I'm a grumpy old codger in general, and have been fine with irons for decades. (I actually was an early adopter of red dots, back in the eighties, when it became apparent that I could no longer win my particular gun game without one. I never would have carried the big old tube concealed, though.) I actually think most of the "pros" and most of the "cons" for today's dot sights are without merit. For example, I don't really see that they are unreliable, or that they are too big for carry, or that they are significantly faster or more accurate.
For my money, there are a few niches they really fill. One is aging eyes: if the front blade is becoming blurry, then a dot might be your savior. Another is speed and accuracy for someone not willing to learn irons. It does take significant effort to learn irons well. I think every handgunner should put in that effort, but admit that today's young and/or new concealed carrier may not really be into shooting as a hobby. For them, the much-easier-to-learn dot might be a good plan. (I remain convinced that the more experience a fellow has with irons, the less speed/accuracy benefit is produced with a dot. By the time someone is shooting at Master level with irons, any speed/accuracy benefit with a dot is measured in such small increments as to be irrelevant in a self-defense scenario - with the following exception.)
My particular niche is long-distance accuracy with a short sight radius. With the rise of rifle-equipped fruitcakes shooting up the public square, I decided I wanted to be better prepared for that "70 yards across the food court" kind of shot. But the relatively large notch and blade found on most defensive guns, along with the short sight radius typical of something concealable, makes those shots harder than they need to be. A dot sight can be a very good answer to that dilemma, and that's why I put such a gun together.
