[BornLoser]

Hello everyone.
I'm fairly new here, but this is a subject that me, my dad, and my uncle get into fairly often, and I thought I could bring it up here.
How do you all feel about using iron sights compared to using things like scopes and electronic sights ?
This most recently came up when my Uncle and Dad got these Iotec red-dot sights for their AR's. They tried getting me to get one too, but I refused. I also had a smiliar conversation with my brother who tried getting me to use a scope.
To put it simply. I dislike using scopes. I prefer Iron Sights over everything. Even with their Iotec, I was still shooting better than them at 75-100 yards.
Maybe it's just an age thing, since both my uncle and dad are in their 50's and claim their eyesight is going bad.
But, I just like iron sights. I don't like adding things to my rifles. Keep it simple, I say.
Anyways, now that the story is out of the way. What do you guys think about this ? Which do you prefer on your rifles ?

[Winston_Smith]

I like iron sights because they are cheaper :). If i could afford nice optics I would probably use them. Optics only help you see, not shoot.

In all seriousness, I will use iron sights as long as my vision holds out (or until I save up enough for an ACOG) :)

[kda]

Enjoy your youth.

[jfh]

Well, it is an "age thing"--believe me, after 43 or so (that's usually bifocal time) it goes downhill--by the mid-fifties, sight gets worse--and you may have other issues besides the astigmatism / whatever you started with. By my mid-sixties, I am dealing with "pre-cataract" issues--and this year, I find the sight picture literally changes between each shot. (I'm not talking about alignment-etc., I'm talking about a different perceived image, simply because the brain is trying to make up for fuzzy areas in the lens). It's seriously reduced my enjoyment.

Before this stuff started happening, I enjoyed iron sights. Up into my mid-fifties, I was shooting the NRA Smallbore Marksmanship Course ladder, working on Distinguished--and could shoot 50s on the 50' course with the right non-optic sight. Now, I do well to do 40s, and that's on a good day, with a custom position rifle.

Some optics are really just acquisition-enhancers--e.g., dot / laser sights; others are for marksmanship. Enjoy open sights while you can, if that's what you want to shoot with.

Jim H.

[TX1911fan]

All things being equal, optics will shoot better. However, things are never equal. Your father and uncle may just be bad shots. That's not a reflection on the optics, it just means they are bad shots. If you are a good shot with irons, you would be a better shot with optics, provided you took the time and effort to become accustomed to them and use them properly. There is a reason Trijicon, Eotech and Aimpoint are selling a gazillion optics to the military. There is a reason why Leupold, Burris, Zeiss and Swarovsky sell a gazillion scopes to hunters.

[BornLoser]

They aren't bad shots. My uncle is ex-special forces and has been in virtually everything since the late 70's. He's been to wars in countries i didn't even know we were fighitng wars in.
My dad has been a hunter since before I was born, and was always a good shot. So... maybe it is just age.

[oneounceload]

You must not be hunting out West where 75-100 yards is the length of the backyard, and hunting shots are 300-500 yards for some species.......Scopes really help then...........

[BornLoser]

Nah, we hunt in Indiana where the deer practically walk within touching distance, if you're still enough. You can't hunt with a Rifle in Indiana anyways, just shotguns and muzzle loaders... I also hunt with a Crossbow sometimes.

[Robert Wilson]

"Iron" sights usually connote open sights. These are indeed inferior to other sights in most ways. They require the user to line up three planes: the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. I use them and enjoy them, but they are very difficult, and my middle-aged eyes are becoming a hindrance.

Aperture sights are a different story. They are often lumped into the "iron" category but are actually a type of optical sight. They require only that the front sight be lined up on the target; properly used, the rear ring appears fuzzy to the user. These sights are exceptionally fast and very accurate. U.S. Marines qualify out to 600 yards with their aperture-equipped M-16s. I have apertures on several of my dangerous game rifles and like them very much.

Scopes remain "superior" in most practical ways. A low power scope is at least as fast as any iron sight and allows more accurate aiming. I am biased against high power scopes of 14x or more, but under certain circumstances they are useful too. And scopes these days are as tough or tougher than most factory iron sights.

[HK G3]

I like irons just in the sense that I feel that until I master them, I should not be "cheating" by using optics.

If I can always hit a target near the bullseye @ 500m, then when I do switch to optics, I figure I'll be a much better shot with the optics.

[browningguy]

Optics are better in just about every way, just no way to get around reality.

If you like shooting irons then have at it, but please don't try to convince anyone it's better. I like to think I can shoot my 1885 Browning and 1891 Mauser with aperture sights pretty well, but not nearly as well as I can with even low powered optics. Ar's with peep vs. AR's with red dot, I'm much faster, and slightly more accurate with the red dot, and don't even get me started on pistols with optics, it's like a whole new world.

[Larry Ashcraft]

Back in the early 80s, I was shooting handgun silhouette competition, open sights only at 200 meters. That was all well and good when I was in my thirties. I'll be 60 in a few weeks, so my bifocals won't allow me to do that anymore.

Learning to shoot with irons should be required, I still do it with most of my 22s, but learning to use all the various systems will work to your advantage later on.

Besides, shooting a coyote at 500 yards will require a scope, I don't care how good your eyes are.

[benEzra]

To put it simply. I dislike using scopes. I prefer Iron Sights over everything. Even with their Iotec, I was still shooting better than them at 75-100 yards.
Maybe it's just an age thing, since both my uncle and dad are in their 50's and claim their eyesight is going bad.
I suspect that if you tried it again in low light, the optics would win. Iron sights are very good when you have excellent eyesight and lighting conditions are optimal. But irons don't work so well in poor lighting.

[Cosmoline]

Scopes do nothing to make firearms more accurate. Indeed the weight of the scope can make them slightly less accurate. They are optical enhancements to allow you to see distant objects more clearly, that's all. If you know how to use an iron sight system, a good one will allow you to place rounds with precision. You don't have to be able to see the target in detail to make very small groups. Folks who have known only scopes often don't understand this.

Use what you prefer. Folks got along just fine without optics for a long long time. Heck the greatest of all snipers never used a scope.

Furthermore, most shooters have never experienced quality open sights and really don't understand how to use them. The sights on, for example, a Finnish M39, include an array of reference points that allow extreme precision. You learn to use your peripheral vision to quickly center on the point of aim. It takes lots of practice, perhaps more than optics. But when you master an iron sight system you will suffer no handicap vs. the opticians. After that, shooting with optics is like making love through an interpreter, to misquote Gandhi.

but please don't try to convince anyone it's better.

Doth protest too much I think. This sort of attitude is common. Dare to be different!

[gunnutery]

I too enjoy iron sights. As was said before, they're cheaper. I also enjoy the challenge of iron sights. I've used the Eotecs a bit, which do allow faster target acquisition. But then you have to worry about battery life (which isn't hard to switch out), but it's just one more thing to manipulate. If I were to use a reflex sight or scope in a hunting or self defense situation, I'd want the reflex co-witnessed or be able to switch to irons quickly if it (or a scope) were to fail. IMO

As in most equipment discussions, it comes down to preference. I don't look forward to purchasing scopes for my rifles when I get older, but in the mean time, I too will enjoy my youth...and my iron sights.

[FROGO207]

I personally like open sights also but when I use a scope or red dot/laser it is for a reason the open sight was not designed for. That said most shots for deer or moose around here will be 75 yd or less, Iron sight area for sure and less to snag in the dense brush.:) Distance out on the back 40, scope. Bedroom, 1911 w/safety slugs and lasergips. Pistol, any of the above. The answer is use what you can be accurate with and shoot well.:D

[EP1990]

sights on an ar are very accurate. no reason to get anything else unless your shooting very far distances.

[Zoogster]

Optics are more vulnerable to damage. In rough conditions iron sights will hold up better with worse treatment. Lenses can scratch, and hard knocks can damage scopes. Iron sights keep working, or could even be bent back into place if damaged in the field.

Optics make the target clearer. Vision will get worse with age. The dull coloring of most iron sights also does not stand out well against the background, so in poor lighting or with worse eyesight they are not nearly as good. Even if you can't really see what you are aiming at in the dark with an optic, you know where you are aiming quite clearly. The same could not be said with black iron sights.

It is the young though who are sent off to war to fight and die, and they usually have good eyesight, (and feel invincible). They also did a lot of thier fighting in the daytime. So iron sights have worked great before modern times.
Now advanced night vision (image intensifiers) and various infrared and thermal optics give an even greater advantage to the side with the more expensive optics. In modern times they choose to fight at night to gain as much advantage over thier poorer lesser equipped opponents as possible. Ironsights against night vision and thermal optics in the dark don't stand a chance.

[Zak Smith]

There's nothing wrong with shooting what you want for your own reasons. There's definitely a visceral pleasure to shooting a Garand or K31.

That said, optics generally make the shooter+rifle combination more effective. You can see this in objective grading of practical shooting exercises.

-z

[Robert Wilson]

Optics are more vulnerable to damage. In rough conditions iron sights will hold up better with worse treatment. Lenses can scratch, and hard knocks can damage scopes. Iron sights keep working, or could even be bent back into place if damaged in the field.

Considering the generally awful quality of factory irons these days I'm not even sure if that's true anymore. I've had several rear sights simply fall off. I've also had a sling strap break which resulted in a bent front sight when the muzzle hit the ground. There was no way to bend it back to a reasonably usable position while in the field as I hadn't any pliers with me. A shallow "V" rear sight combined with a hooded front sight is nearly indestructible though - until the hood flies off under recoil, anyway.

Meanwhile, I have found that once a modern scope proves itself it is extremely unlikely to fail.

I have more guns without scopes than with, but it is hard to justify that in any logical way. Fortunately there is no law requiring rifle nuts to adhere to logic!

[Madcap_Magician]

I like both. I am not a big fan of the M68, which is unfortunately what I am issued, but I do like the ACOG, which has the unfortunate distinction of being three times as expensive.

A Senior Drill Sergeant told me one time that if you can miss with an ACOG, you're retarded.

And then I met two guys in my battalion who only qualified low sharpshooter despite having ACOGs...

[renegade1alpha]

Here is my take on optics and other such items. Optics are great. Scopes, red dots, holographic sights and even lasers are fantastic pieces of equipment when they they are sighted properly and working. But they WILL fail. Eventually they will be knocked off zero, battery will run down, or they will just break. Then what? Back to good old iron sights!

I have served in the military for over 23 years, currently a firearms instructor and law enformcement trained sniper and I own an AR-15 as well as numerous other weapons. My AR-15 currently sports an EoTech holographic sight and it works great. However, prior to mounting and sighting the EoTech, I first sighted in and shot my AR-15 to ensure that the iron sights were making my rifle hit where I wanted it to. And they do. Once that was achieved, on went the EoTech and it too was sighted in to ensure proper shot placement. The only exception to the optics argument is when it comes to sniper rifles and other precision weapons. Even though that scoped rifle may me the primary weapon and has no iron sights, there is usually a spotter armed with a rifle that has iron sights and/or the sniper/marksman usually is also carrying a handgun or other close range weapon with sights. And its probably safe to assume that a sniper/marksman has had plenty of previous practice with iron sights!

I have seen way to many gun stores sell or attempt to sell laser grips to people buying handguns. Especially inexperienced shooters. I think this is just wrong! I personally think such items should be used ONLY by people who have mastered or at least feel extremley confident with using the iron sights supplied with the weapon. I think such items lull people into a false sense of ability to hit what they are aiming at by just pointing and squeezing the trigger. But when the adrenaline is pumping and all hell breaks loose and bullets start flying or knives are pulled, fine motor skills fail and gross motor skills take over. That finger that so easily before was able to push that tiny button to activate the laser either cant find the button or hits it intermittently. Now the person aiming the gun is trying to look for a little red dot instead of the immenent threat and the front sight. A bad situation now just got worse!

Become proficient with your iron sights THEN mount whatever you want on your weapon.

[earlthegoat2]

Havent lasers made open sights obsolete??

Of course not.

[Ballistic Mule]

You where also born to loose your eyesight,enjoy while you still can.

[Deanimator]

I compete in bullseye pistol. NOBODY uses iron sights except for service pistol.

[GunFun]

If you're comfortable with iron sights for the distances you routinely shoot at, by all means stick with them! In my opinion, everyone should learn iron sights first.

A scope is undoubtedly better at longer range, but only if you have previously sighted it in for that distance, and you are familiar with "Kentucky windage and Tennessee elevation!" The fact remains, the human eye cannot see as far as an eagle's for small targets - scopes rectify this.

I prefer an adjustable magnification scope and see-through scope mounts so I can still use the iron sights if I want.

Also, as "renegade1alpha" posted, the less that can go wrong the better off you are, and that applies to a lot more than firearms.

It's also known as the "KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)" rule. :)

[GunFun]

BTW, laser sights are not necessarily good in bright daylight conditions, or at a distance. :) They ARE fun though!

[jhco50]

I like open sites and I'm 61 this month...Umm...I mean 39. I think it is a generational thing. Also, I have used the same rifle most of my life and when I throw it up to my sholder, I really need little alignment. I shoot a Winchester 30-30. I also have a Winchester 9422 that I just don't miss with.

I went shooting with my son-in-laws and two grandchildren. They made me not shoot until they shot at the targets for awhile. The oldest son-in-law is an excellent shot but was busy with the five year old (his first outing). I have taught them all to shoot. :-)

People started using scopes because of marketing and the cool effect. It caught on and now has gone through a generation or two. I learned with open sights and can probably keep up with them. For the older guys having trouble with regular open sights, try using a peep site. You line up the front sight with the target and the ey will naturally line up the rear sight for you.

[Ballistic Mule]

Davey Crockett could'nt keep up w/ a scope at 300yds.

I do like apture sights also,and your confidence as well

[Harve Curry]

I started about 10 years old with iron sights, went to a scope, then by my late twenties quit optics and have been hunting mostly with open iron & peep sights. My range is limited but I enjoy the challenge. So there is shots I have to pass on. I'll keep to the iron sights as long as my eyes can do it, they're changing though now that I'm over 1/2 century old.

[GunFun]

Well, jhco50, I can keep up with most people that use scopes using iron sights but not at long range if they know what they are doing. :)

It's more than an effect, honestly - if the scope is sighted in for that distance, you can still shoot something MUCH farther away more accurately, just as if you were using iron sights. It takes a little bit of work though. :)

For short range shooting it's all technique, for sure.

BTW, I agree, peep sights are awesome, but not at really long distances. :)

[SpecialKalltheway]

I always argued I liked iron sights better myself as well, that is until my buddy handed me his AR with busted sights and I still shot great with it. Turns out I just like M16/AR's :D
I have a scope on my .270 for hunting, but I am curious if I could take it off and train myself the way I ended up being trained with a M16, just know where to point it basically. I don't think I have enough money to feed it and find out though :D

[GunFun]

I doubt it. The human eye just doesn't see that far, it's a fact. ;)

[GunFun]

If you can beat a scope with iron sights at anything over say... 75 yards... then it's pure luck. :)

[Ballistic Mule]

Looks like Gun Fun really needs to attend an Appleseed event

[GunFun]

lol... I have, and I had already qualified as an expert marksman before that. :)

I think you're right though, I support Appleseed :)

[GunFun]

I still think a scope is better for long range shooting, but that doesn't take anything away from people learning marksmanship, and being educated about our 2nd Amendment rights.

I totally agree with iron sights being taught first, along with gun safety, as I have stated so far. ;)

I usually shoot at much larger distances, but I enjoy challenges, hehe.

[Harve Curry]

My preference for a scoped firearm is that it have a good peep or iron sight on it, and that it be sighted in at an appropriate distance for whatever cartridge it is.

[mustang_steve]

My eyes utterly suck, I'm 30 and both eyes are wore than -15 diopter.

I still use sights instead of scopes, and do just fine. Red-dots are the only optics I will use, since they feel so natural when implemented correctly.

GunFun, any military servicemember can do 75 yards. They qualify at ranges farther than that using good ole iron. Also I'll repeat what others said: Appleseed.

when I was 9, I was shooting the bottoms out of coke cans with a .22 rifle at over 100yds on iron sights.

[Harve Curry]

Mustang Steve,
Let me guess , :rolleyes:, it was a Marlin model 60.:D

[SpecialKalltheway]

"If you can beat a scope with iron sights at anything over say... 75 yards... then it's pure luck."

I must be the luckiest man alive then, because 75 yards is only 68.58m and I was trained to put down a 300 meter target with iron sights no problem. Must be my shamrock boxers that I wear. :D

I can still do it too even with my eyesight going on me, just takes me longer these days.

[mustang_steve]

T/C Contender, rifle barrel/stocks :p

My dad insisted on having iron sights on his contender hardware, so if the option wasn't there, he'd pay a gunsmith to make it so.

I hated having to reload after every shot, but dangit, those things will land a bullet in the same spot, every time so long as you keep it aimed at the same, spot, every time :)

[2nd 41]

Nothing wrong with Iron sights. They work. They're always there. They are paid for. And no batteries needed
I have a few scoped pistols. I enjoy both.
I shoot indoors at 7-10 yards

[IndianaBoy]

Get both! ;)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/Acog/overall.jpg

[scythefwd]

Killing a man doesn't mean you are any more accurate than a guy with a scope. A kill shot on a man is a huge area. I want to meet the guy who is able to keep up with a benchrest shooter with a scope using the same rifle. I prefer irons as well, well peep sights actually, but I don't doubt that I am more accurate with a scope. Just because you are able to hit a popup at 300, doesn't mean you can choose which eye you are putting out.

More simply stated, a .5 inch group with a good benchrest rifle and iron sights at 100 y is considered great shooting. The same group when using the same rifle and a scope might not even place in a competition.

[chevyforlife21]

i like both. my eye sight is pretty poor so i like iron sights if i can see the target. other wise scopes are cool too. i dont like red dots though

[Harve Curry]

For hunting elk or deer, after 200 yards the front bead begins to cover a lot of the target.
I begin to start bisecting my front sight, trying to place the shot. For me 200 yards is my hunting limit with iron/peep sights. Maybe more if I practiced a lot. Scope lets you shoot at very small parts of the target, but I haven't had good luck with them holding zero.

[Edmond]

Myself, I can't stand the M68. For CQB, it's great, target acquisition is very quick. But when I'm just out there shooting 50-300 meters, give me the iron sights.

Just use the M2 or M240B, close enough seems to work pretty well.:D

[gym]

I'm 61 don't hunt, point shoot only. So i just use what god gave me. If I was at war I would use everything I could to shoot at a great distance. But my life is within 50 -75 feet at best. For self defense only. So I don't feel that the electronics are going to do me any good at all. Maybe a laser down the road.

[Autopistola]

<100yds give me irons. No batteries to fail, no way to get knocked off zero, no wierd tinted lense, no eye relief, just a wide open field of view with no stupid knobs obscuring it. Of course, that's coming from a guy who shoots milsurp EBR's.

[Nicodemus38]

doesnt anyone else here ever have problems with getting scope rings that fit the scope you have in your hand? thats the big problem i have, if the scope aint held steady by the rings, its worthless. if the scope mounts arent done right the whole setup is worseless then a drunk with a fixed sight 32 short shooting at prairie dogs at 300 yards.


i dont have to worry that the deer or woodchuck or raccoon will see sunlight glinting off my iron sights, that means the animal is MINE. if i drop my rifle, i dont worry that my irons are cracked, split, or no longer nitrogen filled and thus worthless. i have iron sights that have been tested in battle all over the world, and when i take them off the rifle and put them back on, THEY HAVENT CHANGED. try that with a scope fellas.

[Zak Smith]

Seems to work with my scope mounts just fine. Maybe they're defective? :evil:

[m_kirk2001]

Saying I will only use iron sights or never use iron sights is like saying that I will never have a need for a pistol and they serve no purpose (and vice versa). Either one has benefits and drawbacks. If the benefits of either one tips the scales in your favor go for it.

[akodo]

the two three things optics have going AGAINST them are:
#1 reliant on batteries
#2 less durable
#3 bulk/heavy

if modern optics were batteryless very small and just as durable as iron sights, EVERYONE would be using them.

we are getting closer to that every day.

If someone isn't as good or better with modern optics than they are with iron sights, then they are either #1 using it wrong or #2 using it for the wrong application (a 10x scope will not make close range shooting easier. a red dot isn't going to be as precise as a quality iron peep sight for long range shooting)


Many guys eshew optics because they are more fragile than iron sights, and if they break you are SOL, or because the optic runs on batteries, which if it goes down you are SOL.

Of course the solution to this is design/build/buy more robust equipment not battery reliant AND have a set of backup irons on the gun.

[akodo]

If I can always hit a target near the bullseye @ 500m, then when I do switch to optics, I figure I'll be a much better shot with the optics.

where? What range? What's your official score?

Not in a competition? Where do you have your 500M range? How did you measure this distance? How big is the bullseye and how 'near' is near.

Mark 1 human eyeball is only so good. At 500 yards you need a target as tall as a man with a bullseye as big as a garbagecan lid for the human eyeball to see it. The eyeball is the limiting factor, and often the front sight at that distance is covering up 5 MOA.

and yet we got guys shooting 1/2 MOA or even less, but the ONLY way you can do that at great distance is with high power quality optics, simply because the eyeball isn't capable of discerning that level of precision.


I am sorry, but I have heard WAY too many hunters and gravelpit shooters talk about 500 meter/500 yard shots. At 500 yards, that deer is just a moving speck. We have the same problem fishermen have had for years of the fish growing with every storytelling, but we also have the fact that most people are absolutely MISERABLE at range estimation.

IF you are telling me about a shot that is over 200 yards, and you #1 weren't at a rifle range with premeasured distances #2 don't have a rangefinder or #3 didn't actually pace it off, I am not going to believe you.

Also, if you say you shot a deer in the field, and somehow your deer was shot at exactly a 100 yard incriment, paced off or measured with a rangefinder, I am not going to believe you. There is only a 1 in 100 chance of that happening. You tell me your rangefinder read 487, and just rounded up for the sake of ease of telling, hey, at least you are a more skillfull liar. Same when you tell me you paced it off and it was 328 paces so you figured it was roughly 300 yards. I may think your claim is full of BS still, but at least the details are more polished


Note this comment is only peripherally addressed at the quote above.

[scythefwd]

Why does everyone say that optics need batteries? NONE of my scopes have batteries.

[Zak Smith]

An Aimpoint M4 in a LaRue mount has battery life measured in decades and it has less exposed adjustments than M16A2 iron sights.

[CountGlockula]

When your batteries die out or when the scopes' glass gets cracked, trust your iron sights.

[PandaBearBG]

My scopes don't need batteries. What about fiber optic based optics or tritium? Last FOREVER, and better aim in low light. Scopes are great and greatly improve accuracy and for varied differences at long ranges it requires a certain amount of competency and skill to adjust quickly, just as it takes a certain skill to use iron sights effeciently. Besides alot of rifles that have optics do have irons, sometimes with see thru rings, or BUIS. You can have both so why defend the use of either or? It's like saying what's better a semi or a revolver? Or 9mm or .45? Everyone is different and everyone has a setup that works for him.

And alluding to the fact that a REAL man doesn't use optics, well what do the military snipers and marksmen use? I'm pretty sure even the basic optics of the last hundred years have been beaten and abused and they've done their fair share of work. Irons have done their work too, always reliable and the standard basic for any shooting principle. It's like saying I would never wear glasses because my vision is fine and I don't need them.

[mustang_steve]

It's all a matter of need vs want. To me, a scope isn't of much use until you get to a range far enough, or the need for shot placement at a very high degree of precision.

Red-dots...I love them. my biggest gripe with iron sights is some sights just get in the way too much. There's no way in hell a red-dot can get in the way....too bright? Turn it down! Too dim? Turn it up! You also aim in the most nautral manner possible...focusing on the target. That's what I love best about them.

However, I have no intent on getting another red-dot. I don't need it.

[chevyforlife21]

the thing i find most annoying about a scoped rifle is the fact that i have to be much more careful with it so i dont throw off the zero and make sure the bases and rings are still tight once in a while. thats why most of my guns are iron sighted. i do like the pinpoint accuracy a scope gives though.

[Justin]

I've had very little shift in point-of-impact moving scopes on and off of rifles using the quick-detach mounts that LaRue Tactical sells.

Also, I have a hard time believing anyone who claims to shoot more accurately and/or faster* with iron sights than a scope. Well, unless you're an Expert or better High Power/CMP shooter, or one of those masochistic types who exclusively run iron-sighted rifles at 3Gun matches.

I spent some time shooting High Power before shifting over to 3Gun competition, and in my first few matches shooting under "practical" conditions, it became incredibly apparent that a scope, properly employed, is much easier to hit with, even when shooting from unusual or unsteady positions or under circumstances where the target is somewhat obscured because of dust, grass, or micro-terrain.

This is certainly not meant to disparage the practice of shooting with iron-sighted rifles. Being able to make a competent hit using irons is a skill that everyone should have, but it doesn't change the fact that all other things being equal, a scoped rifle is a more capable tool than one with only iron sights.



*With the exception of close-range target hosing using a magnified scope vs. iron sights.

[bigalexe]

-Non-Powered Optics are great and require relatively little practice, except in rain or when your breath fogs them.
-Powered Optics are great and require relatively little practice, except when the batteries die, the electronics fail, or in any of situations listed above.
-Iron Sights are great after a significant amount of practice until your eyes fail. Also Iron Sights are less likely to give you scope eye!

Personally I like the setup on my friend's Ruger 10/22 in which he has a 3x-9x scope but its mounted up so you can still use the irons. As a result of this I suggested ripping the rail off a Ruger 10/22 I saw at Gander Mountain because it was blocking the irons and the sales guy kinda laughed at me, at which point I stopped asking him any questions.

[Autopistola]

Mustang Steve, I beg to differ. There is a way red-dots can get in the way. Even the smallest aimpoints have a big obtrusive knob sticking off of the side. That annoys the hell out of me and (at certain ranges) could obscure your vision of the target. Unacceptable IMHO. Holo sights and eotechs, not so bad, but the downside is they sit up really high on top of the mount, so unless you are running an AR they sit too high.

[Zak Smith]

Shoot with both eyes open, not an issue.

[Justin]

I've got an Aimpoint Micro T-1. It's mounted fairly far forward on an AR-15. When using this scope, "obtrusive" is the last word that comes to mind.

[ar10]

I like the "peep" sights, and I'm old and been wearing triflocals for 20yrs. I won't say scopes are better or worse then iron sights. but I can still hit the 10" bull at 300yds, (in most cases). The biggest problem with any bifocals is you have a choice of which point is going to blur, the font sight or the target. As long as you hit what your aiming at who cares?:)

[U.S.SFC_RET]

I come from the camp that believes that shooting is best learned through iron sights.
Confidence is easily achieved using iron sights. That being said if you want to drop your nickle on expensive "tech" sights it is a free country.

Aftermarket sights whether scope or "electronic" on a gun are like golf clubs and fishing lures. If you don't have the skill to use them then they will not help out much.
They will never make up for experience or shooting under pressure.
They cannot take the place of shooting discipline to get you where you want to be if you aspire to become a good rifleman.
Quality iron sights are the first order of business of a good rifleman. Being able to push iron sights with a gun you "know" to limits and redefine those limits.

[mustang_steve]

Autopistola,

Good point. I've never used one for very far range...usually the same range I'd use iron sights for, and never had issues. The left knob never really got in my way, but I figure different people, different ergonomics.

[Zak Smith]

[They will never make up for experience or shooting under pressure.
It takes more skill/ability to shoot the same problem with the same accuracy and speed with irons compared to the appropriate optic for the task. This fact can be confirmed by a survey of practical rifle match results, e.g. for approx the same level of shooter, the optics division scores will be better than the limited division scores.

I believe this means that the right optic for the job "can" make up for skill. Or it just means that it's easier to shoot with optics. That's probably why they were invented and adopted by just about everyone, including military forces, at this point.

I am not arguing that one should not excel shooting with iron sights-- it's the basic fall-back skill. But saying optics don't provide a performance advance is false.

-z

[dom1104]

this is interesting. The optic guys are trying to defend their 800 dollar red dot purchase, and the iron sight guys have eyes that can see ants from orbit.


Optics are better. if they werent noone would spend that outrageous amount of money on them. They have reached a point where reliability is not a concern.

But backup irons are a nice insurance, and fun to shoot with.

[Onward Allusion]

I prefer iron sights myself - until I turned 40. :-(