Red Dot Optics on Combat Pistols?

[diyj98]

I don't want red dot on my defense pistols. They are quicker for sure, but I've had issues with red dots and mist or rain while hunting. Plus despite the long battery life, and replacing the batteries yearly, they can die at the worst time. They also increase the overall size you need to conceal, can make carry slightly more uncomfortable, can break, etc. I don't knock anyone who likes them, they just aren't for me outside of hunting or target shooting.

 

[YkcorCal]

I don't want red dot on my defense pistols. They are quicker for sure, but I've had issues with red dots and mist or rain while hunting. Plus despite the long battery life, and replacing the batteries yearly, they can die at the worst time. They also increase the overall size you need to conceal, can make carry slightly more uncomfortable, can break, etc. I don't knock anyone who likes them, they just aren't for me outside of hunting or target shooting.

To me personally they are the eventual wave of the future however they are not quite perfected yet. Close, but not quite there yet, as they need to be totally sealed to the outside environment and influences as well as some more advancement in fast dot acquisition technology. Co-witness iron sights are a most as no tech is foolproof but an aid just as it is on military battle rifles.

 

[ContinentalOp]

I'll qualify this by saying that I have not tried red dots, so I'm just commenting based on my experience and research.

Right now, I'd say I'm not interested in them. They add some bulk, so concealing them can be a bit more difficult. As others have said, there can be some functional issues in certain situations.

While I don't believe in using "true" point shooting at anything beyond bad breath distance from a retention position, I do practice target-focused shooting. My focus is on the target and I look "through" blurry sights. I've used this method as far as 15 yards and haven't seen any detriment to my marksmanship. And at close range I can still get my gun in my line of sight and get a rough visual index so I can aim without necessarily using the sights. Sighted practice also helps build that "muscle memory" to help align the gun quickly and properly when the sights can't be used. If you look at Applegate's point shooting method, the gun is brought up into one's line of sight, so I don't believe that it is "true" point shooting.

With that said, I see nothing wrong with using red dots if they work for you. I think it likely is going to be more common in the future. I believe the new Secret Service and CBP pistols are going to be issued as such, or at least have the option of doing so, and the new 2011s being issued to the US Marshals Service Special Operations Group have red dots. And Kelly McCann, a been-there-done-that self defense instructor, has been using a red dot since before they started becoming popular.

Like with just about anything out there, there are pros and cons, and we have to decide as individuals (for those of us with the option to choose), what combination works best for us.

TLDR version, it depends.

Just my opinion.

 

[mscampbell2734]

Looks much like an opinion.

No, it's fact.

The vast majority of people who carry guns for self defense purposes are at best casual shooters. They honestly will never be in life threatening situation requiring the use of their weapon.

On the other hand I literally "live by the gun". I've been in numerous situation where I have used deadly force and I teach both marksmanship and tactics, specializing in active shooter response.

There is a ton of science involved in aiming, optics and shooting. A good percentage dates back to Vietnam and early experiments with first generation ACOGs used by SF personnel during the Son Tay raid.

Being able to focus on the target while not consciously also trying to find and focus on your aiming device IS an advantage, That is science, fact and not opinion

 

[rockquarry]

No, it's fact.

The vast majority of people who carry guns for self defense purposes are at best casual shooters. They honestly will never be in life threatening situation requiring the use of their weapon.

On the other hand I literally "live by the gun". I've been in numerous situation where I have used deadly force and I teach both marksmanship and tactics, specializing in active shooter response.

There is a ton of science involved in aiming, optics and shooting. A good percentage dates back to Vietnam and early experiments with first generation ACOGs used by SF personnel during the Son Tay raid.

Being able to focus on the target while not consciously also trying to find and focus on your aiming device IS an advantage, That is science, fact and not opinion

I must stand by my original statement regarding learning to shoot well and shoot often. Lot of work, granted, but there's nothing wrong with that approach even with the lack of gimcrackery. I'll not argue the point, but I certainly honor your opinion, different though it may be.

 

[YkcorCal]

If I was not in California and in the market for a 9MM then I would be looking at the Springfield Armory XD-M ELITE 4.5" OSP THREADED HANDGUN with its ability to accept today's top red dot optics, suppressor-height iron sights, the Match Enhanced Trigger Assembly (META), ambidextrous slide stop, and an increased magazine of 22+1. But that is just my personal preference. I have owned and shot Glocks but the XD's just fit and feel better in MY hand so I shoot them better slightly. I like the above model as it is ready for a red dot with co-witness sights and suppressor ready with a longer barrel. It is just MY personal preferences. After all such a firearm is for defense of your life carry. To each their own as to what they can shoot best.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I have shot pistols with a red dot several times. I actually shot better with one. But I need more trigger time.

Talked to local cop that had a red dot on his duty gun. He said that it took considerable range time to get used to it. But he wouldn't go back to iron sights.

 

[Rolex28]

Having served in Vietnam and carried a 45 and a M-14 neither one had any device other than metal sites.. rarely were we able to take a lot of time aiming and squeezing... I now have a green dot on my 9mm which for me shows up alot better than red.. believe there is some science to say that the human eye likes green better than blue or red colors...

 

[sipowicz]

I have a red fiber optic front sight. I can pick it up fast and it doesn't add bulk. Besides, a red dot would look funny on my DS or 442.

 

[DR505]

I went through the week-long SIG Pistol Optics Instructor's Course just before I retired. The red dot sights were very nice, but they did take some serious training and adjustment to get used to. I like them for what they offer, but currently don't see a need for one on a CC pistol. If I was in uniform or on a tactical team I would want one on my full size service pistol.

 

[Fishinfool]

I own about half a dozen handguns with red dot sights, though none are primary carry handguns. Mostly hunting handguns, and a few range toys wear them, mainly because I can shoot more accurately with them at distance.

I agree they really do not slow you down in a fast point & shoot situation, and add precision at distance, provided you are willing to practice and become familiar with them.

I guess I am just old school, in that, for me, a simple set of fiber optic sights work very well for me in a SD handgun, out to 25 yards and beyond, with no real drawbacks. I should add I have seen a fair number of SD handgun shooters at the range who spend too much time "chasing the dot", and are slower to deliver their hits then they should or would be if the just used hi - viz irons, and concentrated on the front sight. This is, of course, mostly due to a lack of practice and familiarity, but that is the nature of the beast with most "casual" shooters.

A little off topic, but I do like a laser on a SD handgun, mainly because it gives you an option when engaged from behind cover, or at awkward angles - just place the dot on the target and shoot, without having to bring the gun up in a normal firing position.

Larry

 

[YkcorCal]

Having served in Vietnam and carried a 45 and a M-14 neither one had any device other than metal sites.. rarely were we able to take a lot of time aiming and squeezing... I now have a green dot on my 9mm which for me shows up alot better than red.. believe there is some science to say that the human eye likes green better than blue or red colors...

The Army took my M-14 away and insisted I take this black plastic .22 caliber rifle. The first time on the range I took a ready sling and the range Sgt. started yelling at me not to do that because I could bend the barrel. That was in 1970. To say I was not impressed was a BIG understatement! I much preferred the M-14 or the M-21 with a Leatherwood on it.

 

[HardToHandle]

Real Experience

I have trained on and daily carried a RDS for seven years. RDSes improve applied accuracy, add negligible bulk and are a great compensation for age-related eye changes.

If you use terms such as gimmickry, you are not the target audience nor likely to cognitively embrace RDS-enabled shooting.

If so inclined, I recommend a RDS conversion course or a dedicated course of fire as part of a RDS adoption. I started out 10 years ago and did not have a formal curriculum at the time (still bleeding edge). My second attempt was structured and more successful as well as finding a RDS that worked well with my eyes.

Also really, really like the suppressor sight cowitnessing as a psychological backup.

Red Dot Optics on Combat Pistols and/or Carry Handguns?

What is your opinion and experience?

 

[rockquarry]

I have trained on and daily carried a RDS for seven years. RDSes improve applied accuracy, add negligible bulk and are a great compensation for age-related eye changes.

If you use terms such as gimmickry, you are not the target audience nor likely to cognitively embrace RDS-enabled shooting.

If so inclined, I recommend a RDS conversion course or a dedicated course of fire as part of a RDS adoption. I started out 10 years ago and did not have a formal curriculum at the time (still bleeding edge). My second attempt was structured and more successful as well as finding a RDS that worked well with my eyes.

Also really, really like the suppressor sight cowitnessing as a psychological backup.

"Gimmickry"?

 

[ContinentalOp]

"Gimmickry"?

How some people on these forums refer to new technology/tools that wasn't around when they learned how to shoot, so they think it's nothing more than "mall ninja" gear, regardless of whether or not they actually provide a benefit.

 

[CB3]

Gimcrackery, gimmickry, gadgetry, etc. are all words used to deride ideas or objects. Six of one half dozen of another.

I remember the derision applied to the new polymer framed pistols a while back.

Et Cetera.

 

[rockquarry]

My point in referring to "gadgetry" many posts back may not have been understood. There's nothing wrong with learning basic shooting skills with an out-of-the-box gun that has no optional accessories attached.

Once a shooter becomes truly proficient, he may see gadgetry as unnecessary or as something that may actually enhance his proficiency. If, however, he's never learned the basics of good shooting technique and mastered them, how can he make an educated decision as to what add-ons are truly worthwhile?

It's like those that want to handload but won't take the time and won't buy a book to read about the handloading process. Instead they wind up with an incomplete short cut handloading education from YouTube "pros" and never really learn much about handloading from people that never really learned much about handloading.

Many shooters interest in learning basic shooting skills is very secondary to "upgrading" which often may be "downgrading" or simply changing out something for the sake of change.

Too many think a light trigger and a high magnification scope on a rifle is an instant version of shooting skill. It's not. Same with red dot optics. While there may be a usefulness for some of this stuff, it's not for the beginner that hasn't learned to shoot. There is nothing wrong with a solid foundation. Relax and take the time to do it right.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Yk: I'm figuring a civilian defense shooting will be at such a close range & under such personal pressure, you won't have the time to look for a dot whether it's a holographic or dot on the target. Too much time lost looking for the dot. IMO, point-shooting is realistically more of a productive practice.
Hank M.

That's my problem with red dot sights. I have two on rifles but that's different, they're not EDC pieces for up close and personal life saving moments. Which explains why I practice what Hang Fire Hank preaches, to wit, point shooting.

How many people have truly taken the time to learn/develop true point or instinctive shooting skills to the point they should be before using them in an actual gun fight?

As noted, that's how I train. I won't say I never shoot for groups because everyone likes to get good groups but for real practice, or as real as I can get at local gun ranges, I routinely practice point shooting a B27 silhouette target at varying distances. Aiming is for fun. Point shooting is for saving your life. YMMV

 

[mscampbell2734]

Lets put this all into perspective. We are having this debate NOW because we're living in the moment. 50 years from now people will look back and say the ones who did not feel RDS were an upgrade must have been idiots.

Time marches on, technology improves, what was an extreme idea, taken from someone's fantasy daydream becomes common place. DEAL WITH IT.

Someone posted about being in Vietnam with a 45 and M14. Both at one point in time were considered radical new weapons. The 1911 replaced the revolver in military service and ushered in a new era of firepower and reliability. The M14 was a follow on/update of the M1. In the late 1930s military personnel were all debating going to an auto loader vs the 1903 bolt action Springfield. Every little detail of the M1 was scrutinized and compared to the Springfield. History tells us WHAT about the M1

When I served during the first Gulf War I had an M16A2. Nowadays boots shoot with 4 power ACOGs. Do I have issues with that? At first I did but again time and technology marches on. Why hold people back with technology exists to make them better at what they are suppose to do. My nephew, an Air Force PJ, has equipment I would have never dreamed even existed, but it's common to all the units doing that job.

When I started my police career I carried a Beretta 92 with rubber grips. High tech for 1994. Now I carry a Smith Pro CORE with RDS and weapon light. Again why hold myself back when technology exits to make my job easier and make me more effective?

Some of us are traditionalist, I get that, I was carrying a 1911 for the past 7 years. BUT the future is now so to speak. Take any top level shooter, be it a military special operations team member or competition shooter, and they will tell you RDS make it easier to get hits, and HITS are what count.

There are disadvantages to the RDS, battery life, durability, holsters and bulk. But the advantages when AIMED FIRE are needed vastly outweigh the disadvantages.

Now again for the vast majority of self defense shooters does this really matter? Probable not. The vast majority of CCW carriers are never going to get into a shooting. Those few shooters that are PURELY defensive in nature will mostly be very close and quick. For people who use their weapons at longer ranges and must be able to make hits under extreme circumstances ANY advantage is just that, an advantage.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

mscampbell2734 There are disadvantages to the RDS, battery life, durability, holsters and bulk. But the advantages when AIMED FIRE are needed vastly outweigh the disadvantages.

Now again for the vast majority of self defense shooters does this really matter? Probable not. The vast majority of CCW carriers are never going to get into a shooting. Those few shooters that are PURELY defensive in nature will mostly be very close and quick. For people who use their weapons at longer ranges and must be able to make hits under extreme circumstances ANY advantage is just that, an advantage.

Correct - the red dot sight doesn't matter, the fight will be fast and furious, if it ever happens at all which, as we all know, is somewhat of a rarity, albeit in today's violent world it is becoming a more frequent risk.

This whole debate revolves around two things - AIMED FIRE and PERSONAL SELF DEFENSE. During the Vietnam era the US Army understood the difference and taught aimed fire and what was called "quick kill", the latter being the equivalent of point shooting with a handgun. This was with the M-14, which is what I was trained on so I can't speak to the then in use M-16 that I never saw at the time, or training at any base outside of Fort Leonard Wood, MO. But at the time the obvious teaching of aimed fire, especially at long range, was accompanied at least for a day or two with quick kill and one afternoon we even engaged in hip shooting the rifle.

Why?

Because sometimes you simply do not have time to aim.

Personal self defense for civilians, which means non-military and non-LEO, is virtually never an aimed fire situation. Read the reports of civilian shootings and time after time the event is fast, the "victim" of the attack grabs a gun from a drawer, a closet, a glove compartment, or a holster and shoots at the "perpetrators". Then it's done, over, the so-called victim survived if everything works out right and you never hear discussions about one inch groups, two to the body and one to the head, or any of the other drills and aiming issues gun people discuss routinely.

YMMV as always but as far as I am concerned the last thing I want in a gunfight is a contraption on top of my gun that gets in my way.