Who here has a red dot mounted on your carry gun?

[American Man]

I never trust self defense to something with circuits and batteries. I also don't want something that needs to be "activated". Or spend (waste) time looking for a dot I may, or may not find.
At the short distance of self defence encounters, I don't want to be fiddling with devices, and looking for dots while my attacker s stabber ng, cutting, kicking, punching, or pulling a trigger.

Have you ever practiced with one? I'm just asking. I had the same exact attitude before I started with the red dots. I always go for the sights on the first shot and pick up the dot instantly. I understand some people don't even have iron sights on their pistols with the red dots and I don't get that.

I have a red dot on my 22 without irons and it is always difficult to acquire the dot initially.

 

[DMK]

I never trust self defense to something with circuits and batteries. I also don't want something that needs to be "activated". Or spend (waste) time looking for a dot I may, or may not find.
At the short distance of self defence encounters, I don't want to be fiddling with devices, and looking for dots while my attacker s stabber ng, cutting, kicking, punching, or pulling a trigger.

Please let's not go down that rabbit hole. If one prefers to stay with irons, that's your prerogative.

I invite you to learn about the technology and tactics if you are interested (I've provide links in the first post to start your education). If you are not interested at all, then fair enough. This thread is for those willing to seriously try it with an open mind (successfully or not, since we often learn more from failure than success).

 

[DMK]

For me the height over bore isn't just about effect on target. It's something to be mindful of when working corners and cover. I've seen people in force on force shoot up corners because their sights were clear but the bore wasn't. I've seen the same with live rounds for barricades and vehicles. While you're right that it isn't nearly as big of an issue as on a rifle, the fact that I see it with irons makes me think it's something to be mindful of.

Good points and a good reason to train using all those awkward holes in a VTAC barrier regularly.

 

[DMK]

None of my friends in LE are allowed to have them on their pistols yet... and they all want them.

I know that this may not go over well depending on their chain of command, but maybe you could share that Sage Dynamics whitepaper with them and perhaps they could get someone, perhaps someone responsible for training, to read it and give it some thought.

 

[DMK]

It will be interesting to see how the Acro fares.

I really believe that the Acro is a clue to the future. It's equivalent to the "Aimpoint 2000" right now, but that eventually led to the M68 CCO and then the T1, along with all the competitive designs.

We also really need a ubiquitous mounting pattern, like the T1's is in the carbine world. The RMR has the potential to be that right now, but the Acro's mount design is better.

 

[TunnelRat]

It wasn't until recently that I saw a video on the Acro and saw the mounting system. The mounting system just makes sense, to the point I don't get why we hadn't seen it before.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[DMK]

I have a red dot on my 22 without irons and it is always difficult to acquire the dot initially.

Like I said above, red dots reveal flaws in our technique that we don't notice with irons. It's humbling when we realize that even after many years of shooting, we still need to get better with the fundamentals.

Aaron Cowan says practice with red dots will make you a better shooter with irons. This is why.

Practice getting your grip right and pushing out with dot (or irons) in your line of sight. Do it with an empty gun, not just at the range.

We shouldn't need irons to acquire your dot, that's a crutch, like using training wheels.

Travis Haley of Haley Strategic has a tip that may help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULnzq0DIww

 

[44 AMP]

How much "taller" does the sight(s) you are talking about make the pistol?

 

[raimius]

I find myself slower, but more accurate with an RDS. I'm not sure that is a good trade at the distances and times involved in most civilian defensive shootings. I can usually make A-zone hits at 5-8yds a little faster with irons.
In competition, with 6in poppers and moving targets at 3-25yds, the RDS is VERY handy. It makes longer shots and small/moving targets much easier to hit.

 

[American Man]

I know that this may not go over well depending on their chain of command, but maybe you could share that Sage Dynamics whitepaper with them and perhaps they could get someone, perhaps someone responsible for training, to read it and give it some thought.

I just sent it out this morning. Seems to be more effort in that paper than a dissertation.
I haven't completely finished it but pages 18-33 explained a lot to me.

A Veitnam Vet who landed on LZ Xray was teaching my CCW class about 14-15 years ago and he was talking about how he didn't have any of that stuff back in his day and his attitude was dismissive of the technology. He asked if anyone had experience with it. Without going into detail, I told him about my success many times with the lasers and ACOGs in Iraq.

I found myself kind of hating on the red dots for pistols when they first came out... but I knew I was just being a cranky jackass about it. lol

 

[American Man]

Like I said above, red dots reveal flaws in our technique that we don't notice with irons. It's humbling when we realize that even after many years of shooting, we still need to get better with the fundamentals.

Aaron Cowan says practice with red dots will make you a better shooter with irons. This is why.

Practice getting your grip right and pushing out with dot (or irons) in your line of sight. Do it with an empty gun, not just at the range.

We shouldn't need irons to acquire your dot, that's a crutch, like using training wheels.

Travis Haley of Haley Strategic has a tip that may help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULnzq0DIww

It may seem like a crutch to you but I don't search for the red dot on my carry pistols. I always train for sights on the first round and pick up the dot... I'm not into making videos of myself, but you would see I am not using training wheels.

 

[DMK]

It may seem like a crutch to you but I don't search for the red dot on my carry pistols. I always train for sights on the first round and pick up the dot... I'm not into making videos of myself, but you would see I am not using training wheels.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was going off the comment made about having difficulty acquiring the dot on the 22 gun without irons.

The reason I'm saying that using the irons is a crutch or training wheels is that while it is a technique taught by instructors (Gabe Suarez for example) to acclimate students to finding the dot, it is negating some of the advantage of the dot and in the long run is an inefficient way to acquire the dot. We certainly can use the sights to get the gun aligned and then go to the dot, but training to not use them is more efficient in the long run as we get more proficient. (That said, there may be times when we are shooting in awkward positions where we still do need to use that technique).

I'm going to cut and paste what I said earlier:

... Using the irons for referencing the dot is defeating a primary advantage the dot has; referencing your sighting system quickly in the same plane as your target.

With iron sights you have three planes of focus; rear sight, front sight and target. You want/need to focus on the front sight, but thousands of years of evolution tells us to focus on the threat. The dot solves that problem. Focus on the target/threat and the dot is there.

Using the irons to orient the dot makes convenient training wheels, but it slows us down. We need to focus on the target and only the target.

Here is Aaron Cowan explaining it:

Developing Point of Aim with a RDS handgun optic

Why Slaving the Dot to the Irons is Wrong

Cowitnessing with Handgun Optics

Also Scott Jedlinski: Can't Find The Red Dot When You Are Drawing?

.

 

[DMK]

How much "taller" does the sight(s) you are talking about make the pistol?

If you go to Trijicon's RMR page, you can see one mounted on a Glock. They don't give full dimension specs though.

Holosun does give dimensions for the 507C and they list it as 1.8 x 1.2 x 1.6.

My CZ's slide is at the shop now getting milled so I can't measure, but the optic will set a few mm down into the slide. My Maxim 9 puts the optic up higher using Glock MOS plates. Most 22LR guns put the optic up very high on a rail.

For concealed carry or duty use, getting the slide milled to a specific optic is the way to go IMO. Not only is it lower, but it's more durable since you can use longer screws to attach the optic directly to the slide which also has the locating bosses, and a good shop (like Primary Machine doing mine) will custom fit the optic so it fits tightly into the slide and can't move fore/aft.

The convenient "Optics Ready" plates like Glock MOS or CZ's solution allow nice long screws to attach the plate to the slide, but then the optic screws can only catch a few threads in the thin plate. Plus you have twice as many screws that could come loose.

 

[TunnelRat]

If you go to Trijicon's RMR page, you can see one mounted on a Glock. They don't give full dimension specs though.



Holosun does give dimensions for the 507C and they list it as 1.8 x 1.2 x 1.6.



My CZ's slide is at the shop now getting milled so I can't measure, but the optic will set a few mm down into the slide. My Maxim 9 puts the optic up higher using Glock MOS plates. Most 22LR guns put the optic up very high on a rail.



For concealed carry or duty use, getting the slide milled to a specific optic is the way to go IMO. Not only is it lower, but it's more durable since you can use longer screws to attach the optic directly to the slide which also has the locating bosses, and a good shop (like Primary Machine doing mine) will custom fit the optic so it fits tightly into the slide and can't move fore/aft.



The convenient "Optics Ready" plates like Glock MOS or CZ's solution allow nice long screws to attach the plate to the slide, but then the optic screws can only catch a few threads in the thin plate. Plus you have twice as many screws that could come loose.

Trijicon, and some aftermarket options, make specific screws for Glock MOS that supposedly help reduce the tendency to loosen. That's what I'm in the process of finishing now. While I do think direct mounting has advantages, the ability to try different optics and a factory setup are some advantages of modular systems. In my case my MOS 19 cost me $80 more than the standard Glock 19. Certainly a number of places mill and refinish for very affordable prices, but that's generally not easy to beat. But again, you get a lower sitting optic and likely greater rigidity with direct mounting. Still, a number of people have used optics on MOS Glocks for thousands and thousands of rounds without issue. Like many things in life I'm not sure there is one answer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[DMK]

In my case my MOS 19 cost me $80 more than the standard Glock 19. Certainly a number of places mill and refinish for very affordable prices, but that's generally not easy to beat.

Good points TunnelRat. My Maxim 9 uses MOS plates and the versatility is nice.

For cost comparison sake, milling my CZ slide cost $220 (plus my $20 shipping cost to them, but including return shipping and insurance) including cutting a rear sight dovetail in front of the optic and a Cerakote refinish of the entire slide.

There is currently about a $120 difference in price between a CZ P10C suppressor ready (includes threaded barrel and suppressor sights) and an optics ready P10C (which has a non threaded barrel, and oddly only includes standard height sights). I didn't price a standard CZ P10C.

If you like Glocks, there are a lot of options for them. More people doing milling services, more companies offering MOS compatible adapter plates, there are even some 3rd party mounting options. You probably could save a few bucks too vs an FN, CZ or SIG.

 

[Tom-R2]

I"m retired now, but I bought a (very slightly) used Glock 23 at an estate auction a couple years ago and sent the slide off to have it milled and a Trijicon RMR installed. I have supressor sights on it that cowitness. I carry it frequently using a 357SIG barrel. Since the RMR and the iron sights cowitness, the red dot sits right on top of the front sight, so it appears as soon as I get the sights close to lined up, the same way as iron sights have been for me throughout my working career. I also used a Crimson Trace laser grip sight on my Beretta 92 as a duty weapon for several years before retirement. They work differently, both have advantages and disadvantages, some will be no big deal with some people, and will aggravate the heck out of others. You just have to decide for yourself if it's your thing. I like both the RMR and the laser sight. I have several other pistols without any electronic sights and I don't have problems shooting or carrying them either. I thought about having an RMR slot milled on a recent 1911 build and decided not to.

 

[American Man]

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was going off the comment made about having difficulty acquiring the dot on the 22 gun without irons.

The reason I'm saying that using the irons is a crutch or training wheels is that while it is a technique taught by instructors (Gabe Suarez for example) to acclimate students to finding the dot, it is negating some of the advantage of the dot and in the long run is an inefficient way to acquire the dot. We certainly can use the sights to get the gun aligned and then go to the dot, but training to not use them is more efficient in the long run as we get more proficient. (That said, there may be times when we are shooting in awkward positions where we still do need to use that technique).

I'm going to cut and paste what I said earlier:



Here is Aaron Cowan explaining it:

Developing Point of Aim with a RDS handgun optic

Why Slaving the Dot to the Irons is Wrong

Cowitnessing with Handgun Optics

Also Scott Jedlinski: Can't Find The Red Dot When You Are Drawing?

.

I checked out those 4 videos. I put tape on my front sight post and practiced drawing and luckily I have no issues getting the dot on target immediately. I would have been pissed if I was searching.

I have been doing things backwards with my MOS pistols. I've been putting the suppressor height sights on first and only when I'm comfortable with them do I put on a red dot. When I get a G45 I will do the opposite.

 

[Catchabullet]

I have one but...

I have a M&P-9 with a delta point mounted but I have no desire to carry it. It's a whole other training issue... I'm more efficient with irons than a red dot on a pistol.

 

[OhioGuy]

After a learning curve of several months, I found myself become at least as quick at close ranges with a red dot, and FAR quicker and more accurate beyond about 10 yards. The one useful thing about still having a cowitnessed front sight is that I can tell where the dot probably is in case it's not aligned. I think that's the biggest source of lost time when learning to use a dot -- if the dot isn't in the window, then where the heck is it? You lack reference.

I have a dot on two pistols, one CZ P-07 (Trijicon RMR) and one Walther PPS M2 (the Shield RMS-C that it came with). The Trijicon is a far more durable but chunkier device. Both work excellently. Neither adds any concealment difficulty at all, but I carry AIWB and that puts the optic pretty much at the center line of my body where shirts are always the loosest.

All in all I'm an RDS convert. I think the benefits way outweigh the drawbacks. In taking pistol classes, with movement and fast target transitions, the differences are night and day. Both eyes are always open, they never leave what I'm aiming at, I have total situational awareness and the dot just magically appears where the holes will be

Takes PRACTICE and it is NOT a magical cure for making shooting better. But with the proper investment in training I think it's the future.

 

[Catchabullet]

Yeah, I agree. I just don't care to put the time in though. There are definite benefits... but you wont see me mounting a dot and bastardizing my carry 1911 ever. I'll just run it as I have it forever.