Which is more accurate: an average pistol with a red dot, or a match pistol with open sights?
- Thread starter silver-bullet
- Start date
Because my attention to detail when it comes to my stance and grip has improved. I can see the results when I go back and shoot irons as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm unclear on how an optic improves stance and grip. are you saying you can pay more attention to stance and grip while shooting due to not having to focus on lining up the sights? If your results with irons improved, using irons as a base line, then it would be an over all improvement. however your improvement could be due to training focusing on stance and grip and be unrelated to the red dot....
Using a red dot optic and being instructed in its use caused me to become more focused on my stance and grip. And no I wouldn’t say it was a function of not having to line things up. It was a function of concentrating on my technique in order to have that dot where my eye expects it to be. This was course 27 out of 29 that I’ve taken. I had plenty of reminders about stance and grip prior to this. With irons I could frankly be sloppier. If I screw up my presentation with iron sights it’s readily apparent by the position of the front sight as it comes into view. With a single lens reflex sight the dot can be out of the window entirely and you don’t have that visual cue to readily get you back to center. Making sure that presentation is good to start with becomes more important with a red dot so that you don’t have to go “searching” for the dot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
For me and only for me, I can discern no utility of an optic sight on a handgun. I'm fine with iron sights.
On a handgun I might have to use to save my life, I want nothing attached to it. I want nothing to distract my attention. Since 90+% of all gunfights are at 10' and less, I need not sights. It would be all instinctive point shooting while getting out of a threat's sight picture.
People get too nutted up over self-defense accuracy. Any hit on a bad guy is a good hit. Some hits are better than others, but any hit is a good hit. Far surpassing good guy accuracy is bad guy accuracy. A wise good guy knows of the critical importance of not taking rounds. Hence, the ultimate importance of getting the heck out of a bad guy's sight picture. If Rule One of gun fighting, which is avoid, avoid, and keep avoiding, isn't an option, then Rule Two becomes dominant: DON'T GET SHOT.
For wilderness survival, which is the only scenario that I could think of shooting at distance, I'm darn close to 100% positive I could hit a deer with my Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP at 70 yards, assuming I could not close distance. When bg game hunting with a rifle, I'd rather shoot at big game at a 100 yards than farther. Closing distance might determine whether a hunter affixes his tag to antlers.
My Sig "P" series handguns (metal, hammer-fired) are extremely accurate. But I'd have to go with my TRP as my most accurate handgun. I know it's more accurate than a Series 70 Gold Cup that I shot decades ago.
Decades ago, I shot a friend's S&W Model 27-2 Even with magnum loads, that was one extremely accurate handgun. Had I had brains back then, I would have bought one. That gun would perforate soda cans at 25 yards routinely with magnum loads. At least two gunsmiths have told me that the Model 27-2 was the best revolver ever made. But I'm a 1911-A1 shooter through-and-through.
silver-bullet, my advice is to know the primary purpose of a handgun before buying it and before affixing an optic to it.
I don't own any striker-fired handgun. However, from what I've been told by G-17 owners and have read, it's an excellent handgun. It's probably the most widely used law enforcement handgun in the Western world.
I've fired many brands of 1911-A1s, from extremely expensive to far less expensive. The most accurate factory produced 1911-A1 I've shot is my TRP. Springfield Armory got it right with its TRP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03oXMTKRfnU
On a handgun I might have to use to save my life, I want nothing attached to it. I want nothing to distract my attention. Since 90+% of all gunfights are at 10' and less, I need not sights. It would be all instinctive point shooting while getting out of a threat's sight picture.
People get too nutted up over self-defense accuracy. Any hit on a bad guy is a good hit. Some hits are better than others, but any hit is a good hit. Far surpassing good guy accuracy is bad guy accuracy. A wise good guy knows of the critical importance of not taking rounds. Hence, the ultimate importance of getting the heck out of a bad guy's sight picture. If Rule One of gun fighting, which is avoid, avoid, and keep avoiding, isn't an option, then Rule Two becomes dominant: DON'T GET SHOT.
For wilderness survival, which is the only scenario that I could think of shooting at distance, I'm darn close to 100% positive I could hit a deer with my Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP at 70 yards, assuming I could not close distance. When bg game hunting with a rifle, I'd rather shoot at big game at a 100 yards than farther. Closing distance might determine whether a hunter affixes his tag to antlers.
My Sig "P" series handguns (metal, hammer-fired) are extremely accurate. But I'd have to go with my TRP as my most accurate handgun. I know it's more accurate than a Series 70 Gold Cup that I shot decades ago.
Decades ago, I shot a friend's S&W Model 27-2 Even with magnum loads, that was one extremely accurate handgun. Had I had brains back then, I would have bought one. That gun would perforate soda cans at 25 yards routinely with magnum loads. At least two gunsmiths have told me that the Model 27-2 was the best revolver ever made. But I'm a 1911-A1 shooter through-and-through.
silver-bullet, my advice is to know the primary purpose of a handgun before buying it and before affixing an optic to it.
I don't own any striker-fired handgun. However, from what I've been told by G-17 owners and have read, it's an excellent handgun. It's probably the most widely used law enforcement handgun in the Western world.
I've fired many brands of 1911-A1s, from extremely expensive to far less expensive. The most accurate factory produced 1911-A1 I've shot is my TRP. Springfield Armory got it right with its TRP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03oXMTKRfnU
silver-bullet
New member
I have to admit, when I started this thread I was specifically thinking about semi-auto pistols only. Reading the responses, I’m beginning to think a quality revolver might be the way to go. I learned to shoot handguns on a S&W m19 many years ago, but quickly moved over to semi-autos. Maybe it’s time to revisit the wheelgun, and work on my fundamentals. Never too late to re-learn......
Now I just have to figure out which revolver!
Thanks for all the helpful replies.....
Now I just have to figure out which revolver!
Thanks for all the helpful replies.....
It certainly is better to make a hit than to miss, but not all hits disable an opponent. Back in the 1986 Miami shootout one of the criminals, Michael Platt, was shot relatively early in the engagement with a wound that was likely fatal. Platt was still able to keep fighting and ended up killing two FBI agents. An autopsy showed his right lung had collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1.3 liters of blood. He was shot a total of 12 times. The autopsy did not detect any drugs in his system.
A hit that eventually kills your opponent but leaves him or her capable of killing you might not be of much consolation. Some instructors use terminology such as timers versus switches. A shot that will eventually stop an opponent starts a timer of varying length. During that time that person can still hurt you and others. A shot that immediately stops an opponent, such as disabling or disconnecting the CNS, is more of a switch.
There are certainly those that receive single non life-threatening gunshot wounds and stop fighting. In that case it seems the reality of being shot was enough to stop the assailant and accuracy may not have been overly critical. Then there are people like Platt that continue to fight despite multiple gunshot wounds. It’s hard to know ahead of time how the assailant will respond.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
zincwarrior
New member
Red dot. If you compare CO results in competition vs. production it's not even the same game.
Disagree? Look at matches in practice score. CO vs SSP or Production.
Disagree? Look at matches in practice score. CO vs SSP or Production.
Captains1911
New member
The match pistol will most likely be inherently more accurate (I.e. take shooter out of equation by using a ransom rest), however, most people will shoot the red dot equipped pistol more accurately.
It depends what kind of shooting you are talking about. For 25 yds type shooting, I'd take a match grade one any time of the day. Both my target pistols Gold Cup and Ruger Mark II have no fancy sight, no dot of anything, I get average 80%+ in the black in 60 rounds/10 minutes section repeatabily ( now I am NOT a very good shooter). My 659 would be all over the place, nor is the Walter PPKS. After all, it's you, your eyes and your trigger finger, not the sight.
I cannot comment on the 5 or 10 yds speed shooting as I have not done those. BUT, I am just not a believer of fancy sights. It's all you.
My guess is if you shooting on a say 10" round target at 5yds or so, I guess it's not important to have an accurate gun. then it's more shooting with your instinct and familiar with how the gun aim. Do you even have time to worry about whether it's a dot sight or not?
I cannot comment on the 5 or 10 yds speed shooting as I have not done those. BUT, I am just not a believer of fancy sights. It's all you.
My guess is if you shooting on a say 10" round target at 5yds or so, I guess it's not important to have an accurate gun. then it's more shooting with your instinct and familiar with how the gun aim. Do you even have time to worry about whether it's a dot sight or not?
Last edited:
This is an off topic question, anyone has problem of seeing double image after shooting for a while? To me, it's more a problem in shooting than any sights. That's why I specified how many rounds in certain amount of time. I have no issue with like the first 20 rounds, it's the later rounds that I started seeing double and that's when I started to miss the black.
Captains1911
New member
Firearms and alcohol don’t mix.
Clearly, there is no easy answer to this. Did you really think there was? And would you really take the advice from people at a forum? Silly rabbit. Imagine what might be required for a response you could trust; lots of experience from a professional who has tested both conditions and/or an instructor who has had many students with these guns go though their class. And I'll bet they would not have an easy answer either. It probably depends on the individual and the gun used.
Here's what you do: buy both, and let us know how it goes. That will be a data point of one (1).
No, that's not it. No alcohol involved.