Nobody is saying that they are essential. I certainly am not. I am suggesting that they may be advantageous, but I would not say essential. Not even on a long gun.Red dot or more accurately, reflex sights are not essential to accomplishing threat-focus.
I mentioned above that peripheral sighting is a good skill to practice and be familiar with. However, shooting using an MRDS or iron sights is provably more accurate that shooting without a sight(s).Point shooting also accomplishes the same.
The question is can you shoot to produce hits quickly and accurately enough under stress to stop an attack? Point shooting is one proposed solution to that problem. Red dots are another. (and threat focused "shooting through the sights" is yet another) It's up to the individual to do some serious honest testing and decide which is preferable. Perhaps it's not a one answer question.
That's an interesting point. Is there any science behind this?While the intended use of reflex sights is focus in the target's plane, the frame of the glass and the colored tint that is necessary for reflecting the "dot" (diode light) can both obscure the target and cause the brain to refocus on the sight, particularly the frame around the glass. The colored tint and the glass itself reduces light transmission significantly and is especially a problem in low light situations.
So why would having an MRDS mounted on a gun prevents one from using point shooting if necessary? Nothing about the sighting system seems to prevent using this tactic if it's prudent and appropriate.Compare this to point shooting where the entire gun is potentially not even in view (1/4 hip position) or is in the periphery (3/4 hip). Of course, point shooting has its own even more serious drawbacks. For a 25 yard shot, slow aimed fire, the red dot reflex sight is clearly a big advantage. For a 3-yard snap shot, point shooting delivers all the advantages than reflex sights are only aiming for.
Last edited: