Lasers are one subject that brings out strong opinions, but I have found many of the statements regarding lasers are based very heavily on heresay, conjecture, and frankly plain ignorance and inexperience.
I had similar opinions back in 2000 before I was introduced to CTC lasers. The gun shop (large chain) I worked at was going to start carrying them and I was one of the staff selected to attend the 8hr law enforcement training course their main instructor taught. It changed my opinion and I immediately purchased one for my Kimber 1911.
Fast forward a couple years and I was working for a large Sheriff’s department and CTC lasers were approved. I was in the second class the department held and had them on my duty pistols and backup revolvers from early 2003 until around 2009 or so. Proper use of WMLs mitigated the need/benefit of a laser and when the department authorized WMLs and I got used to them I mainly used lasers for my backups. Then I started running them again around late 2021 after a ballistic shield class with a significant amount of force-on-force training. Students in that class included members of a very well known municipal SWAT team that had started to incorporate lasers on their handguns… Staccatos with X400Gs.
I saw a comment on smoke and wonder if that comment was based on experience because I deployed a laser equipped pistol while wearing a gas mask in a CS gas filled apartment building while assisting a special weapons team activation. It worked great.
Lasers are not a solution to every problem, and unlike pistol optics or iron sights I don’t consider them primary aiming devices. That said, I hear people say lasers are bad because they don’t work in bright light. That is true. Iron sights then are bad because they suck in the dark. Even night sights suck in the dark under stress. Lasers are benefits given certain tactical, terrain, and environmental conditions. They are a tool in the tool box, and in the right circumstance can prove to be extremely valuable.
I’m a huge fan of pistol optics and lasers, and I think those who disregard them for being battery powered are simply denying technological advancement. How many would turn down a pacemaker? It runs on batteries. I’ve seen far too many positive results of bad people being shot by good people using pistol optics, WMLs, and/or lasers to be that ignorant to reality.
As for building bad habits… that can happen but it’s not the fault of the laser. It’s the fault of the user and a lack of understanding of the laser’s applicability and proper use. It’s tantamount to saying a high cap magazine builds the bad habit of “spray and pray”. It doesn’t, but bad shooters will display their ineptitude more spectacularly. It’s kinda like someone who knows nothing about a high-performance Porsche trying to drive one and killing himself and Paul Walker… One can blame the tool, or blame the person who tries to use it without proper skills and training. (I used to shoot IDPA with Paul Walker’s dad - I think he was Paul Walker Sr., but it’s been a couple + decades… Paul Walker the actor did the MC for the Steel Challenge back in 2001 or 2002 before his death.)
I say this not as someone who solely relies on technology. Now that I’m retired I mostly carry 1911s because they are my favorite, and mostly iron sights. I carry a S&W CSX a lot as well with iron sights.
I’ve shot a 296/300 on my department’s 25yd marksmanship qualification and two 299/300s on the FBI firearm instructor qualification with an iron sight Beretta 92FS and earned a FAST coin with an iron sighted Beretta M9A1 from a Safariland SLS duty holster and flapped mag pouches carried on-safe per department policy. I know how to run a pistol with iron sights… An optic is an improvement. A laser isn’t an improvement, but it’s another tool.
My last duty gun was a Staccato P with an Aimpoint ACRO and Surefire X400G Turbo, and my home defense gun is a Beretta 92G with a Streamlight TLR2G.
With all that said, there are a few methods for “zeroing” a laser.
Some advocate to choose a distance and make the dot impact over the front sight. This works better for lasers that are directly beneath the bore, because windage remains fairly consistent regardless of distance, so one only needs to figure out elevation based on distance/trajectory. If doing this at a general “self defense” distance such as 7-10 yards, shooting at further ranges will cause substantial deviation, so it’s generally considered more useful when the predicted use is close range.
Some advocate a “parallel zero” where the laser, if located under the barrel, is zeroed at whatever practical range (generally 10-25yds with a pistol) so that bullet impact is the same distance above the laser as it would be if the muzzle was touching the target. Then as the trajectory of the round starts to drop, it comes closer to the laser dot until at some distance further eventually drops below it. This works really well for lasers mounted directly beneath the bore and can be very effective out to further distances, but at close range, depending on how the pistol is shot, may not be effective. If you shoot with one eye closed it’s probably not going to work so well. That said, I don’t advocate shooting with one eye closed.
Others advocate a specific distance zero, where it’s adjusted so the bullet impacts exactly at the aiming point at a certain distance.
All three may be appropriate depending on how one uses the laser, potential and probable distances involved, and what type of laser is used (ie: CTC grip-mounted lasers may be more appropriately zeroed differently than a light laser where the laser is directly beneath the bore but 2.5 - 3” below).
I’m personally a fan of the specific distance zero, with that “distance” being the farthest I can obtain a really good group and a solid zero. That way I know that out to that distance my offset is equal to or less than “touch the target”. Beyond that distance it’s still going to be darn close for the same zero distance. For example, if I zero my CTC grips at 25yds, I know impact will be a little high and a little left out to 25 yards. For the next 25 yards it will be a little low and a little right. Beyond that distance I know the laser may no longer be an appropriate sighting tool. Oh yea… someone brought up 50yd plus shooting… I’ve done a lot of it with a laser, and it can work great at that distance and beyond when zeroed correctly and with an understanding of offset and trajectory. Of course, it works great on a range. Like iron sights at that distance can work great on a range… or an optic on the range. Performance at distance often has way more to do with proper equipment setup, understanding of ballistic trajectory, and skill than the equipment itself.
It’s unfortunate that CTC didn’t continue to push laser training and develop a stronger curriculum, because in large part people have been left to figure out things on their own, and I think that’s the biggest downfall to the laser. With the increase in popularity of IR lasers and NVGs, I see a renewed need for better understanding of how lasers work as aiming devices, how they can be best deployed in visible and IR/NV conditions, and how lasers can provide an advantage when the right equipment is selected, it’s set up the right way, and the user understands how and when to use it.
