Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Best Glock optic for concealed carry?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With respect to which optic, I’ve never felt confident enough in anything but the RMR/DPP (now trying SRO) to try anything else.   

 

As as far as whether or not an optic is worth it, that’s up to the individual of course. In self defensive situations or applications I’m skeptical of tracking the front sight in recoil. 

 

And finally for gaming, I’m only A class and have only shot 1 maybe 2 M class classifiers so I guess I’m just not there yet. I’ve heard others make the same point you’re making, and so maybe I’m just so used to an optic now that I can’t wrap my head around irons being better. For self defense or gaming, I’d recommend trying it , if you don’t like it you won’t lose much money when you sell it. As always, YMMV. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An optic won't really matter up close, but for those of us with bad eyesight that little red dot will help us take out the active shooter from 30 yards (Lord I hope that never happens). I guess the odds are we won't even need sights if we are ever in need of defending ourselves because it will be very up close and personal.

I don't have an opinion on best, but any dot that works would be better than a blurry front sight for me.

Edited by Ltoo
change anything to any dot that works
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ltoo said:

those of us with bad eyesight that little red dot will help us take out the active shooter from 30 yards

I've taken about a dozen PD courses from very, very good instructors from around the country. What you are proposing doesn't happen in the real world. What does happen in the real world is one's glasses can get knocked off, can't find them, etc. That 6MOA dot will then be impossible to find.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Igh I that's pretty much what I was trying to say, if my glasses get knocked off it is up close and personal and you won't need any kind of sights. Opportunities for needing a precise distance shot are thankfully pretty rare (I am thinking of a few church shootings,etc), but it would be nice to have a sight that is usable. 

Agree to agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never liked the tiny viewing port than the RMR has. For an RMR footprint, I'd take the Holosun 507c over the RMR anyday. The circle-dot reticle is also very cool, and destructive testing has shown it to be quite reliable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering a similar question to the OP and was hoping someone had experience with the Aimpoint Acro?

 

It appeals to me bc it seems like it can be mounted on a 43/43x/48 and that's what I'd like to put it on.

 

The DPP and RMR, I've been told, are too wide at the base to get on those slides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 10:42 PM, be032 said:

SRO has proven to be fragile. Courtesy of Sage Dynamics, on the first (and only) drop test:

 

image.png.001d6d344f268be8e388457467446106.png

 

Rest of review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzjgOq60vFE

 

Oh yikes.

 

That's.... Less than comforting. Does the SRO use the same pattern for mounting as the RMR or are we screwed in this case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a DPP on a G43?!

 

Lowest and narrowest is probably Shield RMSc and the closely related Sig Romeo 0 that's supposed to hit soon (which, is likely manufactured by Shield since it shares the same footprint).

 

image.png.4eb1e43a0845df1880d49275c1a4df50.png

 

image.png.553bb704477b44b64aab3277415580f1.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 7:18 AM, StandardError said:

I'm wondering a similar question to the OP and was hoping someone had experience with the Aimpoint Acro?

 

It appeals to me bc it seems like it can be mounted on a 43/43x/48 and that's what I'd like to put it on.

 

The DPP and RMR, I've been told, are too wide at the base to get on those slides.

 

I have an ACRO and it's been very good so far. However, I think it'd be too wide for a 43 width side. The ACRO is 30mm wide which would be about 1.5mm wider on either side of the frame and 4mm overhang on each side of the side

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 11:42 PM, MPF said:

 

I have an ACRO and it's been very good so far. However, I think it'd be too wide for a 43 width side. The ACRO is 30mm wide which would be about 1.5mm wider on either side of the frame and 4mm overhang on each side of the side

 

Really? Damn, that's a shame.

 

How have you found it's brightness and visibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 8:02 PM, StandardError said:

 

Really? Damn, that's a shame.

 

How have you found it's brightness and visibility?

The window is a kinda small compared to the DPP but a little practice and I have no issue bringing the dot up. It sits pretty close to the slide, which helps too.

 

Glassis clear, very slight tint. The brightness is great, even in direct summer sunlight I only have to go up one setting from the default (7). Inside I keep it on 6 or 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 10:20 PM, MemphisMechanic said:

Once you’re out of C or B class and have solid gunhandling fundamentals and grip? You’re faster and it’s easier to track the sights in a GM/M-class classifier run like Can You Count with irons than it is with a dot.

I wanted to see if the data supports this hypothesis for a while, but didn't have time to look. But I guess better late than never.

 

Here are empirical cumulative distribution functions of Can You Count hit factors for shooters A class and above. I don't see much difference, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test also says the difference is not statistically significant.

06-03_comparison.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lstange said:

I wanted to see if the data supports this hypothesis for a while, but didn't have time to look. But I guess better late than never.

 

Here are empirical cumulative distribution functions of Can You Count hit factors for shooters A class and above. I don't see much difference, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test also says the difference is not statistically significant.

06-03_comparison.png

 

Then you proved my point.

 

There’s no advantage to a dot, even at the highest of skill levels, when the targets are close and fast.

 

Kinda like the scenarios people see in defensive carry.

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lstange said:

I wanted to see if the data supports this hypothesis for a while, but didn't have time to look. But I guess better late than never.

 

Here are empirical cumulative distribution functions of Can You Count hit factors for shooters A class and above. I don't see much difference, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test also says the difference is not statistically significant.

06-03_comparison.png

 

Compelling numbers making the point.

 

Just wondering if there is a possibility of separating out the Seniors (over age 55) or Super Seniors (over age 65) whose eyes may not be able to see both the front sight and target that well due to presbyopia. At least theoretically they might benefit from the red dots.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think a bigger confounding factor than the age is actually the weight of the gun. 

 

Most Prod and CO guns are much heavier than the subcompact 9s that are increasing in CCW popularity. I wonder if there's a greater divergence in performance the smaller and snappier the gun gets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul49 said:

Just wondering if there is a possibility of separating out the Seniors (over age 55) or Super Seniors (over age 65) whose eyes may not be able to see both the front sight and target that well due to presbyopia. At least theoretically they might benefit from the red dots.....

Most likely, although probably not on this particular classifier. Can You Count is unique, very high hit factor and you don't need to aim much.

 

It's also not clear how to attribute the observed difference because people are free to choose their division. If there is no difference among the Seniors, is that because red dot gives no advantage to people with presbyopia, or because it does but all Seniors with presbyopia already shoot red dots and whoever remains in Production does not suffer from presbyopia as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 8:39 PM, Paul49 said:

Just wondering if there is a possibility of separating out the Seniors (over age 55) or Super Seniors (over age 65) whose eyes may not be able to see both the front sight and target that well due to presbyopia. At least theoretically they might benefit from the red dots.....

Here are the distribution functions on all classifiers in the sample combined. I don't know how to interpret that, there are many possible confounding factors.

co_vs_prod_by_age.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...