A FEW GOOD REASONS NOT TO USE OPTICS ON A EDC/CCW GUN

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Where exactly in my post did you see me write that iron sights are unnecessary or undesirable?

I'm also not sure why you put the word index in quotes followed by magically?

Is the concept of an index something foreign to you and do you believe it works "magically"?

This is a quick explanation of what an index is from Ben Stoeger who is one of the top 5 best IPSC/USPSA shooters in the world.

The video confirms my understanding of what you (and apparently some others) mean by "index."

I find it hard to believe that achieving a proper index will always happen with all postures and varying number of hands controlling
the weapon. Depending on what other sighting equipment one has on one's weapon, a dot-equipped pistol may give no indication of
how to improve the aiming of the pistol when necessary, which may be less than what happens with stand-alone iron sights.

I have seen this with myself and one other person, with the same pistol. What have you seen?

 

[Sgt. Buzzard]

COVER: Something that will stop incoming fire. For cops a engine block works pretty good. Stay in back of the front wheel too.

CONCEALMENT: Something that will hide your position. Does not stop bullets.

So you've taken cover behind the front of your cruiser and twist your body between the wheel and front bumper mostly curled up by the wheel as you stick your weapon around the bumper guards. Cool, how's that RDS working out for you now?

Geez, I'm reminded of the term Concealed Carry Hobbyist from another poster. RDS, Flashlights, Laser's and various night sights all have their place. But none of them replace intense training and constant practice with the weapon of your choice. KISS.

 

[SouthNarc]

The video confirms my understanding of what you (and apparently some others) mean by "index."

I find it hard to believe that achieving a proper index will always happen with all postures and varying number of hands controlling
the weapon. Depending on what other sighting equipment one has on one's weapon, a dot-equipped pistol may give no indication of
how to improve the aiming of the pistol when necessary, which may be less than what happens with stand-alone iron sights.

I have seen this with myself and one other person, with the same pistol. What have you seen?

So that's a great question and was always one of my criticisms of RDS:

Do irons offer an advantage over an RDS in situations where one is not standing upright and can't drive the gun the way they normally do? Are irons more forgiving because one is not looking "through" a window but instead they are looking "over" the top of the pistol and they can "adjust" the relationship of the rear aperture to the front post on the fly?

In theory that sounds right.

What I have seen in actual practice is that if someone can't center a dot then they won't be able to adjust the post in the notch either and the better option is simply target focusing and referencing the back of the slide or cylinder to the target. The time to actually utilize that perceived iron sight adjustment advantage, simply doesn't exist at actual gunfight speed.

Jim Cirillo called this a "weapon silhouette technique". Jim was the last real police gunfighter of the 20th century with a stunning 17 gunfights during his career with the famed NYPD stakeout squad. I was fortunate enough to spend a fair bit of time with Jim before he was killed tragically in a car wreck.

 

[TheTinMan]

For me it comes down to size and the ability to conceal and draw from concealment. A night sight isn't any more of a snag than a regular sight. A red dot - even the most compact - is a potential snag and makes my pistol significantly larger and therefore more difficult to conceal.

I like red dots on an AR a lot, but I always have backup irons with lower 1/3 co-witness. Typically the front sight is fixed and only the rear is flip up. I just got a prism sight to test. It has an etched reticle even if the electronics **** out so we'll see how that works. I'm even going to try a regular red dot on a lever action rifle - strictly for range use and to irritate Fudds on the Marlin forum.

If I felt comfortable with open carry, I think I'd go all in on a red dot because my nearly 65 year old eyes aren't getting any better. Plus I prefer just to look at the target. However, open carry by private citizens where I live would be disruptive and some of the local police would not be understanding.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

So that's a great question and was always one of my criticisms of RDS:

Do irons offer an advantage over an RDS in situations where one is not standing upright and can't drive the gun the way they normally do? Are irons more forgiving because one is not looking "through" a window but instead they are looking "over" the top of the pistol and they can "adjust" the relationship of the rear aperture to the front post on the fly?

In theory that sounds right.

What I have seen in actual practice is that if someone can't center a dot then they won't be able to adjust the post in the notch either and the better option is simply target focusing and referencing the back of the slide or cylinder to the target. The time to actually utilize that perceived iron sight adjustment advantage, simply doesn't exist at actual gunfight speed.

Jim Cirillo called this a "weapon silhouette technique". Jim was the last real police gunfighter of the 20th century with a stunning 17 gunfights during his career with the famed NYPD stakeout squad. I was fortunate enough to spend a fair bit of time with Jim before he was killed tragically in a car wreck.

This seems to me to be an excellent general answer. However, for my sample of one (me, and limited experimentation), I have a slightly different observation.

Within the last year, I had occasion to try out a 3" K-frame revolver with no front sight. I was amazed at how inaccurate I was with it, even at very close range.

For me, the search would not be to get the front post into the rear notch, but just to get the front post, probably not lost in the first place, onto the target, trying to approach it with the rear while completing my trigger press. This is a little faster than actual alignment, and, at least for me, seems to be necessary in order to hit, unless I'm close enough to set his shirt on fire.

Of course, logically, this may only tell you that I am altogether incapable of defensive shooting, at least to your standards, but at present that is what I'm stuck with.

Meanwhile, I'm still not against RDS use by those willing to spend the time to learn it.

 

[SouthNarc]

Within the last year, I had occasion to try out a 3" K-frame revolver with no front sight. I was amazed at how inaccurate I was with it, even at very close range.

For me, the search would not be to get the front post into the rear notch, but just to get the front post, probably not lost in the first place, onto the target, trying to approach it with the rear while completing my trigger press. This is a little faster than actual alignment, and, at least for me, seems to be necessary in order to hit, unless I'm close enough to set his shirt on fire.

Your journey and experimentation is very common sir. One reason you're finding it faster is because you're only aligning two things in your eye-target line (post to target) versus three things (rear aperture to post to target). Your vision is less cluttered.

Essentially a dot and a front sight are doing the same: they are providing one with a single visual reference point of the gun to the target.

And to quote Jeff Cooper "Sights confirm stroke".

All ANY sighting system does, dot or irons, is confirm a consistent line of travel that you create, any time the gun moves from wherever (holster, nightstand, a ready position) to where you eventually fire it from. That final firing position could very well be from close to your body if you are shooting in confined space to full extension of your arms in more open space with a continuum of visual referencing that we could describe as coarse to fine.

Does that make sense? The sighting system doesn't create alignment. You do.

 

[SouthNarc]

A red dot - even the most compact - is a potential snag and makes my pistol significantly larger and therefore more difficult to conceal.

That is an absolutely legitimate criticism of any RDS and I agree.

 

[SouthNarc]

So you've taken cover behind the front of your cruiser and twist your body between the wheel and front bumper mostly curled up by the wheel as you stick your weapon around the bumper guards. Cool, how's that RDS working out for you now?

Kinda' like this? Not an exact example of your description but pretty close.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_-1Ll4q6V0[/ame]

 

[malph]

You get out of an RDS what you put into it.

If you have 30-40-50 years of experience with irons, it's no surprise your initial experience with an RDS is a step backwards.

Pistols with RDS can be shot extremely well but only after the required skills are built.

The follies I see with RDS is putting one on your gun and thinking it's some magical device which will automatically transform your shooting.

The other is buying an el cheapo RDS and then thinking all RDS are unreliable.

 

[SouthNarc]

Of course, logically, this may only tell you that I am altogether incapable of defensive shooting, at least to your standards, but at present that is what I'm stuck with.

Not at all. The actual REALITY is that MILLIONS of people defend themselves successfully with handguns annually with NO training.

I say that as someone in the BUSINESS of firearms instruction who has been formally teaching for 31 years.

It's been my experience that people who are TRAINED fare better than those who aren't. But the untrained? They ACTUALLY don't do to badly.

The untrained and ARMED generally fare better then the untrained and UNARMED.

 

[SouthNarc]

You get out of an RDS what you put into it.

If you have 30-40-50 years of experience with irons, it's no surprise your initial experience with an RDS is a step backwards.

Pistols with RDS can be shot extremely well but only after the required skills are built.

The follies I see with RDS is putting one on your gun and thinking it's some magical device which will automatically transform your shooting.

The other is buying an el cheapo RDS and then thinking all RDS are unreliable.

Completely agree.

If a handgun in your home is analogous to a fire extinguisher in that it's something you put away, don't think about, hope you never need, and only grab in an emergency, then putting a sparkly on top won't effect the outcome.

 

[ladder13]

Great thread guys

 

[AJ]

Great thread guys

It has been, though it has been fraught with opposing views. All good to know. The real truth teller is here: A poll on EDC pistols: sights

 

[Sgt. Buzzard]

Kinda' like this? Not an exact example of your description but pretty close.

Vehicle CQB with William Petty - YouTube

Yeah, very much like that. Except the problem in say the South Bronx there's not to many bumpy dirt lots to park in. On pavement those guys were quite exposed to skip shooting. Which is why I like getting as much of me as I could behind a wheel. We did a lot of skip shooting practice. Both pavement , cement floors and walls.

Now I can't say I know of any bad guys that have a clue to what I'm talking about. But I have seen a lot of incompetent trigger jerking that would produce the same thing.

 

[SouthNarc]

Yeah, very much like that. Except the problem in say the South Bronx there's not to many bumpy dirt lots to park in. On pavement those guys were quite exposed to skip shooting. Which is why I like getting as much of me as I could behind a wheel. We did a lot of skip shooting practice. Both pavement , cement floors and walls.

Now I can't say I know of any bad guys that have a clue to what I'm talking about. But I have seen a lot of incompetent trigger jerking that would produce the same thing.

That's a fair point about bad guys not intending to skip fire but wild indiscriminate shooting producing an effective hit.

Probably the best example of intentional skip fire to actually make hits was the Bank of America shoot out where LAPD used that exact tactic on one of the bad guys.

 

[AJ]

Yeah, very much like that. Except the problem in say the South Bronx there's not to many bumpy dirt lots to park in. On pavement those guys were quite exposed to skip shooting. Which is why I like getting as much of me as I could behind a wheel. We did a lot of skip shooting practice. Both pavement , cement floors and walls.

Now I can't say I know of any bad guys that have a clue to what I'm talking about. But I have seen a lot of incompetent trigger jerking that would produce the same thing.

We taught about rounds "skipping" along the ground in our shooting school in the late 80's and it was probably taught before that.

 

[Sgt. Buzzard]

I first had it using a shotgun and 00buck in '73 at the NJ State Police Academy in Sea Girt, NJ. It was an old military base on very valuable beach front. Since the huge range was on sandy soil we got lucky with some flooding, then a deep freeze. We blasted away at the targets skipping on the ice. Cut the feet off at the ankles.

It was a lesson I remembered well and incorporated it in department training.

 

[chev37s]

I shoot irons, dots and lasers. All have their place. I am good enough with irons, much faster and accurate at further distances with the dots, and if with a laser, you can actually shoot and hit consistently without aiming when holding it out from behind cover. I've got really good hits standing behind a tree and holding the pistol out with the laser on target at 15 to 20 yards. No matter what anyone uses, it all about trigger control, practice and using what you're good with. I believe in practicing at longer distances and getting good hits and not just practicing at close ranges like the statistics show. If you can hit good at 20 plus yards then the 5 to 7 yards is much easier. I also believe in carrying as much ammo as you can and still be practical. For me, most daily carry is 13 plus 1 and a 15 round extra mag. I had a 5 shot 38 +p ruger lcr. Great for carrying due to being light, but anything over 10 yards for me, was not getting good hits. Sold it.

 

[Magnum_PI]

Not a fan. Too costly. Too tacticool. Possibly unreliable, as stated.

Irons have always worked for me.

 

[Krogen]

The video confirms my understanding of what you (and apparently some others) mean by "index."

I find it hard to believe that achieving a proper index will always happen with all postures and varying number of hands controlling
the weapon. Depending on what other sighting equipment one has on one's weapon, a dot-equipped pistol may give no indication of
how to improve the aiming of the pistol when necessary, which may be less than what happens with stand-alone iron sights.

I have seen this with myself and one other person, with the same pistol. What have you seen?

Regardless of the sight on your gun, I think indexing is a key skill to develop. Indexing is a new term for me, but one could substitute "fit." Akin to fitting a shotgun so it shoots where you look and point it. I want a defensive pistol to fit me in a similar manner. Some guns, N-frame smiths in particular, don't quite fit me. If I close my eyes and bring the gun up, I guarantee you that the muzzle will be high relative to the rear sight. Way high. Although I shoot a Ruger MKIII just fine, I have to work it. The grip angle does the same as the Smith does to me. So for a defensive gun, I want that intuitive fit - index - so the gun goes where my eyes look and my hand points.

 

[AJ]

Indexing? A new word for the new generation. I have always said find a gun that you like. If the grips don't fit you then change them to something you do like. What is so hard about that? I have gone through several sets of grips for the J-Frame S&W's. What I like best is the Hogue Mono grips. The style and size will be dictated by what feels good to you. If the gun feels comfortable in your hand.

 

[Well Armed]

I also love how people who used irons all their lives and put the time and effort in training with them will try a red dot once or a handful of times and then come to the conclusion that red dots are inferior and they are faster with irons.... No **** Sherlock! If you used optics your entire life, and if you used red dots all your life and tried irons only a handful of times, you'd sucked very badly with using irons.

For those who train and put somewhat equal effort into both sighting systems, red dots are more often than not preferred.

As others have stated, there are a lot of assumptions, willful ignorance, and misinformation in the thread. What I see is a lot of people who have did things one way their entire lives, so they're close-minded and do not want to like anything different no matter what. Those who are younger 40s and younger and/or new to firearms tend to be open to experiencing both, learning both, and are less hostile.

 

[AJ]

I also love how people who used irons all their lives and put the time and effort in training with them will try a red dot once or a handful of times and then come to the conclusion that red dots are inferior and they are faster with irons.... No **** Sherlock! If you used optics your entire life, and if you used red dots all your life and tried irons only a handful of times, you'd sucked very badly with using irons.

For those who train and put somewhat equal effort into both sighting systems, red dots are more often than not preferred.

As others have stated, there are a lot of assumptions, willful ignorance, and misinformation in the thread. What I see is a lot of people who have did things one way their entire lives, so they're close-minded and do not want to like anything different no matter what. Those who are younger 40s and younger and/or new to firearms tend to be open to experiencing both, learning both, and are less hostile.

Everybody is different and they way they do things is different. That is what makes each person unique. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are wrong or close minded. Just accept that some do not like Brand A and prefer Brand B.

Look at the Poll on this subject. You are in the minority, guess that makes you right.

PM me if you want to continue this........

 

[Well Armed]

Everybody is different and they way they do things is different. That is what makes each person unique. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are wrong or close minded. Just accept that some do not like Brand A and prefer Brand B.

Look at the Poll on this subject. You are in the minority, guess that makes you right.

PM me if you want to continue this........

First, I didn't say or imply that anyone was closed minded for not agreeing with me. The context in my post clearly says I believe in my opinion that many of the people who don't like optics and critics them just because they've done something one way their entire lives are being closed-minded in on this topic. Now if they put effort into and have experience with both, then that's different. I too can be closed-minded when it comes to how things were when I was younger vs how my children and others do things now. I too was "closed-minded" about optics, and I can even link to years old post of mine on other forums. Once I started to put effort into training and getting good with them, my opinion changed. My initial opinion on the topic was bias.

Next, those who use optics on carry guns might be in the huge minority on this forum, but I do not believe this forum represents the market. This same poll on GlockTalk, ar15.com, and many other forums with a younger crowd will show different results. Likewise, if I did a poll for revolver carriers on this forum or even Thehighroad.org where the members are typically older in age, the poll will be completely different than if done on HKPro.com, GlockTalk.com, AR15.com, etc. The poll here is a representation of the members on this forum and not the entire market where optics on carry pistols is very popular and common.

Last, I still stand by my prior statements. A lot of people who are claiming they were better with irons than reddots can not really make an informed opinion without putting equal or at least an honest effort into both systems. And I also believe many, not all, of the members who are bashing reddots are doing so because they're use to doing things one way, and beleive anything new is not needed and can't be better. That's based off some of the comments I've read, and NOT because others have different opinion than me like you asserted.

 

[AJ]

First, I didn't say or imply that anyone was closed minded for not agreeing with me. The context in my post clearly says I believe in my opinion that many of the people who don't like optics and critics them just because they've done something one way their entire lives are being closed-minded in on this topic. Now if they put effort into and have experience with both, then that's different. I too can be closed-minded when it comes to how things were when I was younger vs how my children and others do things now. I too was "closed-minded" about optics, and I can even link to years old post of mine on other forums. Once I started to put effort into training and getting good with them, my opinion changed. My initial opinion on the topic was bias.

Next, those who use optics on carry guns might be in the huge minority on this forum, but I do not believe this forum represents the market. This same poll on GlockTalk, ar15.com, and many other forums with a younger crowd will show different results. Likewise, if I did a poll for revolver carriers on this forum or even Thehighroad.org where the members are typically older in age, the poll will be completely different than if done on HKPro.com, GlockTalk.com, AR15.com, etc. The poll here is a representation of the members on this forum and not the entire market where optics on carry pistols is very popular and common.

Last, I still stand by my prior statements. A lot of people who are claiming they were better with irons than reddots can not really make an informed opinion without putting equal or at least an honest effort into both systems. And I also believe many, not all, of the members who are bashing reddots are doing so because they're use to doing things one way, and beleive anything new is not needed and can't be better. That's based off some of the comments I've read, and NOT because others have different opinion than me like you asserted.

Please reread the last line of my Post #83..........

 

[Wyo]

So I said above that red dots are the wave of the future - maybe, maybe not. Note I did not say they were always better. That's a different discussion.Anyway, I ran across this discussion by Ken Hackathorn. I have a lot of respect for anyone with as much experience as he has and this is a really interesting talk with a lot of good points, many if which are mentioned above. Bottom line, everyone is a little bit right here. Watch this and then decide if your opinion remains the same.
Ken Hackathorn analyzes Red Dot Sights on handguns and gives the pros and cons - Masterclass EP 31 - YouTube

 

[Well Armed]

So I said above that red dots are the wave of the future - maybe, maybe not. Note I did not say they were always better. That's a different discussion.Anyway, I ran across this discussion by Ken Hackathorn. I have a lot of respect for anyone with as much experience as he has and this is a really interesting talk with a lot of good points, many if which are mentioned above. Bottom line, everyone is a little bit right here. Watch this and then decide if your opinion remains the same.
Ken Hackathorn analyzes Red Dot Sights on handguns and gives the pros and cons - Masterclass EP 31 - YouTube

From what I seen on social media and different firearm forums, it seems that opinions for the most part fall along generational lines. Seems like the younger generation lean more towards striker fired and optics, and the older generation appreciates SA/DA, revolvers, 1911s, and irons more so than the newer stuff. Ken Hackathorn is more old school. With that said, I don't know of any major manufacturer who hasn't started offering red dot options on all of their pistols from 380, micro 9mms, double stacks, competition guns, and now even revolvers. There are several companies who stay in business selling red dot optics. Law enforcement and even special forces military use them. I believe irons will always be #1, but from what I'm seeing market wise, red dots have been on a study incline. Whether it will remain that way, IDK.

What I was telling @AJ I'd that polls differ according to the forum. I'm on Pistol-Forum.com as well. They had a poll where more members participated than in the two recent polls started on this forum.

The results are 147 irons to 17 RDS on @lrrifleman's poll.

Well on the "Poll: RDS or Irons on your edc" poll on Pistol-Forum.com where 234 members participated, the results are 129 irons to 105 red dot sights. Other forums other than Thehighroad.org and this forum will probably have simular results.

Here's another on SigTalk where 231 members voted, and more people said they EDC with optics vs irons....

That fact that it's 147 to 17 on this forum just proves what I've been saying about the demographic of this particular forum. I'm almost in my 50s, and many other members are much older than I am. Times are changing and things are evolving whether we want to acknowledge it or not. You wouldn't assume based on my opinion, but I prefer to carry revolvers and steel frame pistols. I prefer DA/SA over strikers as well. Neither of which has an optic. Objectively, I can still acknowledge the usefulness and popularity of optics.

 

[Toyman]

My son is a LEO and currently full time instructor. He is an advocate of hand gun optics. He carries a Glock 34 with optic. He was in a shooting and hit his target 4 out or 4 shots at 75 feet. I asked him how the optic worked.
He said it looked like a big cherry.
I have tried to shoot his gun and it takes me to long to get acclimated, to old and to used to iron sights.

 

[AJ]

Posted on another thread:IRONIC! LOOK WHAT KEN HACKATHORN HAS TO SAY ON RDS Very good presentation.