Red dot Open sights score Delta

Until I read the red dot post below I was sure about this, now not so much I guess.  Here goes however.  I shot a Senior Olympics match in Arizona in which I was the only one shooting open sights, all others were dot sights which were permitted.  Simply due to the number of people using the red dots I am thinking they have an advantage or they would not be so prominent.  My question would be what score percentage could one expect to loose or gain by using or not using a red dot?  I would prefer to use open sights simply because they are permitted in any match I know of, but would really like to know what I am likely giving up by using them.  Larry

It depends!  The bullseye record is still held by iron sights.  I know shooters that put up better scores with irons than optics.  

So I am saying you have to see how each works for you, I don't think there is a set % difference irons vs optic.

- Dave

I came up roughly 15 points between my wad and ball gun.   I assume everyone is different, just my case.
The bump in 22 was much less, 4 - 6 points.

Using the dot has helped me improve my trigger and my iron scores went up.  So in the end, I like both

25 points is reasonable I think, there must be some perceived advantage or there would not be matches where they are not allowed, and the international Olympic rules also do not allow them, although this could just be tradition?  Larry

It totally depends.

My PB with irons: 2639
My PB with dots: 2660

But, I figured out some things on the way to that 2660 that probably would have put me in the 2650s with irons.

I do think the dots give an advantage in less-than-optimal lighting conditions, and at the end of a one-day 2700 when fatigue starts to set in. A one-day 2700 is a loooong match (that said, the last 2700 I shot with iron sights, I had a 200 in the .45 RF match).

john bickar wrote:It totally depends.

My PB with irons: 2639
My PB with dots: 2660

But, I figured out some things on the way to that 2660 that probably would have put me in the 2650s with irons.

I do think the dots give an advantage in less-than-optimal lighting conditions, and at the end of a one-day 2700 when fatigue starts to set in. A one-day 2700 is a loooong match (that said, the last 2700 I shot with iron sights, I had a 200 in the .45 RF match).

2700 in one day is rough.  I did a 2700 ,22EIC,DR,and a service pistol match in one day... Was rough

Other beginners like myself might have a different experience.  My first match (last season) was with a dot on a Buckmark; SF-97.  I immediately took the dot off and dropped in to the seventies and have been SLOWLY climbing up since.  I think there is a bigger gap with greenhorns than with hard-holders.

I can't say with any certainty if dot sights or open sights are more accurate. Could Herschel Anderson have shot a 2685 if he had a dot? We'll never know.

I feel safe stating the following generalities for why more people shoot dots and most people shoot better scores with them.

1. It is easier for a beginner to improve scores shooting dots. A new shooter easily accepts the dot should be close to the center and if the dot jumps when you dry fire you are doing something wrong with the trigger. Learning to shoot open sights requires a leap of faith to focus on the front sight and ignore the target. 

2. Open sights require the correct eye prescription. It can be difficult for an individual shooter to get the right prescription for open sights without spending a fair amount of time and money. Dot's don't require good optical focus. It can help a little, but I remember one time I got a big glob of protein in my eye in the middle of a rapid fire string. I just put the red blur on top of the black blur and it ended up ok. This may be particularly importand for Senior and Grand Senior shooters.

3. As mentioned above, open sights are hard to shoot in poor lighting conditions. Lighting doesn't make much difference with dots, provided your dot can get bright enough for full sun on the target.

4. Dot's are more forgiving of mental and technical lapses than open sights. You've got to have great concentration every shot and it takes longer to align and recover open sights if you grip and stance aren't correct to bring them back in alignment during sustained fire.

I shoot similar scores over a national match course. For long days, dots are easier on the eyes. 

My triggering in slow fire is better with irons since I'm not seeing as much wobble.

I just looked back on the last two 13 week seasons shooting indoor .22.  Winter  Iron 268 Dot 276,  Spring  Iron 261 Dot 274.   8 points and 13 points difference about 4% better with Dot and 72 year old eyes.

I pretty much just started shooting this bullseye stuff (mainly shot USPSA in the past, and more trap and skeet lately), but I shot my first EIC match (National Match Course) with iron sights about 6 weeks ago and got a 263.  I put a red dot on my gun and shot a few practice NMCs and had scores of 273, 282, and 290, so about 10-25 points (for me).

young eyes work better with irons than older eyes imo.

DavidR, are you saying young eyes would be better off using irons than a red dot, or just that young eyes are better than older eyes at shooting irons, but a red dot would be better for both of them?

It takes more than just young eyes or vision corrected eyes to shoot irons to the max.  Old eyes needing correction to see perfectly the front sight often lose ideal depth perception in relation to the target distance.  Then there are the lighting conditions and needed sight notch size to really see the front sight and the gaps of light around it.  Now we get to quiet eye.  My eye has trouble enough seeing the sight.  When it does, I have to really concentrate to stay on the sight.  Getting old sucks.  But it beats the alternative.