Sage Dynamics RDS
Sage Dynamics RDS
Aaron Cowan
Foreword 3
Intent 4
Summary 5
Technology 6
Construction and Features 6
Equipment Implementation 9
External Mounts 9
Milled Slide 10
OEM Milled Slides 11
Modular Milled 12
Duty Holsters 14
Optic Care 15
Optic Durability 16
Evaluated MRDS 16
This document marks the culmination over 5 years of research, testing, field use and evaluation of
miniaturized red dot sight (MRDS) for duty purposes. The original hypothesis was; that a MRDS is not
only more efficient than traditional iron sights for the duty handgun, but that the MRDS would provide
distinct advantages not possible with proper iron sight use.
Specifically, MRDS would allow a shorter learning period to proper accuracy for mandated firearms
training and qualification, and allow officers to maintain proficiency easier due to the less complex
optical methods used to properly aim with the MRDS.
Additionally, the MRDS allows the officer to maintain a constant focus on the target, which can
significantly improve threat awareness, help mitigate mistake of fact shootings and aid in more precise
round placement over traditional iron sights.
This document is available publicly and may be used for justification, policy and/or research purposes,
so long as it is cited in its entirety without modification or editing and credit is given to the original
author.
Cited documents are property of their respective authors and sources.
The critical nature of accuracy is a well-studied and often criticized aspect of law enforcement. The
general standards for officer accuracy have traditionally been driven by policy, mandated qualifications
that provide official records of an individual’s ability to meet an administrative standard.
This administrative standard, while important, only speaks to a criterion for record and may not
accurately measure an officer’s accurate skill during a use of force situation.
The core purpose of an officer’s accuracy is to defend life. Society has trusted our officers with the
ability to use force and they are expected to be good at it. It falls on a department to give their training
cadre, range instructors and individual officers all the tools they need to meet and exceed this trust.
To meet this mandate, departments must be prepared to embrace new technology, properly vetted, and
evaluate its necessity for their officers. If a new methodology or technology can improve officer
effectiveness and aid in reducing mistake-of-fact use of force, then it is imperative that it be made
available to officers.
This document was created to give administrators, range masters and officers the information they need
to make an informed decision on the testing and implementation of MRDS equipped duty handguns.
This document lays out the understanding and advantages for adoption of miniaturized red dot optics for
law enforcement duty handguns. Establishing that human psychophysiology is not best served with
traditional iron sight method of aiming, the red dot is a superior method of aiming due to the correct
nature of use in which the officer can remain threat focused instead of having to complete multiple focal
point changes before force can be used.
Furthermore, the adoption of red dot optics can go far to preventing mistake of fact shootings under the
same advantage; the officer maintains a constant focus on the threat, proving focused information on the
threat up to and throughout a use of force. In this method, an officer will better be able to detect any
change in the threats actions or inactions that may be missed with traditional iron sight use, therefore
giving a distinct advantage in this area as well.
Specific studies on red dot use in live fire and force on force, showing clear advantages in accuracy and
consistency are presented, with in-depth analysis of conditions that allow the red dot optic to succeed so
well over traditional sighting systems.
Law enforcement liability, and how the red dot optic can greatly aid a department in reducing potential
liability in officer involved shootings is explored, pointing to how red dots can better address existing
Supreme Court decisions that drive training policies.
Also advantageous under reduced lighting conditions, the red dot is shown to excel over traditional iron
sight methods, aiding an officer to provide more accuracy despite conditions that usually reduce officer
accuracy.
Misunderstandings with red dot reliability are addressed and expelled or mitigated with information on
training for the potential failures that do exist.
This white paper is not exhaustive; however, it addresses every foreseen aspect of red dot adoption or
permission for law enforcement duty handguns known at this time. It is clearly shown that the
advantages of red dot optics greatly outweigh the negatives and though a relatively innovative
technology when compared to traditional iron sights, the red dot can and will greatly reduce the low
averages of law enforcement accuracy in uses of force.
Early in 2013, Sage Dynamics began multiple studies and evaluations regarding Miniaturized Red Dot
Sights (MDRS) for handguns. The red dot optic has already been established as a preferred and
advantageous method of aiming for rifles in the military, law enforcement and self-defense world,
however the technology as applied to handguns in 2013 was relatively new on a wide scale and viewed
with justified caution.
The technology behind the MRDS is not unlike that found in rifle specific red dot optics; a light emitting
diode projects through collimating optics to give the shooter a red dot point of aim. The technology
used in red dots for small arms goes back as far as the late Vietnam War for functional use in military
operations1 , and over the decades since its introduction has become the preferred method of deliberate
aiming, especially in close quarter shooting. With continual improvements in materials and circuitry,
red dot sights such as those made by Aimpoint and Trijicon (among others) have incredible battery life
and robust durability.
The miniaturized red dot optic is newer, relatively speaking, however the established lineage of using a
red dot optic on a handgun has a long history of its own. First used in competition shooting in the late
1970’s2 and early 1980’s with optics from Aimpoint and later C More systems, red dots on handguns
saw increasing popularity in IPSC and USPSA. As with many things, the technology being used in
competitions began to drift into self-defense shooting, though it was not until pistol optics became truly
miniaturized that they could be added to a handgun without need for complicated holsters or extensive
modification to handguns.
Currently there are dozens of MRDS options on the market and their quality varies greatly from brand to
brand. This paper specifically sites the use of the Trijicon Ruggedized Miniature Reflex. Since its
brand introduction in 2007, the RMR has established itself as the most consistently reliable MRDS
available. During the research period, multiple options were explored for reliability and technological
advantage and each time the Trijicon RMR remained the best choice.
In 2017 Trijicon introduced the Type 2 RMR, offering further reliability improvements with pistol use
specifically in mind. Reliability will be addressed in depth later on.
Specific features discussed hereafter, unless noted otherwise, address those offered by the RMR MRDS.
1
The Raid, Benjamin F. Schemmer, Avon Books (1986)
2
Jerry Barnhart used an Aimpoint Electronic in IPSC competition, circa 1970s. A History of Pistol Mounted Red Dots, Guns
and Ammo Online, Patrick Sweeny (2016)
Operating System:
• Battery powered LED
The battery powered LED is a non-user adjustable LED that automatically adjusts to ambient
lighting conditions via a photoreceptor. This method of operation is the earliest technology for
the MRDS. Red is the common POA color.
• Dual Illumination
Dual illumination uses tritium and fiber optics to project a point of aim; under day light or
photopic artificial light, fiber optics is the primary source of POA. In low light, the POA is
projected via channeled tritium. Amber and green are the offered POA colors.
Reticle:
• Minute of Angle (MOA) dot
By far the most prevalent reticle option, MRDS dots are projected in 1 MOA, 3.25 MOA and 6.5
MOA in size for both LED and Adjustable LED models. MOA dot sizes for Dual Illumination
are 7 MOA, 9 MOA and 13 MOA.
• Triangle or Delta
The triangle point of aim is an equilateral triangle in 12.9 MOA
Power Source:
• Battery
Both LED and Adjustable LED are powered by 2032 Lithium / Manganese Dioxide “Coin”
batteries producing 3 volts. The 2032 battery is very common and offered from multiple battery
companies.
• Dual illumination
Fiber optics and Tritium work in concert to project the reticle; this eliminates the need for a
battery.
Lens Material:
• Tempered glass
Lens glass is both tempered and coated to prevent reflection.
Adjustment:
• Recessed slot screw MOA
Elevation and windage are slot screw adjustable, 1 click per 1 MOA for 150 MOA of total travel
The RMR’s relative small size allows for addition to common duty guns, either through attachment to
third party mounts or by adding a milled slot for the RMR body to sit deeper in the frame. The short
length of the RMR allows the retention of iron sights as a backup sighting system if the optic fails.
Cost advantages of using a third-party mount such as the ALG Six Second Mount, Raven Concealment
Baylor or Dueck Defense RBU vary, though they allow a department to mount an MRDS without the
need for permanent modification. Duty gear must also be addressed, specifically holsters.
External Mounts
The ALG Six Second Mount has the advantage of allowing the
optic to not recoil with the slide, however use precludes the
option for back up irons and limits duty holster options. The Six
Second mount is also specific to Glock.
The Raven Concealment Balor attaches via the rear sight dovetail,
securing the MRDS to the body of the Balor. Back up irons are built
into the Balor, though sight radius is severely reduced and iron sight
choices limited. Duty holster options are limited.
Milled Slide
The best option for duty employment of an MRDS is a milled slide. Slide material is machined via a
CNC in order to provide a recessed mounting shoe for the optic body. This option places the optic
closer to the traditional height profile officers are used to with iron sights, and allows the use of back up
irons; however back up irons must be of suppressor height to clear the optic body. In this configuration,
the officer can use either the MRDS reticle or traditional sight alignment/picture to aim based on
situation and needs.
Milled optic shoe
Recoil lugs/mounting
Back up iron
bosses
sight dovetail
Milling requires a department to provide a third-party shop with duty gun slides, or purchase completed
slides from third party machine shops. Due to the growing popularity of MRDS handguns in the market,
there are numerous aftermarket options for quality slide work, many have already provided MRDS
milling work for LE agencies.
Milled slides also allow duty guns to be used with purpose designed holsters for MRDS handguns from
established duty holster makers such as Safariland.
Modular Milled
A modular milled slide is an after-market option that presents the same advantages of an OEM optics
platform, often with a more aggressive approach to optics mounting. Modular milled slides are not
married to one specific optic as with a milled footprint, and often provide a greater degree of durability
and footprint over current OEM offerings. Two Modular Milled options are recommended:
Because holster options for MRDS handguns exist, and those options are provided with similar or the
same retention mechanisms that many departments already use, retraining an officer for their duty
holster is not an issue if the department chooses to pursue a system that allows the use of holsters such
as Safariland RDS models. This is further reason on duty weapon selection that the milled slide is
strongly suggested to minimize potential complication with new equipment or forcing a department to
source holster options from an unknown quality manufacturer.
During the four-year evaluation period, multiple holsters were tested or observed during courses.
Safariland’s 6354 DO presented the most reliable and least prone to failure, snagging or complications
than other holsters. Safariland’s new RDS line of holsters presents with the same quality, however has
only been in use for less than six months at the time of this paper so an in-depth opinion wouldn’t be
prudent.
Optic Care
By adding an optic to the duty handgun, the department and individual officer must accept additional
maintenance and care concerns. The MRDS that a department considers should allow for the easiest
methods of preventative maintenance at the officer level, and servicing at the armorers or range master
level. General care for the optic lens can be performed with a simple micro fiber cloth or q-tip, and lens
coating with Rain-X or an anti-fog additive is advised. Even though fogging is not an extreme concern,
in some regions its more possible and can easily be prevented with proper lens coating.
Battery life varies from optic to optic. The preferred optic for this paper, the Trijicon RMR, has a
battery life of 2-5 years depending on use. It is advisable to replace batteries annually, as the incurred
battery cost is minimal and the prevention of battery failure is greatly increased. It is recommended that
battery replacement occur during annual qualification.
Like any piece of duty gear, an MRDS must be able to handle the rigors of law enforcement duty; from
the environmental to the incidental, the optic must be as durable as possible to minimize the chances for
failure. Historically, law enforcement has been hesitant to adopt new technologies or new ways of
thinking regarding training methodologies around those same technologies. In 2017, it is still common
to see officers issued patrol rifles without optics, and sometimes without weapon mounted lights, slings
or additional ammunition besides what is carried in the firearm. The amount of quality (and often peer
reviewed) information regarding reliability and importance of patrol rifle optics or weapon lights is vast
and constantly updated with additional information, or refined training methodologies. Much of this
training and research takes place outside of individual departments, which means it falls on the
responsible department individuals to seek out these sources of information to prevent negative
institutional inertia. It is also important that training cadre seek out and work with department officers
who may already be subject matter experts on specific equipment or concepts and principles for
employment of said equipment.
Throughout the evaluation period, one of the most common concerns from officers trained was; optic
durability. Like the initial controversy surrounding rifle RDS, the mounting of an MRDS on a duty
handgun was, and is, treated by some as an unacceptable failure point that could lead to an officer losing
the ability to aim their firearm when it is needed most. Concerns of reliability are not only proper, but
should be continual, so long as they are in context to actual knowledge of potential failure points of
MRDS.
Because multiple MRDS were evaluated during the testing period, and some of these MRDS brands did
in fact fail, this section is intended to help guide departments away from poor quality options that might
otherwise be appealing because of their relative low cost when compared to other optics.
This information is not complete, as testing will continue and it is difficult to pool a large sample size of
each brand for concurrent testing without independent funding. As this white paper is intended to be as
independent as possible, no outside funding was sought.
Evaluated MRDS
Detailed below are the models and specific data of MRDS evaluated during the four-year period.
Evaluation criteria was realistic use requiring the optic to pass a number of specific, periodic tests as
well as continue to function under normal use.
Specific testing:
• Drop testing
Optic dropped while mounted to handgun, optic directed towards deck for drop, from shoulder
height. Drop test performed every 500 rounds beginning at 0 rounds.
• Environmental testing
Optic frozen at 30-28F for 24 hours, heated at 150F for 24 hours. Optic submerged in 12” of
ambient temperature water for one hour. Environmental testing performed every 500 rounds
beginning at 0 rounds.
• Round count
General target ammunition of 115 and 124 grain 9mm for 500 rounds, with 100 rounds of duty
ammunition 124 gr +P, repeating until failure or end of evaluation.
Make, Model and Platform Testing Period Round Count Cause of Failure
Burris Fastfire II 4 MOA dot, Feb 2013-Feb 2013 200 Loss of zero during fire,
Dovetail mount on Glock 17 adjustments failure. Not
user serviceable.
Burris Fastfire II 4 MOA dot, March 2013-June 1000 Electronics. Optic died
Dovetail mount on Glock 17 2013 during second drop test. Not
user serviceable.
Burris Fastfire III 3 MOA dot, September 2017- 500 Loss of optic glass on first
Mounted on Glock 17 MOS September 2017 drop test. Not user
serviceable.
JP Enterprises J-Point 4 MOA Feb 2013-June 2013 325 (est) Loss of zero during fire,
dot, Dovetail mount on Glock adjustments failure. Not
19 user serviceable.
JP Enterprises J-Point 4 MOA July 2013-January 3,000 Loss of zero during drop
dot, Dovetail mount on Glock 2014 test, adjustments failure.
19 Not user serviceable.
Trijicon RMR RM01 3.5 April 2013-October 1,800 (est) Electronic failure during
MOA dot, milled mount on 2013 fire, optic died. Not user
Glock 17 serviceable.
Trijicon RMR RM01 3.5 November 2013- 9,450 No failures
MOA dot, milled mount on
Glock 17
Trijicon RMR RM07 6.5 December 2014- 14,200 No Failures
MOA dot, Milled mount on
Glock 17
Insight MRDS 3.5 MOA Dot, March 2014- 2,176 Battery connections broken
Dovetail mount Glock 17 December 2014 during fire. Not user
serviceable.
While testing continues on functional MRDS, the two manufacturers that continue to provide reliable
service are the Leupold Delta Point and the Trijicon RMR.
3
Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik (Handbook of Physiological Optics), Hermann von Helmholtz (1851) Translated by
James P. C. Southall, Optical Society of America (1924)
4
The Wisdom of the Body (1932), Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage Dr. Walter Cannon (1915)
5
Health Psychology 2nd Canadian Edition Taylor, Shelley, and Sirois, Fuschia. (2012)
6
Putting Stress in Life: Hans Selye and the Making of Stress Theory. Social Studies of Science. R. Viner (1999)
7
The Autonomic Nervous System, Dr. John Langley (1921)
8
The Central Nervous System: Structure and Function, Per Brodal (2004)
Digestive tract:
Skeletal muscle: blood
Inhibits
Tumescence vessel dilation
Many complex, and simple bodily actions take place in a very short period of time once the senses have
processed a threat stimulus. The nature and the quality of information an officer receives largely will
determine the intensity of the SNS response. As a complex topic, we are focusing strictly on the human
eye and the SNS and mental processes that directly effect it in relation to an officer’s ability to see and
more importantly, process what is being seen. Before we look at the eye, which is the main focus of this
section, it is important to talk first about how the brain’s processing under stress effects eye performance
and processing of information.
An officers primary source of information for the use of force comes from the eye. Input from other
senses, such as hearing, may aid in the decision to use force, but without quality input from the eye,
judgement, justification and accuracy can be severely hindered or prevented in totality.
When a stimulus is detected by the senses, one of two general processes will occur, and which process is
largely determined by the proximity of the stimulus, and how long the stimulus was observed before it
was recognized as a threat.
If the recognition of the stimulus is sudden, a startle reaction, or Somatic Reflex can occur. Startle
Reaction is a refectory reaction that does not require conscious thought and can occur in as little as 50
9
Amygdala and Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activation During Affective Startle Modulation: a PET Study of Fear, Anna
Pissiota (2003)
10
Differential Contribution of Amygdala and Hippocampus to Cued and Contextual Fear Conditioning, R. Phillips (1992)
The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic, Doug Holt (2008) The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Anxiety, Michael
Davis (1992)
11
Boo! Culture, Experience, and the Startle Reflex, Ronald Simmons (1996)
12
The Emotional Brain Joseph LeDoux (1996)
13
Accommodation-dependent model of the human eye with aspherics, R. Navarro, J. Santamaria and J. Bescos (1985), The
eye in focus: accommodation and presbyopia, Dr. W Neil (1998)
14
Eye movements and perception: A selective review, Alexander C. Schütz, Doris I. Braun, Karl R. Gegenfurtner, Journal of
Vision (2011)
The Ciliary muscles are a ring of muscles that surround the lens of the eye. They contract or relax to
change the shape (thickness) of the lens to alter desired focal distances, this is Accommodation.
Under stress, the Ciliary muscles are directly affected
by adrenaline, which takes time to reach them, however
the SNS effects can be instantaneous16, they contract,
which thickens the lens for distant focus, literally
eliminating the possibility for near focus under these
conditions, they affect normally voluntary systems, in
this case, focal point17.
The involuntary loss of control over the Ciliary muscles
when we react to a threat is programmed into our “fight
or flight” response. Our field of vision is increased to
its maximum, the pupil dilates to allow in the maximum
amount of light and allow us to best see our threat.
Speaking in historical terms, we have been fighting
with our hands and hand weapons much longer than
firearms.
15
Interplay of Amygdala and Cingulate Plasticity in Emotional Fear, Neural Plasticity
Volume 2011 (2011)
16
Formation of the aqueous humor, Dr. Janet Fitzakerley, University of Minnesota Medical School (2014) Adler’s
Physiology of the Eye: Expert Consult 11th edition, Leonard A Levin, Siv F. E. Nilsson, James Ver Hoeve, Samuel Wu, Paul
L. Kaufman, Albert Alm (2011)
17
Autonomic Nervous System, Flinders University, Australia Dr. Bill Blessing, Dr. Ian Gibbins (2011), The Integrative
Action of the Autonomic Nervous System: Neurobiology of Homeostasis, Dr. W.W. Jänig, Cambridge University (2006)
18
World Health Organization. Work with visual display terminals: Psychosocial aspects and health. J Occup Med (1989)
Situational Awareness Matters Dr. Rich Gasaway
19
Effects of a single dose of cortisol on the neural correlates of eipisodic memory and error processing in healthy volunteers.
Psychopharmacology ,FC Hsu, MJ Garside, AE Massey, RH McAlister-Williams (2003)
20
Tunnel Vision, Its Causes, Treatments and Strategies, Edward C. Godnig, O.D. (2003)
Were you able to acquire a gross or fine sight picture under a spontaneous threat?
• No: 90%
• I don’t remember: 9%
• Yes: 1%
Sights used:
• OEM Beretta
• OEM Glock
• Glock Night Sights
• Truglo TFO
• XS Big dot
• Trijicon NS
• Trijicon HD
• Dawson Precision (fiber optic front)
21
Amodal Completion,Perception and Visual Imagery, Clotilde Calabi, Interpolation and extrapolation in human behavior
and neural networks, J Cogn Neurosci. (2004)
22
Heuristics, servants to intuition, in clinical decision making, Jane Cioffi (1997)
23
Use of heuristics: Insights from forecasting research. Thinking & Reasoning N. Harvey (2006), Heuristics: Tools for an
uncertain world". Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Hansjörg Neth (2015)
24
How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond "Heuristics and Biases" Gerd Gigerenzer (1991)
25
Officer-Involved Shootings: What We Didn’t Know Has Hurt Us, Thomas J. Aveni, M.S. (2003)
26
Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process, Bernard D.
Rostker, Lawrence M. Hanser, William M. Hix, Carl Jensen, Andrew R. Morral, Greg Ridgeway, Terry L. Schell, RAND
(2006)
27
The real risks during deadly police shootouts: Accuracy of the naive shooter, Force Science, William J Lewinski (2015)
28
Human Factors, Night Vision, Dr. Marc Green
29
Psychology of Touch and Blindness, Heller, Morton A.; Edouard Gentaz (2013)
30
Vision under mesopic and scotopic illumination, Frontiers in Psychology, Andrew J. Zele1, Dingcai Cao (2015)
31
Handgun shooting accuracy in low light conditions: The impact of night sights, Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 24 Issue: 4
32
Officer-Involved Shootings: What We Didn’t Know Has Hurt Us, Thomas J. Aveni, M.S. (2003)
33
Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany, Nature 385, 807 – 810, Harthut Thieme, (1995)
34
Stone Age Kalashnikov, New Scientist, Kurt Kleiner (1999)
35
Inter-group violence among early Holocene hunter-gatherers of West Turkana, Kenya, Nature 529, Lahr, M. Mirazón;
Rivera, F.; Power, R. K.; Mounier, A.; Copsey, B.; Crivellaro, F.; Edung, J. E.; Fernandez, J. M. Maillo; Kiarie, C (2016)
36
Transfer of Islamic Technology to the West, Part III Technology Transfer in the Chemical Industries; Transmission of
Practical Chemistry, Ahmad Yousef al-Hassan
37
Gunsight, Encyclopædia Britannica, The Janissaries, David Nicolle (1995)
Further, In Zuchel v. City and County of Denver42, the court again addressed training programs
considering the facts of the case and Popow V. City of Margate. In Zuchel, the Denver Police
Department responded to a disturbance call at a fast‐food restaurant. When they arrived, officers were
38
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris :: 489 U.S. 378 (1989)
39
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
40
Popham v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561, 1564-65 (11th Cir. 1990), Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir.
1994)
41
Popow v. City of Margate [476 F.Supp. 1237 D.N.J., 1979]
42
Zuchel v. City and County of Denver, 997 F.2d 730 C.A.10 (Colo.), 1993
Other cases, such as Brown V Gray44 , Tuttle V Oklahoma45 and Markham V White46 have identified an
agencies requirement to insure officers have proper training to adhere to policy, and that the policy be
lawful in regard to training.
Law enforcement training has come a long way from its organized beginnings. In the past 20 years, it
has arguably advanced more than it did in the 100 years before that, but it still has far to go. Range
design limitations, budgetary shortfalls, manpower issues and institutional inertia can all play a small or
total part in making training as quality or as legally minimal as possible.
One continued resistance to technology is that it may, in some way, increase a department’s liability, or
at the very least take longer to implement and train officers to proficiency, which in itself may increase
liability. The truth is, when properly implemented, MRDS can help greatly in a reduction of liability use
of force incidents, specifically in adverse use of force situations. More than that, MRDS can provide a
shorter training path to officer accuracy regardless of prior firearms experience prior to MRDS use.
43
Training to Fail: The Failure of Police Firearms Training For the Real World, Criminal Justice Institute School of law
Enforcement Supervision, Greg Stringer (2010)
44
Brown v. Gray [227 F.3d 1278, C.A.10 (Colo.), 2000]
45
Tuttle V Oklahoma [471 US 808 1985]
46
Markham v. White [172 F.3d 486 C.A.7 (Ill.), 1999]
As stated previously, it is already established that the red dot optic for rifle use is a preferred and more
effective method for aiming and target engagement than iron sights. The US Army standardized red dot
optics, the M68 CCO, for all service rifles just after September 11th, 200147, however they were already
widespread in Army infantry and more specialized combat units prior to that. An informational study
conducted by the 198th infantry brigade during rifle qualifications found a 66% increase in soldier
accuracy during qualifications once they had received initial training on their issued RDS48.
In a relatively short period of time, the modernization of military optics has occurred for the service
rifle. Given the general conservative nature of the Department of Defense to adopt new technologies
without thorough testing, this serves as an excellent example that the technological advancements in
optics are the future. Which is now.
47
Dual Path Strategy Series: Part III – Soldier Battlefield Effectiveness, Program Executive Office Soldier G5, Strategic
Communications Office (2011)
48
BRM/ARM Marksmanship, 198th IN BDE, Command Sgt. Maj. Richard Weik
49
COMPARATIVE PISTOL PROJECT FINAL REPORT, Norwich University, James Ryan, Robin Adler (2011)
“Hits on target by sight type and stage in percentages. In Stage 1-15 yard-slow fire- the group using iron
sights fired a total of 130 shots 97 of which hit the target for a hit percentage of 75 percent. Those using
the RMR fired a total of 140 shots 137 of which hit the target producing a hit percentage of 98 percent.
In Stage 2, 5 yard rapid engagement, the group using iron sights fired a total of 260 shots 248 of which
hit the target for a hit percentage of 95 percent. Those using the RMR fired a total of 280 shots and hit
the target 274 times for a hit rate of 99 percent.
In Stage 3- 10 yard rapid engagement-the group using iron sights fired 130 shots 105 of which hit the
target for a hit rate of 81 percent. Those using the RMR fired 140 shots 136 of which hit the target
producing a hit rate of 96 percent.
In Stage 4-10 yard rapid fire, multiple threats, data for each group was limited to 12 shooters. Some
subjects were confused regarding the changing sequence of aim points and shot at the wrong targets.
Data for these shooters were eliminated from the analysis. The group using iron sights fired a total of
132 shots hitting the target 110 times for a hit rate of 83 percent. The group using the RMR fired a total
of 144 shots and hit the target 138 times for a hit rate of 96 percent.”
“Figure 3 illustrates hits by sight type and zone in percentages for Stage 2 (5 yard, rapid engagement).
One hundred and forty-seven, or 59 percent of the 248 shots fired by the iron sight group that hit the
target struck the center mass. This compares with a 74 percent hit rate on the center mass or 204 shots of
the 274 hits by the RMR group. The hit rate in zone 2 was 27 percent and 23 percent for the iron sight
group and RMR group, respectively. Finally, 14 percent of the hits fired by the iron sight group hit the
outer area (zone 3) while only three percent of the RMR group’s hits landed in the same area.”
“Figure 5 illustrates hits by sight type and zone in percentages for Stage 4 (10 yard, rapid engagement,
multiple threats). The iron sight group hit the center mass, or zone 1 of the target twenty-seven percent
of the time. This percentage translates to 30 hits out of the total of 110 hits. Conversely the RMR group
hit the center mass 43 percent of the time hitting the center mass 59 times out of the 138 hits. Both
groups hit zone 2 with about equal accuracy. The iron sight group had 45 percent of its hits in zone 2
while the RMR group had 48 percent of its hits in the same region. Finally the iron sight group had 28
percent of its hits, or 30 out of 110, in zone 3 while the RMR group had 9 percent or 13 out of 138 hits.”
• Scenario B
Outdoor area, natural daytime lighting (photopic lighting). Three role players are positioned
around the student exit door (student exits from inside to outside). Two role players are
instructed to remain near the door and engage in a verbal argument. The third role player
(scenario threat) is instructed to approach the arguing couple as soon as the student exits and
brandish a firearm (simunitions FX handgun), threatening to kill one of the arguing role players.
Threat role player is instructed to not respond to verbal commands and if/when the student draws
their firearm, shoot one of the role players and then turn their weapon on the student. Threat role
player is instructed to go to the ground/surrender if they take two incapacitating hits, or a strike
to an area that may inadvertently remove their ability to otherwise attack (such as a hit to their
weapon hand) or a combination thereof.
• Scenario C
Indoor area, dim lighting (mesopic lighting) Two threat role players are positioned in opposing
corners of a center fed room (door in center of wall). One threat role player (threat 1) is facing
the door, the other (threat 2) is placed opposite the laterality of the student (EG; if a student is
left handed, the second threat role player is positioned in the right corner of the entry side of the
room). Threat 1 is instructed to remain stationary until the student has entered, at which time
they are to lift their shirt and display the butt of a firearm (simuntions FX firearm) while
demanding the student’s wallet. Threat 2 is directed to move between the student and the exit
door. Threat 2 is armed with a prop weapon (rubber knife). Threat 1 is instructed to advance on
student to receive wallet and only draw their firearm if the student draws theirs. Threat 2 is
instructed to only advance if student engages threat 1. Both threat role players are instructed to
go to the ground/surrender if they take one incapacitating hit, or a strike to an area that may
inadvertently remove their ability to otherwise attack (such as a hit to their weapon hand) or a
combination thereof.
• Scenario D
Four role players are positioned in a hallway in dim lighting (low mesopic lighting) one role
player is given a folding prop knife, the remaining three role players are unarmed. Upon student
entry to the hallway, all 4 role players are instructed to verbally assault and threaten the student
while crowding the student just outside of arms distance. The threat role player is instructed to
get in front of the student’s direction of travel and produce the folding knife with a threat to cut
the student while remining outside of arms distance. The role player is instructed to drop the
knife as soon as the student draws their firearm and verbally say “I give Up.” The other three
role players are instructed to flee when/if the student draws their firearm.
Critical zones are identified in red, detailing the anatomical locations where immediate or delayed
medical incapacitation is known to be most likely due to high concentrations of critical structures,
organs and tissues.
The following is a statistical analysis of MRDS performance.
140 134
120
97
100
80 67
64 62
60 50
43
37
40 29
20
2 2 1
0
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
262 rounds were fired over the course of the 4 scenarios, resulting in 192 hits and of those hits, 134 were
in critical regions of the body.
MRDS Scenario A
70
64
60
50
50
40 37
30
20 15
10
0
MRDS Scenario A
50
43
40
29
30
19
20
10
0
MRDS Scenario B
MRDS Scenario C
160
140 134
120
97
100
80 67
60
37
40
20
0
MRDS Scenario C
2 2
2
1.5
1
1
0.5
0
0
MRDS Scenario B
The 12 MRDS participating students were polled on their scenarios with the following questions at the
end of each scenario;
Did you focus on the threat?
Did you aim using the MRDS dot?
Did you have trouble finding the dot when presenting the firearm?
Scenario A:
11 of 12 students reported that they focused on the threat.
10 of 12 students reported that they aimed using the dot.
8 of 12 students reported that they had trouble finding the dot.
Scenario D:
12 of 12 students reported that they focused on the threat.
11 of 12 students reported that they aimed using the dot
1 of 12 students reported that they had trouble finding the dot
120
98
100
81
80
61
60
40
40 35
25
20 11 10
4 4 3
0
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
50
40 35
30 26
20
11
10
0
Iron Sights Scenario A
70
60
50
40 41
40
30
20
10
10
0
Iron Sights Scenario B
120
98
100
80
60 47
40
25
20
0
Iron Sights Scenario C
3.5
3
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
Iron Sights Scenario D
The 12 iron sight participating students were polled on their scenarios with the following questions at
the end of each scenario;
Did you focus on the threat?
Did you see your sights?
If no, were you able to find them?
Scenario A:
10 of 12 students reported that they focused on the threat
9 of 12 students reported that they did not see their sights.
Of the 9 students that did not see their sights, 6 indicated that they were able to aquire them eventually.
Scenario B:
8 of 12 students reported that they focused on the threat.
8 of 12 students reported that they did not see their sights.
Of the 8 students that did not see their sights, 1 indicated that they were able to aquire them eventually.
Scenario C:
11 of 12 students reported that they focused on the threats.
10 of 12 students reported that they did not see their sights.
Of the 10 students that did not see their sights, 6 reported that they were able to find them eventally.
Scenario D:
6 of 12 students reported that they focused on the threat.
6 of 12 students reported that they did not see their sights.
Of the 6 students that did not see their sights, 5 reported that they were able to find them eventually.
291
300
262
250
192
200 171
150 134
120
100
70
48
50
0
MRDS Iron Sights
In a direct comparison, there is not a great discrepancy in the number of rounds fired, nor in the number
of rounds that were hits, there is a large discrepancy that favors the MRDS in the number of critical hits.
It’s also worth noting that the number of rounds missed is nearly twice as high with iron sights.
Average years shooting Average years LE experience Average years Military experience
For visual representation, the approximate location of each hit on scenario threats was recorded for both
iron sights and MRDS. The collective hit locations are recorded here by method of aiming.
This study is small in sample, covering 24 total students and 4 scenarios per student, however the study
is ongoing and data will be published periodically. The data points to a significant trend towards the
MRDS being a superior method of aiming for accuracy in more realistic conditions than what has been
gathered previously with students working on paper. The Simunitions FX system is not a direct relation
of real-world performance, however it is an effective medium for gauging what real-world performance
can look like under SNS stress.
50
(reticle MOA/3600) X R + (reticle MOA/100) = reticle size at front sight where “R” is distance from front sight to RMR
reticle projection
• Draw
Economy of motion to minimize drag of the handgun against the holster, rotating muzzle to the
horizonal as soon as possible.
• Sight alignment
Front sight even in rear notch, level across the top.
• Sight picture
Front sight post bisecting or just below the desired point of impact (depending on specific
firearm factory zero and distance). Front sight clear and in focus, target will be slightly to
greatly blurry depending on distance.
• Trigger control
Consistent and even pressure through trigger travel until break, release for reset.
• Follow through
Consistent grip pressure through break of shot, establishment of additional sight picture for
preparation of additional rounds if required.
For firearms instructors at all levels, some of the fundamentals are observable; meaning an instructor can
watch the student and detect if they are not being applied correctly without ever looking at the target,
though rounds on target can and often do confirm their observations. Sight alignment, and sight picture
are two of the fundamentals that cannot be observed by the instructor because the instructor cannot see
through the student’s eyes. This difficulty also exists with the MRDS, however the application of point
of aim is simplified over traditional methods and instruction to entry level students made remarkably
easier because object/target focus is already well understood by anyone with traditional human vision.
They are instructed to shoot in a natural way.
The instruction for traditional sights must still take place, as they remain the backup in the event that the
officer’s MRDS fails. This will add additional instruction time to firearms programs at the academy
level and require officer introduction training to those already out of the academy, but the value gained
is worth this additional training requirement.
MRDS fundamentals are simplified, and this simplification leads to more accurate shooting with
constant in-focus data on the target. In an Officer Involved Shooting, this means constant information
throughout the engagement on the threat, never requiring the eyes to be removed from the threat so that
51
Target Interception: Hand–Eye Coordination and Strategies, Department of Kinesiology and Health, University of
Wisconsin (2007)
52
Surveillance and target acquisition systems, A. L. Rodgers (1983)
-Implementation
Once a department has decided to approve the use of MRDS for duty handguns, a program must be
created to transition from iron sights on officer handguns. It is the recommendation of Sage Dynamics
that a department not make MRDS duty carry mandatory for all officers. As officer time on duty and
time to retirement are always considerations, it will be more cost effective and less disruptive for
departments to make MRDS use optional for all currently sworn officers.
At the academy level, making MRDS use mandatory should be strongly considered. All prospective
employees attending a police academy should proceed through the entirety of the academy using an
MRDS handgun. By approaching the MRDS adoption in this way, senior officers who are nearing
retirement are not forced to adopt a technology they may not have the time or inclination to become
proficient with, whereas academy level officers will learn the MRDS at the inception level of LE
shooting, providing for a more organic adoption of the technology for duty. As mentioned before, it is
advisable to make at least two MOA dot sizes available to officers. For officers new to MRDS, a larger
dot can aid in foundational skill development. Smaller dots allow for a greater degree of relative
accuracy and are generally preferred by officers with MRDS handgun experience.
-Training Plan
At the academy level, MRDS instruction should replace fundamental iron sight instruction. The existing
firearms training frame work in most academies will support a direct curriculum replacement, provided
academy firearms staff have the prerequisite experience in teaching the specifics of MRDS handgun use.
With a direct replacement, officer accuracy will improve at a generally quicker rate than with iron
sights, and the time saved in repetition needed to develop skills with the red dot can be allocated towards
a block of instruction and course of fire for back up sight instruction. Overall, an efficient training plan
• General maintenance
Officers should be taught general optic-specific care in accordance with department SOPs on
individual officer’s servicing of equipment.
At the department level, a familiarization training plan should be implemented to ensure officers are
going on duty with the knowledge needed to use an MRDS equipped handgun if they did not receive
training on one in the academy. If adoption of the MRDS is mandatory for all officers, this training
program should include a consolidated block of instruction and a qualification (day and night).
Familiarization training should cover common expected law enforcement skills required for handgun
use. Not only will covering common skills allow department instructors to observe and ensure officer
understanding and ability, it will aid in building confidence with officers who may not be convinced that
the MRDS is superior to iron sights. Departments should make an adequate amount of ammunition
available for familiarization.
Ideally, familiarization will include classroom, live fire and force-on-force instruction.
• Classroom
➢ MRDS history
➢ MRDS advantages
➢ Department chosen optic operation and features
➢ Explanation of parallax
➢ Common optic malfunction causes and remedies
➢ Red dot/iron sight relationship
➢ Officer individual practice plan
• Force-on-Force
➢ Focus drills, target focus shooting
➢ Judgment scenarios (simple and complex)
➢ Low-light judgment scenarios (simple and complex)
-Qualification
For day and night time qualifications, there should be little change in the established strings of fire. The
MRDS will allow officers, with the proper training, to shoot more accurately, this should not be a reason
for making the existing qualifications more difficult. It is virtually unheard of for an officer’s sighting
system to be called into question in regards to department qualification procedures during a use of force
investigation. The MRDS qualification will provide a greater statistical demonstration, as well as real-
world ability, of officer accuracy. The technology that allows that accuracy is simply more effective
because it allows the officer to see and shoot in a more natural way, it is not the actual reason for
accuracy improvement.
Minimal changes should include at least one string of fire that requires the officer to use their back up
sights. Its also advisable for departments to include malfunction clearance stings of fire. These changes
can either borrow rounds from other strings or add a minimum of 6-10 rounds to cover added strings.
Making the case as thorough as possible for MRDS adoption is the entire goal of this paper. With
combined research related to iron sights and MRDS, as well as identifying and explaining the
psychophysiological aspects associated with aiming under stress. Since the MRDS may appear as a
relatively new technology in general and in LE specifically, identifying and addressing all concerned
issues to allow a department to make an informed decision is important given the lack of centralized
information.
The first adoption of MRDS for duty use in LE isn’t specifically known, however they have been in use
for a decade or more and continue to be adopted as progressive agencies strive to increase officer
accuracy and reduce possible mistake-of-fact uses of force.
Research into MRDS will continue; Sage Dynamics has indefinite research in progress for both live fire
and force on force, with results published periodically and this white paper will possibly jump start more
research at the department level to further establish the case for MRDS adoption.
Ultimately it is up to the individual department to adopt an evaluation regimen for possible adoption or
approval of MRDS on duty handguns. Sage Dynamics cannot direct the best methods for evaluation for
all departments, but a solid standing point is the established department qualification. As the
qualification is the legal standard for an officer’s defensibility in many cases in an officer involved
shooting. Allowing department firearms cadre and administration see direct results of improved
accuracy with participating officers. Selecting test participants based on consistently high and
consistently marginal scores would establish a strong baseline for a proof of concept at the department
level.
Departments must be prepared for the full adoption of MRDS systems, this means maintaining
replacement optics on hand and having complete MRDS guns available for duty gun replacement in the
event of an officer involved shooting. This increases equipment costs, however it should be clear at this
point in the paper that the adoption of MRDS duty guns will save departments money in other areas.
In closing, the validation for MRDS as an increase in officer effectiveness has been well established by
this white paper and will assist in adoption of MRDS on duty handguns, it is now up to law enforcement
to further their never-ending efforts to increase officer efficacy.
Below is a list of points of contact for agencies already using MRDS duty guns in full, part, or optional
to the officer. This list is not total.