Optic or no optic on your defense handgun?

huntersdog

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
52
Do use an optic on or defense handgun? I was thinking of trying one and see if I would like it or not. Suggestions on a optic for a semi auto handgun?


I tried to do a search, but couldn't find the Handguns: Autoloaders section.
 
No optic for me. As long as my eyes are good enough, I like to use the lowest common denominator, which is irons. Those are on every handgun. Train with an optic, then one isn't available? Uh oh. The main reason for this is that I don't compete, so every handgun I own is for defense training and use.
 
Many traditionalists eschew optics on SD handguns, while quite a few top level instructors say they are the future of self defense. For pro-optics look for YT videos by Active Self Protection. For pro and con discussions on the topic look for the subject in Wilson Combat YT videos.
If you decide to try one, be aware that there is a significant re-training process that experienced shooters have to go through. With traditional iron sights we all learned to focus on front site, with fuzzy target. With optics you shift to focusing on the target, and let the dot int eh window be fuzzy. That takes. a LOT of reps to shift gears. Also, with dot in a window, you do nOT need to have the dot in the center, or sitting on top of the front sight (if you hav one ). If the dot is anywhere in the window, your point of aim is where the dot is.
I shoot both irons and dots, and prefer the dots, but practice with both to stay current,
 
Last edited:
Many traditionalists eschew optics on SD handguns, while quite a few top level instructors say they are the future of self defense. For pro-optics look for YT videos by Active Self Protection. For pro and con discussions on the topic look for the subject in Wilson Combat YT videos.
If you decide to try one, be aware that there is a significant re-training process that experienced shooters have to go through. With traditional iron sights we all learned to focus on front site, with fuzzy target. With optics you shift to focusing on the target, and let the dot int eh window be fuzzy. That takes. a LOT of reps to ship tears. Also, with dot in a window, you do nOT need to have the dot in the center, or sitting on top of the front sight (if you hav one ). If the dot is anywhere in the window, your point of aim is where the dot is.
I shoot both irons and dots, and prefer the dots, but practice with both to stay current,
Yep, I've got 40-50k rds of training with irons, why reinvent the wheel unless I need to.
 
Yes, Trijicon. I like the SRO for the bigger window, but the RMR is more durable and drop-resistant. I've evaluated optic and no-optic and I shoot better with the optic, especially longer ranges. Maybe long range and small groups are irrelevant to self-defense - who can tell me with any certainty one way or another? I could pass a qualification with or without the optic, but I know I shoot better with the optic, so that's what I carry.
 
My suggestion is Trijicon SRO or RMR depending on whether you prefer performance or ruggedness. The ruggedness is useless unless you drop the gun on the optic. I can't tell you if you'll do that at the worst time possible or not. If you want to sacrifice some performance for that contingency, the RMR is probably the toughest out there, but has a small window. While I prefer Trijicon, the Aimpoint ACRO2 is good. Get one of those, and if it doesn't work out, you can resell it, but you'll know you tried the best. There are less expensive reflex sights like the Leupold, the Holosun, the Burris, SIG, and the Vortex. Then there are the cheap ones. I wouldn't get any of those as a first handgun optic. They would be better when you need several handgun optics for several different guns and you already know what you need and what you don't need for each.

There are also the micro size ones for P365, Hellcat, G43 narrow slides. I don't know anything about them except that they exist. I think SIG and Vortex make some.
 
I’m still undecided on the topic. I do see (pun intended) where they have their place, but each person‘s carry circumstances are different and should be studied critically.

97% of the time I carry a Colt Agent in my pocket because it’s the best tool for my daily lifestyle. An optic isn’t going to work for me. Furthermore, I tend to think that an encounter for me will most likely be at “bad breath” distance, so an optic would not be appropriate.

If I carried a pistol I would certainly take a hard look at an optic to see if it would work for me.
 
Red dots could fail. The failure modes are all understood: no dot (dead battery etc.), front obstruction, rear obstruction, diode obstruction, cracked glass. None of these things make the gun inoperable. I don't find BUIS necessary at all. It's not hard to sight along the edge of the slide, sight using some feature of the optic housing, or sight using the corner between the optic and the slide. Try something like that, find one that works, and practice it like you practice any failure drill. A lot of handguns have nothing but a gutter sight groove and they work fine. You have the same thing on a gun with a non-functioning optic. If you want, you can use a paint pen or a white grease pencil and draw a line. But for all the times your dot optic is working, which is the overwhelming majority of the time, it's better. Dot sight failure isn't a good reason to dismiss them.
 
Good reasons to pass on dot optics:
You've practiced a lot more without one (no need to fix something that isn't broken).
They have particular needs with respect to carry (they're bulkier, heavier, and require holsters that accommodate them).
They cost a lot (sometimes more than the gun).
They're not necessary.
 
No. Not yet. They simply aren't advanced enough yet.

Slapping an optic on the slide, watching it jiggle, is very amateur. They need to do better. Integrate the optic into the pistols design.
 
I EDC a Smith and Wesson Bodyguard 380.

An optic would be pretty ridiculous on a gun that size.

I have a green-dot on a Glock 17.
That gun is marginally "too large" for EDC for my needs.
Extra stuff hanging off it doesn't help the issue.

For a HOUSE GUN, I have a couple full-size M&P 9mm guns.
Each has a BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT on it.
Even with the lights are turned-on in the house, the bright white light is easily visible.
At any distance I might encounter inside the house, the bullet hits exactly at the center of the white-light beam.
I can't think of a simpler aiming method.
Put light on target. Pull trigger.
The gun gets toted around the house in a shoulder-bag --- aka "man purse" -- handy when you aren't otherwise wearing full battle regalia.
The shoulder bag also has plenty of pockets for extras, like magazines and stand-alone flashlights. My sister-in-law doesn't like it when I shine the pistol-mounted flashlight mounted on her.
Enough room in the man-purse even for a set of sound-amplified ear muffs.
And room to stash my cell phone.
 
Last edited:
No. Not yet. They simply aren't advanced enough yet.

Slapping an optic on the slide, watching it jiggle, is very amateur. They need to do better. Integrate the optic into the pistols design.

They haven't done that with rifle optics yet, or at least it hasn't caught on. I thought the rail mounts totally made sense, but they pretty much failed and everybody still uses rings. I'm talking about the SR (Swarovski Rail) for example. Sure, we have pic rails for prism, holo, and reflex sights, but even the pic rails are usually bolted onto the receiver.

Integrating the optic into the slide doesn't seem too hard, but I'm not sure what advantage it has over optic-ready slides. Instead of cutting slides for an optic, the slide could be machined with an optic housing as one piece. The battery could be accessed under the slide (RMR) or on the top (SRO). The sides of the optic would just continue down as the sides of the slide. I don't see a lot of advantage though. I don't see optics jiggling on the slide. I don't see them losing zero. One piece slide/optic housings would combine the cost of the optic with the cost of slide, which would make aftermarket options more costly. It could possibly make sense for a maker to try to capture optic market share by integrating the optic. SIG and S&W have bundled optics, but if a maker sold a slide/optic that didn't have other options, they'd need to have a loyal following and would risk it if their optic left anything to be desired. Maybe Glock could do it, but Glock isn't even in the optic market now.
 
Yes, I’ve found that optics on handguns offer significant improvements in accuracy (particularly accuracy while at speed) including while transitioning between targets and while moving.

It’s much easier to hit targets at long range too. And while you may not care about hitting steel at 150 yards, that also means you can put really small groups together at closer ranges.

There is a learning curve for anyone who has a lot of time on irons, but once I got past that I saw a significant improvement in my performance.

As far as optics, I would recommend a Trijicon RMR or Aimpoint Acro P2.

Slapping an optic on the slide, watching it jiggle, is very amateur. They need to do better. Integrate the optic into the pistols design.
I don’t think there’s much chance of that. They tried to do something similar with rifle optics several decades ago and found there were issues. Look at the older G36 and AUG. both started with integrated optics and now have upgraded versions utilizing standard rails. This lets the individual user choose the right optic for their uses rather than have to settle for whatever optic the manufacturer decides to use.

There are LOTS of options for pistol optics - open vs closed emitters, different battery arrangements, durability, night vision settings, window size, reticle design, price ranges, etc. what is right for me might not be right for you.

Building the optic into the gun forces the end user into using an optic that likely won’t be optimal for their use and will also not be upgradable in the future.
 
With optics you shift to focusing on the target, and let the dot int eh window be fuzzy.
I haven’t found the dot to be fuzzy at all, unless I am using a dot without glasses. With 20/20 correction, the dot should be sharp unless you have uncorrected astigmatism.
Good reasons to pass on dot optics:
You've practiced a lot more without one (no need to fix something that isn't broken).
They have particular needs with respect to carry (they're bulkier, heavier, and require holsters that accommodate them).
They cost a lot (sometimes more than the gun).
They're not necessary.
They’re not necessary if you still have eyes young enough to focus sharply on a dimly illuminated front iron sight against a noncontrasting target.

The current gen of compact carry optics don’t add much weight or bulk to a compact carry pistol, and on many setups you can still shoot irons through the window if you so choose, even with stock-height sights.
 
I've learned to sight shoot. I do pretty well using the front sight. I don't want to be dependent on a battery.
They don't all use batteries. Some are Tritium, just like those night sights. Trijicon RMR has something like a 15 year life span. The quality optics that do use batteries have pretty serious battery life. I change mine when I change smoke detector batteries, which is today. (Thanks DST). Some folks rotate carry ammo every few months and pop in new batteries then. I've never had a battery go dead yet. Still not using one on my carry gun currently, but that's more a result of my carry gun not being the best candidate for mounting one.
 
Last edited:
I only have one pistol with a dot, and it's not my main gun. I am somewhat reluctant to move to red dot sights.

The cost is the biggest factor for me right now, but I also don't love the thought of having to replace batteries.

I do however want my pistols to be capable of taking dots though.

I'm going to shoot an idpa match with my pistol with the dot and see how I like using it in "real world" applications.

I might change my mind...
 
Put me in the "possibly" camp. Mostly because I haven't tried a pistol red dot yet but I did just buy a Walther PDP Compact specifically because it comes optics-ready, and milling my Walther PPQ would end up costing about 2/3s of what the PDP retails for. Since the optometrist wanted to start me on bifocals after my last eye exam, it seems like a good time to try a dot. On rifles I'm absolutely convinced the red dot is superior to iron sights for quick close-range work. Just focus on the target, paste the dot where you want to hit and squeeze the trigger. I can sort-of replicate this with a target focus on a handgun, but it's something I've only just started experimenting with. In theory, a pistol mounted red dot should work even better for this. Right now the question is more whether I want a Trijicon RMR or SRO, and what dot size to go with.

@benEzra , I also have an astigmatism and even with my corrective lenses, most red dots have some form of distortion on the lower edge of the dot. My green Trijicon MRO looks like it has a couple of water drops off the bottom when I turn the intensity up, and my Aimpoint PRO looks a bit like a coma. Without my glasses I get either the classic starburst or a frozen fireworks display, depending on the brightness and optic.
 
Right now the question is more whether I want a Trijicon RMR or SRO, and what dot size to go with
I've got a Trijicon RMR with 9moa green dot. 9moa seems huge when you think about it, but it's not meant for Bullseye shooting. It's fast and I really like it for speed games. Lately I've been using some of the Holosun that have multiple reticle options built in. Large circle small dot, small circle small dot, small dot, bigger dot.

With my astigmatism, I use the 8moa circle/2moa dot combination and adjust brightness as low as possible. Without correction it's just a 8moa dot.
 
I finally got sucked into putting a dot on one this past fall. Have five now with number six on the way. 🙄 I knew from what went on with my rifle red dots a couple of decades ago how this would go, and it has.

Initially, it took me a good month of constant dry and live fire, but most of what you need is in dry fire and constant presentations, from both the holster and just picking the gun up and quickly getting the dot. And, as I did with just irons, its still a daily thing, just with both now. Either way, its something you should be doing every day anyway.

Personally, too, I think if you are a point shooter, especially if you're one who shoots over top of the gun regularly, its going to be easier/quicker to pick up.

And to be fair about things, the only way you're actually going to know and understand things here is to take the time and make the effort to learn. Until then, you only know what "you" know, and until you do make the effort, you really know nothing. This is basically the same as learning a new gun that is unfamiliar to you, and you don't do that by trying someone else gun for a mag or two. It takes a bit of quality time to figure things out. And I can pretty much guarantee you, if you do that , you will have a very different opinion on this on the other side too.

For those who are worried about the sights being frail, batteries dying, etc, as with most other things, if you buy things of reasonable quality and known quality, that have a good track record, you're unlikely to have issues. Nothing wrong with buying something cheap to see if its worth the bother. If you think it is, move right on up to something better going forward.

My initial plan was to just go ahead and get a RMR, which are pretty salty, but after a little research, found the Holosuns were getting very good reports, and were more reasonably priced, and I figured Id try one of those, until I was sure I was going to keep going forward with these.

The gun Ive been using in practice is a Glock 47 with a Holosun 407 on it. At this point its got over 5K rounds on it, and there have been no issues or problems with it. It was easy to zero up and I haven't touched it since. It, and four of the others, are still on their original batteries. A couple of these are handled and dry-fired every day too, so they just arent sitting in the safe. All are "on" no stop. I don't shut them off. The 407's, and one SIG RomeoPro1 something or other I have, all have the "shake awake" feature, and the Holosuns shut off after 10 minutes of no movement. I think the SIG is similar.

That shake awake thing is a good thing, but also a bit of a misnomer, as the sight will always be on, as long as there is even the slightest bump or vibration. Thats why the battery in sight number six, had to be changed just the other day. Its on the gun Ive been carrying, and since Im always moving around, that sight is always "on". The only time it isnt, is when its in its holster by the bed while I sleep. So, figure its "on" 16-17 out of the 24 hours.

The battery in that sight also lasted 5 months, so at least for my carry guns, the Holosuns at this point, are going to be a 4 battery a year gun and Ill swap batteries every 3 months. Easy to do to and I don't have to take the sight off the gun, just open a tray.

And don't forget, there are also a lot of BUIS options available here too, so depending on what you want, you can have the best of both worlds in that respect. And like the long guns, once you're used to the dots, you'll likely rarely, if ever, use the irons again.

Shooting wise, there is no question, the dot is faster and more accurate, especially as the distance opens up, for me anyway. Up close, there is really no difference, as Im still shooting without sights anyway, but at the distance where I would start to look for the sights Im still focused on the target and the dot is just there.

And yea, the dot bounces around as you shoot, but if you keep your focus on the target, where it belongs, the dot goes away in recoil as the shot is fired, and comes right back on target where you're still looking. If you have to go look for the dot again, then you're doing it wrong.

Theres no doubt there is a lot to take in here from the learning standpoint, and then the cost of getting shifted over, and for some extra ammo in practice. If you can get past all that, Im finding it was well worth the effort and aggravation. I always knew cost was going to be the bigger issue, as I'm one that needs multiple duplicates of things I use, so for me, the cost quickly goes up. And that's really the main reason I waited this long. Technology too, to a point.

I ended up trading off a few things to get the guns and sights I needed, and that helped offset the cost by a good bit. That made it all doable. Bullets bitten and its done. :)

And now on to the true biggest cost here, and that's burning ammo. Compared to ammo, the guns are the cheap part of the equation. :)
 
Back
Top