Here is an article I wrote about A2 irons.

Let me know what you guys think... but really it could be about a A4 rifle or carbine as well.

Defensive Iron Sights

Nice article!  I have never tried the front-sight-only method.

We need more articles like this.  Because most people are dependent on optics these days, they have no clue how to correctly utilize iron sights to their full capability.

Not many people know that close up, you can use the entire front sight post like a red dot sight for quick hits, etc.  This is an old Russian trick for the AK as well.  In some ways irons are even quicker than optics as you don't have to worry about peering through a small lense to acquire your reticule.  

I also like how you discuss the 6 o'clock vs. center hold and the nose to charging handle cheek weld for (correct) sight picture.  

It humors me how many people think you "need" to use optics.  It really has handicapped how people operate I think.  In some circumstances optics can be great, shooting through a window, etc.  However, there ARE drawbacks to using them, including weight penalties, issues with the battery function in extreme cold, lenses fogging up / getting obscured by weather types, etc.  

I always liked how you can quickly screw on / off an optic to the carry handle for those times that you need it, and how that mounting setup allows you to still utilize your iron sights.  Plus I prefer the slightly higher cheek weld when using the optics (esp on a rifle stock) than the lower flat top mount.  Maybe because my head is larger than average, I don't know!

I think it's a great article!!!

I have this feedback.  But understand.  I'm just an enthusiast.  I'm 42, been shooting for a long while (since I was a kid) but have no formal training other than video's I've watched.  And some instruction from people that have had instruction formally.  The only shots I've ever fired that were deadly were against, deer, rabbits, and squirrels.  A chipmunk or two also.  That is my resume for shooting.  

So, first:  I think when you wrote "passed" in your article, you meant "past".  Spelling thing.  LOL.  

Secondly, I like your explanation on how and why to use a 6 O'Clock hold, but it seems to me you kind of simplified it.  Maybe for the sake of length of article.  

If you use a 25 meter zero or even 50 with a dead on hold (cutting the bull in half with the top of your front sight post), further distances ARE going to be 6 O'Clock holds by virtue of the trajectory you set up.  So you have to basically use it as both.  And then you have to know how much higher than the front sight post it will hit, depending on which zero you use.  If you use a 25 meter zero, the dot on your lower case i getting up there.  I don't know exactly what it is at what range, but I know there are charts floating around that show that.  I actually prefer a 50 yard zero because this situation is a little less drastic.  All in all I always prefer a dead on hold, but it's only dead on at some distances.  Especially with an AR there is always an offset to think about, depending on what distances.  

Obviously you probably know all this, but I guess maybe I'm saying the article could've used a bit more explanation on the subject.  

And last, I really like your explanation on how to use the sights at short distances.  It makes a lot of sense and I've used that argument a lot when discussing red dots around here.  I have not practiced it as much as I should though, as I'm more focused on a pistol for home defense.  But I should put this into practice more.  Also, I'm not sure how all this plays out, but I would think that looking over the rear sight at really close distance would also help bring your POI up to the front sight anyways.  Since the barrel is so much lower than the sights, it seems in theory the high placement of your head would cancel out the low placement of the barrel in regards to the sights and give you a near dead on hold at close distances.  I have not practiced this very much though.  As I said I focus more on pistol for CQB ranges.  

For me, the simpler the better.  I remember someone letting me shoot their carbine with a red dot and a cowitness and I was like thinking "this is so convoluted".  I guess maybe I'm just dumb.  but even though you're supposed to be just putting the red dot on the target, my eyes still see the front sight, rear sight, red dot and target and my head wants to explode.  It's way too cluttered for my simple mind.  Yes, buis would solve that, but I also think there is some merit to just learning to use the irons and I can't see how they are so much slower at CQB ranges.  


Do my comments sound OK to you, or no?  Just curious as to what you think.

I'm with Blain though, we do need more articles like this.  And I feel like sometimes arguing the pluses of iron sights really gets a poo poo around here.  And I'm never sure if it's because there really are inferior to a red dot, or it's just that so many guys like their gadgets.  Maybe a bit of both???

I do have to admit though, as my eyes are getting older, I'm starting to get challenged as to how good my eyes work with irons.

Most people like red dots because they are seen as modern, easier to use, and "cooler".  Not necessarily because they are more effective.  You can not buy or substitute ability and skill with gear, and it has always been that way.  There is no substitute for training and experience, people who claim you "need to have" such and such gear, are really just proving their own inexperience and lack of skill.  

Cheesy line from Rambo II but it is very apt, when setting Rambo up for his mission, some suit is bragging about how they are setting him up with the most modern and best weapons available and Rambo simply goes, "I always believed that the mind was the best weapon.”  Believe me, optics have lots of problems, and battery powered ones have even more.  There is a infamous saying about SHTF that a year after the balloon goes up that irons will rule the world.

About holdovers, I have almost universally found that the best “battle sight zero” for most calibers happens to be POI 3” high at 100 yards.  This equates to around a 275 - 300 yard (not meter) zero with 5.56 / 7.62x51.  3” high at 100 also happens to be dead center in the X ring for a 100 yard highpower target.  It will give you the longest range where you can accurately hit someone point of aim without having to adjust your sights (around 325 yards or so).  Then for a short distance beyond 300, you can use simple holdovers to effectively make hits out to around 400 yards or so.  Any distance longer than 400 and you’re better off estimating range and adjusting your sights.

The classic military 300 meter zero will put your shots at roughly 4” high at 100 and give you slightly longer max range.  The problem is that at the apex of the bullets trajectory height around the 150 yard mark, you’d be hitting around 6” high POI, which is just too high.

I have found that even things like 30 carbine and 7.62x39 have optimal combat trajectories when zero’d with a 3” high POI at 100 yards.  This video here will show you a comparison of the different zero types that are out there for 5.56 and why the 3” high zero (called 36 / 300 yrd zero in the video) is preferable for general combat uses.  Note 300 yards is NOT 300 meters, and there is a difference (300 meters is around 330 yards) and is around an inch higher than your 300 yrd zero at 100 yards.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9oXGT55cV8&list=PL7337CFD1A573C18F&index=15





300 Yard Zero

I don't recall, but for sure, but I thought the black was 8" on an NRA target.  But I'm assuming you're saying if it's a 6" black circle, you put the black dot on top of the post and wallah, bullseye.  

Thanks for that post.  I like your method.  I'm not sure how close to a 50 yard zero it is, but I think it's close.

The first picture I posted, as well as the video, show you how it compares to the 50 yard zero and others.  Take a look.

I might be mistaken, but at 100 yards I believe the highpower target has a 6" bullseye due to the decreased distance.  I know the NRA target does.  8" bull is too large for 100 yards anyway, IMHO.  I always shoot at the 6" bull targets.  

Infact THIS is the exact target I use for 100 yard shooting.  National Target Co's ST-3.  Has a one inch grid, 6" bull, and a white X ring.  I think it's the perfect target!




*Edit: According to  Midway USA's listing of the 100 yard highpower target, it has a 6" black.  This makes sense since it keeps in line proportionally with their other target distance bullseyes (12" at 200, 18" at 300, etc).

Nice article

I did keep it pretty simple. Yes if you have something other than a 100 yard zero your trajectory will dot the i at some point and fall below again. I have two rifles with two very different zero's, one is a rifle with a National match rear drum for 1/2 moa clicks, and the other rifle has a USGI rear sight.

On the rifle with the national match parts, I zero at 100 and do a 6 o'clock hold with that zero. The other rifles uses the 50/200 yard zero does which is a natural 6 oclock for distances past 50 and 200 yards, but I still go up 1 MOA because it is still in a very nice sweet spot for the i
I can't think of any target inside of 250 yards that I would shoot at, defensively, that would be outside the trajectory of my 6 oclock hold inside that zero range.

Take this for example: with a 50/200 and up 1 moa, a headshot at the maximum ordinate of the projectile will be around 3 inches. This permits me to bracket the head at 100 yards (literally dotting the front sight with the head) and shoot. My round will strike within the center of the head.

I wrote the article at 1 am after work (thats when I can be undisturbed since everyone is sleeping) but sometimes the brain doesn't catch illogical typing and word errors. Thanks, I corrected the spelling error.

Thanks for posting this.

Nice write up.

But I like XS sights because Im old and they are very easy to see

Good read I shared it on my blogs facebook page

I keep thinking about these sights as well for my aging eyes.  I was shooting my pistol yesterday and was thinking about how fat a pistol front sight is in comparison to an AR.  And another old guy told me he can see a fatter front sight post better with his older eyes.  

I think the XS are quite a bit thicker across.  Plus they have a tritium stripe or dot or something.  Eh?

Front sight are.
Golf Ball or standard dot

Strip with tritium ...It is too wide for my taste.

Or painted stripe. .080 or .0100


http://www.xssights.com/Products.aspx?CAT=8275


and what ever rear site you prefer.

I like the same plane peep.

http://www.xssights.com/Products.aspx?CAT=8276

I enjoyed the article.
The carbine would be me.  My HD carbine is an old school slickside upper with A1 sights.  The front post is the square A2.
The sight picture in the photo looks a lot like what I see with my carbine with the big ghost ring up.
When I'm using the gun at night I barely notice the ring at all.
Next time I'm at a proper range I'm going to give the style in the article a try.

I got a big laugh when 400 yards with irons was discussed.  
My carbine might get to 400 yds but...the owner runs out of talent at 250 yards.

I have used the XS white stripe and it was a good option. While the post is overall wider, the white stripe down the center created an interesting effect... The white stripe could be used for precision shots in the daylight since it was so skinny and the eye picked it up before the black edges of the sight. I found it no less accurate than normal irons.

But in low light, when everything was toned down, or when used with a flashlight, it was just one big huge front sight post.

Thanks for those links.  I'm interested in that rear sight with the open sight on top too.  That could be interesting.  

Knife Sniper, were you saying the big white front sight in low light was a good thing or bad thing?  

While he responds.

I like the thin white stripe.

The plain black front sight has that has worked for decades for me is now an issue.
It  gets lost against dark colors or low light.

The white stripe adds a visible contrast when against a dark colored target. and a Light color the black stands out.

So it is good for me.

I haven't played with the CSAT rear.

Oh it was good, still very visible until it became really dim/dark. Just when the flashlight kicked on the white was not visible but that's expected.

Also take a look at blitzkreig components chevron. I'm going to order one to try out on my "modern" a2 project.

That chevron sight looks fat

Now that I've never seen.  Interesting.

Sadly, looks can be deceiving.

The larger and square front sight post was chosen because it was an improvement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX5RoaYqQ04) over the sloped round one. It made for a better sight picture. Also, the width was chosen as a compromise of preference in sight picture, as well as in its ability to range targets. It was supposed to represent the width of the avg torso, to help you set elevation. This chevron painted thingy does none of the above. I cannot see why this would be considered an improvement by anyone familiar with the actual A2 irons.

changes it's to its... my bad.

The Chevron looks interesting but Ill stick to the XS stripe front post Narrow painted.

Ones your eyes are bad or go bad.

Then you will understand the benefits  of this style over plain black.