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

[DMK]

Red dot or more accurately, reflex sights are not essential to accomplishing threat-focus.

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.

Point shooting also accomplishes the same.

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).

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.

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.

That's an interesting point. Is there any science behind this?

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.

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.

 

[DMK]

If it's possible to bring a red dot up with proper alignment without using any kind of co-witnessing with irons--why wouldn't you be able to do the same with a front bright post?

I just re-read this question and realized that the part I underlined wasn't actually answered.

I red dot or reflex sight uses an LED emitter that is approximately 1/2" behind a specially coated lens. The emitter projects the dot on that coating. You zero the sight so that the dot is between your eye and the desired point of impact on the target (let's ignore zero distance and ballistic curves for the moment). Once zeroed, due to the design of the optic lens, that dot will always appear between your eye and the bullet's point of impact. When you twist the sight slightly, that dot appears to move across the screen, but it is always between your eye and point of impact. The POI changed because you moved the gun and the dot moved along with the changed POI.

That is not true of a front iron sight. The front sight is fixed and you have to move it to be between your eye and the desired point of impact. Not only that, but you also need to align the gun's barrel with your eye using a third point of reference (usually the rear sight). The line from the eye to target must be aligned with the barrel of the gun. Since your iron sights are in line with the barrel and are your only accurate reference to barrel alignment, the line from the eye to target must be aligned with both the front and rear sights. Without both front and rear sights, you can't verify that alignment. It's basic geometry.

The dot is not fixed. It moves in relation to where your eye is due to the optical properties of the lense. In essence, your eye is moving the dot to where it needs it to be.

If you can't see the dot, it's because you moved it off the area of the lens, but in theory with a big enough lens you could turn the gun 45 degrees and the dot would still be between your eye and POI. The line from your eye to target would not even have to be aligned with the gun (as long as you could see through the sight's lens).


So to hit the target with a red dot, you need to simply move the POI (which always coincides with the properly zero'd dot) to the desired spot on the target.

 

[stagpanther]

My simple mind tends to reduce things down to simple conclusions. Because the sight radius is so limited on a handgun--small changes in sighting alignment tend to have a greater impact than they would say on a long gun with 26" barrel. Add to that the typical reflex sight dot requires a precision alignment within the field of the glass (a red dot generally is "where the dot is is where the bullet goes") AND is higher up from the center axis of the bore--more potential induced error the way I see it. However, I'm the first to admit that I don't train enough, so maybe I'd "feel the love" with more practice. : )

 

[labnoti]

... 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.

That's right. I'm not arguing against the MRDS. I have one. I'm just pointing out that they are not the only way to prevent or avoid focus on the near field plane. I agree with the idea that irons present a challenge in that they draw the shooter's focus off the threat and into that near field plane where the sights are. Obviously, this can work very well as it has been for a long time and front sight focus is the foundation of technique that can get good results -- but it does present a challenge that possibly could be overcome by technology. Clearly, MRDS are one technology where we are attempting to overcome that challenge. It doesn't work perfectly. To work ideally, we'd have to not shove anything between our eyes and the target. A semi-transparent object like a MRDS screen is similar to nothing, but not very. A red dot reflected off eyeglass lenses would be much better. If you could point your gun from the 3/4 hip position, but see a dot in your glasses that indicates where the muzzle was pointed, that would avoid the need to shove the gun, the MRDS frame, and the tinted glass between your eyes and the target. Maybe instead of a dot, a line would be even better. This kind of augmented reality tech isn't produced as a commercial product yet, but it is within reach. And so is tech that would allow a target to be selected and also controls the sear release when the bore is properly aligned. MRDS are what's practical now, but they don't quite accomplish all they set out to do.

 

[DMK]

... Add to that the typical reflex sight dot requires a precision alignment within the field of the glass ...

Consider the precise alignment required to keep a front sight post centered within the notch of a rear sight.

Assuming it is where you want it on the target, the reticle of the red dot can be anywhere on that piece of glass for an accurate shot. It does not need to be centered in that piece of glass.

However, I'm the first to admit that I don't train enough, so maybe I'd "feel the love" with more practice. : )

Yes, that would help. Unlike Red Dots on long guns, MRDS on handguns are not for the casual shooter. It requires training and practice. You need to master good grip, good kinesthetics and good recoil control to see the benefits.

 

[DMK]

That's right. I'm not arguing against the MRDS. I have one. I'm just pointing out that they are not the only way to prevent or avoid focus on the near field plane.

You're right of course. There are technical solutions (hardware/equipment/tools) and there are tactics solutions (brain software/training/practice). They can and should overlap.

I agree with the idea that irons present a challenge in that they draw the shooter's focus off the threat and into that near field plane where the sights are. Obviously, this can work very well as it has been for a long time and front sight focus is the foundation of technique that can get good results -- but it does present a challenge that possibly could be overcome by technology. Clearly, MRDS are one technology where we are attempting to overcome that challenge. It doesn't work perfectly. To work ideally, we'd have to not shove anything between our eyes and the target. A semi-transparent object like a MRDS screen is similar to nothing, but not very. A red dot reflected off eyeglass lenses would be much better. If you could point your gun from the 3/4 hip position, but see a dot in your glasses that indicates where the muzzle was pointed, that would avoid the need to shove the gun, the MRDS frame, and the tinted glass between your eyes and the target. Maybe instead of a dot, a line would be even better. This kind of augmented reality tech isn't produced as a commercial product yet, but it is within reach. And so is tech that would allow a target to be selected and also controls the sear release when the bore is properly aligned. MRDS are what's practical now, but they don't quite accomplish all they set out to do.

I agree. The small screens we have are very much a compromise. We want the advanced sighting system, but we want it small, unobtrusive and even concealable.

A large virtual (holographic?) screen with a reticle presented in front of us would be a game changer. That's a long leap from where we are today though. Current red dots are pretty simple devices actually. They are really just taking advantage of the known physics of reflections on a piece of clear glass.

 

[silvermane_1]

Lasergrips/sites and/or hi viz/night sites are far useful/user friendly than a red dot/holo sites on a carry gun IMHO.

 

[BrthrB]

I've been running a Trijicon RMR on my "milled" Glock 21 for about 2 years now.

There definitely was a learning curve but once the "sight alignment" was burned into muscle memory there have been zero issues with picking up the red dot.

As some have stated, there were concerns regarding the "height" of the sight as it sits on the slide...obviously Glock does not make a G-21 in an MOS version so having the slide milled was the way to go. As a result, the sight sits lower, fits tighter and and feels to be a much more durable mounting solution.

My eyes are not what they used to be as I have aged...my reason for adding the RMR was due to my need to stay accurate (to the standard I hold myself to) beyond 15 yards. I found no issue with combat shooting for close quarters work and after mounting the RMR there was a significant difference in my consistency at longer ranges.

These were my reasons, obviously others may different opinions, good luck with the process!

 

[DMK]

Thanks for your comments BrthrB. It's good to hear from someone who's been using one for a few years.

I'm curious, with your experience with it, do you trust your RDS equipped Glock for conceal carry? Or if not CC, do you use it for home defense?

 

[BrthrB]

I use my G-21 for duty carry in my job as a LEO. It is a little large, for my tastes, to use daily as CCW.

I am trying to figure which gun I will have milled next, G-30S or G-19 to use for CCW.

A fellow LEO who trains/instructs with me carries his G-19 MOS with an RMR daily and has no issues concealing it. His primary carry is a kydex type OWB holster.

 

[DMK]

Thanks. That you and your fellow officer carry RMRs on your duty guns says a lot.

 

[EnoughGUN]

MRDS CARRY

This is an interesting thread. I haven’t seen much actual real world usage discussed. I was unsure about pistol optics because I did not like the closed in effect caused by the shell I felt it would effect my ability to acquire the target, think like looking through a scope. Everything around the small area through the scope is blocked.
So of course I went out and got one. In no small part due to the fact a girl at a handgun class I was in had one on a Glock and shot like she had guided bullets. The instant I used it I was in love. It’s like cheating. Put the dot on target and shoot. Time to put sights on target, align sights and align with target compared to put dot on bad guy?
I now have four carry guns. Archon type R, sig X Carry, Walther Q5 steel frame and a 229 legion all with optics. The Q and Type R have a shield rms, the X carry an rmr and the 229 a Romeo. You can go on about what you think using a red dot will do or what problems it may cause ... low light ... extra training whatever blah blah. Don’t agree with any of it. The moment is used one I find it easier and faster to acquire a target. I haven’t found any down side. It also has not made any difference in how well it shoot on iron sights. The shield RMSc especially is excellent. It’s small, light and the lens is very clear.
As far as the concerns about reliability what are you doing with your gun?! I carry every day and the x carry 90% of the time. I don’t think I’ve even scratched it much less any sort of thing that would damage the rmr and that’s Owb. Unless you are John Wick I doubt its an issue.

 

[dyl]

How then, does a red dot on a pistol compare with a laser grip for a pistol?

Both would draw your focus to the target. The red dot requires a nearly perfect presentation. The laser does not. The laser does not give feedback if you are off target and the background is far away.

But I think for focusing on the target, the laser might even do a better job because there is *nothing* to focus on back at your end of the pistol.

 

[DMK]

It’s like cheating. Put the dot on target and shoot.

Thanks for your comments EnoughGUN. I agree.

You can go on about what you think using a red dot will do or what problems it may cause ... low light ... extra training whatever blah blah. Don’t agree with any of it. The moment is used one I find it easier and faster to acquire a target. I haven’t found any down side. It also has not made any difference in how well it shoot on iron sights.

I know some have issues with "finding the dot", etc. I took to it very quickly myself. I think the key is kinesthetics. Having a good grip, good presentation, and good alignment of the gun with your eye is the key. That is critical with both irons and red dot, but you just notice it more with the red dot. That is why if you can get good with a red dot, you will also be getting better with irons.

 

[DMK]

How then, does a red dot on a pistol compare with a laser grip for a pistol?

The laser does have an advantage in special situations where you can not get the gun up to your line of sight. There are various situations where this can be imagined, but personally I think they are rare situations. The laser is also useful for night vision. Again, not generally a common need for most, but is a real need for some.

Often I think folks try to rationalize the need for a laser due to its lower cost and the fact that they have not practiced enough with irons or a red dot to be come proficient. I don't say this to insult anyone, we all have a lot to learn or we wouldn't be here looking for knowledge. We just have to be brutally honest with ourselves about what we are training, why we are training and how are we progressing with that training. When something doesn't work, is it because it's a bad technique or design, or are we just doing it wrong? When something seems to work right, is it really a better technique or design, or are we experiencing a cognitive bias because we like it?

Both would draw your focus to the target. The red dot requires a nearly perfect presentation. The laser does not. The laser does not give feedback if you are off target and the background is far away.

Yes, the red dot do require prefect presentation and alignment. So do irons. We just fine tune iron sight alignment on draw without realizing it. Which is better, presenting the gun, getting alignment immediately on obtaining a sight picture and pressing the shot, or presenting, fine tuning sight alignment after getting a sight picture, then pressing the shot? The former is faster, but only after putting in the time with good practice and getting good kinesthetic alignment on every draw. The latter is easier and quicker to learn.

I have used lasers for many years and still do use them on a couple J-frame revolvers and subcompact autos. I have them mainly to give me some help with low light targeting and the laser is zeroed to coincide with my iron sight alignment at 15yards. I present the handgun as I would when using iron sights and if due to poor lighting, I can't see my sights to align them, the laser is there to assist with my alignment on target. I suppose it's my plan B to my plan A, which is iron sight alignment. I say that because if I had the choice for those subcompact weapons, I would replace those lasers with red dot sights and the red dots would be my plan A, with plan B being the iron sights.

But I think for focusing on the target, the laser might even do a better job because there is *nothing* to focus on back at your end of the pistol.

Again, that requires time with the optic and good practice. Lots of folks get distracted by the "scope" when using red dots on both hand guns and long guns. We need to train that out with lots of target focused practice. It's just bad habit that needs to be 'unlearned' and 'relearned' correctly.

In my personal experience and opinion, the red dot reticle is much easier and faster to acquire than a laser.