Best accuracy: open iron sights vs reflex

[klyph]

Got into a debate with my brother and since we're equally hard headed, I said I'd pose the question to the hive mind.

Are open iron sights more accurate than a reflex sight?

Assume the reflex sight is parallax free, the dot is the same moa as the front blade, eyesight is 20/20, speed of target acquisition is not a factor, only accuracy. Range of 100 yards.

My supposition is that a quality reflex sight will be more accurate due to the focal range and parallax compensation, he maintains that irons are somehow inherently more accurate. What's the experience of those here that have experience with both?

 

[Eric M]

In practice I'd say they're probably about equal.

 

[deadin]

With a reflex sight you only have one thing to keep track of (other than the trigger and target). Irons require keeping track of two. (front and rear sights)
Less opportunity for error.

 

[BCRider]

There is always going to be some difference in how the sights work with the target which will make one a trifle easier to hold than the other. But if we're talking about using the best target format for each sight setup then I'd say they are the same for accuracy.... at least that any remaining differences will be lost in the effects from all the other issues that go into shooting from anything less than a full on Ransom rest.

Obviously the red dot reflex style is faster and easier to use but you didn't ask about that. Just about the ability to hold each accurately.

 

[creeper1956]

Given the parameters described, I can always shoot a smaller group with a reflex sight vs. conventional iron sights. With diopter, adjustable iris, aperture sights... Mmmm, I've never tested the comparison, and I'm not sure I can meet your parameters... but I suspect I might shoot more accurately with match rifle aperture sights.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It has been my experience that the accuracy is about the same also...as you've posed the question. A larger factor will be trigger management

It is interesting that you've removed the speed of target acquisition as a factor, because that is usually where there is some advantage to the reflex sight.

With a reflex sight you only have one thing to keep track of (other than the trigger and target). Irons require keeping track of two. (front and rear sights)

It depends on how you define iron sights or open iron sights.

With ghost ring sights, on a long gun, you only track the front sight while looking through the rear ring

 

[holdencm9]

Probably about the same. The reflex is just faster.

 

[Red Cent]

Never compared but it strikes me that you could obtain better consistency with the red dot. If we are talking one shot....tossup. Five shots for group, I would bet on the red dot.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The issue is that the red dot exaggerates movement...it is like trying to hold a laser pointer still

 

[USAF_Vet]

I give target acquisition to the reflex sight, for quick shots. But if we're taking the time, I'd say irons are more accurate over all.

 

[Inebriated]

The problem with dots are they're typically 2-4 MOA, so you're covering a lot of the target.

But in concept, a dot is going to be more accurate, if for no other reason that looking through an optic is much less cumbersome.

 

[Warp]

The red dot/reflex sight is obviously quicker/faster. That's why they are so popular.

I think the dot has more potential for precision because, as mentioned above, you do not have to align two things. You only have to focus on where the dot is. With irons you focus on the front site, but where it is within the rear sight can vary slightly...and you cannot focus on both at once (nor should you focus on the rear/peep sight anyway)

 

[Fishslayer]

With open iron sights I can hit a barn if it's big enough. The old eyes ain't what they used to be. Even taking away speed of acquisition for me, anyway, any optic is going to be more accurate. Astigmatism is no fun.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have a pair of identical pistols. One with reflex. One without. Off hand, I shoot the open better. However, when sandbagged, the reflex is much easier to shoot tight groups with once the distance gets past 25 yards.

 

[Pete D.]

vs

A lot of the answer depends on the situation, the gun, and the range at which it is being fired.
In Bullseye pistol match shooting, where precision is paramount, the red dot sight - tube or reflex - has come to dominate.
On a rifle....the limitation of the reflex is the size of the dot. At close range, a three MOA dot may work wonderfully well - lets say out to 100 yards. Since the dot is always the same size, though, the further away the target, the more it is obscured. A dot that is three minutes in diameter at 100 yards is six minutes at 200. That is not twice as large...it is four times as large. At 300, it is nine times, etc.
A shooter can compensate for these changes caused by distance much more easily with irons, especially a rear aperture paired with a front aperture. An adjustable iris rear adds further precision.
Pete

 

[45_auto]

A dot that is three minutes in diameter at 100 yards is six minutes at 200. That is not twice as large...it is four times as large. At 300, it is nine times, etc.

For most people's purposes six minutes is twice as large as 3 minutes and 9 minutes is 3 times as large as 3 minutes. If you're using the width of your dot (or front blade) to measure range, then a 3 minute dot (or blade) is 3 inches wide at 100, 6 inches at 200, 9 inches at 300, 15 inches at 500, etc.

It's only when you talk about the area covered by the dot (area = radius squared times pi) that the exponential factor of the squared term becomes important. A circle that is twice as big covers 4 times the area. A circle that is 3 times as big covers 9 times the area, etc.

 

[Pete D.]

Correct

It's only when you talk about the area covered by the dot (area = radius squared times pi) that the exponential factor of the squared term becomes important. A circle that is twice as big covers 4 times the area. A circle that is 3 times as big covers 9 times the area, etc.

Well...yeah. If you are using the width of the dot as a range finder then ok. If the shooter is using the dot as an aiming point....which is what I supposed as relative accuracy is the question....then the area covered by the dot is important. I also suppose that it may be important only at very long range, long enough that nearly all or all of the target is obscured. If I am shooting at a 12 inch wide target at 400 yards, a three minute of angle dot may not be a great help.
Pete

 

[klyph]

What is the typical moa of an open sights front blade? Given the fact that almost the entire lower half of the sight picture is obscured by the irons, is there really any advantage at all?

 

[ATBackPackin]

I cannot tell you which one is more accurate because I have never compared them. However if speed is NOT a concern then I prefer open sights.

 

[Sam Cade]

What is the typical moa of an open sights front blade?

How long are your arms?

 

[klyph]

2 cubits exactly, as are yours

 

[Warp]

Well...yeah. If you are using the width of the dot as a range finder then ok. If the shooter is using the dot as an aiming point....which is what I supposed as relative accuracy is the question....then the area covered by the dot is important. I also suppose that it may be important only at very long range, long enough that nearly all or all of the target is obscured. If I am shooting at a 12 inch wide target at 400 yards, a three minute of angle dot may not be a great help.
Pete

Then you would want to set your zero so that you can place the edge of the circle in a specific spot, such as on the target somewhere. And there's nothing that says you can't basically do 'pumpkin on a post' with a dot.

Besides...how much does the front site post cover at 400 yards?

 

[Pete D.]

true

Then you would want to set your zero so that you can place the edge of the circle in a specific spot, such as on the target somewhere. And there's nothing that says you can't basically do 'pumpkin on a post' with a dot.

Besides...how much does the front site post cover at 400 yards?

Absolutely true. You can do the "target on the dot zero". That is what I would do. It is why I prefer the triangle reticle on the Trijicon RX01. Still.....I have the feeling, not verifiable, that most shooters aren't going to do that. I could be wrong.
Similarly, "how much does the front sight cover at 400 yards?" Nothing. I do not cover my targets with the front sight. The target sits atop the front post and is not obscured.
Pete