Home Main Category Personal Defense

pros and cons of red dot on edc

24

Replies

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Preferences begin to emerge:

    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:

     VS. 
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,392 Senior Member
      I make a point to reinforce my Luddot status. I will wander a bit to make this metaphorical point.

    Back when I was young, autos had mostly standard transmissions...."three on the tree" and a few "four in the floor."  (VWs, etc.)  Automatic transmissions were extra cost and kinda not cool for us teens.  Most of us learned to drive on standard and didn't want to pay extra for an auto that offered less performance than a manual.  Thing is, if you could drive a standard transmission, you could also drive an automatic.  But the opposite was not the case.  I spent a frustrating few hours trying to teach my nephew how to drive a manual transmission, without much luck.

    Back in the 1980s, I had a LEO class in Columbus, GA, me and another officer.  We took my Department ride, a Mazda sedan with a 4 speed and a Wankel engine.  It was a 2 week school and I got sick after about the third day.  I didn't feel like driving to class, but my buddy didn't know how to drive a stick shift.  So, sick as I was, I had to drive the both of us from housing to school.

    The point of this is to say electronic sights are fine, but don't get wedded to them to the point of not being able to use an iron sight. Is this a real possibility?  Could be.  Could also be one of those solutions looking for a problem to solve. Transmissions in cars have improved a great deal to the point that they are now THE standard in automobiles.  Is this possible with dot sights becoming the standard? I hope not. Good sight alignment w/irons is hard to replace.

    I hate to rely on an electronic sight entirely...unless I have to. (Buckmark with a can=have to). The military has a supply system where if your battery or sight fails, you can get it fixed or replaced in no time.  For us LEOs and CC folks, it's a long way back to the battery store.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • ErwinErwin Posts: 7 New Member
    Depends of what you expect to happen in your ordinary day. It depends of the work you do. I usually carrying my Glock 19 with Iron sights (have also hellcat with red dot) for EDC and in my opinion, the EDC gun for self-defense might be used only in short distance. There is no classical aiming, just shooting by sense in emergency, and on short distance, if you are experienced you cant miss...

    P. S. and it is little easier to CC without red dot sights 
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    OK. . .  I've gone to the Dark Side with a Holosun 507.  At least I have two slides, so I don't have to live with it.  Given the weirdness of advancing presbyopia, I expect I'll probably live with it.  Nobody likes needing a crutch, but when you seem to no longer have a foot. . .:(



    Mounted it up on my 17 yesterday with C&H's "Defender" polymer mounting plate, which gives you a stand-off bumper which protects the front of the lens somewhat against damage from slide-racking on holsters or barriers.

    At the onset anyway, I'm going to run it in "auto" mode, which has a sensor to adjust reticle brightness based on ambient light.  The sight also has an auto shut off after 10 minutes of being motionless and "shake awake" that turns it back on when the gun is moved.  I'll probably continue running with the Eotech-like "circle dot" reticle, but may end up clicking it over to the 2 MOA dot without the circle.

    My primary range is currently down, so the 15-yard zeroing (optimum distance to keep a 9mm flying as close to line of sight as possible for the first 40-ish yards) will have to wait a spell. :'(  

    For those of you that don't want to do the math - a sight with 1-MOA adjustments is 6.666666666..... clicks to the inch at 15 yards.  I think I'll just call it seven. . .


    More feedback on some of the other options:

    Trijicon RMR

    PROS:
    It mounts low. 
    The controls are straightforward. 
    It runs a long time on a battery.

    CONS:
    You have to take it off to change that battery and then fire to confirm zero - ideally, after leaving it sit for a day to let your low-strength purple LocTite set up.
    The window is BLUE.  For whatever reason Trijicon is big on blue glass.  Never been a fan of that '70's sunglasses effect.
    The window also seems to be a bit of a lens, with a small amount of distortion around the edges as you move it around.  This effectively reduces the size of the field of view.

    GOOD/BAD???:  It's a physically small sight.  Like SS3 has illustrated, that has some perks for CCW, but it does cut into your field of view through the window.  Because of that small field, you'll want to choose your backup irons carefully for your best combo of usefulness without cluttering up the view through the scope.

    Trijicon SRO:

    PROS:
    It's a nice big window with a nice big field of view.  
    Same simple controls as the RMR
    Has an auto-dimming/brightening mode as an option.  Not as sensitive as that on the Holosuns due to the sensor's location, but nice all the same.
    You don't have to take it off to change batteries

    CONS:
    Probably a bit large for anything other than a full-size, exposed-carry duty gun.
    It has the same blue glass and edge distortion as the RMR but this is far less distracting here due to the larger window putting the edges farther away from the center.

    Leupold Delta Point Pro 2.5 MOA dot:

    PROS:
    It's got a nice big window.
    It has really clear glass.

    CONS:
    Comparably, it's a very thirsty battery-sucking vampire.  Unless you're the sort of fastidious guy who does things on schedules and cleans his CCW weekly weather it's been shot or not, this will be a drain on your relationship with the sight.
    It's TALL, and needs comparably tall backup irons.
    It lacks the two up/down buttons for brightness adjustment that many other sights have - you have to cycle through the full range of settings with the one button you're given.
    You have to poke your finger into your field of view to adjust those brightness settings, and pull it back out to see what adjustment you made.  Kinda slow and laborious in that regard.

    GOOD/BAD???: With the big window and good glass, I would rock this sight on a competition gun with no iron sights in a heartbeat.  If you tend to lock in one brightness setting for all uses, the button to control it is nicely isolated away from things that might bump it.  Might be a bit on the large/tall side for a concealment piece.

    MINI RED DOTS:

    Still pretty new and I haven't gotten my mitts on one yet.  The W&E adjustments on the RMR CC are apparently a very coarse 3 MOA, which if I did the math right works out to a pretty chunky 0.45" at 15 yards.  Good enough for gummint work I suppose.

    The Holosun "K" models are supposedly just like their bigger brothers, except that they don't have room onboard for the solar backup / auto brightness sensor.  Probably the road I will travel - just need to line up a G48 MOS first...
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,563 Senior Member


    The jury is still out, but in almost every way there is indication this setup is making shooting a more intuitive action for me.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,890 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
    OK. . .  I've gone to the Dark Side with a Holosun 507............





    Welcome to the dark side. Do you prefer chocolate chip or sugar cookies?
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 26,070 Senior Member
    I haven’t jumped yet. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    I'm still figuring out what I need in a pair of glasses, but it looks like I'm headed for a distance prescription in bifocals that will give me a fuzzy, but still useful front sight.  What I currently have is tighter than 20/20, which is WAY too fuzzy with pistol sights, though oddly, the view of a front rifle sight through an M4's peep enabled me to shoot one of the best scores on our qual course yesterday that I've ever turned in.  Shot better with the fuzzy front post than the Aimpoint on the optics qual, in fact.

    Anyway, we've got new Gen 5 MOS's on order for the agency and we should be switching over by spring.  Given the current mid-prescription Limbo I'm in, I qualified yesterday with my 17 and Holosun, stuffed it in my EDC holster, and put my much-traveled, Frankensteined-by-breakage circa 1994 Gen 3 22 on the bench for what may be its final detail cleaning. 

    So the real utility I'm seeing with these things is for old guys like me that CAN'T easily get onto their front sight anymore, or for people that DON'T fall back on their training and fixate on the target under stress.

    I still dislike the "technology" of it all and potentially see that as a VERY sharp double-edged sword - the lowest common denominator that needs this thing is probably also the lowest common denominator that will have problems understanding, maintaining, changing batteries, etc...

    The good news there is that the better manufacturers seem to be considering that angle.  While you can't make it completely stupid-proof, they at least seem to understand that stupid will get involved at some point and are trying to build the product accordingly.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • pjames777pjames777 Senior Member Posts: 1,421 Senior Member
    For comp or general practice us old guys can have bifocals reversed for better pistol front site focus.  That way you don't have to lift your head. 
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    pjames777 said:
    For comp or general practice us old guys can have bifocals reversed for better pistol front site focus.  That way you don't have to lift your head. 
    Yeaaaaaah. . .we're looking at trifocals here. . .  First attempt at bifocals gave me distance, and readers. . .with about a 2-foot gap of uselessness where the dash of my car and my pistol sights live.

    I really miss our "bashing-head-against-brick-wall" emoji.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,392 Senior Member
    At my advanced age (75) I still only need eye glasses to read and then it's drugstore readers.  Knock on wood.  I've got general Progressive glasses but don't use them.  My vision is 20-25 with an astigmatism. I can't blame my poor shooting on my eyesight.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
    pjames777 said:
    For comp or general practice us old guys can have bifocals reversed for better pistol front site focus.  That way you don't have to lift your head. 
    Yeaaaaaah. . .we're looking at trifocals here. . .  First attempt at bifocals gave me distance, and readers. . .with about a 2-foot gap of uselessness where the dash of my car and my pistol sights live.

    I really miss our "bashing-head-against-brick-wall" emoji.
    Talk to you Doc about Varilux lenses.  They are a little more expensive, but well worth it for me
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • JaphyJaphy Posts: 161 Member
    Bigslug said:
    I'm still figuring out what I need in a pair of glasses, but it looks like I'm headed for a distance prescription in bifocals that will give me a fuzzy, but still useful front sight.  What I currently have is tighter than 20/20, which is WAY too fuzzy with pistol sights, though oddly, the view of a front rifle sight through an M4's peep enabled me to shoot one of the best scores on our qual course yesterday that I've ever turned in.  Shot better with the fuzzy front post than the Aimpoint 
    an interesting vision exercise is to look through a small aperture and note that vision becomes sharper and the depth of field increases. This can be seen in photos as well. Open up the aperture and the DOF drops. Looking through a tight rear peep may induce the same effect.
    Try it out punch pencil point size hole in a piece of paper notice the image is sharper and the depth of field increases. There will also be a difference in bright light vs low light because the pupils will be dilated in low light reducing depth of field and make the front sight fuzzy
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Diver43 said:
    Bigslug said:
    pjames777 said:
    For comp or general practice us old guys can have bifocals reversed for better pistol front site focus.  That way you don't have to lift your head. 
    Yeaaaaaah. . .we're looking at trifocals here. . .  First attempt at bifocals gave me distance, and readers. . .with about a 2-foot gap of uselessness where the dash of my car and my pistol sights live.

    I really miss our "bashing-head-against-brick-wall" emoji.
    Talk to you Doc about Varilux lenses.  They are a little more expensive, but well worth it for me
    I'll have to look into what their specific claim to fame is, but I have historically NOT liked progressives due to the lack of peripheral clarity.  The narrowing of the field at the bottom is NOT my friend.

    Some more RDS observations:

    My partner went with the same HS507 and Defender mounting plate setup, and paired them with a 1XL sight set.  This gets into a backup sight set that just gives you a bare sliver of sights over the deck of the red dot.

    This pretty much takes tritium dots out of the mix, as the deck of the RDS will obscure much of the front dot.  Not visible enough for me in my current condition, but it may have merit.

    This raises the discussion point of just how necessary tritium would be on sights that are just backups to the RDS anyway - especially when you consider that pretty much anybody running a RDS will have probably already been running a pistol mounted light that will provide the necessary contrast anyway.  The preferred direction I seem to be heading in is basic, blacked out iron sights - cheaper, and you don't have to replace them every 7-10 years when they go dim.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Since this is a Pros and Cons thread. . .

    If your shooting eye needs correction for distance, your red dot will be blurry unless you have your glasses/contacts on.

    So, if that's your particular handicap, it's worth considering that you MAY be better off with iron sights if you have to get up suddenly at 3 am to deal with things going bump in the night.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 13,545 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
    Since this is a Pros and Cons thread. . .

    If your shooting eye needs correction for distance, your red dot will be blurry unless you have your glasses/contacts on.

    So, if that's your particular handicap, it's worth considering that you MAY be better off with iron sights if you have to get up suddenly at 3 am to deal with things going bump in the night.
    You know, I have this same problem and have pondered it quite a bit, and I came to the conclusion that a blurry red dot at conversation distances at 3AM works fine, but so do my iron sights that glow, so practice with both like I did, it becomes self evident pretty quick.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,702 Senior Member
    edited December 2020 #48
    Not having played with a red dot optic on a handgun, but having played with one on an AR, I've found a bigger deal with the 3AM call is that if you're running a weapon-mounted light (WML) and a red dot, you can run into problems with a bright WML washing out the red dot when you turn on the light.  That's where backup irons would be appropriate, in my opinion.  A green filter over the light does seem to give you a little more leeway in washing out the red dot.  This could be due to the red dot I was using, but just something I would look at and consider.

    Overkill is underrated.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,890 Senior Member
    Not having played with a red dot optic on a handgun, but having played with one on an AR, I've found a bigger deal with the 3AM call is that if you're running a weapon-mounted light (WML) and a red dot, you can run into problems with a bright WML washing out the red dot when you turn on the light.  That's where backup irons would be appropriate, in my opinion.  A green filter over the light does seem to give you a little more leeway in washing out the red dot.  This could be due to the red dot I was using, but just something I would look at and consider.

    Maybe. IMO this issue is overstated. At "get off me" distances (let's just say 5yds or less), prove to me that you're really acquiring a full sight picture as opposed to just point-shooting. even with iron sights. Additionally, I keep my RDS relatively bright, specifically because of its pairing with a WML. During the day, it's not an issue, and at night I can still see it even in the lighting.

    This all falls back to a statement I've made a few times that, while IMO a RDS handgun is a better mousetrap, it's still not for everyone. At close distances it does not offer a significant advantage. What it DOES do (for me) is make the handgun overall more useful. Worth potentially doubling the cost of your defensive tool? You decide.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,702 Senior Member
    Like I said, it was just something to consider.  That being said, for me a railed handgun with a WML and a RDS seems like just the thing for the proverbial 3AM call, all things considered.  Beats trying to manage a light separate from a handgun, and the RDS gives you a lot of options.  
    Overkill is underrated.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Not having played with a red dot optic on a handgun, but having played with one on an AR, I've found a bigger deal with the 3AM call is that if you're running a weapon-mounted light (WML) and a red dot, you can run into problems with a bright WML washing out the red dot when you turn on the light.  That's where backup irons would be appropriate, in my opinion.  A green filter over the light does seem to give you a little more leeway in washing out the red dot.  This could be due to the red dot I was using, but just something I would look at and consider.

    Kinda, sorta an apples to oranges comparison I've given a little bit of thought to.

    With rifles, there is definitely a desire to run your red dot only as bright as you have to in order to provide a sharply defined aiming point for precision at distance.

    For the "stone axe" application of a handgun, you can bump up a couple of clicks in the interest of having something that's starkly visible - - -OR you can bump up to one of the larger dot, donut, or delta reticles, dim it down, and still have something that sticks out like a sore thumb.

    There is STILL a line you want to walk with brightness though.  The emerging doctrine with these things seems to be to do THE TOTAL OPPOSITE of how we've trained for years:  maintain hard focus ON THE TARGET, and let the reticle fuzz out slightly.  This does in fact work very well, but if you crank up the dot too high, that focus tends to gravitate back to the dot.  You can still run higher contrast with your background than you would for 100 yard work with an Aimpoint and be fine for pistol chores.

    For the really close and ugly stuff, we're finding that you can pretty much forget the existence of your dot and simply use the window as your reference and do quite well.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Hard post break for separate train of thought:

    Another technical observation and lesson learned:  For mounting these things, follow the instructions, use the correct threadlocker in conjunction with a micro-torque wrench, and give the threadlocker adequate time to harden up before you start shooting.

    I ended up needing to re-mount my Holosun yesterday due to the screws that join my polymer C&HPWS Defender mounting plate to the slide working loose.  I THINK the suspected culprit was a bit of learning curve with a new type of threadlocker my partner's been using.  Unlike Loctite, which you put on the threads, install wet, and let dry in place, this stuff you put on the threads, let dry, and then install.  What I BELIEVE happened was the stuff needed longer to dry, and the act of threading into the slide pushed the goop off the threads and up toward the head of the screw.  The instructions for the polymer mounting plate are to go in to head contact, plus another quarter turn.  I think in this case, "contact" was actually running into a ball of the goo, not screw head against mounting plate.

    At any rate, I re-mounted with the rare unicorn blood purple Loctite, let it sit for a day, and re-zeroed.  All appears to be right with the world.

    Second observation:  I like shooting this G17 SOOOOOOOOOO much better than my G22! 
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,890 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
     

    Second observation:  I like shooting this G17 SOOOOOOOOOO much better than my G22! 
    "ItS sTiLl JuSt a GlOcK" haters comments aside, Glock got a LOT right with the Gen 5 9mm's. Incremental improvements, yes, but as a whole it, IMO, makes for a much better factory gun. The trigger and grip enhancements alone are worth holding out for a Gen 5 over a 4. 
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Actually, while the lack of finger grooves on the frontstrap is a HUGE step in the right direction, it's the whole not being in .40 that's the biggest improvement toward making me WANT to shoot the thing.  The the only things left original on my poor, recoil-battered Gen 3 are the barrel and slide, and after 100-200 rounds, my forearm can tell the difference in what all the wear was coming from.  
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    edited December 2020 #55
    Bigslug said:
    Actually, while the lack of finger grooves on the frontstrap is a HUGE step in the right direction, it's the whole not being in .40 that's the biggest improvement toward making me WANT to shoot the thing.  The the only things left original on my poor, recoil-battered Gen 3 are the barrel and slide, and after 100-200 rounds, my forearm can tell the difference in what all the wear was coming from.  
    Big I have never been able to figure out what you have against the .40.  Out of all the guns in our safe, the 3  40s are the ones I enjoy shooting the most.
    SIG P229,  FN FNS and HK P2000

    Guess that is what makes this game fun, we get to choose
    If I ever get the HK back from my daughter, I may entertain putting a RMR  with a super low profile on it.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 26,070 Senior Member
    edited December 2020 #56
    REMF

    Has the luxury of griping about what the end user is issued while not actually having a dog in the fight. 
    Other than fixing what breaks and re-training the non-hackers. 

    Grain of salt. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member
    Diver43 said:
    Bigslug said:
    Actually, while the lack of finger grooves on the frontstrap is a HUGE step in the right direction, it's the whole not being in .40 that's the biggest improvement toward making me WANT to shoot the thing.  The the only things left original on my poor, recoil-battered Gen 3 are the barrel and slide, and after 100-200 rounds, my forearm can tell the difference in what all the wear was coming from.  
    Big I have never been able to figure out what you have against the .40.  
    Ummm. . .read my post and glean from its content?

    Then examine one of the Gen 5 .40 cals that will be making an appearance.  Unlike their predecessors, they will no longer fit in the same holster as the 9mm's.  They bulked up the slides to add mass to counter the .40's recoil - - in about the same way Beretta needed to do on the Brigadier, and in the same way the HK USP was a massive cinder block from day one.

    The third cross pin in the frame of the Gen 3 and 4 was a reinforcement against the .40, which, ironically, broke a lot in the Gen 3 .40's.  There were several locking block revisions, and the need to add an extra coil to the G22 vs. G17 mag spring to keep the rounds from nose-diving under the snappier recoil (it works until the springs get tired).  Last I checked, their .40 cal mag followers were on their 10th revision.  After the Gen 3, recoil springs became caliber-specific, and the interface surfaces between firing pin and firing pin safety on both 3 and 4 spec .40's manage to gnaw each other gradually to failing of the FPS function check (fortunately, it's just a redundant safety).  While all this was going on, Chuck Taylor kept writing at length of his early gen 17 that as of a few years ago had exceeded a quarter million rounds on mostly original parts - the .40's generally need some respringing after only a few thousand.

    Then compare your solid milled slide P229 to the stamped exterior / pinned breechblock assemblies of the older P220/225/226/228's.  They didn't go to a more expensive manufacturing process for the fun of it. 

    Ironically, we've spent the best part of the last 30 years slapping band aids on all those high-pressure/snappy recoil problems when the ammo performance issues that gave us concerns with the 9mm to begin with were mostly sorted out by around 1993,  At the end of the day, the two rounds perform about the same (the 147 grain 9mm actually tending to penetrate better) and one has about 30-40% less recoil which does NOT require its launch platform to be built with a "Baja 1000" frame and suspension.  Hysteria and marketing hijinks are probably most of why we have the .40 - we really didn't need it then; it offers no qualitative advantages now.

    Now, this being a red dot sight thread, one of the major concerns for running them on a carry gun is the sturdiness of the slide-to-sight mounting juncture.  Some mounting systems have proven to be inadequate regardless of caliber, but the .40 is going to add significant acceleration stress to whatever method is used to craft that joint.  If production of platforms for the .40 persists, this will likely prove to be yet another area where using pre-existing components that were originally engineered for 9mm  or .45 ACP will prove an unsatisfactory approach.  Much like a rifle smith rechambering a Remington 700 for something large will bore out the 6-48 scope mounting screws for 8-40's, so it will need to be with red dots on a .40 caliber pistol.

    So, no, not a .40 fan.  Hopefully this gives you understanding of the why.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,702 Senior Member
    edited December 2020 #58
    Bigslug said:

    Ummm. . .read my post and glean from its content?

    Most of the problems you describe arise not from the cartridge itself, but from gun makers trying to save a buck and cram something into a platform it probably has no business being in in the first place, honestly.  Rather than honestly evaluate the .40 vs the 9mm, they looked at them dimensionally and said, "This will fit, we will make it work."  That's not a fault of the cartridge, but the makers.

    Then examine one of the Gen 5 .40 cals that will be making an appearance.  Unlike their predecessors, they will no longer fit in the same holster as the 9mm's.  They bulked up the slides to add mass to counter the .40's recoil - - in about the same way Beretta needed to do on the Brigadier, and in the same way the HK USP was a massive cinder block from day one.

    This is a gun design issue.

    The third cross pin in the frame of the Gen 3 and 4 was a reinforcement against the .40, which, ironically, broke a lot in the Gen 3 .40's.  There were several locking block revisions, and the need to add an extra coil to the G22 vs. G17 mag spring to keep the rounds from nose-diving under the snappier recoil (it works until the springs get tired).  Last I checked, their .40 cal mag followers were on their 10th revision.  After the Gen 3, recoil springs became caliber-specific, and the interface surfaces between firing pin and firing pin safety on both 3 and 4 spec .40's manage to gnaw each other gradually to failing of the FPS function check (fortunately, it's just a redundant safety).  While all this was going on, Chuck Taylor kept writing at length of his early gen 17 that as of a few years ago had exceeded a quarter million rounds on mostly original parts - the .40's generally need some respringing after only a few thousand.

    Gun design

    Then compare your solid milled slide P229 to the stamped exterior / pinned breechblock assemblies of the older P220/225/226/228's.  They didn't go to a more expensive manufacturing process for the fun of it. 

    Gun design

    Ironically, we've spent the best part of the last 30 years slapping band aids on all those high-pressure/snappy recoil problems when the ammo performance issues that gave us concerns with the 9mm to begin with were mostly sorted out by around 1993,  At the end of the day, the two rounds perform about the same (the 147 grain 9mm actually tending to penetrate better) and one has about 30-40% less recoil which does NOT require its launch platform to be built with a "Baja 1000" frame and suspension.  Hysteria and marketing hijinks are probably most of why we have the .40 - we really didn't need it then; it offers no qualitative advantages now.

    The .40 S&W was introduced in 1990.  The 9mm "fix" was 3 years later.  Kinda hard for most to accurately prognosticate what'll happen in most industries 1 year into the future, much less 3.  

    Now, this being a red dot sight thread, one of the major concerns for running them on a carry gun is the sturdiness of the slide-to-sight mounting juncture.  Some mounting systems have proven to be inadequate regardless of caliber, but the .40 is going to add significant acceleration stress to whatever method is used to craft that joint.  If production of platforms for the .40 persists, this will likely prove to be yet another area where using pre-existing components that were originally engineered for 9mm  or .45 ACP will prove an unsatisfactory approach.  Much like a rifle smith rechambering a Remington 700 for something large will bore out the 6-48 scope mounting screws for 8-40's, so it will need to be with red dots on a .40 caliber pistol.

    Again, firearms design.  Not a problem with the cartridge.

    So, no, not a .40 fan.  Hopefully this gives you understanding of the why.

    Personally, I don't care about the 9mm vs .40 debate.  9mm works for me, my brother prefers .40, it works for him.  But you're being disingenuous if you're taking knowledge of today or even 20 years ago and criticizing those who didn't have it 30 years ago.  While it is legitimate to criticize the designers for not beefing up their platforms, that's not because of the cartridge itself, but beancounters, lack of adequate testing, and misplaced faith in one's own design.  
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    Well if nothing else you have a well thought out reason (s), and not because so e gun rag or range master told you so.  
    I have yet to have an issue with any of mine.  Thanks for taking the time to splain
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • BamaakIIBamaakII Posts: 408 Member
    edited December 2020 #60
    Slide mounted red dots take enormous abuse from the constant g forces when fired.  Most of the ones out there do not take that abuse well.  I had a vortex that lasted less then 1000 rounds.  The more expensive ones have better electronics that are rated for those g forces but they still fail.  Go look on Enos competition website and there is not a brand out there that people don't complain about failing.  Which ever type you choose, get one with a lifetime warranty and get some irons tall enough to use if they fail and practice with them and the dot turned off.  

    The biggest difference is finding the dot on presentation.  It takes some practice, especially with a smaller dot.  I have several c-mores, a, vortex and a delta point pro on competition guns.  The DPP, has stood up well so far on a 9mm slide.  Told you about the vortex already, now it sits on atop a non moving victory.  The c-mores have been chugging along for years on rifles and one .22 pistol.  Dot size is important, for self defense, you don't really need a 2 moa dot.  I would not go below 6 for SD. So you can acquire it faster. My smallest is a 6.5 moa  triangle on my DPP.  I have been considering putting one on a carry gun and maybe shooting it in carry optics class.   A custom milled slide is the route I would go.  Closer to the bore and more custom fit.  Just don't by a cheap one and get one that shuts down and restarts automatically.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,800 Senior Member

    BamaakII makes some excellent points on dot size and these are still issues I'm wading through.

    My standard maxim is to start the gear discussion with the question of "What is this tool for?", and when the answer is "defensive shooting", he's correct in that the big dots are more than adequate (6 MOA only covers an 3/4" at 12 yards), and they are definitely fast to find.  

    They ARE kind of coarse if you like to spend time seeing what you and your handgun are capable of, so it's probably worth having an honest chat with yourself along the lines of "soda bottles at 50 yards may be fun, but that's not what this tool is for"

    I agree that a 2 MOA dot by itself on a pistol tends to suffer from a case of the "itty bittys"

    The Holosun 32 MOA circle / 2 MOA center dot is at least an attempt at being the best of both worlds.  At the ranges this stuff typically gets used, the circle will cover less that 4 inches (so just cover the desired area and start patterning), and the center dot will provide that bit of precision for those that can use or want it.  I like it at this early stage, but in keeping with BamaakII's thoughts, I kinda wish Holosun offered their 8 MOA donut as an extra reticle in the 507's menu, rather than as a stand-alone aiming device in the 407.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement