Red Dot On Carry Gun

[Wise_A]

I brought that up lo these any posts ago. Only one way to find out--test them.

Though, it would be an awful shame to drop the the five hundred beans on the Leupold only to find out it didn't work!

 

[justicetyme]

Put some lead downrange and see what works for you!






After about four hundred cast bullet reloads in one session the dot is still easy to see.

Most, not all, people who object to a red dot on a CC handgun have never used a red dot on a handgun.

The glaring validity of that somewhat profound yet so very simple statement is readily apparent to anyone who has actually spent much time with a "Properly Set Up" Red Dot CC pistol.

… the only opinion that counts is your own experience.

Another simplistic yet discerning statement.
It seems apparent that some individuals offer unproven opinions as substantiated fact.

It's one thing to voice a dislike for a procedure, tool, device, etc., because of inadequacies revealed in actually using them, i.e. based entirely on actual experience. Such experienced opinions have merit to them.
Yet it's a completely different issue to depreciate something simply because one "thinks" it's a poor or terrible choice when they have absolutely no experience with the procedure, tool, etc.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, with very few exceptions I have purchased every gun I have ever owned and I greatly suspect that the same applies to most posters.
Consequently I determine what works "FOR ME" based upon personal trial and error.
I don't have any aspirations that my opinion is of any value to anyone else but I can make few statements a RMR on a CC pistol based on my somewhat limited actual use.

It is certainly not my design to disparage or insult anyone who has a differing opinion so please don't take offense.
However, I think it is imperative that a questioner be responded to by folks having actual experience, albeit my experience is with only one pistol, a S&W M&P40 PC Ported and only one RMR a Trijicon RM07.

I would like to just briefly comment on a few statements, again based on my actual experience.

It has been said that a RMR affects (adversely??) slide cycling.
I have fired about 2,300+ plus rounds through my RMR equipped S&W M&P40 PC Ported using numerous different factory loads as wells as cast and jacketed bullet reloads.
NOT ONE single malfunction of any kind.

The Trijicon RMR RM07 has both auto adjusting and manual adjusting dot brightness so the idea of a "dot with an incorrect brightness setting" being "useless" is a moot point if a quality RMR is chosen and tested in various conditions.

Yes, batteries do have to be replaced – about once a year if you are cautious or longer if you want to save a few dollars.

Unquestionably, a RMR can break, just like any other mechanical object. That's why folks who are really serious about using a RMR on a CC pistol INSIST on co-witnessing back up sights.

The idea that a RMR pistol is more easily snagged has not manifested itself to be valid in my own personal experience. I have made hundreds of presentations, both from concealment and in an "open carry" mode and have never once had a single snag problem. Look at a proper set up RMR pistol. Is there anything that would snag more than fixed sights? Actually open sights are more prone to snag than the smooth top of a RMR.

There have been a few who have made the statement that a RMR "actually slows someone down".
Quite frankly I'm perplexed to see how that could possibly be if the person has a properly set up RMR with co-witness sights and has put some rounds down range with them.
The very fact that in most major handgun disciplines the RMR pistols are always faster on a stage than open sight pistols and that the open sight pistols (or revolvers) don't compete against them should cause a person to question such an idea.

Again, I'll draw on personal experience.
I'm soon to be sixty-nine years old and got my first handgun when I was about nine or ten. I've shot thousands of rounds in practice and in IDPA, USPSA, SASS CAS / Wild Bunch in all of which I used open sights.

With the M&P / RM07 combo I can find my dot and get a solid hit much faster than I can now with open sights or faster than I ever did.

The idea that a RMR pistol is any harder to conceal than one not so equipped has not proved to be one of validity or merit to me. With a proper holster and attire the RMR equipped pistol presents no more of a concealability issue than the same pistol without one.

Are you going to ask the bad guy to hold on while you turn it on?

Pretty evident that this statement doesn't come from one who has any real experience with a quality RMR.
The Trijicon RM07 is on 24/7 so there's no "need" to pause from a "Fight or Flight" situation to turn it on.

If you can draw and naturally align iron sights, then you can do the same with a red dot sight.

Again, another sagacious observation.
In fact for me personally on my co-witness BUIS M&P I don't need to align the sights. On presentation as I bring the pistol up I see the dot sitting on top of the front sight and the sights "disappear" while I put the dot where I want the bullet to impact.
As I've said, FOR ME, it is much faster as there is no need to align the sights. The dot DOES NOT need to be centered in the view. Wherever it's at (position wise in the window) doesn't matter!
As I said, from personal experience I'm really perplexed that anyone with a proper set up RMR and co-witness BUIS can acquire a sight picture faster with iron sights - after they have spent some time with it.

The shear bulk of a red dot on the slide, and the difficulty finding a concealment holster for it put it way down on my list.

Perhaps this poster is not acquainted with RMRs and is thinking of old school red dots.
There is no "bulk" to a quality RMR and a number of quality holster manufacturers offer holsters for RMR equipped pistols.

.. it's easier to find the sights than the dot.

I have great respect for this poster – he is very knowledgeable on handguns.
However, I notice on his M&P that he has a RMR mounted in place of the rear sight and a standard front sight.
I can definitely see how that could hamper "finding" the dot.
I have a young shooter friend that is a big 3-gun shooter and has a Glock with the slide cut by Gabe Suarez (the real father of modern RMRs on CC pistols) for his EDC pistol. At first he sometimes had trouble finding the dot, even being a very experience shooter. He put suppressor sights on it and ALL that problem went away.
Rastoff, I wish you were closer. I'd let you put a few hundred through my M&P and with your vast experience I believe you would see how much value co-witness BUIS are.

And finally it's been mentioned about the cost.
Yes, a quality RMR is expensive. How much is your life or the life of a loved one worth?
Years ago when I had motorcycle shops we had a saying for those who wanted to skimp on a helmet. "If you've got a $10 head buy a $10 helmet."
For me that's a very salient point when selecting a RMR for my EDC.
I wanted the best, most rugged RMR I could find. So, for me the decision was simple – a Trijicon RM07.

Like the use of ported pistols on CCs we have lots of opinions offered, against both, by people who have never used them!

As I have said a number of times I couldn't care less what anyone else wants on their guns as I don't pay for them and they don't pay for mine.
However, when an opinion is offered at least make it clear that's what it is, an opinion based on no actual experience with either of them.

As I freely noted my experiences with a RMR CC is very limited – one pistol and about 2,300+ rounds.
Yet, it is glaringly apparent that it is one more pistol and 2,300+ more rounds than some who so vociferously oppose RMRs have experience with.

Buy what you want based on YOUR OWN assessments not what someone who has no experience with anything says.

James

 

[Mister X]

Gabe Suarez(initially influenced by Kelly McCann) has indeed been a big advocate of the RMR. He understands their proper use and prospective application very well and I would agree that they are likely to be an advantageous accessory to some individuals in certain circumstances, but his written explanation and stated purposes for them actually does more to convince me that it will be of no value to me as an armed civilian interested only in personal defense. YMMV

GABE SUAREZ BLOG - RED DOT SIGHTS ON PISTOLS - WHY?

...

 

[Rastoff]

Rastoff, I wish you were closer. I'd let you put a few hundred through my M&P and with your vast experience I believe you would see how much value co-witness BUIS are.

I wish I were closer too! That's a beautiful gun and I'd love to put a round or two through it.

I believe that the dot would be much faster to acquire if BUIS are involved. Because I replaced the rear sight on my M&P, I didn't have the back up sights to help with referencing. I didn't want to go through the expense of milling the slide and purchasing sights just to "see" if I wanted the RMR as my primary sighting system.

 

[justicetyme]

I sold a few more handguns guns at the Nashville show Saturday bringing the total in the last couple of years to about 69 or 70 so I'm definitely not in the buying mode anymore.

However, now that I do have some experience with a RMR equipped pistol I'm considering doing a Commander size 1911 in 9mm.
I'm thinking that would be a great combo.
I had a NIB SC1911SC that I sold a while back at the Murfreesboro show that would have been an ideal candidate as it doesn't have the Series 80 lock work to get in the way during a slide mill.
I've been checking on the SR1911 Commander in 9mm and it looks like a very good candidate.
Trijicon makes a 1911 mount (that's to be mounted in a milled slide) that that has suppressor sights.

I'm a retired Tool & Die Maker and have friends that have machine shops that are available so it would be a pretty simple task.
I need to research more on what dovetail the Trijicon front 1911 suppressor site is made for.

I do really like the M&P PC Ported (it's my third full size M&P) but to me there's nothing like a 1911.

J.

 

[Wise_A]

my experience is with only one pistol, a S&W M&P40 PC Ported and only one RMR a Trijicon RM07.

Well. There ya go.

It has been said that a RMR affects (adversely??) slide cycling.
I have fired about 2,300+ plus rounds through my RMR equipped S&W M&P40 PC Ported using numerous different factory loads as wells as cast and jacketed bullet reloads.
NOT ONE single malfunction of any kind.

Adding mass to the slide affects how it cycles. You cannot do the former without the latter.

Now, probably better than 999 times out of 1000, a CCW-suitable red-dot, on a carry-suitable gun, with a self-defense load, isn't going to affect cycling enough to cause a problem. The loads are snappy, and the guns trend towards reliability.

The point isn't that they necessarily create unreliability, or always require recoil spring changes. The point is that you must verify function, because being that 1 in 1000 is really, really going to suck.

The Trijicon RMR RM07 has both auto adjusting and manual adjusting dot brightness so the idea of a "dot with an incorrect brightness setting" being "useless" is a moot point if a quality RMR is chosen and tested in various conditions.

Which was my point: trust, but verify.

If you can draw and naturally align iron sights, then you can do the same with a red dot sight.

Again, another sagacious observation.
In fact for me personally on my co-witness BUIS M&P I don't need to align the sights. On presentation as I bring the pistol up I see the dot sitting on top of the front sight and the sights "disappear" while I put the dot where I want the bullet to impact.
As I've said, FOR ME, it is much faster as there is no need to align the sights. The dot DOES NOT need to be centered in the view. Wherever it's at (position wise in the window) doesn't matter!
As I said, from personal experience I'm really perplexed that anyone with a proper set up RMR and co-witness BUIS can acquire a sight picture faster with iron sights - after they have spent some time with it.

You're either horribly misunderstanding my post, or intentionally misreading it, or failing to follow the conversation.

Rastoff suggested that iron sights were easier to "find". That is to say, if you drew and your sight alignment was truly horrid, iron sights give you a better frame of reference to "find" the missing front sight. His hypothesis is correct.

I contended that his conclusion was incorrect. I put forth that the ability to draw and immediately align the sights was a basic skill. In other words, if you ever had any need to "find" the sights, the issue was not your equipment, but your skillset.

It has nothing to do with any supposed inferiority of red dot sights, co-witnessed iron sights, the need to center the 'dot, or any such thing.

And finally it's been mentioned about the cost.
Yes, a quality RMR is expensive. How much is your life or the life of a loved one worth?

In passing, in reference to the expense of trying one out and finding out it just didn't work well for you.

But, what the hell, while we're on the subject.

Most of us live on a budget. Five hundred bucks spent on a piece of self-defense gear is five hundred bucks that isn't going towards the mortgage, the rent, the kids' college fund, etc. And it's not as if the overwhelming majority of us are going to need the carry piece. But we're certainly going to need the other stuff.

Ain't done yet, though.

It is incorrect to compare inexpensive self-defense gear to a cheap helmet. The cheap helmet obviously isn't going to do its job. Whereas a simple, unadorned, $400 pistol will certainly perform adequately (don't we live in blessed times?).

The faulted "how much is your life worth?" argument has been used countless times to justify four-digit price tags on custom carry guns, and it just ain't true.

 

[shawn mccarver]

What do you think?

Looking at putting a red dot such as Burris, Vortex, or Trijicon on my Glock 19. Or maybe just buy a Glock 19 MOS.

I remember when the military thought combat optic equipped rifles were no good. Now, you won't find a military rifle without one. The same thing will be true of pistols in the future.

Get the RMR and blast away! You will be ahead of the curve.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Guess I'm going to have to put one on a target gun and see for myself.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

It's one thing to voice a dislike for a procedure, tool, device, etc., because of inadequacies revealed in actually using them, i.e. based entirely on actual experience. Such experienced opinions have merit to them.

I have a young shooter friend that is a big 3-gun shooter and has a Glock with the slide cut by Gabe Suarez (the real father of modern RMRs on CC pistols) for his EDC pistol. At first he sometimes had trouble finding the dot, even being a very experience shooter. He put suppressor sights on it and ALL that problem went away.

James

Unlike you and your young shooter friend, I have have put countless thousands of rounds down range using red dots on a variety of rimfire and centerfire guns over the past 20 years and don't require the use of irons to immediately put a red dot on target. For me, a red dot is a gift from the recreational shooting gods for aging eyes. Love em. That said, not everyone is a range junkie so I try to relate not just my own perspective but what I see folks struggle with.

It's quite common for folks to struggle finding the dot as your very experienced shooting friend does. The argument of using taller irons as a crutch to find the dot, as you describe above, is fine but still begs the question -- What is Joe Carry truly attempting to accomplish with a red dot on a handgun for purposes of self defense at distances that are typically used to describe self defense?

Maybe the readership could start with this -- I will more likely fail to defend myself having only irons on my carry gun at 7yds because_________

For me the answer is none. What say you?

Now if the question was about further distances like 25-50yds with multiple targets my answer would be much different in regard to faster more precise aiming at distance and quicker transitioning between targets that could make a difference. But I don't see that as a compelling rationale for non professional gun carry, nor worthy of hanging more and bigger stuff on a carry gun.

---------

Adding a red dot to a carry gun is not a more is always better application.

Potential/possible complications --
Rain drop on lens compromising the use of the dot and irons.
Fogged lens compromising the use of dot and irons.
Rain drop/debris on exposed LED compromising the use of dot and irons.
More things to snag-- unit and taller front sight.

Just lovely...

 

[Mister X]

"It's not a matter of NEED...but rather a matter of WANT."

That statement was made by Gabe Suarez during a discussion debating the merits of a red dot on a civilian defense pistol. I wholeheartedly agree. If you want one, get one, but you don't truly need it for self-defense. I have yet to see anyone articulate a valid logical argument(anywhere) for one in the context of personal defense. Hobbyist want and practical need are two distinctly different things, but many people will come up with rather ridiculous reasons for trying to define the first as the latter. There's no need to justify it if you simply want it, but be genuine and realistic about it.

The military and civilian self-defense aren't comparable anymore than competitive sport shooting and defensive shooting. One is offensive/proactive while the other is defensive/reactive. What applies to one often doesn't apply to the other.

 

[Rastoff]

So, the military don't defend themselves? Hmmm,...

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

"It's not a matter of NEED...but rather a matter of WANT."

That statement was made by Gabe Suarez during a discussion debating the merits of a red dot on a civilian defense pistol. I wholeheartedly agree. If you want one, get one, but you don't truly need it for self-defense. I have yet to see anyone articulate a valid logical argument(anywhere) for one in the context of personal defense. Hobbyist want and practical need are two distinctly different things, but many people will come up with rather ridiculous reasons for trying to define the first as the latter. There's no need to justify it if you simply want it, but be genuine and realistic about it.

The military and civilian self-defense aren't comparable anymore than competitive sport shooting and defensive shooting. One is offensive/proactive while the other is defensive/reactive. What applies to one often doesn't apply to the other.

Wise A articulated a valid reason -- Such poor eyesight that irons become too difficult/ineffective to use.

On the flip side, some here are saying that a red dot on their carry gun is so slow to acquire that it requires huge suppressor sights just to find the dot. Maybe if those big ole' suppressor sights were first mounted on the gun then the guy with poor eyesight wouldn't need the slow red dot.

 

[Rastoff]

But we're not supposed to use the sights anyway so the red dot is moot.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

But we're not supposed to use the sights anyway so the red dot is moot.

See... now we're getting somewhere!

You shoot your 1911 well. At what point do you really expect a significant difference in your ability to defend yourself with the addition of an RMR?

 

[Rastoff]

You shoot your 1911 well. At what point do you really expect a significant difference in your ability to defend yourself with the addition of an RMR?

This is a reasonable question.

This is a pretty good representation of what my sights look like to me without corrective lenses:

This is what my Trijicon RM08-G looks like to me without corrective lenses:

These are not my pics. I just found them on the internet. However, they are good representations of what I see when I look at my sights without corrective lenses. So, if a precision shot is necessary, the green triangle is much easier and quicker to use. When the precision shot isn't necessary, either choice is fine.

Just to be clear, I don't have an RMR on my carry gun. I can just see the advantages for the sight challenged like myself. If I were to practice tipping my head back a little, so I can look through my middle lens of my tri-focals, then the regular sights are just fine. That is more difficult than it sounds.


Also, I have used the RM08-G in the rain. The issues you've referred to about refraction due to drops on the lens have not affected me. As long as I'm looking through the sight so the dot is visible, no issues with extra dots due to refracting off the drops. Of course rain isn't a big problem here (except the lack of it).

 

[Mister X]

But we're not supposed to use the sights anyway so the red dot is moot.

Inside 7 yards or so, that's pretty much always true in a reactive self-defense context as far as I'm concerned. Many modern technique type folks simply can't get their mind around that concept. Sadly, their "cup is full". What are the odds that you'll have to make a longer range or precision shot in a civilian defense scenario? I say astronomically low. Then there is the argument that just because you have it, doesn't mean you always have to use it or that it doesn't hurt just to have it. Well, an RMR does cost quite a bit of money better spent on ammo, training or a backup gun. That's compounded if you have multiple carry guns as I think they should be set up the same way.
And there are some actual tactical disadvantages as well beyond the more commonly given reasons. In a weapon retention scenario, it can possibly provide additional leverage and contact point for disarm attempts. Another thing we've found during ECQ FoF is that the RMR would often get hit, pushed or snagged and force the gun out of battery. Another possible failure point. As a civilian, are you more likely to be engaged in an ECQ struggle and have to make shots inside 7 yards or do you think it's realistic that you'll have to engage an active shooter/terrorist or have to make a precise shot in a hostage stand-off. I hope the answer is obvious. Almost any decision on weapons and gear will involve a trade-off. A balance of pros/cons, advantages/disadvantages. Prioritize training and gear accordingly based on probability and common sense.


Gabe Suarez was referred to as "the real father of the modern RMR on the cc pistol" and I see several posts on this thread where his influence seems obvious even though he isn't specifically mentioned. Some more quotes from Gabe...

"Do you need high visibility sights for shots inside 7 yards? Nope. In fact, you could literally take the sights off the gun and be able to, statically speaking by, handle most gunfights easily."

"If you need to draw and shoot a threat inside 7 yards, you do not need to use a traditional sight picture at all."

"Shooters often attempt to focus on the dot for close targets. This is mistake since they don't really do this with their iron sights."

"For close-range gun fighting inside 5 yards, any sights are irrelevant. You explode off the line of fire, press the pistol to the threat and press a burst into their chest. You wait for nothing and use physical indexing methods."

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Just to be clear, I don't have an RMR on my carry gun. I can just see the advantages for the sight challenged like myself. If I were to practice tipping my head back a little, so I can look through my middle lens of my tri-focals, then the regular sights are just fine. That is more difficult than it sounds.

One thing that hasn't been specifically mentioned is the value of practice time as it relates to struggling with irons vs the pleasure of using a red dot.

From the sound of it, my eyesight is probably similar to Kanewpadle and yours. I can use irons but things are on the fuzzy side and quite honestly practicing with irons simply isn't as fun as it used to be when I had younger eyes. Enter the red dot. Wow... nice. Just focus down range while wearing my distances glasses and everything is perfect.

So to the extent that someone might be inclined to practice more with a carry gun having a red dot vs irons, I think there's probably some merit to that. The majority of my range time is with handguns using red dots. Now I'm not a tactical death squad kinda guy... I practice wth my carry guns with only irons to my performance satisfaction but if a red dot was mounted I'm sure they'd get more exercise. That's not a bad thing. Course that wouldn't include my LCP, but it might be something to consider on my XDs... uh nah.

 

[Rastoff]

One thing that hasn't been specifically mentioned is the value of practice time as it relates to struggling with irons vs the pleasure of using a red dot.

Nothing substitutes for practice. Whatever your sighting system (even if it's none), get out and practice.

Now I'm not a tactical death squad kinda guy...

What?!? No? Now my entire image of you has been squashed.

 

[digiroc]

Burris FastFire 3 and Crimson Trace ...

Now that the weather here has gone cold wearing an outer garment has made concealed carry easier than in jeans and T shirt weather.

I too suffer from the aging eyes syndrome and iron sights have become blurry for me. Mounting the FastFire to my model 69 has made it a far more effective weapon for me.

The laser paints a close target far faster than sight acquisition and the red dot comes into view very quickly for long or precision shots.

In today's "active shooter" World being able to accurately and quickly take a long shot could mean saving lives. I have my 360PD carried AISW (also Crimson Trace equipped) that is for close up and personal confrontations.

The Safariland Cordura holster pictured in my first post carry the 69 higher and tighter to my body for better concealment but my Don Hume breakfront is quicker to draw from:

If wearing the 69 strong side I'll most likely carry my all stainless 640 Pro Series weak side in a left hand holster just to balance the weight on my belt.

My 360PD is always with me AIWB although I can carry it in an ankle holster as backup. When I have all three I am just two NY reloads from 15 round capacity and feel quite adequately prepared for whatever comes my way.

digiroc