There actually is some science to it. As I’m sure we all know the eyes have rods and cones. The cones are what’s used to see color. We have three cones for the three primary colors of light…Red, Green, Blue. The wavelength spectrum that the red cones operate on don’t actually peak their sensitivity (strength to see that specific color) near the actual color red , instead it’s closer to yellow. Red is one of if not the hardest color for humans to perceive. The Green cones’ sensitive actually peak extremely close to the wavelength of true green, and the same follows with the blue bones and the true color of blue.
Lets talk Red Dots on handguns
- Thread starter Edwardteach72
- Start date
So how does that impact the way we perceive a red dot or a green dot?
Are humans better or worse at seeing one or the other?
The human eye in general is able to pick up the color greens much easier due to the green cones being more focused in the actual green wavelength and they having a higher sensitivity to it. In general you normally don’t need to have a green dot’s brightness turned up quite as much for it to be easier on the eye to actually see due to humans having a higher sensitivity for that color spectrum. For red, you usually have to have the brightness turned up just slightly more to have the same appearance of brightness as its green counterpart since humans don’t perceive red as well. When you turn brightness up on red dots you’re more likely to get more blooming effect around the reticle which no longer maintains as crisp of a reticle as it does at lower brightness settings. That can also be compounded on top of with how severe the individuals astigmatism is as well. But a crappy green dot isn’t going to perform better than a better quality red dot.
Thank you
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
Reading your 2 posts reminded me of an ACTUAL benefit of one over the other. Color blindness. You may have difficulty seeing one over the other if at all depending on the type of color blindness. That being said, and without looking it up, I remember the exact opposite of what you explained with our eyes and the colors red and green (with normal function). Red being the easiest to pick up, then yellow then green. Violet being the hardest. This having to do with the wavelengths of the colors. Red having the longest wavelength and violet having the shortest. Logically this makes sense as well with rainbows, traffic lights, stop signs and tail lights. Also danger. You'd want to pick up red stop signs and lights from as far away as possible for obvious reasons. Same with red and amber car lights. Again, this is from back in high school but I may be mistaken.
Red stop signs and traffic lights normally are used because they stand out very easily against natural vegetation’s and surrounding environments, red is not found in nature quite as often. Red is one of the hardest colors to see in low light conditions, though traffic signs have that retroreflective film/coating on them to assist drivers to see them at all hours…and obviously traffic lights are illuminated so their clearly easy to see as well. Red standing out in nature is also why you’ll find it pretty often on animals that have evolved and show red on their bodies as warning signs (other vibrant colors as well too).
Under normal lighting conditions the easiest colors for humans to see are green and yellow, and actually the very easiest is somewhere in the middle of the two exactly where the humans color sensitivity peak (think tennis ball).
Under lower lighting conditions especially getting close to near dark the human eye’s sensitivity to the color spectrum changes and actually shifts down towards the cooler colors slightly. The colors on the outer edge of the spectrum (warmer colors) on the red side drops off significantly but green itself is still near the higher end of sensitivity under lowlight conditions. Blue and violet sensitivity actually increases under low light though still not as sensitive as green and yellow. Look into the “Purkinje Effect” and you’ll see what I mean.
The way the issue with astigmatisms (irregularly shaped eye distorting incoming light) was described to me once was with an astigmatism, it can have a higher effect on the color red because humans have predominantly red cones in their eyes. Over 60% of the cones are the red cones. With the majority of the cones dedicated to the longer wavelengths (red spectrum), there’s a higher probability of the incoming light to become distorted from the astigmatism because the majority of the cones are receiving the wavelengths at slightly different angles over a larger area, causing the red image to look slightly different from more areas of the eye.
but I’m no optometrist or scientist that have done studies on any of this crap…so who knows lol.
And with all this sciency-mumbo-jumbo…my ass runs all red dots and no green ones. I have a very slight astigmatism and have no issue using them. So it’ll come down to an individual’s vision and perception and how bad of an astigmatism does some one have. Obviously eye surgery like Lasik can solve people’s vision which would be nice for people who have poor vision, then they’d have better quality of life in general. Astigmatisms can be fixed with glasses and contacts as well, it’s just not a permanent fix. And if someone doesn’t want to go any of the previous routes, eteched reticles are great for people with bad astigmatisms. I also think a majority of people get a little too dramatic about their astigmatism and hard focus on it when the reticle still looks plenty unstable.
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
Great info here - each person is different as to the color preference. Last August I compared the 507k in red and green - Lets talk Red Dots on handguns
At the range with green (tree) background, the green dot might be slightly harder to pickup if haven't done the reps, but it's a much lighter/brighter green than leaves. In the 'real world' you won't run into as much green background unless you're on a movie set.
One thing I probably would change - the 2 MOA dot, to my eyes, is a bit too small for a CCW, at least on my 365XL. If I were making Eli Dicken shots at 40+ yards I could maybe see it; for accuracy shots it rocks but is a little trickier to find. The circle helps but as others said it's kind of unnecessary on pistols.
I’m the complete opposite, I prefer the simple reticle of the single dot. And those advertised reticle sizes of 2moa, 3.5moa…they are only those sizes at very low brightness settings. As soon as you start turning the brightness up which you usually have to have it up at least above halfway in the brightness settings for it to be usable in all ambient environmental settings that 1moa or 2moa reticle no longer appears that size, they usually bloom some and appear bigger. I also don’t really have the issue of needing to fish around looking for the dot, practice and lots of reps should alleviate that though. A proper presentation will always have the reticle inside the window, it doesn’t just wander around like crazy so as long as people put in the practice and do their part, they should be able to find the reticle pretty easy.
seezur
.40 S&W
I have a decently bad astigmatism, shitty eyesight, green colorblind, and see different hues in each eye.
With all that, I find the green stands out much more to me and doesn’t starburst as much as a red dot. The red colors are so distorted I can’t use the dot at all unless it’s on the lowest setting. I also find that Holosuns specifically are easier for me to use.
Unfortunately green dots are also always more expensive.
You're a mess bro. Sounds like Stevie Wonder could shoot better than you.
seezur
.40 S&W
He’s probably the ONLY one I could outshoot.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I have a bad astigmatism as well and the red dot from Holosun works well for me. I have seen my GIL osprey and monster red dot and I can’t use them.
Xae289
.223 Rem
My newest experiment with a red dot on a revolver. A cheap Bushnell TRS-25 mounted to my 7.5" Ruger SBH via a Weigatinny No Drill scope mount.
I fired 36 rounds of hot .44 Special rounds (280gr RNFP-GC @1065 fps) to zero the dot and make sure everything held tight. Everything looked good, so I went ahead and fired and 12 rounds of full-house .44 Magnums (300gr XTP @ 1230 fps). I was pleasantly surprised to find that the .44 Special's zero at 15 yards translates to a 25 yard zero with Magnums.
Definitely a big improvement over iron sights for me shooting off-hand at 25 yards. It really made a huge difference in my vertical stringing, though it also tightened up my horizontal dispersion.
For comparison, this is what a typical 12-shot target looks like for me using irons. Again at 25 yards, off-hand.
I fired 36 rounds of hot .44 Special rounds (280gr RNFP-GC @1065 fps) to zero the dot and make sure everything held tight. Everything looked good, so I went ahead and fired and 12 rounds of full-house .44 Magnums (300gr XTP @ 1230 fps). I was pleasantly surprised to find that the .44 Special's zero at 15 yards translates to a 25 yard zero with Magnums.
Definitely a big improvement over iron sights for me shooting off-hand at 25 yards. It really made a huge difference in my vertical stringing, though it also tightened up my horizontal dispersion.
For comparison, this is what a typical 12-shot target looks like for me using irons. Again at 25 yards, off-hand.
S&W Fan
.475 A&M Magnum
Nice ! I’ve had a Burris FF3 on my 5” S&W 29-5 for a couple of years now and I love it . It’s accurate as all get out.
Shoots100
.44 mag
I'm curious to know what you guys who have had your slides modified with a RMR cut paid to have that done. And the lead time?
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I see $250-$300 for most guns and between 1-3 month lead time. I’ve never actually done it and I haven’t looked recently. Glocks seem to be cheaper.
All depends on the companies lead times at the time of order. But I’d be weary to pick a company just because one has a shorter lead time. A lot of people do that because they’re impatient and then they end up dealing with a. Company who doesn’t communicate well, provide less than satisfactory works, or screw it up altogether. Stick with reputable companies to make sure you get a quality milling job. It can be around 2-3 weeks on the lower end, to 6-8 weeks on the higher end usually. Especially since you should always choose to have the slide re-coated after milling so you don’t leave exposed bare metal.
Wondering what those guys are using to do the work. A GG3? As I understand it, there is readily available software and programming already out there to perform that work.
All optics have specs that they input into the computer program to mill out the slides. Most companies are running computer based milling machines for it but there are some that mill by hand. But it’s not all the exact same for all. The milling changes based not just by brand of slide but also the model as well. If by GG3 you mean a Ghost Gunner 3, no reputable company is really running a GG3. Those are mainly used to finish 80% frames. Most companies are running extremely expensive CNC machines from companies like Haas. Some companies will even make the tolerances as tight as possible where if you send them your slide and actual optic, they will measure everything perfectly and have that exact optic milled to the slide.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
The slide I have already was cut for RMR. Then it's just a matter of finding an optic with an RMR footprint. Or... you'll have to get some kind of plate that goes from the optic's footprint to the cut on the slide.
Get your wallet out.
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
Hey Bestie. Can you loan me a couple bucks for one?
Oh look I have a trolling friend.
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
i like my 507c, its good for a poverty model. How do you like yours?
Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
And how do you like that Sean?