SIG Sauer Academy

Norwich University Study On Trijicon RMR Vs Pistol Iron Sights

Norwich University Pistol Study

Click to view .pdf
James E. Ryan and Robin Adler of the Department of Justice Studies and Sociology at Norwich University ran a comparative pistol project with the purpose of examining the effectiveness of traditional pistol iron sights versus Trijicon’s RMR red dot optic sight. The study, which consisted of 27 students split into two roughly equal groups, shows that the group who used pistols (Glock 19s for the purpose of the study) equipped with the RMR showed statistically superior “hits on paper” and accuracy when compared to the traditional iron sight group. The full study can be read in .pdf form by clicking the image above.

Tags:

13 Responses to “Norwich University Study On Trijicon RMR Vs Pistol Iron Sights”

  1. Invictus says:

    Where, I ask you, were professors like this when I was in college… Awesome!@#%

    • Nick says:

      Just a heads up, Norwich is the oldest private military college, so it’s not quite like UC Berkeley doing this research.

      • straps says:

        UC Berkeley got its reputation as a liberal bulwark because it was co-located with a counterculture stronghold composed partially of former students (not graduates–dropouts).

        Ernest Orlando Lawrence (of the Lawrence Laboratories–namesake of a major weapons research facility still doing major research) and a slightly more famous guy named Oppenheimer were two Berkeley faculty notable for research on weapons significantly larger than Glocks.

        On UC Berkeley’s CURRENT faculty is John Yoo, a controversial figure in our justification for the indefinite detention of AQ, Taliban and Haqqani operatives.

        UC Berkeley is a diverse institution.

        Nonetheless, it’s nice to see ANYONE doing academic research on the a major advancement in individual weapons.

        • z0phi3l says:

          Berkley is “diverse” withing the limited definition used by Liberals, which in all reality is not very, it’s not the research but the mindset of those doing the research, and they are all mainly tainted by modern Marxism, or what we currently call Liberals/Progressives in the US

  2. BP says:

    Optics are more accurate than irons? You don’t say! Haha. Wow.

  3. john says:

    Now if they can only make an optic that costs less then the gun like Burris has.

  4. Ken says:

    Not exactly news. Maybe back in 2011 when it was published.

  5. Rosco45 says:

    The study would seem to validate the notion that it is easier to train up raw recruits with red-dot optics. This is most likely due to them not having to align the iron sights and the fact that the red-dot allows them to focus on the target rather than ingraining a front sight focus.

    Many experienced pistol shooter have worked with RMR sighted pistols and report that the red-dot is helpful for distant and moving targets, but that it is slower on close-in targets. Given that the pistol is used mostly for stopping close-in unexpected attacks, this would seem to be a bad trade-off. We need to balance the D and C of DVC.

    • jbgleason says:

      I did a similar evaluation to this one utilizing very experienced MIL personnel and we found no difference on the up close rapid engagements. Fact is that those types of shooters are using a rough (flash) type sight picture up close anyway and relying on muscle memory. My belief is that everyone will have some sort of RDS on their pistol in 10 years. This is just like when the AimPoint first came out for the rifle.

    • straps says:

      Close-in target is FRONT SITE PRESS.

      As you say, RDS shines against movers.

      Where RDS REALLY shines is the higher level of general SA that comes from target-focused shooting–and awareness of bystanders sprinting into your field of fire.

      It’s all training (ammo and hours off the street), an expense viewed suspiciously by officials who think conflict-resolution training is what that cop at the bottom of that landing needs at 2 AM on a Sunday morning.

      For what an agency near me is going to be paying out to bystanders shot by its officers in just TWO incidents, they could buy milled slides and sights for every current officer–with a holster–and enough on the shelf for its next couple academies and inevitable dead units.

  6. jp says:

    Norwich Forever!

    G Co. ’96

  7. NOLA says:

    But look at the intentional cross section of shooters. They specifically excluded the shooters with pistol experience. This is just covering what a novice/basic shooter could pick up with little training.

    I literally went up against a guy, at the end of a three day shooting package, for the final top shooter. He was very fast but inaccurate, I was the opposite and we balanced each other out. At the final stage he comes back with his self described “daily carry” gun, which was a G19 appendix carry with an RMR (He tried to stack the deck putting away his stock iron sight pistol)…Wanna guess who lost even with his space gun.

    This eval does nothing for the intermediate or expert shooter with no electronics. (Which as we know, fail when you most need them).