Off duty carry...

[esy]

RDS makes target focused shooting easier, but is also done with irons without people really realizing. I?ve practiced that a lot more with my irons and while it?s a little hard to get past the ?front sight, front sight, front sight, front sight,? that we?ve been taught, that I?ve taught, etc.; once I started consciously doing it more, it?s been a big difference for me in shooting even tighter groups.

[Garth Ricky-Bobby Algarve]

My CCW weapon has a RDS mounted on it. I personally love the RDS setup. It is still small and concealable. Here's the thing. Whatever system helps you get rounds on target quickly and accurately is the one you need to go with. RDS isn't for everyone. However, whatever the most accurate system for you is will never be overkill; it is self preservation, both physically and financially. Stay safe out there!

[TrailerparkTrash]

My CCW weapon has a RDS mounted on it. I personally love the RDS setup. It is still small and concealable. Here's the thing. Whatever system helps you get rounds on target quickly and accurately is the one you need to go with. RDS isn't for everyone. However, whatever the most accurate system for you is will never be overkill; it is self preservation, both physically and financially. Stay safe out there!

True! In the end, it?s what you as the individual likes and what works. It?s not what anyone else likes.

[micro911]

I just have night sights on my EDC Glock 17. No red dot or weapon light. I like simple things.

[veeklog]

What a coincidence. I just posted a similar comment about the very same topic in the concealed carry forum I believe... Now I don?t remember which forum, as I?m too lazy to check and it was only about 20 minutes ago! Anyway, I had both designated on-duty and off-duty weapons in my 34 year LE career.

For on-duty, the Trijicon RMR is what i used toward the end and until retirement on a Gen 5 Glock 17. L@@King back, it was a waste of money for me personally. I did fine with iron night sights, probably because I?ve been into shooting and training so much for all those past decades. But on a duty holster Sam brown belt, I suppose it can serve a purpose, if not as a security blanket for some. For me I don?t know why I bought it, call it going with the fad, thinking it would make me a better shooter. Nobody admits when it doesn?t however, but that?s another story.

For off duty EDC, my added optics on my G19 gen5 and G43x were without a doubt, a waste of money on concealed daily carried guns. Again, this is my opinion and others would disagree with their own viable preferences.

For Off-duty or like ?civilian ccw carry,? I figured that I?m not chasing bad guys, doing traffic stops, clearing buildings nor actively searching for and pursuing the ?bad guys? like I did in uniform. So requiring an optic on a small concealable firearm for me just didn?t make sense anylonger. I hated the bulk associated with a concealable firearm when I was off-duty. There definitely was no need to carry a full sized pistol (Glock 17, 22 size) while off duty, especially with an added optic on top.

Switching to a smaller sized Glock (like the 26, 27, 19, 43x, 48) and I just layer felt that buying two RMR?s for them was a big waste of money. I thought back then that I would like them, but after carrying them both for over a year, I ended up removing them from two EDC?s. Again, YMMV.

Night sights (Trijicons, of course) and being good with them is what I strictly prefer for my compact EDC AIWB ?get off me? guns these days. I carried professionally for 34 years and I know what I can and can?t do or what I?m willing to do these days with a defensive handgun and at this stage in my life.

For the last several years, I?ve preferred the ?minimalist?s? approach with off-duty concealable firearms carried on my person. Just give me a spare mag or two ?always.

Everyone?s MMV and to each his/her own.

I have the exact same problem. I have a brand new Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS I am contemplating puuting into service to replace my Glock 19 Gen 4. However, for the past 25 years I have shot irons well and don?t know if I want to switch over. I see the benefits of an RMR just like on a rifle but irons on a pistol are good.

[stormvet]

All I know is I currently have and train with both and I’m not seeing a massive difference in speed or accuracy with a RD. Hardly any at all really.

Some have told me, that’s because your still traing with irons too, you have to completely go away from irons to gain the full advantage of a RD.

I don’t think I’m buying that, if the RD was going to be significantly better for me. It would be, still training with both or not.

[TrailerparkTrash]

All I know is I currently have and train with both and I?m not seeing a massive difference in speed or accuracy with a RD. Hardly any at all really.

Exactly how I feel and I have (had) two RD?s I removed as of late.

Also, the topic of this thread is OFF DUTY. I NEVER did see the benefit of adding more “parasitic siht” to an OFF DUTY handgun and when I subscribed to the “less is better” philosophy while carrying AIWB.

Carrying an extra magazine or two was/is more than enough for a compact EDC with Trijicon sights and it still works for me today.

Again, YMMV and to each his own. :

[bigger hammer]

I'm old enough to remember very similar conversations occurring in the pages of gun magazines when telescopic sights first appeared. The argument against them were just about identical to those being made about RDS now. The early designs of both scopes and RDS were fragile and prone to breakage. Both technologies suffered from QC when they first came out. Some RDS had issues with batteries. But just as telescopic sights have become standard in many venues, RDS sights have come of age. Many rifles are sold these days without iron sights or even a way to mount them. Just as with rifles and telescopic sights today, many handguns can be purchased from the factory with a RDS on them.

There's a reason that the military has gone over to them (and various other kinds of optics) as well as many LEAs. They give both speed and accuracy. When they first appeared in the competition world they dominated most all types of competition. Governing boards of the various types of shooting sports quickly formed special classes for them to make it fair. Many people when first shooting a RDS exclaim, "It's like cheating!" I'm reminded of Clint Smith who said about a gun fight, "Always cheat, always win."

They're great for people, like me, and a few others here, who have mentioned that their eyes can no longer focus on the front sight. It's just a blur, and so accuracy suffers, even at fairly short distances. Longer distance shots had become impossible. Nowadays, with the RDS, I can make them reliably.

For self‒defense situations and for the LE model, RDS mean that it's possible to focus on the threat, rather than the front sight which renders the threat a blur. Far better to be able to see the threat clearly and just put the dot over it.

I think that one of the hardest concepts to get across to new shooters is sight picture/alignment. With an RDS , it's very simple. 'Put the dot where you want the bullet to land and pull the trigger without moving the dot from that place.' Most new shooters have trouble keeping both eyes open and focusing on the front sight with irons. With the RDS it's a snap.

As to speed, I've heard many say that they've checked their shooting with a timer and either they're faster with irons or there's no significant difference. I'll say that they are not using the best techniques for picking up the RDS. We've timed our students at the end of our RDS classes and universally, they are faster and more accurate with the RDS. We have them shoot at a 3x5 card at 5 yards. This is about the size of the top 1/3 of an IPSC target, where shots should be directed in a SD situation. They are anywhere from .3 to .5 seconds faster with the RDS. I've seen shooters do a .7 draw and fire one shot from concealment.

I just took an instructor class and the instructor told those who did not have RDS to stop being "gun Amish." Out of 20 instructors, only 4 didn't have RDS. If you don't have a RDS, you can't really teach it, and many students in our classes have them on their carry guns. The bulk they add is not on the part of the gun that is the problem to conceal, the grip, so it's just extra weight, and it's less than a spare magazine, so it's not a serious issue.

[BC9696]

The common SD scenario occurs at 3 yards in 3 seconds with 3 rounds fired. Irons in that scenario will suffice for me. I have RDS on one of my G22s and my G40 which I carry when in the backcountry but for around town...less is more. It's why I bought the G27. If I were carrying professionally and expecting a fight, I would definitely want an RDS on my full sized sidearm. For civilian CCW I don't need it.

[bigger hammer]

The common SD scenario occurs at 3 yards in 3 seconds with 3 rounds fired. Irons in that scenario will suffice for me. ?

If you only prepare for a "the common scenario [that] occurs at 3 yards in 3 seconds with 3 rounds fired" you probably won't be prepared for one that lasts longer, that occurs at longer distances, or that requires more than 3 shots.

I have RDS on one of my G22s and my G40 which I carry when in the backcountry but for around town...less is more.

It's more likely that that you'll be involved in a situation that requires deadly force "[A]round town".

? If I were carrying professionally and expecting a fight, I would definitely want an RDS on my full sized sidearm. [b] For civilian CCW I don't need it.

As with a gun, 'it's far better to have a RDS and not need it, than to need it and not have it.'

[TrailerparkTrash]

As with a gun, 'it's far better to have a RDS and not need it, than to need it and not have it.'

Mmmmm, I?ll disagree. For you maybe, but not for me. I agree with the ?less is better.? I prefer the fact that iron sights will work when wet or going from a sudden cold environment and into a warm environment. There?s no moisture build up, nor fog, no parallax distortion from water drops on the iron sights, as compared to glass and no possible electronic failure of some sort either. There?s no pause when pulling out the gun and searching for the glass?s electronic red dot which may have failed, only to then resort to co-witness iron sights. For iron sights don?t require a ?co witness? system. In a quick shooting, one is most likely just going to point the muzzle in the direction of the bad guy(s) and quickly jerk the trigger without even noticing their sights.

For off duty, I tried the RDS and didn?t care for it so I removed it from my off duty gun. I felt that it was a waste of money. I can hit targets with classic sights and point shoot just fine.

Have you noticed all the cops still missing the vital areas in a lot of shootings with an RDS and from all of the badge cam videos posted everywhere? I?m not really seeing big improvement with shootings compared to regular iron sights. I don?t seem to see a definite end-all argument that says an RDS is helping to bury more and more bad guys than do iron sights. I?m seeing just as many misses with an RDS as there are with iron sights. For me, it?s just another sight picture contained in a glass box in my opinion. And I carried one on my duty weapon before I recently retired. I could take it or leave it for on duty, now that I got to play with one.

But I?m not saying that an RDS might not improve someone else?s shooting accuracy and speed. As stated previously, I?m not seeing it, but if an RDS works for you, heck by all means, use it then. Who am I to question what works best for someone else? For me, I just didn?t see some hugely vast gap that was filled with the aid of an RDS. YMMV.

[bigger hammer]

Mmmmm, I?ll disagree. For you maybe, but not for me. I agree with the ?less is better.?

I think that "less is [only] better" if it's better. When RDS first came onto the scene they were heavily tested on the 'combat' competition field before they made it to LE or CCW carry. They were so effective (meaning that higher scores resulted) that they nearly completely dominated against those with irons. Rules were created to make separate classes so that those with irons would not compete directly against those with RDS. Such division still holds today in virtually all venues of competition.

I prefer the fact that iron sights will work when wet or going from a sudden cold environment and into a warm environment. There?s no moisture build up, nor fog, no parallax distortion from water drops on the iron sights, as compared to glass and no possible electronic failure of some sort either.

I took a class last year where it rained heavily for both days of the class. Almost all of the shooters had RDS. NO ONE had the slightest bit of trouble with any of the issues that you mention. Most were shooting from rigs that had the RDS sitting out in the open, so they were getting raindrops on the rear lenses. After a few draws, there were water drops on both the front and rear elements.

It's interesting that these arguments are identical to those made against telescopic sights on rifles when they first came on the scene. They were appropriate against early versions of these tools, but they don't hold true today.

There's always the chance of failure with any electronic device, especially those that are powered by batteries. Modern RDS batteries last for extremely long periods of time. Change the batteries for most of them once a year, and they'll last until next year. And that means when they're left on ALL the time. Some are solar powered so that's not an issue at all. Some dots that are lit in the dark by Tritium, the same stuff that most night sights use for power.

But let's not forget that there are problems with irons. I've broken off one side of the blade on a rear S&W adjustable sight on my duty gun. I've seen bent front sights on revolvers when they were dropped. I've seen front sights on handguns snapped off when dropped. I'd bet that many who use fiber optic sights, have had the experience of bringing up the gun only to discover that the piece of optical fiber has fallen out of the sight. So irons are not without issues. Aaron Cohen, who drop tests guns with RDS sights that he tests, reports that he has broken more iron sights during those tests than RDS. Now he protects front sights on pistols that he's testing by wrapping them with several layers of tape before dropping them.

There?s no pause when pulling out the gun and searching for the glass?s electronic red dot which may have failed, only to then resort to co-witness iron sights.

If one has been properly trained in how to pick up the dot then there's no "pause." Most LEAs require that their officers who want to carry RDS must go through a class, usually lasting a couple of days (16 to 20 hours), to learn to use it. Just putting it on a gun and then trying to figure it out, usually delivers the results you got with the tool. Your statement tells me that either you were never properly instructed as to how to pick up the red dot, or, that you never put in the reps to learn how to do it. When it's done properly it's very rare for the dot not to be visible in the window. But if it's not there due to a malfunction, the irons sights certainly are.

For iron sights don?t require a ?co witness? system.

Neither do RDS. Co‒witness sights are merely back‒ups when a RDS is in use. Many are now carrying RDS without irons. Similarly, many these days have rifles with scope sights but no irons.

In a quick shooting, one is most likely just going to point the muzzle in the direction of the bad guy(s) and quickly jerk the trigger without even noticing their sights.

First, if folks are "quickly jerk[ing] the trigger" a RDS won't help them. Ditto, if they're not using their sights at all.

Maybe it's because I'm sometimes too literal, but your description of a "quick shooting" sounds like "panicked" shooting to me. We are responsible for EVERY shot that we fire. If you're not aiming with some sort of system and you're just "point[ing] the muzzle in the direction of the bad guy(s) and quickly jerk[ing] the trigger" and a bystander gets hit, you're gonna have a lot of bad days afterwards. That's not to say that you need to have perfect sight alignment and a perfect sight picture for every shot. But just "point[ing] the muzzle in the direction of the bad guy(s)" is inappropriate and if you testify to doing it like that in court, pretty much guarantees the loss of a lawsuit and may result in a criminal conviction.

Probably the reason that LE so often misses is because they're doing it as you describe is "most likely." Nowadays, trainers teach that "in a quick shooting" one can use the RDS window by looking straight through it (rather than at an angle) or using the outline of the slide (or some other structure that's aligned with the barrel) as an aiming guide. I'll suggest that shooting as you describe is likely to give bad results no matter what sighting system is on the gun.

I can hit targets with classic sights and point shoot just fine.

If you're happy, I'm happy. My eyes 'went bad' years ago. I could not clearly see my front sight any more. The RDS made it possible for me to be more accurate at longer ranges and faster at shorter ranges. But it required some training from those who know, to learn to shoot the new tool properly and then lots of reps learning how to consistently find the dot on the draw. The "pause" that you described earlier is the typical result found by those who don't get training to help them find the dot.

Have you noticed all the cops still missing the vital areas in a lot of shootings with an RDS and from all of the badge cam videos posted everywhere? I?m not really seeing big improvement with shootings compared to regular iron sights.

Putting a RDS on a handgun does not turn a poor shooter into a good shooter and very few LEOs are 'gun people'. I'd venture to say that most of these guys are doing what you described, "point[ing] the muzzle in the direction of the bad guy(s) and quickly jerk[ing] the trigger" when they should be looking at the threat, putting the dot on the A zone and then pulling the trigger so as not to upset that sight picture.

the Houston Police Department?has made red dot optics mandatory on the duty pistols of recruits.

https://www.policemag.com/training/a...-optic-program

It's just a matter of time before these tools become the new standard. Just as LEOs nearly universally made the transition from revolvers to semi‒autos, I predict that soon we'll see RDS become the standard for LE.

My advice to anyone who is considering a RDS, don't be "gun Amish."

[OneNcustdy]

Get the red dot, better to have it and not use it than need it and not have it.

[Che762x39]

Whatever you train with.

Some people buy a handgun and never practice with it.

[loopsb]

As it pertains to RDS not making “poor shooters into good shooters” I would basically agree but may I relate an anecdote…..

on Friday I went to my departments training facility to qualify with my off duty but didn’t have an appointment. So I had to hang around, shoot the ****, and hope someone was a no show or bailed out so that range staff could hopefully work me into a firing line.
What I noticed was that a lot of newer deputies, on the suggestion from the range staff, had recently switched to the Sig Sauer p365x-macro with a RDS’s. It seemed to be the “in” gun amongst the 5 groups I watched qualify. Having elevated my interest, I paid more attention than usual to shooters targets and their groupings from the session. What I saw was people who had in the recent past difficulty in keeping all rounds in the black at 15 yards now putting most inside the 8 and 9 rings. In talking to one gal,who almost always had to come back to remediate when using irons,she told me no doubt that RDS made all the difference in her shooting. She said iputting her shot on target accurately was now “easy” compared to “hoping” she made good hits and had no flyers.
I don’t know personally from experience on a handgun(just long guns) but I know what I seemed to observe. I saw people who previously had trouble qualifying , now pass with good groupings, and very importantly have confidence going in that they would shoot well. After talking to the Range Master and hearing of rising successful qual rates, I am sort of persuaded.