The Advantages of Shotgun Mounted Optics are Clear as Mud

Shotgun mounted optics, specifically red dot sights or reflex sights, have become increasingly popular. The question is, do shotgun mounted optics offer an advantage over a traditional bead (or a shotgun without a bead)? And if so, how much of an advantage?

It’s also important to keep in mind that I’m far from being a shotgunner. I dabble in the ways of the scatter-gat, but predominantly in the self defense arena. So what I will offer here is my opinion along with the data and corresponding analysis that has informed it. Do what you will with that information.

Shotguns and Applications

As with everything, context matters. So as we begin this discussion, it’s a good idea to look at types of shotguns and the applications where these specific optics have gained popularity and keep them in mind as we explore the pros and cons. Let’s start there.

Generally speaking, shotguns fall into three categories: pump-action, semi-automatic (or semi-auto), and break-action.

Break-actions are based on the oldest and most traditional shotgun designs with modern designs predominantly intended for either hunting or traditional shotgun competitions such as, but not limited to, trap, skeet, or sporting clay competitions. Optics on this category of shotguns are nonexistent. As far as I can tell, shotgun mounted optics in skeet or sporting clay competitions are nonexistent regardless of the type of shotgun used in them. I can’t say why that is as those are activities I’ve rarely participated in and know very little about. I will say that I found it interesting that I couldn’t find anything in the rules for those activities that prohibit the use of optics. Perhaps the pros of these sports know something that I don’t.

Pump-action and semi-auto designs often include variants that are tailored to tactical applications in addition to hunting and competitive applications. The tactical applications include self defense for armed citizens which is one of the areas we have seen rapid adoption of shotgun mounted optics. Some of the hunting and competition shotgun design variants from all the major shotgun manufacturers are also available with Picatinny rail sections that an optic can be mounted to and some variants come with a factory installed optic in them. This is mostly likely because shotgun mounted optics have also seen adoption by hunters and multi-gun competitors.

It’s worth noting that there is a significant difference between multi-gun competitions and, what I will call, more traditional shotgun competitions. The differences are chiefly between the types of targets, number of targets, and scoring.

There are several differences between trap, skeet and sporting clays that I won’t get into here. Rather, I will focus on their similarities and then compare those against multi-gun. In all three, the targets are made of clay. When the competitor is loaded and ready, the competitor engages one or two moving targets from a stationary position by giving the “pull” command before getting ready and giving the command again or moving to a different station. Scoring is based on the number of clays broken while in flight.

Multigun differs in many ways including the use of one or two additional different firearms in a single engagement. However, there may be shotgun-only stages in a match. Targets that will be engaged with a shotgun that the competitor will face include clays, pipes, and steel. Targets may be dynamic or stationary. Clays may be stationary or dynamic. Dynamic clays may be rabbits, that is rolling and bouncing across the terrain, or aerials, thrown in flight. Either way clays must be broken to count as hits. Steel and pipes must be knocked down. Steel and pipes may be stationary or dynamic. Some stationary steel targets may be used as an activator for a dynamic target. When the competitor is ready, they will receive a start signal they must react to where they will engage a much larger number of targets, reloading when necessary, while navigating a stage and potentially using unconventional shooting positions as fast as they can. Scoring is based on points earned (by shooting targets) divided by the time taken to complete the stage resulting in a points per second metric called hit factor.

Comparing the differences between the two may make it seem that multi-gun is a more complicated sport. I do believe that to be the case. However, my ability to describe multi-gun exceeds my ability to describe the traditional competitions given my stronger familiarity with the former. That said, more complexity doesn’t not translate to more difficulty. They are simply different. It could be argued that one is highly specialized while the other encompasses a broader scope. Yet once again, that doesn’t mean one is easier than the other. Calling out the differences matters because it provides perspective for the advantages and disadvantages that we will discuss in the following sections.

Disadvantages

As with everything, there are pros and cons to shotgun mounted optics. The most obvious disadvantages are the same ones that are shared across other small arms including handguns and rifles. It’s an additional expense. It’s another thing to set up, configure, and maintain. Mounting one a shotgun that isn’t designed to accept one will require permanent modifications to the receiver, a la drilling and tapping holes, to secure an optic mount to it.

The biggest disadvantage in my opinion is a red dot sight’s lack of forgiveness for a poor presentation. In the case of a shotgun, that presentation means an improper shoulder mount. This is something I can’t overstate. It takes a considerable, but not insurmountable, amount of practice and dedication to develop a consistent presentation where the mounted optic comes into the eye-target line correctly. If it doesn’t, then the user will find themselves wasting time looking for the dot. However, spending the time to improve one’s presentation to the level of consistency demanded by a red dot sight becomes an advantage in the form of a quicker mount to first hit. Not by a lot for those who have a high level of marksmanship proficiency prior to transitioning to a dot, but even a tiny advantage is still an advantage.

Another disadvantage I’ve heard a number of times stems from an argument that is made against the use of iron sights on shotguns by folks who are very capable with shotguns but only have a cursory understanding of pistol and rifle marksmanship. The argument is made on the premise that pistols and rifles require a visual focus on the front sight, called front sight focus, whereas a shotgun requires a visual focus on the target, called target focus. That same logic is extended to red dot sights with an incorrect assumption that using a red dot sight requires the visual focus to be placed on the red dot, called dot focus. Both the premise and extension are incorrect. However, they are rooted in years of pistol and rifle instruction that taught front sight focus. Modern instruction has shifted to teaching target focus with iron sights which came from the lessons learned with the adoption of rifle and pistol mounted red dot optics including optics given the shooter an advantage because they could remain target focused. As target focus with optics became widely known, top tier practical marksmanship competitors who had been using irons started admitting that they too were using a target focus but didn’t say anything because it contradicted well established iron sight doctrine. In other words, this dot focus disadvantage is only a disadvantage to those who use a front sight focus and incorrectly assume they should use an optic with a dot focus.

The last disadvantage that I think is worth mentioning is that shotguns, especially larger gauge shotguns using magnum loads, dish out a punishing amount of recoil that can kill the electronic components of a mounted optic. That same recoil is also capable of killing other optics including scopes. For this reason, one risks the additional expense of replacing failed optics or the hassle of dealing with warranty repairs or replacements. There are rugged optics and scopes that will withstand the punishing recoil from shotguns. There are also specialized optics that are designed specifically for use on shotguns. Both of these types of optics can reduce the likelihood of failure, but are generally associated with a steeper price tag.

To sum up the disadvantages we have the added cost of the optic, the potential cost of failed optic replacements, possible permanent modifications to the shotgun receiver, the hassle of set up, configuration, and maintenance, the time commitment associated with developing a consistent presentation, and the potential risk of incorrectly using it with a dot focus. As I’ve said before, red dot sights aren’t a panacea. They aren’t an extra piece of equipment that will provide a magical immediate improvement in their marksmanship. One can buy the gear and the training, but without putting in the work it’s not going to help and it may have a negative impact on one’s ability to perform with the shotgun.

Subjective Benefits

I’ve already mentioned one advantage – faster presentation to first hit times that result from a better developed and consistent presentation.

The target focus, which is often lauded as an advantage on pistols and rifles, isn’t much of an advantage to a shotgun practitioner who already practices target focus. However, introducing a highly visible dot allows those practitioners to call a correct gap or lead more quickly. How can this be? I’ll admit, this is a guess. I’d like to think it’s an educated guess, but skilled shotgunners may disagree since I’m basing it on the measurable differences in hit factor in matches between top pistol shooters using iron sights and top pistol shooters using pistol mounted optics. The higher hit factor on stages from those top shooters using optics means they are able to score the same or more points in a shorter amount of time.

In my opinion, the biggest accuracy and speed gains we see from pistol mounted optics come from more difficult targets. This is because while target focus is possible (and required to be competitive at the highest levels of the game) there comes a point where visual focus has to start shifting, if not shift completely, to the front sight as the targets become more difficult. The shift in visual focus takes time and is not something that is necessary with a pistol mounted optic.

Another area, although far more subjective, where gains are seen comes in the form of shot calling. Shot calling is a technique where shooters use point of aim at the moment recoil begins to predict where the impact on the target is. They use that information to make a split level decision to send a follow up shot when they call the shot that was just taken a miss or a bad hit. Many high level shooters tend to agree that it is easier to call their shots with an optic than it is with iron sights. It follows that an optic user who is skilled at calling their shots will be less prone to sending a follow up shot on a good hit that was called bad. Each follow up shot takes time. Therefore less follow up shots means more points collected in less time or a higher hit factor.

There is one other subjective advantage that I think is worth considering. That advantage is aiming system familiarity. I’ve admitted it before and will admit it again, the shotgun has a steep learning curve. That includes learning how to properly align it with the target and how to lead a moving target, which are just very long ways of saying learning how to aim it. Those of us who are already familiar with pistol and rifle mounted optics can benefit from having a common sighting system system, especially a system that is already used to using a target focus with.

Objective Advantages

Okay, great. But do the subjective benefits from pistol and rifle mounted optic translate to advantages from shotgun mounted optics?

Maybe we can answer that question by looking at the score data from the latest Multigun Nationals competition, the 2023 Federal USPSA Multigun Nationals. More specifically, let’s look at the scores from stages 11 and 12 which where shotgun only stages that included the use of four aerial clays, one rabbit clay, and boat load of static pipes between the two stages.

Open division competitors took the first 20 places on stage 11 before seeing the first competitor from the Modified division place in the overall standings. Both of those divisions allow the use of shotgun mounted optics. It isn’t until 28th place that we see the first competitor in the Tactical division, a division that doesn’t allow shotgun mounted optics, in the overall standings.

For stage 12, the Open division dominated the first 20 places again. This was followed by a Tactical division competitor taking the 21st slot and the first Modified division competitor taking the 27th slot.

It can be argued that the domination by Open division competitors on both of those stages is largely due to the shotgun and not the optic. This is because Open division places next to no limitations on the shotguns themselves. As such, competitors could use shotguns with box fed magazines which is the dominant trend in shotguns for Open division and not permissible in either Modified or Tactical divisions. Additionally, Open division allows compensators on shotguns which are also not permissible in the other two divisions.

Shotgun equipment restrictions in the Tactical and Modified divisions are more closely matched. The differences are that Modified division allows the use of a single non-magnified optic and ported barrels where Tactical division does not. The nearly identical flip flop of top placement between the divisions in stages 11 and 12 makes it impossible to tell whether or not the optic provided a competitive advantage or not.

That said, let’s circle back to the overall results. The top four slots overall went to competitors in the Open division. That should be surprising. Places 5 and 6 went to competitors in the Modified division. Tactical division competitors start showing up in 8th place overall. I think it’s safe to say that Open division equipment provides a clear advantage over the gear in the other two divisions. Modified division allows optics on pistols, rifles and shotguns whereas Tactical division only allows optics on rifles and has a lower starting capacity limit on shotguns.

While the data is far from empirical, I see nothing to support a measurable advantage provided by shotgun mounted optics alone. By the same token, there is nothing here to suggest that not using a shotgun mounted optic provides an advantage either. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed by not being able to find anything substantial one way or the other.

Alas, this is but one data set. Unfortunately, older Multigun Nationals match data is even less helpful because the Modified division didn’t exist and the equipment gap between Open and Tactical divisions is simply too wide to be of any use. I am unaware of any other shotgun matches where the adoption of optics is taking place that would provide data for further analysis. Furthermore, I am unaware of any studies covering the tactical use of shotgun mounted optics in either duty or defensive applications that could be used at this point in time. This leads me to believe that the data to support or contradict a measurable objective advantage doesn’t yet exist. Either way I will keep an eye out for new data and publish an update post with new findings as I come across them.

While the data remains too weak to conclude that there is an objective advantage to using shotgun mounted optics, the fact that serious competitors are adopting them at a fast rate allows for the deduction that an advantage being present is highly likely. This is evident because the top priority for serious competitors is to win and the adoption rate remains strong. If there was no benefit, then those competitors would likely be ditching them. Remember, optics are allowed and not required in those divisions. Could it be that these competitors have deduced similar subjective benefits to those presented in this post? Yes, that’s possible. Could it be that they also don’t have enough empirical evidence to keep or ditch the optics? That’s possible as well. However, I will equate them to canaries in a coal mine. At the first sign of a disadvantage, they will likely drop the optic faster than a New York minute.

Bottom Line

In my opinion, there are some advantages to shotgun mounted optics that make them worth considering. Unfortunately, the data I presently have is not empirical and inconclusive to support some of the advantages I believe exist and are objectively measurable. I suspect that as more data becomes available to me that will change and hypothesize that data will support those advantages as it has done for pistol and rifle mounted optics. After all, shotgun mounted optics are a relatively new trend. Admittedly, that very well may be nothing more than hopeful speculation and may end up being nothing more than a trend no matter how much I doubt it.

Should you mount an optic on your boom stick? Only you can make that determination for yourself. I’ve presented both the advantages and disadvantages that I am aware of at this time. As far as I’m concerned, I’m sticking with it on the home defense shotgun and will probably end up going that way for competition whenever I get to a Multigun much. This is mostly because I’m a fan of optics and use them on pistols and rifles regularly already. That familiarity advantage I mentioned, even though speculative, resonates with me. Besides I’ve yet to see evidence to suggest shotgun mounted optics are a bad thing.