around barricades at close targets, blinking our flashlights on and off quickly while firing, and while doing very fast double taps, flashlight on, fire, flashlight off, the illumination from the round going off with that particular ammo was enough to illuminate the target and the sights to further index the sights on that very fast second shot of the double tap.

The poster pointing out about bifocals is well taken, although I can still shoot irons, laser sights and rifle and pistol scopes and red dots are what I am migrating to.

The poster pointing out setting the laser sight red dot just above the front sight on your handgun, makes sense to me, even though you can shoot a red dot laser on target from anywhere your handgun is positioned, practicing using your iron sights with the laser dot, means if something were to go wrong with the laser dot, you are already on target with your iron sights.

When I see most of the military and law enforcement using them, I will put them on all my handguns.

 

[orionengnr]

eppie--good job.

Where I live you would have been in trouble with the law, for threatening Bubba in that way.

Some of us came to the conclusion that we wanted to live in a Free State, and acted on that wish.

I would never pull a gun on another person till I had already made the choice to try to kill them.

Welcome to TFL. No disrespect, but you have some things to learn. Hang around here for a while, and you will learn them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Bubba looked at me and he said this was his dog and he was going to take him home. I had my LCP with my Crimson Trace laser in the front pocket of my jeans and my hand was on it. I pointed to his zipper and said " Do you see that red dot by your zipper?" He looked down and while he did so I drew my pistol and aimed right on his family jewels. Then in a calm voice I said "That's were the first bullet is going to go if you don't let go of that dog."...

Dicey situation. You probably got away with that in Texas. In quite a number of other States, you very well might have found yourself answering assault with a deadly weapon, or similar, charges. Folks need to think about alternatives to threatening lethal force to protect property. Carry a cell phone; call the police; take some photos with your cell phone.

Where I live you would have been in trouble with the law, for threatening Bubba in that way.

Some of us came to the conclusion that we wanted to live in a Free State, and acted on that wish.

Even 'free States" have standards for the justification of using or threatening lethal force. And even in those State, you can go to jail if you threaten or use lethal force in circumstances in which it's not justified. There are no free-fire zones.

...I would never pull a gun on another person till I had already made the choice to try to kill them,...

What you may legally do is threaten or use lethal force to stop someone under appropriate circumstances. You may not legally try to kill them, although if you are justified to use lethal force, adequate application of that force might result in the assailant's death.

But there is a clear and legally recognized distinction between an intent to stop and an intent to kill. If you're not clear on this, ask Jerome Ersland.

 

[Eppie]

First of all I appreciate all of your advice.

Second, I've dealt with bullies many times in my life, and as many of you know once you call their bluff they fold their tent and go home.

Yes, you are right, in a state like New York or California I would probably be incarcerated for protecting my property. Thank God in Texas we have broad castle laws that enable us to protect ourselves and our property.

 

[MLeake]

I would hope in such a circumstance that I'd remember the state regards my dogs as property.

I don't.

Using a gun in a similar situation in my area could be legally dicey. This is where, if I were smaller and older, pepper spray might be wonderfully useful.

At my current age and in my present health, and not having spray, I think I'd probably be legally justified in using basic force to protect property. In my case, basic (unarmed) force is not inconsiderable. I'm not all that big, but I've been involved in various forms of martial arts on a fairly regular basis for nearly 30 years, and on a very regular basis for the last 16.

But I'm happy eppie did not lose his pup.

And I think laws should be changed to once again allow use of whatever force may be required to protect property. Call me inhumane, but I think states have given criminals an expectation that they will be able to go about their business unthwarted by us potential victims.

 

[shortwave]

Thank God in Texas we have broad castle laws that enable us to protect ourselves and our property.

Here we go again.

Unfortunately , there must be a lot of people in Texas that think the Texas 'castle law' is a lot broader then what it really is.

Given the scenario you described, if the perp would have kept walking with your dog and you shot him, you would go to jail for murder. Even in TEXAS.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And I think laws should be changed to once again allow use of whatever force may be required to protect property...

Actually, the law has never permitted the use of lethal force to protect property. For the last 500 some years, the Common Law rule, upon which our law is based, has limited justified use of lethal force primarily to the protection of human life or defend against attempts to forcibly dispossess one of his property. Blackstone specifically said so in the 18th Century.

From the 1915 abridgment of Blackstone's 18th century Commentaries on the Common Law of England (page 289, emphasis added) --

Force may be used in self defense, in which "...if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force..." with the caveat that, "...care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention, for then the defender would himself become an aggressor...

However, note that under what Blackstone refers to as reprisal, once property is taken, it may be recovered or retained only if, "...it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace....." Blackstone notes, "...the public peace is a superior consideration to any one man's private property ; and as, if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons it is provided that this natural right of recaption shall never be exerted where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society...

 

[MLeake]

Frank, your second quotation is not about defense of property, but about recapture of property after the fact, or about taking vengeance for past wrongs. At least, that is how it reads to me.

Edit: Actually, taken as a whole, BOTH of those quotes seem to constructively refer to society not allowing action after the fact. Blackstone does not say force level itself must be limited, at least not in your quotes; he says only that use of such force must not exceed that required to protect or defend.
End of Edit.


Stopping a crime is not vigilanteism.

Punishing the thief after the fact, is.

Second Edit:

Blackstone also seems to be saying that harming the criminal out of necessity is acceptable, if regrettable; but harming him because he has harmed you, IE out of pique, is not acceptable.

In the case eppie described, the act was in progress, not a fait accompli. His actions were to prevent a theft, and protect his property; he did no harm to the would-be thief after the would-be thief backed off. To me, his actions are in line with your Blackstone quotes.

And again, I have to keep reminding myself that dogs are "property." In both my wife's family and in mine, they are more like family members. While this may not be true in the eyes of the law, it is how many pet owners perceive our pets, and I suspect a higher percentage than "the law" would like to believe would use some level of force to present the taking of, or injury to, a pet.

Third Edit: To the OP, sorry for going so far afield with your thread...

 

[45_auto]

Sure.

The reason to use a laser sight for handguns, and the reason to use a Red Dot sight (for rifles) is to put the reference for the point of aim onto the same plane as the point of impact.

Let me try to state that in more clear terms: the laser dot sights for handguns accomplish the exact same thing that the red dot sights for rifles accomplish. Plenty of our combat troops use the red dot sights for their M4's, and plenty of our civilian forum members have red dot sights on their AR's, but some of those same people bad mouth the laser dot sights used on handguns. The devices accomplish the same goal, but since one of them (red dot sights on rifles) is battle-tested super cool it is "OK" and the other one (CT lasergrips) is seen as a "crutch" for people who don't know how to use iron sights on their handguns.

The big difference is that the red dot on the rifle (or a red dot on a pistol), although visually in the same plane as the target, is in reality only a few inches in front of your eye. It's always there whether it's "on" the target or not. If it's not "on" the target, you can still see where it's at and immiediatly move your barrel until the dot is 'on" the target. That's why you see red dots and not lasers on military weapons, shotguns, open class IPSC pistols, etc.

With the laser on the pistol (or rifle) the dot must physically strike your target to appear. If your point shooting skills are such that the laser dot strikes the target every time you raise your weapon, you have no need for a sight anyway!

In the real world, you'll find that many times your dot will not appear on the target and you must sweep your weapon around until it does. You will not initially know which way to sweep your weapon to get the dot on target and 50% of the time you will go the wrong way, making for a very slow shot.

Indoors it's usually not too bad, you can see the dot on the walls or furniture. Low light outdoor is usually OK also in a cluttered target area. But in any kind of daylight shooting situation, if the dot is not on your target then it's usally not in sight and you're reduced to randomly sweeping the gun until the dot appears on your target or on some background object to give you a reference to where it's at.

All this assumes you're shooting at a nice stationary piece of paper. Try getting the laser dot that you can't see onto a target that's running, swerving, ducking, etc.

Very few people train enough to effectively use one sighting system, much less one for low light conditions (laser) and another for daylight (sights). It just adds another decision point into your OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, and act) and slows you down if you have to make a decision about which sighting system to use.

 

[Loronzo]

I have a Crimson Trace on my primary carry pistol (Springfield XD Subcompact .40) As someone else mentioned, I too have large hands and the shape of it actually helps me grip the pistol more securely. When I practice at the range I primarily use the night sights. I leave my CT on at all times so all I have to do is squeeze the grip and it activates (button is where my middle finger rests on the grip) Since I have no problems aiming without it I see it as a useful aid should I actually need the pistol in a self defense situation. We can't plan for every situation that may arise but its useful to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. If nothing else it may play a role in comfirmation of shot placement in a high stress situation, or give me an "O Snap! There's a red laser in my eyes!" advantage. My only qualm with it is that I'm left handed and the laser rests on the right side of the pistol so IWB is marginally more uncomfortable due to the slight bump but nothing a good holster didn't fix.

 

[DaleA]

-[the red dot] is always there whether it's "on" the target or not.

IMhO a very, very important point.

I've not shot enough with a laser to form a definite opinion on it. Many folk I know with a lot more self defense training than I have like them.

I use the red dot sights a lot and like them. I don't necessarily shoot 'better' with the red dot but it seems 'easier' to shoot about the same with them. And yes, 'old eyes' are starting to play a role in all my sight decisions. But I wouldn't put a red dot on a concealed carry handgun.

For CCW I always imagine the situation would be at very close range and probably happen quickly and sights might actually not be as important as I normally think they are. But when/if it ever happens the situation is going to be what it is and not what I imagine it will be. I'd better be able to roll with the situation and not try to make the situation conform to my preconceived idea of what it 'should' be.

I'm still not sure if I'd want a laser. It would give me an option but I might wind up screwing around with it when I should be concentrating on what's actually happening around me. I guess if I went with one I'd really, really need to practice enough with it so it becomes second nature to use it or not use it and not be frustrated if for some reason it didn't work. That is, I'd have to instantly, with no hesitation go to 'plan B' if the laser didn't come on or if I couldn't find the dot for reasons 45_auto mentioned.