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

pete2 said:
The match pistol should be the most accurate, doesn't matter what sights are on it. You may shoot more accurately with the dot. That's you not the pistol.
Click to expand...
Practiscore results show a significant advantage. With the same shooter a good but stock service pistol with CO will have better results than a competition tweeked pistol. Numbers don't lie and can be easily viewed. Go to the website and look at the results.
 
Red dots don’t actually help you shoot much more accurately than good open sights. They help with faster target acquisition and target transition. I believe that’s what is driving the difference between CO and Production in Practiscore. Nothing in USPSA is going to give you a measure of which is more accurate in slow fire at 50+ yards, which is the OPs question.
For me, I shoot more accurate with iron sights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The better question is which gun will be easier to shoot accurately.
The match pistol, in a ransom rest, will very probably shoot better groups. The two tyoes of sights require different skill sets because they have different optical qualities.
The red dot sight allows for greater depth of field....the shooter can see both the dot and the target clearly. The problem is that the dot is never still....always moving. It moves less for more experienced shooters but it moves nevertheless.
Iron sighted guns require focus on the front sight with the target out of focus (it is optically impossible for the human eye to focus on two different objects at different distances st the same time. The front sight is at one distance and the target at another.) The iron sights may give the illusion that they have stopped moving though they have not. The illusion is helpful because it is less distracting than a dancing dot.
You will see more guns with red dot sights on the line at a precision pistol match where the slow fire targets are at 50 yards.
All that being said, thevbest shooter that I know shoots irons. The shooter matters more than the sights.
 
Last edited:
Captains1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with the above. Especially since the OP specified shooting at distances of 50 to 75 yards.
 
I am old. Poor eyesight. The match pistol will be the more accurate pistol. In my old age the red dot is easier for me to shoot accurately than open sights. I'm talking about precision shooting---Bullseye, Slow fire at 50, timed and rapid at 25. Action shooting is a whole nother thing. it does not take an especially accurate gun for IDPA for instance. I've never tried it with a red dot, it would prolly slow me down but who knows, might get used to it. Some shoot fiber optics or gold beads for action games, I can't get a good sight picture with fiber optic or the gold bead but they are faster for IDPA. Sights don't make a gun more accurate, they may make it easier to shoot accurately.
 
wild cat mccane said:
A red dot was made for speed.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think the red dot was invented for visibility.

Bullseye shooting is not about speed, yet virtually all bullseye shooters have switched from open sights to red dots of one type or another. There must be a reason.
 
There are various sized dots. Most of them cover a smaller area on a target than is done by a typical iron sight. Certainly iron sights can still be shot well despite their size relative to targets (more noticeable at distance), but it’s generally easier in my experience to get precise shots relative to each other with a red dot than with irons. Obviously mechanical accuracy is a limiting factor, but few are the shooters that really push the mechanical accuracy of a firearm. Good sights, good ergonomics, a good trigger, these all relate to overall accuracy that is achieved by a human shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’d assume if someone was really good with one of the types of pistols in the OP, that person would be really good with the other choice.
 
Accuracy = 70% shooter input, 30% gun output. I generally dont buy accesories to help me shoot more accurately, i buy accesories to help me shoot most comfortably which helps me with more trigger time which = personal advancing skill. When i shoot competitively im scoring against myself only. I dont care if i never reach "master". Im just trying to always improve.
 
Road_Clam said:
Accuracy = 70% shooter input, 30% gun output. I generally dont buy accesories to help me shoot more accurately, i buy accesories to help me shoot most comfortably which helps me with more trigger time which = personal advancing skill. When i shoot competitively im scoring against myself only. I dont care if i never reach "master". Im just trying to always improve.
Click to expand...
But if you have the S&W659 and doing 25yds shooting, it's 100% the gun that you cannot put all the rounds into the black. I don't care you sand bag it, it's not going to give you good groups. Some guns are not meant to be, I won't even complain about it. All the sights in the world ain't going to help.

Accuracy doesn't necessary go along with reliability, accuracy means everything has to be tightly fitted, you cannot have any loose fit components. This will hurt reliability and ability to work in dirty condition. Gun that designed to eat dirt and still work has to be loosely fitted, it's not going to be accurate.

Bottom line is people need to know what they are getting into when buying a gun and use it for the purpose they bought it for.
 
Both are!

I have two semi auto .22 pistols.
A Ruger Mk. 3 with a red dot. Circa 2010
A HS Supermatic 6" or thereabouts circa 1920

Both are more inherently accurate than I am. The HS being the better of the two.

I shoot both regularly.
I shoot the Ruger better offhand.
I shoot the HS better from a rest.
If shooting both from a rest, the HS will produce the tightest group.
 
I had a Glock 45 MOS with a red dot. I also have my old Glock 31C with about a jillion rounds thru it. I could not shoot the RDS pistol, even from a rest as well as the old Glock so I sold it. I have no use for a mediocre pistol.

I have a RDS on my Ruger MKIII Target, that is amazing.
 
74A95 said:
Virtually all? Where is this statistic coming from? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Second-hand info.

I don't shoot bullseye. I have a friend who does, and who has been doing so for decades. He has reported that virtually everyone he competes against now uses some form of red dot sight.
 
Mechanical accuracy is one thing. Practical accuracy is another.
Most shooters will be able to shoot a red-dot equipped pistol better than iron sights, at distance. It is simply easier to put the dot on the target than to line up multiple parts of a sight at different focal distances. When talking "expert level" shooters, they may be able to out-shoot a mechanically less accurate pistol by going to a match-grade pistol, no matter which type of sights are used.
 
What I am getting from all of this is that the question needs work.

A more useful question would be: which is more accurate on a match pistol- match-grade open sights or red dots?

OR- which is more accurate on an average pistol- Factory open sights or red dot sights?
I don't think the best open sights on a Glock G21 will get you as good of accuracy as you can get with a basic to moderate red dot on a higher end 1911-because there is intrinsic accuracy that comes from the pistol design- above/beyond the sight itself.​

And then, it is useful to know what accuracy goals you have.

IF your goal is to regularly hit 4" circles at 10-15 yards in rapid presentations, then your sight needs would be different from bullseye slow fire at 25 yards.

I am entering the world of red dots, due to my failing focal ability under 4'. Front sights are blurry.

A red dot lets me see the point of aim and put it where I want it to go.

YET, I have noticed that I am able to get better group sizes with open iron sights than with red dots.

I have red dots on a Buckmark that has the scariest light target trigger I own. I don't let anyone except very skilled people shoot it, as there is almost no takeup, no overtravel and the trigger is about 2lbs.

I put a red dot on it, and I hit what I want, but- I feel like I can get smaller groups if I use the open FO front sight- it just takes me longer to line everything up.

There is so much science that goes into fine-tuning target sights that it has more adaptability to various needs than a 3mil or 2mil red dot. Even a 1 mil red dot at 50 yards feels HUGE.

Some of the dot options on my cheap buckmark red dot are just so large that I can only see using them if I were hunting a rabbit [or something larger] at 10 yards or so.

The basic dot is fine for fast action shooting, but I prefer iron sights for precision.

I am hoping I can last another 10-15 years before I HAVE to go red dot for handguns- and then I'll simply have to adapt to being ok with 5" groups instead of trying to achieve 1" groups of 8 in .45 at 10 yards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top