Red dots on concealed carry guns - thoughts?

**LoveAR** · 10-28-14, 22:11

Originally Posted by Apricotshot

So far I've read people advocating point shooting, not using your sights in close and lasers or red dots will get you prosecuted as an assassin. This site has become BARFCOM.

Good info...thanks.

**Apricotshot** · 10-29-14, 06:30

Originally Posted by CCK

yes, we're all ****ing idiots who have no clue what they are doing just like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZJZsf71oc

You can't see hits on people. You can on paper. I'll take the sights. Kinesthetic....hahaha just call it point shooting. Sage is usually much better than this, but they are teaching Sabrina too now so I guess this is par for the course.

**Apricotshot** · 10-29-14, 06:32

Originally Posted by yoni

Apricotshot

Are you saying if a guy is 3 to 4 feet in front of you can't index your pistol without using the sights and obtain good center mass shots?

Are you talking shooting from retention position? If you are then yeah, of course I shant be using the sights. But after the first few rounds you are creating space then following up with a sighted fire.

**yoni** · 10-29-14, 07:24

Even if the guy is at a greater distance say up to 7 meters you can still get good center mass hits not using your sights. At that distance you need to spend your time putting rounds into the person, not seeking a sight picture.

But I agree as distance opens up of course transition to your sights (RMR or Iron)

I have gone to RMR because I can't shoot as well past 25 meters today like I could when I was in my 20-30's and shooting every day was part of my job.

The problem I have when this topic get's brought up is people seem to divide into 2 camps. This I think based on what I have done in my life is selling yourself short. I have been in situations where the range was zero to maybe 100 meters, and I had to solve the issue with a pistol. Are these the norm, of course not I was in a specific situation and time.
But if the USA see's more sudden jihad syndrome you need to be ready to respond to any scenario.

**hogarth** · 10-29-14, 08:13

Originally Posted by yoni

Even if the guy is at a greater distance say up to 7 meters you can still get good center mass hits not using your sights. At that distance you need to spend your time putting rounds into the person, not seeking a sight picture.

But I agree as distance opens up of course transition to your sights (RMR or Iron)

I have gone to RMR because I can't shoot as well past 25 meters today like I could when I was in my 20-30's and shooting every day was part of my job.

The problem I have when this topic get's brought up is people seem to divide into 2 camps. This I think based on what I have done in my life is selling yourself short. I have been in situations where the range was zero to maybe 100 meters, and I had to solve the issue with a pistol. Are these the norm, of course not I was in a specific situation and time.
But if the USA see's more sudden jihad syndrome you need to be ready to respond to any scenario.

Great points. In force on force training, I have had no trouble shooting from all sorts of positions, one handed, getting all COM hits at 20 feet (on a Federal Air Marshal, no less), so while I prefer sighted fire, I realize that in a dynamic, close range fight, my sights may turn out to be superfluous.

On the other hand, if I am faced with more of an active shooter scenario where I have a good shot from 25 yards or more, the RMR gives me the chance to not just get COM hits, but potentially take easy head shots at a stationary bad guy. Plus, hits on moving targets are easier as well, due to focal plane issues.

Again, other than cost and a bit of a learning curve, I really don't see any negatives to using an RMR. I do believe there is still room for improvement in the technology, but I believe the concept is sound.

**CCK** · 10-29-14, 09:54

Originally Posted by Apricotshot

You can't see hits on people. You can on paper. I'll take the sights. Kinesthetic....hahaha just call it point shooting. Sage is usually much better than this, but they are teaching Sabrina too now so I guess this is par for the course.

I'm glad to see you can be so dismissive of something you know nothing about.

**CCK** · 10-29-14, 09:55

Originally Posted by hogarth

Great points. In force on force training, I have had no trouble shooting from all sorts of positions, one handed, getting all COM hits at 20 feet (on a Federal Air Marshal, no less), so while I prefer sighted fire, I realize that in a dynamic, close range fight, my sights may turn out to be superfluous.

On the other hand, if I am faced with more of an active shooter scenario where I have a good shot from 25 yards or more, the RMR gives me the chance to not just get COM hits, but potentially take easy head shots at a stationary bad guy. Plus, hits on moving targets are easier as well, due to focal plane issues.

Again, other than cost and a bit of a learning curve, I really don't see any negatives to using an RMR. I do believe there is still room for improvement in the technology, but I believe the concept is sound.

exactamundo!

**Apricotshot** · 10-29-14, 10:38

Originally Posted by CCK

I'm glad to see you can be so dismissive of something you know nothing about.

What are talking about. I've seen people shot close range with handgun rounds. You can't see anything. So how are you going to walk your rounds on something when it give you no feedback?

**hogarth** · 10-29-14, 10:47

Originally Posted by Apricotshot

What are talking about. I've seen people shot close range with handgun rounds. You can't see anything. So how are you going to walk your rounds on something when it give you no feedback?

The feedback comes in the form of the bad guy not standing there in front of you trying to do bad things.