/k/ - Weapons

Some pistols are too narrow for a Picatinny rail.

Because then faggots can't open shops to do "custom" work including milling off a good 25% of your slide, anon.

>>570953

Couldn't you just mount iron sights on the rail?

>>570996

They already have ironsights, you dip.

>>570952

I have a sports gun with a rail and a sight attached. It's a normal rifle sight so a good bit oversized, but at extended arm length the aperture is so small you barely get any wiggle room. If your aim is a tiny bit off the reticle weers off to the side and out of visibility, and then it's fucking impossible to find it. You basically need two sets of sights for it - the main sight with the aperture and reticle and shit, and a quick sight to get the gun aligned so that the reticle is visible.

All in all, even a very hefty red dot is not nearly big enough to mount on a handgun for quick target aquisition - you'll spend more time dicking with aquiring the sight of your reticle than you'd take aiming down the ironsights. Then throw in the fact that all single point sights (all scopes and collimation sights in particular) have parallax error so your reticle has to be dead centered in the aperture, just like in a sniper scope - whereas for two-point sights (any ironsight) the process of aiming also eliminates the parallax error. But the aiming point is much finer than that of an ironsight, though I really doubt you have hands steady enough to leverage it. I use a circle with 6 moa dot reticle and all I can do is land a bullet within that circle. The fine reticle does however highlights very well just how much your hand is NOT steady and how much your aim is off simply due to random constant flukes.

>>571020

>circle size

That would be about 5" at 10 yards.

>>571020

OP wrote this:

>Why don't they put a picatinny rail on the top of pistols where the rear sight is

You can interpret this as either puting a rail in front of the rear sight, or you can think of a pistol that has a rail in place of the rear sight. My question quite obviously connected to the later possibility.

>>571020

If pistol red-dots aren't big enough for quick target acquisition, why have they become so popular in open-division competitive shooting? One would think if there wasn't a real, measurable speed benefit to red-dots they wouldn't be used in competition.

It requires extra machining, which costs money.

It adds edges which can snag on holsters and clothing.

A lot of newer guns have specially milled sections for taking red dots which are much lower profile than rails.

A lot of slides are narrower than picatinny rails.

For one a big ass fucking red dot is going to be shit for carry gun ergonomics and handling. For two the iron sights are fine learn how to use them. It's like the fudd retards I know who mount scopes on every rifle they own and literally never go beyond 25 yards.

>>571130

>It's like the fudd retards I know who mount scopes on every rifle they own and literally never go beyond 25 yards.

You clearly don't know what a fudd is.

Not trying to turn this into a dot va irons debate, but sure seems like red dots will be at the very least trialed by organizations in the near future. Whether they’re meme novelty or practical for self defense really hasn’t been figured out yet. Personally, I could care less either way. I have a 19MOS I put a Viper on for funsies, it was nifty but not sure I’d carry it all the time. I have a kydex IWB dremeled for it, no major issues drawing or snagging.

Like stated by others though, the market for top rails would probably be small. They catch on everything, and if you’re not actively using them, they’d be a pain in the dick. I’d assume standard irons wouldn’t clear them unless innovated a bit either. The current trend of mounts with cover plates is much more carry-friendly. Not to mention, most users probably aren’t putting anything on top of their handgun other than red dots, so there’s no real use for rails to accept other accessories.

Maybe if you’re going to hypothetically put a NFA scary foregrip or stock on your handgun they’d be convenient, but at that point there’s other firearms on the market that do that niche better in all ways.

The current studies on red dots show they are an adjustment that requires retraining to use effectively, especially in drawing and quickly acquiring targets. Individual conclusions I’ve read about are mixed. As a secondary weapon, it could be speculated they’re not super necessary when 9 times out of 10 a handgun is probably being point-n-shot at something very close range. The argument for using the window for easier point shooting acquisition is there, though.

I see people throwing up pics of sub compacts with dots on them, looks like it defeats the purpose of a sub at that point. I’m interested to see where the future will take this though. If it ends up being just a fad, maybe some other game changing solution will stem from it. Unless they’re outlawed as rifle-tier accessories, and then I’ll probably just end it all and reincarnate in a parallel universe where McDonald’s uses suppressors as drinking straws and dogs can talk.

>>571130

>>571141

Yeah that would be mallninja. A fudd, to his credit, would mount an appropriate scope and do without it altogether if ironsight is sufficient. A fudd is not someone who's incompetent, it's someone who's not interested in firearms beyond utilitary value as hunting and pest control tools.

>>571147

Oh they're great for stand shooting, when you have plenty of time to aim - no doubt about that. The problem with quick aquisition is that when you draw a gun, 99% of the time you don't see the reticle immediately, it's just blank aperture. You already know the gun is pointing fuckways so you're not hitting shit, but at the same time you don't see nor intuitively know which way and how much adjustment you need to make to bring the aim to the center. At this point you have two options: to fuck about with the gun direction until you see the red dot, and to use some other backup sight to do coarse aiming which should bring up the reticle, which you then use for fine aiming.

>>571159

>>571158

I thought it was playing to the stereotype of 'old blind fuck that needs 4x magnification to see the target'.

>>571141

I'm not saying the scopes make the fudd, it's just that every fudd I've met does this.

>>571212

Yeah, fair call. Gotta have at least 14x for a 60m shot on a deer.

>>570955

not my fault. picatinny rails are plenty narrow enough.

>>571224

What if you work in a liberal safe space and concealability is paramount?

>>571235

every pistol nowadays has a full size, compact and subcompact version. have a tradition 3 dot sight and a picatinny for optic version.

>>570952

Because that's where the rear sight goes, also red dots are retarded.

>>571157

Why do you say they don't do anything?

>>571357

>Dynamic Pie Concepts

Why do the good die young? I still laugh at the Proctor video with gundam dubbed over it.

>>571410

Remove front or rear sight from your rifle and try aiming. If you can hit your target accurately like that, clearly you don't need the other sight either.

>>571475

Five seconds of research on google would have saved you from actually believing that you've figured something out that millions of archery practitioners have been missing. This is honestly priceless. You've uncovered the greatest shekel farm of our time anon, fake bowsights! Wake up sheeple!

There is a rear sight, dipshit.

>>571483

You mean the peep sight? My bad, I forgot it existed, on account of not seeing people using it very often, just the front sight. I also remember some guy shit talking a guy that put EOTech on a bow and couldn't hit anything, while he was using one of these ring sights and no peep sight and was doing great.