|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
Internet discussion: Statement: The thing I like is swell and everyone should like it better. And if you don't you're doing it wrong. Response: That's nice but you're requirements are exaggerated and it's not needed for the stated purpose. And then: You don't train, you're not one of us, and you just don't get it. Really? For self defense carry, the targets are, in fact, large. And they are always (always) very close when you're talking civilian carry. There are a few (not many, but some) objective metrics available online if you want to be factual. If you want to make up stuff or find some lightning strike anecdotal story to share so you can justify high capacity pistols with lights and optics, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll be very tactical. But I still find it confusing that if you want down range precision, why are you shooting a Glock in the first place? Private citizens using their carry gun at all is anecdotal in the scheme of things. High profile shootings like San Bernardino, Pulse, Colorado theater, etc and the truck in Nicé are all times that having a more capable gun a good thing. I either carry a 357 revolver or 1911 but doesn't mean I can't acknowledge there are better tools. |
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
For self defense carry, the targets are, in fact, large. And they are always (always) very close when you're talking civilian carry. There are a few (not many, but some) objective metrics available online if you want to be factual. If you want to make up stuff or find some lightning strike anecdotal story to share so you can justify high capacity pistols with lights and optics, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll be very tactical. But I still find it confusing that if you want down range precision, why are you shooting a Glock in the first place? |
|
Originally Posted By bigern314:
So based on the posts about how you need a lot of training to use one of these is it even worth it if your shooting options are more limited? While living in the city I'm lucky to get to the range once a month a lot of times. Does this require a lot more than just getting used to the dot after your draw? That I can do at home with dry fire practice. For years I’ve practiced being able to draw and present my pistol standing or kneeling with my eyes shut and when I open them have perfect sight alignment. I’m getting close with the red dot but I’m not there yet. You figure for years front sight focus has been preached. Trying to switch over to focus on the target is not going to happen with a few range sessions. Trying to practice establishing perfect sight alignment and sight picture doesn’t require live fire to become comfortable with your presentation. David. |
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
Internet discussion: Statement: The thing I like is swell and everyone should like it better. And if you don't you're doing it wrong. Response: That's nice but you're requirements are exaggerated and it's not needed for the stated purpose. And then: You don't train, you're not one of us, and you just don't get it. Really? For self defense carry, the targets are, in fact, large. And they are always (always) very close when you're talking civilian carry. There are a few (not many, but some) objective metrics available online if you want to be factual. If you want to make up stuff or find some lightning strike anecdotal story to share so you can justify high capacity pistols with lights and optics, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll be very tactical. But I still find it confusing that if you want down range precision, why are you shooting a Glock in the first place? You’re also making a hell of a lot of assumptions as far as target size and typical distances involved. |
If you're good at something, never do it for free.
|
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy: So instead of training and improving, you just ditched the indicator of muzzle movement. It's like someone that's always running late just throwing away all the clocks in their house. Interesting approach. |
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
Internet discussion: Statement: The thing I like is swell and everyone should like it better. And if you don't you're doing it wrong. Response: That's nice but you're requirements are exaggerated and it's not needed for the stated purpose. And then: You don't train, you're not one of us, and you just don't get it. Really? For self defense carry, the targets are, in fact, large. And they are always (always) very close when you're talking civilian carry. There are a few (not many, but some) objective metrics available online if you want to be factual. If you want to make up stuff or find some lightning strike anecdotal story to share so you can justify high capacity pistols with lights and optics, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll be very tactical. But I still find it confusing that if you want down range precision, why are you shooting a Glock in the first place? read the sage dynamics white paper. Real cops in force in force training got better, more effective hits with red dots - mostly close range too. this isn't theoretical. |
Isaiah 1:18 - "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD: "though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow"
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
Internet discussion: Statement: The thing I like is swell and everyone should like it better. And if you don't you're doing it wrong. Response: That's nice but you're requirements are exaggerated and it's not needed for the stated purpose. And then: You don't train, you're not one of us, and you just don't get it. Really? For self defense carry, the targets are, in fact, large. And they are always (always) very close when you're talking civilian carry. There are a few (not many, but some) objective metrics available online if you want to be factual. If you want to make up stuff or find some lightning strike anecdotal story to share so you can justify high capacity pistols with lights and optics, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll be very tactical. But I still find it confusing that if you want down range precision, why are you shooting a Glock in the first place? Why the angst towards new technology? Why is it bad to be more capable? What data do you have to show that a Glock lacks down range precision? Appears you’re at least in the same state as me, so good chance you’re local. I’d be happy to show you the benefits IRL. I’m not trying to personally attack your opinion. I’d just be happy to show you how you are indeed mistaken. |
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
Internet discussion: Statement: The thing I like is swell and everyone should like it better. And if you don't you're doing it wrong. Response: That's nice but you're requirements are exaggerated and it's not needed for the stated purpose. And then: You don't train, you're not one of us, and you just don't get it. Really? For self defense carry, the targets are, in fact, large. And they are always (always) very close when you're talking civilian carry. There are a few (not many, but some) objective metrics available online if you want to be factual. If you want to make up stuff or find some lightning strike anecdotal story to share so you can justify high capacity pistols with lights and optics, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll be very tactical. But I still find it confusing that if you want down range precision, why are you shooting a Glock in the first place? |
|
Originally Posted By DAVE_M: It has a Trijicon RMR footprint. It is similar to a Trijicon RMR when mounted. https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-shfrgbx/products/388/images/2134/holo_6__34053.1535735473.1280.1280.jpg?c=2 Not a big fan of the buttons but I do like where the dot adjustment screws are located. I know he just wants it for playing around, but I would stick with an RMR personally if it were me. |
|
To those saying finding the Dot is impossible... remember:
You need to line up the dot and the target, not the front sight equal height equal light between the rear, all lined up on the target. Less focal planes to work with. Plus, since you can only focus on one, I’d prefer to focus on the threat... 
|
|
They absolutely are. I feel like I have a good base of pistol marksmanship to began with and from the first shot out if my G19 with RMR I was in love. I’d haven’t my Glocks sent off to ATEI to have RMRs mounted if I wasn’t so poor. |
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
|
No.. not trolling. And the poor manners of most of you preclude tracking responses and presenting a direct reply. But for education's sake here is the key takeaway: Don't base your choices on fantasy or Internet forum discussions. Base them on the available data. The target will always be large and close in a public place civilian SD shooting. So that's what you plan for. You are not going to stop a mass shooter at 25 yards. You are not going to save a hostage with a head shot. You are not going to have an extended gunfight from behind a barrier. You are not a cop. You are not SWAT. This is not home defense, this is public carry. It will be over in 10 seconds. If you remember to move, you might not get shot. If you can't move (carjack comes to mind) and you make poor choices, you probably will. If you have muscle memory with your holster and pistol, you might get a few shots off. As soon as the shooting starts, the perp will run away or expire. Sorry if that isn't as fun as the made up stuff. This has some interesting thoughts but bear in mind, only 9% of this is public SD. Rest is business/home which is a different set of considerations. http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/ Police shootings are quite different (distance, duration, attitude of perp) but still have a few lessons. And the article actually has citations. https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/ As for your training.. in a real study trying to understand the threat to police officers from novice shooters, experts only shot 10% better than novices. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461355715582975 Have more current data based on something other than opinion or one-off events? I'm sure we would all like to see it. So do you need a red dot on you pistol? No. Probably won't hurt and certainly if it makes you feel better that's important. But you don't need one. |
|
Last I heard, whoever shoots first in a gunfight usually wins.
Like 87% of the time. Statistics not adjusted for equipment used. |
---------------
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1775
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1775
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
So do you need a red dot on you pistol? No. Probably won't hurt and certainly if it makes you feel better that's important. But you don't need one. Statistically speaking, you don't NEED more than 10 rounds in a carry gun either. Statistically speaking, you don't NEED a spare magazine. Statistically speaking, you will get struck by lightning before you ever need a firearm. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING... Pistol RDS ARE faster than irons. |
|
Originally Posted By DAVE_M: No one here is stating that you NEED one. Statistically speaking, you don't NEED more than 10 rounds in a carry gun either. Statistically speaking, you don't NEED a spare magazine. Statistically speaking, you will get struck by lightning before you ever need a firearm. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING... Pistol RDS ARE faster than irons. |
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
Defensive pistols uses are rare, so you're fine preparing for averages. Planned mediocrity is acceptable The target will always be large and close in a public place civilian SD shooting. So that's what you plan for. You are not going to stop a mass shooter at 25 yards. You are not going to save a hostage with a head shot. You are not going to have an extended gunfight from behind a barrier. You are not a cop. You are not SWAT. This is not home defense, this is public carry. It will be over in 10 seconds. If you remember to move, you might not get shot. If you can't move (carjack comes to mind) and you make poor choices, you probably will. If you have muscle memory with your holster and pistol, you might get a few shots off. As soon as the shooting starts, the perp will run away or expire. Sorry if that isn't as fun as the made up stuff. This has some interesting thoughts but bear in mind, only 9% of this is public SD. Rest is business/home which is a different set of considerations. http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/ Police shootings are quite different (distance, duration, attitude of perp) but still have a few lessons. And the article actually has citations. https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/ As for your training.. in a real study trying to understand the threat to police officers from novice shooters, experts only shot 10% better than novices. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461355715582975 Have more current data based on something other than opinion or one-off events? I'm sure we would all like to see it. So do you need a red dot on you pistol? No. Probably won't hurt and certainly if it makes you feel better that's important. But you don't need one. |
Please, call me Joe
Follow me on Instagram!
http://instagram.com/tcba_joe/
Follow me on Instagram!
http://instagram.com/tcba_joe/
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
No.. not trolling. And the poor manners of most of you preclude tracking responses and presenting a direct reply. But for education's sake here is the key takeaway: Don't base your choices on fantasy or Internet forum discussions. Base them on the available data. The target will always be large and close in a public place civilian SD shooting. So that's what you plan for. You are not going to stop a mass shooter at 25 yards. You are not going to save a hostage with a head shot. You are not going to have an extended gunfight from behind a barrier. Have more current data based on something other than opinion or one-off events? I'm sure we would all like to see it. Private ccw holders stopping mass shootings |
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
No.. not trolling. And the poor manners of most of you preclude tracking responses and presenting a direct reply. But for education's sake here is the key takeaway: Don't base your choices on fantasy or Internet forum discussions. Base them on the available data. The target will always be large and close in a public place civilian SD shooting. So that's what you plan for. You are not going to stop a mass shooter at 25 yards. You are not going to save a hostage with a head shot. You are not going to have an extended gunfight from behind a barrier. You are not a cop. You are not SWAT. This is not home defense, this is public carry. It will be over in 10 seconds. If you remember to move, you might not get shot. If you can't move (carjack comes to mind) and you make poor choices, you probably will. If you have muscle memory with your holster and pistol, you might get a few shots off. As soon as the shooting starts, the perp will run away or expire. Sorry if that isn't as fun as the made up stuff. This has some interesting thoughts but bear in mind, only 9% of this is public SD. Rest is business/home which is a different set of considerations. http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/ Police shootings are quite different (distance, duration, attitude of perp) but still have a few lessons. And the article actually has citations. https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/ As for your training.. in a real study trying to understand the threat to police officers from novice shooters, experts only shot 10% better than novices. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461355715582975 Have more current data based on something other than opinion or one-off events? I'm sure we would all like to see it. So do you need a red dot on you pistol? No. Probably won't hurt and certainly if it makes you feel better that's important. But you don't need one. I am now convinced that you are indeed not a troll, but are indeed just a fucking moron. You live in a world of very strange absolutes. Enjoy your mediocrity. Its unfortunate that instead of just discussing the topic it has to degrade into Luddites arguing adamantly against it. I'm all for discussion, but dont be so hell bent on keeping a closed mind. ETA: I gather sights aren't even important to you. I would assume that you are just going to point and shoot. So why even bother to interject yourself in the conversation? |
|
Originally Posted By Spook410:
No.. not trolling. And the poor manners of most of you preclude tracking responses and presenting a direct reply. But for education's sake here is the key takeaway: Don't base your choices on fantasy or Internet forum discussions. Base them on the available data. The target will always be large and close in a public place civilian SD shooting. So that's what you plan for. You are not going to stop a mass shooter at 25 yards. You are not going to save a hostage with a head shot. You are not going to have an extended gunfight from behind a barrier. You are not a cop. You are not SWAT. This is not home defense, this is public carry. It will be over in 10 seconds. If you remember to move, you might not get shot. If you can't move (carjack comes to mind) and you make poor choices, you probably will. If you have muscle memory with your holster and pistol, you might get a few shots off. As soon as the shooting starts, the perp will run away or expire. Sorry if that isn't as fun as the made up stuff. This has some interesting thoughts but bear in mind, only 9% of this is public SD. Rest is business/home which is a different set of considerations. http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/ Police shootings are quite different (distance, duration, attitude of perp) but still have a few lessons. And the article actually has citations. https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/ As for your training.. in a real study trying to understand the threat to police officers from novice shooters, experts only shot 10% better than novices. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461355715582975 Have more current data based on something other than opinion or one-off events? I'm sure we would all like to see it. So do you need a red dot on you pistol? No. Probably won't hurt and certainly if it makes you feel better that's important. But you don't need one. How much do you actually shoot and train? What metrics or standards do you use to gauge performance? How much of this has been done with MRDS vs. irons? Because, like the other poster stated, this all seems like rationalizing planned mediocrity. |
If you're good at something, never do it for free.
|
Originally Posted By DAVE_M:
STATISTICALLY SPEAKING... Pistol RDS ARE faster than irons. |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:
How much of this has been done with MRDS vs. irons? Most of the folks I work with have years if not decades of weapons experience. I honestly cannot tell a difference in performance between those that show up with a dot on their pistol and those that don't. I can only relay my observations in this context. 1) Folks with newly installed RDS are slower and perform poorly until they have sufficient reps with the optic. 2) In force on force training there is no clear "winner" between irons and RDS - it's down to skill and tactics 1000x over what sights they're using. 3) RDS are superior in every way when you go past about 20m, even for new users. |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: Alright, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here, but you guys keep saying that. Where's the proof? |
|
Originally Posted By Reekus:
I think that's the wrong argument to make IMO. It provides the ability to get faster, due to not having to align so many focal planes. I'm sure someone could correlate several LTD shooters' scores vs CO shooters, but again its gonna be based on the individual's performance ability in utilizing one over the other. I think the whole purpose here should be less of saying one is better than the other, but more of showing off the capabilities of the newer (but actually pretty old and rapidly maturing) technology at the end user's disposal. |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
I don't feel like I'm in trouble when I leaven the house with a 5 shot .38 snubbie, since the vast majority of defensive situations I will ever encounter will be resolved fine with just that, and probably without a shot being fired. However there isn't really any downside to having a firearm that can engage and be useful in those situations where I may have to make a shot in different circumstances. Other than money being gone. But I can get more. What is the word on the Vortex pistol red dots? Around $225-250. |
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: Alright, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here, but you guys keep saying that. Where's the proof? Pick virtually any USPSA Match. Compare CO to Production time/accuracy. Secondly... Read the Sage Dynamics White Paper on the subject: The White Paper that nobody seems to actually read. |
If you're good at something, never do it for free.
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: I do specialized firearms training to a very small clientele. Rarely, I'll do small groups, usually related to group tactics. Most of the folks I work with have years if not decades of weapons experience. I honestly cannot tell a difference in performance between those that show up with a dot on their pistol and those that don't. I can only relay my observations in this context. 1) Folks with newly installed RDS are slower and perform poorly until they have sufficient reps with the optic. 2) In force on force training there is no clear "winner" between irons and RDS - it's down to skill and tactics 1000x over what sights they're using. 3) RDS are superior in every way when you go past about 20m, even for new users. With the exception of your first point, which is something many of us have been saying throughout this thread, your finding contradict those of many others in the industry. Mine included. |
If you're good at something, never do it for free.
|
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:
Spectacular... Let’s see your data. With the exception of your first point, which is something many of us have been saying throughout this thread, your finding contradict those of many others in the industry. Mine included. Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: I do specialized firearms training to a very small clientele. Rarely, I'll do small groups, usually related to group tactics. Most of the folks I work with have years if not decades of weapons experience. I honestly cannot tell a difference in performance between those that show up with a dot on their pistol and those that don't. I can only relay my observations in this context. 1) Folks with newly installed RDS are slower and perform poorly until they have sufficient reps with the optic. 2) In force on force training there is no clear "winner" between irons and RDS - it's down to skill and tactics 1000x over what sights they're using. 3) RDS are superior in every way when you go past about 20m, even for new users. Spectacular... Let’s see your data. With the exception of your first point, which is something many of us have been saying throughout this thread, your finding contradict those of many others in the industry. Mine included. See bold above. Simply anecdotal observations - I was clear. So, you agree with (1), and disagree with (2) and (3). Okay, those are good points to work on. What is your experience with (2)? What types of FoF do you teach and participate in? Is the implication that two equally skilled shooters will result in a win for the RDS in all conditions? Regarding (3) - I'm saying that the RDS is more accurate even for new RDS users at distance. What about that do you disagree with? **edit - I'm reading the white paper linked above right now |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: I'm a bit slow, can you be more specific? I don't know what anything on that site means.  Practiscore is the site used for many matches to track scores of shooters. Compare the times of Production vs Carry Optics on any USPSA match ever and you will get the data you seek. |
|
Originally Posted By bigern314:
What is the word on the Vortex pistol red dots? Around $225-250. Originally Posted By bigern314:
What is the word on the Vortex pistol red dots? Around $225-250. Vortex Venom 3 MOA dot,
dovetail mount on Glock 17 February 2015-May 2015 1,020 Electronics failure during fire, optic died |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: Very well articulated sir and I agree 100% with every bit of it. I have also had the opportunity to teach plenty of small classes as well as see and conduct FOF ops with iron sight vs MRDS. My conclusion is essentially the same, that a new shooter won't magically be better. With enough practice and repetition, I saw that there was much more capability. Even at close ranges, most people who have enough time behind an MRDS talk about how nice it is that you are not spending the half seconds aligning sights... Rather, you can find the dot anywhere in the optic and pull the trigger once it comes over the intended target. Unfortunately I never tracked any measurable or quantifiable metrics. I am essentially just speaking from experience. I am also not in the industry any more aside from competitive shooting so I really am speaking from experiences from 1-2 years ago. The underlying issue I see with any attachment to a gun is that there seems to be a vast majority of people that genuinely believe that "if I add this shiny bauble to my gun, then shitdamn I will be wayyyy better." I saw it every weekend at matches. People need to realize that the addition of an MRDS provides much more capability. For the average CCW'er, it means that you can spend more time focusing on the target and can possibly take a longer shot with much greater precision. For the SWAT/MIL/LEO type, it means that there's a higher level of comfort that comes with drawing their secondary if their primary goes down. Their secondary is now on more of a capability field of their primary, as far as precision ability goes. The caveat being, with anything you're adding as a performance enhancement to your gun, you train with it enough to properly utilize it. Training is the key. You cant take advantage of a new technological advancement unless you are well versed in how you can properly utilize it for your advantage. |
|
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy: For starters... Pick virtually any USPSA Match. Compare CO to Production time/accuracy. Secondly... Read the Sage Dynamics White Paper on the subject: The White Paper that nobody seems to actually read. 
Great info. |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By Reekus:
I will add though I agree with the other posters in that you will generally see better scores across the board out of CO shooters than Iron-sighted classes. There are several other factors, especially if you compare production to CO (mag size being the bigger advantage I have seen at matches, personally). I still am not convinced that this is "proof" that it is intrinsically better, but more so that it provides an avenue for the shooter to indeed be better if they apply the proper training regime and are receptive to training themselves. I have also had the opportunity to teach plenty of small classes as well as see and conduct FOF ops with iron sight vs MRDS. My conclusion is essentially the same, that a new shooter won't magically be better. With enough practice and repetition, I saw that there was much more capability. Even at close ranges, most people who have enough time behind an MRDS talk about how nice it is that you are not spending the half seconds aligning sights... Rather, you can find the dot anywhere in the optic and pull the trigger once it comes over the intended target. Unfortunately I never tracked any measurable or quantifiable metrics. I am essentially just speaking from experience. I am also not in the industry any more aside from competitive shooting so I really am speaking from experiences from 1-2 years ago. The underlying issue I see with any attachment to a gun is that there seems to be a vast majority of people that genuinely believe that "if I add this shiny bauble to my gun, then shitdamn I will be wayyyy better." I saw it every weekend at matches. People need to realize that the addition of an MRDS provides much more capability. For the average CCW'er, it means that you can spend more time focusing on the target and can possibly take a longer shot with much greater precision. For the SWAT/MIL/LEO type, it means that there's a higher level of comfort that comes with drawing their secondary if their primary goes down. Their secondary is now on more of a capability field of their primary, as far as precision ability goes. The caveat being, with anything you're adding as a performance enhancement to your gun, you train with it enough to properly utilize it. Training is the key. You cant take advantage of a new technological advancement unless you are well versed in how you can properly utilize it for your advantage. |
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
There's a really good Primary and Secondary that Posted in September on Pistol RDS. Good panel with a ton of good info. Aaron Cowan Steve Fischer Scott Jedlinski Jon Dufresne BJ Norris Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
There's a really good Primary and Secondary that Posted in September on Pistol RDS. Good panel with a ton of good info. Aaron Cowan Steve Fischer Scott Jedlinski Jon Dufresne BJ Norris |
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: Listen to a 3hr podcast?  |
|
Originally Posted By DAVE_M:
Everyone wants instant gratification. You could either listen to the podcast, which has a world champion shooter who has won titles with irons and now shoots dots, or you can continue to blabber on and be uninformed. 
|
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: Well, it's' super unfortunate that this podcast is the only source of information on the subject. There is plenty of information out there, but it's irrelevant if you stay closed minded. |
|
Originally Posted By DAVE_M: It's even more unfortunate that you've been presented with a 3 hr podcast that hosts multiple pistol RDS end users, including a world champion shooter, and you are willingly ignoring it. There is plenty of information out there, but it's irrelevant if you stay closed minded. Don't be too upset, It's perfectly reasonable to learn things without podcasts. "if you don't watch this specific video you will forever be uneducated"
|
"People don't think Cola Warrior be like it is but it do..." - George Washington
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
It's perfectly reasonable to learn things without podcasts. However, dismissing a very valid podcast, because you scoff at the idea of learning for 3 hours is very telling. |
|
Originally Posted By bcauz3y: I'm happy to consume much of it, as I already have in this thread. Don't be too upset, It's perfectly reasonable to learn things without podcasts. "if you don't watch this specific video you will forever be uneducated" |