Revo with optics maybe legal in USPSA

[BadShot]

I shot my 627 with irons at a local indoor match a couple of weeks ago.  I thought it felt that it was faster than the dot.

[MWP]

Some people might prefer irons, especially if they haven’t trained much with a dot. But it’s not faster. It’s a solid 5-10% slower. 

[MWP]

And that 5-10% is at the top. The difference grows as the class lowers. 

[BadShot]

Actually, I've shot red dot revolver, carry optics and open for the past 5 years.  I've heard those numbers before.  I wonder how they measured this.  I suppose shooting steel challenge with the same gun set up as irons and a red dot would give you some idea(like Pskys2 mentioned). As you said, some people might do better with one or the other.  I might give this a go at the steel match.

Edited December 30, 2022 by BadShot

[Joe4d]

19 minutes ago, MWP said:

Some people might prefer irons, especially if they haven’t trained much with a dot. But it’s not faster. It’s a solid 5-10% slower. 

based on what ? You talking USPSA ? You comparing Limited and CO HF's ?

 

[Joe4d]

I ran a dot and put real effort into it Bowling Pins... Pulled dot, started winning and times went down.  so apples apples, same gun same game 

[MWP]

43 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

based on what ? You talking USPSA ? You comparing Limited and CO HF's ?

 

Steel challenge is the easiest place to find this data. Same guns, same stages, usually same shooters the same weekend the is easiest to find and compare. 
 

Then you can use uspsa and icore in this case since we are talking about revolvers.
 

Uspsa is tougher than steel challenge because it’s uncommon to find top level shooters that shoot the same match with the same capacity and power factor. The best example would be stages from a race gun nationals, comparing limited to open, on stages under 100 points. You’d want to take the top 2-5 shooters from each division and compare since there are usually so many more factors at play. 
 

ICORE is also another great data point since we are talking about revolvers in this specific case. It’s not unheard of for shooters of all skill levels to shoot multiple guns over the same match. But because the top shooters are comparable across uspsa as well as a reference for irons, those same shooters can be compared when they split divisions in icore. 
 

I’m not saying sometimes on some days an iron gun doesn’t beat a gun with dot. I’m saying it’s a 5-10% advantage using known data points. 

[Fishbreath]

Dots are definitely advantaged. Look at the history of USPSA—the first division ever created was created to segregate dots from irons, because dots are a clear competitive edge.

 

A dot will feel slower at first for people with a lot of experience with irons, because there is no throttle control with a dot, so to speak. With irons, you control the amount of information you get with how much attention you pay to the precise alignment of the sights. When you're going fast, you learn to need less—just see a flash of fiber on the close targets, wait to see the front sight in the notch for medium targets, full-on equal-height-equal-light for hard ones. Dots always tell you everything.

 

An acceptable sight picture is subtly different between the two. With irons, I always look for the sight in the middle of the target; any inaccuracy comes from not letting the sights fully settle. With a dot (although I'm a very irregular dot shooter), an acceptable sight picture is the dot somewhere in the area I want to hit. (A zone, say, on a USPSA target.)

 

Waiting to see the dot fully dead center on every target could conceivably be slower than irons, but it's also waiting for more information than you need to make an acceptable shot.

[pskys2]

The further the target the better a dot is.  IMHO the gap starts to widen past 10 yards.

And I agree it helps the untrained, less trained.

I know what my issue is with dots, and how to fix it, but only if I put time in it though.

[pskys2]

17 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

Dots are definitely advantaged. Look at the history of USPSA—the first division ever created was created to segregate dots from irons, because dots are a clear competitive edge.

 

A dot will feel slower at first for people with a lot of experience with irons, because there is no throttle control with a dot, so to speak. With irons, you control the amount of information you get with how much attention you pay to the precise alignment of the sights. When you're going fast, you learn to need less—just see a flash of fiber on the close targets, wait to see the front sight in the notch for medium targets, full-on equal-height-equal-light for hard ones. Dots always tell you everything.

 

An acceptable sight picture is subtly different between the two. With irons, I always look for the sight in the middle of the target; any inaccuracy comes from not letting the sights fully settle. With a dot (although I'm a very irregular dot shooter), an acceptable sight picture is the dot somewhere in the area I want to hit. (A zone, say, on a USPSA target.)

 

Waiting to see the dot fully dead center on every target could conceivably be slower than irons, but it's also waiting for more information than you need to make an acceptable shot.

The uspsa change to limited and open was not completely the optics, it was the compensator AND the dot.  And the compensator made a bigger difference at that time.  In those years the dots weren't reliable and not as user friendly.

The crucible of competition led to great enhancements in optics and the techniques needed to use them.

[pskys2]

19 hours ago, Joe4d said:

I ran a dot and put real effort into it Bowling Pins... Pulled dot, started winning and times went down.  so apples apples, same gun same game 

My thoughts too, but take those pins out to 15 yards and the equation changes.

[testosterone]

On 12/29/2022 at 6:53 PM, MWP said:

Some people might prefer irons, especially if they haven’t trained much with a dot. But it’s not faster. It’s a solid 5-10% slower. 

What the man said, if you are slower its cause you are doing it totally wrong/havent been taught the right way.