Which is more accurate: an average pistol with a red dot, or a match pistol with open sights?

S

silver-bullet

New member
For example, a Glock 17 with a quality red-dot sight vs. an Ed Brown 1911 with iron sights? Or a Sig M18 with red dot vs. a Sig P210 Target with open sights? Or..... (I think you get the idea)

I’m talking about accuracy at distance. Say, 50-75 yards.

I’d especially like to hear from folks who own both kinds of guns in their collection, or have shot both kinds.

Obviously a target gun with a red dot is the best of both worlds, but that’s not what I’m asking......
 
Last edited:
My guess would be a match pistol with open sights that are appropriate; i.e., not "combat" style sights. That's because the match pistol will be inherently more accurate and so then it's up to the shooter. A good shooter cannot make a pistol shoot better than its inherent accuracy.
 
Also, I've have found a short barrel gun with basic replacement target sights (say from Dawsons) will be more accurate than something like a Glock 34 with a 5.3" barrel.

Front sights on target sights can be ordered extremely small.
 
No contest here...the match pistol with open sights. I own a number of each, and for absolute precision shooting the match pistol is better. I do own several very accurate handguns with red dots and they’ll shoot some very small groups, but a red dot isn’t “better” for shooting small groups.
 
The match pistol will be more accurate.

The red dot may help a shooter get on target faster or help a shooter that has trouble with aligning or using open sights, but if you are discussing the pistol accuracy, the match pistol is more accurate.
 
The accuracy is in the pistol, so the match pistol.

When it comes to shooting scores, this depends on the skill of the shooter.
I shot Marksman class, and the dot site bought me about 6 or 7 points in a 10 shot string with a 4" barrel Walther TT Olympia clone, shooting in the low 90's.

I made some comment to my Grand Master pistolsmith (also a club member) that this gun absolutely needed a dot sight because of it's short sight radius and crummy iron sights.

"Oh yeah?" he says and ripps off a score of 96 or something with his identical TT Olympia clone with no dot sight with the comment "Crap, I knew I pulled one of them" a smile and "Keep practicing."

He explained that over the course of a day shooting that he agreed that the dot sight would buy him points as well because fatigue sets in at big matches and it just takes more concentration with iron sights.

Accuracy is in the gun, put it in a Ransom Rest and that's your accuracy.
Shooting is in the person holding the gun. The better you are, the more you can compensate for equipment. You can't compensate for the random splatter of inaccuracy though.
 
The shooter has a whole lot to do with it, but a match grade pistol with target sights is better than an "average off the shelf" pistol with a dot sight.

A Mr. H L Anderson set the National record in Precision Pistol back in 1974 using iron sights only. His record Aggregate score was a 2680 of 2700 possible. With red dot sights and improvements in ammo and pistol smithing one would think his 47 year old record would be broken, but it hasn't, and may never be broken.
 
I think I may have been unclear in my original question (totally my fault).

I wasn’t asking which gun is more accurate, because a match gun—independent of shooter—is better fitted and more accurate than a standard gun. A match gun, say an Ed Brown 1911, is a work of art, and will far outshine a standard Glock 19 as a precision instrument.

MY question, however, is this: will an average (or above average) shooter shoot more accurately (at, say, 50-75 yards) with a standard pistol with red dot, or with a match gun with open sights?

The reason I ask is that I have about $1,500 to spend on a handgun that I want to use for distance shooting. It must be as accurate as possible. Is my money better spent on a match grade gun (in that price range), or a standard pistol (that is red-dot ready), and a quality red dot?

If it matters, I would call myself a better than average shooter, nothing more.
 
Still not an easy answer. I’ve owned handguns that I’ve paid almost 3k for and they were absolute works of art....astounding accuracy if the shooter is up to the task. They were my match guns. I also own off the shelf guns such as three different 686/687 guns that were capable of close to an inch at fifty yards and put red dots on them for hunting. The 3k guns had somewhat better triggers than the shelf guns. The red dots will allow an average shooter to hit a deer sized animal in the vitals IF the shooter can hold the gun still while the hammer drops and the gun fires (I had a friends son shoot his first handgun deer with one of my 686’s at 55 yards). For hunting the red dot is better, the requirements aren’t the smallest groups. What are you going to be using the gun for? Are you shooting off a rest or off-hand?
What are your expectations? There’s a reason why they make revolvers, semi-auto, single shot, etc. One gun doesn’t do it all.
 
The match grade pistol, simply because it was designed specifically for accuracy, whereas the red dot only really improves the shooter's accuracy, not the actual firearm's accuracy.
 
silver-bullet said:
I think I may have been unclear in my original question (totally my fault).

I wasn’t asking which gun is more accurate, because a match gun—independent of shooter—is better fitted and more accurate than a standard gun. A match gun, say an Ed Brown 1911, is a work of art, and will far outshine a standard Glock 19 as a precision instrument.

MY question, however, is this: will an average (or above average) shooter shoot more accurately (at, say, 50-75 yards) with a standard pistol with red dot, or with a match gun with open sights?

The reason I ask is that I have about $1,500 to spend on a handgun that I want to use for distance shooting. It must be as accurate as possible. Is my money better spent on a match grade gun (in that price range), or a standard pistol (that is red-dot ready), and a quality red dot?

If it matters, I would call myself a better than average shooter, nothing more.
Click to expand...

IMHO If you want accuracy, get the match gun. If you want speed get the basic with a red dot.

Over all the ammount and quality of your practice will influence things a LOT more than your sight choice.

Also, IMHO, most pistols, in my experience are iron sighted guns. Thus training with a match gun with iron sights has more training value than training with a gun with a red dot on it, as that skill will not translate over to my other firearms, handgun or rifle, with irons.
 
Last edited:
For accuracy in a handgun at distance, first choice for an average shooter would be something like a TC Contender single shot. The CVA single shots seemed to shoot real good if you can find one.

A good hunting revolver (at least 8" barrel, with provisions for mounting optics) in one of the magnums can do pretty good at distance shooting.

One of the revolvers tailored for IHMSA is a really good bet.

Now most would not even be talking about good accuracy at distance in a handgun unless they are also talking about some kind of rest (or something like the creedmore position used in IHMSA).

The one exception to the previous paragraph is the standing category in IHMSA. I have tried a few rounds but I stink pretty bad. I have managed to hit more than half of the 50 meter chickens, but do not ever remember hitting more than a couple of the 150 meter turkeys in a round. Probably 8 out of 10 guys that do good in this category shoot the TC Contender for standing.

All of my IHMSA guns are 3 MOA or better out to 200 meters. For me this kind of shooting requires a rest and a scope makes it a whole lot easier.

Autos can be accurate, but they are typically not optimized for distance shooting. Part of it is the gun, partly it is the ammo. Yes some can shoot autos out to 75 yards pretty accurately, but unless you are talking something like a heavy bullet in the 10mm, what is the point.
 
Last edited:
Shadow9mm said:
Thus training with a match gun with iron sights has more training value than training with a gun with a red dot on it, as that skill will not translate over to my other firearms, handgun or rifle, with irons.
Click to expand...

In my experience I disagree. The shooting fundamentals still apply, regardless of using a dot or irons. When I go back and shoot my iron sighted pistols I don't feel like it's a big disconnect from my dot equipped pistols. I've actually found the dot really makes it obvious when I screw up that trigger press during slow fire.
 
TunnelRat said:
In my experience I disagree. The shooting fundamentals still apply, regardless of using a dot or irons. When I go back and shoot my iron sighted pistols I don't feel like it's a big disconnect from my dot equipped pistols. I've actually found the dot really makes it obvious when I screw up that trigger press during slow fire.
Click to expand...
Yes the fundamentals still apply. However, you lose the sight alignment skills. With a red dot centering the dot in the optic is not critical you could move your head or wrist and put the dot to the side and the gun would still be lined up with the target. Whereas front and rear sight alignment during shooting is critical. You might be able to diagnose poor trigger pull better with a red dot. But you cannot practice sight alignment and front sight focus with a red dot as you focus on the target with a red dot rather than focusing on the front sight...
 
Shadow9mm said:
Yes the fundamentals still apply. However, you lose the sight alignment skills. With a red dot centering the dot in the optic is not critical. Whereas front and rear sight alignment during shooting is critical. You might be able to diagnose poor trigger pull better with a red dot. But you cannot practice sight alignment and front sight focus with a red dot as you focus on the target with a red dot rather than focusing on the front sight...
Click to expand...


In my experience it’s a non-issue going back and forth. That may be a function of the years I spent shooting iron sights prior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TunnelRat said:
In my experience it’s a non-issue going back and forth. That may be a function of the years I spent shooting iron sights prior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Most likely the iron training. I learned rifles first, with scopes and red dots. It was a struggle for me to learn irons, I was terrible and would always slap an optic on. After learning Irons (with handguns and then a basic rifle marksmanship class) I was a much better shooter with scopes and red dots.
 
Shadow9mm said:
Most likely the iron training. I learned rifles first, with scopes and red dots. It was a struggle for me to learn irons. After learning Irons (with handguns and then a basic rifle marksmanship class) I was a mush better shooter with scopes and red dots.
Click to expand...


For me using a red dot on a pistol has made a noticeable improvement on my pistol shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top