RMR vs Laser Sights

[Rett Skutt]

To all the enlightened, knowledgeable, and opinionated ones in this forum,

There are many folks moving to the RMR type red sights vs. the old style laser sights with either Red or Green beams. There are good reason for both. I've thought about this for some time now, and have come to different personal opinions. I have a Crimson Trace Green Laser mounted on my M&P Pro 9mm. I also have a Vortex Red Dot mounted on my AR-15.
I can see the argument for the use of either. I thought I'd ask the question here.

The fact that both require batteries, costs are about the same, mounting either system is easy, there are holsters made to accommodate either, etc. So lets not debate those issues or facts. And obviously training, using either sight system, does not relieve you of possibly having to use the "old fashion" iron sights.

The reasons for a Reflex Red Dot sights like Burris, Trijicon, Vortex, Doctor, etc. are possibly:

There are two advantages to a red dot sight.
The first is that they are easier to see if you have less than youthful eyes. I know plenty of friends who just can't see the front sight anymore beyond a blur. A red dot is on the same focal plane as the target, and as long as you can see the target, the dot will be in focus as well.

The second advantage is perhaps the least important: They are faster to use. Instead of lining up the front sight with the rear sight with the target, a shooter has only to place the dot on the target and pull the trigger.

The third - it's the new "cool thing"? Just my opinion.

The old reasons for the Lasers were (besides being cool):

First - We practice in stand up perfect positions. In a real-life shooting situations you may not have the luxury of shooting in this manner. So the laser offers you the ability to aim and fire accurately in any position.
Second - There is no need to align your sights or bring the RMR/sights up to ready position. Since your sight is focused on the attacker, you place the laser on them and hopefully they disengage or you shoot. In a dangerous situation, you want to be able to devote all of your attention to the threat/attacker.
Third - I personally believe that it simplifies the shooting process, and thus reduces stress in a stressful situation. Learning to survive a deadly encounter is as much a mental challenge as it is physical. Again, just my opinion.

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Rpg]

Lasers of any brand or color on a handgun are problematic: they encourage looking at the wrong thing:

Remember: front sight.

Gadgets don't replace basic skill.

 

[Mister X]

Virtually all civilian armed self-defense encounters occur at distances and at speeds where threat focused shooting is best and I think neither the RMR or laser are necessary or will be of much benefit in such instances.

If you are physically able, my recommendation is to participate in a FoF/Force-on-Force class. I think this will give you a much better understanding of the dynamics. Static range shooting really isn't sufficient.

You can analyze, research and study the issue endlessly, but it is difficult to grasp unless you actually do it. FoF is simply the best simulation we currently have. It's like trying to understand what the best techniques are and how to apply them, how to incorporate footwork, timing etc. in a fist-fight without ever having been in one, or participated in any type of sparring or contact/force drills. To use another analogy, prior to the MMA/UFC, there were various opinions as to what art(s)would generally work best in a NHB cage fight. Opinions were convoluted and varied so drastically because so many arts were based on theory, adapted for different goals/purposes and not proven nor throughly pressure tested in that specific environment. Twenty some odd years later, everyone is pretty much on the same page. Defensive shooting is really no different. To determine what's most effective, we must simulate the conditions of our goal(civilian defensive shooting, not range, target or sport shooing) as best as we can and see what holds up and works well when pressure tested in that specific context.

 

[Steved13]

I find the Red Dot, more natural to the shooting process. I have both and use both, but the Red dot takes less "getting used to" The laser projects the beam onto the target, and I end up looking at the target and the beam on that target. Where with a Red Dot, I am looking for a sight picture (albeit a different sight picture) and aligning the sight and the target and nothing is projected. When I use a laser it feels like something very foreign when shooting, vs the red dot feels more like the familiar, but (as you said) helps out my old eyes.

 

[Rett Skutt]

Thanks folks...

Good points all. Interesting and different perspectives. As for the FoF classes. I'm too old to fight and too slow to run. So my only choice at 65 years old is to Defensive carry, if I feel the need too.

I agree that learning to shoot with the front sight is most important. But in Low light situations, a helpful aid will help me hit what I'm aiming at.

I ask this question, because I'm thinking of a Burris Fast Fire 3. But I lose my rear sight, if I go this route. Unless of course I pay to have the slide milled. I'll keep reading and following this thread.

Take care all,

 

[CBStuard]

I don't have one of the modern RMR types but do have panaramic dot sight on my Buckmark .22. While I am used to it after 5 yrs, there are still a few times, especially if I haven't shot this gun in a couple of months, when I need to move the gun around to find the dot. So I wonder how that would be w/ the even smaller window in an RMR. OTOH, we have 6 CTC lasers on different pistols. I strongly agree on your points #1 and #2. I want to be looking at the threat-what is he doing-especially what are his hands doing? Find something in your house that is roughly the shape and size of a person. Unload, unload, and unload your gun again. Now aim at your simulated person like you would w/ either iron sights or an RMR. Can you see his hands? No you can't. Nearly everything below your aiming point in his chest is obscured by the gun, you hands, and your forearms. Now drop the gun down 6-8 inches as if using a laser. Now you can see what he is doing. An RMR takes care of the old eye problem and it takes care of the low light problem. It does nothing for being able to see the bad guy's actions and it does nothing for shooting in weird positions. We both bought carry pistols in the last year. My first step when developing a list of candidates is to check the CTC website. If they don't make a laser grip for it, I won't buy it.

 

[Steved13]

Thanks folks...

Good points all. Interesting and different perspectives. As for the FoF classes. I'm too old to fight and too slow to run. So my only choice at 65 years old is to Defensive carry, if I feel the need too.

I agree that learning to shoot with the front sight is most important. But in Low light situations, a helpful aid will help me hit what I'm aiming at.

I ask this question, because I'm thinking of a Burris Fast Fire 3. But I lose my rear sight, if I go this route. Unless of course I pay to have the slide milled. I'll keep reading and following this thread.

Take care all,

If you are using it for defense, make sure you retain iron sights and can co-witness. The iron sights will be necessary in the event of any kind of failure. Wrong lighting conditions can interfere with the red dot (wash it out, some more than others) and if you have trouble finding the dot, the irons will bring it right up for you.

 

[Steved13]

I don't have one of the modern RMR types but do have panaramic dot sight on my Buckmark .22. While I am used to it after 5 yrs, there are still a few times, especially if I haven't shot this gun in a couple of months, when I need to move the gun around to find the dot. So I wonder how that would be w/ the even smaller window in an RMR. OTOH, we have 6 CTC lasers on different pistols. I strongly agree on your points #1 and #2. I want to be looking at the threat-what is he doing-especially what are his hands doing? Find something in your house that is roughly the shape and size of a person. Unload, unload, and unload your gun again. Now aim at your simulated person like you would w/ either iron sights or an RMR. Can you see his hands? No you can't. Nearly everything below your aiming point in his chest is obscured by the gun, you hands, and your forearms. Now drop the gun down 6-8 inches as if using a laser. Now you can see what he is doing. An RMR takes care of the old eye problem and it takes care of the low light problem. It does nothing for being able to see the bad guy's actions and it does nothing for shooting in weird positions. We both bought carry pistols in the last year. My first step when developing a list of candidates is to check the CTC website. If they don't make a laser grip for it, I won't buy it.

good point about the gun blocking your vision. That is a good advantage of the laser...as someone else says you could hold the gun anywhere and paint the target.

With an RMR your focus distance will be on the target so you will have a much greater field of view than if focused on the front sight. the gun will obscure some, but not nearly as much as the front sight focus...and the older we get the worse that gets. As far as finding the dot, it is no different than finding the iron sights. Practice presentation and the iron sights and the Red Dot will be there every time...If the dot isn't there neither are your iron sights. Another advantage is the red dot doesn't need to be perfectly aligned, If it's in the window and the dot is on the target that's where the bullet goes.

Something I noticed recently. I have had a red dot on my range gun for about a month now. I've never trained for self defense with it, just range fun. I search for the dot now and then with it. I added a Red dot to my carry gun. My carry gun I had done numerous quick presentation drills with it. Indoor range so I can't draw the weapon, (I do draw and present dry fire training) but I will lay it in front of me and pick it up and get on target as quickly as possible. From doing this practicing. After mounting the red dot on that gun, the first time I presented, the dot was right there...again no different than irons. I'm not perfect, and irons aren't there every time so neither is the dot, but 95% of the time and the other 5% it's pretty close and takes a fraction of a second to make the adjustment.

It's certainly not for everyone, between cost and learning, and just confidence and comfort level. I just wanted to offer what I could.

 

[Mister X]

If you are using it for defense, make sure you retain iron sights and can co-witness. The iron sights will be necessary in the event of any kind of failure. Wrong lighting conditions can interfere with the red dot (wash it out, some more than others) and if you have trouble finding the dot, the irons will bring it right up for you.

What kind of defense scenario are you envisioning where you have that kind of time?

If we are talking about civilian self-defense with a handgun(I am), the norm is quick and close and by close I mean inside 5 yards. I've never heard of any instructors who are proponents of the RMR advocating it's use in a reactive incident inside 5 yards. It's simply too slow. Even if you were holding someone at gunpoint, I would not recommend trying to look through an RMR while monitoring their hands and movement.

This was the reason for my recommendation of FoF training. Using an RMR in a DYNAMIC close-quarter defense simulation is very different from using it for range, target or competitive shooting.

Attention given to the first two minutes...

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_AbAfZtTpk[/ame]

 

[Steved13]

What kind of defense scenario are you envisioning where you have that kind of time?

If we are talking about civilian self-defense with a handgun(I am), the norm is quick and close and by close I mean inside 5 yards. I've never heard of any instructors who are proponents of the RMR advocating it's use in a reactive incident inside 5 yards. It's simply too slow. Even if you were holding someone at gunpoint, I would not recommend trying to look through an RMR while monitoring their hands and movement.

This was the reason for my recommendation of FoF training. Using an RMR in a DYNAMIC close-quarter defense simulation is very different from using it for range, target or competitive shooting.

Attention given to the first two minutes...

Understanding Sight Alignment & Sight Picture in the context of Defensive Shooting. - YouTube

I've seen that video before.

Yes you'd be absolutely correct. The only error you made would be assuming I was speaking of any kind of close quarter self defense. In that scenario you wouldn't be using sights at all, in most cases. At that point doesn't a RMR vs Laser discussion become moot? And that is what the OP asked about.

Obviously the OP is asking about situations where sights are used. The OP doesn't mention self defense, but when he mentioned removing the sights, I thought it prudent to mention removal of the irons on a self defense pistol might not be a good idea.

The norm is just that, it is not an absolute, only the norm. That's why, we don't just remove our sights all together.

If we only worry about the norm, we wouldn't carry at all, since the vast majority never use our guns in self defense. For that matter anyone that thinks, doesn't ever want to.

 

[Mister X]

I've seen that video before.

Yes you'd be absolutely correct. The only error you made would be assuming I was speaking of any kind of close quarter self defense. In that scenario you wouldn't be using sights at all, in most cases. At that point doesn't a RMR vs Laser discussion become moot? And that is what the OP asked about.

Obviously the OP is asking about situations where sights are used. The OP doesn't mention self defense, but when he mentioned removing the sights, I thought it prudent to mention removal of the irons on a self defense pistol might not be a good idea.

The norm is just that, it is not an absolute, only the norm. That's why, we don't just remove our sights all together.

If we only worry about the norm, we wouldn't carry at all, since the vast majority never use our guns in self defense. For that matter anyone that thinks, doesn't ever want to.

I'm not sure about the OP's intent and why I clarified my context, but a lot of folks on here pretty much insist that traditional sighted fire is always the way to go in nearly every circumstance with their only exception being contact distances.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

What kind of defense scenario are you envisioning where you have that kind of time?

What kind of defensive scenario are you envisioning where you have the time and ammo to waste on not aiming?

If you have all afternoon and a case of ammo then accuracy by volume is acceptable.

If you are in a time crunch with limited ammo then you cannot afford ineffective hits or misses.

 

[CB3]

Pointing and aiming are two different applications of hitting a target. Pointing is faster than aiming because no aiming devices are used. Pure speed is what is important first. Accuracy suffers, but a practiced point shooter can be sufficiently accurate at point shooting ranges.

And that is the key. Human physiology in a close range life-or-death situation has been shown to produce:

Instinctive movement to get out of the line of attack.
Fastest possible close range delivery of shots toward the target, which is also likely moving.

The actual distance involved in point shooting varies, but generally it is conceded that it runs from contact distance to about 2-3 yards. The gun is usually not fully extended, keeping it close so it cannot be grabbed. This is instinctive. Training with Force on Force to work with instincts yields better results than forced training to do something your mind and body are unlikely to do in a given situation.

No sighting system of any kind is useful for this range of defensive shooting. As has been mentioned, this is the most common type of self defense shooting.

At 3-5 yards, there is still movement of both the shooter and the target, however, the gun is typically extended to point better. Yet sights are rarely used. Rather, the rear of the gun becomes an "index" placed on the target, again for speed. This is natural.

Beyond 5 yards, out to almost 10, sighting systems are used to increase the percentage of hits. However, if one is not somewhat practiced with the sighting system, including a laser, hits are few. If one cannot naturally point the gun and get the sights lined up, even a laser won't be on the moving target, and waiting to find the laser on the moving target, or line up any other sighting system from being way off target, will produce slow and inaccurate shooting.

While many defensive shootings are inside of the 5 yards that precludes the use of sights at all because of the instinctive need for movement and speed shooting, realistic self defense practice, almost unattainable on the square range, is what will increase effective hits at close ranges more than a sighting system.

When you get to where a sighting system is useful, practice is still needed to use the sighting system effectively. Just having a laser or a red dot is not the answer. Being able to point the handgun quickly and instinctively at the target so the sighting system is close to being in alignment is the key to fast, accurate shooting.

If you are going to shoot someone, you are beyond assessing what his hands are doing. If you have the time to draw your gun before the threat has become deadly, and at a range where you have time to raise your gun, refine your sight alignment (focus on the front sight; steer the laser dot; or apply the red dot), you are not participating in how most real self defense shooting situations go down. You are preparing for the ideal self defense opportunity that square range jockeys imitate. It just doesn't happen as often as people would like.

There is training now that recognizes that there is some probability that a civilian may have to use his concealed gun proactively, at longer than normal self defense ranges. This is where sights really make a difference. There is some time to carefully align the sights and properly pull the trigger, perhaps aiming for the head even though it is 20 yards away.

Here, you are not negotiating with the target. Bouncing a laser on a killer to dissuade him from killing is pure BS. Either your sighting system helps you kill him quicker than another sighting method, or you need to use something else.

Iron sights on handguns (first developed over 200 years ago) are hard to align properly beyond 20 yards, especially in low light. The focus shifting from target to rear to front sight is not natural or fast. If your target is in the process of moving and killing--you or someone else--you had better be and will truly be focused on the damn target, not little pieces of metal inches from your nose. Training to focus on the front sight is an old target paradigm that does not square with human physiology. It works on the range. I have and use iron sights. I hope I never have to use them defensively because there are superior 21st century sighting systems available.

The drawback to a laser on a handgun for me is that it signals my position clearly to an adversary who may not know where I am or may not be able to track my movements well for some reason, especially in dark situations. I think it can be an effective sighting device and can help increase hits with the proper kind of practice, but probably not inside of 15'. From about 15-30', if I can naturally point in at the target quickly and refine the laser dot position, it could be helpful. However, in a dynamic situation if the dot is not on the target, relying on the dot rather than getting back to natural, instinctive pointing, could make you slower while you hunt to get the dot on the target. Seeing that dot bounce off near and far surfaces while you run is usually very confusing and disconcerting. I tend to think, "Damn, I'm way off!" I need to be focusing on good handgun manipulation, not following the bouncing dot. This is not Karaoke.

If you have to lead your moving target a little bit, will the laser help you? Not likely. It may be bouncing on a wall 25' beyond the target. Are you focused on the dot, or the target? Confusing.

A laser could be helpful for a home defender shooting down corridors or in small rooms where movement is limited. Here the ranges would probably be 10-25'. But practiced point shooting would be just as effective. The laser could inspire confidence, but it could also slow a shooter down who depends on getting the dot on the target before shooting.

I am fine with people who can shoot well with iron sights and don't need the help of an alternate sighting system. The key is pointing well and consistently. Sight alignment and focus are a smaller part of the accuracy equation except at longer distances. The fastest competitors that I watch don't have time to align their sights or focus on the front sight as they swing from one target to another. It is their natural pointing ability that gets them hits.

My pointing ability continues to improve as I have come to realize through realistic training that it is the key to good hand gunning and that sighting systems are secondary. However, for the last 15 years I have been unable to focus well on iron sights and the target, even at the range. Under very good conditions, my accuracy decreased.

That is until I started using a Red Dot Sight mounted on my FS M&P over two years ago. My accuracy and speed has improved markedly. My irons co-witness through the RDS window, and at times I just turn it off and practice with the irons. At other times, when the dot just appears naturally because I am pointing correctly, I stop and check the iron sights, which I have been ignoring. Oh, they are right there where they should be.

My focus is simply on one plane: the target. This is natural, instinctive, common, fast. If I try to really focus on the irons, or even the dot in the window, everything blurs.

With the RDS, I look at the target, and the dot is nice and round (3.5 MOA) and quick to apply because I have the whole window for accuracy, not just the narrow alignment of front and rear iron sights applied to the target--which is much harder and slower to do, especially with movement.

I believe anyone can learn this system, eyesight good or not so good, and improve their speed and fast accuracy. I think irons are probably a little more precise for controlled target shooting, but my focus is on defensive shooting, and range accuracy is only a means to a different end.

I have scopes on rifles. I have RDS on carbines. I use iron sights on most of my handguns and on some rifles. But on my personal self defense M&P, I choose the Trijicon RMR 06.

Just my thoughts. Others are equally valid. We each make very personal decisions based on our own criteria. I did not write this to invalidate anyone else's choices and decisions. Rather, I've tried to explain my journey and decision processes and experiences.

 

[Rett Skutt]

Hi CB3,

You make some great points, and I'm glad you chose to post here. I'd like to make some additional comments.

Point 1) "Pointing and aiming are two different applications of hitting a target. Pointing is faster than aiming because no aiming devices are used. Pure speed is what is important first. Accuracy suffers, but a practiced point shooter can be sufficiently accurate at point shooting ranges."

Totally Agree - That is why my training with my Carry Gun (Shield) is different from my Home Defense gun (M&P Pro 9L). I shoot short range with the Shield 5 yards and closer. I do not generally aim, but do practice both types of shooting. Generally, it's point and shoot. However, I do aim during my shooting practice time with the M&P Pro.

Point 2) "When you get to where a sighting system is useful, practice is still needed to use the sighting system effectively. Just having a laser or a red dot is not the answer. Being able to point the handgun quickly and instinctively at the target so the sighting system is close to being in alignment is the key to fast, accurate shooting."

Absolutely agreed!

Point 3) "Iron sights on handguns (first developed over 200 years ago) are hard to align properly beyond 20 yards, especially in low light. The focus shifting from target to rear to front sight is not natural or fast. If your target is in the process of moving and killing--you or someone else--you had better be and will truly be focused on the damn target, not little pieces of metal inches from your nose. Training to focus on the front sight is an old target paradigm that does not square with human physiology. It works on the range. I have and use iron sights. I hope I never have to use them defensively because there are superior 21st century sighting systems available."

Again I totally agree.

My post here was not to have people not train properly, or use Alternate sights exclusively. My post was to ask the question about the different types of 21st century sights, and their use on a handgun. It was also to seek a collaborative discussion on how or why people chose the sighting system they are using. For that I'm glad people are posting here, and giving their perspective. It has been a learning experience for me learning from others.

Sights on guns and gun manufacturers are like the different types of cars/trucks and their manufacturers. Many people have different opinions on which one is best, why they use a particular version, purchased or love what they own. All of those opinions are legitimate, and like the old saying goes - "To each his own".

Thanks for all of the posts and the enlightening discussion.

 

[Buz Carpenter]

From my past experience, I have found that anything under 5 yards, you have to resort to instinctive defensive fire. When I'm on an outside range, I practice this style since it doesn't fit into most of the indoor range paradigms, especially when you practice one handed. It tends to unnerve the RSOs.

The mid range for a pistol of 5-15 yards, either iron sights or lasers fill the bill for me. In low light I prefer a laser since my eyes seem to have gotten older while I haven't aged, it's much easier to adjust to a red dot on the target versus the geometry of aligning target/front sight/rear sight and keeping all that in balance and in focus.

Anything past 15-20 yards with a short barreled pistol like a Shield is a **** shoot at best in a high tension defensive situation. In a defensive stand, especially in low light, I would fall back on the laser, good light would call for the iron sights.

 

[CBStuard]

Watch the first scenario
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj1LLp2DGtM&feature=youtu.be&list=PLscB-49EdZctpGF_ke3araysRXrhUnH86&mc_cid=55e7543a40&mc_eid=4ca76ca8a0[/ame]

 

[Ron AZ]

OP,
I will share my POV. I know there are others on here who will disagree because it already happened in other threads about this. But you asked for differing opinions/experiences.

I can still use fixed sights, but red dot or laser does provide some benefit with 60+ yr old eyes. I only have these "boosters" on one of my handguns. This is not my EDC but a full size M&P gun I use for HD, field/woods/wild carry, occasional hunting, and range fun. Love a red dot (Trij RMR 06) on this handgun in good enough light.

With red dot only, not so wild about it in the dark, like for HD or in the field after dark due to speed of acquiring the red dot, even with practice. You must be well lined up to see it. And acquiring the view of the red dot is only faster than deliberate aiming and lining up sights. It is slower than point and shoot or a laser. (Obviously competitors do it effectively so if you are at that level of skill this comment does not apply.)

So I also put co-witness night sights on mine which can be used to find the dot faster in the dark and is very effective for that. (Personally I would not put only a red dot on a handgun for defensive use without cowitness BUS.) Or the option of the night sights by themselves and leave the red dot turned off in the dark is more likely. I acquired a laser via a used gun purchase and have also mounted it on this on this gun.

If I was dedicating a gun for HD use only, I'd go with night sights, laser, or the combo (plus a light, of course) and skip the red dot. Since I am not dedicating one gun for HD only, I have the red dot for daytime use, the laser for night time, with the night sights as alternative or back up for both.

I still want to get more low light practice with this multiple choice set up. But so far I prefer the laser for speed of target acquisition in low light/dark for HD, and as others have mentioned, it could be advantageous shooting from unusual positions. The 2 battery laser grip model reaches out too, 50+ yds. in low light, for defensive need in the field/woods/wild. (I would not necessarily be taking defensive shots that far away unless fired upon or charged.) Also, I can carry it securely in two hands, and only activate the laser when I want with a little increase in grip pressure.

 

[Squash15B]

CT Green laser

To all the enlightened, knowledgeable, and opinionated ones in this forum,

There are many folks moving to the RMR type red sights vs. the old style laser sights with either Red or Green beams. There are good reason for both. I've thought about this for some time now, and have come to different personal opinions. I have a Crimson Trace Green Laser mounted on my M&P Pro 9mm. I also have a Vortex Red Dot mounted on my AR-15.
I can see the argument for the use of either. I thought I'd ask the question here.

The fact that both require batteries, costs are about the same, mounting either system is easy, there are holsters made to accommodate either, etc. So lets not debate those issues or facts. And obviously training, using either sight system, does not relieve you of possibly having to use the "old fashion" iron sights.

The reasons for a Reflex Red Dot sights like Burris, Trijicon, Vortex, Doctor, etc. are possibly:

There are two advantages to a red dot sight.
The first is that they are easier to see if you have less than youthful eyes. I know plenty of friends who just can't see the front sight anymore beyond a blur. A red dot is on the same focal plane as the target, and as long as you can see the target, the dot will be in focus as well.

The second advantage is perhaps the least important: They are faster to use. Instead of lining up the front sight with the rear sight with the target, a shooter has only to place the dot on the target and pull the trigger.

The third - it's the new "cool thing"? Just my opinion.

The old reasons for the Lasers were (besides being cool):

First - We practice in stand up perfect positions. In a real-life shooting situations you may not have the luxury of shooting in this manner. So the laser offers you the ability to aim and fire accurately in any position.
Second - There is no need to align your sights or bring the RMR/sights up to ready position. Since your sight is focused on the attacker, you place the laser on them and hopefully they disengage or you shoot. In a dangerous situation, you want to be able to devote all of your attention to the threat/attacker.
Third - I personally believe that it simplifies the shooting process, and thus reduces stress in a stressful situation. Learning to survive a deadly encounter is as much a mental challenge as it is physical. Again, just my opinion.

What do the rest of you think?

I am 67 years age and also too slow to run and fight. I have all the different listed sights but definitely prefer the green laser. It's much brighter in the daytime. The CT laserGRIPS or laserGUARD are the easiest to bring on target without fidgeting. The future is also going to bring cataracts that will make the green even more useful. Personally, I practice with the iron sights and the laser.

 

[Topgun434]

Both work good

I use both types with equal effectiveness. I tend to lean more towards the red dot for target shooting. I have two crimson trace lazers on S&W automatics and a red dot on my custom Ruger target auto.

 

[Woodman90]

I've been shooting reflex sights on handguns for only about two years now. I find them to be a fantastic option. After some time, I'm now faster with a reflex sight than traditional irons (as confirmed by my shot timer). I find it easier to shoot on the move with a reflex sight (No need to obtain equal height, equal light as with traditional sights). Also shooting with my non dominant hand I have less issues with find the dot as opposed to lining up sights with my non dominant eye. Both eyes open shooting a reflex sight opens up field of view. I'm shooting more with both eyes open on traditional sights but still find the reflex sight easier and quicker.