Can I cheat? Red dots, lasers, other aids make it easier?
- Thread starter westernrover
- Start date
- Status
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
The more I think about this, the more I realize I haven't really used any gadgets on my guns for years. Most of them are three dot iron sights setup and I just dry fire and go shooting as much as possible.
All the doohickeys just bulk up a gun. I mean if your eyes blow and you need assistance like a red dot, ok. If your reaction time is diminished for some reason, and a laser could maybe save your life, I guess. But honestly none of that stuff really makes a big difference. Just shoot.........................
All the doohickeys just bulk up a gun. I mean if your eyes blow and you need assistance like a red dot, ok. If your reaction time is diminished for some reason, and a laser could maybe save your life, I guess. But honestly none of that stuff really makes a big difference. Just shoot.........................
BSA1
member
Heck anyone that can shoot a 2" group unsupported at 25 yards needs to be coaching me!
I don't trust anything that uses batteries. Commercial batteries quality vary too much. I have had half a package of hearing aid batteries not work fresh out of the package.
Lasers are fun. I consider them to be more of warning / intimidation tool to aggressors. Put the red dot on their chest and tell them that is where the bullets are going if they don't stop what they are doing. Like I said a big problem with lasers is the beam disappears in bright light.
Red dots on a handgun are just to bulky and if the batteries fail you can't use the iron sights.
The brighter the back light the better fiber optics work.
We have a Fiber Optic / Crimson Trace laser combination on one of our guns. Fiber Optics for daytime. Laser for dim and night lights. We also practice a lot at 7 - 10 yards which is most realistic self-defense distance.
Point-shoulder shooting at 7 yards is a good skill to learn.
What advice is your eye doctor giving you?
I don't trust anything that uses batteries. Commercial batteries quality vary too much. I have had half a package of hearing aid batteries not work fresh out of the package.
Lasers are fun. I consider them to be more of warning / intimidation tool to aggressors. Put the red dot on their chest and tell them that is where the bullets are going if they don't stop what they are doing. Like I said a big problem with lasers is the beam disappears in bright light.
Red dots on a handgun are just to bulky and if the batteries fail you can't use the iron sights.
The brighter the back light the better fiber optics work.
We have a Fiber Optic / Crimson Trace laser combination on one of our guns. Fiber Optics for daytime. Laser for dim and night lights. We also practice a lot at 7 - 10 yards which is most realistic self-defense distance.
Point-shoulder shooting at 7 yards is a good skill to learn.
What advice is your eye doctor giving you?
rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
Why would batteries fail? Fresh all the time. Cheap enough.
BSA1
member
You never know if the batteries will work until you press the switch do you? Like when you go out to your car on a cold morning and turn the ignition switch and …
With a dead car battery you may be late to work or an appointment.
In a self-defense situation I doubt if the bad guy is going to let you call time out so you can go to Wal-Mart, get fresh batteries and test them before resuming the fight.
With a dead car battery you may be late to work or an appointment.
In a self-defense situation I doubt if the bad guy is going to let you call time out so you can go to Wal-Mart, get fresh batteries and test them before resuming the fight.
The chances of your life, or the life of a loved one, depending on the electronic ignition of your car or the fly-by-wire controls of an airliner are much higher than the chances of your life actually depending on a red-dot working. The guys getting shot at for a living in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syrian and every other godforsaken place on earth have long, long since chosen to rely on red-dot sights for their rifles... and those are guys whose lives really are likely to depend on the reliability of their gear.
In a self defense situation it's unlikely you will use your sights at all.
This is one of the big advantages of dots - they work even when your eyes are focused on the target. In fact, they work best that way. If one believes the stories that it is very difficult to focus on the front sight and accept a blurry, moving, acting "bad guy" as the background during a firefight, then the real choice may be between dots and nothing or very blurry sights.
Last edited:
rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
I simply cannot learn to align the post and notch of iron sights consistently. Hence big groups. If I could select the front post width to tightly fit the notch at my specific arm length with just a tiny bit of daylight, it would be better. But red dots make it all so simple. Cuts my groups sizes in half. I wonder about so much resistance to such a good idea.
rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
That would be a recipe for failure, wouldn’t it. Might as well leave the gun at home.
With some standard front-sight cuts, you can do that. Sight makers like make various widths of front sights and rear sight notches. Some people have strong preferences about the size of the "light bars" on either side of the post.
But if dots work for you better and you can afford to outfit all your pistols with them, then problem solved.
rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
I agree. And if you use a higher MOA dot for your self defense gun, it makes target acquisition even easier. I just switched my carry gun to a 6 MOA dot. Big improvement.
There are a whole lot of different ways to "use the sights." Here's a page from an upcoming book that Ben Stoeger (competitive USPSA/IPSC shooter, multiple time national champion) posted regarding different aiming methods for different difficulties of shots:
All of these illustrate ways of "using the sights," but only half of them involve focusing on the sights.
Dots take away the focus issue - you always shoot target-focused with a dot (if you're doing it right). Instead of dealing with alignment tolerances, it's more about how much you let the dot "settle" versus "shooting the streak."
Not if you take your training seriously.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,283
Funny how L.E. and some in the military depend on electronics when it comes to red dots and flash lights, lasers, etc, and they put their lives on the line way more times than we do. How many of them depend on Aimpoints? Why is it acceptable and seen as perfectly logical and useful to have an Aimpoint on a rifle, but if you put something similar in a pistol to basically perform the same purpose, it's a problem? And it seems like people are making a mole out of an anthill when it comes to batteries suddenly dying. It's very unprobably to begin with, if they're changed regularly, and even if you hit the lottery by both actually having to use your firearm to defend your life AND your reddot suddenly malfunctioning, you can always fall back on your sights of they're co-witnessed...
Last edited:
rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
Yep. I say keep the optic on at all times if it doesn’t have a motion switch. Then change the battery once a week for a buck or so in bulk. You will never have to worry about it.
robhof
Member
Lasers and red dots are relatively inexpensive, as Pudge stated that he shot well when his eyes were better, so did I, qualified expert 3 times and multi weapon, but now I use scopes, lasers and red dots, just a fact of life. I still get to put all my bullets into one small hole at 100 yds if I want to and can quick shoot a can at 10 yds, it's whatever works for you, don't let anyone discourage you from seeking better results with whatever it takes to do so!
Old Dog
Member
Pretty sure this red dot isn't too bulky, and as you can see, the iron sights are quite visible. Also, maybe I'm a little OCD, but I've never experienced battery failure on any red dots ...
Battery or electronic failure is a red herring. It's not the issue. There is even an option for Tritium and fiber optic illumination, but considering how frequently an SD gun's sight is needed for SD, it doesn't seem probable that an LED would fail at the wrong time (no, I don't believe Murphy's law is always in effect). Even if it did, you can have BUIS and then it's a non-issue. The much more significant issue with reflex sights is whether the dot can be found in time for the shot that's needed, and how long it takes most people to find it. This is a significant issue even with BUIS because if the shooter is waiting to see the dot they are losing time before they either find it, go to the irons, tube it, or point shoot.
The article authored by Massad Ayoob on the study done by Karl Rehn showed that most people do not benefit from a red dot or laser, particularly at shorter ranges. Essentially, for most people, they create more problems than they solve. Where the red dots are more likely to help a greater portion of people is at longer ranges, beyond 15 yards, but then the benefit applies primarily to people with the other skills (trigger control) to make those shots reliably.
Now, none of this is to say a red dot or laser does not help you. You can answer that question for yourself. If the current state of sight technology is doing something beneficial for you for defensive purposes, nobody here is arguing with you. The question the study attempted to answer is: if we take 118 shooters, classify them by their skill level, and have them shoot a drill with and without aides, use randomization with respect to what they do first and last, can we determine whether red dots or lasers help people, which people, and how much.
The way I personally interpret the results is:
-Skill is better than aides every time.
-Aids are going to cause the most problems for people lacking in skills to deal with the problems they present.
-Shooters with advanced skills can benefit from aids, particularly reflex sights, but primarily at longer ranges.
-For now, most defensive shooters of all skill levels are best off with the iron sights whether they are developing their skills or have acquired a high level of skills. We can hope sight technology will improve to help more shooters for defensive purposes, and that seems likely to happen in the future.
The article authored by Massad Ayoob on the study done by Karl Rehn showed that most people do not benefit from a red dot or laser, particularly at shorter ranges. Essentially, for most people, they create more problems than they solve. Where the red dots are more likely to help a greater portion of people is at longer ranges, beyond 15 yards, but then the benefit applies primarily to people with the other skills (trigger control) to make those shots reliably.
Now, none of this is to say a red dot or laser does not help you. You can answer that question for yourself. If the current state of sight technology is doing something beneficial for you for defensive purposes, nobody here is arguing with you. The question the study attempted to answer is: if we take 118 shooters, classify them by their skill level, and have them shoot a drill with and without aides, use randomization with respect to what they do first and last, can we determine whether red dots or lasers help people, which people, and how much.
The way I personally interpret the results is:
-Skill is better than aides every time.
-Aids are going to cause the most problems for people lacking in skills to deal with the problems they present.
-Shooters with advanced skills can benefit from aids, particularly reflex sights, but primarily at longer ranges.
-For now, most defensive shooters of all skill levels are best off with the iron sights whether they are developing their skills or have acquired a high level of skills. We can hope sight technology will improve to help more shooters for defensive purposes, and that seems likely to happen in the future.
Old Dog
Member
Ah, yeah … pretty much what I said back in post #17.
This line of argument is flawed, because it takes people who have time learning to index with iron sights and then sticks an unfamiliar gun/sight arrangement with a different index in their hands. It's like having someone who has only ever shot and carried a revolver shoot a drill with their usual revolver, and then hand them a 1911 and have them shoot the same drill. Just as with the dot, they'll be slower off the mark initially as they hunt for the sight that are in an unfamiliar relationship to their hands... but that would be a very foolish basis for claiming that 1911's are slower to first shots than a good old wheelgun.
Those of us who shoot speed-based competitions (any of the practical games count for this) can attest that there is a material advantage to the dot, and that advantage is quite present at 7-10 yards. People who move from non-optic to optics divisions often go backwards for a few matches/practice sessions as they rebuild their index, but then they are aided at any distance beyond 3-5 yards by the dot. Once they practice and learn their index, they can "find" their dot faster than the iron sights folks can "find" the front post.
If the argument is that a person who has a lifetime shooting irons shouldn't stick a dot on their carry/duty/HD gun and, with zero practice, expect to find the dot instantly and overnight become better at first-shot times... yes, that is correct. If the argument is that, given a reasonable amount of practice/effort, dots don't provide any advantage except at long distance... that is false. I've seen way too many competitive shooters switch to optics and very rapidly become faster to believe anything different.
I think you underestimate the ability of a skilled handgunner to switch between iron sights and red dots. Also, the study did not select only experts that used iron sights exclusively and then force them to use red dots. I am sure a good portion of the expert level shooters would have been shooting red dots regularly and did not go into the red dot "green." Also, which gun they shot first was randomized, so regular red dot shooters being presented with an iron sight gun first would have had the same disadvantage of an unfamiliar index.
There is no argument that frame-mounted red dots improve scores at longer ranges: “Roy Stedman, a Grandmaster shooter and R&D engineer, looked at the Steel Challenge years ago, which was noteworthy because shooters fire iron sight and red dot on similar courses and stages. There, longer range targets and basically one shot per target, he saw a 10-20% improvement with frame-mounted red dots. It shows for sure they do allow for improved shooting. That data does exist.”
But your point also has some validity, and the article reads that Karl frankly noted, “A weakness of the test was that no one did a 200-round familiarization with the dot. Last summer, USPSA had Production and Carry Optics National Championships, many competitors using the same gun for both. This provided a fair amount of data since many stages were exactly the same. There were no dramatic changes in hit factors. Even at top shooter level, we didn’t see the 10-20% improvement we saw with frame mounted optics. At best, scores were 5-10% higher with carry optics. Don’t expect miracles. At best you’ll get 10%, in reality probably less than that.”
There is no argument that frame-mounted red dots improve scores at longer ranges: “Roy Stedman, a Grandmaster shooter and R&D engineer, looked at the Steel Challenge years ago, which was noteworthy because shooters fire iron sight and red dot on similar courses and stages. There, longer range targets and basically one shot per target, he saw a 10-20% improvement with frame-mounted red dots. It shows for sure they do allow for improved shooting. That data does exist.”
But your point also has some validity, and the article reads that Karl frankly noted, “A weakness of the test was that no one did a 200-round familiarization with the dot. Last summer, USPSA had Production and Carry Optics National Championships, many competitors using the same gun for both. This provided a fair amount of data since many stages were exactly the same. There were no dramatic changes in hit factors. Even at top shooter level, we didn’t see the 10-20% improvement we saw with frame mounted optics. At best, scores were 5-10% higher with carry optics. Don’t expect miracles. At best you’ll get 10%, in reality probably less than that.”
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Lasers are too slow, IMO, for most shooting purposes.
Finding the laser dot is not as fast as finding the front sight. Or a red dot.
They are really great for unconventional fire positions and such.
Anyone who doesn't think a 5-10% improvement at high levels of competition is huge does not understand. Something that makes a very fast shooter who is already optimized with one set of gear 5-10% faster/better is gigantic. Absolutely gigantic.
- Status
Similar threads
