Red Dots-Who Wears Them On Their EDC Pistols?

[Tom-R2]

I'm good with everyone deciding for themselves what they like and what they want. I have several guns that I have carried over the years with just iron sights. I have two with RDS, and I just ordered a third RDS yesterday for another pistol. I like them and know the strengths and weaknesses of RDS. Someone doesn't want one? I'll support their decision. Someone else does? I'll support that decision. It's all good.

 

[TarDevil]

I haven't tried RDS but it's hard to imagine them being better than the TFX night sights on my Shield Plus

 

[Rexster]

Short Answer: No, not yet.

Longer Version: I have tested the concept, with tritium green triangle reticle RMR on a G19 MOS Glock slide, and liked it, but, have not yet adopted an electronic sight on a daily carry handgun. (The RMR that I used was borrowed from a long gun, where it served as a low-light alternate sight.) I acquired a milled G45 slide, with an Aimpoint ACRO, which I can use on my G19x, but have not yet vetted that combination, with enough live-fire, to use it for defensive purposes, yet.

There is, however, one problem, with actually using any electronic dot sight on a concealed-carry handgun. I am already annoyed with the blockiness of the rear portion of a Glock slide, which is my concealment nemesis. The rear sight, itself, and the outer rear edge of the slide, already print, against any cover garment, so, an optic is going to make that worse. I see an optic-equipped Glock serving as a “bag gun,” not an everywhere/always daily carry gun, worn in a holster, at belt level.

 

[WrongHanded]

Your post was a rather complete condemnation of RDSs based on " time money and effort, and also a bad idea regarding … reliability." Aaron regularly demonstrates how reliable RDSs are, contrary to your opinion. Do you have any actual cases of one breaking such that it could not be used?


I remember when scope sights were coming on the scene for everyday use by hunters. There were grave warnings issued describing how fragile they were and how they'd not be there when the trophy (fill in the animal of your choice here) stepped out of the tree line and you missed the shot of a lifetime! But now there are LOTS of hunting rifles out there that have scopes on them. While scopes have disadvantages (everything is a compromise ‒ right?) they were overcome by the benefits. I think the RDS is similar.





Much of this comment is DIRECTLY related to "how hard of a hit something can take." The only part that was not, was about 'obscuring the emitter.' And there you're right. In some designs the emitter is protected from the things you mentioned, "blood, mud, snow, [etc.]" so it's not an issue. But with the other designs the emitter is out there, in the open, inviting obstructions. But it's usually fairly easy to clear many of these obstructions. If it can't be done, the irons are still right there.


And let's not forget that iron sights can also be obstructed by the same objects that you mentioned.





No body "needs" a RDS. But many folks find them helpful, useful and FASTER AND MORE ACCURATE than irons, particularly those of us with certain vision issues, many of which come with age.


It's telling though that many LEAs are issuing handguns with RDS mounted on them and many more are allowing their officers to carry them if they pass a qual test. They seem to think that the advantages (such as greater accuracy and speed) outweigh the disadvantages.





There is no need for a "co‒witness." The irons just need to be tall enough so that they can be lined up (front and rear sight) through the RDS window. In fact, many prefer that they NOT be set up with a co‒witness. It allows for a larger, unobscured window.


Remember when ALL sporting rifles came with iron sights? Many hunters kept them on, even though they mounted a scope, in case the scope could not be used. We even have hunting rifle scope mounts that have a "quick release" function so the scope can be removed in the field w/o tools.


But nowadays we see rifles intended for hunting sold, not only without iron sights, but not even a provision for mounting them! Scopes only baby. Lol


BTW, RDSs are far more rugged than early scope sights, especially the top of the line models that are intended for carry.


You're obviously correct that "[a] taller [sight] is much more likely to break under impact," since the ground will have more leverage than against a standard height sight. But then, since it will have come from a "hard hit" your RDS would still be working and you'd not need that front sight. (If I did emoticons there would be a smiley face here).





That's not a bad idea, no matter what one carries as their primary. I'd bet that you practice transitions from your primary to your secondary too. Good onya.

My first post began with "For me,". I've made all these points before, read the counters before, countered the counters before. To me an RDS is simply not worth it. I consider my reasons to be highly pragmatic: K.I.S.S.

I like scopes on my rifles, beads on my shotguns, and irons on my handguns. If others want to do something different, they are welcome to it.

 

[Buzznrose]

I haven't tried RDS but it's hard to imagine them being better than the TFX night sights on my Shield Plus

The TFX is a very good sight and I have them on a G21, but there is no way, once you learn to properly use them, that you can hit shots past 25 yards more precisely with them over a 3 MOA dot.

 

[TarDevil]

The TFX is a very good sight and I have them on a G21, but there is no way, once you learn to properly use them, that you can hit shots past 25 yards more precisely with them over a 3 MOA dot.

I do not doubt that at all. I don't shoot competitively, though. I just need to be accurate within my home.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I have three generation 3 G19s.

One has been my primary carry pistol for over 20 years. I've taken many shooting courses with it and put thousands of rounds through this pistol. I'm very proficient with it and have a great deal of confidence in my skill with it.

The second one has been recently fitted with a Holosun HE508T green dot sight after I sent the slide to Jagerwerks for milling. I'm still training with this pistol, building up my skill with the sight before I carry it.

The third G19 is completely stock that I keep as a safe queen.

When I took Tom Givens Firearms Instructor Development Course a couple of years ago the top shooters all had red dot sights on their pistols. We shot the FBI qualification course as well as the more challenging Rangemaster qualification course. Those with the red dot sights smoked both courses of fire, which spans from 3 yards to 25 yards. I scored a 96 on the FBI COF and a 98 on the Rangemaster COF (a score of 90 on both COFs is required to pass the course) and my scores were in the lower half of all the students. It was this course that convinced me on the value of a red dot sight on a defensive handgun. We did several timed accuracy drills at 3 and 5 yards, aiming at small targets.

 

[Buzznrose]

One thing to consider…you may only be shooting 7-10 yards at a threat, but it could be in low light, and/or you may only have a sliver of the threat to shoot at due to cover, obstacles, or innocent people. A red dot makes you more accurate, even up close.

 

[JDeere]

Red dots are being marketed well and some are sold on them for edc. I have one on a target pistol and it improved my groups but for edc nope. It's just not necessary and just something else to go wrong when seconds count imo. I can call my shots just fine with my night or fiber optic sights...

 

[CDW4ME]

I am currently transitioning from a S&W Model 19 revolver in .357 to a Glock 29 subcompact in 10mm, fitted with an RMR.

Better late than never.

 

[starnbar]

One thing to consider…you may only be shooting 7-10 yards at a threat, but it could be in low light, and/or you may only have a sliver of the threat to shoot at due to cover, obstacles, or innocent people. A red dot makes you more accurate, even up close.

One thing when we used simunitions in training was while you are chasing the red dot the bad guy is shooting.

 

[ClicheBro]

Well, yeah. It's 2022.

 

[12Bravo20]

One thing when we used simunitions in training was while you are chasing the red dot the bad guy is shooting.

As with anything, practice and training is the key to success. I've trained enough with pistol mounted optics that I am not chasing the dot.

And if you carry all of the time, you should be practicing as much as possible regardless of what sights you are using.

 

[Buzznrose]

One thing when we used simunitions in training was while you are chasing the red dot the bad guy is shooting.

The bad guy will almost always shoot first and indiscriminately….that’s what makes them bad, right?

Makes me think of the videos of the cop and the bad guy who empty their pistols at each other from opposite sides of a vehicle and no hits are made. Open sights only work if you use them…and only hits count.

Chasing a red dot is a training scar or lack of training. The red dot should be approximately at the same place as the front sight.

Competitive shooters have proven the dot is faster, but I admit the shooter needs to train on it and know how to present the firearm consistently.

 

[Buzznrose]

As with anything, practice and training is the key to success. I've trained enough with pistol mounted optics that I am not chasing the dot.

And if you carry all of the time, you should be practicing as much as possible regardless of what sights you are using.

Dry fire and dry drawing are key to learning the dot.

Julie Golob talked about when she transitioned to a red dot. Sh struggled until her teammate told her to “look for the front sight…then it all came together.

 

[Buzznrose]

Last post as I feel like the horse I’m beating is pretty much dead…

as I practice with drawing and shooting using IDPA targets, I’ve found that at 3-5 yards or less, I can get away with point shooting pretty well, perhaps even at low ready.

From 5-8/9 yards, I really need to get on the sights or at least orient off the barrel to make a good hit.

Beyond that, and out to 30 yards or so, I’m on the sights. I have to be to make a good hit. And the further the distance, the more sure of my shot I can be with a good optic.

YMMV

 

[WrongHanded]

Just an FYI, Dawson Precision iron sights really are excellent quality. If you're looking for more precision than crude chunks of polymer can provide, but you don't want to go electronic, they really are a good option. I particularly like the FO set I have on my G20. The gap on either side of the front sight as it sits within the rear allows for precise sight alignment in well lit and moderately lit areas. In the dark these sights are easily silhouetted via the weapon light.

I also have a full tritium set, and a tritium front and black rear combo. I prefer the FO options with a light, but the tritiums still offer more precision than other designs commonly available. At least in my experience.

None of that matters if your eye sight doesn't play well with iron sights of course. But the option is there.

 

[bigger hammer]

I haven't tried RDS but it's hard to imagine them being better than the TFX night sights on my Shield Plus

Unless I'm missing something, these are just a brand/model of night sight, right? So you still have to line up the front and rear sights and place that properly aligned system onto the appropriate area of the target, right? That's three things that you're aligning; front sight, rear sight, and the target.


With a RDS you just put the red dot where you want the bullet to hit. You watch the threat, not your front sight. Since the eye can only focus on one plane at a time, looking at the front sight places the threat at least, a little bit, out of focus. The RDS allows you to keep the threat in sharp focus while the dot floats at infinity. Absent some vision defect, the dot always remains in sharp focus.


Astigmatism is one such defect that can cause issues with a RDS. For those folks the dot either won't show up in sharp focus or it assumes weird shapes. But not every case of astigmatism means that person can't use a RDS. I have it, and I use one most of the time.

 

[bigger hammer]

My first post began with "For me,".

Yes, I noticed your qualification. But then you began talking about things that were not just " 'For [you]' " You mentioned, "time, money and effort," which are completely subjective, matters of opinion, not facts, so I didn't waste time on them. But then you mentioned "reliability." Reliability is NOT subjective. Talking about it is a recitation of facts, not opinions. I'll be happy to supply some of Aaron Cowan's videos showing his torture tests on RDSs. I asked if you had any information related to failures of these sights, but you didn't reply, leaving us to reasonably assume that you don't have any.

To me an RDS is simply not worth it. I consider my reasons to be highly pragmatic: K.I.S.S.

K.I.S.S. "[Keep It Simple, Stupid {sometimes with the comma, sometimes without}] is a design principle noted by the US Navy in 1960. The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

K.I.S.S. was designed for teaching to "stupid" people. Not stupid as in "unintelligent," but as in "ignorant of the basic concepts" at the start of training. The military model has training being 'dumbed down' for such people.


But I doubt that you are "stupid" and I'm fairly confident that I'm not either. So things don't need to be 'dumbed down' for us to either understand them, or to put them to use.


But let's look at the principle as it applies to new shooters in this situation. Using handgun sights is one of the more complicated things that the people learn. Which statement is easier for a new shooter to understand? Under the stress of a self‒defense situation which one will be easier for a robbery victim to accomplish?

1. "Keep the top of the front sight even with the top of the rear sight, while keeping an equal amount of light showing on both sides of the front sight, keeping it centered in the rear sight. Now, keeping that relationship between the front and rear sight, place the top of the front sight where you want the bullet to go. "
2. Or "Place the red dot where you want the bullet to go"

The first is a difficult concept for many new shooters. It's often accompanied by sketches or other visual aids to help people understand the concept. The second is self‒explanatory. Lining up the sights, holding that relationship between the front and rear sight, and then placing that on the target, is a difficult task relative to "press that lever" to lower the slide, or "press the trigger to make the gun fire". But telling someone to put the dot where you want the bullets to go, is a VERY simple concept that most folks can understand and perform without further explanation. Learning to find the dot on a draw is easy, once one knows 'the secret.'


Competition show us that RDSs, even in their infancy, GREATLY simplify the process of getting good scores. They make shooting easier, faster, and usually result in higher scores. I know that my own scores improved significantly when I started using one. From personal experience I know of MANY people who stopped competing because they could not win against those equipped with RDSs. They called it "cheating." I'm not sure which firearms instructor (I think it was Clint Smith) came up with the phrase, "Always cheat. Always win," but I sure agree with it.


I'm sure they'll we'll find the same thing (improved skills and hence improved results) happening in the self‒defense/LE world as those stats come in. The Rangemaster for my former LEA, tells me that scores on quals have improved about 30% since the officers have been allowed to carry RDSs.


We've had hundreds of students who, when given the opportunity to fire a gun that carries a RDS, tell us how much easier it is to understand the concept, "Put the dot where you want the bullets to go," and how much easier that is to accomplish.


It seems to me that the RDS is THE real K.I.S.S. way to go.

 

[bigger hammer]

... Chasing a red dot is a training scar or lack of training. The red dot should be approximately at the same place as the front sight.

Finding the dot on a draw is easy if one has been properly trained. But lots of people who are good shooters simply put the dot on their gun and then complain that they can't find the dot quickly, and so they badmouth the tool. There are specialized techniques that if learned, make finding the dot easy and reliable. But if you don't know them …

Competitive shooters have proven the dot is faster, but I admit the shooter needs to train on it and know how to present the firearm consistently.

It's a completely different sighting system than what has come before it. Since the dot is not visible until and unless your eye is in the proper place (unlike a front sight that is visible at a glance) for that to happen. Once you learn how to do it, it's easy.

 

[WrongHanded]

Yes, I noticed your qualification. But then you began talking about things that were not just " 'For [you]' " You mentioned, "time, money and effort," which are completely subjective, matters of opinion, not facts, so I didn't waste time on them. But then you mentioned "reliability." Reliability is NOT subjective. Talking about it is a recitation of facts, not opinions. I'll be happy to supply some of Aaron Cowan's videos showing his torture tests on RDSs. I asked if you had any information related to failures of these sights, but you didn't reply, leaving us to reasonably assume that you don't have any.







K.I.S.S. was designed for teaching to "stupid" people. Not stupid as in "unintelligent," but as in "ignorant of the basic concepts" at the start of training. The military model has training being 'dumbed down' for such people.


But I doubt that you are "stupid" and I'm fairly confident that I'm not either. So things don't need to be 'dumbed down' for us to either understand them, or to put them to use.


But let's look at the principle as it applies to new shooters in this situation. Using handgun sights is one of the more complicated things that the people learn. Which statement is easier for a new shooter to understand? Under the stress of a self‒defense situation which one will be easier for a robbery victim to accomplish?

1. "Keep the top of the front sight even with the top of the rear sight, while keeping an equal amount of light showing on both sides of the front sight, keeping it centered in the rear sight. Now, keeping that relationship between the front and rear sight, place the top of the front sight where you want the bullet to go. "
2. Or "Place the red dot where you want the bullet to go"

The first is a difficult concept for many new shooters. It's often accompanied by sketches or other visual aids to help people understand the concept. The second is self‒explanatory. Lining up the sights, holding that relationship between the front and rear sight, and then placing that on the target, is a difficult task relative to "press that lever" to lower the slide, or "press the trigger to make the gun fire". But telling someone to put the dot where you want the bullets to go, is a VERY simple concept that most folks can understand and perform without further explanation. Learning to find the dot on a draw is easy, once one knows 'the secret.'


Competition show us that RDSs, even in their infancy, GREATLY simplify the process of getting good scores. They make shooting easier, faster, and usually result in higher scores. I know that my own scores improved significantly when I started using one. From personal experience I know of MANY people who stopped competing because they could not win against those equipped with RDSs. They called it "cheating." I'm not sure which firearms instructor (I think it was Clint Smith) came up with the phrase, "Always cheat. Always win," but I sure agree with it.


I'm sure they'll we'll find the same thing (improved skills and hence improved results) happening in the self‒defense/LE world as those stats come in. The Rangemaster for my former LEA, tells me that scores on quals have improved about 30% since the officers have been allowed to carry RDSs.


We've had hundreds of students who, when given the opportunity to fire a gun that carries a RDS, tell us how much easier it is to understand the concept, "Put the dot where you want the bullets to go," and how much easier that is to accomplish.


It seems to me that the RDS is THE real K.I.S.S. way to go.

Trying awfully hard to justify your choices to me, aren't you?

It's super difficult to line up a front sight and a rear sight, and easy to put a dot on something. But which one is easier to learn to do? Line up two things you can see, or the one thing you can't see if the pistol isn't already lined up?

You spoke earlier of the light emitter, and how some are shrouded or covered so they can't be obstructed by foreign material. But if something can get between the source of the light and place it is projected, the RDS doesn't work. If something covers the clear lens onto which to the light is projected, the shooter can't use it. If something covers iron sights, you can wipe them with your hand and carry on. Irons can't run out of batteries. If irons get knocked out of zero far enough to be a concern for defensive shooting, it is obvious to the naked eye without needing to shoot the gun and compare POA to POI.

All of that is plainly obvious to a rational mind. But if you really want to convince me that an RDS is worth it, tell me what benefit it will provide the average citizen defender that makes it worth the time money and effort, not to mention the potential for failure.

It appears your answer is accuracy and speed, providing that person shoots enough to be a competition level shooter. But maybe you have more?

 

[Buzznrose]

Guys, I’m definitely not much of a competition shooter. And this ain’t rocket science, because I’m surely not a smart guy…I am a basic and simple guy…

1. I keep my eyes open and on target.

2. I draw and present my firearm keeping my eyes open and fixed on the target.

3. The dot appears and is overlain on the target.

4. I press the trigger and the gun goes ‘bang’.

It isn’t much different than shooting a rifle with an optic. Keep two eyes open, mount the rifle, line up the reticle, and make the shot.

Don’t complicate things by thinking too much into it.

 

[The Glockodile]

…I am a basic and simple guy…

No!

Everybody here is a shemagh - wearing hyperbearded man - warrier endowed with many years of experience in deathdealing combat skills!

 

[WrongHanded]

Guys, I’m definitely not much of a competition shooter. And this ain’t rocket science, because I’m surely not a smart guy…I am a basic and simple guy…

1. I keep my eyes open and on target.

2. I draw and present my firearm keeping my eyes open and fixed on the target.

3. The dot appears and is overlain on the target.

4. I press the trigger and the gun goes ‘bang’.

It isn’t much different than shooting a rifle with an optic. Keep two eyes open, mount the rifle, line up the reticle, and make the shot.

Don’t complicate things by thinking too much into it.

Funny, that's exactly how every pistol I own (all with iron sights) works too. It's almost like I spent time to build muscle memory so that I could present a handgun and have the sights line up with a target. What's really shocking [sarcasm] is that at closer distances, I can do it one handed without looking at either the target or the gun as I bringing it up. And yet, when I look, the sights line up with the target.

But I didn't develop that muscle memory overnight. And I'm sure I could do it with red dots on all my guns if I put in the time and effort.

 

[bigger hammer]

Trying awfully hard to justify your choices to me, aren't you?

No, not at all. In fact, I realize that you're one of those folks who have a closed mind and aren't willing to try this new thing. You've made up your mind without ever trying the tool. Without ever giving it a fair chance. That affects me, not at all. In these discussions, particularly this one about RDSs, this OFTEN happens. I never hope to change the mind of someone like you, whose mind is closed. I write for those who HAVE NOT made up their minds, folks on the fence.

It's super difficult to line up a front sight and a rear sight, and easy to put a dot on something.

Please show us a post of mine where I've said that this is "super difficult." Please cite the post number so we can all go look at it. But it IS FAR EASIER to put a dot on something than it is to first "line up a front sight and a rear sight" and then to put the combination on something.


Reality tells us, based on competition scores, that putting a red dot on something IS faster AND easier than lining up sights on that same object. If it wasn't, those folks wouldn't have their own class in the competition world. The people who make the rules have noticed that folks who use RDSs consistently score higher than people with iron sights. In a gunfight that may mean the difference between living or not. Between coming out "whole" or coming out maimed for life. We've both made our choices.

But which one is easier to learn to do? Line up two things you can see, or the one thing you can't see if the pistol isn't already lined up?

OBVIOUSLY, the RDS is the faster, better choice. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a separate class in competition for those who are using RDSs.


Also OBVIOUSLY if you're ever tried a RDS you didn't get professional training. I'd guess that someone invited you to try their pistol that had one, and not having any instruction, you had difficulty locating the dot. But those of us who had the sense to seek training from a pro learned within minutes how to do it. Training enough to make it second nature took some time, but nowhere near the time that it took to learn to use iron sights quickly.

You spoke earlier of the light emitter, and how some are shrouded or covered so they can't be obstructed by foreign material. But if something can get between the source of the light and place it is projected, the RDS doesn't work.

Just how would that happen in the completely closed environment (often watertight, up to 30' depths) of an enclosed emitter?

If something covers the clear lens onto which to the light is projected, the shooter can't use it. If something covers iron sights, you can wipe them with your hand and carry on.

Now you're drifting into nonsense, perhaps due to a lack of knowledge and/or experience with the tools. The same movement, wiping the "clear lens" with a finger will clear the RDS, just as it will with irons.

Irons can't run out of batteries.

True. But they can be damaged and broken. I've already described my personal experience of damaging both a front and a rear sight, such that they were unusable.


AND the batteries on an RMR are good for thousands of hours. The factory says 17,000 hours at the #4 setting. How they are stored dictates how often the battery will need to be replaced. Leaving them on high settings will shorten battery life, as one should expect. The RMR that I use, the Type 2, 07 model, has a setting that allows for the sight to read the ambient light and then set the dot to an appropriate brightness setting. If that gun is stored in the dark, then the battery will last far longer than on a fixed high setting. I change mine out about every 9 months.

If irons get knocked out of zero far enough to be a concern for defensive shooting, it is obvious to the naked eye without needing to shoot the gun and compare POA to POI.

I'll disagree. That may be the case with most shooters who read this. But for the guy who doesn't closely check his gear, it probably won't be discovered. I'd guess, that based on my decades of firearms instruction, I have a better grasp on how and what new shooters thinks and does, than you do.

All of that is plainly obvious to a rational mind.

Are you suggesting that I don't have "a rational mind" because we differ on this? It seems that since you have never given a fair chance to tool that OBVIOUSLY provides many advantages in both sport and business (meaning self‒defense) situations, that YOU are the one who's wanting here. You are talking theory and opinions and I'm talking facts.

But if you really want to convince me that an RDS is worth it,

I have no interest in "convincing" you of anything. Your mind is made up and you aren't interested in the FACTS, that I've been talking about since we started.

tell me what benefit it will provide the average citizen defender that makes it worth the time money and effort

The average citizen (especially a beginner shooter) will discover that shooting is FAR easier than he thought. He'll find that his speed AND accuracy have taken quantum leaps.

not to mention the potential for failure.

I asked you to show us some failures of RDSs very early in our exchange. I'm still waiting. There have probably been thousands of YouTube videos made testing the various RDSs. You'd think that there would have been lots of failures. But you've not shown us even one! Please back up your comments about these failures with some facts.


But since you keep bringing up "the potential for failure," my rear sight failure happened while I was qualifying for my LEA. I had to go to my back‒up gun to complete the evolution. My front sight failure happened during a night shooting class, putting me into the same situation with the same solution, a back‒up gun. Fortunately I had another complete back‒up gun/light/RDS for the rest of the class. There was no way to repair either breakage without a well‒lit work bench, some spare parts, and some tools. Had it been my RDS that had failed, I'd just have transitioned to the irons and continued.


It seems that you have forgotten that these systems are usually set up to keep the iron sights, albeit a taller set so they can "see" over the RDS, so that in the event of a failure of the RDS, they can still be used. All it takes is to refocus on the sights and go to work. If you had a failure with irons, like the ones that that I've experienced, you'd be left with a broken sight system, that you may or may not be able to compensate for.


There is no backup for your iron sights, is there? Let's see, which failure would be more catastrophic for the CCW carrier in the event that he needed his gun to save his life?

It appears your answer is accuracy and speed, providing that person shoots enough to be a competition level shooter. But maybe you have more?

Please don't try to twist my words. I've NEVER said that one must "shoot enough to be a competition level shooter" in order to enjoy the benefits of a RDS. If you think I have, please cite that post and quote it in your next reply.


It's not just the "competition level shooter" who will discover these advantages, but it's also the beginner and most in‒betweeners too. We run hundreds of people through our classes every year. I always make it a point at the end of a class to ask if anyone wants to shoot my RDS equipped gun. Those who take me up on it, always say something like, "Why didn't you tell me how easy this was?" Or, "WOW! I like this thing!." I don't recall even one student who didn't think it was BOTH faster and more accurate. The only thing that makes them hesitate is the cost of admission.