Ken Hackathorn analyzes Red Dot Sights on handguns and gives the pros and cons

gc70 said:
I believe all comments so far have agreed with the video that a RDS requires practice and adjustment from iron sights. I have no plans to use a RDS on a pistol and will never practice to make the necessary adjustment to use one. As such, a RDS on a pistol would be an impediment to me.
Click to expand...
To use irons very well requires practice...I have an RDS on my carry gun, I spent about 500 round at the range to get the dot to work for me. Now I do a few draws in the morning after getting dressed, the gun and dot come right up, zero issues. The majority of the people that don't like the RDS are the types that will not put the time into something new.

Do you still believe in irons only for your rifles?
 
Here is a non-scientific analysis of the last 13 IDPA shoots at H2O. I analyzed the top ten shooters at each event, but excluded PCC shooters. So if there were two PCC shooters I went to the top 12, etc.

Now one could conclude two things: 1) CO makes it easier to shoot faster and more accurate, or 2) the better shooters are gravitating to CO. It will take more time to prove, but the same names that were near the top of shoots in SSP, ESP and other classes before they started shooting CO are still near the top shooting CO.


CO vs Other H2O 2022-2021.PNG
 
I do have a relevant question about RDS. I have hesitated to use RDS for IDPA because I don't want to train for competition with one platform and carry a different one.

How reliable is the motion-activated feature on RDS for carry?
 
I’ve never had the “shake awake” feature not work for me; it’s pretty cool.
I agree with the video and realize we are the 1 percent.
I changed to the DTS because of cataract surgery. I literally can’t see my irons well anymore, so his point about the backup sights matches my experience.
But, I still like and carry 40 Stout and Wonderful on the job, so if you don’t want yours, pm me.
 
Last edited:
AR10ShooterinNC said:
Do you still believe in irons only for your rifles?
Click to expand...

I previously answered that question.

gc70 said:
... Generally for anything from 10 to 100 yards, I would try to use a pistol caliber carbine that would absolutely have a red dot mounted. Beyond 100 yards, a rifle with a scope would be my preference.
Click to expand...
 
dmarbell said:
Here is a non-scientific analysis of the last 13 IDPA shoots at H2O. I analyzed the top ten shooters at each event, but excluded PCC shooters. So if there were two PCC shooters I went to the top 12, etc.

Now one could conclude two things: 1) CO makes it easier to shoot faster and more accurate, or 2) the better shooters are gravitating to CO. It will take more time to prove, but the same names that were near the top of shoots in SSP, ESP and other classes before they started shooting CO are still near the top shooting CO.


View attachment 539270
Click to expand...
There are a couple of shooters from that match in particular who improved drastically when they went to CO. Their improvements sold me on the concept. They had good technique but due to age I think irons were getting tough. Both went from middle of the pack to the top 1/3 for most matches. I make that observation after shooting with them on and off since at least 2018.

On the other hand one of the top guys at that match shoots equally as accurate with irons as he does rds. He’s a bit faster with the Rds but not by much.
 
Wow. someone posts a meme that is obviously derogatory of the original video with no added context. I call them out to address this and people instantly take offense and come out of the woodwork to slap my wrist and provoke further controversy. If thats the group think mentality and you wnat to penalize or count me out then thats fine. Thought this was inclusive place for discussion but starting to see that even here people get butt hurt when questioned. Whatever.
 
Very much doubt anyone got butt hurt. Perhaps a few keyboard jabs. Or did you just witness me dusting off my Amish edc?
 
GTX30R said:
This is hilariously irrelevant 🤣 No context. I'll bite since there is no context as to how the skill must be qualified. I'll pick Sunday but get to set the stages period!

Based on my shooting experience the ranges I go to and the events I attend. I would easily (like landslide) wager the average RDS shooter can shoot better scores and be more accurate overall than iron sights just as fast if not faster. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree the issue with the above is while the numbers would be interesting there is a gap and the numbers only apply to you personally and your own performance. If you are better with one or the other it is your choice, preference. But on a scale, RDS overall is provable across the board as being better.
Click to expand...

Insulting tone aside I'll ask a couple of question for discussion purposes. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that I'm anti rds. That is not true. But...do any of your studies address things like draw to first shot speed, difference from people that have trained 1000's of rounds with irons then transitioned to rds. I admitadly need to look at the studies you posted but are their significant differences between iron, rds, and point shooting at typical engagement distances, etc. None of this is persoanal to me.
 
Mack270 said:
There are a couple of shooters from that match in particular who improved drastically when they went to CO. Their improvements sold me on the concept. They had good technique but due to age I think irons were getting tough. Both went from middle of the pack to the top 1/3 for most matches. I make that observation after shooting with them on and off since at least 2018.

On the other hand one of the top guys at that match shoots equally as accurate with irons as he does rds. He’s a bit faster with the Rds but not by muc
Click to expand...
Apologies if I lumped you in. that was addressed mainly at the person who posted a random meme relply and then seemed to take super offense to my reply by taking the superior high road response.
 
@ dmarbell,
I run a holosun, I have the “shake awake” set for 12 hrs on all mine. That said on my carry gun when i get it out of the safe, the dot has been on.

I second your IDPA info above my personal scores have improved

Steve
 
@Icculus

Apologies if you thought I was insulting. Was merely jabbing for more information.

I'm actually neither for or against either irons or red dots and practice with both as stated early on. They both have pros and cons and not everyone is better off with one or the other. I had a hard transition and there are plenty of factors for me that make both viable.

There are actually some great studies and many articles discussing everything you asked. One of the problems is that there are certainly people who are exceptions. I think everyone should try both and get reasonably comfortable with both. But what works well and what you are comfortable with is ultimately up to you.
 
Last edited:
Icculus said:
Insulting tone aside I'll ask a couple of question for discussion purposes. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that I'm anti rds. That is not true. But...do any of your studies address things like draw to first shot speed, difference from people that have trained 1000's of rounds with irons then transitioned to rds. I admitadly need to look at the studies you posted but are their significant differences between iron, rds, and point shooting at typical engagement distances, etc. None of this is persoanal to me.
Click to expand...
The argument of it being much more difficult to go from irons to rds if you’ve trained for thousands of rounds on irons is not correct. My personal opinion, that is just used as an excuse.

A person who has trained that much and has good fundamentals, the only thing required to switch, is your angle to align with the rds instead of the irons.

Case in point, it is no different in changing the angle to switch between irons on revolvers, Glocks, and 1911s. My personal experience in training, it is easier for a knowledgeable and competent shooter to transition to rds than a new shooter to learn them.

I personally have switched from carrying a Smith & Wesson 66, to a Smith & Wesson 4006, to a Beretta 92, to a Glock with rds and with very little practice. I’ve been able to make those transitions with a little dry firing drills and less than 500 rounds.

In response to draw and first round on target times. One only needs to look at all regulated shooting competition disciplines. All of them have specific divisions for optics and if you compare times of the shooters, who shoot in both irons and optics. Their optic times are faster, the over whelming majority of the time. Everyone has a bad run from time to time, but as a general rule optics are faster.
practiscore.com

SWPL - USPSA - October 23, 2022 | PractiScore

practiscore.com
In the match above, removing PCC shooter the top 12 are open and carry optics.

There are great iron shooters, and there are some fast iron shooters. I don’t think any of our membership believe the opposite. Ken’s video, was really off base. He should have went in the, this is what works for me. Not the rds suck because blah blah blah.
 
I keep forgetting that red dots take so much time to learn on whereas everyone is an expert with irons, and they therefore don't require any training.

I finally got around to watching the video instead of just assuming his points were stupid. Turns out his points were stupid.
 
dmarbell said:
Here is a non-scientific analysis of the last 13 IDPA shoots at H2O. I analyzed the top ten shooters at each event, but excluded PCC shooters. So if there were two PCC shooters I went to the top 12, etc.

Now one could conclude two things: 1) CO makes it easier to shoot faster and more accurate, or 2) the better shooters are gravitating to CO. It will take more time to prove, but the same names that were near the top of shoots in SSP, ESP and other classes before they started shooting CO are still near the top shooting CO.


View attachment 539270
Click to expand...

I'm glad those guys moved out of SSP into CO; I like being fastest dinosaur and it's easier if the good guys go elsewhere.
 
Wow. I guess I was wrong. I don't hate red dots and run them off and on but you are all right. My training with Ken, Larry, etc are all just boomer shit and I should move on. Cheers
 
Icculus said:
Wow. I guess I was wrong. I don't hate red dots and run them off and on but you are all right. My training with Ken, Larry, etc are all just boomer shit and I should move on. Cheers
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition? I can accept Ken is very knowledgeable but can be mistaken in this case. Why must he be infallible?
 
Last edited:
Icculus said:
Wow. I guess I was wrong. I don't hate red dots and run them off and on but you are all right. My training with Ken, Larry, etc are all just boomer shit and I should move on. Cheers
Click to expand...
Well, if they taught you ignorance like what was talked about in that video then…..yeah, you should move on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JRV
Two movies, one screen.

Let me paraphrase what I heard:

'They are different, and you have to train with them, but they work. Time will tell if they stick around'
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
I feel so smug sitting up here on my High Horse with NO opinion on what YOU should do.
Click to expand...
we were discussing Ken’s video which was edited and (presumably) proofed by him in which he makes some poorly constructed arguments as well as clear factual errors. I do not see why anyone (except Ken) would become upset by this.
 
This is a really interesting "conversation". I think Ken makes it pretty clear in the video that "not everyone" needs a red dot sight and he is 100% right.
If you are commited to understanding the nuances, differences and training with the red dot, it may be a good fit for you.

Do you need a red dot to prevail in a gunfight? Hell no.

Can red dot sights make you a better shooter? Yes! If you train properly with them.

Can I shoot better scores on B-8's at 25 yards with my RDS guns? Hell yeah!

At the end of the day, the average gun owner with a Kel Tec, Taurus revolver or S&W M&P that shoots 1-2X a year has zero need for a RDS.

If you are an enthusiast? A 2 percenter? Knock yourself out. I have many RDS guns. I have many non RDS guns. I am proficient with both.

As far as arguments and factual errors-these are Ken's -opinions-after 50 years of training some of the best tactical shooters in world. People like HRT, Delta, etc etc.

His opinion matters, even if your 2 day class with a retired insurance salesman who teaches red dots for a living happens to disagree with it. Remember-there is no "science" here. There are no double blind, randomized controlled studies-these are OPINIONS.

The marketing machine that is the firearms industry will put a chicken in every pot (Ie: red dot on every gun) and so will LE agencies so their poorly trained non-enthusiast employees can more easily qualify on their annual recertification.

Here is a nice B-8 from 25 yards, 10 shots in under 10 seconds from the holster. I get it.

Also, I really like high end 1911's. No one needs one of them to win a gunfight either.

IMG_2235 (1).jpeg
 
Last edited:
My take is, 'different strokes for different folks.'

Some people don't carry a gun because of the odds of getting into a gunfight.
Some people don't carry higher capacity guns because of the extra bulk/weight and the odds of having an extended gunfight.
Some people don't carry an RDS because of the extra bulk, expense and odds of actually using your sight in a gunfight.

Some people are perfectly comfortable carrying a 5-shot J-frame or a 6-shot single stack, while others carry a 17+1 gun, a 5-shot J-frame, two extra magazines and a speed-loader.

I know a carpenter who lives in one of the safest neighborhoods in the NorthEast - and wears a gun and often a bullet-resistant vest when at home.....I've somewhat jokingly asked him if he wears a helmet while driving his car, because the chances of needing a helmet while driving far exceed this chances of needing a gun/vest in his home......

TO EACH HIS OWN. My opinion doesn't matter.
 
Bladeandbarrel said:
This is a really interesting "conversation". I think Ken makes it pretty clear in the video that "not everyone" needs a red dot sight and he is 100% right.
If you are commited to understanding the nuances, differences and training with the red dot, it may be a good fit for you.

Do you need a red dot to prevail in a gunfight? Hell no.

Can red dot sights make you a better shooter? Yes! If you train properly with them.

Can I shoot better scores on B-8's at 25 yards with my RDS guns? Hell yeah!

At the end of the day, the average gun owner with a Kel Tec, Taurus revolver or S&W M&P that shoots 1-2X a year has zero need for a RDS.

If you are an enthusiast? A 2 percenter? Knock yourself out. I have many RDS guns. I have many non RDS guns. I am proficient with both.

As far as arguments and factual errors-these are Ken's -opinions-after 50 years of training some of the best tactical shooters in world. People like HRT, Delta, etc etc.

His opinion matters, even if your 2 day class with a retired insurance salesman who teaches red dots for a living happens to disagree with it. Remember-there is no "science" here. There are no double blind, randomized controlled studies-these are OPINIONS.

The marketing machine that is the firearms industry will put a chicken in every pot (Ie: red dot on every gun) and so will LE agencies so their poorly trained non-enthusiast employees can more easily qualify on their annual recertification.

Here is a nice B-8 from 25 yards, 10 shots in under 10 seconds from the holster. I get it.

Also, I really like high end 1911's. No one needs one of them to win a gunfight either.

View attachment 546839
Click to expand...
Two things of note:
First the is “ science“ here. Three focal planes vs one. You are going to shoot better when you only have one focal plane.
Second I am exceptionally negative on this particular video because Ken SHOULD know better and if you are compensated for making videos he needs to do a better effort. I am not going to rehash his glaring errors (I did so earlier in this thread) but know your craft and check your facts if you want to be taken seriously.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
The newer handguns and sights are designed to be co-witnessed with standard iron sights which eliminates the need to retrain yourself.
Click to expand...
I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you here. not argue, just disagree.
 
Bladeandbarrel said:
The marketing machine that is the firearms industry will put a chicken in every pot (Ie: red dot on every gun) and so will LE agencies so their poorly trained non-enthusiast employees can more easily qualify on their annual recertification.
Click to expand...
Your statement above proves what we have been saying. RDS on handguns are more efficient and faster than iron sights.

LE marksmanship qualifications are tested against speed (including drawing and shooting), distance, and accuracy. At the distances where speed of drawing is more of use (up close and personal) than sight picture, neither iron sights nor RDS have the upper hand.

When it comes to distance, accuracy, and timed shooting RDS have the clear advantage. Your own statement admits that poorly trained people meet these standards easier and better with RDS than iron sights. So you even contradict Ken in this video.
 
People have been shooting rugged red dots for the performance advantages for literally decades and carrying them on and off duty for over a decade.

Anyone preferring an “opinion” on them that isn’t “shoot one, you might like it, you might not, it’s a bit higher maintenance than irons, and if your fundamentals suck, you will not see speed benefits” is just making clickbait or regurgitating rumors/fuddlore.

Talking about handgun dots like they’re threshold tech is like talking about polymer handguns as threshold tech.
 
No one is discussing battery life of RDS on defensive guns. I have a Sig P320 RX, and I don't know which generation of Romeo1 optic is on it. I called Sig because the shake awake function didn't seem to be working, and I wanted to discuss battery life. The tech had me reset the shake awake function and wanted me to make sure the dot was on, put it on a counter against a wall beside a stud and wait 2-2.5 minutes to see if it went off. The stud was because the slightest vibration would wake up the dot. I mentioned to him that shake awake and everyday carry would mean the dot was on continuously during the carry period, but that was ok because the battery life was like 20k hours, on the newest generation. He told me that was on the lowest setting, and increasing the brightness would decrease the battery life significantly. Increased brightness would be needed during daylight conditions. I've seen stories of batteries going dead after a couple of months of continuous use.

That concerns me for defensive carry. A dead RDS at exactly the wrong time could be disastrous. Batteries are cheap, so I guess it would make sense to change them on a regular basis if you carried an RDS daily.
 
dmarbell said:
No one is discussing battery life of RDS on defensive guns.
Click to expand...

Most likely because anyone who is carrying and using a higher quality RDS isn't having any issues making it a non-issue.

Side note: I had some of the same issues with Romeo and Romeo1 pro and switched over to RMRs/ Holosuns
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
Two things of note:
First the is “ science“ here. Three focal planes vs one. You are going to shoot better when you only have one focal plane.
Second I am exceptionally negative on this particular video because Ken SHOULD know better and if you are compensated for making videos he needs to do a better effort. I am not going to rehash his glaring errors (I did so earlier in this thread) but know your craft and check your facts if you want to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

My point was there is no "scientific" analysis of any of this discussion.
No one questions that red dot sights are easier to shoot well for most people, especially at distance. No one, not even Ken.

But like "wound ballistics", the discussion is absolutely opinion and not rooted in any hard science. There is a learning curve. There are different realities.

The FACT is that battery powered sights held on a slide with arrangements of plates and screws fail and fail often. There are too many variables. The adhesive, the screws, the installation etc etc etc.

Thats a fact. I have seen dozens of pistol optics fail in classes and on the range. There is a major learning curve when it comes to maintenance of the mounting attachments and there is a huge disparity in quality/design between the different manufacturers of plates and screws and shops that offer custom mounting solutions. Huge disparities.

I have seen metal fixed rear sight slide out of dovetails a few times and have seen front sights pop off in about 35 years of training and competition shooting.
I would guess the failure rate of optics to irons is exponentially higher. Like 10-50X higher. A typical class with 10 people, at least one optic or mounting solution will fail or some loose. Thats a guess- not science, just based on my observations and experience and the experiences of others at our local ranges and trainers I know.

For average gun owners that shoot a few times a year and carry occasionally or keep a gun at home or in the car, red dot sights are absurd.
For aficionados and commited users, they make more sense.

Are they a fad? No I don't think so but I do think we will look back in a few years on the current sights and how they attach with horror. Lots of change happening, fast.
 
Average Joe said:
Your statement above proves what we have been saying. RDS on handguns are more efficient and faster than iron sights.

LE marksmanship qualifications are tested against speed (including drawing and shooting), distance, and accuracy. At the distances where speed of drawing is more of use (up close and personal) than sight picture, neither iron sights nor RDS have the upper hand.

When it comes to distance, accuracy, and timed shooting RDS have the clear advantage. Your own statement admits that poorly trained people meet these standards easier and better with RDS than iron sights. So you even contradict Ken in this video.
Click to expand...

I never said they weren't faster and more efficient. They just aren't necessary for most people.

Police departments buy top quality optics, have armorers, professional training and pistol/light inspection. Average people don't have access to the same things that a large metro or federal PD has. The reason LE agencies are moving to red dots sights is around EOAA issues. Its a lot faster to train an inner city female who never handled a gun in her life to point and click with a red dot sight and hit a B-27 at 25 yards than it is to teach sight alignment.
 
JRV said:
People have been shooting rugged red dots for the performance advantages for literally decades and carrying them on and off duty for over a decade.

Anyone preferring an “opinion” on them that isn’t “shoot one, you might like it, you might not, it’s a bit higher maintenance than irons, and if your fundamentals suck, you will not see speed benefits” is just making clickbait or regurgitating rumors/fuddlore.

Talking about handgun dots like they’re threshold tech is like talking about polymer handguns as threshold tech.
Click to expand...


Polymer handguns have been around since the mid-80's (G-17) and haven't changed dramatically much since then.

MRDS has only been completely refined for handguns in the last 5 years. You can't equate the use of a frame mounted tube sight to the impact a slide mounted MRDS takes...Thats not even close in the amount of force exerted on the sight and the mounting screws.

I started shooting red dot sights on competition handguns in the 80's. It was very common to take the scopes apart and epoxy all the connections on an annual basis. And everyone, I mean everyone had a back up gun.

MRDS on handguns is not a "little bit more maintenance"..its exponentially more maintenance.
It requires committed, periodic optic/mount checking, screw checking, and regular battery changes.

Metal fixed sights have zero maintenance.

I am an advocate of MRDS..heck I shoot better with them!
Do I need them on my gun to win in a fight? Confidently, I can say no. Unless I have to make head shots at 50 yards I think I am OK.
 
Bladeandbarrel said:
The FACT is that battery powered sights held on a slide with arrangements of plates and screws fail and fail often. There are too many variables. The adhesive, the screws, the installation etc etc etc.

Thats a fact. I have seen dozens of pistol optics fail in classes and on the range. There is a major learning curve when it comes to maintenance of the mounting attachments and there is a huge disparity in quality/design between the different manufacturers of plates and screws and shops that offer custom mounting solutions. Huge disparities.
Click to expand...
Bladeandbarrel said:
MRDS on handguns is not a "little bit more maintenance"..its exponentially more maintenance.
It requires committed, periodic optic/mount checking, screw checking, and regular battery changes.

Metal fixed sights have zero maintenance.
Click to expand...

While I'm not exactly disagreeing I think this is a separate and missing part of the conversations and thought processes for many people. This could easily fall into the training, experience, and maintenance categories. Certainly not saying that these things don't or never happen but I don't see it as much of an issue. It goes into the KNOW your equipment and figure out what works part.

As to failing the same thing could apply to cheaper ARs or out-of-spec factory rifles or just poorly missed parts. (I'll assume) we have all been on the range/ class/ match and seen someone using a lesser-quality item fail and succeed just the same as top spec. Or just someone without proper knowledge miss or forget specs/ alignment and their "firearm" not work as intended. It's a know your equipment = training, maintenance, experience issue

Not arguing but disagree on the maintenance- exponentially more maintenance??? Perhaps.. with lower or lesser quality parts or when not properly set up
When set up properly with quality parts and have a simple routine of maintenance its not much of an issue. Do they occasionally require checking and maintenance absolutely and yes more than iron sights but is it really that big of an issue and require "exponentially more" _________?? For me no for someone getting started maybe. Absolutely should be a part of the thought process and conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom