Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

[tazdevil]

This thread makes me think of this:

LOL

DOn't you know, this internet is some serious shiz! Especially since Gore invented it!!

What I really want to know, is how did they get the helmet on him. I have a feeling crisco and this was involved:

[XDM45]

I will add a little info to this discussion so you understand where I was going with the question.

My mentality in this situation is that the whole point in carrying is to protect yourself in a potentially lethal scenario. The point of the firearm that has been poking into the small of your back for years unused, is to render you the Alpha male (or female) in a dangerous situation where you find yourself threatened. You find yourself faced with that unwanted, unprovoked, and dreaded situation where you are forced to draw and fire.

If that situation occurs, my question remains: isn't the point of the carried weapon, when you finally do draw it, the point is to get on target "as fast as humanly possible" and if needed, fire?

There isn't a gray area in this to me. You carry to defend, you find it occuring and your goal as the pending victim is nothing less than get that weapon site on the attackers centermass and render them wounded or harmless. If there is anything that can and will help me defend myself, I will use it. I dont want to have to defend myself, I have done all I can and the scenario doesnt fade away, it comes closer and more aggressive. Victim ends up with red dot on centermass, situation is rendered now to a "dial 911 and ask for an ambulance."

Anything that makes a situation safer, quicker or less volatile in MY favor, I am interested in using it. After all, I didnt provoke the situation, I ended up in in. Red dot seems to me to equal a situation rendered/ending in my favor.

I practice, I live in a rural setting where I can. It's not that I am uncomfortable with my .45, its that I when I finally do have to pull point and aim, what will actually help me win the argument. If its documented that open sights are the winner, hands down, I will stick with it. Otherwise, all I want to do is win an argument I didn't ask for.

1) Use whatever works for you, but also be able to use any weapon's sights, not just one type.

2) While I agree with your points and mindset, they are merely from your own personal morals and ethics (just as mine are), thus we must always remember that we do not have an "American JUSTICE System" and that we have an "American LEGAL System"; there's a difference. Remember too that what is Legal isn't always Just; and what is Just, isn't always Legal.

You, I, others may be "right" morally, ethically, and people may even agree with us, but all of that may be completely wrong 'LEGALLY"...and "Legally" is the one that determines if you live free for life or have a cellie named "Bubba" for life.

[PaperPuncher]

Understood and agreed, in full. There is a great legal system, based solely on how much you can afford to buy and the more money you have the more justice you can buy. There are a lot of broke honest people in jail and a lot of rich crooks that are free and roaming the countryside.

[XDM45]

Understood and agreed, in full. There is a great legal system, based solely on how much you can afford to buy and the more money you have the more justice you can buy. There are a lot of broke honest people in jail and a lot of rich crooks that are free and roaming the countryside.

Absolutely.

The thing is, sometimes no matter how much money you have, it's STILL not enough to buy justice because there are even bigger fish to fry than an individual. They become a pawn in a political chess game. It doesn't matter if they are "right" or "wrong". What matters is they are a pawn which will be used to further a political agenda.

Take for example if the DA is anti-gun.....even if everything is legally, morally, and ethically "right" on the person's side for justifiable self-defense, they STILL may end up at the gray bar hotel due to the DA (Judge, Senator, Congressmen, etc"'s agenda which is anti-gun.

In short, screwed by the system for being right, wrong, whatever, but in the end, still screwed.

[jshuberg]

Putting a reflexive or holographic sight on a carry gun is a waste of money IMHO. I don't want to give the impression that I'm in the same ballpark as Suarez, but I think there are a few points missing from his article that should be considered. Mostly that an armed citizen is *highly* unlikely to need to shoot elbows or knees sticking out from behind cover from 20 yards away. It's just an extremely contrived situation.

Most defensive scenarios occur at night, and unless your RDS has an auto-brightness feature, the dot is most likely going to be set so that it can be seen in daylight. One of the common physiological responses to a lethal force encounter is full pupil dilation, so in a dark environment it is possible and even likely that the brightness of the dot will saturate the rods and cones of the eye for the dot, making it impossible to see anything behind or adjacent to the dot. You will effectively have introduced a blind spot surrounding the dot in low light scenarios. This makes the notion of being able to make precision shots no easier than it would be with iron sights, and possibly more difficult. If the dot is bright enough, it could also kill your night vision, leaving dark streaks behind the dot that limit your ability to see until they fade.

Another thing that using a RDS does is change the focal point of the eye from the sights to the target. This might not be a big deal for an experienced shooter, as they have already learned to shift their focus to the front sight without thinking about it to make precise shots when using irons. A person without as much shooting experience who trains with a RDS is less likely to be capable of transitioning to iron sights when needed, as learning to shift focus without thinking about it takes quite a bit of practice. Using a RDS will make developing this skill more difficult, as you will already have reinforced a wrong technique. Without sufficient time training with irons, the use of a RDS can become a crutch where your shooting skills go bye-bye without one.

Also, a novice shooter who has not developed the muscle memory to point the weapon without having to adjust its orientation to make the dot visible may fumble with the gun, losing precious time trying to get a sight picture. Its the same as when using a laser, the act of chasing the dot around with your eyes simply takes more time than looking at the iron sights.

Is a pistol sized RDS capable of surviving the pistol being dropped onto pavement? Banged against a wall during a struggle? How about being used to cycle the slide if your other hand is injured or occupied? I'm not that familiar with all of the models out there, but would seriously question their ability to survive and hold zero in the types of abuse that are possible in defensive scenarios. Iron sites typically don't suffer any of these problems.

The main advantage of a RDS is that you can make precision shots using a flash sight picture. This is a fantastic thing that lends itself to competition, certain LE roles, and the military. Because the *vast* majority of defensive situations occur within distances where point shooting or using a flash sight picture is all you need, adding a RDS is simply a solution looking for a problem on a carry gun. It adds additional cost, complexity, points of failure, and can teach poor shooting habits to the inexperienced shooter.

[TTS]

Let me first say you bring up some very good points.

Putting a reflexive or holographic sight on a carry gun is a waste of money IMHO. I don't want to give the impression that I'm in the same ballpark as Suarez, but I think there are a few points missing from his article that should be considered. Mostly that an armed citizen is *highly* unlikely to need to shoot elbows or knees sticking out from behind cover from 20 yards away. It's just an extremely contrived situation. Couldn't the same case be made that the chance you will need a pistol for self defense is just as slim? Most self defense shooting happens at a range and with a round count that would justify carrying a snub nose revolver w/o sights. The advantage to a RDS equipped pistol is that if you needed to make a precision shot you could more easily do it. The main disadvantage I see at this time is price. On a Glock it doubles or triples the price of your gun.

Most defensive scenarios occur at night, and unless your RDS has an auto-brightness feature, the dot is most likely going to be set so that it can be seen in daylight. One of the common physiological responses to a lethal force encounter is full pupil dilation, so in a dark environment it is possible and even likely that the brightness of the dot will saturate the rods and cones of the eye for the dot, making it impossible to see anything behind or adjacent to the dot. You will effectively have introduced a blind spot surrounding the dot in low light scenarios. This makes the notion of being able to make precision shots no easier than it would be with iron sights, and possibly more difficult. If the dot is bright enough, it could also kill your night vision, leaving dark streaks behind the dot that limit your ability to see until they fade. Agreed, that is why a RDS that auto adjusts for light is highly recommended. This is also a danger when using a high intensity flashlight.

Another thing that using a RDS does is change the focal point of the eye from the sights to the target. This might not be a big deal for an experienced shooter, as they have already learned to shift their focus to the front sight without thinking about it to make precise shots when using irons. A person without as much shooting experience who trains with a RDS is less likely to be capable of transitioning to iron sights when needed, as learning to shift focus without thinking about it takes quite a bit of practice. Using a RDS will make developing this skill more difficult, as you will already have reinforced a wrong technique. Without sufficient time training with irons, the use of a RDS can become a crutch where your shooting skills go bye-bye without one. Again I agree, this is a danger with an RDS on a carbine as well. It is easy to use as a crutch. You need to train with both.

Also, a novice shooter who has not developed the muscle memory to point the weapon without having to adjust its orientation to make the dot visible may fumble with the gun, losing precious time trying to get a sight picture. Its the same as when using a laser, the act of chasing the dot around with your eyes simply takes more time than looking at the iron sights. I see a laser as much different, you are looking at the target for the dot as opposed to the sight. This is also why it is critical to have Co-witness iron sights, it allows you to more easily present the firearm and have good alignment.

Is a pistol sized RDS capable of surviving the pistol being dropped onto pavement? Banged against a wall during a struggle? How about being used to cycle the slide if your other hand is injured or occupied? I'm not that familiar with all of the models out there, but would seriously question their ability to survive and hold zero in the types of abuse that are possible in defensive scenarios. Iron sites typically don't suffer any of these problems. With the Trijicon RMR specifically, yes it is as durable as any RDS and many torture tests have shown that it is almost unbreakable. It is also the only RDS I would consider for a defensive pistol at this point.

The main advantage of a RDS is that you can make precision shots using a flash sight picture. This is a fantastic thing that lends itself to competition, certain LE roles, and the military. Because the *vast* majority of defensive situations occur within distances where point shooting or using a flash sight picture is all you need, adding a RDS is simply a solution looking for a problem on a carry gun. It adds additional cost, complexity, points of failure, and can teach poor shooting habits to the inexperienced shooter.I always see shooting faster and more accurately as a positive. I think you're right about the cost and possibility of teaching bad habits.

[jshuberg]

Valid counter-points. There really is no right or wrong answer here, just opinions and trade-offs for people to consider

[TTS]

Valid counter-points. There really is no right or wrong answer here, just opinions and trade-offs for people to consider

Agreed! I am still looking for someone to donate and RMR so we can put it through its paces

[PaperPuncher]

I need you all to know that I appreciate your input and comments. The post that stated that you may well end up in prison due to the "agenda of the Prosecuting Atty" or the "dislike and/or hatred of firearms, in general" is a valid and overwhelmingly strong point that trumps all others. And it remains, how sick is it when the justice system becomes little more than a mouthpiece for someone looking to get re-elected?

[XDM45]

I need you all to know that I appreciate your input and comments. The post that stated that you may well end up in prison due to the "agenda of the Prosecuting Atty" or the "dislike and/or hatred of firearms, in general" is a valid and overwhelmingly strong point that trumps all others. And it remains, how sick is it when the justice system becomes little more than a mouthpiece for someone looking to get re-elected?

I'm the guilty party for that post, and I agree that it is sad, but true. Even though it's a "legal" system and not a "justice" system; the law can still be overridden by those in control of it, the owners of this country.

[TTS]

Interesting video that cover RDS on pistols and many other things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTVrLy6sOXQ&feature=player_embedded

[smokintone]

I wouldn't hesitate to run a set up like that on a denfensive handgun, as long as I could still keep my iron sights. People need to be open to new ideas, and not get stuck in their way of thinking, and be able to adapt to new technology...................If we never did that, we would still be using muskets.

[dsm2nr]

I love 21CG's setup. But only for a SHTF / game gun.

[smokintone]

If I was given enough time with that set up, and felt like it was pretty "Bomb Proof" and still had the irons, I would consider it for carry. It would definetly have to prove itself first though T&E.