Some things I've learned shooting pistol dot sights to avoid "hunting:"
Larger dot or "donut of death" (circle reticle): A bigger dot (e.g., 6–8 MOA) or circle-dot reticle provides a larger visual "catchment area" for initial pickup, especially during presentation or under stress. It reduces the time spent hunting the small point (where you're moving the pistol around, trying to get the dot visible in the window). Start with a larger window or reticle setting during the learning phase and transition to finer dots later. Larger windows help with this too. 

Presentation and unconscious alignment: Consistent, repeatable draw/presentation that aligns the pistol naturally with your dominant eye and target is foundational. If your iron sight presentation is already good (front sight focus with proper grip, stance, and eye alignment), the dot should "just appear" in the window without searching. This transfers directly because the mechanical relationship between your body, hands, and eyes doesn't change. The optic is simply replacing or supplementing the iron picture. Dry fire and live reps building that proprioceptive consistency are key (proprioception is your "sixth sense" where your brain knows where your body parts are). Start slow with deliberate draws focusing on consistency, then speed up.

Target focus: Put a hard focus on the target/threat while allowing the dot to float into place via muscle memory and body awareness (proprioception). Chasing the dot with your eyes leads to hunting, loss of situational awareness, and slower acquisition and shot times. Once the presentation is trained, your hands and arms "know" where to put the gun, and the brain handles the superimposition subconsciously. Try looking away at 90° and then snapping back towards the target while raising the pistol to presentation as practice. Use drills like "dot on target" from the holster or low ready.

Remember that good fundamental skills, such as with iron sights or consistent trigger pull is important too. If you're competent with iron sights, you can pick up pistol dot sights with a little work too. Usually 1000-2000 rounds is where it all comes together. And this round count is why I highly recommend picking up a subcaliber .22 pistol. 

There are a wide variety of true subcaliber pistols on the market now, such as the Glock 19 derivative the Glock 44, the Sig P320 ergonomics P322 (different trigger group/design without the P320's alleged flaws), Walther P22, S&W M&P22 series, and the Taurus TX 22 that people swear by. I've probably shot upwards of 30,000 rounds from these guns since 2020 and I cannot stress enough how much more shooting I've done because of them. What started as a testing and evaluation/review gun have transitioned into a serious long-term evaluation of subcaliber guns for high volume training.

Three weeks later, the background check system is back up and running again. Three weeks of gun sales are going to take a while to process. Nevada needs to be on NICS. DPS has not inspired confidence at all in their ability to run background checks or catch everything they are supposed/touted to. 

Look at this high-profile failure in the case of the Nevadan who drove to New York to shoot up a Manhattan office. 
LVRJ: NYC gunman’s background check not completed, red flag law not used

What will the Democrats propose in 2027: They will stipulate that FFLs will be unable to release a firearm to a buyer if the background check comes back "unresolved." That means even though you haven't been denied, you will effectively be denied under state law until such time as DPS gets its stuff together and completes the check. Unfortunately, this can potentially never be done, as in Tamura's case. 

Is it a big hindrance? No, and perhaps DPS will be forced to take action on "unresolved" cases and speed up the background check process, or at least the Legislature will be forced into finally allowing CCW holders to only do the 4473 instead of the whole process (fat change, after this, as Tamura had a CCW). 

In short, the private sale gun ban and background check did nothing to prevent this. Most killers obtain their guns legally without flagging a background check anyway. Nevertheless, the Left will use this as an excuse to tighten the screws on gun laws without doing anything about actual safety. But perhaps DPS will get spanked good and hard for their failings to resolve the background check.

A while back, I decided to buy a Glock 44 to review; and then I fell in love with it. Everyone should own a sub-caliber combat pistol for practice. Then I wanted high magazine capacity, a threaded barrel, and a red dot sight. Turns out SIG had it all in one package, and I wanted a new SIG.

So a year on with the SIG, guess which one I like better? The Glock is easier to strip and has been more reliable. I originally thought the SIG P322 not just for looks, but because it has a 20 round magazine vs Glock's 10 (and the painful ProMag 18 rounders).

Unfortunately, the SIG doesn’t seem to cycle consistently on a variety of ammunition like the Glock does just fine with. SIGs Romeo RDS also has issues, like flickering and randomly changing brightness in between shots. I was NOT happy about that as I wanted this gun to primarily "learn" my brain to shoot an RDS. A battery change seems to have helped, but we'll see how that holds up. 

I don’t like the fact that I can’t pull out the SIG's trigger package easily with just a punch to give it a thorough cleaning like I can do with the Glock. The roll punches it uses are weird and I can't pull it out to clean the grit out.

So after having the SIG P322 for about a year, I have to say that in hindsight, I should not have bought this pistol. It is fine in principle, but I think it was poorly executed and I have questions about the QC. 

I will champion having a sub-caliber conversion or version of your daily carry pistol for cheap affordable practice. I can easily put 1000 rounds or more through that thing on a weekend morning. That's around a savings of $150-200 easily versus 9mm.

Nevada’s firearm laws closely interact with federal regulations. Currently, Nevadans can legally own firearm suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), or short-barreled shotguns (SBS) only if they comply with federal law under the National Firearms Act (NFA). But what if the federal government removes suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA’s list of regulated items? In this article, we explore how Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 202.350 and related laws might apply in that scenario. We’ll consider whether these firearms accessories could be deemed illegal under current Nevada law even without federal restrictions, and then examine arguments for why they might not be illegal – all in accessible, non-technical terms. We’ll also discuss the role of the Nevada Attorney General in clarifying the law, touch on the legislative history behind these statutes, and conclude with a hypothetical look at how a legal challenge might unfold if state authorities remain unsympathetic to deregulation.

Nevada’s Law vs. Federal NFA Regulations (Current Rules)
Under federal law, suppressors (silencers), SBRs, and SBS are classified as restricted items by the NFA. To possess them legally, a person must go through a federal registration process (including background checks and tax stamps). Nevada law has essentially piggybacked on these federal rules. In other words, Nevada allows these items only if you’ve followed federal law to the letter. If you haven’t met the federal requirements, Nevada treats possession of these items as a crime.

NRS 202.350 is the key Nevada statute here. It makes it a felony to “manufacture, import, keep, offer for sale, give, lend, possess or use” a machine gun or a silencer, “unless authorized by federal law.” In plainer terms, Nevada prohibits owning a suppressor or machine gun unless you have the appropriate federal authorization (such as an ATF tax stamp or license). Similarly, NRS 202.275 bans possessing or making a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, with very narrow exceptions for people who hold federal firearm licenses or who have registered the weapon with the federal government. Violation of these laws is generally a felony in Nevada.

In summary, current Nevada law independently criminalizes these NFA-type weapons unless you’ve complied with federal law. Nevada basically uses the federal process as a filter: if the federal government says “yes, this person is allowed to have it,” then Nevada is okay with it. If not, Nevada can prosecute the person under state law. This cooperative scheme means state and federal law are in sync – for now.
Would These Items Become Illegal in Nevada Without Federal Oversight?

Now imagine the federal government deregulates suppressors, SBRs, and SBS – for example, by removing them from the NFA. On the federal level, they’d be treated like ordinary firearms or accessories, no special registration or tax stamp required. But what happens under Nevada law? The concern is that Nevada’s statutes, as written, might still outlaw these items outright if the federal “authorization” or registration process disappears.

To see why, consider the exact wording of NRS 202.350 and 202.275 and their built-in exceptions. Under these laws, possessing a suppressor or short-barreled firearm in Nevada is illegal unless one of a few exceptions applies:

• Federal Compliance Exception: For suppressors and machine guns, Nevada law exempts anyone who is “licensed, authorized or permitted to possess or use [the item] pursuant to federal law.” In practice, this means you have the federally-required paperwork (like an ATF tax stamp for a silencer). For SBRs/SBS, there’s a similar exception if “such a rifle or shotgun is registered with the United States Department of the Treasury” (the agency that handled NFA registration).
• Law Enforcement and Curios: The statutes also exempt law enforcement officers on duty and allow possession of registered short-barreled guns by federally licensed firearms dealers/manufacturers, or if the firearm has been classified as a collectible curio or relic. (These are niche cases not applicable to most people.)

Crucially, if the NFA no longer requires any license or registration for, say, a suppressor, a regular civilian in Nevada would no longer fall under the “authorized by federal law” exception – because there would be no federal paperwork or permit to show. The Nevada law doesn’t say “authorized or not prohibited by federal law”; it specifically requires affirmative federal authorization. So, at first glance, if suppressors were delisted from the NFA, anyone in Nevada possessing a suppressor might technically be in violation of NRS 202.350 because they could not prove they are “authorized by federal law” (there would be nothing to authorize or register at the federal level).

In plain language, Nevada’s law could suddenly treat formerly legal suppressors or SBRs as contraband, even though the federal government now treats them like any other firearm accessory. This odd, perhaps unintended result stems from Nevada’s law being written to depend on the federal status of the item. It was a “mirror” law – and without the federal reflection, the state law might cast a very harsh shadow.
It’s important to note that this interpretation is a real concern raised by firearm owners and legal experts. During past attempts to pass the federal Hearing Protection Act (which would have removed suppressors from the NFA), observers pointed out that several states (including Nevada) have laws that ban silencers unless federally registered. If those federal registrations ceased, those state laws could automatically make silencers illegal by default. Nevada is a prime example: NRS 202.350’s suppressor provision is literally contingent on federal law authorization. Likewise, NRS 202.275’s SBR/SBS ban has only a federal registration-based exception. Without a federal process to “bless” your short-barreled rifle or shotgun, Nevada law would still say possession is a felony.

So, under the current statutes, yes – there is a real possibility these items would be considered illegal in Nevada if federal restrictions are removed. An unwary gun owner might think, “Great, the feds say I don’t need a tax stamp for my suppressor anymore!” but then find themselves afoul of Nevada law. This outcome would be counter-intuitive, arguably unfair, and likely not what anyone truly intended – but it’s what the black-and-white text of the law suggests.

Could They Still Be Legal? – Arguments for Lawful Possession Post-NFA

Is Nevada really going to start arresting people for items the federal government no longer regulates? Many would argue “No”, and there are legal arguments and interpretations that could support a more gun-owner-friendly outcome. Here are a few key points that suggest these items might not be considered illegal in Nevada, even if federal oversight is dropped:

• “Authorized by Federal Law” – A Broader Interpretation: One argument is that if the federal government removes an item from the NFA, it is effectively authorizing all law-abiding citizens to possess that item (since there’s no longer a prohibition). In other words, absence of a federal ban could be seen as implicit authorization. A creative legal interpretation might hold that “authorized by federal law” in NRS 202.350 doesn’t strictly require a tax stamp or permit – it could be read to mean “not prohibited by federal law.” If federal law allows it, Nevada law would allow it. This is not an obvious reading of the statute (and it’s certainly not a guarantee), but a court or official could lean on this logic to avoid criminalizing conduct that Congress has decided to deregulate.
• Legislative Intent and Purpose: Looking beyond the text, one can examine why Nevada enacted these laws. The legislative history suggests that Nevada’s ban on silencers, SBRs, and similar weapons was originally put in place at the request of Las Vegas police, at a time when federal authorities were not aggressively prosecuting NFA violations locally. In essence, state lawmakers wanted a parallel law to cover what federal law already covered, ensuring that someone illegally possessing a sawed-off shotgun or unregistered silencer in Nevada could be prosecuted under state law if the feds didn’t step in. The intent was to target people violating federal law (by not registering NFA weapons), not to harass lawful owners.
• Avoiding Absurd or Unjust Outcomes: There is a general principle in law that statutes should not be applied in a way that leads to absurd or unreasonable results. Charging a person with a felony in Nevada for possessing a suppressor that is perfectly legal under federal law (and perhaps in most other states) might be viewed as an absurd result that the legislature couldn’t have intended. Lawyers could invoke the doctrine of “lenity” as well – the idea that ambiguity in criminal laws should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
• State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms: Nevada’s own constitution provides that “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for other lawful purposes.” While this right, like the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, can be subject to reasonable regulation, a blanket state ban on items that the federal government has legitimized could face constitutional scrutiny.

In summary, there are strong arguments that Nevada’s laws should be interpreted or updated to allow these items if the federal restrictions are lifted. The key will be having Nevada’s authorities – either law enforcement, prosecutors, or courts – recognize those arguments. This is where guidance from the state’s leadership would be critical.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Role – A Favorable Opinion?

Laws don’t change automatically just because federal regulations do. If the NFA were amended to drop suppressors, SBRs, and SBS, Nevada’s statutes would remain on the books until the state amends or repeals them. However, the Nevada Attorney General (AG) could play a powerful role in shaping how those laws are applied in the interim.

The Attorney General can issue legal opinions or guidance to law enforcement about ambiguous laws. In this situation, a forward-thinking (and gun-friendly) AG could issue an opinion clarifying that, for example, suppressors removed from the NFA are no longer considered illegal “silencers” under NRS 202.350. The AG might reason that “authorized by federal law” includes items that federal law no longer deems unlawful, effectively keeping Nevada in step with the federal change.

Furthermore, the AG could highlight the legislative history and original intent behind NRS 202.350 and 202.275. As noted, these laws were reportedly enacted to let local authorities tackle federal gun crimes on the local level – not to create new state-level gun bans in a vacuum. An AG opinion could explain that since the federal rationale for the law has evaporated, the state law should be read narrowly (or even considered effectively defunct for those items).

Of course, an AG’s opinion isn’t ironclad – a future AG or a local prosecutor might disagree. But a favorable AG opinion would carry significant weight. It could also spur the Nevada Legislature to take action. If the Attorney General and public pressure highlight the issue, the legislature might move quickly to formally amend NRS 202.350 and 202.275 to avoid any confusion.

Why Did Nevada Ban These Items? – A Look at Legislative History

Nevada’s restrictions on silencers, SBRs, and SBS didn’t appear out of thin air – and they’re not a recent anti-gun initiative. These laws date back several decades and were largely a product of their time. The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, imposing strict regulations on certain weapons nationwide. By the 1960s and 1970s, some state and local law enforcement agencies grew frustrated because federal authorities were not always pursuing NFA violators. To address this, Nevada enacted state laws to mirror the NFA’s provisions, allowing state prosecutors to charge individuals for possession of these prohibited weapons. Legislative records from the late 1970s indicate that Nevada’s lawmakers, urged on by Las Vegas police, outlawed short-barreled rifles and shotguns in 1977 and ensured that possession of silencers and machine guns was tied to federal authorization.

What If Nobody Budges? – A Hypothetical Legal Showdown

Let’s imagine a scenario: The federal government delists suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA, but Nevada’s legislature doesn’t amend NRS 202.350/202.275, and the Attorney General takes no action. Nevadans start buying suppressors or building short-barreled rifles without federal paperwork. But Nevada law on the books still says otherwise. This is a recipe for a legal conflict.

A Nevada gun owner is found in possession of an unregistered suppressor and is arrested under NRS 202.350. The local district attorney presses charges. The defense might argue that the client is “authorized by federal law” to have the suppressor, even though there is no longer a registration process. They might raise constitutional defenses under the Second Amendment and the Nevada Constitution. A judge could dismiss the charges or let it go to trial.

If it reaches the Nevada Supreme Court, the court could rule in favor of the gun owner by interpreting the statute permissively or strike down the law entirely. A federal court challenge could also be filed, arguing that the statute violates the Second Amendment.

Eventually, the Nevada Legislature might step in to fix the law, especially if public pressure mounts (if they get a Republican majority). If the federal government removes suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA, Nevada’s laws may unintentionally criminalize their possession. NRS 202.350 and related statutes rely on federal authorization that may no longer exist. That creates a confusing and possibly unjust situation. Nevada’s Attorney General and legislature have the tools to fix it – either by issuing guidance or amending the law. Until then, gun owners should stay alert, and advocates should press for clarity.