RED DOT PISTOLS Feed

Nothing is free, and with all new technologies there are perceived issues and a learning curve. Because a smart phone is more difficult to use than a landline should not cause is to eschew the smart phone. Better to learn the new technology and take advantage of its benefits. A skilled man using advanced technology will surpass what a similarly skilled man can do without it. So here we go. 1). Problem Picking up the dot. This is an area where everyone over thinks the issue. There are entire articles devoted to this with so many varying proposed solutions many guys simply say its too much and dismiss the dot altogether. So here is the simple way...too simple in fact. If your dot is co-witnessed to be on your front sight (either on top of the sight, just below the top, or on the tritium vial), and if you have trained countless times to visually acquire that front sight, what will you automatically begin to see when you present the pistol and catch the sights? Wait for it....the dot of... Read more →


The discussion of the new "0.10" narrower RMS-C prompted the staff to do an updated study on optics for the Glock 43 system. Most optics are narrow enough to fit, but too long. The width on a 43 is such that it will accept any optic with a 1.0" width...maybe a 1.10" depending on the location of the screws. But the factory slide, with its rear sight placement limits use of certain optics because they will intrude excessively into the firing pin safety hole. Since placing the rear sight forward of the optic is a poor idea, the location of that dovetail becomes an important factor if designing a Glock 43 slide The RMR is too wide, but the Deltapoint is not, although the Deltapoint is too long. We have fit the Vortex Venom (and thus a Fastfire fits as well), Docter, J-Point, Shield RMS. There may be others we have not tried. Again, the limiting factor is the rear sight dovetail. When we bring out our Suarez Signature Glock 43 slides, that will not be an issue and any... Read more →


Continuing with the discussions on marksmanship, an important pair of aspects are the issues of breathing and coordinating it with trigger press. One is strictly skill related, the other is skill and gear related. Breathing is a muscular action, whether voluntary or involuntary. The muscular action of breathing, or of holding the breath creates movement, which is the bane of a stable shooting platform. Not an issue in run-and-gun CQB, but a crucial consideration for accurate shooting anytime that a crucial shot is needed. In sniper school we teach the natural respiratory pause. And we find that method works admirably when shooting a pistol as well. We breathe normally...maybe taking a deep breath or two, and then allowing the air to expel naturally from the lungs without forcing it. At the point that the lungs feel "empty", you will have between 6 to 10 seconds of oxygenated blood flowing before the breathing must resume. Its during that period of time where, maintaining the visual focus on the sights or red dot, you begin pressing the trigger. That is the timing.... Read more →


Which one? Well, it depends. To simply suggest you always do it the same way regardless shows a complete lack of understanding about the fundamentals of marksmanship. So unless you can guarantee that all your gunfights will be in elevators with obese aggressors, read on. The question of sighting with with one eye or two eyes while shooting has been around for a long time. As in much of what we are doing, it is a matter of context and distance. If you are fighting a bad guy at five feet as you explode off the x, intent on shooting him to the ground, keeping both eyes open and focusing on the threat will work fine. Try the same thing at 7 yards, shooting past an innocent, and your results will not be as good. As most things, it depends on the problem at hand. Like degrees of movement (from stationary to sprinting), the use of the pistol's sights (from focus on sights to focus on threat), the rate of fire (from carefully pressing the trigger to machinegun mashing it... Read more →


On the face of it, the title seems obvious. Sort of like saying water is wet. But it is something that must be discussed in the realm of combat shooting as there seems to be a great deal of the "complacent quest for adequacy" creeping into the study. "Its good enough for gunfighting", one man may say as he views his pizza sized group on the cardboard, not taking into consideration that what he is viewing was not the result of an hour of busting off the x in reactive drills...but rather his best in non-pressured proactive group shooting. The combat crowd might scoff at our standards of all shots touching as an indicator of accuracy (both of man and gun and ammo). But the more accurate the shooter is, and the more accurate his weapon is, the greater a margin for error he has if things are less than optimal when he has to shoot. Think of a custom pistol that is capable of all shots touching at ten yards, compared to a pistol of lesser development that is... Read more →