Yeager is right when he talks about big dot front sights.

I'm gonna touch on a subject that many will disagree with me on.

That's ok.  Let's talk and see what happens.

My contention is this.  The close in fight is being bastardized by 3 gun matches.  Instead of studying and learning from history, doing legit lessons learned from those that have survived those encounters we're instead following gear trends/cool boy fashion and equipping our pistols for a fight that they shouldn't be used in.

And this applies to civilian defensive carry users and the military.  Police are operating off a totally different set of principles here.

But back to the subject.  What's the hottest trend with pistols today?

Holographic sights on your pistol.

But that's designed for the wrong fight.  That's a setup for 10 to 50 yards.  Its not a setup for the ranges that most gunfights occur at....3 to 7 feet.

For that fight James Yeager is right.  A big dot front sight is best.  Forget the 3 dot alignment just concentrate on front sight and put the attacker down.  But how did we get to the point of using holographic sights on our pistols?

Is a Marine going to purposely clear a house with his pistol?  Unless he's an MP in one of the Law Enforcement Battalions probably not.  So when will the pistol come into its own?  As his weapon of last resort engaging enemies at close range.  If you're caught in a bad situation with the enemy closing in would you waste rounds unless you knew they were hits?

Same with a civilian.  The situation is similar but different.  How are you going to justify feeling like your life is in danger with the crimminal over 25 feet away?  You probably can't  ( there might be a circumstance where you can but more than likely not) and that makes the holographic sight movement a false one.

Give Yeager credit.  On this one he's as right as rain.