Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/7/2007 9:52:28 AM EST
Excluding introductory marksmanship training,Retros and Repros(like IDF carbines)and BUIS,are irons so eclipsed by modern Dots,ACOGS and 1X4 scopes in the civilian CQB setting?
Consider:
Clint Smith first articulated the Urban Rifle concept as bringing a rifle to a pistol fight.

Peter Kokalis stated that the average engagement range worldwide was 50 meters.

Chuck Taylor,writing a decade earlier stated the same,and added that an awful lot was at 10 meters.

Pat Rogers,writing of combat by a "Tier 1"unit in Iraq,stated that they had yet to take a shot past 30 meters.

Finally,the top IPSC boyz generally state that within 25-30 meters irons are faster for 2-Alphas("A" box is 6''W X 11" H).
Note:One of their tricks is to run the front sight out to the end of the barrel,just behind the comp.This nets an additional 4" of sight radius.I'm thinking of trying this on my next carbine-gas block the fore-end and clamp a folding BUIS behind the muzzle device.If nothing else,I'll have more BUIS sight radius,a'la the Beryl AK.

So,my point is...well,what is my point?
I guess it's this:Given that most .mil combat occurs within 50 meters,and any realistic civilian use of the rifle will surely be likewise,are iron sights outclassed?
From a utilitarian perspective,could the $400.00-$500.00 spent on an optic be as well spent on other things(Trigger,ammo,training etc.)?


Link Posted: 10/7/2007 10:10:04 AM EST
Double Poster!!!
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 10:14:12 AM EST
Dammit!Shouldn't have polished my mouse sear
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 10:14:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By feudist:
Dammit!Shouldn't have polished my mouse sear


Link Posted: 10/7/2007 10:17:07 AM EST
Must be the optics.

I am seeing double.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 10:22:45 AM EST
Yes.. they are..
But it will take about 25years for the die hards who hate change to give them up...

Too many advantages that outweigh disadvantages to stay with irons other then the stupid shit like " good enough for ....."
or some stupid comment about batteries (even though most the people who make those statements rely on batteries for just about everything in there lives).

People hate change... and historically.. we have always had to push folks kicking and screaming into the future... Optics vs. Irons are no different.. just my $.02 from a Guy with an Aimpoint and an ACOG and am not going back to irons anytime soon....
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 11:36:53 AM EST
Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 11:47:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By springermania:
Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.


+1
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 12:06:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 5:05:56 PM EST by tigerdvr]
We had a small war within our agency when we were developing guidelines for our
patrol rifles. A certain group wanted iron sights only. After much heated discussion, I suggested a range session at dusk (reduced light) where the iron sights tend to disappear. I know there are techniques to silhouette the irons with the flashlight but it's not the same as an an Aimpoint or Eotech which, fortunately are what we got approved.
YMMV
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 12:08:10 PM EST
springermania

Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.

Why can you not teach shooters the basic fundamentals of shooting with a red dot??
You still need a sight picture (just a different one) you still need breath control and trigger squeeze(By far the most important of all the fundamentals).. So why does it HAVE to be taught with Iron sights???

From a Military prospective.. Anything that can speed up the process of teaching Marksmen-ship and make it easier for the Soldier to hit under duress is a good thing...


Ya know.. back in the late 70's when they were fielding the M-1 Abrams Main Battle tank.. all it's nay-sayers touted about how it relied to much on electronics and it was over complex and did not align with the KISS principle.... I have yet to meet anyone who wanted to go back to the Sherman and Patton Tanks that pecedded it...

Pardigm shift ....
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 12:08:24 PM EST
Not for me, irons are all I can afford on the AR right now...
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 12:10:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By tigerdvr:
We had a small war within our agency when we developing guidelines for our
patrol rifles. A certain group wanted iron sights only. After much heated discussion, I suggested a range session at dusk (reduced light) where the iron sights tend to disappear. I know there are techniques to silhouette the irons with the flashlight but it's not the same as an an Aimpoint or Eotech which, fortunately are what we got approved.
YMMV


tritium iron sights.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 12:11:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By AtlantaFireman:

Originally Posted By springermania:
Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.


+1


+2

You'd be a fool to rely solely on optics IMO.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:10:50 PM EST
Is the age of ironsights over? For the military/LEO, it may be coming to a close. For 99% of the civilians w/AR's, no, not in my lifetime.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:37:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 1:41:09 PM EST by Yojimbo]
Here's an excellent quote from Pat Rogers that I believe answers your question.

"We need to get over the romance of aligning sights and get to the business of shooting smelly bearded men in the face more efficiently."

- Pat Rogers

IMHO, the eletronic optics have proven themselves and are now the primary sights and the irons have been relegated to backup.

With that said I don't believe any firearm is complete without some type of iron sights.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:41:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 1:41:54 PM EST by Beater9C1]
Get good with irons first. Then get the optics.

Atleast thats what I am doing.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:47:33 PM EST
In a rugged environment. I'd at least like to have irons as back up. It never hurts to have something to fall back to if/when your main optic fails
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:48:30 PM EST
With all the iron sight options out there now , the age has just begun.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:56:06 PM EST

"We need to get over the romance of aligning sights and get to the business of shooting smelly bearded men in the face more efficiently."

- Pat Rogers


Link Posted: 10/7/2007 1:58:38 PM EST
I have both. The answer is a definite NO. The age of Iron sites is not over
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:12:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Harv24:
springermania

Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.

Why can you not teach shooters the basic fundamentals of shooting with a red dot??
You still need a sight picture (just a different one) you still need breath control and trigger squeeze(By far the most important of all the fundamentals).. So why does it HAVE to be taught with Iron sights???

From a Military prospective.. Anything that can speed up the process of teaching Marksmen-ship and make it easier for the Soldier to hit under duress is a good thing...


Ya know.. back in the late 70's when they were fielding the M-1 Abrams Main Battle tank.. all it's nay-sayers touted about how it relied to much on electronics and it was over complex and did not align with the KISS principle.... I have yet to meet anyone who wanted to go back to the Sherman and Patton Tanks that pecedded it...

Pardigm shift ....


I think it's probably the concentration it takes to align both the front and rear, combine it with breathing and all of the other trembling factors that the human body has makes you a better shooter. Throw optics on top of that foundation and you're a smoking hot shooter.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:13:37 PM EST
I'd say no. I use both, eotech and iron sights. At 25 yds in I really can't tell a difference in speed when shooting standard silhouetes center mass.

One thing I can't stand personally is cowitnessed red dots. Some people swear to them, I just can't stand the sight picture or the extra time involved.

I either use one, or the other, not both at the same time.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:13:51 PM EST
Simple. Use what works best for YOU.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:15:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 2:17:00 PM EST by Unicorn]

Originally Posted By PBIR:

Originally Posted By AtlantaFireman:

Originally Posted By springermania:
Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.


+1


+2

You'd be a fool to rely solely on optics IMO.


Like the Rangers, SF, and Army an Marine Infantry foolishly reliying on optics instead of the tried and true, worked for grandpa in D-Day irons.

People who are putting rounds into the enemy seem to have no problem with using optics, and very, very few have never needed to flip up their back up irons. Those that had them anyway.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:23:58 PM EST
Any body who trains like the "age of irons is over"will wish they didnt when the batteries run out or thr tritium runs out or optics break will regret it becau8se not only will they not be able to use the rifle to continue the fight because they cant hit anything that may also be because they didnt see the need for a BUIS.I went flat top on my goto carbine..im getting an Eotech but I still use my iron sights with my Matech BUIS...if one cant hit with irons they should rethink the weapon they chose to shoot with...murphys law can strike at any time...back ups and knowing how to hit with irons is a must for any beginner or experienced gun fighter.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:25:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 2:28:31 PM EST by bobfried]

Originally Posted By Unicorn:

Originally Posted By PBIR:

Originally Posted By AtlantaFireman:

Originally Posted By springermania:
Irons may be slower for some in combat, but I doubt there is a better way to learn the fundamentals of shooting other than using irons. Use the optics to enhance your abilities, not rely on them.


+1


+2

You'd be a fool to rely solely on optics IMO.


Like the Rangers, SF, and Army an Marine Infantry foolishly reliying on optics instead of the tried and true, worked for grandpa in D-Day irons.

People who are putting rounds into the enemy seem to have no problem with using optics, and very, very few have never needed to flip up their back up irons. Those that had them anyway.


Ah yes, READING COMPREHENSION once again rear its ugly head.

The operative word there my friend, is SOLELY.

When I was closing my eyes and pretending I was at the beach with my feet dug into the sand and my hand on my M4 I sure as hell glad I had irons in support of my red dot. There's a reason why everything is strapped down, taped up or tied into everything else, it's the ultimate redudancy mindset. I have never met a single man foolish enough NOT to want a back up to something else. Hell that's why we get issue sidearms at all and most of us carry a knife to back that up. Show me an infantryman that would not take BUIS when they get issued and I will show you a boot up his ass. Heck some even have a carry handle in their ruck just for that extra OH SHIT moment.

The KISS mindset also arises from the fear of shit breaking in a tough situation. So when you can't KISS, Keep It Redundant Stupid.

KIRS
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 2:30:33 PM EST
got both.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 3:18:10 PM EST
No one is advocating that Back up Irons are removed completely.. any prudent Gunfighter will have them.. but if you want to answer the OP's question.. and based on what the Army and Marines are issuing by the tens of thousands... yes.. the age of irons is over....

Sorry boy's.. we'll just have to push you kicking and screamin into the future as well...

It's just like the turn of the century when guys could not fathom giving up there trusty horses for that darn,new fangled car...Same old arguments about it will break down.blah,blah,blah..

Yet I see very few of you riding your horse to work every morning....
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 3:30:45 PM EST
Master the irons first. Then grab an optic
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 3:53:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 4:03:11 PM EST by PUBBOY]
I'm not sure there is an "age of iron" sights per se, that has been eclipsed by an "age of EOs."

EOs are an "improvement" over irons, without a doubt. But to say that irons are old school, and EOs are the ONLY way of the future is nonsense.

Learn with irons, and upgrade to EOs after you've mastered the basics. Always equip your weapons with the best sighting tools available.

If something goes terribly wrong with your EO, then you have mastered the use of irons...no big deal.

I don't see it as one thing phasing out the other, but the new and improved building upon the foundation of the former.

It's all about fundamentals.

Link Posted: 10/7/2007 5:27:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By PUBBOY:
I'm not sure there is an "age of iron" sights per se, that has been eclipsed by an "age of EOs."

EOs are an "improvement" over irons, without a doubt. But to say that irons are old school, and EOs are the ONLY way of the future is nonsense.

Learn with irons, and upgrade to EOs after you've mastered the basics. Always equip your weapons with the best sighting tools available.

If something goes terribly wrong with your EO, then you have mastered the use of irons...no big deal.

I don't see it as one thing phasing out the other, but the new and improved building upon the foundation of the former.

It's all about fundamentals.



+1 well said.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 5:56:55 PM EST
I still love irons. Even though i have an Aimpoint and other scopes, i still use my irons when i'm at the range most of the time. Because if you can hit your mark with irons, using a scope is a peice of cake.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 6:24:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
Here's an excellent quote from Pat Rogers that I believe answers your question.

"We need to get over the romance of aligning sights and get to the business of shooting smelly bearded men in the face more efficiently."

- Pat Rogers



At 214,000 rounds per insurgent, somethn ain't right! Where did I read that?
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 6:25:03 PM EST
For the flat top AR the age of irons pretty much is over. However for other platforms and types of weapons irons are alive and well and will continue to be so for some time to come.

As far as teaching shooting to beginers with a red dot I wouldn't advocate it. With a red dot you'll never learn the fundamentals of accurate long range shooting. Besides wich every shooter should learn to use irons well in case there weapon goes down and they have to use one they are not familiar with. Most popular millitary rifles are still set up for irons not red dots. Most older designs including the M16A2 do not easily allow the mounting of optics.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 7:13:58 PM EST
With my first AR, I did what people are saying and shot it with just irons, even though it was a flat-top. With my current AR, I have backup irons and an EOtech - and I only use the EOtech.

My next rifle (which won't exist for quite some time, most likely several years, as my current one is perfectly servicable and I don't have money to throw into a new one) will not have irons

I'm thinking something variable-power, maybe along the lines of an ELCAN; that's all fairly academic, though, since I'm sure optics technology will progress quite a bit between now and whenever I'm in the market for a new rifle.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 7:20:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 7:21:42 PM EST by Nakanokalronin]

Originally Posted By olds442tyguy:
Give me optics. A bicycle may be more reliable than a car, but you sure as hell won't catch me riding one to work.


I completely despise non hooded ghost rings anyways. Ghost ring rears work great with hooded front sights that are properly spaced. Bladed fronts and ghost ring rears on the other hand are like putting chocolate syrup on a steak. Sure you still have a meal, but mixing two good things together don't always come out right.


Yea but if you don't have to go very far for work the bicycle will work fine. You don't need fuel for a bicycle and if your car fails and your not far from work you'll be glad you had the bicycle.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 7:28:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Harv24:
Why can you not teach shooters the basic fundamentals of shooting with a red dot??
You still need a sight picture (just a different one) you still need breath control and trigger squeeze(By far the most important of all the fundamentals).. So why does it HAVE to be taught with Iron sights???




EXACTLY
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 7:53:51 PM EST
(Like posted in the other thread) I've tried optics a couple of times and always took them off after a short while. I find shooting, like a lot of other things, to be more satisfying when there's a little effort involved. Dots and scopes make shooting the AR like taking candy from a baby. There's no satisfaction in hitting the target when you can do it almost do it 100% of the time.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:06:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
There's no satisfaction in hitting the target when you can do it almost do it 100% of the time.



Especially if it ever happens to be a target thats shooting back at you.

Its a very zen experience.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:09:44 PM EST
I like irons. They will always have their place, even if just for back-up.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:15:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 8:34:59 PM EST by Bullet175]
Irons are primary

optics are extras

After all there is a reason they are called IRON sights. Because when all else fails they will still be there haunting you, always in the way of your fancy scope that broke. however they will ALWAYS hold zero untill YOU decide to alter it.

I can hit a man sized target at 600 yards with my irons alone. No fancy scope needed here. I would probably never need to engage anything at that range but its good to know that I can if I needed to.

All optics do is give you the ability to shoot the left eye out of a prairie dog. In the real world all you need is the rifle and your ability to use it they way it was intended to be used.

Know your irons like you know your wife.......Optics are nothing more than porn stars.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:28:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
There's no satisfaction in hitting the target when you can do it almost do it 100% of the time.



Especially if it ever happens to be a target thats shooting back at you.

Its a very zen experience.



I figure my chances of being in a firefight with my personal AR are about the same as 99.99% of the other people on this board, somewhere south of zero. YMMV.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:32:39 PM EST
hell no
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 8:42:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 8:43:33 PM EST by Lumpy196]

Originally Posted By Hoppy:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
There's no satisfaction in hitting the target when you can do it almost do it 100% of the time.



Especially if it ever happens to be a target thats shooting back at you.

Its a very zen experience.



I figure my chances of being in a firefight with my personal AR are about the same as 99.99% of the other people on this board, somewhere south of zero. YMMV.



Im glad you live in an area free of criminals or natural disasters or break down of civil order.

I hope we can all live there some day.

And no one fucking said "firefight."
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 9:02:28 PM EST
If you just look at all the photos posted on this forum, there are BUIS galore! Obviously iron sights are still around and will be around for a long time to come.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 10:00:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Hoppy:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
There's no satisfaction in hitting the target when you can do it almost do it 100% of the time.



Especially if it ever happens to be a target thats shooting back at you.

Its a very zen experience.



I figure my chances of being in a firefight with my personal AR are about the same as 99.99% of the other people on this board, somewhere south of zero. YMMV.



Im glad you live in an area free of criminals or natural disasters or break down of civil order.

I hope we can all live there some day.

And no one fucking said "firefight."



I'm sorry, perhaps there's another name for "a target thats shooting back at you"?

I do not live in an "area free of criminals or natural disasters or break down of civil order", but I do understand the odds of such things happening to me and the odds of my needing my AR in such a situation. The odds are excellent though that my AR will see nothing but range until I die (probably not from criminals, natural disasters or break down of civil order ).
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:30:35 AM EST
no, but the age of my eyes are pretty much over iron sights!
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:49:04 AM EST
Is an Aimpoint or EOTech faster than irons? Sure.
Is an Aimpoint or EOTech more accurate in low light? Sure.
Is an Aimpoint or EOTech more durable than irons? Nope.
Is an Aimpoint or EOTech more prone to malfunction that irons? Sure.

I run an Aimpoint on my duty rifle. about 1.5" behind it sits a LMT BUIS. I will not have a battle rifle without a BUIS.

Electronic Dot sights are a quantum leap for battle rifles. I wish we had them when I was in the mud. I felt blessed when I was handed an ACOG. But if you told me I was going on a one week patrol (which usually means fragged to two weeks with no resupply) and I had the choice of ONLY a dot sight OR irons, you better belive I would choose irons. Slow is better than none, and when an optic fails you get no sighting system. This is rarely the case, since BUIS are available and if I was still in the field you better believe I would have a personally owned BUIS that I could slap on in a pinch.

The only rifle I have ever carried into the field without irons was an M40A1, and for targets less that 50 yards away I had my iron sights firmly affixed to the top of my M9.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 11:27:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By feudist:
Excluding introductory marksmanship training,Retros and Repros(like IDF carbines)and BUIS,are irons so eclipsed by modern Dots,ACOGS and 1X4 scopes in the civilian CQB setting?Yes the irons are gone but only for those who can afford themsee rest of the world outside of us & Europe
Consider:
Clint Smith first articulated the Urban Rifle concept as bringing a rifle to a pistol fight.
Pistols have always had limited use in war by soldiers who do not execute others (see SS the most prolific users of pistols) now with PDWs, and carbines the role of the handgun is further diminished
Peter Kokalis stated that the average engagement range worldwide was 50 meters.
The rest of the world can't shoot strait for Americans the average range is closer to 70m in combat and 200+ is not uncommon at all Average engament range period for the US is like 50 miles I would guess
Chuck Taylor,writing a decade earlier stated the same,and added that an awful lot was at 10 meters.
Once again most of the uneducated masses can't shoot strait
Pat Rogers,writing of combat by a "Tier 1"unit in Iraq,stated that they had yet to take a shot past 30 meters.
Tier 1 units like to get close using steath then overwhelm using mass aimed fire at once the goal is to get close
Finally,the top IPSC boyz generally state that within 25-30 meters irons are faster for 2-Alphas("A" box is 6''W X 11" H).
Note:One of their tricks is to run the front sight out to the end of the barrel,just behind the comp.This nets an additional 4" of sight radius.I'm thinking of trying this on my next carbine-gas block the fore-end and clamp a folding BUIS behind the muzzle device.If nothing else,I'll have more BUIS sight radius,a'la the Beryl AK.

So,my point is...well,what is my point?
I guess it's this:Given that most .mil combat occurs within 50 meters,and any realistic civilian use of the rifle will surely be likewise,are iron sights outclassed?
From a utilitarian perspective,could the $400.00-$500.00 spent on an optic be as well spent on other things(Trigger,ammo,training etc.)?




The Military still prefers to engage past 50 M but the ROE is so limiting it prevents this it is not because of sights or optics that the range is 50m or less it is because of rules and styles of vthese engagements and the fact that whenever possible you don't let the guys trying to kill you see you
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 11:50:56 AM EST
I bought a scope, took it off and went back to iron sights. You know what? My groups are about the same with the irons.

Bought an A3 upper with a Larue BUIS on it. Didnt like it and got a regular A2 carry handle to replace it.
For me irons are the bees knees,
SIMPLE and DEPENDABLE!
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 12:18:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By stolat:
I bought a scope, took it off and went back to iron sights. You know what? My groups are about the same with the irons.

Bought an A3 upper with a Larue BUIS on it. Didnt like it and got a regular A2 carry handle to replace it.
For me irons are the bees knees,
SIMPLE and DEPENDABLE!


So is a sharp stick. You love it until some ass comes along with his fancy new boom stick that spits fire and kills you. Technology rules here. Irons will always be critical as back ups because electronic sights can fail. So can Irons, though.

This thread is almost the answer to "does co-witnessing matter?" If the elctronic is your primary, use it. If it breaks, tear it off and use irons until you get a new electronic.

Good thread.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top