All I know about gun use I know from Hollywood movies… definately nothing to get some good data on.
Ten years ago or so, laser sights on guns were new and hip -once again, I’m talking about movies here- and they seemed like a pretty good idea to me. Unless the laser gets out of alignment somehow, it would be a great assistance to see where the bullet will go. On top of that, it’s obviously very effective if you see a small red dot on your (or someone else’s) clothing, knowing a bullet could come a split second later. However, in the movies, the trend passed, and I hardly see 'em anymore. Apparently, the audience thinks of them as ‘training wheels’ and a good shot should know where the bullet goes without some gimmicky trinket.
How about real life? Are they used by police officers? Civillians? The army? If not, why? If so, how often?
They create a tactical problem. Using lasers is like using tracers, in that, they tend to point both ways. If you are after a single target it’s not too much of an issue.
But, if your target has a buddy there’s a problem. You’ll light up one target, and alert the other, who will in turn see the light spilling from the source and you will have given away your location.
I know a couple of guys that have them on their home defense guns, but not on their carry pieces. They aren’t terribly effective on bright days nor at much of a distance, but for in-home use they’re great.
An acquaintance of mine started a company that sells these. They’re clearly common enough to support a business – more than one, in fact, if I recall correctly. I was under the impression that a lot of their business came from municipal police departments.
I’ve handled a few guns with laser sights. I haven’t trained with them 'cause I don’t do that sort of thing anymore, but they struck me as being generally kind of useless, or at least of limited applicability. For one, as previously noted, they don’t show up well in bright light. Another is that, while the laser does indicate point of aim (assuming that it is properly aligned for bullet drop at the specified range) just 'cause the dot is on the target before you pull the trigger doesn’t mean that’s where it is going to go, and a thundering herd of people seem to believe that laser sights are a replacement for proper trigger technique. I believe they have a tendency to draw you away from the gun, i.e. proper stance and sight frame; ever since Steven Seagal started doing that over-the-head-sideways gangsta grip thing, people seem to think that they can hold an arm any old way, which is untrue and unsafe. I also have the concern (and even moreso with underbarrel flashlights) that they are used for intimidation or illumination even when the gun wielder is not intending to shoot the target, thus violating Rule #2 and (with the trigger pressure activated sights) Rule #3; this forments potentially lethal gun handling mistakes.
I think they have limited application in tactical sniping situations where low light grain through a scope may make the point of impact uncertain. On a handgun, however, I think their utility has been vastly exaggerated by Hollywood, which is self-evidently ignorant about proper gun handling. But then, I’m an iron sights guy that learned to shoot with a blade and notch Browning Hi-Power. I have to admit that tritium sights are a great improvement over black sights, and unobtrusive red dot sights may be even better, but I think lasers are just unnecessary and potentially counterproductive on service sidearms. Just my $0.02; opinions will vary.
Well, there are pros & cons to them. The good: at night, indoors, they work pretty darned skippy at a fixed distance. There’s the possibility that whoever sees the red dot on them may cease & desist, making firing unnecessary (remote, but possible).
But, everytime you change the batteries, you have to realign the sights. Some weapons need to have parts ground down to accomodate them. The sights are fixed at the point where you aligned them to: 25 feet, 50 feet, whatever, which is information you need to take into account. Also, if you let the battery go dead, you better still be able to get the job done manually.
I’ve never lived in a state where they were legal for hunting. There’s always been some provision about hunting with artificial lights, including laser sights. That’s enough to make them close to useless. There are quick point aiming devices that show an apparent lighted dot on the target, but that happens internally to the scope, and does not project downfield.
Has anyone ever known of a state where laser sights were legal for big game?
No, I’m talking about that vaguely rectangular device you often see placed in front of the (rear or only) sights, on the foreward grips, over the barrel.
After some research: this thing - which seems to be IR-only, so maybe it isn’t what the OP is asking about.
Sure, but how many of them are there? According to the NRA there are 215 million privately owned firearms in the US, and this site says that there are fewer than one million police employees. Even if we assume that all of the employees are armed, which is just not realistic, they’ve got clerks and janitors and IT guys, there are still more than 200 private firearms for every armed police officer.
Plus, what some other people said, they light up a big “Hey, here I am sign!”, they are useless in bright light, and if you can’t hit what you’re aiming at with a conventional scope, you should be spending more time at the range and less money on trick sights. Someday you may have to hit something without using training wheels.
I guess I’m not surprised to hear that police are using them. I’m always hearing about cops firing 40 shots at a person 10 feet away and hitting them less than 50% of the time.
That wasn’t exactly the point. Saying that they are worthless because you can’t hunt with them doesn’t make much sense to me. They aren’t meant to be used for hunting, I’ve never seen one on a rifle (Alessan’s night vision device excepted). They are, in my experience, most popular on personal defense handguns where they are useful tools, if used with knowledge and experience.
I disagree with their utility on defense handguns. Any of the sights I have seen are too bulky for carry purposes, and any defensive use of a handgun occurs at ranges so close that even iron sights are not required, you just point and shoot. If you can’t hit someone across the room without using a laser sight you should not be in possession of a handgun, because you haven’t fired it enough to be familiar with its use. You’re liable to drop it on your foot and break a toe.
For inexperienced people looking for home defense I would recommend a shotgun. You’ve got less “shoot through the wall and kill your kids” potential, and some real stopping potential.
The police primarily use laser sights on sniper rifles, for which purpose I can admit they have some benefit, so useless was too strong a term. I’d like to amend that to “have marginal benefit in some limited circumstances”.
The laser sights look cool, and that’s why people own them, like spinners on hubcaps. Do they even call them hubcaps anymore? Sorry, I got distracted for a minute there.
Well, I said less potential, not zero potential. You’ll note that while double ought buckshot penetrated eight boards both 9 mm and .45 ACP both penetrated twelve. #4 buckshot penetrated only six, but is a little light for stopping. Plus, when I shoot someone, I expect the pellets to stay where I put them, in the target. If you shoot someone with a rifled bullet you can get in and out trajectories. Look at that “magic bullet” in Dallas.
I’ve got to disagree with about everything you say. No offense or anything you understand, but they are small enough to be integrated into the grips for heavens sake (cite ), which is hardly “bulky”. Also, shooting without aiming is a good way to match those police you were insulting who rack up such remarkable statistics. “Point and shoot” forsooth!
Hell, I might as well pop the tritium out of my 1911 since aiming isn’t really necessary. And if I file off my front sight, I can gain a quarter second on my draw and show The Kid a thing or two.
Hey! Sorry about the double post, but where is Martini Enfield? Why isn’t he here deriding this newfangled technology and saying if the British Empire didn’t need it than no one does?