XS Big Dot Sight Review

[SIG_Fiend]

So, did you actually test this scientifically somehow?

For instance, take two identical handguns, one with some other standard sight, and the other with these, and several shooters of varying skill levels, and use a shot timer to time a large number of shots with each combination.

You can't just cite that "no one in these totally arbitrary competitions uses these, so they're clearly terrible." While that may be true, correlation is not causation. There may be another reason no one uses them in those competitions, or that they're poorly suited for that use, where the competition is generally done under ideal conditions, but better suited to some other application.

With that out of the way I'm totally willing to take your word for it; I just had to call out your specious justification for your conclusion.

I used a shot timer. Yes, a more in depth test could have been done, like using the same exact gun or two of the same exact models of the same gun, etc. but ultimately it's not really all that necessary IMO. The honest truth is that "fast" is a relative term, especially when it comes to shooting handguns. In my personal opinion, the average shooter does not "see fast enough" or have the trigger manipulation skills enough to run consistently enough on the shot timer at speeds much under ~1/2 second splits, or really push the limits enough to determine which is "faster". What I mean by that is, if a person can't run pretty consistently down to about several hundredths of a second, there are a whole lot of other variables at play that can affect speed, which makes it difficult to determine. Also, speed is nothing without accountability. Now I think one way it could be tested a bit more accurately is if we tested not just pure speed on the shot timer, but speed combined with accuracy, or shot group size. So maybe a drill or a few drills of shooting groups on multiple targets, maybe even at several distances.

You are accurate in that correlation is not "proof" alone. I guess I should have clarified it a different way, so the correlation makes a bit more sense and has more backing it up. In action pistol competitions, the ultimate point is shooting the fastest with the highest degree of accuracy while problem solving throughout a variety of variables within one's skill level. Considering this, and considering some of the money involved in "winning", there is a significant amount of incentive to "be the best". Look at the Bianchi Cup, for example. The 1st place purse is something like $500k+. Tenths or hundredths of a second make a big difference there. There's IPSC, there's Steel Challenge, and lots of other similar competitions with similar performance barriers to achieve for a person to be competitive.

Compare that with the fact that some of the same people have been continuously pushing the limits even farther every year for the past 2-3 decades, considering the level of competition and incentive to continue being at the pinnacle of performance....I mean we can kind of extrapolate from that, that some of the things those people do or some of the things they use might be the absolute best things for some of those specific purposes. Doesn't mean it's the best for everyone, but at least for those particular people, under those particular circumstances of performing at the complete apex of speed and accuracy, they're apparently the tools necessary to do the job. If we take any other aspect of performance handgun shooting, it's somewhat similar. Like grip, stance, etc. All of the industry leaders have evolved into performing some of those fundamentals pretty much the same as each other, maybe with minor variations here and there since human physiology is infinitely variable.

Ultimately, this is all kind of beside the point that, if people want to shoot faster, they really should instead be focusing on learning what they need to see, how to see it, training their eyes to see "faster", and training their trigger finger to do the same. Ultimately that will make substantially more difference than sights alone.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Some of you fellers are going about this the wrong way. The Big Dot sights are exactly the same concept as the big white ivory bead "express sight" set on double rifles designed for dangerous game in Africa (where I grew up).

They allow you to focus your eyes on the THREAT - where your eyeballs *are* hard-focused anyway under threat of imminent death - while still being able to see the big fuzzy white ball of a front sight and superimpose it on the charging critter and make a good shot.

If that beast above were charging at you at 40 mph and was going to be on top of you in the next second, can you honestly tell me you'd be focusing your eyes on a little front sight? Bullshit you would - your eyeballs would be out on stalks staring at whatever was about to eat them.

That's what BIG front sights are for - big enough to be visible, even unfocused, so you can still place them on the nasty thing you're staring at.

This is the same argument as "you'll never be able to see your sights in a gunfight", which is a false premise. I personally know people that have seen and used their sights in "gunfights". A person will see what they have mastered to see in training. Train for the best, plan for the worst. There's a lot of great info on this subject from Jim Cirillo, who himself was in something like 17+ gunfights during his time in the NYPD "Stakeout Squad".

The problem with the Big Dot concept is you have sights that basically give you less of the type of "info" you need. Take the flawed concept of "point shooting". As they say, you can easily point your finger at anything, so you can do the same with a gun. Problem is this doesn't take into account the actual bore axis of the gun and the vertical deviation from being off in alignment on that plane even just a little bit. Are you a bit high, a bit low? Who knows? It can make a HUGE difference. Worst case, maybe it means a miss instead of a hit, which is a liability. If we're talking about 0-3yds, okay, not as big of a deal, but it could still be one. If I want pinpoint accuracy, even inside of 3yds, I'd still feel it's questionable for me with Big Dots. Though, what if it's outside of 3yds? What if it's 7, 10, 15yds or more? What if it's a reduced sized target at distance (attacker taking cover)? I think it becomes much more questionable under some of those variables.

 

[Andy]

This is the same argument as "you'll never be able to see your sights in a gunfight", which is a false premise. I personally know people that have seen and used their sights in "gunfights".

A false premise, my ass. I personally HAVE been in gunfights in Africa and Iraq, and I can tell you that I have both seen and NOT seen the sights depending on the speed and distance of the encounter; exactly how many gunfights have you been in? From your writings, I can pretty much guarantee zero.

Your premise rests upon someone being trained to a high level of one-way range competence AND magically have the ability to stay calm during a close-range, bad-breath encounter - not very likely for a first-timer who is barely able to get his gun out. I can all but guarantee you that during a typical mugging, "Point gun, pull trigger!" will be the order of the day for 99.9% of people - and ANY tool that helps someone index at least their front sight onto the bad guy's chest is a good thing.

So a big dot doesn't make you shoot "faster" in IDPA - well boo-frikking-hoo; that's not what an express-style sight is meant for. It's simply meant to give one a point of reference as to where the heck the front sight is while they're focusing their eyes elsewhere - it's not magic, it really is just that. Get your head out of the shooting range and onto the street, because they are NOT the same thing. Competitive pistol is as relevant to actual gunfighting as Karate is to a street-fight - they are closely-related, absolutely, but just because a technique or tool works in one environment doesn't necessarily mean that it will work in the other.

This isn't theory for me, Travis - I've done it.

 

[Kennydale]

I went through this on another forum. At 63 my eyes aren't what they once were. They seem like a good idea , BUT, I think id do better (Overall) with Trijicon HD sights for the Ruger SR40C.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

A false premise, my ass. I personally HAVE been in gunfights in Africa and Iraq, and I can tell you that I have both seen and NOT seen the sights depending on the speed and distance of the encounter; exactly how many gunfights have you been in? From your writings, I can pretty much guarantee zero.

Your premise rests upon someone being trained to a high level of one-way range competence AND magically have the ability to stay calm during a close-range, bad-breath encounter - not very likely for a first-timer who is barely able to get his gun out. I can all but guarantee you that during a typical mugging, "Point gun, pull trigger!" will be the order of the day for 99.9% of people - and ANY tool that helps someone index at least their front sight onto the bad guy's chest is a good thing.

So a big dot doesn't make you shoot "faster" in IDPA - well boo-frikking-hoo; that's not what an express-style sight is meant for. It's simply meant to give one a point of reference as to where the heck the front sight is while they're focusing their eyes elsewhere - it's not magic, it really is just that. Get your head out of the shooting range and onto the street, because they are NOT the same thing. Competitive pistol is as relevant to actual gunfighting as Karate is to a street-fight - they are closely-related, absolutely, but just because a technique or tool works in one environment doesn't necessarily mean that it will work in the other.

This isn't theory for me, Travis - I've done it.

I think my comment was a bit misconstrued. That was aimed towards the concept that some have of point shooting being sort of a one-size-fits-all replacement for sighted fire under pretty much all circumstances. The extreme end of that spectrum being the idiotic Israeli pistol method instructor I saw advocating students point shoot from the #3 retention position while at a full sprint....wait for it...from a good 15-25yds out...as suppressive fire against armed opponents. Yes, this is a guy here in the US teaching civilians. Unreal. With that sort of stuff, pretty much anytime I see any mention of something that sounds to me like point shooting, that tends to be my reaction and I tend to make some absolute or blanket statements on the subject. Understandably so.

No, I have not killed anyone or been in a gunfight. It's why I don't teach "gunfighting", and don't pretend to. If this is a dick measuring contest, I declare you the winner by unanimous vote.

Combat experience can certainly prepare a person for the degree of stress of a gunfight a hell of a lot more than simple classroom technique alone. There is a lot to mindset and first hand experience, to be sure, and more so than pretty much any other 2 factors. For the vast majority of us that do not have the "luxury" of that first hand experience...to become used to that level of stress...well we have to draw on what we can.

Karate or Tae Kwon Do are bullshit.

As far as the whole competition thing, there are a LOT of industry leading instructors, many of which with some impressive super hero resumes, that would strongly disagree with you there. It certainly doesn't replicate the level of stress of a gunfight. However, it does replicate A LEVEL of stress, demands speed and accuracy standards, requires problem solving within a given set of constraints and skill levels. Kind of sounds like some stuff that could be useful...

 

[35Remington]

XS Big Dots are awesome. OP is a clown for thinking they're designed for shooting dime-size groups on a timer at his gun competitions.

They're for killing people, man, not shooting paper. And no, that's not the same thing.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

And there it is, the ridiculous "gun games will get you killed" argument.

 

[Andy]

I think my comment was a bit misconstrued. That was aimed towards the concept that some have of point shooting being sort of a one-size-fits-all replacement for sighted fire under pretty much all circumstances. The extreme end of that spectrum being the idiotic Israeli pistol method instructor I saw advocating students point shoot from the #3 retention position while at a full sprint....wait for it...from a good 15-25yds out...as suppressive fire against armed opponents. Yes, this is a guy here in the US teaching civilians. Unreal. With that sort of stuff, pretty much anytime I see any mention of something that sounds to me like point shooting, that tends to be my reaction and I tend to make some absolute or blanket statements on the subject. Understandably so.

I wasn't talking about point-shooting and the ridiculous extremes to which some "instructors" will go to push their favorite technique - I'm talking about a very close, very fast encounter where at least the front sight can be brought to bear. A larger, easier-to-see front sight under those circumstances is an aid to get it indexed on-target, not a hindrance.

With that said, it won't necessarily help someone get any better/faster hits at distance or on the range, but that's not why express sights were originally invented; they're meant for high-speed, close-up panicky situations where one's eyes are threat-focused. That's ALL. That even a dork like Yaeger can get hits at 100 yards using those… pretty but totally irrelevant. I'd no more put Big Dots on an IDPA-gun than I'd shoot skeet with a trap-stock; it *could* be done, but wouldn't be the best tool for that job - for me.

No, I have not killed anyone or been in a gunfight. It's why I don't teach "gunfighting", and don't pretend to. If this is a dick measuring contest, I declare you the winner by unanimous vote.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as arrogant - just that I have had to do it on a number of occasions and I have some firm opinions because of it.

Combat experience can certainly prepare a person for the degree of stress of a gunfight a hell of a lot more than simple classroom technique alone. There is a lot to mindset and first hand experience, to be sure, and more so than pretty much any other 2 factors. For the vast majority of us that do not have the "luxury" of that first hand experience...to become used to that level of stress...well we have to draw on what we can.

I don't think I said or implied anything different - I'm a HUGE fan of using whatever stress one can to "inoculate" oneself and the action-shooting sports are outstandingly good for this.

I've competed overseas in IPSC, steel and pin-shooting since the 80s and more recently some 3-gun and IDPA here in the US - and I firmly believe that the closest one can get to simulate the actual "panic-stress" of combat is a man-vs-man stage where two shooters compete - at the same time, next to each other - against identical courses of fire e.g. pin- and steel-shoots. That will certainly teach a feller to "Take his time - quickly".

The other major benefits of any the action-shooting games is that they work/break equipment quite nicely (heh) and get the operator to become unconsciously familiar with the handling and use of their gear under stress. A bunfight is the last place where one should have to think "Oh… it went click, and my magazine is sticking partially out, so now I have to, er…. darn, I forgot…" - it should be instinctive and totally unconscious, and that only comes with repetition.

Karate or Tae Kwon Do are bullshit.

They're fine sports in themselves, but for actual self-defense… yep.

As far as the whole competition thing, there are a LOT of industry leading instructors, many of which with some impressive super hero resumes, that would strongly disagree with you there. It certainly doesn't replicate the level of stress of a gunfight. However, it does replicate A LEVEL of stress, demands speed and accuracy standards, requires problem solving within a given set of constraints and skill levels. Kind of sounds like some stuff that could be useful...

Again, see above; I'm a huge supporter of IPSC/IDPA/3-Gun, etc.

I just happen to disagree with your assessment of "Because it doesn't work for IDPA, it's useless" - but I think you and I would probably agree on almost everything else.

 

[M. Sage]

+1 for tae kwan do being bullshit, almost as bad as capoeira...

I just want to point out the current supremacy of red dot sights came about for a reason. I'm not saying that a system like the Big Dot can equal them.

I also want to say I know that biglucky knows his stuff, and he's right that there's a learning curve to using the Big Dot setup. It's a different style of sighting and takes some use to get into the groove.

I'm also not saying they're faster for sure. I'm just saying that in my experience with them, they're not any worse than regular sights in any way I can think of. Mine were used night stand, target, and competition FWIW.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

RDS are superior in that they allow you to focus on the target, so they are more instinctive. However, RDS are such that you pretty much do not see the dot until you are in alignment fairly close. This is different from just having a large front sight. There is a whole lot of deviation that can happen with a big dot sight, for example, that is not going to happen with a RDS, as you simply won't see the red dot.

Capoeira = dance fighting I have a friend that does it, and we still make fun of him. LOL

With the learning curve for Big Dots, that IMO, pretty much precludes them from being useful in the manner with which some people feel they are useful. For example, I have seen some people (not necessarily anyone here) suggest that they are somehow easier for a less experienced shooter to utilize because of the large front sight. However, if they are a less experienced shooter, that means they have a less consistent index of the gun on target, probably have less of a grasp of the fundamentals, and probably have more of a problem picking up the idiosyncrasies of these particular sights.

All of this is probably nitpicking about nothing, to some degree. At the end of the day, if we're talking about an experienced shooter, probably not a big deal. I mean, yes, I have seen M. Sage shoot steel out to something ridiculous like 200-250yds was it Mike? Either way, he was pretty consistent with it. I'm sure he'd have no problem up close. If we're talking about someone that has the fundamentals, as well as the experience and will to drop the hammer, at that point I'm sure most people could give a damn what they are using, they're just focused on using it to obliterate the threat. The tools probably matter a lot less than the intent and will at that point.

I guess what irks me the most about the Big Dots is that I have seen some people (no one here) use or recommend them as effectively a cop out for inexperienced shooters. I guess where I'm going with this is it upsets me seeing people accept lackluster standards, or seeing those lackluster standards propagated with newer shooters. I think most everyone here discussing this is a fairly experienced shooter, so this subject just simply isn't a big deal or isn't an issue. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't do anyone any favors when they don't strive for excellence. I think new shooters should be focused on fundamentals and speed while also maintaining accountability for their shots. With some schools and some instructors I've seen, any shots on target are considered good, but that doesn't reinforce accountability.

 

[M. Sage]

Yeah, it was something like that, and they were on my .45, too. LOL, I had to keep both eyes open to see the target around the front sight. They're not a magical cure-all like some seem to think, but IMO, they're alright sights.

 

[TheDan]

RDS are superior in that they allow you to focus on the target, so they are more instinctive. However, RDS are such that you pretty much do not see the dot until you are in alignment fairly close.

Yep... I love red dots on rifles, but I'm not convinced they have any value on a pistol. I find myself lining up the sights before I even see the dot. It doesn't feel any faster than just using regular sights. I've asked my girlfriend (who has the "pleasure" of listening to me shoot a lot) if I sound any faster when shooting my M&P with the RMR on it and she can't tell the difference. Feel like I have an overpriced gimmick on top of my pistol.

I'm going to keep practicing with it, tho... I need to get a shot timer to see if there's something there that I'm not picking up on.

 

[M. Sage]

Enough competitors use RDS pistols when the rules allow that I think there's got to be something there.

 

[Sugar Land]

I shoot a lot of steel with a couple of my RDS pistols. It is so easy it kind of feels like cheating.

 

[Younggun]

Mounted an eotech on a 22 pistol once, easiest shootin I've ever done.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Yep... I love red dots on rifles, but I'm not convinced they have any value on a pistol. I find myself lining up the sights before I even see the dot. It doesn't feel any faster than just using regular sights. I've asked my girlfriend (who has the "pleasure" of listening to me shoot a lot) if I sound any faster when shooting my M&P with the RMR on it and she can't tell the difference. Feel like I have an overpriced gimmick on top of my pistol.

I'm going to keep practicing with it, tho... I need to get a shot timer to see if there's something there that I'm not picking up on.

There is a definite learning curve with RDS on a pistol, and being able to extract all of the performance benefits. It's kind of like taking a person that has been using a thumb over thumb grip on a semi auto for years or decades, then having them do the thumbs forward grip. They may actually do worse at first, and they may not want to stick with it long enough to see the actual benefits. With a RDS on a pistol, IMO a shooter also has to have absolutely rock solid fundamentals, and have above average consistency with their index, presentation of the gun, follow through, trigger manipulation, etc. If they don't have all of those things as well as being able to reach that "zen" level of focus/awareness for running a pistol at speed, it is doubtful they will see any meaningful improvement in performance with using a RDS on a pistol.

 

[Younggun]

Worst part for me when trying to use an RDS was not having the visual feed back to correct sight picture when getting the initial sight picture. I've seen it at a couple of steel challenge comps also where guys had decided to take the leap an hated it.

With irons, if things aren't lined up when you draw you know exactly how to line things up. With the RDS, if you can't see it you see people wiggling the gun around looking for the dot.

Playing with one on a .22 I found myself able to shoot much faster and get hits than I could with irons, but not any more than I could if I just practiced more.

 

[M. Sage]

There is a definite learning curve with RDS on a pistol, and being able to extract all of the performance benefits. It's kind of like taking a person that has been using a thumb over thumb grip on a semi auto for years or decades, then having them do the thumbs forward grip. They may actually do worse at first, and they may not want to stick with it long enough to see the actual benefits. With a RDS on a pistol, IMO a shooter also has to have absolutely rock solid fundamentals, and have above average consistency with their index, presentation of the gun, follow through, trigger manipulation, etc. If they don't have all of those things as well as being able to reach that "zen" level of focus/awareness for running a pistol at speed, it is doubtful they will see any meaningful improvement in performance with using a RDS on a pistol.

At the NRA meeting, I picked up a Glock with a RMR on it, pointed it and went, "huh.. must be turned off..." Yeah, no switch. Then I remembered I had to break my wrists forward to get a Glock on target and found the dot.

 

[benenglish]

With a RDS ... a shooter ... has to have absolutely rock solid fundamentals, and have above average consistency with their index, presentation of the gun, follow through, trigger manipulation, etc. ... as well as being able to reach that "zen" level of focus/awareness for running a pistol at speed...

That is a lovely synopsis of why I'll (most likely) never (be able to) switch to red dots on my self-defense pistols.

 

[biglucky]

Having shot open USPSA for over a decade and shooting MRD equipped open gun in 3 Gun, I am more comfortable with a red dot on a pistol than iron sights. I have an M&P and am in process of getting the slide on a Glock 19 milled for RMRs..

Just like the big dot sights, which I also love after training with them for a while.... Different strokes for different folks.