# Study using Red Dot sights Vs. Iron sights



## Arrow 4 (Jan 7, 2011)

When I cut and pasted this, it did not insert the target graphic into the e-mail...sorry.

29 December 2010
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE COMPARATIVE PISTOL PROJECT
                                                            By  James E. Ryan, D.P.A.
                                                Associate Professor of Criminal Justice
                                                Department of Justice Studies and Sociology
                                                            Norwich University
                                                            Northfield, Vermont 05663
This report summarizes the findings of the “Comparative Pistol Project” conducted on 28 and 29 September, 2010. This report is organized as a description of five (5) figures that depict the descriptive statistics compiled by the author. A more extensive and detailed report will follow. The figures depict the results of a comparison of the effectiveness of conventional iron pistol sights and Trijicon’s “Red Dot Optic. The project consisted of four (4) stages of fire and the analyses included information both on the number of “hits on paper” and the accuracy of hits.
FIGURE 1:  HITS BY STAGE
Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of shots that hit an International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) standard target (“hits on paper”) by sight type and shooting stage;

Stage 1- 15 yard slow fire-

            75 percent of the shots fired with iron sights hit the target;
            98 Percent of the shots fired with the red dot optic hit the target;

Stage 2 – 5 yard rapid engagement-

            95 percent of the shots with iron sights hit the target
            99 percent of the shots with the red dot optic hit the target

Stage 3- 10 yard rapid engagement

            81 percent of the shots with iron sights hit the target
            96 percent of the shots with the red dot optic hit the target

Stage 4 – 10 yard multiple threat

            77 percent of the shots with iron sights hit the target
            94 percent of the shots with the red dot optic hit the target

The following four figures depict hits by “zone.” Zone 1 is the center mass of the IDPA target. Zone 2 refers to the inner octagon of the target. Zone 3 refers to hits on the target outside of Zones 3 and 2.

FIGURE 2 – STAGE 1- HITS BY ZONE

Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of hits by zone and type of sight used

            Iron sights- 30% of shots hit zone 1
                               43 % of shots hit zone 2
                               27 % of shots hit zone 3

            Red dot optic – 57 % of shots hit zone 1
                                      30 % of shots hit zone 2
                                      13 % of shots hit zone 3

FIGURE 3- STAGE 2- HITS BY ZONE

Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of hits by zone and type of sight used

            Iron sights-  59% of shots hit zone 1
                                27% of shots hit zone 2                          
                                14% of shots hit zone 3

            Red dot optic-  74% of shots hit zone 1
                                     23% of shots hit zone 2         
                                     3  % of shots hit zone 3

FIGURE 4- STAGE 3- HITS BY ZONE

Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of hits by zone and type of sights used

            Iron sights-  30% of shots hit zone 1
                                50% of shots hit zone 2
                                20% of shots hit zone 3

            Red dot optic- 46% of shots hit zone 1
                                    42% of shots hit zone 2
                                    12% of shots hit zone 3

FIGURE 5-STAGE 4-HITS BY ZONE

Figure 5 illustrates the percentage of hits by zone and type of sights used

            Iron sights- 30% of shots hit zone 1
                               46% of shots hit zone 2
                               24% of shots hit zone 3

            Red dot optic- 44% of shots hit zone 1
                                    47% of shots hit zone 2
                                    9 % of shots hit zone 3


----------



## AWP (Jan 7, 2011)

The numbers are interesting but hardly surprising.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 7, 2011)

It's interesting, but I'm not sure it's science.  Trijicon was involved... see http://www.norwich.edu/about/news/2010/111210-shootingRange.html   Still, I wish I'd had a class like that in college 

The involvement of a manufacturer in research has been associated with the perception of bias in the study.  This is often seen in medicine e.g. the controversy surrouding the NINDS study.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jan 8, 2011)

Kyle Defoor did a good write up on Irons vs RDS.  http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/12/iron-sights-for-almost-year.html

A bloke I used to work with trained with him and rated him as an instructor however like all things weapon related on the net take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Teufel (Jan 8, 2011)

I would like to see a study comparing Marines who qualified expert at the 500m qualification range with iron sights vs ACOGs.  I know some guys lost their expert badges because they didn't know how to use their holds.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 8, 2011)

My first time shooting red dot vs. iron sights was paper targets on the alternate 50m range.  I shot better iron sights, but that was likely due to unfamiliarity with the new system.


----------



## Robal2pl (Jan 16, 2011)

Does use red dot on pistol makes any sense ? I mean holsters, drawing, dimensions of gun with optics etc matters  - in open carry of course.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm thinking this started as a red dot pistol Vs iron sights discussion. I'm not convinced that I would want to sacrifice the conceivability of my Glock 27 by adding such sights, to a pistol that I carry solely for self defense and close quarters usage. I think if I had a rail on the pistol I'd be more interested in one of those small 'green' laser devices, especially if one could use regular holsters.

I do like red dot sights though for Carbines and battle rifles. I was an early user of the first Aim Points Red dot sight, in my SWAT unit. I had one mounted on my H&K Model 93 and thought it was great for that and especially in low light situations. I even bought the screw in sight modifier that allowed the reduction of the spot for longer distances, etc. I worked well. The only drawback to me is that the batteries would fail at some crucial time. I did always carry another set of them but changing them in the middle of a gun battle isn't good.


----------



## fox1371 (Jan 16, 2011)

Teufel said:


> I would like to see a study comparing Marines who qualified expert at the 500m qualification range with iron sights vs ACOGs.  I know some guys lost their expert badges because they didn't know how to use their holds.


I would like to see the same thing done.  I know that when they came out with the ACOG I preferred to use the iron sites while deployed because I knew them well.  Luckily, I didn't have to use the ACOG on the range, we had the option of which we wanted to use at that time.  I didn't fully understand it at that time and probably would have lost my expert quals.  They would tell us that we had to use "kentucky windage" in order to make adjustments.  Fuck that.  From my understanding there is a more in depth way to utilize the ACOG now and a means of calculating your shots.  I wouldn't mind learning that at all.


----------



## Headshot (Jan 16, 2011)

I am and always have been in the camp of learning to use the basics first and relying on them in time of crisis.  Time of crisis being when as Trip mentioned, batteries fail or whatever other unforeseen technical glitch pops up.  Same argument as pertains to GPS vs. LC.  If I had to choose between the two, LC will always win just for being more dependable when all else fails.  That said, if you are in a practical position to utilize technological advantages then by all means use them but don't let those be your go to necessarily just because you possess them.


----------



## fox1371 (Jan 16, 2011)

Headshot said:


> I am and always have been in the camp of learning to use the basics first and relying on them in time of crisis.  Time of crisis being when as Trip mentioned, batteries fail or whatever other unforeseen technical glitch pops up.  Same argument as pertains to GPS vs. LC.  If I had to choose between the two, LC will always win just for being more dependable when all else fails.  That said, if you are in a practical position to utilize technological advantages then by all means use them but don't let those be your go to necessarily just because you possess them.


I completely agree with your statement here.  I noticed problems amongst a few of my Marines becoming dependent on things such as GPS's and dumping their knowledge of how to read a map.  As you said, if the technology is there to support you then by all means, utilize it.  You just have to be careful to not become dependent on those technologies.  Red dot sites are great and generate and quick and easy site picture.  If you don't have flip up iron sites that are correctly BZO'd as a back up though, you're just asking for trouble.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2011)

Trip_Wire said:


> I'm thinking this started as a red dot pistol Vs iron sights discussion. I'm not convinced that I would want to sacrifice the conceivability of my Glock 27 by adding such sights, to a pistol that I carry solely for self defense and close quarters usage. I think if I had a rail on the pistol I'd be more interested in one of those small 'green' laser devices, especially if one could use regular holsters.
> 
> I do like red dot sights though for Carbines and battle rifles. I was an early user of the first Aim Points Red dot sight, in my SWAT unit. I had one mounted on my H&K Model 93 and thought it was great for that and especially in low light situations. I even bought the screw in sight modifier that allowed the reduction of the spot for longer distances, etc. I worked well. The only drawback to me is that the batteries would fail at some crucial time. I did always carry another set of them but changing them in the middle of a gun battle isn't good.



For whatever it is worth, I agree. A dot is great on a pistol but I don't think I'd want it on a combat handgun. A rail-mounted light/ laser combo would be more practical. Having used a dot before, they are really great on a pistol but if things go south it isn't like a carbine where you have BUIS.

The newer Aimpoints are awesome. I know guys who leave theirs on 24/7 and just change the batteries every 6 months or so whether they need them or not. The Aimpoints aren't breaking like EOTechs either.


----------



## QC (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm thinking this started as a red dot pistol Vs iron sights discussion. I'm not convinced that I would want to sacrifice the conceivability of my Glock 27 by adding such sights, to a pistol that I carry solely for self defense and close quarters usage. 
Concur, along with the long gun comments.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 17, 2011)

I agree with Headshot, people need to know and understand irons fully prior to ever slapping on an optic. As for red-dot’s, I think they are great for CQB, but suck for distance. I prefer magnification for longer shots, or adjustable Irons.

For pistol, I think the new doctor optic type sights are great and much faster, but as Trip pointed out the battery life is not something I want to deal with in a gunfight. I think if a similar ACOG system could be developed in the size of the doctor where batteries would not be an issue, I would opt for that over irons.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 17, 2011)

I am lost why anyone would put a red dot on a pistol. It is like drinking non alcoholic beer. Pistols are for close range, 50 yards and below. If you can not get one shot on a man size target at 50 yards you had better start running


----------

