[BBroadside]

Whenever I see pictures of those rare guns that still come with open sights, I am struck by how far down the barrel the rear is. I'm thinking in particular of a few bolt-actions plus the slide-action Remington. I know peep rears have to be close to your eye, but I don't know why (or if) open rears have to be far from your eye.

[PapaG]

Because most of us shooters who still know how to use open sights are also far sighted and can't see the darn things if they're too far back.
I used to cut new dovetails and move sights way forward for my muzzleloading buddies back in the seventies when their eyes went south.

[jmr40]

You were not helping your buddies. The closer the rear sight is to your eyes and the greater the distance between the sights the better. You don't look at the rear sight. It is supposed to be out of focus. Your eye can only focus on 1 thing at a time. Usually the front sight.

The reason they place them where they do on modern rifles is so scopes can be mounted without removing the rear sight.

[timothy75]

Partridge sites cant be to close too your eye or the notch will apear huge.

[bigfatdave]

Because every wannabe sniper and tactical suburban ninja wants to mount an optic ... so the manufacturer sets up the receiver to accept an optic and puts the vestigal sights out of the way.

[clutch]

I don't get it either. I prefer receiver sights. The typical air rifle with the rear sight half way down the barrel totally turns me off.

And would you rather have the rifle pictured here:
http://www.surplusrifle.com/03a3/index.asp

or the earlier model?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/M1903-Springfield-Rifle.jpg

Sight radius is everything with iron sights.

Clutch

[armoredman]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/512/sight%20installation/final2.jpg

Mine has the sight halfway down, giving a distance of 12.5 inches, IIRC. See here with the sight notch un-occupied and the scope bell right over it. Interestingly enough, the folded new rear sight gives about 3 millimeters of clearance for the current scope bell. :)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/512/sight%20installation/Victim.jpg

Even so, it seems to work OK so far. Not great, but I blame the loose nut behind the buttplate for that. :D

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/527/ironsights100yardsgroup.jpg

[451 Detonics]

I am one of the oddballs out there that consider the irons to be my primary sights and optics to be secondary. I also prefer receiver mounted sights over barrel mounted. Whenever possible I will remove the forward mounted sights and use a Lyman, Refield, or Williams receiver sight instead.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/rifles/4503-1.jpg

On my AR's I normally start with a carrying handle upper and cut it down leaving the original sights in place but still allowing me to low mount optics when I want to use them. I also normally use a QD mount so I can access the irons quickly.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z271/reloader1959/rifles/coltscopemount.jpg

[swingpress]

It's even worse than that. As you observed the iron sights are useless but additionally the stock is set up for use of those crappy sights, not the scope they will be replaced with.

[BBroadside]

I still think it's odd that hardly any non-military rifles come with micrometer receiver sights any more. I know it's not that hard to put them on after market, but with rifle makers really give a lot of options for none of them to be peep sights. How many varmint / heavy-barrel variants of the Remington 700 are there? Different shorty Rugers? Different camo pattern stocks?

[natman]

The rear sight on an open sight has to be that far away because you actually look at it part of the time, shifting your focus between the rear sight, front sight and target. (I remember when I could still do that.) With a peep sight you look through the rear sight, not at it, so it has to be mounted closer.

It has nothing to do with ease of mounting a scope, open rear sights were used in the mid barrel position long before scopes were invented.

[Welding Rod]

Rear sights are put on the barrel for one simple reason: Precise barrel clocking in the reciever is no longer critical.

Additionally, it is not as critical if the barrel axis doesn't precisely align with the reciever axis.

If you put a rear sight on the reciever and the barrel is misclocked slightly, or if the barrel is slightly crooked in the reciever, it will be very obvious as an excessive amount of windage (or possibly elevation if the reciever was poorly machined) will be required to zero, if it is even possible to achieve a zero with the rear sight adjustment available.

A longer sight radius is superior for precise shooting, but few seem to care enough to demand receiver sights. Barrel mounted sights are perfectly adequate for minute of game at relatively close range.

Personally I would take reciever sights anyday unless maybe we were talking about a dangerous game gun.

[Evil Monkey]

Because every wannabe sniper and tactical suburban ninja wants to mount an optic ... so the manufacturer sets up the receiver to accept an optic and puts the vestigal sights out of the way.

I don't understand your hostility, but optics are the only way to shoot a firearm these days. Iron sights are strictly for back up.

[bigfatdave]

I don't understand your hostility, but optics are the only way to shoot a firearm these days.

I hope you're joking. Optics are overpriced overkill for the vast majority of shooting until you get out past 100 yards. You can't buy a steady hold, and you can't bolt on trigger control.

[Canuck-IL]

...optics are the only way to shoot a firearm these days. Iron sights are strictly for back up.
That news is really going to disappoint all the High Power shooters at Camp Perry this year.

They apparently don't know that you can't shoot 600 - 1000 yards with irons.
/Bryan

[Remo223]

Welding Rod beat me to it. He's right on.

Most of your old fashioned bolt guns had rear sights mounted to the barrel. That's so the shop that makes the gun doesn't have to take the time to make sure the receiver is straight. Sight down the barrel only and take the receiver out of the equation.

I think it was americans that first started to put the rear sight all the way back on the receiver.

[Remo223]

You were not helping your buddies. The closer the rear sight is to your eyes and the greater the distance between the sights the better. You don't look at the rear sight. It is supposed to be out of focus. Your eye can only focus on 1 thing at a time. Usually the front sight.

The reason they place them where they do on modern rifles is so scopes can be mounted without removing the rear sight.
I don't agree with this at all.

[Sam Cade]

I don't agree with this at all

Which part?

[Remo223]

The part about not helping the buddies. The very first step in sighting a gun is to locate the rear sight. You can't do that if you can't see it. If moving the rear sight further away from your eye helps you, then do it.

[Sam Cade]

The very first step in sighting a gun is to locate the rear sight

That is exactly backwards and contrary to pretty much everything I have ever been taught.

[Remo223]

It doesn't matter what you say or were told, that's how everyone MUST do it...unless you are using a gun you are so familiar with you don't really even need the sights. In order to prove your eyeball is in the right place, you must first locate the rear sight. Locating the front sight first could get the gun out of alignment with your eyeball.

You probably just do it without thinking.

Besides, I don't think you understand how serious far sightedness can be. There's blurry and there's so blurry its not even there. You can't put the post in the notch if there's no notch.

[Sam Cade]

It doesn't matter what you say or were told, that's how everyone MUST do it

Yeaaaaah... No, not so much.
http://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Shooting-Item-01800-Yurgev/dp/0935998535/ref=sr_1_49/102-2546710-4816159?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177714510&sr=1-49


Anyone on this forum acquire the rear sight first?
Anyone been to Rear Sight Academy? :-)

[Sam1911]

I know peep rears have to be close to your eye, but I don't know why (or if) open rears have to be far from your eye. Aperture rears ("peep" sights) and open rears ("notch," "V-notch", etc.) work somewhat differently.

For aperture sights to work best, they need to be very close to your eye, and they do indeed "ghost" out of focus. You will automatically center your view, and the front sight, through the very middle of that circle.

Open or v-notch sights work best when they are forward quite a bit. You do have to shift your focus between the rear sight, the front sight, and the target -- then back to the front sight as you break the shot. They don't work well if you cannot clarify the notch in your focus so they need to be a bit farther away from your eye.

This is why pistol sights work, even though they are relatively quite close together, and why you don't see effective aperture sights mounted on handguns. (Your eye is too far away from the rear sight for it to "ghost out" as it should.) This is one of the major complaints with the Mojo sights available for AKs and SKSs, which claim to give you an aperture sight to replace the v-notch that came from the factory. The problem is, where that notch sight sits is too far forward for apertures to work. So, while those rear sights are rings instead of a notch, they are working like normal "open" sights and that isn't much of an improvement over the factory units at all.

Believe it or not, Wiki has a really good discussion of all of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_sight Read the section under "types of sights" and all will become clear. Or blurry, whichever is appropriate. :)

[Sam1911]

Anyone on this forum acquire the rear sight first?

Let's not be too hasty (or smug).

You absolutely DO locate your rear aiming point first when firing a long arm. When shooting a shotgun, or shooting a rifle very quickly, you can dispense with locating the rear sight itself (and obviously there isn't one on a shotgun anyway). Your practiced, repeatable location of your eye over the stock, via your cheek weld, gives you a fixed rear aiming point from which you can place the front sight onto the target.

Putting the front sight on target first indicates a need to jink around the butt of the gun to align the rear sight, which would be non-conducive to quick or accurate shooting. Everything starts with the "mount" of the gun which, again, establishes your rear aiming point.

The idea of a front-sight focus and the "front sight, press" mantra have almost everything to do with close, fast "action" pistol shooting where the front sight is all that is needed to establish an approximate point of aim on a close target that must be engaged in a very short period of time -- where the target is close enough not to need a more complete sight picture, and the time is short enough not to allow you to establish one. Further, in handgun shooting, is actually IS possible to put the front sight on target first, and then "dress" the sight picture by bringing the rear sight into better alignment. Doing that with a long gun, with the butt into your shoulder and your cheek weld in place would be futile.
...

Anyone been to Rear Sight Academy? :-)How is it that renaming a certain establishment in this way seems to make so very much sense? :D ("Hey dudes, the wife and I just bought into a condo up at Rear Sight! I'm going to get 1/2 off all my classes and a free HAT!" ROTFL!)

[Sam Cade]

How is it that renaming a certain establishment in this way seems to make so very much sense? I pictured a firing line of slightly overweight doctors tracking their pistol muzzles left and right with eyes firmly glued to the rear sights the world beyond a blur.... Zip-line after lunch.

Your practiced, repeatable location of your eye over the stock, via your cheek weld, gives you a located rear aiming point and then you put the front sight on target.

Never thought of it that way. hmmmm....
I was taught to shoulder the weapon in such a way that the front sight post or bead (or scope objective) interposes itself between eye and target.

[PO2Hammer]

The closer the rear sight is to your eyes and the greater the distance between the sights the better. You don't look at the rear sight. It is supposed to be out of focus.
Conventional rifle shooting doctrine has always been to shift your focus between the front sight, target and rear sights, settling on a sharp front sight with slightly blurry target and rear sight. A clearer rear sight further down the barrel helps my 50 year old eyes more than a few inches of sight radius.

[Sam1911]

Conventional rifle shooting doctrine has always been to shift your focus between the front sight, target and rear sights, settling on a sharp front sight with slightly blurry target and rear sight.

Right!

Again, though, that's RIGHT -- for "open" sights. Not "right" for aperture sights.

It appears to me that some of us are arguing past each other a bit. As there are (at least) two different systems in use, let's make sure we're not wasting our breath arguing over unrelated things.

If you're using "open" (v-notch, patridge, buckhorn, express, etc.) sights, you do have to have the rear sight forward enough to be able to focus on it, at least briefly. Saying that this sight shouldn't be forward far enough to focus on it clearly is incorrect.

If you're using aperture sights (like those on a 1903A3, or Garand, M1 Carbine, M14/M1A, M16/AR-15 or most dedicated target rifles) the rear sight will be MUCH too close to the eye to be brought into focus. Usually, they're somewhere between nearly touching the face and ~2" away from the eye.

[henschman]

I think manufacturers sell rifles this way because there are a lot of rifle owners but not very many Riflemen in this country. They are gearing the product toward the audience.

[35 Whelen]

I don't understand your hostility, but optics are the only way to shoot a firearm these days. Iron sights are strictly for back up.

Hogwash!! I wish there were some way that every man, woman and child who endeavored to fire a rifle could attend a High Power match and see exactly what can be done with iron sights. Too, there'd be far less foolish statements and assumptions about iron sights.

This year at Camp Perry, the winner fired 2396 out of a possible 2400. The difficult part of this accomplishment was that she (yes, it was a woman) put 20 out of 20 shots, fired prone, into about a 12" circle at 600 yards with metallic sights, three times! Now tell me iron sights are strictly for backup "these days". Most wannabe snipers and mall ninjas can't do that shooting a scoped rifle from a bench.

Regarding sight acquisition, I recently discussed sight picture with one of our fellow High Power shooters who happens to be a Distinguished Marksman pistol competitor. He told me point blank: Focus on the front sight every time. Period. Not rear, then target, then front, etc. Focus on the front sight...the target should look fuzzy...like a ball of lint.

Of course good optics are better than iron sights, but iron sights are far, far from useless. It's a shame that iron sights are so misunderstood.
35W

35W

[Evil Monkey]

Most wannabe snipers and mall ninjas can't do that shooting a scoped rifle from a bench

I really don't care.

To me, a firearm is either for defense or hunting game. With that in mind, I would like the best sighting instrument I can acquire for best results. That certainly wouldn't be iron sights.

[788Ham]

Make sure to use a 2 1/2 lb. dead blow hammer to remove the dovetailed sights! Left to right!

[taliv]

That news is really going to disappoint all the High Power shooters at Camp Perry this year.

They apparently don't know that you can't shoot 600 - 1000 yards with irons.

to be fair, that is only because they are forced to by the rules. if the rules permitted optics for "service rifle" then i'd wager you'd see a scope on every gun on the line.

most NRA mid- and long-range matches have "Any sight / any rifle" and "iron sight / any rifle" and "service rifle" divisions. and camp perry has a scoped 1000 yrd match too. i'd be surprised if anyone shot in the "any sight" category with irons.

[35 Whelen]

to be fair, that is only because they are forced to by the rules. if the rules permitted optics for "service rifle" then i'd wager you'd see a scope on every gun on the line.



Very true. But the point of the the quoted post above is that iron sights are anything but a thing of the past and that their capable of some incredible accuracy.
Camp Perry High Power competitors, according to the rules, cannot use any sort of a rest. Eliminate that rule, and they'd all be competing using some sort of rest. But that's not an indictment on shooting with slings!
Regards,
35W

[taliv]

no question they are capable of extreme accuracy, but it does require 'perfect' conditions: a five-foot black bullseye on white background, etc.

while we are diverging a bit from the OP, i'd think about it this way: could you reasonably construct a match that would actually favor iron sights? you can do that with slings easily enough by just holding the match where there aren't any benches; e.g. most people don't carry front/rear bags around on field precision/sniper matches.

[RockyMtnTactical]

Shooting with irons is great and I think it's important to know how to use them properly, but I don't understand hostility towards optics either. Optics are a huge step up over iron sights and there really is no debate on the subject.

[Welding Rod]

Optics are a huge step up over iron sights and there really is no debate on the subject.

I don't know about that.

Optics tend to be more fragile.

Optics cost substantially more.

Optics are heavier.

Optics are not well suited to some firearm designs (i.e. M14)

I have more long guns with optics than without, but I do have iron sighted guns that will stay that way due to various combinations of the reasons above.

[RockyMtnTactical]

Optics tend to be more fragile.

Of course, that's why you have BACK UP IRONS.


Optics cost substantially more.

So does an Ed Brown, and a BMW, and a lot of other things that are "better".

Optics are heavier.

Small price to pay for the upgrade.

Optics are not well suited to some firearm designs (i.e. M14)

Yet, DM's still use optics on them.

Look, iron sights are good. People should learn to use them. Generally speaking though, iron sights are a step down on optics.

[Evil Monkey]

I agree on learning to use iron sights.

But let's not act like iron sights are so incredible and deserve praise here and praise there. There are some people in competition or what have you, who use them with excellence and that's great.

However, for using a firearm against hostile human beings or killing an animal with great percision for the sake of an ethical kill, it is wise to purchase a high quality optic.

[35 Whelen]

I agree that optics are of course better than sights. There's no question about that. I own about 15 centerfire hunting rifles and all of them wear scopes. But my two dead-nuts serious hunting rifles, one an elk rifle and one a deer rifle, both have sights on them. You spend enough time in the field, and not at the keyboard, and eventually you'll do something to your scope to render it useless. It's happened to me twice; once when a mule lost her temper because she didn't get her way, another time when my scope impacted a hard object and lost its zero.
To indicate that sights are a thing of the past is and serve no purpose is silly. But this is the mentality of most shooters these days and as such most of them have no idea how to properly use sights and will probably never learn.

Sorta like the hunters who say "Why do I need to learn range estimation when I have a range finder?"

Or those who see no need in growing food or hunting because they can get all they need at the grocery store.

And of course those who see no need in gun ownership because the police will protect them!;)

I think Andrew Smith summed it up quite well and this certainly applies to those who see no need or application for iron sights:

"People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer."


Regards,
35W

[BCRider]

I'm seeing an amazing number of mistaken thoughts on this topic. It's got nothing to do with leaving room for scopes or because gun makers can't clock the barrel to the reciever. The rear sight is where it is half way down the barrel because of how our eyes work.

It all comes down to depth of field. Photographers understand this idea in a flash as it's a primary goal to alter the settings of a camera lens to achieve an acceptable level of focus for both near and far objects. When we sight our shot with irons we don't actually focus on each of the rear, front and target in turn and back and forth. Instead we focus on the front sight and see the rear and target as slightly out of focus objects that are a little fuzzy but sharp enough to be recognized and used. If the rear sight was further back our eyes would see it as so far out of focus that the notch would be ghosted to a point of not being useable.

Those of us with poor eyesight know this for a fact when trying to use irons in poor light and with our eyes dilated open due to the light level. Under such conditions the rear blade is more fuzzy than in good bright light and shooting really well becomes more a guess at getting the front bead to sit nicely in the notch. Yet in bright light our eyes iris down and that makes it easier to see the rear sight at an acceptable level of sharpness to use it easily. At the same time in bright light the distant target is more clear for the same reason and all in all it's a lot easier to shoot with irons in bright light.

So the fellow that mentioned moving the rear sights forward for his buddies WAS actually was helping them. Yes the sight base leg was made shorter. But at the same time the shooters would still be able to use them better due to seeing the rear sight more clearly while holding the front bead in focus. And a sharper view of the rear sight trumps the longer sight baseline hands down every time.

Some of us with less than ideal eyesight like to switch to rear peeps or even full blown small aperature target peep sights. The shift to a small or very small aperature rear peep acts to reduce the problems of poor eyesight by acting the same as closing the aperature on a camera lens. Using a smaller aperature or using a peep rear sight increases our depth of field and at the same time reduces any lack of sharpness due to poor eyesight. So we actually see both the front bead and the distant target more clearly when looking through a rear peep. So as noted already that is why a peep sight is located well back and a notch rear iron is located half way toward the front bead.

[Sam1911]

I recently discussed sight picture with one of our fellow High Power shooters who happens to be a Distinguished Marksman pistol competitor. He told me point blank: Focus on the front sight every time. Period. Not rear, then target, then front, etc. Focus on the front sight...the target should look fuzzy...like a ball of lint.
Right.

Again, though, we're comparing apples and oranges. As a High Power shooter, he's using aperture sights. He couldn't focus on the rear sight no matter how hard he tried -- and that would be counter-productive. His sight picture is just as you described: clear focused front sight, centered on/under a fuzzy target bull.

If he was using open sights (notch, patridge, express, buckhorn, etc.) that wouldn't work at all. But no high-power competitors use those, so he's not giving you instructions on that sighting system.

[bhk]

Been shooting all kinds of rifles for 50 years now. Most of mine have scopes, but my levers have peeps and I have a couple of old .22s with open/notch rear sights. Even with those notch rear sights, I always aquire the front sight first. Always have and always will. My brain knows instintively that that front sight is the object that must be in focus through my shot cycle. I also shoot a lot of shotgun, so may this 'front sight' first aquisition may be due to that. It is most certainly the fastest rifle method for ME.

I love scopes, but I love the few rifles I have without them. Nothing beats a lever with peeps. It carries better than any other gun in the woods. But I also know to leave it at home if my shots are going to be long. I grew up shooting four-position small-bore with rear peeps. Extremely accurate, but the woods are different.

Also, most of the posters are correct in the fact that an open/notch rear sight needs to be a good ways down the barrel to be effective. I really cringe when I see a manufacturer put the rear sight too far to the rear.

[Hangingrock]

A previous Commandant of the Marine Corps made a telling statement that the greatest improvement to combat marksmanship have been the new sighting systems (optical-electro-mechanical) being employed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While I employ aperature sights on my dedicated target rifles and a receiver sight on one of my two reaming center fire hunting rifles optics is the way to go.

I’m also old enough to remember when state of the art was Redfield/Lyman receiver sights. The change over to optics relegated receiver sights to 2nd status to back up the optics mounted in quick attach or swing/flip mounts.

A good reference is Rifles a Modern Encyclopedia by Henry M Stebbins Copyrighted 1958. Copies may be found on Amazon.Com. A good perspective is chapter 23 titled Sights, Iron And Glass. Yes the book is from a perspective of 53 years past none the less worthy of reading.

[BCRider]

If you think about it when you shoot with open sights the natural progression of eye focus is first focus on the target. Then as the rifle comes up into the line of sight we focus back to the front bead or blade as the rifle is shouldered and the point of focus shifts. There's no need to actually focus on the rear sight and doing so is just wasting time. Instead the rear is slightly fuzzy but focused acceptably well enough to place the front bead/blade into place in the slightly fuzzy notch and then pull the trigger. If the shooter actually moves their focus back to the rear and then to the front and onto the target and back to the front sight then they really are wasting time. The final shot is going to be taken with the front bead in sharp focus and the rest looking a little fuzzy.

Getting back to the whole depth of field and eyesight sharpness thing it's interesting to realize that there's no one ideal rear sight location. With a sharp eyeed shooter on a very bright sunny day their pupils will close down and that increases their depth of field such that the rear sight COULD be farther back and still be at an acceptable level of focus. However a guy with poor or weakeyes that needs reading glasses, like many of us, shooting in poor dark conditions will find that their eyes are dilated to where the rear sight and target will be a very vague blur. For such folks it would actually be better to have the rear sight further forward and closer to the front sight. So there is no ideal location for the rear open iron sight. It's a matter of finding the location that works for the most eyes acceptably under the average lighting condition.

It's when trying to shoot in bad light that us old farts need some help. For some this means a shift to receiver or tang mounted peep sights. For others it means mounting an optic of some sort. Typically this means a scope. But for some that don't need or don't want the magnification for whatever reason a red dot sight can work well. The interesting thing is that because the red dot sights presents the dot at a virtual infinity point the shooter can wear his prescription distance viewing glasses and see both the target AND the red dot in equally sharp clarity. For those of us that find we are having trouble with irons but for whatever reason just can't bring ourselves to mount a scope on our rifle a small pistol style open frame red dot may be a way to shoot with a compact and prescription glasses friendly option that doesn't look clunky on the gun.

[35 Whelen]

Sam1911 (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=54752) wrote:

Again, though, we're comparing apples and oranges. As a High Power shooter, he's using aperture sights. He couldn't focus on the rear sight no matter how hard he tried -- and that would be counter-productive. His sight picture is just as you described: clear focused front sight, centered on/under a fuzzy target bull.

Read my post carefully. I said "...I recently discussed sight picture with one of our fellow High Power shooters who happens to be a Distinguished Marksman pistol competitor."

If you're not familiar with the "Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge" as it is officially referred to, here is a brief description from the CMP website:
"The Distinguished Rifleman and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badges are the highest honor that most military and civilian rifle and pistol shooters can aspire to earn. "

Bearing that in mind, when my co-competitor explained sight picture to me, he was speaking of both rifle and pistol. And given the honor he has earned, I'm inclined to listn to anything he says regarding matters of shooting, sights, etc.

If he was using open sights (notch, patridge, express, buckhorn, etc.) that wouldn't work at all. But no high-power competitors use those, so he's not giving you instructions on that sighting system.

He was giving me instruction on sight picture with ANY sight. I'm quite certain he doesn't use aperture sights on his pistols, and I'd hate to tell him that he used the wrong sight picture to earn his badge!
35W

[Sam1911]

He was giving me instruction on sight picture with ANY sight. And I'd hate to tell him that he used the wrong sight picture to earn his credentials!
35W
It was not perfectly clear to me that he was speaking about all types of sights.

It very well may be that this is the way he sees his sights with all firearms. With his great level of practice, he may not need to consciously dress the rear sight vis-a-vis the front at all, which takes a step out of what I said.

However, I do completely agree on what his final sight picture is and what it should be. At the moment of breaking the shot, the front sight should be in sharpest focus.

[EchoBravo]

I'd love to shoot with just iron sights, but my contacts and glasses (multifocal glasses and monovision contacts) are such that I can't use them on a rifle- I have to use a scope. Ironically, I can use irons on a pistol, mainly because they ARE so close to each other, but beyond 15 yds the target gets very fuzzy.

[BBroadside]

i'd think about it this way: could you reasonably construct a match that would actually favor iron sights?

Since I'm always thinking about developing new shooting sports (usually ones that would be either impossible to set up, or not very popular, or unsafe to shoot), I'm surprised that I haven't thought of this one.

The only way I could think to actually favor iron over glass would be - sprinkle all the shooters with a fine spray of muddy water before they shoot and after they've finally readied their guns for the shot. (See, I said "not very popular"!)

On the other hand, most optics are magnifying. If there were no red dots or reflex sights, USPSA 3-gun* would almost certainly put irons at least on reasonably equal footing with telescopes. But then a 2x scope might still beat a ghost ring, express sights, whatever. I know little about 3-gun so maybe someone could enlighten us.

*Edit: I am thinking of some pretty short-range shoots I have seen. Now that I think about it, 3-gun rifle can probably go out to a few hundred yards where what I've said wouldn't apply. Hmmph. Back to the drawing board.

[35 Whelen]

Shooting in competitions where iron sights are required is simply a self-imposed handicap. I've used scopes my entire life until I discovered High Power. It appealed to me because it was a challenge and I felt learning to use iron sights to the degree necessary to compete would make me a better rifleman. It has. I've figured out that if a man can shoot 18" -24" groups at almost 3/8 of a mile with iron sights and nothing but a sling for support, that using a scope is a piece of cake. This incidently has nothing to do with the sights themselves, rather the methods of shooting that maximize the usefullness of sights.

There have been two instances in the field for me that really stand out where shooting High Power greatly benefitted me.
The first was a few years ago when I jumped a bull elk out of a stand of timber in a basin. He was running towards cover and without even thinking I had dropped my pack, assumed the same sitting position I use for Rapid Sitting in matches, had my sling wrapped tight around my left arm and had fired at (and hit) the bull in about five seconds time.
A couple of seasons ago I spotted a bull making his way through the sparse timber at the bottom of the same basin. I barely had time to range him (355 yds.), drop to the prone position, get my sling tight around my arm, hold about 6" over his back, deep breath...release 1/2 of it and fire the instant the crosshairs were where they needed to be. The fleeting moments prior to squeezing off the shot, I could hear one of my co-competitors and High Power mentors saying "Shoot the first "10" you see." which means when the sights or crosshairs are in the right place shoot RIGHT THEN.

None of these posts have been an indication on my part that sights are in any way superior to good optics. When I'm deer, hog or elk hunting I almost always use a scope...if for no other reason than they are vastly superior in low light conditions when so much game is seen.
35W

[Pete D.]

o be fair, that is only because they are forced to by the rules. if the rules permitted optics for "service rifle" then i'd wager you'd see a scope on every gun on the line.

most NRA mid- and long-range matches have "Any sight / any rifle" and "iron sight / any rifle" and "service rifle" divisions. and camp perry has a scoped 1000 yrd match too. i'd be surprised if anyone shot in the "any sight" category with irons.

Y'know...I wonder about that. I understand that the discussion has focused on High Power.Service Rifle match shooting but....in a Prone .22 match championship, there are frequently two matches - metallic sights and any sights. The difference in score between the metallic sight match and the any sight match is often negligible. last year at Perry the difference was one point (2396 and 2397).
Pete

[bhk]

Yep, good aperture sights have the potential for accuracy that almost equals a good scope. Those iron sight setups count on a aperture rear sight, an aperture front sight, and a black round bullseye on white paper---- all sized appropriately. Been there, done that. This all falls apart in the field, though, when you have to use some kind of post front (blade, bead, etc.) in varying light. I love peeps and have them on my lever guns (mostly to maintain the absolute perfect carrying and handling characteristics of the guns), but the peeps fall short of the scopes for field use. They are still far better than notch rear sights (closer to a scope actually).

[wombat13]

Peep sights can be great for accurate shooting, but they aren't very good in low light conditions and they can get clogged with mud, snow, or rain.

The first time I took my M1 Garand hunting the aperture kept getting obstructed by the rain water. It is much easier and makes less noise to flip open the scope caps than trying to blow the water out of the aperture on a peep sight. The second time I took my Garand hunting I took an 8 point buck with it, but I'm still surprised I made the shot. It was just past daybreak and it was very hard to discern the brown deer from the brown trees and brown forest floor through the peep. Now that I've taken a deer with the Garand I will likely never take it hunting again. My scoped hunting rifle is much better suited to the job and it is only being decent to the animal to use the best tool I can to dispatch it.

[One-Time]

I still prefer open sights to ghosts, Im a good shot w/ ghosts, im far better w/ blades/opens

[BrocLuno]

I'm with 35 Whelan on all this. I don't shoot High Power, but have shot 22 matches with peeps, two of my hunting rifles have peeps, the rest have Scopes. A bunch of my 22's have old irons and they are fine for squirrels and rodents. If you can hit small game with open irons, you are doing OK.

I'm old enough to wear glasses and then some. You have to at least wear safety glasses at the range anyway, so why not shoot sights that are "glasses" friendly? Scopes fall into that category for me.

I was in the Army when it was all iron (and aluminum) sights. Modern military sights were not standard kit yet. Being a young buck with good eyes, it was no problem. But having played with Red Dots and such since then, I'd be inclined to want some sort of optic if it was tough enough?

Even irons can get damaged if a rifle gets dropped, or slides off you shoulder and down a rock fall. I use Weaver bases and can mount a second scope pretty fast. I have a laser bore sighter in my camp kit because some hunting camps don't let you shoot sighters.

I know where the laser points on a scope that sighted in. I can put that old steel tube Weaver K4 back-up on in ten minutes and have it pointing real close to the same. No loss of days there. There is enough technology to make all this work, and work well.

Would I be an all scope guy - NO. Would I be an all irons or peeps guy - NO. They all have their places. Where they work, they work well and do the job. No need to make this a competition of superiority. I'll be shooting peeps next week. Let's all go have fun :)

[mr.trooper]

I don't understand your hostility, but optics are the only way to shoot a firearm these days. Iron sights are strictly for back up.

I understand his hostility all TOO well...

Its because of guys like YOU that i pick up that special gun at a show I've been looking for... only to find that some know it all has removed and thrown away the rear sight, forever destroying its value.

Simply put, you guys who remove your rear sight for your 50mm objective MAKE MY LIFE HARDER.

[jiminhobesound]

Depends on the hunting conditions, dense woods you need to sight quickly and if you practice you will hardly see the reat sight. If you are in the open, western plains, you have to have a scope. Apeture sights require a very considtent line up on the stock and take a little longer to acquire than open sights. I think the apeture sight is great if you can see and you have the time to line up and are in weather that will foul the scope.

[John E.]

This reminds me of the brass key vs appliance operator discussions in ham radio.

[RockyMtnTactical]

I understand his hostility all TOO well...

Its because of guys like YOU that i pick up that special gun at a show I've been looking for... only to find that some know it all has removed and thrown away the rear sight, forever destroying its value.

Simply put, you guys who remove your rear sight for your 50mm objective MAKE MY LIFE HARDER.

When did he say that he removes rear sights from every guns he touches?

[skyhorse]

I agree that there are condtions for both. I also carry a scope,base and bore sighter in my kit. It all depends where the game is and and how close I can get.

All my rifles have iron sights. Glasses do make the irons a little more difficult, but for me it's all about getting my eyes adjusted with practice.

[LibShooter]

Anyone on this forum acquire the rear sight first?

I do. Starting with my focus on the target, I bring the gun into my field of vision. I find the rear sight first. (It's closer and bigger.) When that's in focus I shift focus to the bead... then quickly to the target to make sure nothing I don't want to shoot has happened into the the line of fire... then squeeze the trigger. It takes a fraction of a second to maybe a little more than a second.

[oldfool]

the woobie factor is a bit too apparent in this thread
a lot of people are simply ignoring reality
there are no magic sights, there is no one shoe fits all
if you deny that, you are shorting yourself

type of sights best for the application are very much application specific
you can very easily construct a competition that favors one type over another (open irons, scopes, peeps, red dots, lasers), distance and speed of target acquisition obviously play a large role in that choice

but for those who don't understand open irons and/or aperture, read again Sam1911 and BCRider, broaden your horizons

learn to use all types, they all shine when put to their most appropriate uses
badges are swell and all that, but too many of those guys too often answer the question they think they heard instead of the question you thought you asked
happens a whole lot on gun forums, too