Should Private Citizens Be Allowed To Have Holographic Gunsights, or Lasers Mounted On Their Guns,

[GreenStormCloud]

The gungeon has gotten kind of repetitive, with the same topics being argued over, and over. So I thought it might be fun to talk about some firearms accesssories. Obviously, I am solidly in favor of unrestricted civilian ownership of these type of sights.

First, I suppose that I should explain what they are. Lasers first. It is simply a tiny laser attached to the gun. Press a button and the laser lights up. It is aligned with the barrel so that the bullet will hit very close to where the red dot is shining. The advantage is that you don't have the hold the gun at eye level and try to line up your eye, the sights, and the target. That is difficult enough on the range, much more difficult in a high adrenaline defensive use. But with the laser, the activation button is in the grip so when the gun's grip is squeezed, the laser turns on. Put laser on target and fire. Does not miss. Here is what one looks like. (I have this model.)


Now for holographic sights. The military has gone completely over to them. All the pictures of rifles that you see have holosights. They are not telescopic, and have no magnification. What they do is put everything in the same focal plane. With a rifle, the eye, rear sight, front sight, and target must be aligned. And the eye can't focus on all of those at once. In fact, the eye can focus on only one, leaving the others blurry. With a holographic sight, the eye looks through the glass, focuses on the target, and sees a bright dot (Depending upon what is selected in the reticle.) that is focused on infinity so it looks like the target has a red dot on it. Bullet hits where the red dot is. (Note for purists: I am aware that I am simplifying things a bit. I know about bullet drop with distance.) Holosight allow for faster target aquisition and greater accuracy due to the eye having everything in one focal plane.

Here is a picture of a holosight:


and mounted on a rifle:


Here is one on a handgun:


They help the shooter put the bullets where he/she wants them, and they greatly reduce misses.

[Taverner]

1. Of course, if anything to reduce crossfire kills

[Craftsman]

2. Yes.

[imdjh]

3. The added benefit of lasers is the goof factor.

There is nothing quite like sitting in your family room and having a laser target you through the window, because some kiddies in the street think it's funny to ee you hit the deck.

[PavePusher]

16. Very likely a laser pointer not attached to a gun.

You can get them in any small goods store these days. Great for entertaining pets...

[imdjh]

17. Undoubtedly. I still get away from the light, Carol Ann.

Because you just never know.

[PavePusher]

24. I won't argue against that.

Haven't met a poltergeist in a laser pointer/aiming device yet though. Way down my "I'm being targeted by WHAT?" list... heeheee....

[derby378]

4. If it improves your accuracy, I say go for it

I'm all for reflex sights, but if you're more comfortable using a traditional scope, that's what you should use. No one gun is right for everyone; the same goes for scopes and sights.

[phantom power]

5. All I want is frickin guns with frickin laser beams attached to their heads.

Throw me a bone here, people.

[armueller2001]

6. MAG-MA

[geckosfeet]

7. What is the power source for these gadgets? I don't see why people should

not be allowed to own them, but in competition there should certainly be additional divisions. Unmagnified sight, laser sight etc. etc.

[benEzra]

9. There are indeed different divisions (I shoot mine in IPSC/USPSA).

The optics run off batteries. I change the battery about once a year just to be on the safe side. Some of the higher-end optics (e.g., Aimpoint) can be left continuously on for about 5 years before you have to change them, but mine would probably run down in a couple of weeks.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. They use tiny batteries. N/T

[benEzra]

8. I not only believe in it, I practice it. :)

The reticles are actually red, but the LED's saturated my camera's CCD.

[rrneck]

38. A question if it's no trouble.

It looks like in your pics that the holo sight is zeroed well above the front iron sight. Have you got it sighted in for a pretty long range or am I just not looking at it right?

[GreenStormCloud]

43. That's because it is mounted above the level of the iron sights.

Look at the picture of it mounted on the AK pattern rifle. The sight is above the iron sights. So in looking through the holosite one can also see the front site. Somewhere downrange they come together.

[benEzra]

44. I have it zeroed so that the trajectory crosses the line of sight at 50 yards on the way up and 190-

I have it zeroed so that the trajectory crosses the line of sight at 50 yards on the way up and 190-200 yards on the way back down. (The trajectory is more rainbow-like than most because 7.62x39mm is a low-velocity round as rifles go.) The reticle looks high in the pics only because the optic's sightline sits about 1.8 inches higher than the sightline of the iron sights, but the two sightlines are more or less parallel.

Here's the bullet trajectory, coarsely (negative numbers are the bullet's distance below the line of sight, and positive numbers are the distance above it):

0 yards........... -3.8 inches
25 yards.......... -1.68 inches
50 yards.......... +0.0 inches
75 yards.......... +1.23 inches
100 yards......... +1.97 inches
125 yards......... +2.18 inches
150 yards......... +1.82 inches
175 yards......... +0.84 inches
200 yards......... -0.80 inches
225 yards......... -3.19 inches
250 yards......... -6.36 inches
275 yards........ -10.41 inches
300 yards........ -15.40 inches

That's for a 122-grain bullet with a ballistic coefficient of 0.26 and a muzzle velocity of 2,350 ft/sec, which is pretty typical. By 300 yards, it's lost nearly two thirds of its energy and is dropping fast, but that's about as far as I can see with an unmagnified optic anyway.

One of the handy things about the Kobra is that when using the T-bar reticle, the bottom of the central bar can be used as an aiming point at very close ranges. The bullet is close to the top of the central bar at 25 yards and rises to the level of the "T" by 50, where it pretty much stays until you get past 200. The dot-chevron reticle can be used similarly, though I prefer the T-bar when shooting USPSA matches. For reference, the dot subtends 1.8 arcminutes at low brightness, though it's blooming a little in the photos due to resolution effects.

[rrneck]

45. It's been

a million years since I fooled with rifles. I had a bolt action (Interarms?)25-06 that was zeroed at 300 and a Remington pump 30-06 zeroed about the same (IIRC). That damn Remington seemed like everything in it was loose and it kicked me twice every time I shot it. Of course at the time I didn't weigh over 150 pounds or so. That might have had something to do with it.

Thanks for the info. :thumbsup:

[wtmusic]

10. Would be great for shooting at things in darkened rooms

when you don't know what the fuck you're shooting at. Or someone that's too far away to be ID'd, but you're feeling a little paranoid. Or to give a little confidence to yahoos who act reflexively, or don't know how to hold a gun so they're gonna miss and hit something else anyway.

Whatever.

[benEzra]

20. I take it you've never used one, then?

I shoot competitively with an optic. Having the sighting plane at the same focal distance as the target is a good thing in all lighting conditions.

You also lose the ability to see iron sights long before you lose the ability to see, but until you've used irons in less than optimum lighting conditions against low-contrast targets, you can't really appreciate how badly they suck in those circumstances.

[PavePusher]

23. If you "don't know what the f*** you're shooting at", you SHOULDN'T BE SHOOTING.

Or maybe you're just spouting anti-gun pablum B.S. I can't tell.

[Katya Mullethov]

26. First it was epidemiologists

Now we have climatologists piling on .

[rd_kent]

63. Not sure you are gonna find ANYONE here that supports doing ANY of what you posted.

So, basically, you just posted shit, and you did it KNOWING full well that no one would support shooting a gun in ANY of the circumstances you posted. That makes you a disingenuous douche bag.

[cliffordu]

12. I would make them mandatory.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I refuse to depend on anything less reliable than the built in iron sights.

Which is not to say I won't USE a red dot or aimpoint, but I won't rely solely upon them, and I don't use lasers at all. Under certain conditions, lasers work both ways, among other problems.

Should all this stuff be allowed? Hell yes. Even Gen 3 night vision.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Absolutely YES. What reason would there be not to allow the use of electronic sights? n/t

[spin]

15. I've used both and was impressed...

I still like iron sights on my revolvers but as I grow older and my sight gets worse, I might consider installing one or one of my target firearms.

[oneshooter]

18. Of course they should be allowed!

My Loving Wife just loves her red dot sight on her 995 carbine!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Tim01]

19. What if you blind someone with the laser, then decide not to shoot them.

Or what if you blind an innocent bystander. I think maybe only police and military, people with training, should have these things.

[benEzra]

21. Civilian firearm lasers are limited to eyesafe power levels, just like laser pointers.

You're looking at <5mW output and <5 arcminute beam dispersion. It would be quite a feat to blind someone even temporarily with one. You could with a good flashlight, though....

[Tim01]

22. What about those holosites? They put an image on the badguy.

That could blind him.

[PavePusher]

25. Nooooo, ben, don't fall for it.... !

Too funny by half.

[benEzra]

33. Snort! OK, I win the gullibility award for the day, lol. (n/t)

[Tim01]

50. Aw, man. I was looking forward to a lively discussion....

about how holosites put the red dot on the target.(snicker)
:rofl:

[X_Digger]

27. Seems like only CA doesn't like lasers on guns for citizens..

Apparently, when you register your gun to CCW (assuming you're connected / rich enough to qualify) they won't approve one with a laser.

CA does have a funky law about pointing a laser (even a laser pointer) 'at a person in a threatening manner with the specific intent to cause a reasonable person fear of bodily harm' (except in self-defense). Sec 417.25.

[PavePusher]

40. Ummm.... put the laser on afterwards... just sayin'. n/t

[X_Digger]

41. Yah, my attempt to keep topical was weak :) n/t

[PavePusher]

46. And I was being snarky, sorry. It's been that kind of week for me. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

47. If it is so much as a different color than the one submitted for approval

Then it isnt on the list , and it hasnt been approved yet .

[PavePusher]

52. Oh, I know. And they call US insane... n/t

[X_Digger]

48. No worries! n/t

[proteus_lives]

28. Yes. Why not?

I can't think of a reason. Would a grabber fill me in?

I've never used one, are they cool?

[paulsby]

29. i;m all for allowing citizens to have these but

fwiw, *i* can't have one on my duty weapon. they are prohibited under our firearms policy. i'm an instructor, but it doesn't matter. no laser sights. nuttin but standard metal sights.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. Most PDs will not allow the laser do to a safety issue. But not from the laser,

it's from the possibility of getting a false bead. Suppose you and your partner roll up on an armed robbery at a convenience store. You never make it inside before being confronted with the perp holding a 4 foot child hostage. The perp is facing you through the double pained store front windows, with the child in front holding a revolver (hammer down) to his/her head. You and your partner both draw on the perp. You both have laser sighting devices and are faced with SIX red dots shining on various spots of the perp and child. Who shoots?



The one looking at his/her iron sites.

[jeepnstein]

42. Who shoots?

Nobody. You buy time. Time is on your side. Take a little bit of it to choose where and when to act rather than rushing in and causing a tragedy. That is a bit different if they call in "active shooter" but the principle is sound.

That's why most officers will cut their siren a block or so away and do their final approach cautiously. It's far better to let the guy escape than to corner him into taking a hostage. It's better to have a building full of witnesses than victims.

Also, Tasers are aimed with a red laser. The only dot on the guy should be from one of those.

[paulsby]

54. that's a good point about the tasers

since tasers are default red laser, also imo there is an argument that any lasers on firearms should be a different color.

my taser has that the red dot, and i never thought about the taser vs. firearm laser thang.

kudos. excellent point

[TPaine7]

30. With all due respect, I object to the question

The issue is not whether people can possess something, it is whether or not government is permitted to forbid it. Freedom is the default; it is the government that needs empowerment to curtail freedom, not the people who need permission to enjoy it.

I know you probably agree with this philosophy, I just hate for the all-too-commonly held premise to get unintended support.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. You're right. I misworded it. Freedom should be the default. N/T

[burrfoot]

31. +1

Aw shit yeah. Absolutely. Red dot sights 100%- they're just a better mousetrap (BUIS folks don't flame- I mean as an additional item, not as your ONLY sight. That would just be absurd.) No morality or philosophy involved in that one decision.

With the laser, I also agree, although I think the user needs to be smart about it- learn to shoot the iron sights on your firearm first, but don't hesitate to put a laser on particularly if it's going to be an SD possibility. Anything you can due to increase your chances of hitting what you're aiming at and nothing else makes you a safer shooter.

Well, assuming that you are aiming at something that you both should and are legally allowed to be aiming at.
When that adrenaline kicks in, you need every advantage you can get- and being able to see red laser on the target is just one more level of assurance that your bullet is going to go where you want it to.

Of course, none of that is an excuse for lack of training. You can have the best and brightest and prettiest colored laser beam that you want- but if you anticipate the recoil or you pull/push rather than press, you're still going to miss.
Train train train train train.

Then put a laser sight on, if it works for you.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. When I trained my wife, we used a laser as a training aid.

Put the dot on a target and dry-fire until she could do it consistently without the dot wobbling.

Great for point fire training too. Point gun, press button, see where the point-fire shot would have really gone. Practice until you are pointing correctly.

The money saved in ammo for that training more than paid for the laser.

[Euromutt]

32. I am a great fan of laser grips

I have Crimson Trace grips on my primary HD and carry pistols, and their "modular vertical foregrip" (with laser and white light) on my AR. Said AR also has an EOTech 516 and 3x magnifier on a flip-to-side mount. Yeah, fine, call me a mall ninja, but I figure that anything that helps me put bullets on my target simultaneously helps me not put lead into the surrounding environment, and that can't be a bad thing.

Certain governments disagree, and prohibit the private ownership of laser sights as being too scary to trust civilians with. And that includes countries where you can (in very limited circumstances) get permits to possess or even carry firearms for self-defense. Heaven forbid private citizens might hit what they're aiming at!

[burrfoot]

34. That's not ninja, Euro....

this is ninja. Worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Iz0TXmmvU

:evilgrin:

[GreenStormCloud]

37. You realize that some anti is going to believe that, don't you? N/T

[burrfoot]

55. Green, I

pray for the day that happens.
I believe that it's TOO absurd for anyone who might be genuinely concerned to believe. If they do, or pay just little enough attention to think that it's a fancy weapon but a real one, then they are not likely to be in the camp whose minds are open to change anyway.

And when that day comes when you turn on the tv and a local newscaster shows that clip...or even just uses a still from that video...

well, I would like it if you'd think of me and smile as you log onto DU, find that post, copy that link into an email, and send it to that local news station's closest rival station.


:evilgrin:

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Hi. I meant post 37 to be humor, not a serious opinion.

It was meant to poke fun at the gullibility of many antis when it comes to firearms.

[Tim01]

51. OMFG I have found my next gun.

The bullet curving cut outs are bad-ass!

[burrfoot]

56. chromed out...

'cause that's now ninja's roll. And a wide mouth mag well.....'cause that's how ninja's also roll...

For me, it's a toss up between the laser cutter that cuts through any metal known to man (instantly) and the optic that lets you see into the future so you know where your bullet will hit.


:tinfoilhat:

[GreenStormCloud]

58. I want the optic. Tune it for a minute ahead (long range) and use in next game of Hold'em. N/T

[burrfoot]

59. Sorry Green-

sometimes I miss the bus on the tone of messages when they're just words on a computer screen.

I think you're right, the optic has the greater variety of uses compared to the laser!

:toast:

[backwoodsbob]

49. have a laser on my 9mm

I just don't like the holo sights.Probably just me.

I generally put simmons scopes on my guns

[JonQ]

53. For the government to ban anything

they should have to come up with one very compelling argument explaining why.

I can't think of any such argument to ban these items.

[abloy]

60. What about laser range finders and NVD

Laser aiming devices and holosights don't really add that much performance or lethality.

But... what about laser rangefinders, which you can pick up virtually anywhere (Wal-Mart. I've seen a Tasco one, maybe $200, and 5 years old that will range reflective targets out to 800m with no problem at all. There are better ones, and Russian milsurp ones that work out to several miles (though these probably violate laser safety standards, they're readily availible).

With a laser range finder, and a half decent precision rifle, the difficulty in taking long range shots is certainly reduced. Just to throw out a number, maybe it adds 300m of effective range to a average shooter. It lets pretty average shooters hit prairie dogs out to 500m or so, which is pretty impressive if you think about it.

The other obvious question is Night Vision. In the export control laws, its is illegal to, without the various paperwork, export a nightvision device above a certain capability. But as far as I know, there's no limit on what one can buy as long as they keep it in the US.

For the record, I don't think regulating either item is workable, or desirable, but it seems discussion worthy.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. All should be allowed.

Rangefinders have much more use than simply shooting.
But even range-finding scopes are a benefit as missed shots are always a lethal concern.

I don't NVG is a problem. Decent NVG is expensive and good NVG breaks the bank. If you REALLY want to push it, infrared scopes are simply sweet and require a second mortgage. Criminals aren't likely to use such items. Similar to the modern civilian machinegun... money makes it not an issue criminally-speaking. And you'll never stop the people that can afford them from getting them because they likely have funds to procure such items illegally.

FYI, I believe all advanced CCO type sights (EOtech, Aimpoint, Trijicon...) as well as real counter-sniper type scopes are export controlled too.

[rd_kent]

62. Don't see any reason NOT to allow it.

Seem like it would help accuracy, thus reducing the danger of hitting something unintentionally.

I am open to listening to argument against.......