There’s a long history of things that start in the competition shooting world eventually bleeding over into the military, and then to the broader market in general. I remember reading Kyle Lamb’s Green Eyes Black Rifles back in 2010 or so, and he was discussing his is enthusiasm for the burgeoning LPVO market and what it brought to the fight. At the time, there weren’t many options to look at, with the S&B Short Dot 1.1-4x being the king. Obviously, we’ve come a long way since then and most people think of the LPVO with much more magnification top end than 4x as “the standard.”

US Army AMU member shooting an open gun in Bianchi Cup, note the large optic mounted to the frame directly

Pistol dots have a similar story. I remember seeing pictures and videos of IPSC open guns that had full-size Aimpoints mounted to rails that bolted to the frame of their 1911. Later that scaled down to C-More sights, but still with the frame-mounted optic. Later, companies like ALG put out the six-second mount that did the same thing by using the gun’s dust cover 1913 slots.

Eventually we got to the Trijicon RMR, which was small enough to fit directly to the slide of a pistol. The issue, which wasn’t overcome until the RMR Type 2, was how to ruggedize an electro optic sight enough so that it could survive the violent g-forces of riding a pistol slide back and forth during operation.

Early Adopters and Luddites

Obviously, competitive shooters knew about the value of optics on handguns for years (if not decades) before it broke into the “tactical” world. Aside from the durability concerns, there were also issues with duty holster selection, manuals of arms, price, and complexity that made electro optics impractical. But once the optics shrank enough (and became durable enough) we saw the early adopters pick up on and start advocating for it.

Admittedly, I was late to the game. That was mostly because none of my pistols had the capability to accept a dot and I wasn’t willing to have them milled out. My first exposure came in 2022 when I got the chance to do a review of the Arex Delta M Gen 2 for American Rifleman (a pistol I still think is criminally underrated). To that I mounted a Holosun 507c ACSS. Impressed with what I saw, I picked up my CZ P10F later that year with the intention of mounting optics to it. Since then, I’ve played with more optic choices, mounted a dot to my Mark IV, and expect that every pistol I purchase going forward should be optics ready.

But where’s the value? A lot of people still think that dots are unnecessary at best, or a hindrance at worst. Especially for real world duty or CCW use. They argue, perhaps rightly, that at expected self defense distances, a dot is adding extra complication.

I see the argument, as I’ll get to in a minute, but I also can’t help but think this is akin to when long-time rifle shooters insisted that irons were mandatory and should always be learned first. Optics, they thought, didn’t enforce the fundamentals and made shooters lazy.

What Are Dots Good For?

Given my experience so far, where do i stand on the utility of pistol dots?

The biggest advantage I’ve found is accuracy, especially at distances of 15 yards and beyond. Just as with iron sights on rifles, using a dot obviates the need to align three different focal planes (target, front sight, rear sight) and then focus on the middle one (front sight). Once zeroed, you remain target focused and place the dot where you need it. This reason alone is why I think dots are the future for all pistols in general- just as they were with rifles.

While doing shooting tests at 25 yards, the performance I’m able to do with a red dot on the pistol is magnitudes better than with iron sights. The dot simplifies everything from precision to moving targets

But What About Closer Distances?

You’ll probably notice that I specifically called out accuracy and performance at distances of 15 yards and beyond. So what about closer distances like 3 yards, 7 yards, and 10 yards?

For me, I’ve not noticed a significant improvement in performance at these closer distances. If anything, I’m still lagging in performance because closer distances cause me to “fish for the dot” more than I do with iron sights. Perhaps worse, I find myself trying to refine the sight picture with a dot more than I need to, which slows down that first shot.

I noticed this especially during my last match.

A lot of this could be solved with dedicated practice on the draw and presentation of the pistol. I’ve got so many years of motor memory on drawing and presenting with iron sights that the higher mounting position of the dot still throws me off. Clearly this is a training issue for me, though. If I was training a brand new shooter to start with the dot from the get go, then they would not have this issue as they would be developing motor memory from the dot first.

One more thing. I vividly recall the first time I mounted a dot to a pistol and started dry firing. I was actually frustrated, because the dot seemed to jitter and dance all over the place. This wasn’t the dot’s fault, but rather the dot reflecting my own [bad] habits when it came to grip on the pistol. It was a bit like when you mount a high powered scope to a rifle and try to take a shot offhand, but the reticle drifts all over the target. It’s not the scope that’s the issue, but the scope is magnifying your errors. This sounds like a negative, but the truth is that using the dot forced me to actually train with better grip and shooting mechanics to maintain a solid sight picture.

What Issues Do I See with Dots?

The negatives I have with dots are short. It boils down to two things, really.

First, dots do have added mass to the gun. Not just in weight, but in height. If you’re using a gun for CCW, the extra height and mass on top of the slide could get in the way more than a streamlined set of irons. This may or may not be an issue for you depending on your body shape and mechanics, so you just have to experiment.

The second issue boils down to added mechanical complexity and maintenance. Batteries are certainly a factor, but nobody seems to have an issue with battery replacement cycles on rifles, so I don’t think it would be different on pistols. If you’re the kind of person who stays on top of battery swapping anyway, then carry on. What I’m specifically talking about here is the mounting arrangement. The simple truth is that the vast majority of modern pistols were not designed from the ground up to use optics.

Sure, manufacturers have found ways modify their current designs to accommodate optics, but fundamentally the design of most modern pistols is still based on how we’ve designed pistols since the adoption of the 1911. The reciprocating mass of the slide is hard not just on the optic, but on the mounting screws that hold the optic to the gun. This requires regular monitoring of both the optic mounting and the adapter plate (if used). Failure to stay on top of this risks loss of accuracy and eventual detachment of the optic.

What’s the Future?

So what do I think the long term answer looks like?

First, assuming the currently accepted design of pistols remains similar to today, I think we’ll see a lot more integrated mounting options like what Sig did with the new M17 Sig Loc optic mount, or the new collab between Glock and Aimpoint. these systems are not just “bolt down” methods of attachment, but instead use machining on the slide to wedge the optic into place and remove stress from the mounting screws. I think this is the right answer, and will be the future direction.

With that, I also think we need to see adoption of fewer mounting standards. Right now, everything is propriety, so you’re locked into this brand or that brand.

Next, I think that whatever the choice, the optic should cowitness with standard height irons. The trend has been making due with suppressor height sights, but I always felt like this was a stopgap to deal with the increased deck height of the optic. It still has the same issue of presentation from the draw, especially from experienced shooters. Truly, I think a combination of better mounting standards and better optic design could get the height back down to standard cowitness across the board.

In the very long term, I think the answer is evolution of pistol design all together. Shooting my Mark IV with the dot is a much better experience than my other optic-equipped pistols simply because the dot is not mounted to reciprocating mass. While I don’t particularly care for the aesthetics of Laugo pistols, the way they’ve figured out optic mounting to non-reciprocating mass of a centerfire pistol is the leading edge of what I’m talking about. I think this is the future of pistol design.

Wrapping Up

To close this out, let’s summarize.

I think pistol optics are the future, just as red dots on rifles became the defacto standard after years of people claiming you should focus on learning irons first. They have far too many positive attributes compared to the negatives. Even with minor training and practice, dots dramatically increase speed and accuracy of shooting- especially at distance. What negatives there are amount to training and maintenance issues.

That said, I think the playing field is still evolving. The next step is better-engineered mounting systems like those of the Sig Loc or Glock x Aimpoint COA. The long term is that kind of system combined with complete rethinking of pistol designs in favor of mounting optics to non-reciprocating mass of the gun.

That’s it for me, thanks for reading!

Picture of Matt

Matt

Matt is the primary author and owner of The Everyday Marksman. He's a former military officer turned professional tech sector trainer. He's a lifelong learner, passionate outdoorsman, and steadfast supporter of firearms culture.

Discussion

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

4 Comments
Oldest First
Newest First
Mike
Mike
Guest

Excellent write up and I would agree with your assessment Matt. Thank you.

Pieter
Member

Matt, Your choice of handguns has always been a head scratcher to me. Obviously you should have what you think is best; but Im always shaking my head when you talk about not being able to use this or that because your gun isnt set up for it. I certainly went through that phase; back in the 1980s I bought a CZ75 that cost me 2 months pay when I was in the Army. I loved that gun until I couldnt find mags or parts for it. Of course thats not an issue for the CZ now; but it was back then. Its like buying a Ferrari and having it sit in the auto shop while waiting for a replacement windshield wiper to come from Italy. I started using Red Dots on pistols in the mid 1990s. Back then you sent you slide to a smith to be milled for the optic and they added Suppressor height sights. I was never troubled with suppressor sights because I frequently carried a suppressor. The guns that have you remove the rear sight to mount a Red Dot do you a serious dis-service. You do want both irons and the dot. I never had an issue transferring skills from irons only to irons and a Dot. Somewhere in the piles of past moves I have a target with a head shots that I did at 100 yards. Im sure I couldnt have done that with irons only. Additionally I gave my Red Dot… Read more »

Adventure Awaits

+ Newsletter
+ New Content Alerts
+ Deals and Sales

Subscribe now