That's a crappy choice, but hey you can do it your way. BTW room defense is best done from the perpendicular. Works a whole lot better. Just a tip.
How does a small dot of line provide a direct line to your location? Unless there is fog or smoke present, the beam itself is invisible to the naked eye.
What's a crappy choice? By perpendicular do you mean prone or standing? I am a btk amputee and don't do prone...takes too much time to get back up. Turn your laser on in the dark and step away from it, if you can't see the beam of light, then you need to get your eyes checked.
Nah, you really can't see it. They're lecture hall lasers. You even have a hard time seeing the red ones during the day. Green is better and you might see a beam if it's dark. You're thinking movie stuff with IR lasers and night vision. Perpendicular to the line of approach, vs head on. Works better.
My shooting mechanics with pistols have become so ingrained that it really doesn't matter whether I have a laser or not, however, activating the CT laser at the point of shooting in low light provides that fast visual confirmation that these old eyes and my mechanics have correctly aligned my sights. I am fortunate having access to a range where I have been able to test low light drills. In testing, the few of in involved all were in consensus that lasers in low light increased accuracy and speed in those conditions. A couple found them faster in well lite situations, but for me, I found them slightly slower because there was a slight delay caused by my almost involuntary search for the dot. I don't activate my laser shooting in good light. There are some pistols I have had where sights are not easy to pickup and I find a laser helps in those instsnces, though when selecting a gun for EDC, my, and I mean, my, ability to quickly acquire the sights is on criterial in gun selection. I have also found my CT guns good for dry fire excersize training as small errors in sight alignment and trigger control can easily and demonstatively be detected. As for a laser being traced back to my position, the CT's instant on/off prevents that until the shooting is over.
I still see like a cat. I want a laser on an AR rifle for general defense outside the home, anywhere I happen to be......
I only have one laser on my old HK 91 mounted in front of the bayonet recess. It pretty useless in good light, and I have it sighted in about 20 yards out.
I have multiple uppers, each with different optics depending on the role I use them to fill, a couple sport combination optics. For home and near home use, I prefer a Red Dot; works better in all lighting condition, the AimPoint's I have measure battery life in years, mounted on two of my uppers. I leave them on (they are never really off) and change out the battery every year. They also have a 2 Moa Dot that I like. You can add a magnifier, but I don't have them on either upper. Depending on the offset from the bore axis, you may have to be aware of POI vs POA, particularly in close if precision is required; there are a couple easy ways to register and figure that. While AimPoints are expensive, to me they are worth it, but there are less expensive options with good battery life for example Burris makes a TRS 25 which I mounted on a friend's gun which works well and was I think well under 100. I mounted his offset on his scope...he likes the setup.
Here's the last method and the one I prefer. The last method is to sight in above the iron sight. IMHO this one seems to offer the most advantage and in real life terms is probably the fastest. In this mode, the laser will always be visible. Canting will not affect the sight picture and the laser should be visible soon after the weapon is drawn. If you don’t see the beam, then chances are its not on or not functioning. As I see it, the laser becomes the primary sight with the iron acting in conjunction. Transition from laser to irons and visa versa is quick and point-shooting ability is not compromised, but possibly enhanced. There’s also one other advantage. If you’re like me and have reached that age where finding those iron sights becomes more difficult this method make sense. As a serious shooter, I would appreciate your input. The manual of arms is still being written on lasers. BTW did you do your FLETCE tour in Artesia? SW NM is enough to drive anyone to drink heavily. One of the instructors there was a buddy of mine.
not a fan of lasers in MOST Cases. You see, I have spent years learning to focus on the front sight. not on a dot on a target. However, in some cases a laser is ideal. Scenario-prison situation where prisoners are holding hostages with edged weapons. designated marksman with a laser on a rifle puts a rifle on the hostage taker's head. Great in convincing the hostage taker that he's toast if he doesn't let go the hostage. I have one on a SIG "Pistol" for use before the ATF came to its senses because I would shoot the pistol with the brace tucked under my armpit. I am a far bigger fan on an extremely powerful flashlight under my CZ SP01 pistol, on the Barrel of my SIG MCX and my FnH SLP-1 shotgun-my home defense weapons where identifying a target is necessary in home invasion gun fight
I've experimented with lasers and can certainly say they have a place. What you describe above is my preferred method for sighting in a laser, and I think you're right in your assessment of it. For myself, I've become enamored of the optical dot sights such as the Trijicon RMR; they're more consistent in accuracy and have exceptional battery life in my personal experience. My primary personal defense pistol is equipped with one, and I switch the batteries out every three years and it just keeps running right along, and is almost like cheating considering the precision accuracy it provides. Actually, when I was in the Patrol the primary training was at either Glynco, GA or Charleston, SC, which is where I was trained. Artesia became the primary Patrol training Academy after I was already out. I do have a good friend of mine who still teaches firearms at Artesia. I grew up in NM, so I know exactly what you're saying about the southwestern part of the state!
I keep a Surefire X300 on my primary defensive handgun; it's amazing how much light that little unit produces! I'm a fan of the Surefire lights; I also have a Surefire Scout light on my primary carbine.
Another thing that helps, tiny night lights low on the baseboards, help you to identify a potential attacker or home invader, yet allows you to remain unseen.
Sorry I mean SE NM which in my opinion makes SW look good. I actually meant SE NM, a place that makes SW NM seem civilized. I did contract work in Roswell for a period. Very entertaining place. The future of handguns as I see it is DAO weapons with integrated suppressors and accessory sights, red dot, holo or laser/white light combos built into the weapon. For handguns, I think the lasers have an advantage and that is speed.
Wow, I feel like a total piker, I prefer a crisp S.A. trigger, and no laser, I pay NO attention to the front sight, I feel, my opinion only and not a fact, I have methods of reducing time to get off a very fast and accurate first shot. Why I feel I have survived encounters with Armed attackers.
LOL! I spent time all over southern NM; I lived in Las Cruces for a time (where I went to college) and had a friend who grew up in Deming. I dated a girl back then who lived in Roswell, so I was all over the place. Well, I see DAO differently; the traditional "DAO" in semiauto pistols just isn't really conducive to good, precision shooting. Modern striker-fired pistols like the Sig 320, which have very short travel triggers, can be run very much like a SA, which makes for much more consistent tactical precision under stress. I don't know; maybe for some. In my experience in my own training and testing people who rely overly much on the laser are rarely as quick to the first shot. They spend too much time searching for the dot on the target. For me, I was faster coming up and doing a "meat and metal" approach; i.e. superimpose the silhouette of my pistol's slide over the "meat" of my opponent's torso. I like the RMR optic with a suppressor sight because I can come up in a classic presentation and even as I instinctively go for the sight picture the dot of the optic draws my eye and I transition from sights to dot seamlessly. My first shot was almost always fractionally faster than trying to find a dot using that method.
I find discussions like this very interesting, because I've talked to a number of individuals who have prevailed in deadly confrontations and nearly every one reports a different experience and has different opinions about what works based on that. Some swear by the traditional SA trigger. Some like DAO. Some like the Weaver stance, some the Chapman, some say it happened too fast for a traditional stance and others moved as they shot. Some fought holding their weapon in one hand, some with a two-handed grip. Some focus on the threat and never see their sights. Some see their sights with such intense focus they report being able to see the striations on the front sight blade with astonishing clarity. Some hear their own gunfire; some experience auditory exclusion and never hear their own shots firing. For me, I think the circumstances of the fight dictate what works best. I believe in tactical movement instead of standing in place. For extreme, near contact distance I practice point shooting; clearing the holster and firing as soon as I come level. For close range beyond point blank range I go for a rough index of the gun on the target (the meat and metal "sight" picture) and fire short bursts of two to four rounds. For slightly longer range it's the more classic sight picture and traditional aiming. There's a lot of ways to skin the proverbial cat, and I'm often surprised by how many contradictory tactics have actually succeeded when it matters.
I can tell you this, an actual gun fight where someone is shooting at you, differs greatly from practice at a range, or reading of someone elses experiences.
That is the truth. Unless you've experienced it, you don't know how you're going to react. Training - serious, focused training - can improve your chances of reacting effectively, but as the old saw goes: "A plan rarely survives first contact with the enemy...."
In my mind discussions like this are all great on paper but when the rubber meets the road most all of this goes out the window, adrenaline takes over and type of trigger, stance, style of sights etc. become moot points to all but the most well trained and usually wearing ceramic plates.
There's an adage in training circles that you will inevitably revert to your lowest level of training under stress. Real world confrontations seem to prove that out. The most modern training techniques actually have been developed from studying the body's normal physiological responses to life-or-death stressors, to maximize the likelihood that someone will respond effectively; but if the person doesn't practice religiously even that kind of training doesn't kick in when the flag actually flies...or even if they have been training it doesn't kick in sometimes. I'll use myself as an example: I'd spent several years training in the Weaver stance (it was considered the best method when I first started studying the art) but had actually begun the transition from Weaver to a more fluid and adaptive methodology when I found myself in a situation... and even though I'd spent the previous months drilling myself in the new method the dash camera promptly captured me going into a picture-perfect Weaver stance to resolve the situation. Just goes to show that you won't know until you've been there.
I really enjoy seeing the many Frankenstein poses some shooters go through, they duck their heads oddly to shoot, or spasm the gun into their chest after shooting, they invent all types of strange chicken style waddles, I just watch, scratch my head and ask; Why ????