loneviking
Member
No, it was a dot.
Will Pistol Iron Sights go the way of rifle sights and AR carry handle?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Crimson Trace doesn't make a red dot. They make lasers. These are definitely not the same thing.
Edit: See below. The red dot is mounted on top of the gun. The red dot it produces is NOT visible on the target itself. You could put your hand in front of it and the dot would still be visible to you if you were looking through the window from the rear.
Last edited:
35 Whelen
Member
I think having to "train" with a type of sight speaks volumes in regards to the practicality or lack thereof, with your average shooter. A little over 50 years ago my father gave me a Daisy Red Ryder and explained to me how to align the sights. Other than fine-tuning the use of iron and aperture sights when I participated in High Power competition, that was the extent of my "training" with these sights. A few weeks ago I shot a buck at a little over 40 yds. with a fixed sight revolver. I've done this several times and the sights are never and have never been an issue in these situations. I never even remember the sight picture, only trying the steady the front sight where I want the bullet to go. It really is that simple.
IMHO electronic sights are fine for use in controlled conditions where Murphy doesn't exist, but in the rest of the world where "defecation occurs", simplicity and ruggedness will always be my choice.
35W
IMHO electronic sights are fine for use in controlled conditions where Murphy doesn't exist, but in the rest of the world where "defecation occurs", simplicity and ruggedness will always be my choice.
35W
loneviking
Member
Thanks for the clarification. Nope, I’ve never tried those.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Target color and shading is a problem with open sights more than it is with dot sights, and especially "lit" dot sights.
I have a major problem with losing "plain" iron sights on targets that are "dark" or close in shading to my sights. I use three dot sights and usually use the dots to shoot with in those cases because of it. That would not be an issue with a dot.
And as was mentioned, the focus with the dots, is the target, not the dot. You shouldnt be looking for the dot at all, it just shows up on the target where youre looking.
Lazers are a total waste to me, and I think will get you killed quicker than anything else. At the distances they would likely be used, youre a lot better off with no sights. You should be shooting, not trying to find some stupid little dot out there somewhere on, or off the target.
And one other thing as far as the sights/no sights thing goes, it doesnt matter whats on the gun, iron sights, dot sight, no sights, whatever, there are times you dont need them, or necessarily want them, and there are times you really need them. You need to be well practiced at all of that, not just one part of it, so you dont have to think about anything but the target when you shoot.
If that's the level of "training" that people are bringing to their iron sight shooting, they're going to be very slow with iron sights, too. And, in fact, most people aren't fast with iron sights.
The idea that aligning 4 things (eyeball, rear notch, front post, and target) while focusing on only one of those is somehow more intuitive than looking at a target and superimposing one thing (a dot) is a joke.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Unless the target happens to be coated in small Christmas lights, it isn't a problem.
Well, I've shot red dots indoors lit and in the dark, outdoors in the rain and sun and even using NODs and don't have problems acquiring the dot.
I currently shoot 1.75ish from tone to target from a Safariland 6360RDS with a Sig P320RX.. so.. Training. Training. Training.
35 Whelen
Member
WOW.....I guess I was wrong about needing to train with something as simple as iron sights, evidently some shooters do need to.
So go in peace, and be happy with your electronic sights...and of course a few spare batteries in your pocket...
35W
ClickClickD'oh
Member
I wonder, do you realize that your 50 years of shooting iron sights was training?
Remarkable. I've never met anyone who was remotely serious about their pistol shooting who didn't want to do lots and lots of practicing.
Even us ol dogs can learn new tricks.
Yes, your mount point will be different, but it's not something one cannot overcome.
35 Whelen
Member
That's 50 years of use, not training. I've been riding a bicycle for 50 years, but not training on one.
I'm very serious (If an extremely high level of enjoyment is considered as "serious") about my pistol shooting. My range is about 100' from my shop and it's rare that a day goes by that I DON'T shoot a handgun. But using sights has nothing to do with that training, rather my focus is on consistent grip, muscle control/memory and trigger control. Sights are easy, steadying them on an 8" square piece of steel hanging at 50 yds. is what requires repetitive training.
35W
I feel we're talking past each other in a whole bunch of ways.
Learning to use a red dot is beyond easy in terms of learning to aim. Superimpose dot on target. That's not what people are saying requires training. What requires repetition is the immediate acquisition of the dot off the draw or other presentation of the gun. That requires a consistent index. And so does having the sights appear aligned with an iron sighted gun.
If your shooting doesn't involve time pressure, then time to acquire the sights is a non-factor with red dots and irons alike. It wouldn't take any extra training to ring an 8" steel gong or plate at 50 yards in slow fire with a RDS versus irons.
After years of driving a stick shift, it took me a little while to get used to paddle-shifters on my new car. Yet there's no question they are both easier to learn to use and better from a performance perspective.
Learning to use a red dot is beyond easy in terms of learning to aim. Superimpose dot on target. That's not what people are saying requires training. What requires repetition is the immediate acquisition of the dot off the draw or other presentation of the gun. That requires a consistent index. And so does having the sights appear aligned with an iron sighted gun.
If your shooting doesn't involve time pressure, then time to acquire the sights is a non-factor with red dots and irons alike. It wouldn't take any extra training to ring an 8" steel gong or plate at 50 yards in slow fire with a RDS versus irons.
After years of driving a stick shift, it took me a little while to get used to paddle-shifters on my new car. Yet there's no question they are both easier to learn to use and better from a performance perspective.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
So, you handle a rifle exactly in the same manner that you were at 50 years ago? Impressive if true, and kind of sad... since all other humans learn from repetitive actions. All repetitive actions.
Call me skeptical, but I'm pretty sure the way you handle and shoulder a rifle now is not the same way you did it when your father first showed you how. I'm willing to bet that when you shoulder a rifle there is a whole series of muscle movements involved that puts the rifle exactly where it needs to be on your shoulder, your head exactly where it needs to be on the stock and your eye exactly where it needs to be behind the sight. These are all movements that you have trained yourself to perform. You may not even realize that you are performing these actions. I guarantee you, they aren't movements you automatically did when your father first handed you a rifle.
This is the same way a pistol shooter trains their body to perform the drawing motion. It is an action learned through repetition that no one does quickly and smoothly the first time.
This is the whole concept behind dry fire practice
The same reason I can always tell someone in IDPA hasn't trained on mag changes enough. Their body simply doesn't know the motions to perform without conscious thought to direct them. It's clumsy and awkward where as experienced competitors are more fluid in the same motions.
So yes, your 50 years of doing the same thing has been training.
35 Whelen
Member
Of course I don't handle a rifle the same way as I did when I was 5 years old. Competing in High Power completely and irreversibly changed the way I handle a rifle. But I digress....
The subject is sights, not handling rifles. Or handling pistols. Or IDPA. Or ISPCAXEY. Just sights.
35W
ClickClickD'oh
Member
How do you think using the sights becomes second nature if not becoming more naturally proficient in properly orienting the firearm to present it to the eye?
loneviking
Member
Jmorris
Interesting pictures, thanks for posting. I’d think finding a holster for that wheelie with a sight would be tough?!
Interesting pictures, thanks for posting. I’d think finding a holster for that wheelie with a sight would be tough?!
Hangingrock
Member
Red Dot sights thus application Military, Law Enforcement and Sport shooting venues. As for myself in regards to personal protection, thus concealed carry. If there is an occurrence that requires deployment of my EDC, most likely the distances would be rather close in to contact. At those distances I do not see the Red Dot sight to be advantageous as opposed to a standard set of night sights.
CoalTrain49
Member
I have a dot on a target pistol. Enhances the shooting experience considerably. I like a dot on a target pistol and a laser on my home SD pistol. I also like iron sights on my carry. I wouldn't have a laser or a dot on that. There is no advantage to either at SD distances of less than 15 yards. I've more or less proven that to myself using a friends identical two P-226's, one with a dot and one without. Lasers are worthless in bright light. Just my very non-shooting instructor/downhome redneck/uninformed opinion. So don't quote me, you won't change my mind.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Red Dot optics. No they won't completely replace iron sights. Iron sights will continue to be around for a very long time.
Red dot optics will push many lasers out of the picture. Not completely but will reduce their use.
They, dot sights, will come to dominate in certain shooting sports. They already have in some.They will also replace many scopes for some applications.
Scopes however, due to the magnification will not go away and will continue to be used for a long time.
Red dot optics will push many lasers out of the picture. Not completely but will reduce their use.
They, dot sights, will come to dominate in certain shooting sports. They already have in some.They will also replace many scopes for some applications.
Scopes however, due to the magnification will not go away and will continue to be used for a long time.
<*(((><
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,747
@jmorris I'm always jealous of your home range setup, but I have to ask, have you ever done some target shooting from the pool on a hot day, not that would 'Murica at it's finest.
Good addition to the conversation on the pictures. With RDS's the big decision to make is what MOA the dot should be.
Good addition to the conversation on the pictures. With RDS's the big decision to make is what MOA the dot should be.
In those cases, the answer is simple: Disregard the red dot, just as you would the iron sights if you were point shooting. It doesn't get in the way, but is there if needed for a more anomalous encounter if needed.
I've been out for a while now (sigh) but when I was in the military I grew to like having a red dot on my rifle, and lasers on rifle and pistol for use with night vision. After getting out, my only use for lasers is to entertain and then ultimately frustrate my cats.
As to the notion that self-defense/carry guns are always used at distances that make sights irrelevant:
1. Wow, it's really soon after that TX active-shooter-interruption incident to be saying that.
2. Alright, assume 95% of SD gun use is at a range where no sights are needed at all (I think that's nonsense, and the kind of approach that explains why cops hit with less than a quarter of their fired shots, but let's take it as given). That's not an argument against red-dot sights replacing iron sights. I guess it's an argument against sights at all? But, regardless of the distance involved, there is no distance at which irons are better.
3. A lot of people misunderstand how optical sights improve pistol shooting. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the benefit RDS's give is being able to shoot smaller groups. That is hardly the sole - or even the primary - benefit. They are faster than notch-and-post, and they work better when you focus on the target (in contrast to iron sights, where some sighting performance is lost with a focus on the target rather than the front sight). Their biggest benefit comes when engaging a moving target and/or while the shooter is moving. Their area of greatest performance improvement is precisely the sort of mid-close range stuff with an assailant moving and the user moving that one might expect in a self-defense scenario.
There are, for now, valid arguments about the relative durability of RDS's compared to iron sights. There are valid arguments about whether spending the cost of the gun itself again on a suitable, ruggedized optic is worth the performance boost. There are reasonable arguments about whether waiting another year or two will get you dramatically better RDS options or dramatically cheaper options that are the same quality as the most expensive models today. And one could perhaps even make the argument that most gun carriers aren't really that competent and don't really have a good index, and iron sights are somewhat more forgiving of a very poor index. Those are valid arguments.
"I ain't trying to shoot groups" is not a good argument and reflects a failure to understand how RDSs are used at speed.
1. Wow, it's really soon after that TX active-shooter-interruption incident to be saying that.
2. Alright, assume 95% of SD gun use is at a range where no sights are needed at all (I think that's nonsense, and the kind of approach that explains why cops hit with less than a quarter of their fired shots, but let's take it as given). That's not an argument against red-dot sights replacing iron sights. I guess it's an argument against sights at all? But, regardless of the distance involved, there is no distance at which irons are better.
3. A lot of people misunderstand how optical sights improve pistol shooting. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the benefit RDS's give is being able to shoot smaller groups. That is hardly the sole - or even the primary - benefit. They are faster than notch-and-post, and they work better when you focus on the target (in contrast to iron sights, where some sighting performance is lost with a focus on the target rather than the front sight). Their biggest benefit comes when engaging a moving target and/or while the shooter is moving. Their area of greatest performance improvement is precisely the sort of mid-close range stuff with an assailant moving and the user moving that one might expect in a self-defense scenario.
There are, for now, valid arguments about the relative durability of RDS's compared to iron sights. There are valid arguments about whether spending the cost of the gun itself again on a suitable, ruggedized optic is worth the performance boost. There are reasonable arguments about whether waiting another year or two will get you dramatically better RDS options or dramatically cheaper options that are the same quality as the most expensive models today. And one could perhaps even make the argument that most gun carriers aren't really that competent and don't really have a good index, and iron sights are somewhat more forgiving of a very poor index. Those are valid arguments.
"I ain't trying to shoot groups" is not a good argument and reflects a failure to understand how RDSs are used at speed.
milemaker13
Member
Standard on the phased plasma rifle.
- Status
