Is it just me or are handgun optics with co-witnesses a meme?
literally just get night sights
Is it just me or are handgun optics with co-witnesses a meme? literally just get night sights
Is it just me or are handgun optics with co-witnesses a meme?
As a whole I think putting red dots on handguns is pretty dumb
NTA but a common thought is that since handguns are usually 25 meters or less weapons, they dont offer much benefit, your target should be easy to acquire at that range, in fact, in a defensive situation you probably arent even gonna be looking down your sights at all
Meanwhile you have a closet full of firearms where there's a one in a million chance you'll use any of them to do shit with but range days and gather dust. Contingencies and off chances are what pros plan for.
>Meanwhile you have a closet full of firearms where there's a one in a million chance you'll use any of them to do shit with but range days and gather dust.
That's the plan!
>Contingencies and off chances are what pros plan for.
>Planning for "contingencies and off chances" is just what people tell themselves to justify buying more toys.
Also true. The questions comes down to the personality of the user. If the user has a toy horder mindset, then yeh, they will buy shit they never use and buy gear that would otherwise help but they will never teach themselves to implement.
From what I'm hearing, red dots are a good force multiplier in terms of getting on target quickly and recovering sight picture from the recoil.
I'm the guy that made the m110 thread. I really want to develop my skills as a marksman with a rifle that gives me the best capabilities for rapid correction shots. So I'm going to learn the ballistics of the round and teach myself how to sight in a rifle at such distances. Hopefully I don't fall into the mistakes of millions of Americans of going to the range a couple of times then stopping.
>in a defensive situation you probably arent even gonna be looking down your sights at all
i consistently see in footage of defensive situations where people are using their sights. this argument has been done to death but in a chaotic environment where the thing you are trying to shoot at is moving while you may also be moving, anything that makes lining up a shot just a little bit easier is an advantage. It may not be personally worth it for some people because a red dot will make a handgun slightly harder to conceal but i think its pretty undeniable most people find it easier to shoot with red dots than irons.
engaging at 25 yards with with irons on a pistol is an exceptionally hard task that most people underestimate, thinking they can do it until they try. a red dot effectively quadruples your effective engagement distance, which is nothing to scoff at.
Go shoot at 25 with irons then go shoot with a red dot, then come back and say that red dots are pointless.
also it's more shit that can snag on clothing.
>he seriously wears clothing
Great points, anon. Rifle optics and handgun optics are a little different.
Would you be open to buying a range queen just for the optics? Ignoring the carry implications.
Absolutely. I have been looking at buying an optic for my P-09 as a range/competition gun for a couple years, but every time I think about it, I feel the money would be better spent on something else. It also doesn't help that since 2020, I have been shooting my full size guns very rarely since most of my ammo goes through the smaller carry guns.
It's just extra shit that isn't needed. If yiu are shooting at people you just want to be firing center mass. A red dot isn't going to help you do that, you aren't an elite operator doing room clearance or trying to shoot a guy in the face because he's wearing body armour and and helmet. And if you are, you just going to dump rounds at the head till you get a hit.
It's also unnecessary to have a pair of nice workboots that won't chew your feet up on a jobsite. You don't actually NEED boots that are comfortable, and many people make do with shitty boots. But once you have owned a really nice pair that make your life easier and improve your QOL, it's hard to go back. Same with RDOs.
That's probably the shittiest analogy I've ever read. Take a second and reread that, and ask yourself if you should have posted it in the first place.
Not that anon, but I read it and perfectly understood what he was getting at. QOL things aren’t necessary and most people go their whole lives without some of them. But once you try one, it’s hard to go back. This is true for lots of things, why wouldn’t it also be true for red dots?
Seems fine to me. The point is not to create an ironclad, direct analogy as much as it is to demonstrate the idea that sometimes you can reach for things a little bit further than our direct "needs." You don't need a red dot on a pistol any more than you need a good pair of boots. When you get right down to it, none of us really "need" a gun in the first place. Of course, we don't tend to think very highly of the idea that you must somehow "need" something to which you have an inalienable right. Maybe whether or not you "need" a red dot is a completely fallacious argument from its most basal fundaments. In other words, if I want a red dot on my pistol... SHALL, you nosy little moron.
My point was that if you're wearing boots that are uncomfortable and will "chew up your feet" at work, there's something wrong and you need new shoes now. It's not something you think twice about. Carrying irons sights does not give anyone discomfort nor make the a day's work painful. One is a QOL toy, the other is a necessity if you're on your feet all day in a labor job. I will also point out that still nobody in this thread has posted any evidence of ownership of a handgun with an optic despite the incessant defense of the things.
It makes sense for military, police, or target shooting, but any actual defensive use you will be at 7 yards or less. At that range you're point shooting to get ass many rounds down range as you can. The top priorities for CCW are concealability, reliability, and magazine capacity/stopping power depending on your preference. You're really aren't likely to use the sights.
That case where the dude shot the mass shooter in the mall 40 yds was truly a 1/1,000,000 use case. If you want to prepare for a 1 in a million occurrence, absolutely go ahead. But if you're concerned about budget because handgun optics are pricey then it's fair to say that you lose almost nothing by foregoing an optic on a handgun.
You've never tried a handgun with an RDS, have you? It doesn't seem like it.
>If you want to prepare for a 1 in a million occurrence, absolutely go ahead
Anon why don't you go ahead and look up the average American's likelihood of being involved in a DGU for me
Cuz it's ALREADY extremely fucking low.
Since you're already preparing for an extremely unlikely edge case, why not spend a couple hundred more bucks and cover that extra base?
Like anons keep saying, this anti reddot shit is either poorfag cope or inexperience cope lol
What exactly is that extra base that needs to be covered? In what realistic scenario in the history of DGUs has a person been killed or wounded yet would have avoided such a fate had they carried a pistol with an optic?
Thank you for defaulting to the thing for which I have text saved because I have debunked it so many times.
Aaron Cowan's white paper has a few holes in it, and I think there's a reason why, in almost 10 years, nobody has been able to replicate the results, on video or otherwise. My biggest issue is that in the scenarios they tested, there was no shot timer nor a failure condition for the participants. The only thing tested was accuracy, and considering surviving a real shooting is dependent on speed and accuracy, we're missing a really important piece. Yes, the red dot showed much greater accuracy, but without the speed component, we can't be sure if that greater accuracy came at the expense of spending a significantly longer time lining up the shot/finding the dot.
As for the failure condition I mentioned, I mean that there is no stated way in the which the person defending themselves could fail the scenarios. On pages 42 and 43, Scenarios A through D are described, and high attention to detail is given to how the "threats" should act, such as advancing toward the student with a melee weapon, or pointing their simunition gun at the student. However, there is no way for the defending student to "lose" the scenario, which, in combination with lack of recorded times, could possibly mean that the "threats" would just continuously advance or stand there while the student lines up their shot. We don't know the details, but there doesn't seem to be a stated need for urgency from the students.
Lastly, and this is just my opinion, the holes in the data are at risk of seeming deliberate when you learn that Mr. Cowan teaches handgun optic classes, and thus is in a position to profit from more people buying red dots.
Ah, so you're just wilfully retarded.
Proof in optic superiority is a lot simpler than looking at a paper or some bullshit. It's not scientific, but if you look on practiscore, iron sight handguns get consistently mogged in hit factor by optics divisions. Not having a dot in current year is simply poor cope
Oh goody, I get to include the part of the previous saved text that I omitted because it wasn't relevant at the time.
>Using USPSA data to talk about self defense shootings is a waste of time because they're two different worlds. USPSA matches involve 20+ rounds fired, 10+ target transitions, and it's all done under perfect conditions. Self-defense shootings are entirely different.
Which is why I asked for a comparison within the contexts of realistic self defense situations. I have been asking this question for years, probably longer than you've owned guns, and there's a reason why I have never gotten an answer. I don't care about the theoretical, I care about an apples to apples "red dot provides X measurable advantage in Y situation based off of real self defense shootings", and I've never seen that. Even with the popularity of slide mounted optics in the time where anyone can post a video of anything online, I have never seen it. Show it to me.
Nothing any person ever says or shows you will convince you of anything, you wilful luddite.
>NO! Competitions where draw time, recoil management, and moving targets tie into hit factor have no bearing on effectiveness in a defensive shooting!
Enjoy the irons gramps. I think I saw a box of 45acp glasers at the gun store.
So I get that you can't provide me with any simple proof that red dots give any realistic advantage for carry guns, but do any of y'all even own a gun?
I think the same, but if some company came out with a enclosed compact prism optic for handgun i would buy that due to astigmatism.
I haven't use the Bullseye in particular but I can say FO iron sights still blow my astigmatism out and make me shoot off point of aim, much worse the brighter they are. I don't see how, for my eyes at least, that thing would be equivalent to a prismatic
Having tried the one on the p365 SAS my dad impulse bought, it's pretty bad. It's hard to see when it's aligned, it occludes your target completely, and is probably worse than point shooting with the channel sights sig tried long ago.
It can be useful if you train enough with it. Not anymore useful than irons though so it’s a waste unless you buy into the nu-ASP hype for high speed low drag.
I used to think the same until I shot the an identically set up g19, only difference being an SRO. I was instantly more accurately despite shooting twice as fast. You would have to spend thousands on ammo to get the same improvement of just buying an optic, and of course its way better than night sights.
>I was instantly more accurately despite shooting twice as fast
What were your recorded splits with the red dot vs the irons? Exactly how much more accurate were you?
There's a difference between planning for a DGU, which happens thousands of times a year, and planning for hyper-specific situations which rarely, if ever, have any real data to back them up. We can look at real shootings like Elisjsha Dicken's, and argue that he could have killed the shooter more dead if he had hit 4/4 instead of 2/4 at 40 yards if he had an optic, but it wouldn't matter because the shooter was stopped and the defender lived anyways. Planning for "contingencies and off chances" is just what people tell themselves to justify buying more toys. But there's nothing wrong with wanting toys, it's just the focus on tactical fantasies that gets old.
you're retarded, or have never used them. red dots offer exactly the same advantages on a pistol as a rifle, but like everything else, it's magnified on a pistol: you can pick up your dot so much faster than your sights, it gives you a bit more play in your point of aim, and it's more accurate. there is no excuse to go straight to an optic without training irons first, but once you have a good baseline of proficiency with irons you should move to a red dot. it's incredible
It's just you.
Because you don't shoot worth a shit.
"Gee I'm sure glad I picked the less accurate sighting method that doesn't allow me to target focus while using it" said only retards ever
If you stopped being bad at gun that wouldn't happen anymore.
Someone's gonna draw their gun one day and find the dot completely washed out. The cowitness guy goes fuckit and uses irons. Then there's you.
That's a cope. Stop being retarded and bad and finding excuses to not shoot worth a shit.
Opinion dumb enough to be vaccinated.
>contrarian just to be contrarian
>addicted to shitposting
Pureblood you moron. I doubt you're competent to judge much of anything.
>How dare you call out people who are coping
>Lots of retards need reminding that they are being retarded, why don't you cry about it?
>No I'm not, fuck you.
If you genuinely believe your 10 dollar amazon laser to perform anywhere close to current pistol dots I am absolutely certain you're not competent enough avoid swallowing your tongue without help, let alone judge anything on this topic. Was it just dumb luck you never got the vaccine?
>Someone's gonna draw their gun one day and find the dot completely washed out.
Has there ever been a documented case of this? It seems like the chance of two things happening at the same time are literally zero
>you need to use your gun, AND
>your dot stopped working for that moment
its like multiplying two tiny probabilities to get a basically zero probability
This. I fully accept that using a dot allows you to sight in faster from draw and is overall helpful, but you become an insufferable sweat. Especially if it’s on a cheap pistol. Basically like putting expensive car mods on a Honda civic.
100% agreed. Red dots are great on rifles but on pistols I don't think they are necessary at all and can cause complications if they mess up. I also just like having tangible, physical reference points on my pistol for sighting in a less-than ideal situation. Trijicon HDs > Most anything else.
I’m actually far quicker without a stupid dot on my handgun
Skill issue. You don't know how to shoot with a pistol-mounted red dot
Ok, but what's the realistic advantage to me in getting my slide milled, buying the optic, and putting in the effort to learn to use it? I don't shoot USPSA, my eyes are functional, and I don't hunt with handguns. For as much as people love handgun optics today, an easy comparison should be able to show the superiority of an optic vs irons from the same shooter. Something like a double Mozambique at 10 yards. Or maybe a Bill drill. With how much the industry is trending towards pistol optics, it should be pretty easy to produce evidence showing the practical advantage of a slide mounted optic for the average Joe.
>With how much the industry is trending towards pistol optics, it should be pretty easy to produce evidence showing the practical advantage of a slide mounted optic for the average Joe.
The oldest arguments in the book. The future is now. Just like what red dots did for rifles. Handguns now too. You just dont want to put in the effort it takes to become that much better using the more modern technology.
I think the situation with rifle red dots and pistol red dots is a bit different. Anyone who picks up a rifle with a red dot and says they don't like it is probably a contrarian douchebag or afraid of battery operated technology. Trying to keep a rear sight and a front sight lined up while also focusing on a target 200 yards away is a challenge unless your vision is augmented. Also, the rifle optic doesn't require any additional training, you just shoulder the rifle and look down it like normal. You never have to search for the dot. On the other hand, pistol optics aren't as easy to pick up and use because you need additional practice to learn to use the new optic. Every time I've tried friends' pistols with optics, I'm searching for the dot. And unlike rifles at 200 yards, my eyes can see fine at 25 yards, and it's not like I'm focusing on the pistol sights, I'm just shooting off of a bright front sight contrasting from a blacked out rear.
With that being my initial experience, it's hard to justify spending $200 to permanently modify my slide or buying a new gun to mount the optic that will cost another $400 minimum for a good one. Then I have to go through a training period to learn to use the red dot well. That's a lot just for the promise of "trust me bro, they're better" coming from people online who can never prove ownership of a handgun with a red dot, because that's all I've gotten in years of talking about pistol optics for carry and practical use. And I'm not proud of one specific technique or shooting style, so I'm willing to change if I see a benefit in changing, but in years of having this conversation, I have yet to be convinced. But it doesn't really help when most of the responses are from noguns who just repeat poor, cope, boomer, and fudd like they're a fucking robot.
>N-no bro, tactical tik-tokkers and youtube bros showed me the light bro
>There's no way you can use a pistol with iron sights effectively cuz I can't do it bro
>This definitely isn't intentional marketing by companies astroturfing the gun community to sell you shit you don't need, there's never been evidence of THAT happening
how accurate are these? they also make one that just replaced the front sight.
they are alright combat sights. not accurate enough for serious target shooting
Co witnessing in 2023
If I change my battery regularly and I keep a backup gun without a dot at home, is there even a point to co-witness? The chance that
>I need to use my gun, AND
>Somehow my dot stopped working between when I left the house vs where I am now
Has there been a single real-life instance of someone who had to use co-witness sights because their dot stopped working?
You DO understand that co-witnessing your sights just mean that the sights and the dot will have the same PoA if you line up the sights, not that you have to line up the sights in order to use the dot, right? Doing so would eliminate the advantage of red dots: the fact that your eye only needs to line up 2 objects (reticle and target) instead of 3 (rear sight, front sight, target). You ignore the irons completely. And there are now multiple dots on the market (specifically the RMR and certain Holosun models) reliable enough that if you deleted irons from your gun completely I wouldn't blame you at all. If THAT's what you meant then I agree with you but it doesn't seem like that's what you meant.
>the rest of the chat STILL debating irons vs red dots on pistols
There's literally no reason not to have one except you can't afford to or don't want to dial in your sloppy presentation to a point where you're not looking for the dot. I was resistant to them forever and when I finally bought one and put the work in it made me an exponentially better pistol shooter in a few weeks. There's literally no downside except cost.
> you wont even use the dot during a "bad breath" distance DGU
Probably not, but guess what you can still point shoot the gun with an optic on it. And in those extreme edge cases where the dot delivers marked improvements to performance it's night and day. If you need to Elisjsha Dicken a mass shooter from 40yds+ across the food court, you're definitely going to put more, better hits on target with a dot than with irons.
The literal ONLY reason not to use one is cost. Which is fine but understand that you're a coping poorfag and technology is leaving you behind.
tl;dr read the Sage Dynamics white paper and make better financial choices.
What’s a good dot for a gem 5 G19? I’m thinking holosun EPS carry because it’s closed emitter and battery change is easy
Putting a dot on my pistol was like a cheat code. You get instant feedback on what you're doing (jerking trigger, pushing, flinching etc) when the gun fires. A few hundred rounds with my red dot and I could shoot all of my guns with iron sights significantly better.
Could do that with a laser too and for a lot less money. But hey, if you're happy with it.
Anyone have any experience with the delta point micro? I was thinking about getting one for my G17 but maybe it would be more sensible to get an mos slide instead.
Optics are good for catching dirt while shooting suppressed. Pistol optics are something that restricted-fags cream over.
PrepHole is full of old fudds now, you fags are no different than arfcom boomers shitting on red dots for rifles back in the day.
Yeah it's very dumb and defeats the purpose of the dot
You should never be taking your eyes off the target with a dot on your pistol
While we're all here, how do we feel about pistol scopes?