You are a fricking idiot, quite literally and your opinion is meaningless. Every good concealed carry holster supports a red dot mounted pistol you uneducated ignorant shit.
I lean toward no, because on a defensive handgun your main priority should be focusing on the target, not the sight. You need to be proficient enough with your sidearm that it's more instinctive point shooting than anything else.
You do realize that one of the main benefits of red dots is that they facilitate target focus, while with irons you generally are trained to have front sight focus? If you're shooting a red dot and focusing on the dot then you're doing it wrong.
They don't realize it, they're actually morons. Irons suck for lots of reasons and in my experience shooting multiple platforms, a red dot is always better than irons. The sight picture argument shows that they probably don't even shoot at all, because if you can't see the dot you wouldn't align your irons anyway
You're missing the point. I specifically didn't mention it being better or worse. At defensive handgun ranges you aren't precision aiming at all; the sight doesn't matter.
Even if we assume that every defensive handgun use is going to involve reflexive point shooting (which I disagree with, but I'll grant you for the sake of argument), the advantage the red dot gives you in identifying and correcting errors in your grip, trigger pull, followthrough, etc. makes the dot worth it as all of that will translate into more accurate point shooting.
ignore the fact that I still have to do the exact same correction to bring the front post close enough to do a fine adjustment >t. doesn't shoot
Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there, assuming whatever awkward position your shooting from resulted in your gun pointing low rather than high. There is no fricking around with looking at your gun and comparing what looks out of alignment, and unless you're using some plain black on black sights that you haven't at least painted yourself, the front sights will be vastly more visible than the alignment of your gun. From personal experience, it's much faster.
[...] >You do realize that one of the main benefits of red dots is that they facilitate target focus
You do realize that target focused shooting with irons is completely doable at the ranges almost all self defense shootings happen within, and that a lot of competitive shooters shoot that way, don't you?
>Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there
Literally just imagine the gun is your index finger and you're pointing at the target and the dot will be in FOV every single time. Having difficulty picking up the dot is a skill issue.
this is why it's so hard to have actual discussion on pistol optics, there's no shortage of morons like this that completely lack any understanding on the use of them
This kind of thing infects most discussions about personal arms. Unfortunate side effect of the web is that there aren’t any real barriers to entry so people like your link can toss out their opinion even though they have no hands on experience with the subject.
The only complaint I’ve ever heard from people I’ve let shoot my dot is that they cant find it quickly. That is a training issue, and can be helped along tremendously by an ACSS Vulcan reticle.
My EDC is a Beretta 92LTT Centurion with a RMR
Thankfully haven't had to use it in a self defense scenario yet
Cope, seethe, mald, and dilate beta b***h boys
It's great when you have the real estate for it. I had to go a size up to comfortably have it shoved inside my pants. Took awhile to adjust to my size but that might be my moronation. I still wear a dress belt over it but keep it a notch loose to not interfere with drawing.
>doesn't actually make a difference at the ranges almost all self defense shootings play out at >presents another thing to go wrong >runs into problems being slower to get on target or losing the dot when shooting from positions outside of what you normally practice at the range outside of very specific models
>duty pistol
Sure, it's still probably pointless since you're going to be point shooting at 99% of shootouts since they'll be within 5 yards where you're not using sights, but it's not going to interfere with function and will be useful if you need to make a longer shot.
>CCW
No, because the benefit isn't worth the increased difficulty concealing it, the weight is non-negligible on a standard belt, and the housing can get caught on your cover garment.
>runs into problems being slower to get on target or losing the dot when shooting from positions outside of what you normally practice at the range outside of very specific models
They're still more usable then irons in those situations.
>so far off from a sight picture that you can't find the dot >but irons will magically work
Pro-tip, they make sights with a donut of death ring for people like you who're incapable of realizing that pointing the gun 45 degrees upward might be bad for your sight picture.
>but irons will magically work
Yes physical objects in space are "magically" easier to find than a dot projected on a lens that only appears when the lens is properly aligned.
>Pro-tip, they make sights with a donut of death ring for people like you who're incapable of realizing that pointing the gun 45 degrees upward might be bad for your sight picture. >red dot moron demonstrates that he didn't or fully comprehend my post before replying
>I am incapable of looking down a flat plane, the top of the slide, and figuring out which direction it's massively out of parallel in >but MUH IRONS will be much easier to correct despite having significantly lower room for error in lining up the front sight post >please ignore the fact that I still have to do the exact same correction to bring the front post close enough to do a fine adjustment
11 months ago
Anonymous
ignore the fact that I still have to do the exact same correction to bring the front post close enough to do a fine adjustment >t. doesn't shoot
Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there, assuming whatever awkward position your shooting from resulted in your gun pointing low rather than high. There is no fricking around with looking at your gun and comparing what looks out of alignment, and unless you're using some plain black on black sights that you haven't at least painted yourself, the front sights will be vastly more visible than the alignment of your gun. From personal experience, it's much faster.
You do realize that one of the main benefits of red dots is that they facilitate target focus, while with irons you generally are trained to have front sight focus? If you're shooting a red dot and focusing on the dot then you're doing it wrong.
>You do realize that one of the main benefits of red dots is that they facilitate target focus
You do realize that target focused shooting with irons is completely doable at the ranges almost all self defense shootings happen within, and that a lot of competitive shooters shoot that way, don't you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>waaah everyone should point shoot and practice proper alignment >w-what do you mean even a few minutes of practicing presenting your pistol will mean you never have to look for the dot, it will just be there?!
Everyone who shills point shooting doesn't point shoot. If you did, none of your complaints would be valid.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>point shoot
Where did you get point shooting from my post?
>hurr shill
Yeah, just spend a few minutes practicing presenting your pistol from every possible position and hope you didn't forget to think of any.
>Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there
Wow, I didn't realize that installing a RDS on a pistol required you to turn the rest of the gun invisible so you can't do exactly the same corrective action except not needing to fine tune your sight picture to get the post within the notch and instead just need to get close enough for the dot to reappear.
Except the cowitness sights people use are less visible with some going to the extent of using black on black sights because people don't want the visual clutter of a red dot plus high viz sights, so that still ends up being slower.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Yeah, just spend a few minutes practicing presenting your pistol from every possible position
sorry you just don't have basic hand eye coordination I guess. >b-but I never said point shooting
I lean toward no, because on a defensive handgun your main priority should be focusing on the target, not the sight. You need to be proficient enough with your sidearm that it's more instinctive point shooting than anything else.
So this ain't you, it's another fricking moron? Incredible honestly.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>sorry you just don't have basic hand eye coordination I guess.
You can say that all you want, but that's not going to help once you get into awkward positions.
>moron has deluded himself into thinking his views are so popular that everyone who doesn't agree with him is the same person
11 months ago
Anonymous
>defending someone's shit takes while not holding their views
lmao what a moron
11 months ago
Anonymous
someone's shit takes
Where do you think I did this?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Scroll up Black personlips
>add shit to top of gun >it’s just as concealable bro
X to doubt
Where red dot respecters the ones coping all along?
if you're not already printing, a RMR isn't adding much to the size of the gun. Won't make a difference.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Scroll up Black personlips
So you're just moronic then?
11 months ago
Anonymous
why are you talking to yourself?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>this is the intelligence of the average poster who thinks red dots are a game changer for concealed carry
11 months ago
Anonymous
Who are you quoting?
11 months ago
Anonymous
An extra inch of height is twice the difference between a 17 and 19, and RMRs are more or less in line with the grip.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Uhuh. Now what is the difference between the RMR and the grip? Riiiight, it's a tiny little projection on the slide and not the size of the grip at all.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>height doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
You could have 4 extra bullets for the cost in height of an RMR.
11 months ago
Anonymous
doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
Correct. It also helps that it's not the width of the grip.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Well shucks Jimbo, I guess we should be carrying our spare mags on the top of the gun if height on the top don't count.
>height doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
It actually doesn't. The bore axis is the center line of the gun. Additional height on the grip means that the grip will protrude more. Additional height on the top of the slide does not mean that the grip will protrude more, and the grip already protrudes way more than any optic will.
Actually, it does, because in a carry holster, the grip is going to be more or less parallel with your belt which means that the optic will be tilted up and back which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it, both for disturbing the natural drape which will cause printing and for getting caught during the draw.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Well shucks Jimbo, I guess we should be carrying our spare mags on the top of the gun if height on the top don't count.
If they were as tiny as an RMR that would be a great idea. But of course they're not. >Actually, it does, because in a carry holster, the grip is going to be more or less parallel with your belt which means that the optic will be tilted up and back which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it, both for disturbing the natural drape which will cause printing and for getting caught during the draw.
This is what happens when people who don't own guns try to describe carrying guns. How awful.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Actually, it does, because in a carry holster, the grip is going to be more or less parallel with your belt which means that the optic will be tilted up and back which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it, both for disturbing the natural drape which will cause printing and for getting caught during the draw.
I carry strong side in an FBI cant IWB holster like God intended and have never had these issues.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it,
dude just start posting your fitz specials already, its clear you're one of the three revolver schizos that trawl this board for CCW threads.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I've carried a 19 for longer then you've been allowed to own guns, anon, if we don't count the time that I've moved to an appendix 43 during the summer.
11 months ago
Anonymous
ok. now, excluding pocket carry, how many times has your gun snagged on your clothes?
11 months ago
Anonymous
gets caught in my fishnets all the time
11 months ago
Anonymous
I don't have a pinch point created by mounting something tall at a 90 degree angle to my slide, but my shirt still catches on even the slightly raised surface of the front sight on the way up if you draw recklessly, which is why Tru-Glos have a beveled edge on the front of the rear sight to minimize the chance of them getting caught while on the downward motion of clearing your cover garment.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>but my shirt still catches on even the slightly raised surface of the front sight
tf are you wearing, threadbare rags? i have never had an issue with this.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Tight Airism undershirt underneath a OCBD most of the time, and it'll drag the undershirt enough that I have to tuck it back in after doing draw practice.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>one of the three revolver schizos that trawl this board for CCW threads.
So I wasn't insane and there actually is one or two extremely autistic revolver users that manage to have a stranglehold on any CCW thread made here...I swore I was seeing the exact same style of posting and argument points over and over and over
11 months ago
Anonymous
No they're very real and they will always press you to prove that there have been civilian DGUs that involved more than six shots even though they know full well that it's impossible since no news article or law enforcement report goes into that kind of detail. At least one admits to chronically pretending he's a noir PI or cowboy and that's why he chooses some dogshit budget Ruger. You cannot win with them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>pretending he's a noir PI or cowboy
One of the few valid reasons to own a revolver.
LARPing as pic related is also approved.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I get that but he sticks to CCW topics and doesn't even own any actual cowboy revolvers like an SAA or cap and ball piece so he just comes off as moronic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
you're the one who said there was no proof of a red dot helping in a defensive situation, the burden's on you. and you are arguing exactly like the revolver schizos by making an argument that is unprovable, then when asked for evidence you lazily try and spin it so the other side's at fault for not having ready counterproof. it's insultingly transparent how bad faith you're being.
he likely IS one of the revolver schizos lmfao
how would they draw up that info you moronic Black person? gleaning through news articles that don't go into any further detail than "Mr Smith ventilated Trayboon last night, court hearing is slated for next week"? frick off, no one is fooled by your bullshit so go hug your revolver.
It's funny that you guys keep mentioning the revolver schizos, yet you're the only ones talking about revolvers here. Might you be just a little bit obsessed?
11 months ago
Anonymous
You argue like a woman. You should be ashamed.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>height doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
It actually doesn't. The bore axis is the center line of the gun. Additional height on the grip means that the grip will protrude more. Additional height on the top of the slide does not mean that the grip will protrude more, and the grip already protrudes way more than any optic will.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Moot argument, you are wrong and have no point nor a leg to stand on deal with it, even in sidecar style holsters where you have a mag in a fixed position close to your pistol a red dot does not get in the way. Educate yourself do better and shut up when you dont know what youre talking about.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Okay that actually makes sense, since the red dot isn’t all the way back on the slide, the slide would probably print before the rmr.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Except the cowitness sights people use are less visible with some going to the extent of using black on black sights
Are you those people? If not, why would what sights they choose affect you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>the visual clutter of a red dot plus high viz sights
You shoot with BOTH EYES OPEN WITH DOTS AND FOCUS ON THE TARGET YOU FRICKING moron, SO THERE IS NO "CLUTTER"
Jfc do any of you naysayers even have actual experience shooting a red dot?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there
Wow, I didn't realize that installing a RDS on a pistol required you to turn the rest of the gun invisible so you can't do exactly the same corrective action except not needing to fine tune your sight picture to get the post within the notch and instead just need to get close enough for the dot to reappear.
Red dots are objectively superior for every practical purpose and are the future of handguns. Everyone who disagrees is either poor or a Fudd and most likely both. If nothing else, the red dot is worth it as a training tool, because it shows you all of the mistakes that you're making way better than any other method. Red dot haters don't realize this because they're either too poor to afford a red dot and so have never tried one, or they don't actually train properly (which means at least half an hour of dry fire multiple days a week) and again, most likely both. Every argument brought forth by the iron sight crowd is objectively, demonstrably, pure cope.
Hardmode: you can't get mad about it just because you are poor.
Red dots on handguns are heavily hampered by reciprocated slide.
There is need for new generation of pistols with stationary slides. Glock needs to step up.
holy frick you think that guns slide doesn't reciprocate? It's just got a backstrap that doesn't, the whole part called the "slide" still goes BRRRR, unlike your brain, moron.
I have a lot more confidence with a red dot, so I cc a g45mos with a ddp when I’m out on the town. When I’m sweating my balls off doing yard work in the hot Calorina summer, I cc a g43x with irons. I sweat all over my firearm constantly, so a red dot would be pointless.
They provide a measurable advantage in a competitive setting, but I have yet to be convinced that this advantage crosses over to a duty or defensive pistol. I don't think that there's anything wrong with a carry a gun with an optic, but I think it's one of those things that's more about personal preference than what's superior/inferior.
100% yes; well, maybe if you have to remove your irons completely, then no.
I CCW a P365XL with a 407k and love it. You still have a little bit of the irons to index if you need it, and the dot is easy to pick up and allows you to not focus on the front sight.
>Most of the time people say anything about "the poors", they don't own any guns
What sort of alternate reality are you from, the inverse is true where the posters screeching about "LARPers" "Gearqueers" "Range queens" etc etc etc are the ones that almost always have no guns to post
11 months ago
Anonymous
This is /k/. Most people on any side of any argument are noguns, and usually underage, too.
All the gun and gear min-maxing people do is a meme. Your reminder that if trying to qualify with a production setup in the USPSA open division, few classifier stages will potentially drop you more than 1 class if you aren't a master/grand master level shooter, and that's adding every single gamer feature to your gun and gear possible including: >large red dots that would typically be mounted on a rifle >compensators as long as they can be as there are no gun size limits >weights to further soak up recoil as there is no weight limit >gas pedals >mag wells >up to 29 round magazines* vs 10 round magazines, although only a few classifiers go over 10 rounds without having the reload be mandatory >holsters that only retain your gun by the trigger guard >recent rule changes allow magazines to be retained by magnets rather than even being in a pouch >magazine holders are allowed to hold your mags 3 3/8" away from your body for easy grabbing >modified scoring where a shot landing in the C zone (equivalent to anywhere on the torso above the belly button) rather than the A zone only drops you 1 point rather than 2 due to use of hotter loaded ammunition for major scoring, even though the higher pressures really just makes the compensator work that much better
And that's before considering that a large portion of USPSA classifiers aren't boring like reality and can include engaging upwards of 9 targets, engaging groups of targets behind hard cover, and other shit that you will never see in real life.
*note that the capacity limit for open is by magazine length and it's entirely possible that some company might release a quad stack mag and completely eliminate the need for reloads in the open division unless USPSA increases the max required round count per stage beyond 32 or adds a capacity limit
To add. For the 42 out of 49 classifiers I have data for, only 8 will drop someone who landed right on the border of being an A class production division shooter to being a C class open division shooter. Of those 8 classifiers, 3 involve mandatory reloads (03-02, 03-08, and 13-06) and 3 involve firing enough rounds that someone in the production division needs to reload but someone in open isn't forced to reload (06-01, 06-02, and 13-09). The only 2 classifiers that could group a borderline A class production shooter as a C class open division shooter without involving reloads are 06-08 (which involves engaging 6 mostly concealed pepper poppers at 15 yards) and 09-11 (which involves engaging 6 targets hiding behind no shoot targets at 10 yards).
Pic related is 06-08. for those interested for how crazy the stages need to be to make that much of a difference without a reload to suck up time.
>look up the height of the USPSA pepper poppers >they're 42" tall and 6" wide at the widest point with the top section only being 3" wide >the targets they're behind are 29.5" tall and cover up slightly more than half of the 6" wide section
Lol, I suppose I can keep this in mind for where a red dot might make a difference.
How would you recommend beginning in USPSA? I'm interested, but suck at pistols. I'm taking a class this weekend and shooting more so I'll see how that goes.
Look on practiscore for you local gun clubs and reach out to see if they have an intro to action shooting course they offer. Alternatively buy gear, practice dry firing and reloading, and sign up for a match and let the person in charge know it's your first time shooting. They're usually really cool with new shooters to get them interested into the sport.
To add. For the 42 out of 49 classifiers I have data for, only 8 will drop someone who landed right on the border of being an A class production division shooter to being a C class open division shooter. Of those 8 classifiers, 3 involve mandatory reloads (03-02, 03-08, and 13-06) and 3 involve firing enough rounds that someone in the production division needs to reload but someone in open isn't forced to reload (06-01, 06-02, and 13-09). The only 2 classifiers that could group a borderline A class production shooter as a C class open division shooter without involving reloads are 06-08 (which involves engaging 6 mostly concealed pepper poppers at 15 yards) and 09-11 (which involves engaging 6 targets hiding behind no shoot targets at 10 yards).
Pic related is 06-08. for those interested for how crazy the stages need to be to make that much of a difference without a reload to suck up time.
>going from a normal pistol with irons to a full on race gun makes this little of a difference in performance
Well that's depressing.
not the same anon, but >inb4 Catholics believe in works based salvation
short answer: no
longer answer: pic related >what is works based salvation then?
vid related
To add. For the 42 out of 49 classifiers I have data for, only 8 will drop someone who landed right on the border of being an A class production division shooter to being a C class open division shooter. Of those 8 classifiers, 3 involve mandatory reloads (03-02, 03-08, and 13-06) and 3 involve firing enough rounds that someone in the production division needs to reload but someone in open isn't forced to reload (06-01, 06-02, and 13-09). The only 2 classifiers that could group a borderline A class production shooter as a C class open division shooter without involving reloads are 06-08 (which involves engaging 6 mostly concealed pepper poppers at 15 yards) and 09-11 (which involves engaging 6 targets hiding behind no shoot targets at 10 yards).
Pic related is 06-08. for those interested for how crazy the stages need to be to make that much of a difference without a reload to suck up time.
if it wasn't obvious enough.
How would you recommend beginning in USPSA? I'm interested, but suck at pistols. I'm taking a class this weekend and shooting more so I'll see how that goes.
I don't shoot USPSA. I just found their classifiers to be interesting due to the variety and how people are graded as a percent of what's possible from grand master shooter at the absolute top of their game rather than being given a number to meet that looked good.
How fricking fat are all of you where a red dot is the make or break issue for concealment? And why do so many of you gays carry mini micro pussy subcompacts?
t. Glock 17 and Holochad EPS EDC'er
If you can't conceal carry a full size handgun, quickly and expeditiously have a nice day.
if you have no confidence in your current sight system and feel you will gain confidence installing at RedDot. >Then go ahead and waste money! You can almost buy a new gun for the price of some RD's
Pros: >objectively faster once you train with it >good for people with bad eyes >modern reflex optics are very tough and their batteries last a long time >looks cool AF
Cons: >they cost money >make the gun larger and heavier >John Wayne didn’t need them why do you? A 45 will blow and arm off
Me, I have one on my range toy pistol and one on my AIWB carry pistol. Didn’t change printing at all. Have a P365 for when I’m casually dressed, no optic because want to keep it light.
Once .mil starts issuing them on all their M17s it’ll be over for irons.
>Once .mil starts issuing them on all their M17s it’ll be over for irons.
I'm worried about this future. We saw it happen with rifles, but I hope it doesn't happen with handguns. Imagine buying a pistol that doesn't come with any irons and also doesn't come with an optic.
>Once .mil starts issuing them on all their M17s it’ll be over for irons.
neva gona hapin > first thing to break on a 20 something in the field is glass
You sound like a shitty soldier if you're breaking your glass. Treat your weapon well it's your life dip shit, you shouldn't be banging it on anything hard enough to break an optic. How do you get away without a statement of charges on that anyway
>need to hit the dirt because your location is being shelled >weaker exposed red dot gets smashed against a rock
The "bombproof" reliability that a lot of military gear has a reputation for having comes from the stress that it needs to be able to deal with when soldiers are, get this, reacting to bombs.
>Moving quickly doesn't break optics.
I didn't say moving quickly. I said diving to the ground and smashing the red dot against a rock or something with the full force of your body behind it, which is something that can actually happen in a war zone. We're not dealing with people's everyday lives or cops who might have to wrestle with criminals.
11 months ago
Anonymous
So do you like actually just think red dots can't handle that or something? Because get this, soldiers have been using them for the last 20 years no problem. >y-yeah but not smaller, stronger red dots protected by holsters!
lol, lmao even
11 months ago
Anonymous
>b-but my ~1 ounce MRDS that need to be that light to function on a pistol slide will totally be as durable as the 9 ounce Aimpoint Comp M4 that didn't need to worry about those same constraints when it was designed
11 months ago
Anonymous
correct!
?t=480
11 months ago
Anonymous
>test is just dropping it under its own weight, rather than the reality of it having the weight of a human body behind it
11 months ago
Anonymous
Correct. Now it's time for you to address the part where the optic is literally breaking the concrete he's dropping it on and is completely undamaged. Then move on to address how the handgun is issued alongside a safariland holster and will not be having any force applied to the optic in the first place, even bodyslaming the gun directly to the ground.
You don't even begin to know why you believe the dumb made up shit you spout, you'll never be able to convince anyone else at this rate.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>b-but it dents concrete, so it'll just destroy the concrete more if you hit it harder!
Really anon? Really?
>the handgun is issued alongside a safariland holster
Ah yes, the legendary Safariland holster that they only make 1 model of. Known for being an impenetrable safe that can smash through tank armor, cut diamond, and protect your gun even if you drop it into molten magma. Everything has been made clear to me now.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>that can smash through tank armor, cut diamond, and protect your gun even if you drop it into molten magma. Everything has been made clear to me now. >ignores that it completely and totally protects the optic
moron. >only make one model
So you're too lazy to even look up the one singular issued holster for the gun we're arguing about? Again, you don't even know why you believe what you believe and are just making it up as you go. Hence why you can't form a single coherent argument. >it'll just magically get damaged because it will even though the RMR is vastly more durable than full size red dots, because uh, it will! >even though it's fully encased in a holster and won't be out in the open to even hit the optic, at worst an impact would be spread out across the whole slide >but it'll totally break because it will!
lmao how does it feel to know mrds like the RMR were and are already used on military rifles, and they don't break and it's not a problem at all? All the imaginary scenarios you can come up with have already happened, and the dot didn't even have the safety of a holster to protect it. It still wasn't a problem. You're actually just a dumb fricking fudd.
>pistol is on your belt because you aren't running around like Call of Duty man >top of the pistol faces the ground when you go down >top of the pistol impacts rock when you go down
yeah
https://i.imgur.com/GZeQhxM.png
>that can smash through tank armor, cut diamond, and protect your gun even if you drop it into molten magma. Everything has been made clear to me now. >ignores that it completely and totally protects the optic
moron. >only make one model
So you're too lazy to even look up the one singular issued holster for the gun we're arguing about? Again, you don't even know why you believe what you believe and are just making it up as you go. Hence why you can't form a single coherent argument. >it'll just magically get damaged because it will even though the RMR is vastly more durable than full size red dots, because uh, it will! >even though it's fully encased in a holster and won't be out in the open to even hit the optic, at worst an impact would be spread out across the whole slide >but it'll totally break because it will!
lmao how does it feel to know mrds like the RMR were and are already used on military rifles, and they don't break and it's not a problem at all? All the imaginary scenarios you can come up with have already happened, and the dot didn't even have the safety of a holster to protect it. It still wasn't a problem. You're actually just a dumb fricking fudd.
>So you're too lazy to even look up the one singular issued holster for the gun we're arguing about?
You mean the one singular issued holster that won't work with a red dot unless you take a saw to it and leave the red dot completely exposed? That holster?
>lmao how does it feel to know mrds like the RMR were and are already used on military rifles
By people who aren't normal infantry, and also didn't have to worry about it obstructing their sight picture if it broke.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>top of the pistol impacts rock when you go down
are you falling straight down like a board? the force of your pistol coming down as you go prone is not very strong and despite your feelings, the RMR is incredibly durable. heck, MOST small electronics are durable.
11 months ago
Anonymous
He doesn't know. He's never done it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>By people who aren't normal infantry,
Don't let the marines know they're special, they'll want more crayons.
yes, but only if youre proficient with irons. Red dots and lasers are just toys that can make it a little easier to shoot, if you practice with them. Toys and gadgets dont make up for range time
Reflex sights don’t make it “a little easier” to shoot, they make a person objectively faster and more accurate once they’ve trained with them. There is a reason the top shooters all use reflex sights in classes that allow them.
They aren’t toys and they aren’t gadgets, they are tools that expand the capability of a pistol.
Red dots are fun to shoot, I’m at the point where my inaccuracy is my inability to properly use iron sights because of my failing eyes but if you don’t put in the time to train on a dot don’t use one.
The funny thing is that when such a situation actually happened, it involved a guy using stock Glock sights that had been previously damaged and filed back to a usable state.
I remember when it first happened people were saying he had a red dot lol.
Kind of like how right after Kenosha people were saying he was using 77gr OTM and it turned out he was using .223 FMJ.
Maybe richgays were the real copium addicts all along.
>Maybe richgays were the real copium addicts all along.
It's not that. The real problem is people have fooled themselves into believing that since someone made it through such a rare event, they must be better than the average shooter in some way. There are still people who think that Rittenhouse had a significant amount of training under his belt, rather than the reality that he had only shot his rifle once right after he bought it. Also the people who are convinced that people who actually shoot are going to perform like a police officer if they actually get into a self defense scenario.
I remember when it first happened people were saying he had a red dot lol.
Kind of like how right after Kenosha people were saying he was using 77gr OTM and it turned out he was using .223 FMJ.
Maybe richgays were the real copium addicts all along.
I did what he did with irons in a staged course. I did it better with a dot. What sort of own is this supposed to be?
I understand that the optic will give a better score on paper nearly every time, but the point is whether or not that advantage will ever matter within the realm of defensive/duty use of a handgun. Yes, a red dot can make a person more accurate, but when talking about these rare outlier cases of shooters that were stopped by a person using only iron sights, discussing the potential advantages of red dots basically turns into a conversation about how the assailant might somehow be more dead if the defender had chosen different equipment. Some tenths of a second might make a big difference when comparing guns on a shot timer, but maybe that extra time doesn't really matter outside of the range.
>falling back on 'w-well most shootings don't NEEEEEEED that accuracy!'
you may as well say most situations don't need a gun either. no one EVER says a red dot is required on a handgun but plenty of people will attest that a red dot makes them a much better shot. considering most new guns come with red dot mounts, and good-enough red dots can be bought for under 300 bucks, this is no longer something that people should fight to the death over.
you just want to be a contrarian and to invent drama that lets you think people are oppressing you for your superior beliefs and choces.
>you may as well say most situations don't need a gun either.
By what logic? There have been an average 3-4 DGUs that have ended in an attacker being shot (confirmed from news articles and police reports) every singe day in the US for the past several years now, and DGUs that end in an attacker being shot are a small fraction of DGUs which brings that up to multiple DGUs in this country happening per hour. There are indisputably situations that require a gun. Meanwhile, you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
How would you prove that? This sounds as disingenuous as the revolver shills who swear that no DGU has warranted more than 6 shots because almost no news article or police report specifies round counts.
What the frick are you on that you read my post and thought I was being contrarian? If you want to carry a gun with a red dot, then do it. Nobody is oppressing me, or you, or whatever the frick garbage you're saying. I was just pointing out the diminishing returns with carrying a pistol with an optic, and you read something else and ran with it.
>but the point is whether or not that advantage will ever matter within the realm of defensive/duty use of a handgun.
If I prove to myself that I'm able to shoot better and faster with my optic, why wouldn't I? What do I lose?
Because you gays pretend as if there's no downside to optics. >lens and emitter that can get covered in shit >concealibility >cost
by the same logic you should be carrying a 1911 instead of a micro compact 9 because you'll be able to shoot the 1911 better and it uses a more larger cartridge.
You've already drawn this line somewhere with your carry gun, but you treat red dots as if there's no trade offs and everyone should have them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>lens and emitter that can get covered in shit
Anon, have you actually carried with an optic? Do you realize how absurd it is for a concealed carry pistol to get its lens or emitter obstructed? For that matter, why do you not grasp the concept of shooting with both eyes open? That's one of the main advantages of the dot, your able to get better situational awareness and the obstruction, if it somehow even does occur, isn't really relevant for reasons anyone who actually knows how to properly use a dot optic can explain. >concealibility [sic]
Valid, but also readily able to be overcome nowadays with proper attire and holster setups. >cost
You can get solid dots for under $300 now, this isn't really a valid point anymore >by the same logic you should be carrying a 1911 instead of a micro compact 9 because you'll be able to shoot the 1911 better and it uses a more larger cartridge.
I'm not grasping your attempted comparison here, a 1911 is laughably larger and heavier than a compact 9mm whereas a carry piece with a dot has a smidge more weight and a slightly enlarged profile in the less-affection region of the gun. Where does the "more larger" [sic] cartridge bit even come in?
>but the point is whether or not that advantage will ever matter within the realm of defensive/duty use of a handgun.
If I prove to myself that I'm able to shoot better and faster with my optic, why wouldn't I? What do I lose?
>how would I prove something that I'm insisting will realistically make a difference in the outcome of a life or death situation actually will? that's unreasonable! >and have I told you how much revolvers upset me?
Might as well be talking about carrying tiger repelling rocks at that point.
11 months ago
Anonymous
What?
11 months ago
Anonymous
He's a fudd with such a chip on his shoulder he has trouble reading and imagines things that weren't even said.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Meant for
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
How would you prove that? This sounds as disingenuous as the revolver shills who swear that no DGU has warranted more than 6 shots because almost no news article or police report specifies round counts.
I'm a bit drunk right now.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Answer the question though, how would you prove your claim?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I hope you're carrying a tiger repelling rock every day anon. Tigers are ambush predators and you won't have time to get your gun out without one.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon you said red dots have never helped, I'd like to see the proof of that. That's a very absolute statement. How did you come to that conclusion?
11 months ago
Anonymous
you're the one who said there was no proof of a red dot helping in a defensive situation, the burden's on you. and you are arguing exactly like the revolver schizos by making an argument that is unprovable, then when asked for evidence you lazily try and spin it so the other side's at fault for not having ready counterproof. it's insultingly transparent how bad faith you're being.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>hurr why can't you prove a negative?
That's not how burden of proof works anon.
Anon you said red dots have never helped, I'd like to see the proof of that. That's a very absolute statement. How did you come to that conclusion?
>Anon you said red dots have never helped
I said >you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
My proof is that you clearly aren't posting a case and are trying to deflect.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You know exactly what you're doing, don't even try to squirm your way out of this. You try to put the onus on pro-dot users by accusing them of being unable to point to a case where a dot helped in a DGU, knowing full well that that's impossible to do given the nature of the info available to the public. You then try to use that absence of proof as proof of absence, then when this is pointed out you accuse others of deflection. Do you think this isn't obvious? That other anon is right, you have the exact same MO as the six gun fanatics who demand proof of more than six shots being fired by a civilian and then proclaiming victory when such details are unable to be pried from the vague reports.
At the end of the day, like most things handgun related, it all comes down to preference. If someone is good with irons then they're likely covered for a scenario where they have to use a gun. Likewise, if someone prefers a dot they aren't going to be set back by having it. Acting like one or the other is doomed for their preference is just being an argumentative homosexual.
11 months ago
Anonymous
he likely IS one of the revolver schizos lmfao
11 months ago
Anonymous
>You try to put the onus on pro-dot users by accusing them of being unable to point to a case where a dot helped in a DGU, knowing full well that that's impossible to do given the nature of the info available to the public. You then try to use that absence of proof as proof of absence, then when this is pointed out you accuse others of deflection.
Anon, if the argument that having a red dot can realistically make a difference in the outcome of a scenario vs not having one had any factual basis whatsoever rather than purely being based on emotion, the people presenting that argument would be able to present evidence to back it up, and yet they clearly can't as this same tired argument plays out thread after thread.
>At the end of the day, like most things handgun related, it all comes down to preference. If someone is good with irons then they're likely covered for a scenario where they have to use a gun. Likewise, if someone prefers a dot they aren't going to be set back by having it. Acting like one or the other is doomed for their preference is just being an argumentative homosexual.
Lol, yet my statement that upset you was: >you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
So which is it? This statement of yours completely contradicts all these posts you've made trying to argue your point.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>the people presenting that argument would be able to present evidence to back it up
Did you not read any part of my post? Are you just looking for attention? >This statement of yours completely contradicts all these posts you've made trying to argue your point.
It does not. At no point did I state that having irons would set a user back, just like at no point did I state that having a red dot would give you a glaring advantage. You're the one arguing red dots don't do anything by virtue of no one taking up your asinine demand for proof that you know cannot be obtained. Which, I guess, makes you the mentioned variety of argumentative homosexual.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Did you not read any part of my post?
Did you not read mine? If they can't provide any evidence to back their argument, then they're arguing from emotion and their argument is meaningless.
>At no point did I state that having irons would set a user back, just like at no point did I state that having a red dot would give you a glaring advantage.
Yet you seem so upset by my stating the same? Again, my statement asking for proof that you're so upset about: >you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
Again, with extra emphasis since you can't read, that's having a red dot _OR NOT_.
how would they draw up that info you moronic Black person? gleaning through news articles that don't go into any further detail than "Mr Smith ventilated Trayboon last night, court hearing is slated for next week"? frick off, no one is fooled by your bullshit so go hug your revolver.
See:
Anon, we know about Eli Dicken's gun choice down to how his rear sight was damaged in a motorcycle accident and he repaired it himself, and that he was carrying FMJ ammo. We know that Jack Wilson, the guy from Texas who dropped someone trying to shoot up his church with a single shot to the head, used a Sig P229 chambered in .357 Sig and opted for 135 grain Hornady Critical Defense ammunition and a Galco SSS2 holster, and took the shot at between 45 and 47 feet. Do you seriously not realize that the gun media picks up on the crazier outlier cases and specifically tries to get more information about them?
I'm praying you're just putting on an act of being a fricking idiot and aren't seriously trying to conflate the coverage of mass-shooting incidents to the common DGUs that are being discussed.
>and aren't seriously trying to conflate the coverage of mass-shooting incidents
Because one of the situations I listed as an example was a mass shooting and the other was an attempted one? Would you like me to give more examples, such as Rittenhouse talking about getting a dead trigger and using the forward assist in an interview? Yes there's going to be more coverage of mass shooting and attempted mass shooting incidents, because those are the more interesting outliers as far as self defense cases go, with longer engagement distances and more heavily armed attackers than you might otherwise encounter.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, I think you struggle to read and are focused on deflecting rather than actually countering arguments. That is unfortunate.
11 months ago
Anonymous
the stupid homosexual is literally saying we'd hear about a guy with a dot shooting some jogger in an alley in St. Louis because the media went all in on fricking Kyle R., i get he's apparently drunk but he's probably just fricking stupid on top of that.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Would you like me to give more examples, such as Rittenhouse
So, another multiple casualty incident. I'm guessing you actually *are* moronic since you're actually still trying to use the media coverage of huge, outlying spree shootings/riots/attempted mass murders as proof that far more common DGUs would receive equal coverage...because they involved an optic. Nah, you're dumb, straight up.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>outlying spree shootings/riots/attempted mass murders as proof that far more common DGUs would receive equal coverage...because they involved an optic.
Anon, if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media. It's those outlier cases that are the cases where gun, gear, and training choices could conceivably come into play, not any old robbery attempt.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media.
Meanwhile, outside of dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land, DGUs mostly happen without any witnesses, get brief mentions in the news sometime after, see a court hearing, and re resolved without ever getting into the public eye again and with autistic gun freaks never even having the chance to get more info on what was used. How the in the actual shit do you think some schmuck for TFB is going to hear that a dot was used in one of the whoknowhowmany defense shootings with a pistol happen across this country every night? Do you think the investigators handling it will post on the PD twitter how cool it was that a Holosun was used on the Canik that popped the future doctor on MLK Blvd the night prior?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media
How would the gun media find out that the optic made a difference?
Would they get ahold of the interrogation room tapes and hear the shooter say how the dot made it so he could get a quicker fatal shot off after he got pushed to the ground in the dark alleyway?
11 months ago
Anonymous
This post is what happens when you live on the internet and forget how the real world functions
11 months ago
Anonymous
>If they can't provide any evidence to back their argument, then they're arguing from emotion and their argument is meaningless.
What evidence do you need other than the fact you perform better with your choice and are more comfortable with it than without? These are defensive handguns, probably the most subjective guns possible. I don't know how you expect anyone to provide evidence that they wouldn't get anything out of using the setup they do better with. What would this evidence even look like? Where would you get it? Is there an FBI study on the specifics of pistols used in self defense I'm not aware of?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Are you actually moronic?
Again: >you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
Again, with extra emphasis since you can't read, that's having a red dot _OR NOT_. I am stating that the choice between them does not matter. That you need to practice with whatever your choice is and will be more comfortable with what you practice with is a given.
>if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media.
Meanwhile, outside of dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land, DGUs mostly happen without any witnesses, get brief mentions in the news sometime after, see a court hearing, and re resolved without ever getting into the public eye again and with autistic gun freaks never even having the chance to get more info on what was used. How the in the actual shit do you think some schmuck for TFB is going to hear that a dot was used in one of the whoknowhowmany defense shootings with a pistol happen across this country every night? Do you think the investigators handling it will post on the PD twitter how cool it was that a Holosun was used on the Canik that popped the future doctor on MLK Blvd the night prior?
>Meanwhile, outside of dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land, DGUs mostly happen without any witnesses, get brief mentions in the news sometime after, see a court hearing, and re resolved without ever getting into the public eye again and with autistic gun freaks never even having the chance to get more info on what was used.
Could that be because most DGUs aren't at all exciting and are in fact fairly basic despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death? Cases that aren't extremely basic are the ones that get more coverage.
>if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media
How would the gun media find out that the optic made a difference?
Would they get ahold of the interrogation room tapes and hear the shooter say how the dot made it so he could get a quicker fatal shot off after he got pushed to the ground in the dark alleyway?
>Would they get ahold of the interrogation room tapes and hear the shooter say how the dot made it so he could get a quicker fatal shot off after he got pushed to the ground in the dark alleyway?
Do you seriously believe that a situation at near contact distance will come down to the defender's choice of sighting device?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Cases that aren't extremely basic are the ones that get more coverage.
Here's the problem anon. Your idea of what counts as "aren't extremely basic" are exceptionally rare mass shooting or attempted mass shooting events in public spaces. By virtue of the vast majority of DGUs not falling into this category, they aren't getting much coverage or details revealed about them. You thinking that just because a pistol optic was in play and made a difference would make them interesting enough to warrant a bunch of clairvoyant gun spergs coming out of the woodwork to cover them shows where your disconnect with reality is.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Your idea of what counts as "aren't extremely basic" are exceptionally rare mass shooting or attempted mass shooting events in public spaces.
Again, could that be because most DGUs aren't at all exciting and are in fact fairly basic despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death? Again, It's those outlier cases that are the cases where gun, gear, and training choices could conceivably come into play, not any old robbery attempt.
>You thinking that just because a pistol optic was in play and made a difference would make them interesting enough to warrant a bunch of clairvoyant gun spergs coming out of the woodwork to cover them shows where your disconnect with reality is.
An optic being in play =/= an optic making a difference. Outlier cases where the defenders choices could conceivably come into play for deciding the outcome do get more coverage by normal media, because they're outliers, and the gun media picks them up from there.
You gonna answer my question on how the gun media would find out about these shootings or just focus on the random scenario I just threw out as an example?
Because outlier cases where the defenders choices could conceivably come into play for deciding the outcome do get more coverage by normal media, because they're outliers, and the gun media picks them up from there.
>despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death?
So do you or do you not think that choosing a 1911 for a carry piece over a micro 9 is stupid, as you stated in [...]?
That's not my post.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Outlier cases where the defenders choices could conceivably come into play for deciding the outcome do get more coverage by normal media
Yes anon, we already covered that you have a reality disconnect where you actually think that CBS, MSN, CNN et al are going to cover a gun use just because a dot reportedly made a difference.
11 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/uYxfKXG.jpg
this dude legit believing pistol dot use is gonna be making normie headlines, I'm fricking done
>you have a reality disconnect where you actually think that CBS, MSN, CNN et al are going to cover a gun use just because a dot reportedly made a difference.
No, the case will get decently detailed local news coverage because the situation itself was enough of an outlier, and therefore interesting to report on, to even get to the point where the defender's choices of gun and gear could have an effect on the outcome. The gun media then picks up from there. A normal old robbery isn't going to come down to your gun or gear choices.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Pistol dots will never make a difference and any instance where they would is by default an outlier that will get massive media coverage, and since this hasn't happened then pistol dots have never made a difference and I am right
I'm starting to think you're a woman. You argue like one.
11 months ago
Anonymous
nah more likely he's just another pissy poor, bet he doesn't have anything worth over a grand
11 months ago
Anonymous
>will get massive media coverage
I said: >decently detailed local news coverage
Because that's all it takes for the gun media to pick up a story.
>hurr you're a woman
I'll take this as you're out of arguments.
11 months ago
Anonymous
this dude legit believing pistol dot use is gonna be making normie headlines, I'm fricking done
11 months ago
Anonymous
You gonna answer my question on how the gun media would find out about these shootings or just focus on the random scenario I just threw out as an example?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death?
So do you or do you not think that choosing a 1911 for a carry piece over a micro 9 is stupid, as you stated in
[...]
Because you gays pretend as if there's no downside to optics. >lens and emitter that can get covered in shit >concealibility >cost
by the same logic you should be carrying a 1911 instead of a micro compact 9 because you'll be able to shoot the 1911 better and it uses a more larger cartridge.
You've already drawn this line somewhere with your carry gun, but you treat red dots as if there's no trade offs and everyone should have them.
?
11 months ago
Anonymous
how would they draw up that info you moronic Black person? gleaning through news articles that don't go into any further detail than "Mr Smith ventilated Trayboon last night, court hearing is slated for next week"? frick off, no one is fooled by your bullshit so go hug your revolver.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>My proof is that you clearly aren't posting a case
Do you actually think that news reports are going to tell you that a SIG Romeo on a P320 enabled an accurate CNS shot by a guy who was able to focus on a dot while his nerves were going or are you pretending to be moronic?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, we know about Eli Dicken's gun choice down to how his rear sight was damaged in a motorcycle accident and he repaired it himself, and that he was carrying FMJ ammo. We know that Jack Wilson, the guy from Texas who dropped someone trying to shoot up his church with a single shot to the head, used a Sig P229 chambered in .357 Sig and opted for 135 grain Hornady Critical Defense ammunition and a Galco SSS2 holster, and took the shot at between 45 and 47 feet. Do you seriously not realize that the gun media picks up on the crazier outlier cases and specifically tries to get more information about them?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm praying you're just putting on an act of being a fricking idiot and aren't seriously trying to conflate the coverage of mass-shooting incidents to the common DGUs that are being discussed.
11 months ago
Anonymous
no shit we know about those you dumb homosexual, CNN and every other MSM outlet were talking about them nonstop before the joke that is the gun media industry even got around to it, you think Wolf Blitzer is talking about a one on one gun use because he was amazed that a 509T dot was involved?
>Once and for all
You fricking stupid idiot, its been settled. Yes. The end. OnCE AnD FoR AlL! Fricking moron you are the one who is behind, asking a fricking stupid question like that.
Have a G45 with an RMR and a G17 with irons.
Both are otherwise identical.
Here are my thoughts:
Having a nice red dot will undoubtedly tighten up your groups. It will also undoubtedly allow you to get on target faster both from a draw, and for follow up shots. I very much enjoy my red dot and plan on keeping it on that gun.
That being said, I don't know that id go back and spend the money on one again. Ive beaten the holy shit out of that optic and it continues to work like nothing happened. But it still feels like a failure point to me. It feels like a weak spot, despite my confidence in it.
Also, I find myself to be more comfortable shooting with irons. Specifically, that little bit of dancing going on with the dot isn't quite as apparent when shooting with irons.
And lastly, ive gotten good enough with irons that I don't feel Id ever need the benefits a red dot brings. I can reliably ring steel at 100 yards with irons, so I don't think the slightly smaller group size that the RMR gives me will make THAT much difference in a self defense / mass shooter type scenario.
That really isn't an unbelievable claim though. In my experience "reliably" can mean missing as much as 1/2 of the time, and it's not like gongs the size of full size USPSA target don't exist. A USPSA target at 100 yards would be 17.5 MOA by 29.5 MOA, or about the same as a 4.4"x7.4" target at 25 yards, which is completely reasonable to land most of your shots on, and it's not like it's that hard to know your holds for hitting a target that size.
11 months ago
Anonymous
the problem lies with him not specifying how big of a target. Like I said, the gong hickok shoots is fricking big and at a shorter distance and even he occasionally misses it
11 months ago
Anonymous
Hickok also uses anything and everything rather than just one he shoots regularly. Maintaining a 4.4"x7.4" group at 25 yards like I mentioned isn't difficult if you practice.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know how big they are or if they're USPSA or not. At the range I go to, we're not allowed to go downrange, so I cant measure the target, and otherwise ive just never bothered to ask.
You know how I learned to shoot at that distance? Trial and error, aiming above the target, then slowly bringing my POA down until I started hearing pings, and then just kept doing that.
Targets are, by my best approximation, about the size of an average dudes torso, but with no legs and a small head.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Here I found a picture from the last time I was there. I don't have any of me shooting pistol, but I found this one of me shooting my rifle. Its not perfect, as I was shooting from an elevated position to the right of the 100 yard targets, whereas when I shoot pistol im at ground level and directly in line with the target, but it should give you an idea.
11 months ago
Anonymous
i didn't say unbelievable, i said it was a huge boast. most people would call BS if you said "i can reliably ring steel at 100yds with irons on a pistol". this entirely arc started because the other anon acted like me saying "with a handgun?" was silly.
i'm also curious what handgun hes using.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Do you own guns? Have you ever shot a pistol at anything further than 25 yards? Its really not that hard. Im not boasting because its not that impressive?? And did you not read my original comment? Im primarily shooting a G45 with an RMR or a G17 with irons
Hickok also shoots a million different types of guns. It makes sense that he'd miss every once in a while.
I don't. I have 4 (handguns) that I ever shoot that far and have thousands of rounds through all of them at all manner of distances, from 100 yards to point blank.
All that aside, 100 yards really isn't that far to be shooting pistol. People who can shoot way better than me shoot way further than that regularly.
It literally doesn't matter and you have to train heavily with both which is what actually matters. But morons will argue about anything. However to add my 2 cents I guess a dot would be better for someone that takes their pistol to the range once a year since it's easier to put a dot on whatever you wanna kill then line up irons and remember things like front sight focus.
What would a self defense scenario that could truly be argued to have come down to the defender using a red dot making a difference even look like? I figure it would need to be some longer range/high accuracy situation like shooting someone behind a hostage at much longer than normal self defense ranges with questionable lighting or something along those lines. Eli Dicken and other people before him have demonstrated that long ranges alone are completely doable with a handgun with iron sights, so it would need to be a situation where accuracy beyond simply hitting a person size target is needed. For anything just coming down to split times, especially at typical self defense ranges, you'd be better served just practicing more considering how much your times are dictated by the human portion of things rather than gear that trims off a couple hundredths of a second in a side by side comparison.
How many of the people pushing red dots on /k/, or any other gear really, are actual industry shills? I don't see how people can act the way they do otherwise when asked for proof that X hot new piece of gear that you could totally die if you don't have might actually make a difference.
Can you holster the pistol? If not you have a less accurate pistol caliber carbine.
i have real bad astigmatism so nah
one of the most noguns posts i've seen all week and its only monday night
>CCW
No
>Home defense or combat
Yes
I carry a p365xl with an rmr on top, I can holster it and carry it as easily as if it didn't have an optic. Red dots are just better
>add shit to top of gun
>it’s just as concealable bro
X to doubt
Where red dot respecters the ones coping all along?
>Where
Silence ESL you don't even own a gun
>only ESLs use the wrong where and there
This actually seems like projection
You are a fricking idiot, quite literally and your opinion is meaningless. Every good concealed carry holster supports a red dot mounted pistol you uneducated ignorant shit.
>manlet carrylet detected
>combat
you need to be 18 or older to post here
>combat
I lean toward no, because on a defensive handgun your main priority should be focusing on the target, not the sight. You need to be proficient enough with your sidearm that it's more instinctive point shooting than anything else.
No top flight defensive handgun instructor teaches that doctrine.
Every single instructor tells you to focus on your target.
You do realize that one of the main benefits of red dots is that they facilitate target focus, while with irons you generally are trained to have front sight focus? If you're shooting a red dot and focusing on the dot then you're doing it wrong.
They don't realize it, they're actually morons. Irons suck for lots of reasons and in my experience shooting multiple platforms, a red dot is always better than irons. The sight picture argument shows that they probably don't even shoot at all, because if you can't see the dot you wouldn't align your irons anyway
You're missing the point. I specifically didn't mention it being better or worse. At defensive handgun ranges you aren't precision aiming at all; the sight doesn't matter.
Even if we assume that every defensive handgun use is going to involve reflexive point shooting (which I disagree with, but I'll grant you for the sake of argument), the advantage the red dot gives you in identifying and correcting errors in your grip, trigger pull, followthrough, etc. makes the dot worth it as all of that will translate into more accurate point shooting.
>Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there
Literally just imagine the gun is your index finger and you're pointing at the target and the dot will be in FOV every single time. Having difficulty picking up the dot is a skill issue.
>You need to be proficient enough with your sidearm that it's more instinctive point shooting
how often do you do any shooting that DOESN'T take place at an indoor range?
this is why it's so hard to have actual discussion on pistol optics, there's no shortage of morons like this that completely lack any understanding on the use of them
This kind of thing infects most discussions about personal arms. Unfortunate side effect of the web is that there aren’t any real barriers to entry so people like your link can toss out their opinion even though they have no hands on experience with the subject.
The only complaint I’ve ever heard from people I’ve let shoot my dot is that they cant find it quickly. That is a training issue, and can be helped along tremendously by an ACSS Vulcan reticle.
My EDC is a Beretta 92LTT Centurion with a RMR
Thankfully haven't had to use it in a self defense scenario yet
Cope, seethe, mald, and dilate beta b***h boys
I have a holosun 507k X2 on a sig p365xl.
I like it. I'm an idiot though, so zeroing it at 25yds was tedious.
Enigma holster?
How is it?
It's great when you have the real estate for it. I had to go a size up to comfortably have it shoved inside my pants. Took awhile to adjust to my size but that might be my moronation. I still wear a dress belt over it but keep it a notch loose to not interfere with drawing.
Dubs of truth
Blessed Album
Hey, I have that CD on the right.
>doesn't actually make a difference at the ranges almost all self defense shootings play out at
>presents another thing to go wrong
>runs into problems being slower to get on target or losing the dot when shooting from positions outside of what you normally practice at the range outside of very specific models
>duty pistol
Sure, it's still probably pointless since you're going to be point shooting at 99% of shootouts since they'll be within 5 yards where you're not using sights, but it's not going to interfere with function and will be useful if you need to make a longer shot.
>CCW
No, because the benefit isn't worth the increased difficulty concealing it, the weight is non-negligible on a standard belt, and the housing can get caught on your cover garment.
>runs into problems being slower to get on target or losing the dot when shooting from positions outside of what you normally practice at the range outside of very specific models
They're still more usable then irons in those situations.
>They're still more usable then irons in those situations.
lol
>so far off from a sight picture that you can't find the dot
>but irons will magically work
Pro-tip, they make sights with a donut of death ring for people like you who're incapable of realizing that pointing the gun 45 degrees upward might be bad for your sight picture.
>but irons will magically work
Yes physical objects in space are "magically" easier to find than a dot projected on a lens that only appears when the lens is properly aligned.
>Pro-tip, they make sights with a donut of death ring for people like you who're incapable of realizing that pointing the gun 45 degrees upward might be bad for your sight picture.
>red dot moron demonstrates that he didn't or fully comprehend my post before replying
>I am incapable of looking down a flat plane, the top of the slide, and figuring out which direction it's massively out of parallel in
>but MUH IRONS will be much easier to correct despite having significantly lower room for error in lining up the front sight post
>please ignore the fact that I still have to do the exact same correction to bring the front post close enough to do a fine adjustment
ignore the fact that I still have to do the exact same correction to bring the front post close enough to do a fine adjustment
>t. doesn't shoot
Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there, assuming whatever awkward position your shooting from resulted in your gun pointing low rather than high. There is no fricking around with looking at your gun and comparing what looks out of alignment, and unless you're using some plain black on black sights that you haven't at least painted yourself, the front sights will be vastly more visible than the alignment of your gun. From personal experience, it's much faster.
>You do realize that one of the main benefits of red dots is that they facilitate target focus
You do realize that target focused shooting with irons is completely doable at the ranges almost all self defense shootings happen within, and that a lot of competitive shooters shoot that way, don't you?
>waaah everyone should point shoot and practice proper alignment
>w-what do you mean even a few minutes of practicing presenting your pistol will mean you never have to look for the dot, it will just be there?!
Everyone who shills point shooting doesn't point shoot. If you did, none of your complaints would be valid.
>point shoot
Where did you get point shooting from my post?
>hurr shill
Yeah, just spend a few minutes practicing presenting your pistol from every possible position and hope you didn't forget to think of any.
Except the cowitness sights people use are less visible with some going to the extent of using black on black sights because people don't want the visual clutter of a red dot plus high viz sights, so that still ends up being slower.
>Yeah, just spend a few minutes practicing presenting your pistol from every possible position
sorry you just don't have basic hand eye coordination I guess.
>b-but I never said point shooting
So this ain't you, it's another fricking moron? Incredible honestly.
>sorry you just don't have basic hand eye coordination I guess.
You can say that all you want, but that's not going to help once you get into awkward positions.
>moron has deluded himself into thinking his views are so popular that everyone who doesn't agree with him is the same person
>defending someone's shit takes while not holding their views
lmao what a moron
someone's shit takes
Where do you think I did this?
Scroll up Black personlips
if you're not already printing, a RMR isn't adding much to the size of the gun. Won't make a difference.
>Scroll up Black personlips
So you're just moronic then?
why are you talking to yourself?
>this is the intelligence of the average poster who thinks red dots are a game changer for concealed carry
Who are you quoting?
An extra inch of height is twice the difference between a 17 and 19, and RMRs are more or less in line with the grip.
Uhuh. Now what is the difference between the RMR and the grip? Riiiight, it's a tiny little projection on the slide and not the size of the grip at all.
>height doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
You could have 4 extra bullets for the cost in height of an RMR.
doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
Correct. It also helps that it's not the width of the grip.
Well shucks Jimbo, I guess we should be carrying our spare mags on the top of the gun if height on the top don't count.
Actually, it does, because in a carry holster, the grip is going to be more or less parallel with your belt which means that the optic will be tilted up and back which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it, both for disturbing the natural drape which will cause printing and for getting caught during the draw.
>Well shucks Jimbo, I guess we should be carrying our spare mags on the top of the gun if height on the top don't count.
If they were as tiny as an RMR that would be a great idea. But of course they're not.
>Actually, it does, because in a carry holster, the grip is going to be more or less parallel with your belt which means that the optic will be tilted up and back which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it, both for disturbing the natural drape which will cause printing and for getting caught during the draw.
This is what happens when people who don't own guns try to describe carrying guns. How awful.
>Actually, it does, because in a carry holster, the grip is going to be more or less parallel with your belt which means that the optic will be tilted up and back which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it, both for disturbing the natural drape which will cause printing and for getting caught during the draw.
I carry strong side in an FBI cant IWB holster like God intended and have never had these issues.
>which makes it very easy to have fabric get caught on it,
dude just start posting your fitz specials already, its clear you're one of the three revolver schizos that trawl this board for CCW threads.
I've carried a 19 for longer then you've been allowed to own guns, anon, if we don't count the time that I've moved to an appendix 43 during the summer.
ok. now, excluding pocket carry, how many times has your gun snagged on your clothes?
gets caught in my fishnets all the time
I don't have a pinch point created by mounting something tall at a 90 degree angle to my slide, but my shirt still catches on even the slightly raised surface of the front sight on the way up if you draw recklessly, which is why Tru-Glos have a beveled edge on the front of the rear sight to minimize the chance of them getting caught while on the downward motion of clearing your cover garment.
>but my shirt still catches on even the slightly raised surface of the front sight
tf are you wearing, threadbare rags? i have never had an issue with this.
Tight Airism undershirt underneath a OCBD most of the time, and it'll drag the undershirt enough that I have to tuck it back in after doing draw practice.
>one of the three revolver schizos that trawl this board for CCW threads.
So I wasn't insane and there actually is one or two extremely autistic revolver users that manage to have a stranglehold on any CCW thread made here...I swore I was seeing the exact same style of posting and argument points over and over and over
No they're very real and they will always press you to prove that there have been civilian DGUs that involved more than six shots even though they know full well that it's impossible since no news article or law enforcement report goes into that kind of detail. At least one admits to chronically pretending he's a noir PI or cowboy and that's why he chooses some dogshit budget Ruger. You cannot win with them.
>pretending he's a noir PI or cowboy
One of the few valid reasons to own a revolver.
LARPing as pic related is also approved.
I get that but he sticks to CCW topics and doesn't even own any actual cowboy revolvers like an SAA or cap and ball piece so he just comes off as moronic.
It's funny that you guys keep mentioning the revolver schizos, yet you're the only ones talking about revolvers here. Might you be just a little bit obsessed?
You argue like a woman. You should be ashamed.
>height doesn't matter if you put it on top of the gun instead of the bottom
It actually doesn't. The bore axis is the center line of the gun. Additional height on the grip means that the grip will protrude more. Additional height on the top of the slide does not mean that the grip will protrude more, and the grip already protrudes way more than any optic will.
Moot argument, you are wrong and have no point nor a leg to stand on deal with it, even in sidecar style holsters where you have a mag in a fixed position close to your pistol a red dot does not get in the way. Educate yourself do better and shut up when you dont know what youre talking about.
Okay that actually makes sense, since the red dot isn’t all the way back on the slide, the slide would probably print before the rmr.
>Except the cowitness sights people use are less visible with some going to the extent of using black on black sights
Are you those people? If not, why would what sights they choose affect you?
>the visual clutter of a red dot plus high viz sights
You shoot with BOTH EYES OPEN WITH DOTS AND FOCUS ON THE TARGET YOU FRICKING moron, SO THERE IS NO "CLUTTER"
Jfc do any of you naysayers even have actual experience shooting a red dot?
>Literally just lift your wrist and have your front sight instantly in view then correct from there
Wow, I didn't realize that installing a RDS on a pistol required you to turn the rest of the gun invisible so you can't do exactly the same corrective action except not needing to fine tune your sight picture to get the post within the notch and instead just need to get close enough for the dot to reappear.
yeah
Also yeah. NV doesn't work with irons and lasers on pistols is a great way to learn bad habits.
Red dots are objectively superior for every practical purpose and are the future of handguns. Everyone who disagrees is either poor or a Fudd and most likely both. If nothing else, the red dot is worth it as a training tool, because it shows you all of the mistakes that you're making way better than any other method. Red dot haters don't realize this because they're either too poor to afford a red dot and so have never tried one, or they don't actually train properly (which means at least half an hour of dry fire multiple days a week) and again, most likely both. Every argument brought forth by the iron sight crowd is objectively, demonstrably, pure cope.
Red dots on handguns are heavily hampered by reciprocated slide.
There is need for new generation of pistols with stationary slides. Glock needs to step up.
holy frick you think that guns slide doesn't reciprocate? It's just got a backstrap that doesn't, the whole part called the "slide" still goes BRRRR, unlike your brain, moron.
No cause I think they look gay.
>allows for cowitness / BUIs
Sure
>doesn't
Hell no
ccw nah cuz printing
any other circumstance sure
I have a lot more confidence with a red dot, so I cc a g45mos with a ddp when I’m out on the town. When I’m sweating my balls off doing yard work in the hot Calorina summer, I cc a g43x with irons. I sweat all over my firearm constantly, so a red dot would be pointless.
Different tools for different situations
They provide a measurable advantage in a competitive setting, but I have yet to be convinced that this advantage crosses over to a duty or defensive pistol. I don't think that there's anything wrong with a carry a gun with an optic, but I think it's one of those things that's more about personal preference than what's superior/inferior.
why specifically the meme pastor that /misc/ likes? now, feign ignorance.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
LOOOOOL
u mad bro?
HAHAHAHAHA
mad bro?
mad?
piss
pisses on shithead
PISS
HAHAHAHAHA
PISSS
PISSS
PSISS
LMAOOOO
HAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOOOOOl
piss
100% yes; well, maybe if you have to remove your irons completely, then no.
I CCW a P365XL with a 407k and love it. You still have a little bit of the irons to index if you need it, and the dot is easy to pick up and allows you to not focus on the front sight.
Why is it handgun red dots tend to make the most vitriolic threads? Even caliber wars or glock shitflinging are more civil
They make the poors very angry
Do you even own a gun?
You think being able to afford a red dot makes you not poor?
When the thread topic is something that is a hard, defined barrier that filters out poors, you're going to get heated discussion and hot takes.
Post a gun.
Okay. What now?
>bp pistol and turkshit 1911
eugh
BP and cheap guns are fun, which you'd know if you weren't such a gay.
Yeah.
>black powder Colt
>eugh
brown hands typed this
>pls dont make fun of my poverty guns, they are white culture!
the frick kind of low grade bait is this? no (you) for (you), try harder next time
I was just curious. Most of the time people say anything about "the poors", they don't own any guns and are adding nothing to the conversation.
>Most of the time people say anything about "the poors", they don't own any guns
What sort of alternate reality are you from, the inverse is true where the posters screeching about "LARPers" "Gearqueers" "Range queens" etc etc etc are the ones that almost always have no guns to post
This is /k/. Most people on any side of any argument are noguns, and usually underage, too.
This is disgusting
wow black powder shooting is dirty, more at 11
neo-fudds need to virtue signal
His documentary “Marching to Zion” is 100% correct. As for salvation he seems to be standard solis fidelis.
All the gun and gear min-maxing people do is a meme. Your reminder that if trying to qualify with a production setup in the USPSA open division, few classifier stages will potentially drop you more than 1 class if you aren't a master/grand master level shooter, and that's adding every single gamer feature to your gun and gear possible including:
>large red dots that would typically be mounted on a rifle
>compensators as long as they can be as there are no gun size limits
>weights to further soak up recoil as there is no weight limit
>gas pedals
>mag wells
>up to 29 round magazines* vs 10 round magazines, although only a few classifiers go over 10 rounds without having the reload be mandatory
>holsters that only retain your gun by the trigger guard
>recent rule changes allow magazines to be retained by magnets rather than even being in a pouch
>magazine holders are allowed to hold your mags 3 3/8" away from your body for easy grabbing
>modified scoring where a shot landing in the C zone (equivalent to anywhere on the torso above the belly button) rather than the A zone only drops you 1 point rather than 2 due to use of hotter loaded ammunition for major scoring, even though the higher pressures really just makes the compensator work that much better
And that's before considering that a large portion of USPSA classifiers aren't boring like reality and can include engaging upwards of 9 targets, engaging groups of targets behind hard cover, and other shit that you will never see in real life.
*note that the capacity limit for open is by magazine length and it's entirely possible that some company might release a quad stack mag and completely eliminate the need for reloads in the open division unless USPSA increases the max required round count per stage beyond 32 or adds a capacity limit
To add. For the 42 out of 49 classifiers I have data for, only 8 will drop someone who landed right on the border of being an A class production division shooter to being a C class open division shooter. Of those 8 classifiers, 3 involve mandatory reloads (03-02, 03-08, and 13-06) and 3 involve firing enough rounds that someone in the production division needs to reload but someone in open isn't forced to reload (06-01, 06-02, and 13-09). The only 2 classifiers that could group a borderline A class production shooter as a C class open division shooter without involving reloads are 06-08 (which involves engaging 6 mostly concealed pepper poppers at 15 yards) and 09-11 (which involves engaging 6 targets hiding behind no shoot targets at 10 yards).
Pic related is 06-08. for those interested for how crazy the stages need to be to make that much of a difference without a reload to suck up time.
>look up the height of the USPSA pepper poppers
>they're 42" tall and 6" wide at the widest point with the top section only being 3" wide
>the targets they're behind are 29.5" tall and cover up slightly more than half of the 6" wide section
Lol, I suppose I can keep this in mind for where a red dot might make a difference.
How would you recommend beginning in USPSA? I'm interested, but suck at pistols. I'm taking a class this weekend and shooting more so I'll see how that goes.
Look on practiscore for you local gun clubs and reach out to see if they have an intro to action shooting course they offer. Alternatively buy gear, practice dry firing and reloading, and sign up for a match and let the person in charge know it's your first time shooting. They're usually really cool with new shooters to get them interested into the sport.
>going from a normal pistol with irons to a full on race gun makes this little of a difference in performance
Well that's depressing.
not the same anon, but
>inb4 Catholics believe in works based salvation
short answer: no
longer answer: pic related
>what is works based salvation then?
vid related
And 09-11. Because you never know when you might need to engage 6 guys hiding behind hostages.
Meant for:
if it wasn't obvious enough.
I don't shoot USPSA. I just found their classifiers to be interesting due to the variety and how people are graded as a percent of what's possible from grand master shooter at the absolute top of their game rather than being given a number to meet that looked good.
How fricking fat are all of you where a red dot is the make or break issue for concealment? And why do so many of you gays carry mini micro pussy subcompacts?
t. Glock 17 and Holochad EPS EDC'er
If you can't conceal carry a full size handgun, quickly and expeditiously have a nice day.
>Once and for all...red dot on a pistol or nah?
It's all up to the owner of the gun in question.
if you have no confidence in your current sight system and feel you will gain confidence installing at RedDot.
>Then go ahead and waste money! You can almost buy a new gun for the price of some RD's
Nah
My only argument is that I find them boring. Yes I do have one, a Burris FF2 on a CZ 75
Pros:
>objectively faster once you train with it
>good for people with bad eyes
>modern reflex optics are very tough and their batteries last a long time
>looks cool AF
Cons:
>they cost money
>make the gun larger and heavier
>John Wayne didn’t need them why do you? A 45 will blow and arm off
Me, I have one on my range toy pistol and one on my AIWB carry pistol. Didn’t change printing at all. Have a P365 for when I’m casually dressed, no optic because want to keep it light.
Once .mil starts issuing them on all their M17s it’ll be over for irons.
>Once .mil starts issuing them on all their M17s it’ll be over for irons.
I'm worried about this future. We saw it happen with rifles, but I hope it doesn't happen with handguns. Imagine buying a pistol that doesn't come with any irons and also doesn't come with an optic.
>Once .mil starts issuing them on all their M17s it’ll be over for irons.
neva gona hapin
> first thing to break on a 20 something in the field is glass
You sound like a shitty soldier if you're breaking your glass. Treat your weapon well it's your life dip shit, you shouldn't be banging it on anything hard enough to break an optic. How do you get away without a statement of charges on that anyway
>need to hit the dirt because your location is being shelled
>weaker exposed red dot gets smashed against a rock
The "bombproof" reliability that a lot of military gear has a reputation for having comes from the stress that it needs to be able to deal with when soldiers are, get this, reacting to bombs.
Why would that break the optic.
>m-muh bombs!
If the bomb is landing on you, you have bigger issues.
Moving quickly doesn't break optics. I'm certain you dumbfricks just spout shit without even considering why.
>Moving quickly doesn't break optics.
I didn't say moving quickly. I said diving to the ground and smashing the red dot against a rock or something with the full force of your body behind it, which is something that can actually happen in a war zone. We're not dealing with people's everyday lives or cops who might have to wrestle with criminals.
So do you like actually just think red dots can't handle that or something? Because get this, soldiers have been using them for the last 20 years no problem.
>y-yeah but not smaller, stronger red dots protected by holsters!
lol, lmao even
>b-but my ~1 ounce MRDS that need to be that light to function on a pistol slide will totally be as durable as the 9 ounce Aimpoint Comp M4 that didn't need to worry about those same constraints when it was designed
correct!
?t=480
>test is just dropping it under its own weight, rather than the reality of it having the weight of a human body behind it
Correct. Now it's time for you to address the part where the optic is literally breaking the concrete he's dropping it on and is completely undamaged. Then move on to address how the handgun is issued alongside a safariland holster and will not be having any force applied to the optic in the first place, even bodyslaming the gun directly to the ground.
You don't even begin to know why you believe the dumb made up shit you spout, you'll never be able to convince anyone else at this rate.
>b-but it dents concrete, so it'll just destroy the concrete more if you hit it harder!
Really anon? Really?
>the handgun is issued alongside a safariland holster
Ah yes, the legendary Safariland holster that they only make 1 model of. Known for being an impenetrable safe that can smash through tank armor, cut diamond, and protect your gun even if you drop it into molten magma. Everything has been made clear to me now.
>that can smash through tank armor, cut diamond, and protect your gun even if you drop it into molten magma. Everything has been made clear to me now.
>ignores that it completely and totally protects the optic
moron.
>only make one model
So you're too lazy to even look up the one singular issued holster for the gun we're arguing about? Again, you don't even know why you believe what you believe and are just making it up as you go. Hence why you can't form a single coherent argument.
>it'll just magically get damaged because it will even though the RMR is vastly more durable than full size red dots, because uh, it will!
>even though it's fully encased in a holster and won't be out in the open to even hit the optic, at worst an impact would be spread out across the whole slide
>but it'll totally break because it will!
lmao how does it feel to know mrds like the RMR were and are already used on military rifles, and they don't break and it's not a problem at all? All the imaginary scenarios you can come up with have already happened, and the dot didn't even have the safety of a holster to protect it. It still wasn't a problem. You're actually just a dumb fricking fudd.
POINT POST SPRAWL moron, you aren't trained to break your fall with your aim point. You probably haven't served you're just spouting shit.
>pistol is on your belt because you aren't running around like Call of Duty man
>top of the pistol faces the ground when you go down
>top of the pistol impacts rock when you go down
yeah
>So you're too lazy to even look up the one singular issued holster for the gun we're arguing about?
You mean the one singular issued holster that won't work with a red dot unless you take a saw to it and leave the red dot completely exposed? That holster?
>lmao how does it feel to know mrds like the RMR were and are already used on military rifles
By people who aren't normal infantry, and also didn't have to worry about it obstructing their sight picture if it broke.
>top of the pistol impacts rock when you go down
are you falling straight down like a board? the force of your pistol coming down as you go prone is not very strong and despite your feelings, the RMR is incredibly durable. heck, MOST small electronics are durable.
He doesn't know. He's never done it.
>By people who aren't normal infantry,
Don't let the marines know they're special, they'll want more crayons.
Neverserved
They don't issue handguns to every idiot who signs up. The Army does it for team leaders and up and the other branches start even higher.
yes, but only if youre proficient with irons. Red dots and lasers are just toys that can make it a little easier to shoot, if you practice with them. Toys and gadgets dont make up for range time
Reflex sights don’t make it “a little easier” to shoot, they make a person objectively faster and more accurate once they’ve trained with them. There is a reason the top shooters all use reflex sights in classes that allow them.
They aren’t toys and they aren’t gadgets, they are tools that expand the capability of a pistol.
Red dots are fun to shoot, I’m at the point where my inaccuracy is my inability to properly use iron sights because of my failing eyes but if you don’t put in the time to train on a dot don’t use one.
do you wear your sunglasses at night?
Any gun I think might get used in a defensive manner gets a dot and whatever other upgrades I can afford.
People are correct to put red dots on their handguns, but they are incorrect to think that it looks cool
I just like it, bros.
>all the morons in this thread that think they'll be taking aimed precision shots with red dots at attackers 30 yards away in a defensive situation
The funny thing is that when such a situation actually happened, it involved a guy using stock Glock sights that had been previously damaged and filed back to a usable state.
I wonder how many red dot enjoyers also parrot memes like 3/3/3
I remember when it first happened people were saying he had a red dot lol.
Kind of like how right after Kenosha people were saying he was using 77gr OTM and it turned out he was using .223 FMJ.
Maybe richgays were the real copium addicts all along.
>Maybe richgays were the real copium addicts all along.
It's not that. The real problem is people have fooled themselves into believing that since someone made it through such a rare event, they must be better than the average shooter in some way. There are still people who think that Rittenhouse had a significant amount of training under his belt, rather than the reality that he had only shot his rifle once right after he bought it. Also the people who are convinced that people who actually shoot are going to perform like a police officer if they actually get into a self defense scenario.
I did what he did with irons in a staged course. I did it better with a dot. What sort of own is this supposed to be?
I understand that the optic will give a better score on paper nearly every time, but the point is whether or not that advantage will ever matter within the realm of defensive/duty use of a handgun. Yes, a red dot can make a person more accurate, but when talking about these rare outlier cases of shooters that were stopped by a person using only iron sights, discussing the potential advantages of red dots basically turns into a conversation about how the assailant might somehow be more dead if the defender had chosen different equipment. Some tenths of a second might make a big difference when comparing guns on a shot timer, but maybe that extra time doesn't really matter outside of the range.
>falling back on 'w-well most shootings don't NEEEEEEED that accuracy!'
you may as well say most situations don't need a gun either. no one EVER says a red dot is required on a handgun but plenty of people will attest that a red dot makes them a much better shot. considering most new guns come with red dot mounts, and good-enough red dots can be bought for under 300 bucks, this is no longer something that people should fight to the death over.
you just want to be a contrarian and to invent drama that lets you think people are oppressing you for your superior beliefs and choces.
>you may as well say most situations don't need a gun either.
By what logic? There have been an average 3-4 DGUs that have ended in an attacker being shot (confirmed from news articles and police reports) every singe day in the US for the past several years now, and DGUs that end in an attacker being shot are a small fraction of DGUs which brings that up to multiple DGUs in this country happening per hour. There are indisputably situations that require a gun. Meanwhile, you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
How would you prove that? This sounds as disingenuous as the revolver shills who swear that no DGU has warranted more than 6 shots because almost no news article or police report specifies round counts.
What the frick are you on that you read my post and thought I was being contrarian? If you want to carry a gun with a red dot, then do it. Nobody is oppressing me, or you, or whatever the frick garbage you're saying. I was just pointing out the diminishing returns with carrying a pistol with an optic, and you read something else and ran with it.
Because you gays pretend as if there's no downside to optics.
>lens and emitter that can get covered in shit
>concealibility
>cost
by the same logic you should be carrying a 1911 instead of a micro compact 9 because you'll be able to shoot the 1911 better and it uses a more larger cartridge.
You've already drawn this line somewhere with your carry gun, but you treat red dots as if there's no trade offs and everyone should have them.
>lens and emitter that can get covered in shit
Anon, have you actually carried with an optic? Do you realize how absurd it is for a concealed carry pistol to get its lens or emitter obstructed? For that matter, why do you not grasp the concept of shooting with both eyes open? That's one of the main advantages of the dot, your able to get better situational awareness and the obstruction, if it somehow even does occur, isn't really relevant for reasons anyone who actually knows how to properly use a dot optic can explain.
>concealibility [sic]
Valid, but also readily able to be overcome nowadays with proper attire and holster setups.
>cost
You can get solid dots for under $300 now, this isn't really a valid point anymore
>by the same logic you should be carrying a 1911 instead of a micro compact 9 because you'll be able to shoot the 1911 better and it uses a more larger cartridge.
I'm not grasping your attempted comparison here, a 1911 is laughably larger and heavier than a compact 9mm whereas a carry piece with a dot has a smidge more weight and a slightly enlarged profile in the less-affection region of the gun. Where does the "more larger" [sic] cartridge bit even come in?
>he can’t aim with both eyes open using irons
>but the point is whether or not that advantage will ever matter within the realm of defensive/duty use of a handgun.
If I prove to myself that I'm able to shoot better and faster with my optic, why wouldn't I? What do I lose?
Absolutely nothing. Do whatever the frick you want, dude.
So where's the cope as described in the posts I was responding to initially?
just don't bother, they want to hate dots and that's what they'll do in this thread.
>how would I prove something that I'm insisting will realistically make a difference in the outcome of a life or death situation actually will? that's unreasonable!
>and have I told you how much revolvers upset me?
Might as well be talking about carrying tiger repelling rocks at that point.
What?
He's a fudd with such a chip on his shoulder he has trouble reading and imagines things that weren't even said.
Meant for
I'm a bit drunk right now.
Answer the question though, how would you prove your claim?
I hope you're carrying a tiger repelling rock every day anon. Tigers are ambush predators and you won't have time to get your gun out without one.
Anon you said red dots have never helped, I'd like to see the proof of that. That's a very absolute statement. How did you come to that conclusion?
you're the one who said there was no proof of a red dot helping in a defensive situation, the burden's on you. and you are arguing exactly like the revolver schizos by making an argument that is unprovable, then when asked for evidence you lazily try and spin it so the other side's at fault for not having ready counterproof. it's insultingly transparent how bad faith you're being.
>hurr why can't you prove a negative?
That's not how burden of proof works anon.
>Anon you said red dots have never helped
I said
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
My proof is that you clearly aren't posting a case and are trying to deflect.
You know exactly what you're doing, don't even try to squirm your way out of this. You try to put the onus on pro-dot users by accusing them of being unable to point to a case where a dot helped in a DGU, knowing full well that that's impossible to do given the nature of the info available to the public. You then try to use that absence of proof as proof of absence, then when this is pointed out you accuse others of deflection. Do you think this isn't obvious? That other anon is right, you have the exact same MO as the six gun fanatics who demand proof of more than six shots being fired by a civilian and then proclaiming victory when such details are unable to be pried from the vague reports.
At the end of the day, like most things handgun related, it all comes down to preference. If someone is good with irons then they're likely covered for a scenario where they have to use a gun. Likewise, if someone prefers a dot they aren't going to be set back by having it. Acting like one or the other is doomed for their preference is just being an argumentative homosexual.
he likely IS one of the revolver schizos lmfao
>You try to put the onus on pro-dot users by accusing them of being unable to point to a case where a dot helped in a DGU, knowing full well that that's impossible to do given the nature of the info available to the public. You then try to use that absence of proof as proof of absence, then when this is pointed out you accuse others of deflection.
Anon, if the argument that having a red dot can realistically make a difference in the outcome of a scenario vs not having one had any factual basis whatsoever rather than purely being based on emotion, the people presenting that argument would be able to present evidence to back it up, and yet they clearly can't as this same tired argument plays out thread after thread.
>At the end of the day, like most things handgun related, it all comes down to preference. If someone is good with irons then they're likely covered for a scenario where they have to use a gun. Likewise, if someone prefers a dot they aren't going to be set back by having it. Acting like one or the other is doomed for their preference is just being an argumentative homosexual.
Lol, yet my statement that upset you was:
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
So which is it? This statement of yours completely contradicts all these posts you've made trying to argue your point.
>the people presenting that argument would be able to present evidence to back it up
Did you not read any part of my post? Are you just looking for attention?
>This statement of yours completely contradicts all these posts you've made trying to argue your point.
It does not. At no point did I state that having irons would set a user back, just like at no point did I state that having a red dot would give you a glaring advantage. You're the one arguing red dots don't do anything by virtue of no one taking up your asinine demand for proof that you know cannot be obtained. Which, I guess, makes you the mentioned variety of argumentative homosexual.
>Did you not read any part of my post?
Did you not read mine? If they can't provide any evidence to back their argument, then they're arguing from emotion and their argument is meaningless.
>At no point did I state that having irons would set a user back, just like at no point did I state that having a red dot would give you a glaring advantage.
Yet you seem so upset by my stating the same? Again, my statement asking for proof that you're so upset about:
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
Again, with extra emphasis since you can't read, that's having a red dot _OR NOT_.
See:
>and aren't seriously trying to conflate the coverage of mass-shooting incidents
Because one of the situations I listed as an example was a mass shooting and the other was an attempted one? Would you like me to give more examples, such as Rittenhouse talking about getting a dead trigger and using the forward assist in an interview? Yes there's going to be more coverage of mass shooting and attempted mass shooting incidents, because those are the more interesting outliers as far as self defense cases go, with longer engagement distances and more heavily armed attackers than you might otherwise encounter.
Anon, I think you struggle to read and are focused on deflecting rather than actually countering arguments. That is unfortunate.
the stupid homosexual is literally saying we'd hear about a guy with a dot shooting some jogger in an alley in St. Louis because the media went all in on fricking Kyle R., i get he's apparently drunk but he's probably just fricking stupid on top of that.
>Would you like me to give more examples, such as Rittenhouse
So, another multiple casualty incident. I'm guessing you actually *are* moronic since you're actually still trying to use the media coverage of huge, outlying spree shootings/riots/attempted mass murders as proof that far more common DGUs would receive equal coverage...because they involved an optic. Nah, you're dumb, straight up.
>outlying spree shootings/riots/attempted mass murders as proof that far more common DGUs would receive equal coverage...because they involved an optic.
Anon, if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media. It's those outlier cases that are the cases where gun, gear, and training choices could conceivably come into play, not any old robbery attempt.
>if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media.
Meanwhile, outside of dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land, DGUs mostly happen without any witnesses, get brief mentions in the news sometime after, see a court hearing, and re resolved without ever getting into the public eye again and with autistic gun freaks never even having the chance to get more info on what was used. How the in the actual shit do you think some schmuck for TFB is going to hear that a dot was used in one of the whoknowhowmany defense shootings with a pistol happen across this country every night? Do you think the investigators handling it will post on the PD twitter how cool it was that a Holosun was used on the Canik that popped the future doctor on MLK Blvd the night prior?
>if some self defense shooting happened where having an optic clearly made a difference, rather than just a defender happening to have used an optic, then you bet your ass there'd be more detailed coverage of it by gun media
How would the gun media find out that the optic made a difference?
Would they get ahold of the interrogation room tapes and hear the shooter say how the dot made it so he could get a quicker fatal shot off after he got pushed to the ground in the dark alleyway?
This post is what happens when you live on the internet and forget how the real world functions
>If they can't provide any evidence to back their argument, then they're arguing from emotion and their argument is meaningless.
What evidence do you need other than the fact you perform better with your choice and are more comfortable with it than without? These are defensive handguns, probably the most subjective guns possible. I don't know how you expect anyone to provide evidence that they wouldn't get anything out of using the setup they do better with. What would this evidence even look like? Where would you get it? Is there an FBI study on the specifics of pistols used in self defense I'm not aware of?
Are you actually moronic?
Again:
>you can't point to a single situation where having a red dot on a handgun or not made a difference in the outcome.
Again, with extra emphasis since you can't read, that's having a red dot _OR NOT_. I am stating that the choice between them does not matter. That you need to practice with whatever your choice is and will be more comfortable with what you practice with is a given.
>Meanwhile, outside of dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land, DGUs mostly happen without any witnesses, get brief mentions in the news sometime after, see a court hearing, and re resolved without ever getting into the public eye again and with autistic gun freaks never even having the chance to get more info on what was used.
Could that be because most DGUs aren't at all exciting and are in fact fairly basic despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death? Cases that aren't extremely basic are the ones that get more coverage.
>Would they get ahold of the interrogation room tapes and hear the shooter say how the dot made it so he could get a quicker fatal shot off after he got pushed to the ground in the dark alleyway?
Do you seriously believe that a situation at near contact distance will come down to the defender's choice of sighting device?
>Cases that aren't extremely basic are the ones that get more coverage.
Here's the problem anon. Your idea of what counts as "aren't extremely basic" are exceptionally rare mass shooting or attempted mass shooting events in public spaces. By virtue of the vast majority of DGUs not falling into this category, they aren't getting much coverage or details revealed about them. You thinking that just because a pistol optic was in play and made a difference would make them interesting enough to warrant a bunch of clairvoyant gun spergs coming out of the woodwork to cover them shows where your disconnect with reality is.
>Your idea of what counts as "aren't extremely basic" are exceptionally rare mass shooting or attempted mass shooting events in public spaces.
Again, could that be because most DGUs aren't at all exciting and are in fact fairly basic despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death? Again, It's those outlier cases that are the cases where gun, gear, and training choices could conceivably come into play, not any old robbery attempt.
>You thinking that just because a pistol optic was in play and made a difference would make them interesting enough to warrant a bunch of clairvoyant gun spergs coming out of the woodwork to cover them shows where your disconnect with reality is.
An optic being in play =/= an optic making a difference. Outlier cases where the defenders choices could conceivably come into play for deciding the outcome do get more coverage by normal media, because they're outliers, and the gun media picks them up from there.
Because outlier cases where the defenders choices could conceivably come into play for deciding the outcome do get more coverage by normal media, because they're outliers, and the gun media picks them up from there.
That's not my post.
>Outlier cases where the defenders choices could conceivably come into play for deciding the outcome do get more coverage by normal media
Yes anon, we already covered that you have a reality disconnect where you actually think that CBS, MSN, CNN et al are going to cover a gun use just because a dot reportedly made a difference.
>you have a reality disconnect where you actually think that CBS, MSN, CNN et al are going to cover a gun use just because a dot reportedly made a difference.
No, the case will get decently detailed local news coverage because the situation itself was enough of an outlier, and therefore interesting to report on, to even get to the point where the defender's choices of gun and gear could have an effect on the outcome. The gun media then picks up from there. A normal old robbery isn't going to come down to your gun or gear choices.
>Pistol dots will never make a difference and any instance where they would is by default an outlier that will get massive media coverage, and since this hasn't happened then pistol dots have never made a difference and I am right
I'm starting to think you're a woman. You argue like one.
nah more likely he's just another pissy poor, bet he doesn't have anything worth over a grand
>will get massive media coverage
I said:
>decently detailed local news coverage
Because that's all it takes for the gun media to pick up a story.
>hurr you're a woman
I'll take this as you're out of arguments.
this dude legit believing pistol dot use is gonna be making normie headlines, I'm fricking done
You gonna answer my question on how the gun media would find out about these shootings or just focus on the random scenario I just threw out as an example?
>despite what posters in dumbfrick PrepHolener fairytale land hype them up to be with crazy shootouts that come down to your gun and gear choices making the difference between life or death?
So do you or do you not think that choosing a 1911 for a carry piece over a micro 9 is stupid, as you stated in
?
how would they draw up that info you moronic Black person? gleaning through news articles that don't go into any further detail than "Mr Smith ventilated Trayboon last night, court hearing is slated for next week"? frick off, no one is fooled by your bullshit so go hug your revolver.
>My proof is that you clearly aren't posting a case
Do you actually think that news reports are going to tell you that a SIG Romeo on a P320 enabled an accurate CNS shot by a guy who was able to focus on a dot while his nerves were going or are you pretending to be moronic?
Anon, we know about Eli Dicken's gun choice down to how his rear sight was damaged in a motorcycle accident and he repaired it himself, and that he was carrying FMJ ammo. We know that Jack Wilson, the guy from Texas who dropped someone trying to shoot up his church with a single shot to the head, used a Sig P229 chambered in .357 Sig and opted for 135 grain Hornady Critical Defense ammunition and a Galco SSS2 holster, and took the shot at between 45 and 47 feet. Do you seriously not realize that the gun media picks up on the crazier outlier cases and specifically tries to get more information about them?
I'm praying you're just putting on an act of being a fricking idiot and aren't seriously trying to conflate the coverage of mass-shooting incidents to the common DGUs that are being discussed.
no shit we know about those you dumb homosexual, CNN and every other MSM outlet were talking about them nonstop before the joke that is the gun media industry even got around to it, you think Wolf Blitzer is talking about a one on one gun use because he was amazed that a 509T dot was involved?
>Once and for all
You fricking stupid idiot, its been settled. Yes. The end. OnCE AnD FoR AlL! Fricking moron you are the one who is behind, asking a fricking stupid question like that.
Have a G45 with an RMR and a G17 with irons.
Both are otherwise identical.
Here are my thoughts:
Having a nice red dot will undoubtedly tighten up your groups. It will also undoubtedly allow you to get on target faster both from a draw, and for follow up shots. I very much enjoy my red dot and plan on keeping it on that gun.
That being said, I don't know that id go back and spend the money on one again. Ive beaten the holy shit out of that optic and it continues to work like nothing happened. But it still feels like a failure point to me. It feels like a weak spot, despite my confidence in it.
Also, I find myself to be more comfortable shooting with irons. Specifically, that little bit of dancing going on with the dot isn't quite as apparent when shooting with irons.
And lastly, ive gotten good enough with irons that I don't feel Id ever need the benefits a red dot brings. I can reliably ring steel at 100 yards with irons, so I don't think the slightly smaller group size that the RMR gives me will make THAT much difference in a self defense / mass shooter type scenario.
But that's just me. YMMV
>I can reliably ring steel at 100 yards with irons
with a handgun?
Yes?
don't get snippy like what you're saying isn't a huge boast.
Gotta understand any time someone gives a range like that, convert it to feet then divide by two to get the real distance they can shoot at.
not to mention at that range you're now stretching the mechanical accuracy of a handgun to its limits without even factoring user accuracy.
That really isn't an unbelievable claim though. In my experience "reliably" can mean missing as much as 1/2 of the time, and it's not like gongs the size of full size USPSA target don't exist. A USPSA target at 100 yards would be 17.5 MOA by 29.5 MOA, or about the same as a 4.4"x7.4" target at 25 yards, which is completely reasonable to land most of your shots on, and it's not like it's that hard to know your holds for hitting a target that size.
the problem lies with him not specifying how big of a target. Like I said, the gong hickok shoots is fricking big and at a shorter distance and even he occasionally misses it
Hickok also uses anything and everything rather than just one he shoots regularly. Maintaining a 4.4"x7.4" group at 25 yards like I mentioned isn't difficult if you practice.
I don't know how big they are or if they're USPSA or not. At the range I go to, we're not allowed to go downrange, so I cant measure the target, and otherwise ive just never bothered to ask.
You know how I learned to shoot at that distance? Trial and error, aiming above the target, then slowly bringing my POA down until I started hearing pings, and then just kept doing that.
Targets are, by my best approximation, about the size of an average dudes torso, but with no legs and a small head.
Here I found a picture from the last time I was there. I don't have any of me shooting pistol, but I found this one of me shooting my rifle. Its not perfect, as I was shooting from an elevated position to the right of the 100 yard targets, whereas when I shoot pistol im at ground level and directly in line with the target, but it should give you an idea.
i didn't say unbelievable, i said it was a huge boast. most people would call BS if you said "i can reliably ring steel at 100yds with irons on a pistol". this entirely arc started because the other anon acted like me saying "with a handgun?" was silly.
i'm also curious what handgun hes using.
Do you own guns? Have you ever shot a pistol at anything further than 25 yards? Its really not that hard. Im not boasting because its not that impressive?? And did you not read my original comment? Im primarily shooting a G45 with an RMR or a G17 with irons
friendly reminder that the gong hickok shoots is at 80 yards, and even he misses it sometimes.
the gong is like 2 1/2 feet across
Hickok also shoots a million different types of guns. It makes sense that he'd miss every once in a while.
I don't. I have 4 (handguns) that I ever shoot that far and have thousands of rounds through all of them at all manner of distances, from 100 yards to point blank.
All that aside, 100 yards really isn't that far to be shooting pistol. People who can shoot way better than me shoot way further than that regularly.
he never specified how big the steel is.
I don't seem to need it.
Yes if it doesn't stop you carrying it, same with a wml
If someone invented a soda dispenser attachment for a handgun, it would be the new thing everyone needs to have to be accepted.
It literally doesn't matter and you have to train heavily with both which is what actually matters. But morons will argue about anything. However to add my 2 cents I guess a dot would be better for someone that takes their pistol to the range once a year since it's easier to put a dot on whatever you wanna kill then line up irons and remember things like front sight focus.
Me learn shooting with ironsights on pistol, me keep it that way.
Limited use as they generally break at some point with high round count.
What would a self defense scenario that could truly be argued to have come down to the defender using a red dot making a difference even look like? I figure it would need to be some longer range/high accuracy situation like shooting someone behind a hostage at much longer than normal self defense ranges with questionable lighting or something along those lines. Eli Dicken and other people before him have demonstrated that long ranges alone are completely doable with a handgun with iron sights, so it would need to be a situation where accuracy beyond simply hitting a person size target is needed. For anything just coming down to split times, especially at typical self defense ranges, you'd be better served just practicing more considering how much your times are dictated by the human portion of things rather than gear that trims off a couple hundredths of a second in a side by side comparison.
How many of the people pushing red dots on /k/, or any other gear really, are actual industry shills? I don't see how people can act the way they do otherwise when asked for proof that X hot new piece of gear that you could totally die if you don't have might actually make a difference.
there are very few threads that are directly shilling red dots, its usually the opposite.
stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis
I like irons
Yes always
>compact 357 sig
>leupold stupid dot
>threaded barrel
>single-loop competition holster
damn what a mess
Wait till you see what ammo I CC