Pistol Optics, or NOT?

[2AOK]

I'd push back on your comments by saying your experience should convince you not to trust that unit, but it may be shortsighted to apply that one experience to all red dots used across all applications.

Not saying that. Pointing out only that electronics can and do fail. Doesn't matter which kind of product. Phones, audio and video equipment, computer components.

And having a dot on a gun doesn't mean putting all your eggs in one basket. My pistols and rifles that have an RDS all have back-up sites on them.

At this point in the conversation/thread, I'm talking about a red dot optic on ONE gun. The one I carry. Red dot is not the best option for me at this point for all the reasons stated thus far, especially the possiblity of failure that does not exist with my existing open sites. Life or death in a split second is the "basket of eggs" and I'm not willing to trust red-dot technology for that.

Not yet. =]

 

[2AOK]

Maybe not a universal footprint, but the Shadow Systems DR920, MR920 and CR920 pistols have an almost universal slide cut used with different wedges to attach any mainstream RDS. And it sits low. Like this, the smaller of the two pistols:

View attachment 218105


.

Now you're talkin'!
I think the industry has to move in that direction, and eventually ONE system will prevail.

Are those your weapons? Looks like they accept Glock 9mm mags, and 32rnds gives you a nice secure feeling after you lock the doors and turn off the lights. =D

 

[mmpsteve]

Now you're talkin'!
I think the industry has to move in that direction, and eventually ONE system will prevail.

Are those your weapons? Looks like they accept Glock 9mm mags, and 32rnds gives you a nice secure feeling after you lock the doors and turn off the lights. =D

Yes, Glock mags, and yes, they're mine, but I havn't had very much range time with the Shadow Systems yet. I'm mostly a hammer-fired guy. In that pic, you have 32 rounds plus 17 rounds, plus at least another 32 rounds. With my limited skills I don't know how secure I am, but a helluva lot of fun!

.

 

[ditcherman]

VHS vs. Betamax is the first example that comes to mind. Lots of money and research behind both video formats, but commerce always pushes for a standard. The process has played out since the dawn of mass production. Other very basic examples: electrical outlets in your home. Food cans that accommodate standard can openers, and vice versa. Nuts, bolts and the tools that fasten them. Memory cards. The ubiquity of the AR rifle platform. It's everywhere if you have time to think about it.

Cell phone chargers

Ford and Chevy, I’m not buying a car til they are the same. Ford cars and ford trucks, and ford trucks and ford trucks. Same deal all the way down.

It’s perfectly fine if you don’t want a red dot, but waiting on standardization may not be the most solid logic, it just won’t happen soon enough. Not never, possibly, but I don’t expect my dots to last as long as the gun. Not disposable, but not forever.

 

[hammerd13]

Ok, I wasn't going to go here...but @mmpsteve tempted me into it! Here's my first red dot-compatible 9mm. Shadow Systems MR920 Elite.

Shadow Systems – Home of the best shooting, no-compromise family of pistols — the MR920, XR920, CR920, DR920.

shadowsystemscorp.com

They are a good value, if you consider all that you're getting. The red dot mounting system is the best in the industry, imo. Give 'em a look!

 

[cg21]

Sounds like you're saying the Romeo 5 is a POS, purchased by cheapskate, neophyte gun owners.

Sounds like you're saying I have to buy a sight that costs nearly as much (or more than) the cost of my pistol...or else I'm on par with a "Hi-Point carbine owner."

Hmmm.

Just to prove to yourself what a gun snob you are, pull up the Amazon.com product page for the optic in question. 5-star average with over 10,400 user reviews. Is Amazon a source of serious firearm opinion? Actually, sometimes it is, but I reference that page because of the vast number of satisfied reviewers.

I’m not saying you have to do anything. Do whatever you want but I think bashing an entire optic system because your optic that is certainly on the cheaper end failed is a disservice to anyone on the fence. If I’m betting my life on something it certainly isn’t going to be the budget option if I can help it. And you know the saying one is none. So my preference would be rds with cowitness irons. But it is also said great accuracy can be had just by centering the window in a self defense situation should you have a failure.

Please stop taking everything so personal may come off like that in text but I assure you no offense is intended. You can’t buy a Toyota and expect Ferrari then get mad when your Toyota isn’t a Ferrari.

 

[92FSTech]

Yesterday while trying to coax my Romeo 5 back to life, I left the front lens cover ON the optic (as an experiment) so all I saw was a black field with a red dot. It wasn't as visually "comfortable," but the vision+brain mix still happened; the right eye still saw the dot and left eye still saw the target. It's a powerful phenomenon.

Yep, what you're talking about is called the "Binden aiming principle", and the first RDS optics actually weren't see-through. They used an occluded tube with a projected dot, and the shooters kept both eyes open and superimposed the dot over the target.

Honestly, I don't want to give in to yet another "tech solution." I see the HUGE benefits of two-eyes-open that, for me, is only possible with the dot, but people are becoming too reliant on "stuff" that's too reliant on micro chips and international manufacturing.

I have friends who can't wait for DRIVERLESS CARS. I just shake my head at their willingness to forfeit autonomy, responsibility and self reliance.

I can't argue with that. I share the same reservations myself. Especially about driverless cars.

If you don't mind saying, what do you carry as your duty sidearm?

P320 RX Full-Size

If I can decide on one specific optic (that's likely to last forever...) I'll mill a standard slide. But my instinct is to wait for a universal, industry-wide optics mounting spec.

One concern that I have about adding optics to guns is that electronics tech advances....and also becomes obsolete...very rapidly. I own guns that are over 100 years old that still shoot great. When you start chopping up slides to mount a specific optic, you've significantly altered your gun to accommodate a product that has a lifespan of maybe 10 years. I'm ok doing this to a few plastic, striker-fired tools, but I'm not so keen on chopping up my revolvers, 1911s, or classic sigs for a solution with such a short lifespan.

Also, a note on the Sig optics...they're not the best stuff out there. They're convenient, because Sig sells them as a package deal with their guns, pre-milled and installed. They're mostly made in China, and Sig is pushing them hard because even at their low price point, I'm sure they're making great mark-up on them. I'm not saying they are junk...I've got a Romeo 1 on my duty weapon and a Romeo 5 on my patrol rifle, after all...but I'd be kidding myself to claim that there isn't better stuff out there.

I keep a close eye on them and would not carry them without backup irons. I have my mounting screws and windage and elevation adjustment screws witness marked, and I check them every day before I go to work. I also look through the optic and confirm that it is on and still zeroed to the irons before it goes into the holster. Trust but verify.

 

[2AOK]

I think bashing an entire optic system because your optic that is certainly on the cheaper end failed is a disservice to anyone on the fence.

Everyone here is capable of thinking for him/herself. And right, wrong or arrogant-as-hell, most here have their own opinions. I don't think I said at any point that I think anyone should do (or consider) any thing. My focus in this thread is MY OWN THOUGHTS as they develop in response to this conversation.

[...] my preference would be rds with cowitness irons. But it is also said great accuracy can be had just by centering the window in a self defense situation should you have a failure.

I too would choose a very low red dot optic that cowitnesses my open sights (but don't want tall "suppressor height" sights). In his post #102 of this thread, 92FSTech mentioned a next-generation Holosun model SCS that is particularly low-profile, such that it can cowitness standard (Glock) sights. I'm sure it's too expensive for me, but it's an example of the ongoing development that is leading to standardization. This continuing rapid development is why I'm not jumping in at this point. Sooner than you think, the best and most capable specimens will become the defacto standard...with lower-price competitors finding ways to incorporate those features while avoiding patent infringement. It's the way of the world, the way of commerce.

As for centering the red-dot glass on your assailant, that's news to me. It makes sense, but I hadn't considered it. Similar to point shooting I guess, but slower (for me).

Please stop taking everything so personal may come off like that in text but I assure you no offense is intended. You can’t buy a Toyota and expect Ferrari then get mad when your Toyota isn’t a Ferrari.

Written exchanges online can be amazingly tone deaf, so I may have mistaken your tone (maybe).
PAX

 

[Born2vette]

I have a Vortex Strikefire II on my AR. Bought it used on the cheap to help me decide if I wanted electronic sight or variable power glass. 4 MOA red or green dot. I can hit 8” steel out to 200 yrds with it. Ran the Reveres Riders 223 carbine class with it as well. Now have a little over 1000 rounds with it on my AR and has worked flawlessly. That said, I can flip up my BUIS and co-witness with or without the red dot and would not have it any other way.

My pistol with a RDS is a close quarters weapon with Romeo 1 in a dovetail mount and if you are in the glass I will likely hit you. This is my bedside pistol and does not get carried Thus the optic gets babied. I change the battery every 3 months, cheap insurance. All my EDCs are still irons and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

[2AOK]

[re. BLACK LENS BEHIND RED DOT]
Yep...the "Binden aiming principle", and the first RDS optics actually weren't see-through. They used an occluded tube with a projected dot...

Good to know.

[re. RELIANCE ON ELECTRONICS and DRIVERLESS CARS]
I can't argue with that. I share the same reservations myself. Especially about driverless cars.

Kindred spirits.

P320 RX Full-Size

Ahhh. I know the excellent reputation of that pistol and the Sig product line in general.

I always thought Sig Sauer guns were very expensive. Just looked online for the P320 Compact 9mm and the price is only about $100 more than the comparable M&P M2.0.

The full-size Sig P320 looks odd to me. The barrel is long (4.7") and the slide is too. It looks too long, like it'd be muzzle heavy and slow to point. I'll bet I'm wrong.

The bore axis looks high compared to other striker-fired polymer pistols, so I'm assuming noticeable muzzle flip. This Sootch00 review (c. 2016) doesn't say I'm wrong, but says the recoil is not bad like you'd expect from the high bore axis (fancy footwork...).

One concern that I have about adding optics to guns is that electronics tech advances....and also becomes obsolete...very rapidly. I own guns that are over 100 years old that still shoot great. When you start chopping up slides to mount a specific optic, you've significantly altered your gun to accommodate a product that has a lifespan of maybe 10 years. I'm ok doing this to a few plastic, striker-fired tools, but I'm not so keen on chopping up my revolvers, 1911s, or classic sigs for a solution with such a short lifespan.

EGGS ACTLY!
People don't realize that electronics have an actual serviceable LIFE SPAN. Case in point:, I sold my old Moog synthesizer to a buyer in Australia. It had seen very little use after its first few years, and was always well kept. To my horror, upon checking it over before shipping to him, an important aspect of the electronics had simply died...due only to the AGE of the electronics.

Your remarks above can likewise be applied to our Constitution, and those who want to destroy it in order to accommodate some wrongheaded current trend.

Also, a note on the Sig optics...they're not the best stuff out there. [...] I'm not saying they are junk...I've got a Romeo 1 on my duty weapon and a Romeo 5 on my patrol rifle, after all...but I'd be kidding myself to claim that there isn't better stuff out there.

A Romeo 5 on yer patrol rifle? Can't be!!! (see prior posts)

I keep a close eye on them and would not carry them without backup irons. I have my mounting screws and windage and elevation adjustment screws witness marked, and I check them every day before I go to work. I also look through the optic and confirm that it is on and still zeroed to the irons before it goes into the holster. Trust but verify.

Trust but verify. Amen. In my previous post I made reference to your post #102 wherein you mentioned the new Holosun SCS optic, which can cowitness standard Glock open sights. I'll wait for that design approach to become more widely available / less expensive.

I need to develop a similar system for checking my gear. Maybe on a monthly basis. I found the problem with my Romeo 5 only because I checked it based on my involvement in this thread.

 

[MCgrease08]

I too would choose a very low red dot optic that cowitnesses my open sights (but don't want tall "suppressor height" sights). In his post #102 of this thread, 92FSTech mentioned a next-generation Holosun model SCS that is particularly low-profile, such that it can cowitness standard (Glock) sights.

You do not need to co-witness red dots on handguns. You want to be able to see the back-up sights through the optic window, but the red dot should not be slaved to the front sight post. They should be zeroed independently of one another.

A rifle is a different story. There co-witnessing makes more sense but still isn't necessary.

 

[ditcherman]

You do not need to co-witness red dots on handguns. You want to be able to see the back-up sights through the optic window, but the red dot should not be slaved to the front sight post. They should be zeroed independently of one another.

A rifle is a different story. There co-witnessing makes more sense but still isn't necessary.

I just wanna add to that, isn’t “cowitnessing your dot” the same thing as “scrunching your neck down” when it comes to pistol optics?
I had asked questions about cowitnessing upthread, and then over the weekend fried my brain thinking about it; you can’t not cowitness them, all you can do is present correctly and the irons are “lower 1/3”. Or scrunch and they’re lined up.
Do you see it the same?

 

[2AOK]

You do not need to co-witness red dots on handguns. You want to be able to see the back-up sights through the optic window, but the red dot should not be slaved to the front sight post. They should be zeroed independently of one another.

A rifle is a different story. There co-witnessing makes more sense but still isn't necessary.

My lack of knowledge. So open sights should be visible but need not cowitness the dot. And that applies to pistol and rifle. Got it.
The red dot optic I buy (someday) will let me see/use standard-height sights, without requiring "suppressor height" sights.

 

[ditcherman]

Yep, what you're talking about is called the "Binden aiming principle", and the first RDS optics actually weren't see-through. They used an occluded tube with a projected dot, and the shooters kept both eyes open and superimposed the dot over the target.



I can't argue with that. I share the same reservations myself. Especially about driverless cars.



P320 RX Full-Size






One concern that I have about adding optics to guns is that electronics tech advances....and also becomes obsolete...very rapidly. I own guns that are over 100 years old that still shoot great. When you start chopping up slides to mount a specific optic, you've significantly altered your gun to accommodate a product that has a lifespan of maybe 10 years. I'm ok doing this to a few plastic, striker-fired tools, but I'm not so keen on chopping up my revolvers, 1911s, or classic sigs for a solution with such a short lifespan.

Also, a note on the Sig optics...they're not the best stuff out there. They're convenient, because Sig sells them as a package deal with their guns, pre-milled and installed. They're mostly made in China, and Sig is pushing them hard because even at their low price point, I'm sure they're making great mark-up on them. I'm not saying they are junk...I've got a Romeo 1 on my duty weapon and a Romeo 5 on my patrol rifle, after all...but I'd be kidding myself to claim that there isn't better stuff out there.

I keep a close eye on them and would not carry them without backup irons. I have my mounting screws and windage and elevation adjustment screws witness marked, and I check them every day before I go to work. I also look through the optic and confirm that it is on and still zeroed to the irons before it goes into the holster. Trust but verify.

Had the Binden aiming thing pop up this weekend at night. We were bored with our lights, so I popped on a little hand held thermal that happens to fit in a flip over mount like a magnifier. Put it in front of the aimpoint pro, and of course you’re not really looking through it, you’re looking at a screen. But with both eyes open the right eye sees the image (steel had just enough retained heat to show up) and the LEFT eye saw the dot on the target, if you concentrated just right. Pretty cool how our brain works.

 

[2AOK]

Ford and Chevy, I’m not buying a car til they are the same. Ford cars and ford trucks, and ford trucks and ford trucks. Same deal all the way down.

I'll bet there's a TON of standardization between those two. How many hundreds (or thousands) of components and subsystems comprise a modern motor vehicle? Lots of them you've never considered or even heard of. I think many are standardized to make assembly easier and to keep costs down.

I don’t expect my dots to last as long as the gun. Not disposable, but not forever.

What will you do with that gun when the temporary optics fail and cannot be replaced, and there's no more rear-sight dovetail?

 

[ditcherman]

I'll bet there's a TON of standardization between those two. How many hundreds (or thousands) of components and subsystems comprise a modern motor vehicle? Lots of them you've never considered or even heard of. I think many are standardized to make assembly easier and to keep costs down.


What will you do with that gun when the temporary optics fail and cannot be replaced, and there's no more rear-sight dovetail?

I guess it still works for suicide...heh heh

Kinda sick last line but ok.

All but one I think still have the rear sight.
And I’ll replace it with whatever they happen to be making, it’s not like they’re going to leave us hanging, there’s enough out there. As a matter of fact, with 5 Romeo’s plus 2 others, I might just make improvements along the way as better things become available.

I work on my own fleet enough to know there’s no real standardization past what they want for assembly. There’s 6 filters/gaskets available for an 05 dodge Cummins 3500 auto transmission.There’s about that many U joints available for an 89 f350. Toyota won’t use anything a 13mm wrench will fit on.

 

[2AOK]

Kinda sick last line but ok.

You're right. I went back and deleted it. I didn't mean you in particular. Was just poking fun at all the guys who might be seriously unhappy IF their favorite guns are rendered useless later due to choices made now regarding red dot mounting mods.

All but one I think still have the rear sight...it’s not like they’re going to leave us hanging

Famous last words. =D

I'm sure you're right, but I couldn't resist.

 

[92FSTech]

That said, three things have kept me from considering Sig pistols:

1. The cost.

2. They look "ungainly" to me. Yeah, I know...duh.
The P320 RX looks overly long. Like it would be muzzle-heavy. Like the slide/barrel would be "wavin' around out there" while trying to place shots on multiple targets quickly.
Does it feel that way to you?

3. The high bore axis (or so it appears to me).
Glocks have a low bore relative to the web of the hand. I like that, and the S&W M&P M2.0 pistols are as good or better. When I look at the Sig P320, the bore seems very high relative to the beaver tail, so I'm assuming noticeable muzzle flip.
Am I wrong?

1. The P320 isn't any more expensive than a Glock or M&P. I've seen the certified pre-owned models go for less than $400. Yes, you can spend $1000+ on the blinged out variants that IMO are mostly marketing fluff, but the basic guns are very affordable.

2. Not at all. It's very well balanced (there is some material removed from the inside of the slide to lighten it in places that the compact/carry models are not), and the recoil impulse is even softer than my compact/carry models.

3. I've not noticed any muzzle flip, but then again I've been shooting Sigs for years. The internet complains about it a lot...it's not something I've noticed in actual practice.

A Romeo 5 on yer patrol rifle? You must be an idiot. Or cheap. Or both. =D (see prior posts)

Not my choice...you have to take what they give you. If I had my druthers, I'd have something else, but I have to admit it's not given me any reason to complain. The only issue we've had with them is the threads on some of the adjustment covers stripping out, and Sig sent me a whole pile of new ones. My old patrol rifle, which was personally owned, wore an Aimpoint PRO, which IMO is a better optic, despite being bigger and heavier.

You do not need to co-witness red dots on handguns. You want to be able to see the back-up sights through the optic window, but the red dot should not be slaved to the front sight post.

This is true. Co-witness of handgun optics is kind of hard to explain. When shooting, you don't need to line up the iron sights with the dot, because the dot is parralax free and can be used to aim from any part of the window. You actually don't want to line them all up, as it's slower and defeats the purpose of having the dot in the first place. However, if your irons are aligned with your eye and the target, the dot will appear in line with them as well.

It's a difficult concept to wrap the mind around, and I didn't really get it until I started using one, but it makes sense when you actually have the gun in your hand. The iron sights are still going to be aligned with the target if the dot is on the target, but they may not be in line with your eye.

 

[92FSTech]

I just wanna add to that, isn’t “cowitnessing your dot” the same thing as “scrunching your neck down” when it comes to pistol optics?
I had asked questions about cowitnessing upthread, and then over the weekend fried my brain thinking about it; you can’t not cowitness them, all you can do is present correctly and the irons are “lower 1/3”. Or scrunch

See my last 2 paragraphs in the post above. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll try to take a coupe of pics to illustrate it better. It's kinda hard to explain.

 

[ditcherman]

See my last 2 paragraphs in the post above. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll try to take a coupe of pics to illustrate it better. It's kinda hard to explain.

Oh I think I get it. There’s actually no such thing as “not co-witnessed”, but you can drop the irons down so at your normal presentation they are out of your way.
I think. Would be happy to be educated otherwise.