Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
KMT2
Posts: 373 Member
pros and cons of red dot on edc
KMT2
Posts: 373 Member
I saw a neat video of a person on his conversion from iron sights to a red dot.
any thoughts?
Zee Id like to hear your thoughts greatly.
any thoughts?
Zee Id like to hear your thoughts greatly.
If you think OHSA is a little town in Wisconsin you may be in trouble!
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
Replies
Anything with a battery is bound to fail when you need it the worst...which is why I still carry a compass....
They are big, even a little one. You would need a custom holster or have very limited choices. They require a battery. IMHO, anything that can go bad will at the worst time. For example, my XTC rifle is scoped with a lighted reticle. My team mate on the match we were shooting asked how long does the battery last. I told him right up to halfway through that last string. I am not saying it caused me to shoot worse on the last stage, but it did cause me to shoot differently. The height is different from the bbl. It feels like you acquire the sight picture differently.
Now on the target pistol, it is the cats butt. I love it and I need to get past 50 yards so it isn't boring when dinging steel, but I wont put one on a carry pistol.
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain
Which mounting plate? It matters. Filling the gap in the slide; how much screw engagement; correctly torquing down. . .
The sight itself? Batteries, glass, gears, switches, waterproofing (hopefully), different modes of brightness adjustment and their compatibility with your flashlight. . .
Taller backup sights and a new holster to accept both them and the altered pistol.
The next negative - once you start needing that crutch in order to stand up and walk, are you going to add that tech to every handgun you own?
All of this, which potentially doubles the cost of the weapon, to solve what problem?
"The Job" is to place rounds into a volleyball-sized target at what will in all likelihood be ten yards or less.
I'll take the stone axe that works without the need for a six page pre-flight checklist. You can buy A LOT of practice ammo for the cost of one of these Game Boy sights and its peripherals.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
.
Spoiler Alert: For my personal uses, the pros greatly outweigh the cons. For my desires, adding a RMR and training with it have expanded the utility of the handgun (which is my primary defensive tool after avoidance and deescalation fail) for me. WITH THAT SAID, more practice and training is required to get the added value of the RMR. As such, I don't really consider it worth it for the casual user. The armed professional or more serious hobbyist, who is willing to put the time and effort in to learn, will glean added benefits. If you aren't willing or able to put the practice in, maybe it isn't for you.
Pros:
- Changes your shooting to target/threat focused. No more aligning sights, get front sight crisp, etc. Focus on target, break shot when there is acceptable sight picture.- Tied into the above, it genuinely makes longer distance shots easier.
- With training, there are no short range disadvantages. I've found that issues "finding the dot" are mainly derived from inefficient, sloppy draws. Additionally, at short "get off me" distances, prove to me that you're really aligning your sights for point shooting anyway.
Cons (and rebuttals where applicable):
- Cost. This is by far the biggest con. The most recommended "HD/Duty/Carry" MRDSs, the ubiquitous RMR (my choice), various Holosun choices, and the Leupold Delta Point Pro range from $280-$450 or so depending on what sale you catch. Then you're getting into suppressor height backup sights should you choose. There's no way around it, realistically you're adding another $400-$500 in cost to the gun itself.- Set Up. If you're into tinkering with guns, this is really a non-issue, but it is there. Decide if you want a milled slide (another added cost) or a factory system such as MOS. Find the appropriate screw lengths and mounting plate (C&H really is the way to go), torque everything down, zero the optic, etc et all.
- Batteries. Big yawn, on the RMR and the Holosun 507/508's the battery life could be measured in years. Change them out on some selected day each year, with every time change, whatever event you fancy that you'll actually remember. You change your smoke detector batteries, right? What about putting more gas in your car? Just like these other chores, make it a routine.
- Zero must be verified. See above. So what? I certainly hope you're shooting your iron-sighted EDC more than once a year. Just verify the zero when you replace the battery. Plot twist: I've yet to have a RMR lose its zero.
- Inclement Weather. Again, not convinced as to how real of an issue this is. I've used my RMR in driving rain, fogged up, etc and I could still see the dot and reliably make a shot. Anti-fog does wonders, which does tie back into the maintenance/set up con. Perhaps if the window is completely packed with snow it wouldn't work. How much this matters is up to each end user.
Myths and Exaggerations:
- Added weight and bulk. Does another 1-2 oz added to your EDC make or break you? If so, then maybe this is a fair statement. As far as added bulk, it's a non-issue. See the below photo comparing a RMR equipped Glock v. a normal one in the same holster:- Reliability. Red dots have worked reliably on rifles for years. The technology is now here on handguns. Modern red dots, particularly the RMR, are remarkably durable. Is there a chance of failure? Yep, definitely. To me, the chance is so remarkably low that I will take it (and train accordingly for potential failures).
***As a bit of a funny anecdote on MRDS reliability. Both my good friend and I shoot and carry RMR equipped Glock 19's. As a bit of irony, we have both experienced critical failures with the backup iron sights (my front sight flew off, his rear sight drifted out) but NOT with the RMR's mounted. This is obviously in no way a blanket condemnation, but I find it entertaining***
- Reduced Proficiency with Irons. This is entirely hearsay and conjecture, but I'm hearing more and more that a lot of people feel they shoot BETTER than before when they switch back to irons on pistols. The leading belief in this is that the increased proficiency on draw and other components of weapons handling to utilize a red dot also translate back to irons. YMMV, and I haven't played with this much myself to speak on it.
- Different Presentation than With Irons. I'm hesitant to mark this as a myth, but hear me out. YES, the presentation with the dot is different, ish. See my previous comment about efficient draw, etc translating back to irons. I personally have no issue whatsoever in regards to presentation switching back to irons, if anything it's easier because I'm relying less on "cheating" with my peripheral vision. Again, YMMV.
Overall, for me it's well worth it. I argue that for the average citizen carrying concealed, the handgun is in fact not your last ditch weapon. While your most valuable assets in your daily safety are avoidance and deescalation, when that fails you're not relying on a rifle, you're relying on your carry gun. Why would you turn down the opportunity to make that tool more effective? Just my $.02.
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
for the comments
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
Maybe just stick with iron sights
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
It seems that you have made a point that because I need or desire the use of a secondary device on an edc, that I should not at all be carrying one. That I am not capable of handling myself with a gun. I have been considering your comment and , quite honestly sir, if i choose to have a site on my edc, that is a hollow, red dot, or anything other than iron sites , it is my choice. I was asking people that I trust to help out on a decision.
To let you know I am very proficient with my hand guns irn and scope site. Matter of fact, I use a handgun as a primary weapon when hunting. That is a fact that many here will testify to.
You also do not know what issues I have to deal with to allow for my shooting. I do not like wearing trifocals, but I wear them. Why because of surgical interventions that allow me great distance sitting. I prefer to not make a mistake at the range or in a carry situation.
If the red dot will help with that I'm fine with it.
If a laser will do that I'm also fine with it.
I will still out shoot most average shooters , with my pistols using iron sites. SO I am not afraid of it.
But you have no right to tell me not to carry or shoot, let alone what I should have. The post was for me gathering information, and specifically from a few that I felt would be honest and give good comments.
It would be good of you to curb your comments of this sort here. It is not appropriate. We are here to have fun and talk guns and shooting. We are not here to down grade or belittle others.
The admins will review this and most likely understand I have dealt with it. If not they will.
May you have a good day and safe shooting.
Kevin M. Thomas
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
And thinking more on it, many people routinely participate in splatting fast moving clay pigeons and small fluffy birds quite successfully with nothing more than a steel BB for a sight.
Whatever. . .the fishing industry would probably fold if not for products designed to catch fishermen more successfully than fish.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Peace is firing my guns or 60 feet below the surface of the water.
They work well on rifles, military uses them very effectively and if I was in the sandbox, I'd have one. On my rifle. Dot is big (or was) but I once shot a pigeon with a red dot on a M 16. Same rifle, same dot...went to a 2-week rifle course and the dot quit on me,,,in the middle of an exercise. That was long ago, though, and the newer rifle dots are outstanding. On a rifle.
Without going again into the morass of "expectations of a SD handgun" thread, do you really need an electronic on your pistol? I don't but your needs may be different. If my eyesight gets like Mr. Magoo's, I'll consider it. In the meanwhile when I practice SD shooting I'll do it either with irons (to build confidence) or by instinct: point and shoot as quick as I can and still hit the target.
Lasers? Not for ne, either. Same argument. A well-known firearms trainer and I discussed this subject regarding J-frame revolvers. He thought the money spent for laser grips could be better spent on practice ammo.
We're headed in the direction of these things at work, so it's yet another case of me being dragged kicking and screaming into a future into which I don't particularly want to go - so, I've been doing the research.
Iron sights are a possibility - figuring out what parts to buy is a bit of a nightmare that we are in the early stages of working through. You have the red dot sight. . .you have a mounting plate available from several sources. . .you have taller "suppressor sights". You need the height dimensions of all three to build a system that works with the right co-witness appearance. Basically, it turns a stone axe tool for a stone axe job into a comparative Apollo rocket of complexity
Lately, I have some potential for interest/necessity - I had my non-dominant left eye LASIK-corrected for distance 4 months ago, and it turns out that it can still crank back into the front sight distance for everything I shoot. The myopic dominant right eye got left alone thinking that would be a problem (and that's been driving me nuts uncorrected), but after a shooting trial with a contact lens at the required prescription, I'm 99.9% likely going to get it done for distance shortly as well. I SHOULD be good to go for both irons and red-dot optics and only need reading glasses for super-close stuff, but I probably won't know until I know.
If you're sorted out for distance and CAN'T crank back to front sight distance, they've got some real possibilities - the trade off being glass, batteries, gears, wires, etc...
Should be an interesting next few months...
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
I know its as sinful as a full magazine waiting to be wasted. Insert mag cut off here. But human's have physical limitations and compensate with tools.
My partner is trying out a Holosun 407-CO. Instead of the more common solid dot, this CO version uses an 8 MOA donut reticle with a 6 MOA inner circle.
Not really giving much thought to the reticle shape, we mounted up a set of Ameriglo 3XL height backup sights, as these were the recommended height for 1/3 cowitness (or lower 1/3? Still sorting all this out) with a standard Holosun 407/507.
If we were running the 407 or 507 with the more basic 2 MOA dot, this would possibly be the case. Given the extra diameter of the donut reticle, however, the "ball" is split by the top edge of the sights. Currently thinking that the donut will want a lower 2XL or even 1XL sight set, even though it's the same mount height and sight body as the dot-equipped 407 and 507.
What's proving to be a little maddening (for us) is that there currently is no standard system for measuring this stuff. You've got different mounting plate thicknesses, red dot deck heights, and sight heights that might be measured from different reference points, and different depths of slide cuts (fortunately, we only care about Glocks at this point). Throw the above reticle curve ball into this mix, and it's all proving to be WAY more complicated than just "Hey, I bought a new set of night sights. Can you mount them up for me?"
I will say this for it as a sight - the sucker IS fast on target and recovery, but as I like to say, this seems to be taking a stone axe tool for a stone axe job and adding a space shuttle level of complexity
Thus begins the process of mounting up different sights and writing stuff down. Have I mentioned lately how I hate "progress"?
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
The more I think about this analogy, the less I agree with it. Though there is some guesswork involved in BUIS height, plates, etc (especially since you seem adamantly against the proven RMR / CHPWS Plate / Ameriglo or Dawson BUIS combo), the actual process of setting up a RDS handgun is no more complicated than scoping a rifle. Nobody argues about the advantages of optics on rifles, even at added cost and complexity.
You're not turning a stone axe into a space shuttle. You are turning a handgun into a RDS equipped handgun. As I've said before, if a handgun is your primary defense (or offense in some cases) system, it is indeed not a stone axe job. It is a handgun job. If all you needed was a stone axe, we'd be arguing about which stone is best for our concealed carry hatchet. We carry handguns instead of stone axes because they are a better tool for the job, that is not disputed.
Your mileage may vary, and for some the added cost and training isn't worth it, but for me and many I know the juice is worth the squeeze to take the RDS plunge. Apparently an increasing number of PDs, federal agencies, and military organizations agree.
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
Mounted up an HS507 in place of the 407 on the same Glock. Exactly the same body, but with more versatility in that it lets you toggle between three reticles - combinations of a 2 MOA center dot and a 32 MOA outer ring. Allowed me to more easily confirm what I suspected with the fat donut reticle - that this sight body + a C&H mounting plate + a 3XL height Ameriglo sight set = a 100% true cowitness sight picture with the reticle sitting on the top edge of the front sight if you line up the sights instead of just looking over them.
Will play with the lower 2XL sights at some point in this exercise to see how a lower 1/3 setup (with the reticle floating over aligned sights) plays.
So here is where I think the division in the learning curve between experienced iron sight shooters and noobs is going to be:
You don't have to line up your iron sights at all with these things, and with either cowitness setup, you can simply look over the irons and have your reticle floating above them in the middle of the window. In truth, that's the preferred sight picture, and in doing so, you just ignore your irons until the red dot craps out. Easy enough for the noobs. But when I see a set of irons - even if I pick up a red dot first - I've got 40+ years of practice screaming from my lizard brain to line them up. So my preliminary response is that that 100% cowitness or lower 1/3 cowitness probably won't matter for the noobs, but that lower 1/3 cowitness may well be preferable for us dinosaurs. NOT having iron sight backups is NOT an option, so picking what your brain can best deal with in a hurry is worth considering.
The 507's circle/dot reticle is EXACTLY what you're used to seeing if you use a rifle-mounted Eotech. I can take or leave it on a rifle, but for a pistol, I kinda like it. At 12 yards, that circle is 4" across, and I regard 4 inches as the size of target you're trying to connect with in these kinds of social undertakings, so it makes for a very handy tool in figuring out where you need to go and when you are in fact there.
My own little innovation to the process: most of these sights seem to be 1 MOA per click for windage and elevation. The common practice seems to be to zero them at ten yards (because it's fast), and the trajectory of the rounds jives well enough with the (usually) 25 yard zero of the irons to where there's practically no difference in POI. My take is that a 1 MOA click being an inch at 100 yards will equal 1/8 of an inch at 12.5 yards, so I stick my zeroing stepladder there, just to keep all the math easy. Sure, it's a tenth of an inch at ten yards, but when you figure short range MOA corrections by repeatedly chopping the distance in half from 100 yards, it works.
Up soon: Trijicons and Leupolds!
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Great comment using no sight.
Friends and I have been practicing point and shoot for a few years with .22 handguns. It is not quick draw or shooting from the hip. Eyes on target, arms at the side, raise and extend one arm, fire, try for less than 3 seconds, repeat 10X. Several consistently put 10 consecutive inside a 5 inch bull at 25ft. It requires practice. That exercise is forbidden at ranges around here so we head to the desert a few more miles out.
In the engineering world we know that the final 20% improvement comes at 80% of the cost and most often good enough is good enough, 10 rds in a 5in bull, no sight, 1 handed at 25ft is good enough
The Ameriglo 2XL sight set paired with the HS507 atop the C&H plate DID make a big positive difference compared to the "true cowitness" 3XL.
With the 3XL, when you elevate your head slightly to increase the gap between the dot and the top edge of the iron sights, the irons rather clearly get vertically misaligned. If you manage to program yourself to totally ignore the irons, this is a non-issue, but if your lizard brain has 40 years of experience screaming at you to "LINE THOSE SUCKERS UP!", you end up looking at the more cluttered true-cowitness sight picture.
With the 2XL, doing the same thing does not give near the same "that ain't right" sight picture (that you SHOULD be ignoring) below your dot..
So we have a set of 1XL's coming to see what we get. The goal at this point seems to be to establish how low we can go with the irons and have a useable top edge of sights, but still have some combination of tritium dots that does not get cut off by the red dot's deck.
Doubtless, there will be time spent with calipers as we figure out the puzzles for the various sights we're looking at. Fun to learn all this, however, it's got me standing by my earlier statement:
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee