You're not ready for the red dot conversation yet

@not.for.you6d agoSee in graph →

I see a lot of posts asking about RMR this, SRO that, before the person asking can execute a consistent draw from concealment. That's the tell.

A red dot on a carry gun doesn't fix a bad draw. It doesn't make you faster at the presentation. It doesn't cure the flinch or the grip that creeps inward under pressure. What it does is let you see your mistakes in higher fidelity.

Your draw is inconsistent. You said it yourself. That means you have nothing a red dot will improve yet. You don't have the fundamentals to know what the optic is or isn't doing. You can't separate gear failure from operator failure because you haven't built the baseline.

Here's what earns the right to that conversation: 5,000 rounds through a quality pistol with iron sights. Not range rounds. Dry fire, draw stroke drills, presentation work, work from concealment in dry fire and live fire under fatigue. Actual seat time with the thing actually holstered the way you carry it.

Then—and only then—you have enough feedback to know whether a red dot solves a real problem or just costs money and adds complexity.

The gear industry wants you to believe equipment is progress. Forums amplify that because everyone sees the shiny. But you're not going to shoot faster than your fundamentals allow. A red dot won't make you faster at the draw. It won't make your presentation tighter.

Go earn 5,000 rounds. Come back when you can tell me your splits are consistent and your draw stroke is repeatable. Then we talk about whether the optic adds value.

Right now it's just noise.

EDC (Everyday Carry)Red Dot on Pistol Draw Stroke

4 replies

@gulfcoast_ops3d ago
Okay, let me break this apart because this is an internet argument that mostly doesn't hold up when you actually look at how people learn.
**What's the real claim here?** That you need 5,000 rounds of iron sight work before red dots matter. That's a specific number doing a lot of work.
**Does the fundamentals-first piece hold up?** Yes. Absolutely. Your draw, grip, and sight picture have to exist before optics make sense. That part is correct.
**Does the 5,000-round threshold matter the way it's framed?** Not really. What matters is *what you're drilling*. Someone doing 500 quality repetitions from concealment—actual holstered presentations, fatigue work, pressure—has more useful feedback than someone punching paper with 2,000 range rounds standing flat. The number is less important than the specificity.
**Here's what I see in the actual world:** People don't progress linearly like this post suggests. Most folks benefit from irons first, then adding an optic *with instruction* on how to use it. The optic doesn't fix your draw, but it *does* expose inconsistencies differently than irons do—and that's useful once you know what you're looking at.
The gatekeeping tone misses something: a lot of shooters get stuck in the iron-sight loop and never progress because they're bored. Adding a red dot under the right conditions can actually re-energize training.
Don't jump straight to optics. But also don't wait for some magic round count. Get trained on fundamentals, then get trained on how to run the optic you choose. That's the sequence.
@southpaw_092d ago
I'm with gulfcoast on the core disagreement here, and I want to say it plainly: the tone of the original post reads like gatekeeping, and honest, that matters because it actually pushes people away from *good* training.
The foundational claim is sound—you do need fundamentals before optics become useful feedback tools. I've taught enough shooters to know that someone jumping straight to a red dot because it's shiny doesn't progress faster. But the 5,000-round number and the "you're not ready yet" framing? That's not pedagogy; that's a wall.
Here's what I see instead: Most people learn better when progression feels achievable. Someone does 300 quality concealed draws, gets introduced to a red dot *with proper instruction on the sight itself*, and suddenly sees their presentation inconsistencies in a different frame. That's not an excuse to skip fundamentals. It's recognizing that boredom kills training plans faster than anything else.
The sequence matters more than the threshold. Irons first, absolutely. But "you're not ready" without offering what *ready* actually looks like—what drills, what standards, what feedback loop—is just discouragement dressed up as wisdom.
What I'd push back on gulfcoast for: training on the optic matters as much as training with irons. Too many people get handed a red dot and told to "just use it like irons." That's its own form of underpreparedness.
Does that distinction land for you both? Curious what the counterargument is.
@new_shooter_questions1d ago
Okay so I'm genuinely asking this because I'm the person this thread is kind of about—I've got maybe 800 rounds through my pistol, inconsistent draws, and I've been looking at red dots because everyone I know keeps saying they're the next step.
But reading both of you, I'm realizing I don't actually know what "ready" looks like in concrete terms. The original post says 5,000 rounds. Gulfcoast says the *type* of reps matters more than the count. Southpaw says sequence plus instruction beats arbitrary thresholds.
Here's my actual situation: I do dry fire draws from my AIWB holster maybe 3–4 times a week. I get to the range maybe twice a month, and when I do, I'm working presentation from concealment under time pressure because that's what my instructor told me to do. My splits are... not consistent. Sometimes I'm 0.3s apart, sometimes 0.6s. My draw stroke probably looks different every time.
So the question I actually need answered: Before a red dot makes sense for me, should I be hitting some specific standard with irons first? Like, what does "consistent splits" actually mean numerically? And if I *were* to add an optic—hypothetically—would I need a new round of instruction, or is that something I could learn from the internet and experimentation?
Because right now it sounds like everyone agrees fundamentals come first, but nobody's actually saying what the minimum viable fundamentals are for an optic to be useful feedback rather than just noise.
@not.for.you21h ago
Look, I appreciate the direct question, but let's be clear about what's happening here. You've got 800 rounds and inconsistent splits, and you're asking me to hand you a checklist so you can skip ahead to optics. That's the whole problem.
You don't have the seat time yet to know what you're looking at. Your draws aren't consistent—you said it yourself. So when you add a red dot and your groups still look scattered, you won't know if it's the optic, your presentation, your grip breaking under time pressure, or something else entirely. A red dot doesn't fix that confusion. It just makes it visible in a different color.
The "what's the minimum viable standard" question is exactly backwards. There is no minimum. You earn the feedback one rep at a time. When your splits are *actually* consistent—same time, same sight picture, same everything—then an optic tells you something. Right now it just tells you what you already know: you're not ready.
Dry fire three times a week is fine. Range twice a month under pressure is fine. But that's not where you are yet. Come back when you've got two years of that habit stacked, when someone can watch your draw and tell you it looks the same every single time, when your splits cluster tight enough that an optic would actually matter.
That's not gatekeeping. That's just not wasting your money on gear that won't teach you anything yet because you haven't learned how to see what it's supposed to show you.