Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Discussion of handguns

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby Paul on Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:43 am

TTS wrote:
Paul wrote:No, gunfights are not all the same. If you think the equipment need or weapon deployment for a permit holder and a soldier in a combat zone are the same, then there is no point in us discussing the topic.


That isn't what I meant... I should have been more clear. When I say a gunfight is a gunfight I mean the same pillars of success are needed
1. Proper mindset
2. Ability to deliver quick accurate fire (RDS help in this area)
3. Ability to move an communicate
4. Ability to adapt, improvise and overcome

I assume that if a student were looking to use an AR for home defense that you would suggest/not discourage the use of a RDS?

The same things that make it beneficial on a carbine are what make it good on a pistol.
1. Easy to see in low light
2. Less to think about (sight alignment)
3. Faster and more precise as distance increases

BTW-
I did not ask the question to antagonize you, from what I have seen you know your stuff and are a great instructor, thus I want to have a dialogue to hash out ideas.


Didn't take it as such... Getting set up for my son's birthday party, thus the short response. Respond more later.

My main issue with red dot sights on pistols vs rifles is that most of the ones I have seen replace the rear sight on the pistol... not leaving a backup option, like a rifle could. I wouldn't want to rely solely on an electronic device that can potentially fail.

Also, with cops I train, I see many being overly dependent on laser sights, and losing some of the proper shooting technique and fundamentals. That would possibly be a concern as well. But that falls on the shoulders of the shooter to remain diligent and train properly.
Paul
Moderator
 
Posts: 5879 [View]
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby xd ED on Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:47 am

While they are, for the purposes of this discussion, anecdotal, one might learn from 2 of the more notorious defensive gun uses we know of:
The Zimmerman case
The Lake St Cub Foods/ Rainbow shooting...

How would the optics mentioned(or any sight) have worked in those incidents?
In those cases the victim shot the assailant at a distance of 0-5 feet.
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9228 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby dsm2nr on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:02 am

TTS wrote:
Paul wrote:No, gunfights are not all the same. If you think the equipment need or weapon deployment for a permit holder and a soldier in a combat zone are the same, then there is no point in us discussing the topic.


That isn't what I meant... I should have been more clear. When I say a gunfight is a gunfight I mean the same pillars of success are needed
1. Proper mindset
2. Ability to deliver quick accurate fire (RDS help in this area)
3. Ability to move an communicate
4. Ability to adapt, improvise and overcome

I assume that if a student were looking to use an AR for home defense that you would suggest/not discourage the use of a RDS?

The same things that make it beneficial on a carbine are what make it good on a pistol.
1. Easy to see in low light
2. Less to think about (sight alignment)
3. Faster and more precise as distance increases

BTW-
I did not ask the question to antagonize you, from what I have seen you know your stuff and are a great instructor, thus I want to have a dialogue to hash out ideas.


You might want to think about more training for yourself before instructing others professionally.
User avatar
dsm2nr
 
Posts: 380 [View]
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:27 am
Location: West Burbs, MN

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby srtolly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:05 am

Thanks, xdED. That is the point I'm trying to make. By the time you draw your firearm from concealed carry position there isn't any time left. Shoot or don't.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Semper Fi
User avatar
srtolly
 
Posts: 375 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Location: Waseca

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby TTS on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:19 am

xd ED wrote:While they are, for the purposes of this discussion, anecdotal, one might learn from 2 of the more notorious defensive gun uses we know of:
The Zimmerman case
The Lake St Cub Foods/ Rainbow shooting...

How would the optics mentioned(or any sight) have worked in those incidents?
In those cases the victim shot the assailant at a distance of 0-5 feet.


I am not trying to make the point that they improve every shooting situation, just the ones that require precise shot placement. In most civilian self defense situations you need to be better at index shooting. There are plenty of place where an RDS on a pistol won't be a benefit but it also won't be a hinderance, there are also plenty of places where they will be a great help. As stated before BUIS are a must.

Based on many of the comments here I would think that many would advocate having a gun without sights.

@dsm2nr - You might want to look into someones background before making those comments. I do not know everything about training and fighting... I am a lifelong student as we all should be. However there have been plenty of LE, Military and Civilians who have been happy with my training. In fact the Marine Corps Martial Arts Instructor Course at Camp Pendleton had me teaching their instructors monthly for over 3 years (weapon retention/disarm and ECQB gunfighting). I have a little experience in this area.
Owner
Tactical Training Solutions
Specializing in Self Defense and Firearms Training
http://www.minnesotaccw.com
User avatar
TTS
 
Posts: 1233 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:37 am
Location: Lakeville

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby srtolly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:28 am

I am not saying sights are not to be used by any means. I am saying that in many defensive situations there isn't time.
That's all. Practice is the key.

I am always trying to better myself and learn all I can about whatever I can. As long as people practice with whatever they use for carry and can be their best with it is what matters. Practice with scenarios not just range shooting at targets.

TTS, do you conduct ptc classes. I don't have my carry permit yet but want to soon.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Last edited by srtolly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Semper Fi
User avatar
srtolly
 
Posts: 375 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Location: Waseca

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby TTS on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:29 am

Here is an article from Suarez... he is not one of my favored instructors, but he knows his s*it especially when it come to FoF and RDS sights on pistols.

RED DOT SIGHTS ON PISTOLS - WHY?

There was a time in our development when we thought that all pistols needed high visibility sights. "You must use the sights, always, and at all distances" we were told by the gun gurus of a prior age, and like faithful followers, we shipped our guns to the smith to have them suitably arranged.

And yes, sights that were easier to see made those 1 1/2 second head shots at 3 yards very easy to make, and right inside the "credit card" too. "Bravo!", we thought, as we holstered our 45s into our pricey handmade Milt Sparks rigs (just like the instructor had) and walked up to examine the group with a jaunty swagger.

But then...something changed.

Some crazy guy thought to have students shoot each other with Airsoft BB guns. Shooters would replicate exactly the drills that formed the Modern Technique, and that Gusmoke's Matt Dillon tried to emulate in his show. Insane! Outlandish! Heresy! Yes, they called it all of those things...but the first time guys stepped up to do it, everything changed.

Gone were the Weaver Stances. Hell, those lasted one evolution as guys realized that standing and shooting it out, in an equal initiative fight, or a reactive fight, was a guarantee of getting shot. The need for movement made the need for a proper stationary position obsolete in this type of fight. And keeping two hands on the gun was a luxury few got a chance to enjoy.

I recall after our first session of this several years ago I asked, "What sort of sight picture did you see"? Silence was the reply. "Well, what did you see?". I got varying replies from "the bad guy running at me", to "nothing", to "meat and metal". What we didn't hear, and have not heard, is that anyone has used a proper sight picture inside of five yards.

I base my view of the pistol fight on what we see in force on force sessions, as that parallels most, what I have seen personally on the streets. What a competitive pistol champion may use is interesting from a technical perspective, but that is all, as the two worlds of range shooting and gunfighting only bear a passing resemblance. And the world of force on force, paralleling the gunfight more closely than anything else, tells us that using traditional sighting methods for close range shooting on a moving adversary is simply not done. Guys point and shoot.

At recent classes I have been using Airsoft guns with no sights at all...just to be sure. You know what? It has not changed the hitting percentages at all at the close range intervals of reactive gunfighting. It has made guys somewhat faster since they are not slowing down to try and find the sights.

Wow!

Insane?

Outlandish?

Heresy?

Maybe, but also the truth. So what do we need sights for? We need them for two things.

We need sights for precision shooting at close range as might be illustrated by an adversary's exposed elbow, foot, or eye behind cover. Or as may be needed for a shot past an innocent or hostage to hit a bad guy.

We also need sights for long range shooting as might be seen in an Active Shooter event where you have a long shot available. We have taken pistol shooters out to 220 yards at one point so it can be done. Do you need high visibility sights for shots inside 7 yards? Nope. In fact, you could literally take the sights off the gun and be able to, statistically speaking, handle most CCW gunfights easily.

So if we need sights for precise shots, but not for general reactive close range shooting, which sights will work best for this? If we are looking at iron sights, then we need sharp, clearly discernible sights that can be indexed on target easily. The ability to index them on target is where most sights are lacking. Many sights can be said to be “high visibility” but few can also be easily indexed on target.

To index on target, the sight must have clearly discernible edges, and more importantly, must be smaller or narrower than the intended target. If we only need sights for distance shots and for precise shots up close, and not for general CQB, why not install sights that optimize the distance shots and not worry about them so much for CQB? Of all the sights we have worked with, none of them exceed the capability offered by the red dot system.

USING THE RED DOT SIGHTS ON PISTOLS

With our adoption of the red dot concept for the CCW pistol, we have received lots of inquiries about its use and methodology. Here is some of what we have discovered. CCW people have always followed the traditional sighting concepts with its required front sight focus. With the red dot system, the application is a little different.

I want to remind everyone that at the intervals where one would normally be focused on the threat and not looking at, or for, the sights nothing has changed. We are not suggesting that you will now be looking for a red dot at 3 yards or anything of the sort. Rather you operate as usual, physically indexing the pistol on threat and firing the necessary shots, looking only for the visual input needed to make it work. Sometimes that input may be minimal and you will simply be using the hand-eye coordination to get the hits. At other times, with iron sights, you are noticing various “indexes”, commonly called “meat and metal”. Again, nothing has changed. In the case of the red dot sights, you are still using the silhouette of the pistol when needed without seeking the dot, and you are still looking through the tube that is “filled with target”, without seeking the dot for those fast and dynamic close range shots.

It is when the distance interval increases or when you need that precise shot that we see a difference. Traditionally, shooters have been taught to look hard at the front edge (specifically the very top edge), but that, although it can be learned, is counter intuitive. When using the RDS (Red Dot System), you look to the center of the target and notice the dot as it reaches that spot. You look precisely where you want the bullet to go, and not at the dot itself. Of course you notice it, but never look specifically "at it" as you would with a front sight.

With the RDS, you must learn the visual input from the dot. Conceptually it is the same as the use of the iron sights, but it looks a little different, and is executed differently. With the RDS, the input is peripheral. Always look at the targets—exactly where you want each shot to go, and then wait until you have enough feedback from the dot for the shot to fire. Those of you who have done the point shooting training courses already know how to do this.

One drill that we suggest, and this one to teach both keeping both eyes open, as well as looking at the target, is to simply tape over the objective lens of the optic…the side facing the target. Now if you look at the dot, you cannot see the target. But if you keep both eyes open and look at the target, you will see the target with the dot superimposed upon it.

I recall back in the 1990s the 1911 crowd darn near gave birth when they saw the Glock take off. You could hear all manner of "tupperware" this and "hefty bag" that. But today, when you go to class, the majority of pistols are all polymer and have a Glock style design (the M&P and the XD are basically Glocks), and 1911s are in the minority.

There will be many naysayers, but watch, in ten years - every EDC gun will have red dot sights.

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2010/04/red-dot-sights-on-pistols-why.html
Owner
Tactical Training Solutions
Specializing in Self Defense and Firearms Training
http://www.minnesotaccw.com
User avatar
TTS
 
Posts: 1233 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:37 am
Location: Lakeville

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby srtolly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:47 am

Good article. Kinda what I'm saying I think.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Semper Fi
User avatar
srtolly
 
Posts: 375 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Location: Waseca

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby dsm2nr on Sat Jul 07, 2012 11:50 am

TTS wrote:
xd ED wrote:While they are, for the purposes of this discussion, anecdotal, one might learn from 2 of the more notorious defensive gun uses we know of:
The Zimmerman case
The Lake St Cub Foods/ Rainbow shooting...

How would the optics mentioned(or any sight) have worked in those incidents?
In those cases the victim shot the assailant at a distance of 0-5 feet.


I am not trying to make the point that they improve every shooting situation, just the ones that require precise shot placement. In most civilian self defense situations you need to be better at index shooting. There are plenty of place where an RDS on a pistol won't be a benefit but it also won't be a hinderance, there are also plenty of places where they will be a great help. As stated before BUIS are a must.

Based on many of the comments here I would think that many would advocate having a gun without sights.

@dsm2nr - You might want to look into someones background before making those comments. I do not know everything about training and fighting... I am a lifelong student as we all should be. However there have been plenty of LE, Military and Civilians who have been happy with my training. In fact the Marine Corps Martial Arts Instructor Course at Camp Pendleton had me teaching their instructors monthly for over 3 years (weapon retention/disarm and ECQB gunfighting). I have a little experience in this area.


Not all gunfights are the same. Having military training doesn't mean it fits in the civilian world.

There is a level of understanding of the civilian world (mostly legal issues) that needs to be met. Example: A tier 1 guy may know what's needed in combat in the sand box. And can teach it to anyone. But if he doesn't know legal ramifications of when or how to do something, there is no point in the training.
Last edited by dsm2nr on Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dsm2nr
 
Posts: 380 [View]
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:27 am
Location: West Burbs, MN

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby dsm2nr on Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:02 pm

There was also a Mpls SWAT member, just recently, that got into a bar fight. The SWAT member struck first with a punch, knowing the other guy who started the fight (verbally) was about to swing. The SWAT member hit the guy so hard he fell back. Not only did he fall back but he hit his head on the concrete. Now the SWAT member is under 3rd (iirc) degree assault charges and they could be moved up to 2nd degree depending how the guy does in the hospital.

Did the SWAT member do anything wrong? Not from the story I heard (from a former Mpls SWAT leader and instructor). But there are now legal consequences that could've been avoided by just turning around and walking out. Which wouldn't be an issue had he been on a raid in a difference scenario.
User avatar
dsm2nr
 
Posts: 380 [View]
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:27 am
Location: West Burbs, MN

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby Spike on Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:26 pm

This thread makes me think of this:
Image
User avatar
Spike
 
Posts: 997 [View]
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby PaperPuncher on Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:04 pm

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.
PaperPuncher
 
Posts: 133 [View]
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:33 pm
Location: Merrifield, MN

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby srtolly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:34 pm

I'll say this, and I think most will agree. Use what you are comfortable with. Practice with it... A lot. Everybody is not comfortable with the same thing. If you can be comfortable using a red dot or holographic sight by all means use it.

I feel that it is a good idea to learn other methods. Time may not be available in a given situation to use a sight of any kind. I prefer iron sights because I'm used to them. I would like to try some RDS some time more extensively than I have.

It seems everyone has strong opinions on the subject. All I can say is MY opinion. Whatever you carry be proficient.
Semper Fi
User avatar
srtolly
 
Posts: 375 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Location: Waseca

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby TTS on Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:13 pm

Spike wrote:This thread makes me think of this:
Image


LOL :lol:
Owner
Tactical Training Solutions
Specializing in Self Defense and Firearms Training
http://www.minnesotaccw.com
User avatar
TTS
 
Posts: 1233 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:37 am
Location: Lakeville

Re: Input on red dot vs holographic for Personal Carry

Postby srtolly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:03 pm

That pic is hilarious.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Semper Fi
User avatar
srtolly
 
Posts: 375 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:00 pm
Location: Waseca

PreviousNext

Return to Handguns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron