Beyond Skills: Why Enthusiasm Matters in Pistol Mounted Optic Adoption

[Tomahawkman]

I think this can also be seen in USMC rifle qualification scores once the ACOG was adopted. They moved scoring brackets up because scores were increasing across the board, from what I’ve been told.

My only question would be this though: Did folks just start getting better scores or did they actually shoot better? Qualifications are one thing, shooting scenario drills may be different. I’d like to hear your opinion on that.

They are actually performing better across the board, shooting while moving especially. They are seeing the feedback from the dot while pressing the trigger and its helping give visual understanding of what their input to the gun is doing. Many have indicated that they are a lot more confident now as well because the red dot is helping them make shots within certain accuracy standard they previously were not able to do with iron sights. The biggest benefit as a shooter is that the dot provides that ultra fine movement feedback that you don't get with irons.

The hardest part of training the transition was getting them onto a target focus and not dot focus.

 

[DadSmith]

Just seen this. It actually might be helpful with the larger glass.

 

[Skip]

They are actually performing better across the board

That’s great. I know this, we had an LEO involved shooting in my town a few years ago. They had 1st Gen P320’s in 45ACP. There was a building as the backdrop to it and it was riddled with holes, I can’t remember if anyone was hurt at all in that incident.
Better shooting would be a good thing! Lol

 

[Tomahawkman]

I've seen similar results, but I'm curious...do you think the improvement is the result of the optic itself, or does it have more to do with the attitude of the officers who by simply being willing to put the time in to train on it are further developing thier skills? And the ones who are opting to go to the dot...were they your better shooters to start with, or guys who were just getting by? I think I've seen improvement across the board, but we also did a transition course so everybody got an extra dose of live-fire training that they don't normally get, so I'm waiting to see how much of that improvement sticks around over the long term. I'm confident that the guys who are willing to keep putting in the work will continue to show improvement, but I'm curious to see what will happen with those who don't.

I had a mix of the high performers and the people who usually get through it. However everyone other than myself had not shot with red dots until we put them on their duty guns so I think it was the optics not the shooter. But with that said, the average officer that isn't going to put in time outside of training at work is much better off now with the dots. The best way to explain it was everyone went up to the next level by adding the dot after they grasped the basics of it.

I'm still seeing some (not much though) drop off in ability between training sessions from those who don't shoot but they get back up to snuff a lot faster now than before.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Lots of real gunfight videos on the internet. Not any that I can recall with picture perfect indexing. Lots with point shooting at 5-10 feet or flash sight pictures at best.

How many of those real gunfighters do you suppose spend 10 minutes a day dry firing and put a few thousand rounds of live fire downrange a year in realistic training? Maybe do some FoF every few years?

 

[Route 45]

How many of those real gunfighters do you suppose spend 10 minutes a day dry firing and put a few thousand rounds of live fire downrange a year in realistic training? Maybe do some FoF every few years?

Likely almost none of them. And still, the bodies hit the floor.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Likely almost none of them. And still, the bodies hit the floor.

No ****. How many times have I said something along the lines of the skill necesary to win a one on one gun fight vs a random attacker is pretty low, and that surprise, speed, and ferocity of attack are the main predictors of success vs hardware?

I'm not sure what your point is since you quoted: "I'm much less convinced of the value on a walking around off duty gun, especially for someone unwilling to work their index to near perfection"

 

[Skip]

No ****. How many times have I said something along the lines of the skill necesary to win a one on one gun fight vs a random attacker is pretty low, and that surprise, speed, and ferocity of attack are the main predictors of success vs hardware?

I'm not sure what your point is since you quoted: "I'm much less convinced of the value on a walking around off duty gun, especially for someone unwilling to work their index to near perfection"

Well, all I know from recent shootings here in Indiana, Elisha Dicken said he practiced, regularly. Made 8 out of 10 shots at 40 years.

Certainly you’re not suggesting there is no need to practice and train to be efficient?

If someone thinks they know how to shoot well, simply because they have a handgun and the 2A, they aren’t doing their due diligence to be a responsible CCW carrier. In my opinion.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, all I know from recent shootings here in Indiana, Elisha Dicken said he practiced, regularly. Made 8 out of 10 shots at 40 years.

Certainly you’re not suggesting there is no need to practice and train to be efficient?

If someone thinks they know how to shoot well, simply because they have a handgun and the 2A, they aren’t doing their due diligence to be a responsible CCW carrier. In my opinion.

No. Nothing personal, but I've had this conversation so many times on INGO I'm tired of rehashing it. Reader's Digest version: Acknowleding that most random violence attacks are thwarted without the need for much in the way of technical skill beyond presenting and firing a functional firearm is not the same as saying you should adhere to the lowest possible standard that is likely to result in your survival.

See: https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/random-violence-stats-ive-compiled.396940/ for more detail. Skip to post #3 if you don't care about numbers.

 

[Skip]

No. Nothing personal, but I've had this conversation so many times on INGO I'm tired of rehashing it. Reader's Digest version: Acknowleding that most random violence attacks are thwarted without the need for much in the way of technical skill beyond presenting and firing a functional firearm is not the same as saying you should adhere to the lowest possible standard that is likely to result in your survival.

See: https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/random-violence-stats-ive-compiled.396940/ for more detail. Skip to post #3 if you don't care about numbers.

"Speed, surprise, ferocity of attack.”

I’d like to add one thing: “Skill,” Speed, surprise, ferocity of attack.

The others, I like…..

 

[Skip]

I thought of this:
"Speed without skill is suicide.”

 

[Route 45]

No ****. How many times have I said something along the lines of the skill necesary to win a one on one gun fight vs a random attacker is pretty low, and that surprise, speed, and ferocity of attack are the main predictors of success vs hardware?

I'm not sure what your point is since you quoted: "I'm much less convinced of the value on a walking around off duty gun, especially for someone unwilling to work their index to near perfection"

I was just adding on, agreeing with you. Not arguing with ya.

**** doesn't translate on the internet.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I was just adding on, agreeing with you. Not arguing with ya.

**** doesn't translate on the internet.

Fair enough. I was looking for some turn in the conversation and ended up in the ditch when it stayed straight, apparently.

 

[Skip]

Skill, Speed, Surprise, ferocity of attack

How about this:
Skill, Speed, Surprise, SAVAGERY of attack

I think we are on to something. Give it a few months and it’ll show up on someone’s tacticool training site as the “4S’s of surviving a gunfight”!

Just remember though:
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!

 

[russc2542]

I was pretty good with irons before finally switching to a dot. after the transition period, my match scores are up, both fast stuff like steel/uspsa and slow stuff like bullseye. It's hard to argue the shooting benefits.

Can't say I disagree with anything said except for the manual/auto analogy but that might be my automotive background... automatics are great and "just work" till they don't and most people take it to a shop to fix and maintain (take it to a gunsmith to mount & change batteries. Lets face it, about as many people change their own oil as mount their own optics)). They have a million failure points, mostly severe. MTs are more work (like aligning irons) but are far more rugged with workarounds if they partially fail (lose a rear sight, keep shooting. lose a gear, skip it). That's semantics though.

Enthusiast as in the enthusiasm to train with the gun. I'd say that holds true for irons as much as a dot when it comes to drawing and being on sights and zeroing. Where the dot needs more work is in maintenance like changing the battery.

 

[cedartop]

An agency’s experience transitioning to new duty weapons and miniaturized red dot sights

With so many options, making informed decisions can seem difficult — establishing clear criteria is essential to facilitate this decision-making process

www.police1.com