So here's my problem with optics on an AR-15.


PDA






stevekl
July 13, 2009, 12:09 AM
This is my logic:

The iron sights on most firearms sold today are awful. They are really just pathetic. Most of them are plastic and, if you're lucky, they require adjustment by screwdriver.

My ideal iron sight is 100% steel and adjustable by hand. How many firearms manufacturers can claim to make sights like this? Not many. I think the ONLY new commercial rifle I have ever owned is the CZ 452, which comes with excellent all-metal finger-adjustable iron sights. I am so glad to own this rifle, just because the sights are so good.

And then I look at the AR-15. I own an AR with Plain Jane government style rear sight and front sight. And you know, these sights are just glorious. They are so much better than anything offered commercially today.

So how come 90% of the AR's I see have red dot or optical scopes? I don't get it. The sights on these rifles are the filet mignon of iron sights. Do you REALLY need a scope?!

Maybe some people want a red dot scope. but for me, I enjoy the hell out of my regular ol' A2 system with its regular ol' iron sights. Because it's the best iron sights available on a new commercial rifle today, and I think it's foolish to replace it with anything else.

Just my 2 cents!

If you enjoyed reading about "So here's my problem with optics on an AR-15." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
browningguy
July 13, 2009, 12:13 AM
Since almost everyone is faster and more accurate with red dots//scopes than irons why would you limit yourself to irons? Seems to defeat the purpose of a HD/SD rifle.

benEzra
July 13, 2009, 12:14 AM
On a target gun, iron sights are great. On a fighting/defensive gun, though, a 1x optic is not only marginally faster at most ranges, but (more importantly) is as usable in mediocre light as it is in daylight. Iron sights are hard to use effectively in some lighting conditions.

COMPNOR
July 13, 2009, 12:20 AM
Is it really a problem? Seems more like you simply prefer iron sights. More people may prefer red dots. For me, my preference is Red Dots.

ThePunisher'sArmory
July 13, 2009, 12:20 AM
With a red dot one can acquire a target having both eyes open offering a better field of view for clearing rooms in a cqb engagement. Use irons for long range target shooting.:)

Maverick223
July 13, 2009, 12:27 AM
Magnified iron sights are pretty difficult to find. :neener: I find a optic to be much easier (even if only 1x) on nearly every rifle (not to say that the same optic is appropriate for all arms/uses). :)

FlyinBryan
July 13, 2009, 12:37 AM
So how come 90% of the AR's I see have red dot or optical scopes? I don't get it. The sights on these rifles are the filet mignon of iron sights. Do you REALLY need a scope?!

some folks just want to hit things of certain sizes, and at certain ranges, that the human eye simply cant detect without help.

and I think it's foolish to replace it with anything else.

try hitting a penny at 200 yards, for that matter, try seeing a penny at 200 yards.

coloradokevin
July 13, 2009, 12:39 AM
I agree with you in saying that the sights on an AR-15 are very nice as-is. But, I use my AR-15 as a duty weapon, and have added an Eotech holosight to that setup. My rationale behind this choice is because:

1) The Eotech is faster than iron sights.
2) The Eotech performs better in low-light environments than the iron sights.
3) The nature of that optic provides me with better situational awareness while clearing rooms with it (in other words, I feel like I can scan a room better while still focusing on my sight picture).
4) The Eotech sight still provides me with the ability to shoot at long ranges as well as short ranges (note: "long range" is a relative term... I have effectively trained out to 300m with this sight, which is MUCH longer than any shooting I'd ever be involved in as a police officer. I have to be able to identify the target I'm shooting at, and I doubt I'd ever even have the opportunity to shoot beyond 70 yards or so in my urban environment)

But, despite the advantage, I still shoot every qualification with the Eotech on, then again with the Eotech off. I typically score the same in qualification with either sighting system, though I am usually faster with the Eotech, and produce slightly smaller groups with the Eotech. To each their own, but I'll take every advantage I can get when I'm shooting at a target that is shooting back at me!

Irons are great in their simplisity and durability, but the Eotech is a superior sight for me, for my purposes with the weapon.

SHvar
July 13, 2009, 12:45 AM
I have both, an A3 sight, and a T-dot reticle scope with no magnification. I even have the option of a 3-9X40 if I really feel like mounting it.
In the dark my Bushnell MP scope allows me to see what I cant see with the naked eye (great optics for low light conditions), target aquisition is fast, but I do like the sights on my Bushy alot.

freakshow10mm
July 13, 2009, 12:52 AM
Depends on the role. My fun guns wear iron sights but my longer range rifle wears a rifle scope. I prefer my sights to not have batteries that fail. Give me a set of solid irons and a good sling and I'm all set.

HorseSoldier
July 13, 2009, 01:35 AM
So how come 90% of the AR's I see have red dot or optical scopes? I don't get it. The sights on these rifles are the filet mignon of iron sights. Do you REALLY need a scope?!

I do.

Pretty much has already been said by other posters -- I'm not shabby with the irons, but I'm faster with a red dot and my target acquisition and engagement times at longer range are much better with an ACOG or similar optic.

In good lighting shooting at clearly visible targets without a time limit the difference between irons and improved optics is less notable, but when you start talking about combat shooting (or quality training for the same) iron sights quickly get relegated to that "back up" status.

Maverick223
July 13, 2009, 02:12 AM
iron sights quickly get relegated to that "back up" status...and rightly so, their biggest only advantage IMO is unfailing durability. :)

cameron.personal
July 13, 2009, 02:22 AM
Do you REALLY need a scope?!
I have noticed a distinct predilection towards the curmudgeon posts on THR and TFL recently I am not sure what it is. Anytime someone posts about a decent semi auto rifle with a nice optic someone pipes in and derides the rifle and optic usually maintaining the only thing one ever needs is a .30-30 lever action or a mosin nagant with iron sights. I think it is more posturing rather than a measured serious response.

Yes, most everybody here knows that is vital to becoming skillful with a rifle that one becomes competent with the iron sights. Yes, it is harder to use irons than a red dot, and I am sure there are some here that will never acquire the skill of using irons because they threw a red dot on and called in good. It is just that this dogged insistence that iron are all y'all will ever need, is getting a little tiresome.

A red dot sight is superior to iron sights. It is that simple. While I personally cut my teeth on a rifle more than two decades ago with iron sights, I will admit a quality optic DRASTICALLY improves the overall potential of a rifle. Parallelex free red dots are an amazing advantage to a rifleman from 3-300m, similarly a magnified optic is a huge advantage in target acquisition, identification and accuracy.

Cameron

JohnBT
July 13, 2009, 09:29 AM
"A red dot sight is superior to iron sights. It is that simple."

Well, in a nutshell, it's not that simple. You've made a sweeping generalization.

I hate red dots because I don't see red very well. At least I'm not totally color blind like my late uncle.

John

Edited to add: www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/aboutcb.asp

"Color blindness (color vision deficiency) is a condition in which certain colors cannot be distinguished, and is most commonly due to an inherited condition. Red/Green color blindness is by far the most common form, about 99%, and causes problems in distinguishing reds and greens. Another color deficiency Blue/Yellow also exists, but is rare and there is no commonly available test for it.

Depending on just which figures you believe, color blindness seems to occur in about 8% - 12% of males of European origin and about one-half of 1% of females. I did not find any figures for frequency in other races. Total color blindness (seeing in only shades of gray) is extremely rare.

There is no treatment for color blindness, nor is it usually the cause of any significant disability. However, it can be very frustrating for individuals affected by it. Those who are not color blind seem to have the misconception that color blindness means that a color blind person sees only in black and white or shades of gray. While this sort of condition is possible, it is extremely rare. Being color blind does keep one from performing certain jobs and makes others difficult."

Still Too Many Choices!?
July 13, 2009, 09:30 AM
Don't forget about sight offset at close ranges( read as under 25 yds/m). I have to aim really high with irons at home defense ranges... With the eotech, I just place the lowest point at the bottom of the reticle on target and squeeze. Much easier than aiming with the gas block:)!!

cameron.personal
July 13, 2009, 11:47 AM
JohnBT I suppose by that rational blind people cannot see iron sights and they are effectively useless.

You are an anomaly, and really it doesn't change that fact that a red dot on a carbine makes putting rounds on target easier.

Cameron

ArmedBear
July 13, 2009, 12:06 PM
With a red dot one can acquire a target having both eyes open offering a better field of view for clearing rooms in a cqb engagement.

Hmmm... I have no problem using irons with both eyes open.

Red dots have their merits, but this is a practice/skill problem, not a sight problem.

happygeek
July 13, 2009, 12:16 PM
I'm pretty sure I saw an ad for an optic in some magazine or other that was offered in multiple colors other than red. I've used at least one sight, the Elcan SpecterDR that has a black, I'm not sure how to describe it, almost like a T. It also has a red dot you can turn on that obviously needs battery power, the black T doesn't require power. The sight has a lever on the side for switching between 1x and 4x. It's a really nice sight in my opinion, just costs a lot.
http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterDR.php

As to people using optics on an AR, it's mostly a CQB thing, as aforementioned. It seems they started out with the military/LE and quickly gained popularity in the civilian market. Magnification is always nice too. Iron sights are usually still there with the Army, they're just used for backup in case the optic should fail. I personally have had an EOtech go screwy on me, luckily it was just on the range. The Army still trained M16A2s with iron sights in basic last time I saw.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 13, 2009, 05:23 PM
Others have espoused the 1x ESD (alleged) advantages, which I agree with.

But in addition to that, a magnified optic with a medium-large objective lens is even *better* than an ESD in low light conditions, which makes it much much better than iron sights, particularly as the eyes age. Having a good scope add 20 minutes on both ends of the legal hunting day, dawn & dusk, relative to iron sights. A magnified optic also allows you to see the target better, and see intervening objects better which might be in the way (small twigs, etc.).

And there's the whole lining up two points is easier/faster than lining up 3 points - but that's no different an an ESD, and was already thus covered.

JohnBT
July 13, 2009, 06:36 PM
"JohnBT I suppose by that rational blind people cannot see iron sights and they are effectively useless."

That's it? That's the best you can do? Blind people? BWAHAHAHA.

__________
"JohnBT I suppose by that rational blind people cannot see iron sights and they are effectively useless.

You are an anomaly, and really it doesn't change that fact that a red dot on a carbine makes putting rounds on target easier."
__________

An anomaly? Hardly. Go back and read the info at the bottom of my post. Here...

"color blindness seems to occur in about 8% - 12% of males of European origin"

It is not a rare condition at all. At. All.



"that was offered in multiple colors other than red."

Wouldn't be a red dot then, would it? :)

He said, ""A red dot sight is superior to iron sights. It is that simple.""

And as we see, it's not that simple.

John

GTSteve03
July 13, 2009, 09:00 PM
So John, would the red dot disappear, or just appear as a different color, such as white?

If it only appears as a different color, then it is no less useful than to a person with normal vision.

taliv
July 13, 2009, 09:06 PM
Well, in a nutshell, it's not that simple. You've made a sweeping generalization.


well, it's that simple for 88-92% of the population

i agree with cameron, though i'm becoming quite fond of the 1-4x offerings

cameron.personal
July 13, 2009, 09:13 PM
He said, ""A red dot sight is superior to iron sights. It is that simple.""

And as we see, it's not that simple.

John

It really is that simple. Optics improve hit probability. You have funky eyes and nothing helps you... I'm sorry but I guess you are **** out of luck, like the other guys said try a reflex sight that has a green reticle maybe that will help. For the vast majority of the rest of us an optic, either reflex or magnified improves the utility of the firearm. Make semantic arguments and pedantic assertions about some minor end of the bell shaped curve all you want it still wont change the facts.

Cameron

cameron.personal
July 13, 2009, 09:17 PM
i agree with cameron, though i'm becoming quite fond of the 1-4x offerings
taliv, I ran some drills comparing an EOTech and a Leupold SPR 1.5-5 illuminated scope at close range (10-15yards), and I have to say I was extremely surprised how close the times were. The 1.5 setting and the SPR reticle appeared to be very nearly as fast as an EOTech.

Both rifle are 16" carbines set up exactly the same and weigh nearly the identical amount, same LMT 2 stage triggers and my time differences was in the 100ths of seconds.

Leupold MK4 1.5-5x20mm SPR
http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss60/cameron_personal/AR15s/01SPR.jpg

EOTech 552
http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss60/cameron_personal/AR15s/01HBAR.jpg

Maverick223
July 13, 2009, 09:25 PM
CP, first of all those are horrible pics...you need to have someone hold them for a better angle. ;) Secondly, how do you like the flip down objective cover on the top rig? I have been considering doing something similar. :)

cameron.personal
July 13, 2009, 09:40 PM
I know what you are saying about someone holding them I had a pic like that around here some place...

The flip covers came with the Leupold but they are made by Butler Creek and you can position the to flip up down or to the side.

I think they are great for minimizing the range crap getting on your lens while waiting to shoot.

Cameron

praharin
July 13, 2009, 09:41 PM
With a red dot one can acquire a target having both eyes open offering a better field of view for clearing rooms in a cqb engagement.
Hmmm... I have no problem using irons with both eyes open.

Red dots have their merits, but this is a practice/skill problem, not a sight problem.
__________________

In addition to the low-light benefit of illuminated optics, all optics also speed up sight alignment/sight picture. there is no eye-rear sight-front sight-target, a 4 point system; it's just eye-reticle+target, a 2 point system because the reticle and target appear to be on the same plain, to the eye.




"that was offered in multiple colors other than red."

Wouldn't be a red dot then, would it?

You're arguing semantics now. Not a valid point here anyway, because the OP was about optics in general, not just "red dot" sights.

Tully M. Pick
July 13, 2009, 11:34 PM
I have noticed a distinct predilection towards the curmudgeon posts on THR and TFL recently I am not sure what it is. Anytime someone posts about a decent semi auto rifle with a nice optic someone pipes in and derides the rifle and optic usually maintaining the only thing one ever needs is a .30-30 lever action or a mosin nagant with iron sights. I think it is more posturing rather than a measured serious response.

While I'm sure them new-fangled lever actions offer some form of advantage, there's no need for anything more than my trusty match-lock. I shoot durn near 3 rounds per minute with it, and can take the wings off of a fly at 2 yards. If I had my druthers, that would be all anyone would use.

JohnBT
July 14, 2009, 09:18 AM
"You're arguing semantics now."

That's not a bad thing. Words have meaning and I can only read what he posted. He didn't say optics, he said red dots were the be all and end all.

"Semantics is the study of meaning." - the definition

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 10:53 AM
Optics improve hit probability.

How much depends on the overall scenario. I'm not convinced that a red dot would improve hit probability for me inside my house, for example. I don't really need to use the sights at all.

WRT fast acquisition, red dots can really improve that, but so does training with irons. Combine the red dot and that training, and you can get the best performance.

It seems to me that many rifle shooters can't handle a long gun worth spit, though.

For the vast majority of the rest of us an optic, either reflex or magnified improves the utility of the firearm.

Accuracy, yes. Past a certain distance, a rifle can be almost wasted without magnification -- but don't tell that to the guys who can routinely hit a military target at 600 yards with A2 sights.

Utility is a conditional thing, though.

Size, weight, complexity, cost, maintenance, points of failure are all increased when you add an optic to the AR. Reliability in rough conditions is decreased.

By how much? Depends, of course.

Is the tradeoff worth it? Probably most of the time.

Still, "utility" is conditional. I find a stainless Ranch Rifle to have more utility than an AR, in some circumstances. It's much sleeker, easier to stash, lighter, and it points better.

Does that mean I'd rather use it in a match at 300 yards, or even 100? No.

"Utility" is a different thing.

Sometimes a heavy, bulky rifle that requires batteries that don't like cold weather, with glass that can break if you drop it on a rock, doesn't off the most utility.

praharin
July 14, 2009, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by JohnBT:

"You're arguing semantics now."

That's not a bad thing. Words have meaning and I can only read what he posted. He didn't say optics, he said red dots were the be all and end all.

"Semantics is the study of meaning." - the definition

The term "red dot" has become synonymous with any type of non-magnified type sight. I have heard the EOTech, Aimpoint and Reflex all called "red dots" and they are all very different from one another.

It seems to me that the actual accepted meaning of those word used together has become something different than the words mean separately.

Also, because you seem to want to argue, the original post, which is what I referenced, used the word "optics" not just "red dot" type sights.

So here's my problem with optics on an AR-15.

That is the title of this thread

HorseSoldier
July 15, 2009, 12:12 AM
Accuracy, yes. Past a certain distance, a rifle can be almost wasted without magnification -- but don't tell that to the guys who can routinely hit a military target at 600 yards with A2 sights.

Whether they'll admit it or not, none of those guys can positively ID a bad guy at 600 meters with iron sights and most can't even pick him out of the background reliably. Target shooting under controlled conditions with irons are much different than battlefield use.

Sometimes a heavy, bulky rifle that requires batteries that don't like cold weather, with glass that can break if you drop it on a rock, doesn't off the most utility.

Dropping an ACOG hard enough to break it would probably be sufficient to take out iron sights as well.

ArmedBear
July 15, 2009, 12:59 AM
Whether they'll admit it or not, none of those guys can positively ID a bad guy at 600 meters with iron sights and most can't even pick him out of the background reliably. Target shooting under controlled conditions with irons are much different than battlefield use.


Yes. I just said they probably wouldn't concur that the rifle is wasted without a scope.:)

Dropping an ACOG hard enough to break it would probably be sufficient to take out iron sights as well.

I'm WAY too cheap to find out.

sarduy
July 15, 2009, 01:00 AM
Hmmm... I have no problem using irons with both eyes open.

Red dots have their merits, but this is a practice/skill problem, not a sight problem.

i feel the same way... i shoot better with irons than with a red dot, but to each their own!

ArmedBear
July 15, 2009, 01:09 AM
Let's just say that, when I started shooting clays, I found out how little I knew about handling a long gun.

When I went back to a rifle, I found that I could acquire targets faster, shoot followup shots faster, keep both eyes open, and whine a lot less about the sights I had to work with.

I proceeded to win an offhand match with my .30-06.

A lot of guys here do know how to handle a rifle, I'm sure. But I didn't. And IMHO the more you do, the less you worry about the sights, at least out to the distance where irons don't have enough resolution.

That said, an ACOG does make for much better long range shooting than A2 sights, because you can see the !@#% target with a scope.:) But if you can see the target, it's YOU, not the sight, that causes a hit or a miss.

And no, I don't mean to suggest that a red dot doesn't still make target acquisition easier and quicker with practice. I just don't think that it's as necessary a crutch, with practice handling a long gun.

sarduy
July 15, 2009, 01:15 AM
this is why the military train new recruits with IRON SIGHT.

cottonmouth
July 15, 2009, 01:42 AM
I am in Afghanistan and was issued a Bushmaster with a 14.5" barrel and an Aimpoint. I also have a ARMS flip up BUIS on it that love! I took the Aimpoint off and just use the BUIS unless we are going to be out after dark, peep sights are not so good in low light situations.

J.B.

Maverick223
July 15, 2009, 03:10 AM
The flip covers came with the Leupold but they are made by Butler Creek and you can position the to flip up down or to the side.I know that...but what about the down position? Do you find it to be less distracting...any other advantages to flipping down? I am considering it myself if I have the room between the rail and objective.
I am in Afghanistan and was issued a BushmasterWhen did this start? :)

cottonmouth
July 15, 2009, 05:24 AM
At least seven months ago! :D

J.B.

DMK
July 15, 2009, 10:13 AM
Anytime someone posts about a decent semi auto rifle with a nice optic someone pipes in and derides the rifle and optic usually maintaining the only thing one ever needs is a .30-30 lever action or a mosin nagant with iron sights. I think it is more posturing rather than a measured serious response.This is so true. Especially the part about posturing.

I'm not sure why this is even an argument. You don't really have to make a choice. I have a number of rifles that have both iron sights and optics (some red dots, some magnified). When I shoot the rifle, I shoot with both sights, about 50/50 split between them. It would not be prudent to only practice with an optic.

The magnified optics do require removal of the optic to use the irons, but I have never found that to be an issue for my use with a good quality QD mount.

For my use and my heavily wooded geography however, I much prefer a red-dot. A properly sighted and co-witnessed red dot allows me to use irons and the optic at will, without needing to remove or adjust anything. I have two AR-15s that put the dot right on the tip of the front sight post. The rear sight is a folding design, but I mostly leave it up and switch to the large "ghost ring" aperture. I can sight the red dot, right through it. Some folks might think this is too busy, but it is not distracting at all and allows me the best of both worlds. I can switch from the red-dot to iron sights at will by merely changing my focus from dot/target to the front sight post.


Restricting yourself to just irons on an AR-15 is tying one hand behind your back when it is not necessary at all unlsee your shooting high power competition or something with such rules.

That said, I do have a couple AR-15s with fixed carry handles and iron sights, but that is just for sentimental reasons and they are range toys, not "go-to" guns.

DMK
July 15, 2009, 10:19 AM
this is why the military train new recruits with IRON SIGHT. New recruits are given basic skills training. One should definitely master iron sights before shooting with optics. You have to learn to crawl and walk before you can run.

kwelz
July 15, 2009, 12:11 PM
I am in Afghanistan and was issued a Bushmaster with a 14.5" barrel and an Aimpoint. I also have a ARMS flip up BUIS on it that love! I took the Aimpoint off and just use the BUIS unless we are going to be out after dark, peep sights are not so good in low light situations.

What branch are you in. Bushmaster does not produce M4s for the Military and ARMS #40s are not standard issue either.

MTMilitiaman
July 15, 2009, 12:42 PM
The sights available for the AR are truely exceptional, second only to those offered by the M1A ;)

And it is nice to be able to fall back on them. And I agree everyone should know how to use them.

But the plane, simple, indisputable fact of the matter is that optics are faster and more accurate than iron sights. Even an unmagnified Aimpoint with a 2 MOA dot is going to allow for greater precision than the standard post on an AR, and will do it faster, with both eyes open. And an ACOG, please...

No iron sight on earth can compare to the precision offered by an ACOG, or other quality magnified optic. And I am absolutely convinced most iron sights will break long before an ACOG, as well.

ArmedBear
July 15, 2009, 01:32 PM
No iron sight on earth can compare to the precision offered by an ACOG, or other quality magnified optic.

Obviously. It's interesting to me that hunters have used scopes routinely for decades, and the military just started.

My only point is that precision may or may not equal utility, depending on the gun's use.

Also, the reason to train recruits with irons isn't necessarily because they need to know how to use them at 600 yards. The reason is because they force you to handle the rifle correctly. If you shoot only with a scope, you can get by without knowing how to handle a rifle, but your accuracy and speed will be forever limited.

kwelz
July 15, 2009, 01:45 PM
Hunting and combat are two very different animals. (Har Har)
When you are hunting you need long range accuracy with a single shot. In combat you need close range reliability and durability.

A scope doesn't work well at close range, it limits your Field of view and ability to change targets. in addition you lose durability in a normal scope. Aimpoints, ACOGs, etc are very durable but they don't have much to do with your average scope either.

RP88
July 15, 2009, 01:59 PM
I got to check out an AR with an EOtech a couple days ago. I'm getting an EOtech now.

I love the iron sights as well, but the contrast you get from a dot against the target in any lighting conditions makes the red dots so much nicer - especially for people like me (I'm slightly farsighted).

LeonCarr
July 15, 2009, 02:13 PM
Don't care much for sights that run on batteries.

Have shot the various Aimpoints and EOTechs but still like iron sights best.

I never want to be in a position having to say, "Excuse me Mr. Dirtbag, my batteries are dead. Can I have a few minutes to change them out?"

ArmedBear
July 15, 2009, 02:19 PM
A scope doesn't work well at close range, it limits your Field of view and ability to change targets. in addition you lose durability in a normal scope. Aimpoints, ACOGs, etc are very durable but they don't have much to do with your average scope either.

True on all counts.

The ACOG sure seems to be a scope, from all I can tell. It's just a nice one, and a durable one.

My point about hunting scopes was just that the military didn't really work on them until fairly recently for general use, not that they ever should have used a deer rifle scope.

DMK
July 15, 2009, 02:30 PM
Don't care much for sights that run on batteries.

Have shot the various Aimpoints and EOTechs but still like iron sights best.

I never want to be in a position having to say, "Excuse me Mr. Dirtbag, my batteries are dead. Can I have a few minutes to change them out?"

You do not have to give up on optics merely due to fear of failure of the electronics. That is exactly why I set mine up this way:

I have two AR-15s that put the dot right on the tip of the front sight post. The rear sight is a folding design, but I mostly leave it up and switch to the large "ghost ring" aperture. I can sight the red dot, right through it. Some folks might think this is too busy, but it is not distracting at all and allows me the best of both worlds. I can switch from the red-dot to iron sights at will by merely changing my focus from dot/target to the front sight post.

I have had my batteries die while shooting and I just kept on shooting, reloaded and shot some more without skipping a beat.

http://mysite.verizon.net/dmk0210/myarms/Midlengths.JPG

RP88
July 15, 2009, 02:33 PM
Don't care much for sights that run on batteries.

Have shot the various Aimpoints and EOTechs but still like iron sights best.

I never want to be in a position having to say, "Excuse me Mr. Dirtbag, my batteries are dead. Can I have a few minutes to change them out?"

this is a situation where you simply flip up your BUIS and get back into the fight.

Although, I do agree that learning on irons is fundamental. If you can't adjust your sights and hit something out to the range of an AR, then the red dot will not really solve your problem; if anything, it will just get you laughed at more by people on the range who think you wasted your money. If you can't use the steel nobs to adjust your irons, then you'll be just as bad off with a dot that works pretty much the same way.

DMK
July 15, 2009, 02:40 PM
The ACOG sure seems to be a scope, from all I can tell. It's just a nice one, and a durable one Can't the ACOG also be used as a reflex sight with both eyes open like a red dot?

That would be an advantage over a traditional magnified optic.


this is a situation where you simply flip up your BUIS and get back into the fight. Or even better, just leave it up. Then you merely just change your focus to the front sight when you wish to shoot with irons. I have practiced this failure mode and have actually had the red dot batteries die while shooting. It is a seamless transition.

Maverick223
July 15, 2009, 07:11 PM
What branch are you in. Bushmaster does not produce M4s for the Military and ARMS #40s are not standard issue either.I am also curious as I didn't think that any model Bushy could meet mil-spec. standards...the contract with Colt just ran out too IIRC. Is this an M-16? I can't fathom how it could be a M-4...but don't recall any Bushmaster (of any length/design) being issued. Tell me more. :)

taliv
July 15, 2009, 09:05 PM
guys, there are lots of people in Afghanistan that aren't in the military.

and furthermore, being in afghanistan does not confer any mystical knowledge or make one an expert on red dots

kwelz
July 15, 2009, 09:29 PM
I know there are a lot of PMCs over there. One of the guys over on M4C.net is an armorer for one of them and they use a lot of Bushmasters (a fact he is not happy about)

I was not trying to accuse cottonmouth or not being over there I just asked for clarification.

Maverick223
July 15, 2009, 11:12 PM
guys, there are lots of people in Afghanistan that aren't in the military.That is true but is something I hadn't thought of.
I was not trying to accuse cottonmouth or not being over there I just asked for clarification.+1, I am no expert (nor do I claim to be) and meant no disrespect whatsoever. I just wanted to hear more...so do they make a model that meets mil standards or not? I really am curious, and want to know more about it as I had never heard any mention of it. :)

coloradokevin
July 18, 2009, 06:07 AM
I'm not sure why this is even an argument. You don't really have to make a choice. I have a number of rifles that have both iron sights and optics (some red dots, some magnified). When I shoot the rifle, I shoot with both sights, about 50/50 split between them. It would not be prudent to only practice with an optic.

-----

New recruits are given basic skills training. One should definitely master iron sights before shooting with optics. You have to learn to crawl and walk before you can run.



I agree completely with both of those statements. My duty rifle has an Eotech on it, and a set of flip-up iron sights that will cowitness with the Eotech. The red dot of the Eotech is a better all-around choice for me to use in my operating environment, even though I did just fine with iron sights for many years. Nevertheless, despite my preference to run with the Eotech, I shoot every qualification with each sighting system (individually) just to make sure I retain proficiency with either option.

I also agree that looking towards basic recruit training doesn't really give us a "big picture" answer on this question. I will also tell new shooters to master iron sights before moving to red dots and the like. Even if you never plan to use the iron sights, I still think it is a useful skill of basic marksmanship that every shooter should learn!

If you enjoyed reading about "So here's my problem with optics on an AR-15." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!