Force Protection’s Last Resort: Evaluating the Browning Hi-Power Mk III for the Australian Army of Tomorrow

Abstract

Handguns are increasingly being recognised as a vital piece of equipment for the protection of deployed soldiers. With the correct holster, a handgun can be brought into action faster than the F88 and M4 rifles can be reloaded. Handguns thus play a critical back-up role in the event of catastrophic failure of the primary weapon.

Indeed, in some circumstances, it makes sense for the handgun to supersede the rifle as the primary weapon. This article provides a detailed analysis of the current handgun, the Browning Hi-Power, and assesses whether it meets the force protection needs of the Australian Army in the current and emerging combat environment. This analysis extends to a comparison with competing designs that feature higher capacity magazines, polymer frames, striker-fired actions and under-barrel accessory rails. The final section discusses the results of an empirical study, which rates the performance of the Browning against more modern handguns. The results are compelling and signal that replacing the Browning is an operational and ethical imperative.

---

Introduction

John Moses Browning (1855–1926) was a weapons design genius. He was also a man of his time and many of his designs, such as the Winchester Model 1887 lever-action shotgun, belong to the past. Yet his genius was such that at least one of his designs, the M2 .50 calibre machine-gun, remains unsurpassed. The primary handgun currently in service with the Australian Army is the Self-Loading Pistol 9 millimetre Mark 3, a slightly upgraded version of one of Browning’s designs that is generally known as the Browning Hi-Power. As the Army looks beyond Plan Beersheba to future modernisation projects, the continued use of the Browning Hi-Power must also be considered. Is this a weapon that meets the force protection needs of the Australian Army in the current and emerging combat environment? This article argues that, given the advances in handgun design since the Hi-Power was introduced into service by the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the Browning has been well and truly surpassed and replacing it is an operational and moral imperative.

Why the Army’s service pistol matters

The Australian Army has a duty of care to its soldiers. The moral contract that binds soldiers on enlistment requires them to be willing, if necessary, to give their lives in defence of their country. This is balanced by the moral commitment of the Australian people, exercised through the Australian Government and its military, to do everything within reason to ensure that the lives of Australian soldiers are not risked unnecessarily. Thus there is a moral aspect to force protection that goes beyond the operational imperative to preserve the warfighting capability of the force.²

While the humble handgun currently receives relatively little attention in the Australian Army, there is growing recognition that an effective pistol should be a fundamental part of every soldier’s basic equipment, along with the training to employ it appropriately. It is a reality that the soldier’s rifle will suffer stoppages, whether as a result of emptying the rifle’s magazine, or through mechanical failure.

Internal data from Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) training courses indicate that, on average and with an appropriate holster, a handgun can be brought into action three seconds faster than the ADF’s standard issue F88 Austeyr bullpup rifle can be reloaded, and two seconds faster than an M4 carbine. For most operators, this can be increased even further with a little extra training. These seconds are potentially the difference between life and death on the battlefield. And, of course, a soldier whose rifle suffers a catastrophic failure during combat, and who has no handgun to fall back on, is in a very difficult situation indeed (the analogy of a reserve parachute seems appropriate here).

At times, the handgun steps up from its secondary role to become the primary weapon, for example in missions where keeping a relatively low aggression profile is important, or within the confines of an office complex on a base in the operational area. Indeed the risk of ‘green-on-blue’³ attacks should never be overlooked. An effective pistol also offers a potentially life-saving capability when transiting obstacles or negotiating urban terrain. In short, the Army’s service pistol matters, and it is important to consider whether the current issue Browning is adequate to the task.

Limitations of the Browning Hi-Power compared to modern competitors

When first introduced into military service in the 1930s, the Browning’s design was undoubtedly ahead of its time. By today’s standards, however, it is well behind the curve for contemporary operational use. Perhaps most telling is the Browning’s limited 13-round magazine capacity. By comparison, the Glock 17, chosen by the British Army to replace its Browning Hi-Powers in late 2013, has a standard 17-round magazine capacity, an increase of almost 24 per cent. Obviously, in circumstances that require the employment of a handgun, it is better to have 17 rounds ‘on board’ than 13 — the fastest magazine change cannot compete with simply firing the 14th round. Another limitation is the lack of an under-barrel accessory rail, which precludes the Browning from being equipped with such potentially life-saving and capability enhancing devices as weapon lights and night-vision compatible infra-red lasers. Weapon lights also provide the ability in some circumstances for improved target identification, helping operators fulfil their legal and ethical responsibility to discriminate between legitimate targets (combatants) and illegitimate targets (non-combatants).

The Browning is also behind the curve in other respects. Given its all-steel construction, it is significantly heavier than modern polymer-frame pistols, an important consideration given the high rate of musculoskeletal injuries among heavily laden infantry soldiers. As the old saying goes, ‘ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain’. While the newer polymer-framed pistols were initially derided as ‘Tupperware guns’, they have more than proven their ruggedness. The all-steel construction of the Browning makes it significantly more expensive than polymer-framed pistols like the Glock 17 and Smith & Wesson M&P. On the civilian market, the Browning Hi-Power Mk III costs around $1300, compared to Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps, which sell for between $750 and $850 each.

The latter pistols also illustrate the strong trend in modern pistol design away from single-action hammer-fired guns with external thumb safeties such as the Browning, with striker-fired pistols equipped with drop-safeties and trigger safeties emerging as the new standard. While external thumb safeties offer little additional safety on a modern pistol, their absence avoids some key problems. The US Army has rejected Beretta’s offer of an upgraded version of the current issue 30-year-old M9 pistol (itself a replacement for the Colt 1911 pistol, another of Browning’s designs and closely comparable with the Hi-Power), partially because of the M9’s external thumb safety which causes problems in malfunction drills.⁴ More generally, not having an external thumb safety means that the operator can draw the pistol and begin engaging targets simply by manipulating the trigger without having to remember to manually disengage the external safety first. This is particularly important in a highly stressful close combat engagement; it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which forgetting to disengage the safety during a firefight could result in a fatal failure of the pistol to function when needed.

These considerations provide ample justification for the replacement of the Australian Army’s Brownings with a more suitable modern pistol. However, the performance of the Browning in accuracy and speed of engagement is also worthy of analysis, as it may be raised as a countervailing factor to these considerations.

Comparative performance: an empirical study

As the previous section illustrates, the Browning Hi-Power Mk III suffers from significant shortcomings when compared to modern service pistols. These shortcomings make a strong case for the replacement of the Browning with a more modern weapon. However it is worth assessing whether the Browning outperforms its more modern competitors in accuracy and speed of engagement to such an extent to compel its retention by the ADF. This would be a logical consideration given that the primary purpose of a service sidearm is to engage targets as quickly and accurately as possible. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an empirical study of the comparative performance of a sample Browning against four modern alternatives.

The study

The study was conducted over a two-day period under the auspices of the SASR Battle Wing at Campbell Barracks in Perth, Western Australia. The handguns compared were,

1. An ADF-issue Browning Hi-Power Mk III, 9mm with standard ‘white dot’ iron sights.
    
2. A Glock 19 (GEN3), a 9mm striker-fired polymer-framed pistol. The Glock 19 is a more compact version of the Glock 17, one of the most widely used modern pistols in military and police service in the world.⁵ The pistol used for this study had an extended barrel (to comply with Australian firearms regulations), and a TSD Systems slide designed to accept a Trijicon RMR mini red-dot sight (MRDS)⁶ in a co-witness⁷ arrangement with the taller ‘suppressor’ iron sights mounted on the slide. The slide was fitted with a Trijicon RMR RM03 13.0 MOA amber dot sight.
    
3. A Heckler & Koch (H&K) USP Tactical, a 9mm single action/double action hammer-fired pistol, currently the standard side-arm used by SASR and Special Operations Command. The ‘tactical’ designation indicates that this variant of the USP is equipped with ‘suppressor’ iron sights. The pistol used for this study was fitted with green fibre-optic inserts in the front and rear sights.⁹
    
4. A Smith & Wesson (S&W) M&P 9L Pro Series C.O.R.E., a 9mm striker-fired polymer-framed pistol. A relative newcomer (the first variant was introduced in 2005), the M&P series of pistols has quickly become the strongest competitor to the Glock series pistols in the military and police market (hence the M&P designation). The Competition Optic Ready Equipment (C.O.R.E.)10 model sports a slide designed to accept a number of the leading MRDS currently available. The pistol used for this study was fitted with a Trijicon RMR RM01 sight, with a 3.25 MOA red dot, in a co-witness arrangement with the ‘suppressor’ sights that are standard on the C.O.R.E. model.
    
5. A Steyr M9A1, another 9mm striker-fired polymer pistol. Similar in many respects to the Glock series pistols, this pistol boasts advanced ergonomics and a low bore axis. The pistol used for this study was fitted with an extended barrel (to comply with Australian firearms regulations), and Steyr’s proprietary trapezoid iron sights.

The experimental design of the study was relatively simple. The test group consisted of 19 volunteers, a mix of novices (8) and shooters who self-identified as either average (5), good (5) or expert (1) in their shooting skills (for the purposes of the study, the ‘average’, ‘good’ and ‘expert’ subjects were grouped as the ‘experienced’ group). Each subject fired up to 30 rounds from each pistol being tested, in three stages as follows,

1. 10 rounds, slow fire, from 5 metres at an IPSC-style target with a white 16cm x 16cm square at its centre, and a 2 cm black dot in the centre of the square;
    
2. 10 rounds, slow fire, from 10 metres at an IPSC-style target with a white 16cm x 16cm square at its centre, and a 2 cm black dot in the centre of the square; and
    
3. 10 rounds (or less, as needed), timed fire, from 7 metres¹¹ at a falling steel plate rack composed of 6 x 6 inch (15.24 cm) diameter steel plates.

The first two stages of fire were designed to test the accuracy potential of each weapon, with speed considerations not playing a role. Each subject’s groups were measured, and subjects were encouraged not to ‘correct’ for the fall of previous shots, but instead to aim at the centre dot each time. In addition to measuring the size of the full 10-round group in each case, the group formed by the most proximate five rounds fired (‘best five’) was also measured. This smaller group is arguably a better reflection of the accuracy potential of the weapon, as ‘flyer’ rounds (poorly or relatively poorly executed shots caused by shooter error) are more likely to have been excluded from the data set. The third stage of fire was designed to test the comparative speed with which the subjects could acquire a sight picture and engage multiple targets.

The order in which the subjects shot the test pistols was randomised to avoid what we foresaw might be a ‘practice bias’, in which a subject becomes faster or more accurate with each pistol fired as a result of accumulated practice. The data gathered indicate that, while there was no consistent increase in accuracy for each successive pistol for the stage fired from 10 metres, there is a clear trend of improvement for the stage fired from 5 metres, most notable in the ‘best 5’ group — an average improvement of 18 per cent between the first and fifth pistol. We are, however, confident that the randomisation of the order of firing negated the effect of this bias on our dataset by spreading the improvement across the pistols being tested.

Limitations of the study

The results of this study (presented below) must be assessed in the light of the study’s limitations. First, although we compensated for what we call ‘practice bias’, we could not compensate for what we term ‘familiarity bias’. Given volunteers were drawn from the Campbell Barracks community, all subjects who self-identified as ‘average’, ‘good’ or ‘expert’ shooters (58 per cent of the total number of subjects) had significant previous experience of firing the ADF-issue Browning and H&K USP pistols, and all subjects who had any previous firearms experience (including some of the novices) were familiar with the traditional iron-sight sighting arrangement on the Browning and H&K USP. By contrast, only one of the subjects had previously fired an MRDS-equipped pistol (as mounted on the Glock and S&W pistols), and none of the subjects had fired a Steyr pistol or experienced Steyr’s proprietary trapezoidal sights. The effect of this bias may have been exacerbated by the limited number of rounds each subject had the opportunity to fire through each pistol, a result of time and resource constraints. Our hypothesis is that more experience with each weapon would have resulted in comparatively better average results for the MRDS-equipped Glock and S&W pistols, and for the Steyr.

A second limitation relates to the third stage of fire, the plate rack. The original experimental design allowed each subject two attempts at the plate rack, a measure designed to ameliorate the unfamiliarity of the pistols and, for many of the participants, the unfamiliarity of the plate-rack target system. Ultimately, the time available to conduct the study was restricted, reducing each subject to just one attempt at the rack. As the results show, a significant number of the subjects (including members of the ‘good’ group) failed to successfully engage all six targets with the 10 rounds at their disposal, which adversely affected the dataset of timed completions of the rack.

A third limitation is that groups for stages one and two were measured using analogue measuring devices (calipers and a ruler) rather than more precise digital electronic calipers. In interpreting the data, care must therefore be taken not to exaggerate the importance of small differences between comparative measurements. We take it that differences of less than 5 per cent are insignificant in comparisons between the datasets gathered. For ease of reporting, results were rounded up to the nearest percentage point, which might skew the results slightly.

A fourth limitation is that the guns used had different ‘mileage’ coming into the study. The Browning and the USP had been well used, and had achieved what shooters call the ‘1000-round trigger job’, whereby the trigger pull (which has an impact on accuracy) improves as the gun is ‘broken in’. By comparison, the Glock had fewer than 200 rounds fired through it before testing, while the S&W and the Steyr were brand new. This difference could have biased results slightly in favour of the Browning and the USP.

A fifth limitation is that the front sight of the Glock 19 broke off during the first session of testing, and it was not possible to replace it. Given the Glock was equipped with a MRDS, this did not directly affect the pistol’s accuracy potential, but (as is explained below) may have had an adverse effect on the speed with which the pistol could be accurately employed.

Overall, the study was limited by its scope (the number of participants and the number of rounds fired) and the limited number and nature of the stages of fire employed. As such, it cannot be considered a full assessment of the suitability of any of the pistols (or their sighting systems) for Army service. However, the data gathered is sufficient to answer the question of whether the Browning Hi-Power offers sufficient advantage in speed and accuracy over more modern competitors to compensate for the Browning’s other limitations.

Results and analysis of the study

Accuracy

Is the Browning Hi-Power Mk III significantly more accurate than the modern pistols tested in this study? According to the data collected:

From 5 metres, measuring the full 10-round groups (see Table 1), the Browning achieved, on average, similar results to the MRDS-equipped Glock 19 and the H&K USP, and performed slightly better than the MRDS-equipped S&W M&P C.O.R.E. Only the Steyr M9A1 performed significantly worse. Novices did considerably better with the MRDS-equipped Glock 19, while the more experienced subjects produced the best groups with the Browning.

Table 1: Group size, average 10-round group from 5 metres

Pistol	Overall average (%)	Novice (%)	Experienced (%)
BHP Mk III	+4	+26	—
Glock 19 (MRDS)	+2	—	+33
H&K USP	—	+7	+19
S&W M&P CORE (MRDS)	+12	+35	+8
Steyr M9A1	+24	+32	+36

When the ‘best five’ groups at 5 metres are taken into consideration (see Table 2), the Browning fared better, beaten only by the MRDS-equipped Glock 19 by a just relevant 5 per cent when the full group of subjects is taken into consideration. Novices performed best with the Glock, while the more experienced subjects shot equally well with the Browning and the Glock.

Table 2: Group size, average 5-round group (‘best five’) from 5 metres

Pistol	Overall average (%)	Novice (%)	Experienced (%)
BHP Mk III	+5	+10	—
Glock 19 (MRDS)	—	—	+2
H&K USP	+20	+25	+16
S&W M&P CORE (MRDS)	+32	+53	+5
Steyr M9A1	+35	+50	+17

From 10 metres, measuring the full 10-round groups (see Table 3) and considering the full group of subjects, the Browning and the MRDS-equipped Glock 19 produced the best groups, with the difference between the two less than the 5 per cent necessary for statistical relevance. The H&K USP was close behind, with an average group size 5 per cent larger than the Browning. Novices mirrored the overall average by shooting as well with the Browning as the Glock, while the more experienced shooters did best with the H&K USP, with the Browning coming a close second.

Table 3: Group size, average 10-round group from 10 metres

Pistol	Overall average (%)	Novice (%)	Experienced (%)
BHP Mk III	—	+3	+6
Glock 19 (MRDS)	+1	—	+13
H&K USP	+5	+17	—
S&W M&P CORE (MRDS)	+14	+22	+12
Steyr M9A1	+14	+15	+30

When the ‘best five’ groups at 10 metres (see Table 4) are taken into consideration, the most noteworthy results of the study come to light. The MRDS-equipped S&W M&P C.O.R.E. performed significantly better in this regard than any of the other pistols, and this was consistent across the novice group and the experienced shooters. When the full group of subjects is considered, the next closest performer is the Browning, which produced groups that were, on average, 14 per cent larger. Novices did slightly better with the Browning, producing groups 10 per cent larger than those produced by the S&W, while the more experienced shooters (most of whom had previous experience with the Browning and the H&K USP), remarkably produced groups 20 per cent smaller with the S&W than with the Browning and the H&K USP.

Table 4: Group size, average 5-round group (‘best five’) from 10 metres

Pistol	Overall average (%)	Novice (%)	Experienced (%)
BHP Mk III	+14	+10	+20
Glock 19 (MRDS)	+43	+55	+28
H&K USP	+22	+23	+21
S&W M&P CORE (MRDS)	—	—	—
Steyr M9A1	+18	+16	+26

Speed

The next test was designed to assess whether the Browning performs significantly better than the modern pistols tested when speed of target acquisition and engagement is compared.

According to the data collected when considering the full group of subjects, and taking into consideration only those who successfully engaged all 6 targets on the plate rack with the 10 rounds available in each pistol (see Table 5), the clear winner was the H&K USP, with the Browning achieving, on average, 25 per cent slower times, equalling the Steyr. Novices shot as well with the Steyr as the H&K USP, and were 9 per cent slower with the Browning. The more experienced shooters shot best with the H&K USP, and were on average 16 per cent slower with the Browning.

Table 5: Average time to successfully engage six falling steel plates on plate rack

 

Pistol	Overall average (%)	Novice (%)	Experienced (%)
BHP Mk III	+25	+9	+16
Glock 19 (MRDS)	+43	+19	+56
H&K USP	—	+3	—
S&W M&P CORE (MRDS)	+37	+22	+30
Steyr M9A1	+25	—	+33

In isolation, however, these figures are misleading, as they do not take into account those shooters who were unable to successfully engage all six of the plates with the 10 rounds available. Clearly this is an important consideration. In this regard, the Browning performed poorly, with only 13 of 19 subjects (68 per cent) completing all six plates. This equalled the performance of the MRDS-equipped Glock, which was handicapped by the loss of its front sight.¹² For both the H&K USP and the S&W, 14 of 19 subjects were successful with all six plates. The Steyr did best, with 16 of 19 subjects (84 per cent) succeeding with all six plates.

Analysis

What do these results reveal? In answering the first question of whether the Browning Hi-Power Mk III is significantly more accurate than the competing modern pistols tested, the study results clearly indicate that it is not. While the Browning was certainly not the least accurate pistol in the group, and in fact performed quite well, it did not achieve such an advantage over its competitors as to make its performance a countervailing factor that clearly outweighs its limitations. Given that the limitations of the study generally favoured the Browning over all the other pistols except the H&K USP (particularly in what we call ‘familiarity bias’ and the issue of ‘mileage’), this is even more evident. It is our hypothesis that, given more practice with the unfamiliar pistols and sighting systems, and the opportunity to ‘break in’ the triggers on the new guns, the relative performance of the Browning would have been worse than it appeared in the data gathered for this study.

The second question asked whether the Browning performs significantly better than the competing modern pistols tested in this study when speed of target acquisition and engagement is compared. Given the very significant limitations of the data gathered in this respect, a precise conclusion is not possible. Nonetheless the Browning performed relatively poorly in both speed and number of shooters completing all six plates on the rack. Thus the data, while only suggestive and not conclusive, indicates that the Browning’s speed of target acquisition and engagement compares poorly with that of the competing modern pistols.

Conclusion

By no means do we intend to disrespect the Browning Hi-Power pistol. It has rightfully earned its place as one of a handful of truly classic handguns, and as our study shows it is inherently accurate. Nonetheless, the design limitations of the Browning when compared to more modern pistols leave it lagging well behind, and its accuracy and speed performance does not compensate for those limitations.

Given the importance of the pistol as a ‘last resort’ means of force protection, we believe the Army should begin a process to replace the Browning with a more capable alternative. To get the best possible replacement, it will be necessary to also assess potential breakthrough technologies such as mini red-dot sights, pistol mounted lasers (not assessed in our study, but potentially offering genuine advantage over traditional iron sights alone) and other recent innovations. 

Endnotes

---

1    The co-author of this paper has protected identity status, granted to Department of Defence personnel associated with sensitive capabilities to protect against unauthorised disclosure of both their personal and sensitiive capabilities in order to maintain operational security. Although the journal does not usually publish papers without clear author identification, considering the applicability of the author’s position, this requirement was waived.
2    For a detailed discussion of the implications of what the Australian-born British Army General Sir John Hackett called ‘the unlimited liability contract’ that exists between military personnel and the state they serve, see Nikki Coleman, ‘The Unlimited Liability Contract and its Effects on Serving Military Personnel’ in George R. Lucas Jr. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Military Ethics, New York: Routledge, 2015.
3    We use the term ‘green on blue’ in the broad sense of ‘an attack by a force [or member thereof] regarded as neutral’, as defined by the Australian National Dictionary Centre. See ‘Green on Blue’ Word of the Year’, ABC News, 18 December 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012- 12-18/green-on-blue-word-of-the-year/4433614.
4    See ‘Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol’, Fox News, 9 January 2015, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/09/army-rejects-ma3-proposal-opts-for…- pistol/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obinsite.
5    Globally, data on firearms production is notoriously problematic, largely due to under-reporting by public companies and non-reporting by private companies such as Glock. See, for example, Jurgen Brauer, The US Firearms Industry: Production and Supply, Small Arms Survey Working Paper, Small Arms Survey, Geneva, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2013, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-WP14- US-Firearms-Industry.pdf. For a more detailed discussion of Glock’s remarkable rise from Austrian curtain-rod manufacturing company to one of the dominant producers of handguns
in the world, see Paul Barnett, Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun, New York: Broadway Books, 2013.
6    The MRDS is a miniaturised electro-optical sighting system (also sometimes referred to as a ‘holographic weapons sight) that is characterised by a non-magnified sight-tube or window into which is projected an illuminated dot or similar aiming point that the shooter simply places onto the target before firing. The dot is usually red, hence the characterisation of these sights as ‘mini red-dot sights’, however some manufacturers produce electro-optical sights of this kind that use either an amber or green dot. The MRDS functions the same way as red-dot sights that are now commonly employed on military rifles, but sized to make mounting on a handgun feasible.
7    In a co-witness arrangement, the red-dot of the electro-optical sight is set up in such a way as to be visually in line with the conventional ‘iron’ sights, such that both sighting systems can be viewed along the same sighting plane and can be used together or independently to align the weapon with the target, without operators needing to adjust their sight picture.
8    Attaching a suppressor to a pistol renders normal height sights useless, as the suppressor blocks the line of sight. So-called suppressor sights are like normal iron sights, but are taller than normal to enable the user to take a sight picture ‘over’ the suppressor.
9    The fibre-optic insert is a short coloured rod of fibre-optic material that is inserted into a hole in the iron sight in question located in place of the usual white dot that is painted onto traditional iron sights. The fibre optic picks up ambient light and presents as a ‘glowing dot’,
making it theoretically quicker and easier for operators to see and align with their target than the traditional white dot. Fibre optic inserts can be fitted to the front sight and the rear sight, or only to the front sight, as the user chooses. These inserts can be changed to different colour schemes to suit the individual user’s preference.
10    Despite the ‘competition’ designation, the C.O.R.E. is not, in fact, ideally suited to ‘race-gun’ type competitions due to its lack of a compensated barrel and slide-mounted optic. This gun has established more of a following in the combat/self-defence market in the United States. See, for example, http://www.thebangswitch.com/rocking-the-boat-mp-core/.
11    SASR Battle Wing has approval under Range Regulations 7-3-1, Chapter18, Annex F and range standing orders to engage steel at this distance.
12    Proponents of MRDS-equipped pistols contend that achieving quick target acquisition and engagement requires learning how to use the co-witnessed iron sights to ‘pick up’ the dot on presentation of the pistol, from which point the dot is (it is argued) as quick or quicker than the iron sights. Without using the iron sights in this way, it becomes necessary to ‘hunt the dot’ (which is not visible in the viewing window if the pistol is not properly aligned to the eye),
which slows down the process considerably. While this method was explained to the subjects, it was evident that most resorted to hunting the dot — not surprising given their near total lack of practical experience with this type of sighting system. In fact, using the iron sights to pick up the dot was not even possible with the Glock, as the front sight had broken off in the first
session of testing. The question of whether MRDS-equipped pistols are generally faster, slower, or equal to iron-sight equipped pistols therefore remains unresolved, a question for further research.