Did you read the same article and view the same video? There were absolutely no mentions of "acquisition speed", nor precision of said sight picture relative t

Did you read the same article and view the same video? There were absolutely no mentions of "acquisition speed", nor precision of said sight picture relative to that speed, nor any trade-offs associated between these two critical variables in sight performance. A good sight tries to achieve the right balance between these values for the given application. As a competitive shooter, I'm sure that Mr. Kraft has made these conscious trade-offs in his design, but none of these fundamentals are mentioned in the article nor in the accompanying video. "No one has re-thought the basic principles of a pistol sight for a hundred years" Really? 3-Dot? L.E.D illuminated? Fiber Optic blade? Is even a basic Wikipedia search beyond this author's reach? http://tinyurl.com/y8p2sc6 http://tinyurl.com/y8p2sc6 IF the literal headline for an article is "New technology makes for more accurate guns", you had best back-up that claim with some credible evidence. No evidence was offered or were ANY comparisons made against alternative sight designs--either on a qualitative nor quantitative basis. This article was not authored. It is mere video stenography. Before you judge the merits of the insult, I urge to to examine other works by Mr. Matyszczyk. Is this the sort of journalistic standard to which a technology-centric site such as CNET wishes to give its imprimatur? Sadly, it appears so.