Red Dot for regular carry?

[PPS1980]

I see folks posting about installing red dot sights on their carry weapons. I own a couple for my 22s and find them fun to shoot but I am having trouble seeing them as a positive on a carry weapon. They seem bulky and with self-defense encounters <7 yards even if my vision was much worse I see no practical advantage to them.

Can anyone help me understand the advantage(s), other than the Ohh-ahh factor, of a red dot on a carry weapon? Thanks.

 

[oldiesradio1560]

Maybe a good answer to this is in the seconds or less time you have to draw and fire your weapon to put down a Deadly threat is the deadly threat gonna look down and think "Oh, I have a laser dot on my chest I better not threaten this guy." or does he fire his weapon or lunge with a knife? I think the latter is true.

 

[Muss Muggins]

There's not much of a need for any kind of sight on a EDC personal self defense pistol . . .

 

[gwpercle]

Some folks just like gadget's, doo-dah's , add on's and extra's ... The more the better!
Others just get by with a stripped down model.
Gary

 

[murphydog]

If you are referring to the (relatively) compact red dot optic that mounts on the rear sight dovetail, I see no particular problem to having one. I think S & W even offers it on one of the more pricey M & Ps?

I imagine they are very fast to get on target if you are used to one, not having to focus on any one object in the sight plane, but it strikes me as more of a competition accessory than one for carry. One of the tall red dot optics or a laser would be a different story.

 

[andy52]

They say the red dot is better for ageing eyes but at 65 I can still see the sights well enough for a up close and personal encounter. I only know one person that carries a H&K with a Trijicon RMR mounted on it.

 

[robertrwalsh]

For most people I think it is too much bulk and too much bother. On the rare occasion I have needed a handgun in a hurry I wouldn't have wanted to be fiddling with on-off or intensity settings.

 

[PPS1980]

Red Dots are not lasers, they are an optic that projects a dot onto a glass plane inside the optic thus providing a red (or green) dot to aim the weapon that substitutes for iron sights.

I'm aware of the fundamental difference between lasers (own a couple) and red dots (also own 2 for 22LRs). The question was their use and any advantages for close work (self-defense) using a pistol. I'm still not reading any.

Appreciate the replies.

 

[Mister X]

I don't think it will likely be of any benefit in the reactive, close-quarter shooting that is typical in civilian defense encounters, but I'm of the (minority)opinion that pretty much any sights will be irrelevant in the vast majority of self-defense scenarios. It's possible a red-dot could prove advantageous in certain improbable circumstances, but it offers nothing in very close range, threat-focused shooting IMO.

 

[Brasky]

The advantage would be having a red dot and not aligning sights allowing for faster target acquisition

They make models now that are tiny and have 5+ year battery life so you can leave it on all the time and just replace the batteries every few years

 

[Arik]

They are faster to use and don't add bulk if you belt carry. If you have good vision you can essentially do the same thing using the front sight only without trying to line up the sights. Doesn't mean you point it wherever but the idea is the same. Red dot is closer to your face and brighter. Becomes faster to get on target

Not my gun

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[ISCS Yoda]

You are way better off developing good point shooting skills than worrying about a red dot.

Just take a silhouette target, put it about ten feet away, you can try some longer distances, too, and draw a happy face on the head of the silhouette. When you look directly at that happy face point your weapon at the perpetrator's body and shoot. If you get center of mass hits you have done your job. No red dot needed.

 

[oneounceload]

There's not much of a need for any kind of sight on a EDC personal self defense pistol . . .

If that is the case, why is there so much emphasis on focusing on the front sight?

I ask because I am primarily a shotgunner and in that area, you NEVER look at the beads, you focus on the target. I am trying to see how much better I shoot using my glasses to see the target(nearsighted), or without (so I can see the sights)...So far, results are mixed with both revolvers and semis.

 

[Arik]

If that is the case, why is there so much emphasis on focusing on the front sight?

I ask because I am primarily a shotgunner and in that area, you NEVER look at the beads, you focus on the target. I am trying to see how much better I shoot using my glasses to see the target(nearsighted), or without (so I can see the sights)...So far, results are mixed with both revolvers and semis.

I think what he's trying to say is that there isn't really a need for it in a typical self-defense situation. Similar argument to Heaven more than 10 rounds

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[andy52]

If that is the case, why is there so much emphasis on focusing on the front sight?

I ask because I am primarily a shotgunner and in that area, you NEVER look at the beads, you focus on the target. I am trying to see how much better I shoot using my glasses to see the target(nearsighted), or without (so I can see the sights)...So far, results are mixed with both revolvers and semis.

Here is a video from one of the best shooters in the world on focusing on the front sight.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I[/ame]

 

[CH4]

From personal experience and those of officers I've worked with, my eyes are concentrated on the threat, usually the perps hands/weapons. For practice I focus on center mass at targets 10 yards or less. If I notice the front sight, it's a mere blur. Under exigent circumstances, I don't recall ever seeing the front sight. In fact, there're many accounts of officers facing the stress of an eminent threat, where they start shooting as they clear leather, walking their rounds to the target. Even with today's technology, e.g., simulators, simunitions, etc., there's still nothing that can replicate the real deal. Merely poking holes in paper just doesn't cut it.

 

[Pisgah]

There's hardly a better way than a red dot to add something to go wrong with your firearm in a critical moment -- and that seems to be all the rage these days. Just ask anyone but me who owns an AR! Plus there's the extra weight, impaired handling characteristics, the need for a non-standard holster -- the good things just go on and on!

 

[Muss Muggins]

If that is the case, why is there so much emphasis on focusing on the front sight?

I never said that . . .

 

[PPS1980]

They are faster to use and don't add bulk if you belt carry. If you have good vision you can essentially do the same thing using the front sight only without trying to line up the sights. Doesn't mean you point it wherever but the idea is the same. Red dot is closer to your face and brighter. Becomes faster to get on target

Not my gun

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Thanks but that still seems a LOT bulkier than Meprolights or Trijicon night sights.

 

[Arik]

Thanks but that still seems a LOT bulkier than Meprolights or Trijicon night sights.

Really isn't since it doesn't add width. To me bulk means it adds to the size when it comes to grip or carry. That holster would be no less without it. It takes no more or less then sights when it comes to carry. You can add a gazillion different sights and none add to the size. Neither does this

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk