This issue gets brought up in other threads, and I don't want to add to the clutter.
Some say that having an "electronic" sight on their EDC pistol is an unacceptable/unnecessary risk. Yet, these same folks willingly, without objection, gamble their lives on the reliability of electronics in every other aspect of their existence--vehicles, planes, anything medical, microwaves, elevators, digital reloading scales, computers, phones, GPS's. The list of examples is infinite.
BUT...the mere mention of a red dot sight on a pistol has them freaking out. Why?
I made the switch to an RDS on my EDC pistols (Glocks and Sigs) and haven't looked back. I'm both faster and more accurate. My near-vision issues are now non-issues thanks to dot sights. Where I work, an indoor gunfight could easily involve distances of 50+ feet, and a red dot greatly improves my accuracy.
In my immediate circle of friends who shoot with dots, nobody has had one fail. I agree that the data sample is too small to make that fact statistically relevant, but neither do I see the interweb filled with reports of failures from reputable companies. Sig Romeo's sucked for a time, and Vortex low end stuff is reputably unreliable, but the current offerings from Trijicon, Holosun, Leupold, etc. are holding up well. In my own experience, I've had more iron sights fail than dots--I had a Glock front sight fall off (and I'm far from alone in that experience), and I've had a Sig rear sight fall off--two different times.
Regardless, having a red dot does not preclude you from having irons zeroed and ready to go. I've got irons on my guns.
So, what makes a red dot sight so unacceptable to you? (I anticipate some spirited discussion, but if we can maintain civility, it may prove more useful.)
