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

jmstr said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don’t know which red dot optic you’re using on your Buckmark. Many red dots on pistols seem to have dots with sizes of ~3 MOA or ~6MOA with adjustments of 1 MOA per click. There are also a number of options higher and lower, but those two seem to be the most popular. Taking 3 MOA as an example, at 50 yds it will cover 1.5” on the target. Even the 6 MOA will cover 3” on the target. I’m not sure the thickness of the front sight on your pistol, but many front blades are thick enough to cover far more than what I just described. That doesn’t get into the fact that a shooter that is capable of 1.5” at 50 yd is pretty darn rare in my experience. Heck, you generally have to go to some pretty expensive pistols to get accuracy guarantees at that level. While a red dot might seem visually to cover more than you might think otherwise, absent an extremely thin front blade I don’t see how it is limiting accuracy just by the design of the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
At 50 to 75 yards and a budget of $1500 I would say..
In .22 LR to find a match grade pistol and put an Ultradot on it. Done.

In .45 acp I would save my money and order a 1911 from Rock River (not rock island) and have it pre-drilled for a rail and slide mount an Ultradot later when you have an extra $250 just bolt it on and maybe put a lighter spring in. There is no way to buy more accuracy with a loose gun other than basically starting over. Adding a dot sight is $250 and tapped holes to mount it.

Based on the workmanship and stunning accuracy of the one Freedom Arms revolver I owned, I would recommend one of these beauties for a tack driving single action revolver.

Unless you want to shoot way out, then get a single shot silhouette gun and the competition point is moot (must be iron) or you just want to shoot flies at 75 yards so get a scope. EABco falling block would be on my list.

Show up at any bullseye match that allows dot sights and look at the firing line. Iron sights are about as rare as wooden golf clubs on a pga tour.

While $1500 may seem like a lot of money, think what you would have done to buy classic S&W or Colt beauties in the 50’s or 60’s, knowing what they sell for today. (Python, 1955.. $125)
 
Last edited:
When you switch from open sights to a red dot it takes some getting used to and practice to learn to use it. Focus on the target instead of the dot. You can see the movement that you don't see with open sights but you will learn to live with it. Also, the dot and the target should both be in focus(you don't get this with open sights). For me the dot works better for bullseye shooting. Most of Bullseye shooters seem to be going to the red dot. Action shooters use them too but I can't see the dot ever being the way to go on a self defense pistol but maybe so.
 
Action shooters use them too but I can't see the dot ever being the way to go on a self defense pistol but maybe so.
Click to expand...
With an RMR they will be substantially better than iron sights for defensive use. Police departments are beginning to permit them now for approved carry(ours does).
 
zincwarrior said:
With an RMR they will be substantially better than iron sights for defensive use.
Click to expand...

Your opinion, not mine. There is NO way I would ever trust my proficiency (lack of) using a RMR dot under an adrenaline filled life threatening defensive situation shooting under duress. Iron sights are trusted and repeatable muscle memory for me.
 
Road_Clam said:
Your opinion, not mine. There is NO way I would ever trust my proficiency (lack of) using a RMR dot under an adrenaline filled life threatening defensive situation shooting under duress. Iron sights are trusted and repeatable muscle memory for me.
Click to expand...


I’ve taken courses specifically about red dots on defensive firearms and used them on multiple defensive firearms for over a year now. I didn’t personally find it hard to build proficiency or to develop muscle memory with them. That said, this was done with ammunition purchase before the prices we see today. I don’t think I could find the ammunition to repeat what I did over the last year, even if I could stomach the cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sorry- I forgot to mention that for target precision work, I have my pistols set to have a 6 oclock hold instead of a cover hold.

I am finding that harder to adjust to with a dot though, but it should be able to do the same.
 
44 AMP said:
Why would you want to cover your target?? When you do that, you can't see what you're shooting at!
:D
Click to expand...


Because many production pistols are set up with sights from the factory that involve covering the POA either partially or fully (as opposed to say a 6 o’clock hold). We’ve had many threads on this. Yes you can buy aftermarket sights that are set up differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
Why would you want to cover your target?? When you do that, you can't see what you're shooting at!
Click to expand...
That's the way most 3-dot sights are set up. They're regulated for center hold (front dot covering the intended point of impact) at a distance of 25 feet.
 
That's the way most 3-dot sights are set up.
Click to expand...

I don't have any like that. Come to think of it, I don't have any 3 dot sights. Closest I have to that is my Browning with a white square under the rear notch and a white dot on the front sight.

And, 25 FEET????? :eek::rolleyes: not 25 yards??

I do have a red dot sight on one of my pistols, my T/C Contender .45-70.

If you want the most accuracy possible from a pistol, start with one that has a fixed (non tilting) barrel with at the sights solidly attached to the barrel.
 
44 AMP said:
I don't have any like that. Come to think of it, I don't have any 3 dot sights. Closest I have to that is my Browning with a white square under the rear notch and a white dot on the front sight.

And, 25 FEET????? not 25 yards??
Click to expand...
That's what I have been told by multiple manufacturers. Three-dot white sights are (or were, when first introduced) intended as an aid in self-defense use of the firearms. 25 feet was regarded as the outside limit for "most" self-defense shootings, so the white-dot sights were designed with the goal of aligning the three dots horizontally and placing the front dot directly covering the intended point of impact at a distance of 25 feet.

The 3-dot sights were not intended for using the dots in target shooting.
 
Red dots allow a shooter to shoot better. The dot eliminates one of the elements of aiming while at the same time allowing clear focus on an element that was blurry.
Aiming with irons requires aligning three elements....the rear sight, the front sight, the target. Of these three, only the front sight is in focus.....and yet alignment is critical.
The red dot has only two elements....the dot and the target....both in focus since the dot appears, visually, in the same plane as the target.
The biggest problem with a rds is that the dot dances.....it moves all the time, a lot or a little. This can be disconcerting to a shooter who is used to irons.. The dot moves through what becomes with practice a fairly predictable “arc of movement” (irons do also but it is not as obvious.)
 
If I remember correctly, the first red dot sights were for shotguns. And were quite bulky (tall).

The red dot stood out better than the classic shotgun bead, and was intended to aid in getting on a fast moving bird. Not for precise aim such as with bullets, but a visible marker centering the pattern.

Fast, and accurate enough, but not a precision instrument.

So looking at the thread title, we are being asked, which is more accurate, an "average" pistol (and by that I believe the OP is referring to the usual service class semi auto, built to deliver "service grade" accuracy, fitted with a red dot (a fast but not a precision system) vs. a match pistol (a pistol tuned for accuracy) with open sights (and normally precise adjustable "match" sights).

Why is this even a question?? :rolleyes::D
 
44 AMP said:
If I remember correctly, the first red dot sights were for shotguns. And were quite bulky (tall).

The red dot stood out better than the classic shotgun bead, and was intended to aid in getting on a fast moving bird. Not for precise aim such as with bullets, but a visible marker centering the pattern.

Fast, and accurate enough, but not a precision instrument.

So looking at the thread title, we are being asked, which is more accurate, an "average" pistol (and by that I believe the OP is referring to the usual service class semi auto, built to deliver "service grade" accuracy, fitted with a red dot (a fast but not a precision system) vs. a match pistol (a pistol tuned for accuracy) with open sights (and normally precise adjustable "match" sights).

Why is this even a question?? :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...


Just because the original intent for red dots on shotguns was mainly speed doesn’t mean current red dot optics designed for pistols can’t be used for precision. Multiple people at this point have testified to them being used for bullseye shooting.

The OP has also since clarified his question in post #9 to be more about the impact the red dot sighting system might or might not have on the shooter as opposed to being solely about the accuracy of the pistols themselves.


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