Why are red dot optics not standard from the OEM?

[Aguila Blanca]

It's simply a different ball game.

When I was in high school, there were several invisible barriers in track and field: the 7-foot high jump, the 16-foot pole vault, and the 4-minute mile. In 1962, my senior year in high school, along came a U.S. Marine named John Uelses who set a new world record in pole vault with a vault of 16' -0-1/4". He then promptly beat that with a vault of 16'- 0-3/4". He was a great athelete, and I don't dispute that. But ... he used a fiberglass pole. When I was in high school all the poles were steel, and they were rigid. The fiberglass pole flexed -- the vaulter just had to run fast enough to bend the pole, and the pole would launch him. I have always felt there should be a separate record for the pole vault using a steel pole, because it really is that different.

I feel the same way about [color]-dot optics vs. open sights.

 

[BigJimP]

I use red dots on some bulls eye target style guns....( like a Browning Buckmark)...but i don't want them on my carry gun ( a 5" 1911 ..)...mostly because they're bulky..and while I understand the battery mfg's say they have a 2 yr life in battery....I don't want to trust it on a carry gun ....or keeping it on all the time / what if recoil shakes the sight & battery a little ..and its dim or it goes out...

If you have a mounting plate where you could co-witness your iron sights ...to me, it means the red dot will be even higher on gun ( making it even bulkier).

I think red dots in general are ok on target guns...but honestly I consider them more of a fad or a novelty...on concealed guns. They are just not for me.... I won't be specing one on my next order with Wilson Combat, even if he offers it as an option.

I have no problem if OEM's offer them to you as an option -- and charge you accordingly for them...and let other customers choose to spend less on the same gun without it.

 

[Screwball]

I feel the same way about [color]-dot optics vs. open sights.

Which in a competition, that is correct... if rules don’t cover it, they should be adjusted (it’s been years since I worried about pistol competitions, so don’t know the current rulings about optics... nor do I really care).

However, if I had to use one of the two poles you described to jump a barrier that pretty much drew the line between life/death... I’m going with the fiberglass one. Maybe I’m a cheater in your eyes, but if it the best tool for the job, higher chance of surviving. There really isn’t “cheating” when it comes to defending your life... use whatever you can.

Not everything firearm related is unicorns and sunshine... and if a large agency like CBP wants that option, they likely have seen some data that giving it as an option to agents is worth any extra costs. Let’s say their qualification numbers go up, and when agents have to shoot, hit ratios increase (less misses/chances to hit an innocent person). Other agencies see that data, and you have everyone milling slides for red-dots, or trading in their sidearms for optics ready pistols. Or it could go the other way... and red-dots constantly break with regular use. If they don’t see an improvement, they will put the original plate back on and pull the sights off. That would be the end of that development line, at least until a more durable optic comes out. I don’t know of any agency/department that uses red-dots on handguns, so that is likely a step they figured they would try... but there are a lot of unknowns. If USBP agents don’t break them in the environments they patrol, I think that would be as good of a testament in durability that you could get.

It is like that with many different gun modifications... competition world puts something out there, which is used later in military/law-enforcement/defensive roles. What about 45 degree angled backup sights? Where did they original come from? Wasn’t a military or law-enforcement development program. Pretty sure that was in three-gun prior to becoming a common product... which led to more development.

 

[rpenmanparker]

As it sits now...

Keep in mind that CBP, which is the largest Federal law enforcement agency in the US, just put in a request for new 9mm striker-fired pistols. One of the requirements was that the slide is cut to be optics ready (mentioned the RMR and Delta Point, specifically to be the minimum for compatibility).

With all the private movements towards red dots on pistols (many instructors are recommending them), and a change on that large of a scale, I think the standardization on optics ready pistols will come very quick after the new CBP pistol is issued to the entire agency... probably 2022ish. Old shooters or not, you will see more of them on the line than you currently do.

I have been tossing around a optics ready pistol... but just unsure on what platform I want to go with. Probably will be a P320, as I can easily change the size and slide, whether I like the red dot or not. Not stuck with a slide length or frame size, like if I got a Glock MOS.

I am happy to back off my original position to meet you st “optics-ready”. Funny thing is most autoloaders these days are already optics ready. As I said the simplest mounting point is the dovetail cut, and there are a bunch of options for mounting there. It is very low to the slide and very secure if you know about Loctite. Some optics require a rail mount and do sit higher, but not so for the open red dots that are intended for autoloaders.

For examples of no mill, no drill mounting options for a variety of guns just Google optics mounting plates or look on Amazon. Keep in mind that most of the common reflex red dots use the same base peg pattern and screw hole configuration to mount to the plate. So different offerings will fit several brands no matter what brand they are supposedly intended for. Also Galloway Precision has some options for Ruger SR and LC9(s) pistols. And Sight-Mount.com has a line of mounts that retain co-witnessing function. And Wiegand has rail mounts for Ruger revolvers. I bet there is more I just have not found yet.

 

[Screwball]

And Sight-Mount.com has a line of mounts that retain co-witnessing function.

Sorry, but that is incorrect...

If you are mounting a red-dot by the rear sight dovetail, you do not have cowitness. For those not familiar with Sight-Mount, they made a rear sight out of a short rail, which has the center cut out to still use as a rear sight. Don’t get me wrong, it is a very smart design, and I remember when the designer first released it on BerettaForum. If that works for you, they are a good company... and I recommend them without hesitation.

But follow me here... if you are mounting a red-dot on the rear sight, IT CANNOT COWITNESS! The iron sight plane is at the mounting point of the red-dot. Cowitness is done with the slide milling, to allow for the iron sights to be used through the red-dot, while mounted on the pistol. Batteries die, iron sights are right there.

Just want to put the right info out there...

 

[Ricklin]

A mighty broad category

There are likely right at a zillion different "red dot" sights on the market. OK I made that up, but there is a tremendous variety.

I can MAYBE see one on a duty weapon, not carried concealed. Anything that makes the pistol harder to carry concealed is a deal breaker for me.

Anything that may fail and prevent the use of the iron sights is a deal breaker on a pistol that is intended for defense.
I like lasers because I do not HAVE to use the laser for aimed fire. My iron sights are not impacted in the slightest. A well integrated laser enhances a defensive pistol and does not impact it's conceal-ability.

I'm thinking guide rod laser for my G19 next. Pricey tho. Mounting a cheaper unit on the rail means new holsters and I have several for it.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Sorry, but that is incorrect...

If you are mounting a red-dot by the rear sight dovetail, you do not have cowitness. For those not familiar with Sight-Mount, they made a rear sight out of a short rail, which has the center cut out to still use as a rear sight. Don’t get me wrong, it is a very smart design, and I remember when the designer first released it on BerettaForum. If that works for you, they are a good company... and I recommend them without hesitation.

But follow me here... if you are mounting a red-dot on the rear sight, IT CANNOT COWITNESS! The iron sight plane is at the mounting point of the red-dot. Cowitness is done with the slide milling, to allow for the iron sights to be used through the red-dot, while mounted on the pistol. Batteries die, iron sights are right there.

Just want to put the right info out there...

I appreciate you are trying to clean up my post, but I am not really wrong. I didn't say the Sight-Mount method retained the original rear sight. I said it retained the co-witnessing function. The Sight-Mount design does "retain" co-witnessing as I said. And near as I can tell, it does mount in the rear dovetail. You can co-witness with the Sight-Mount mount. I did not mean to suggest how it was being done. In fact you do replace the original rear sight by mounting the Sight-Mount rail in the dovetail. The rail has a replacement notch cut into the rear of it and as you say a sight path down the center of the rail to the front sight. So you had open sight function before. You still have it after. As I said, the function has been retained.

And the Galloway Precision mount for Burris Fastfire III optics on an LC9/LC9s does indeed allow co-witnessing despite the removal of the rear sight for the optic mount. The mount has a notch at the rear and a post at the front which crudely replace the open sights that were original to the gun. The sight radius is stupid short, but in a pinch it should do.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Anything that makes the pistol harder to carry concealed is a deal breaker for me.

Fair enough, but there is a wide variety of belief about what constitutes a concealed carry gun. As I said my LC9s is smaller WITH the red dot sight than a good fraction of the guns without red dots that folks happily carry.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Lots of concern being expressed here about electronic sights failing on a self-defense weapon. Understandable. So let's hear some anecdotes (I doubt there is real data) about red dot failures in a pinch. Anyone know of any? No fair if the sight wasn't always on or the battery wasn't changed on a regular schedule. I would also say no fair if the sight hadn't been properly mounted with Loctite and a torque screwdriver and then "qualified" at the range prior to putting it into defensive carry use. That would include zeroing sight, retorquing the mounting screws, rezeroing the sight, and tightening the battery compartment cover. Jus' sayin' that you do have to do it right.

 

[Screwball]

That is not cowitness... that is allowing the red-dot to be mounted high enough so you can use the iron sights. For the Sight-Mount, need to remember the cross pin to secure the optic... so using the iron sights is likely impossible, if not difficult (you have an optic above it, so finding the target isn’t going to be as easy). Just with how modern red-dots are designed, you rarely can get cowitness without milling the slide... only chance is using suppressor sights.

That is like saying a RMR on an ACOG is cowitnessed. Or that the offset backup irons and my scope on one of my ARs are cowitnessed. They are not, as they are not on the same plane. An Aimpoint on an AR, utilizing the A2 post/rear backup sight or a complete set of backup sights, is cowitnessed.

Sorry, but cowitness is a very defined setup... and has been for years. Nothing you said can be defined as such, since the red-dot is so much higher than the irons. If it works for you, more power too you... but that is the difference you are trying to gloss over.

 

[rpenmanparker]

BTW many if not most of the leather holsters from Mernickle are cut low on the slide which allows the red dot without interference. If you are in doubt, you can just specify the clearance you need when you order, and they will make sure to allow it. All the holsters are cut and sewn to order. I will follow with a photo of my SR1911 in its new Mernickle holster.

 

[rpenmanparker]

That is not cowitness... that is allowing the red-dot to be mounted high enough so you can use the iron sights. For the Sight-Mount, need to remember the cross pin to secure the optic... so using the iron sights is likely impossible, if not difficult (you have an optic above it, so finding the target isn’t going to be as easy). Just with how modern red-dots are designed, you rarely can get cowitness without milling the slide... only chance is using suppressor sights.

That is like saying a RMR on an ACOG is cowitnessed. Or that the offset backup irons and my scope on one of my ARs are cowitnessed. They are not, as they are not on the same plane. An Aimpoint on an AR, utilizing the A2 post/rear backup sight or a complete set of backup sights, is cowitnessed.

Sorry, but cowitness is a very defined setup... and has been for years. Nothing you said can be defined as such, since the red-dot is so much higher than the irons. If it works for you, more power too you... but that is the difference you are trying to gloss over.

While the term is often more loosely used to include a set of open sights even in a different plane than the primary sight, I agree with your definition. Here it is stated by guns.com:

"The term co-witness refers the double verification of target that occurs when you line up your iron sights with the red dot, reflex or halo sight. In a proper co-witness sight picture, the dot should rest on the tip of the front sight on iron sights."

It doesn't matter how you mount things to get the double picture. Co- means together. Witness means to see. IOW seeing together. If you can see the red dot sitting on the front sight post through the rear notch, well that is co-witnessing. Raising the red dot to be able to use the open sights is a standard method of obtaining co-witnessing. It so happens that the methods I mentioned do not involve raising the red dot. When you zero the red dot for a distance similar to the distance the open sights are zeroed, you get co-witnessing.

If the red dot fails, well I guess that wouldn't be co-witnessing anymore, but so what. The co-witnessing setup is what is allowing you to still aim the gun even if the red dot fails.

"Your iron sights" can mean your original iron sights or iron sights that are provided by the mounting device for the red dot. What difference does it make?

My LC9s with the Galloway mounting plate completely conforms to the above definition. I can see the red dot right on the front post of the mounting plate through the rear notch of the mounting plate. That is through the glass by the way.

 

[Cheapshooter]

If the red dot fails, well I guess that wouldn't be co-witnessing anymore, but so what. The co-witnessing setup is what is allowing you to still aim the gun even if the red dot fails.

And in a SD situation while you are co-witnessing, looking for little red dots that may or may not be there, then looking for open sights that may be partially obscured, and trying to find a target that is partially obscured what is your assailant witnessing? Most likely you laying on the ground in a pool of blood. Because while you are playing with "state of the art" technology he is pulling the trigger!

 

[Screwball]

You really want to be right, huh?

My LC9s with the Galloway mounting plate completely conforms to the above definition. I can see the red dot right on the front post of the mounting plate through the rear notch of the mounting plate. That is through the glass by the way.

Being I don’t keep up on all optic mounts, nor do I plan to get an LC9 or LC380, sorry but I actually had to look it up to see what you are talking about.

The plate has its own sights, which are what, inch and a half of total sight radius? It obviously can get the job done... but is that going to be a sound way of running an RMR on a P320?

Yes, those sights, which you only get with the plate, are cowitnessed with the red-dot. However, stock sights are not on the same sight plane. That setup is not a common method to attach red-dots to pistols (how many people run optics on LC9s?), so you kind of are taking an exception and passing it off as the rule.

Most people prefer to have the slide milled for cowitness on iron sights, not put two fixed tabs on either end of the red-dot, and call it good.

But whatever the case, a system like Sight-Mount is not cowitness... and he even wrote such in his FAQ, as it is a positive for milling the slide (again, why I respect/recommend his company, as he isn’t BSing people). You cannot cowitness the iron sights using the rear dovetail as a base to mount a red-dot... as it places the red-dot too high to use iron sights (which you just pulled the rear sight off, anyways). Someone could weld up two posts on both ends of the slide, and use them as cowitnessed sights... but doesn’t mean the mount made the iron sights cowitness.

 

[ammo.crafter]

young vs old eyes

My eye dominance changed from right to left eye (right hand dominant) which put me at a great disadvantage in certain competitive shooting matches.

The addition of a red dot has brought me back into the firing line.

Too bad they don't work with skeet competition.

 

[rpenmanparker]

You really want to be right, huh?




Being I don’t keep up on all optic mounts, nor do I plan to get an LC9 or LC380, sorry but I actually had to look it up to see what you are talking about.

The plate has its own sights, which are what, inch and a half of total sight radius? It obviously can get the job done... but is that going to be a sound way of running an RMR on a P320?

Yes, those sights, which you only get with the plate, are cowitnessed with the red-dot. However, stock sights are not on the same sight plane. That setup is not a common method to attach red-dots to pistols (how many people run optics on LC9s?), so you kind of are taking an exception and passing it off as the rule.

Most people prefer to have the slide milled for cowitness on iron sights, not put two fixed tabs on either end of the red-dot, and call it good.

But whatever the case, a system like Sight-Mount is not cowitness... and he even wrote such in his FAQ, as it is a positive for milling the slide (again, why I respect/recommend his company, as he isn’t BSing people). You cannot cowitness the iron sights using the rear dovetail as a base to mount a red-dot... as it places the red-dot too high to use iron sights (which you just pulled the rear sight off, anyways). Someone could weld up two posts on both ends of the slide, and use them as cowitnessed sights... but doesn’t mean the mount made the iron sights cowitness.

No, I don’t have to be right. I just want to know why I am wrong. Honestly I thought the Sight-Mount was co-witness. I double checked the website and see I was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.

Regarding the LC9s, I’m just pointing out an interesting example. Yes it is a short sight radius. But we are talking about an extremely low probability situation. I have tested it and it works well enough for me to be satisfied. YMMV.

 

[Screwball]

No, I don’t have to be right. I just want to know why I am wrong.

Because sights on different planes are not cowitnessed... we both stated as much and think we are in agreement.

Whether Sight-Mount says they are cowitnessed or not, a red-dot above the rear sight is not cowitnessed (looking at their mounts, should be very apparent). Whether a mount adds a sight or not, I do not know of a mount that allows a red-dot to cowitness iron sights on a slide without milling the slide. Mount cowitnessing is not commonly marketed by having an external sight added, but cowitnessing existing sights.

You started this back and forth saying that all pistols are pretty much optics ready. That is incorrect... if you want to argue that, you can do as you wish, but it is clear and cut enough for me (optic ready stops when you buy aftermarket parts to mount said optic). Even if all mounts had the sighting system on your LC9 mount, you have to buy it and install it. Big difference than removing a plate that keeps the profile of the slide, and mounting a red-dot via an included plate from the manufacturer. If that is the case, guns with rails are “optics ready,” because of red-dot rail mounts.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Because sights on different planes are not cowitnessed... we both stated as much and think we are in agreement.

Whether Sight-Mount says they are cowitnessed or not, a red-dot above the rear sight is not cowitnessed (looking at their mounts, should be very apparent). Whether a mount adds a sight or not, I do not know of a mount that allows a red-dot to cowitness iron sights on a slide without milling the slide. Mount cowitnessing is not commonly marketed by having an external sight added, but cowitnessing existing sights.

You started this back and forth saying that all pistols are pretty much optics ready. That is incorrect... if you want to argue that, you can do as you wish, but it is clear and cut enough for me (optic ready stops when you buy aftermarket parts to mount said optic). Even if all mounts had the sighting system on your LC9 mount, you have to buy it and install it. Big difference than removing a plate that keeps the profile of the slide, and mounting a red-dot via an included plate from the manufacturer. If that is the case, guns with rails are “optics ready,” because of red-dot rail mounts.

I won't argue this one with you. I can clean up my semantics and just say that a wide variety of red dot optics can be mounted on a wide variety of pistols without milling/drilling the slide. And it appears that more options are appearing all the time.

I have to say that two screws holding the optic and the plate to the supplied dovetail insert has been rock solid for me on five pistols. Over the course of a couple of years I have never had occasion to tighten or re-zero any of them.

 

[turkeestalker]

The images of targets that the OP posted are listed as being shot at 7 and 10 yards.
In a defensive situation at those distances the sights of a firearm, (iron or electronic), probably shouldn't even be coming into play in my opinion.
Point and shoot, takes some practice but is well worth the effort so as to help insure that we don't wind up as Cheapshooter described.
To paint a pretty target at the range is a different endeavor.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The images of targets that the OP posted are listed as being shot at 7 and 10 yards.
In a defensive situation at those distances the sights of a firearm, (iron or electronic), probably shouldn't even be coming into play in my opinion.
Point and shoot, takes some practice but is well worth the effort so as to help insure that we don't wind up as Cheapshooter described.
To paint a pretty target at the range is a different endeavor.

You make a very good point.