I shoot irons with my Fal's at least once a month. I used to shoot AR's alot with them too, but not as much anymore. It has definitely faded in popularity with all the new stuff out there. When I got my first AR I made myself learn to shoot with the irons before I ever mounted an optic on one of them.
Iron sights, a dying skill?
- Thread starter LRS_Ranger
- Start date
- Status
John Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,133
A quality scope and mount is no less durable than a good set of adjustable iron sights. They are much MORE durable than cheap adjustable sights, which can break or vibrate loose.
I enjoy shooting with iron sights. Actually, I prefer it. I also see the merit of shooting with a scope, and hitting what you're shooting at more accurately.
Most gun buyers nowadays are not serious shooters. People who aren't serious shooters don't see the merit of a good set of iron sights, and are not willing to pay the same price for a rifle with a decent set of irons when they can get a rifle with a cheap scope for the same money. Gunmakers know this, and cater to that crowd.
If internet gun forums had been around three hundred years ago, do you think people would have complained that the new flintlocks weren't traditional enough, or didn't require as much skill as a matchlock? Or that putting sights on the gun at all was not as sporting as a smoothbored musket with a bead on the end?
I enjoy shooting with iron sights. Actually, I prefer it. I also see the merit of shooting with a scope, and hitting what you're shooting at more accurately.
Most gun buyers nowadays are not serious shooters. People who aren't serious shooters don't see the merit of a good set of iron sights, and are not willing to pay the same price for a rifle with a decent set of irons when they can get a rifle with a cheap scope for the same money. Gunmakers know this, and cater to that crowd.
If internet gun forums had been around three hundred years ago, do you think people would have complained that the new flintlocks weren't traditional enough, or didn't require as much skill as a matchlock? Or that putting sights on the gun at all was not as sporting as a smoothbored musket with a bead on the end?
Irons is all I hunt with about 90% of the time. I have a couple scoped rifles that I use when the terrain calls for it, but I prefer to hunt with irons like I always have growing up. Heard someone say what about the bow,leverguns,revolvers.I use them all with irons and enjoy it , But I will agree you don't see a lot of people using irons like years ago. One of the reasons is a lot of these kids now days are never gonna know what its like to walk around the farm shootin a Daisy bb gun or sqirrell huntin with that old single shot 22. Thats how you learned to shoot the irons and just handling a gun in general back then.I still sqirrell hunt with an iron sited 22 just to stay sharp. Got nothing against scoped guns but they are much more handy without'm.
DMK
Member
Here's an interesting commentary on that subject, kind of opposite to the usual assumptions:
http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm
My preference is for usable backup sights, preferably co-witnessed. I'm not so worried about my optic failing and ruining my range day, but I do like to have the choice of shooting with either the optic or the iron sights and I don't want to have to remove the optic (and disturb its zero) to do so.
Even though both of these carbines have electronic optics, I shoot them using iron sights about 50% of the time.
Last edited:
schlockinz
Member
I could never look at myself the same with a red dot on my 1895, if I were going to go optic and redo it (which I might since its currently "overscoped") I'd rather go with a 1-3x scope. Red dots seem like a nice idea to me, but I'd rather have a lower powered scope and not worry about electronics. Anything with batteries is bound to die at an inopportune time if its in my hands.
rskent
Member
A dying skill, I don’t think so. IMHO you can’t get any better than a set on A2 sights. Faster yes, better no.
I used to have a scope. I sold it. I rarely shoot past 200 yards. At that range you just don’t need a scope.
Steve
I used to have a scope. I sold it. I rarely shoot past 200 yards. At that range you just don’t need a scope.
Steve
W.E.G.
Member
Enemy equipped with holographic sight and high-cap mags.
I think I'll bust out the old Enfield and show him a thing or two.
NOT!
Iron sights on a rifle are necessary as a backup.
...and ONLY as a backup.
However, I'll never mount an optic on a pistol.
I think I'll bust out the old Enfield and show him a thing or two.
NOT!
Iron sights on a rifle are necessary as a backup.
...and ONLY as a backup.
However, I'll never mount an optic on a pistol.
dirtyjim
Member
most rifles that made for the american market have too tall of a comb to work well with iron sights.
if you were to put irons on a new remington or winchester they would have to be very tall to work with the crappy stock design they all use now.
if you were to put irons on a new remington or winchester they would have to be very tall to work with the crappy stock design they all use now.
I prefer to shoot with iron sights...it's part of the fun. My complaint is that they seem to be getting bigger and bigger as time goes by. Every old(50+ years) rifle I pick up has tiny precise sights you could draw a bead on a squirrel's eye at 25 yards with. Every new gun has an eighth inch hunk of metal or plastic on the end of the barrel that would block out an entire human head at 12 yards. It's no wonder people these days find it hard to shoot with iron sights. Why the #@&& do they do this crap???
Old Time Hunter
Member
Ya'll ever see a Springfield Trapdoor with an optical enhancer????? It ain't pretty!
Placed 2nd in a regional multi-distance "Jim Bridger" rule competition using a '94 Winchester 375 BB outfitted with an XS Ghost Ring set up, 1st place went to a gent using a M96 Mauser with a diopter set up. The highest ranking scoped thingy placed 37th out of little over a hundred participants(9 out of the bottom 10 had scopes). "Bridger" rules gives you multiple ranges without set up between the distances, could be anything from 50 yards to 250 yards, and anything inbetween. You had one minute to fire five shots at each distance ('course you had to ascertain on your own what the distances were) and one minute between each distance (3 of them). Guess the people with scopes had trouble with dead reckoning.
Placed 2nd in a regional multi-distance "Jim Bridger" rule competition using a '94 Winchester 375 BB outfitted with an XS Ghost Ring set up, 1st place went to a gent using a M96 Mauser with a diopter set up. The highest ranking scoped thingy placed 37th out of little over a hundred participants(9 out of the bottom 10 had scopes). "Bridger" rules gives you multiple ranges without set up between the distances, could be anything from 50 yards to 250 yards, and anything inbetween. You had one minute to fire five shots at each distance ('course you had to ascertain on your own what the distances were) and one minute between each distance (3 of them). Guess the people with scopes had trouble with dead reckoning.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Hmmm . . . I have the following iron-sighted rifles:
And of course all my handguns have iron sights.
- Flintlock Kentucky in .45 Caliber by Bob Watts of Stone Mountain, GA.
- Percussion lock Kentucky in .52 Caliber made in Berks County, PA in the 1840s.
- Lyman .50 Caliber percussion lock (with peep sight)
- Stevens #26 Crackshot .22
- Stevens Favorite .22 (with tang sight)
- M1922 Springfield .22 with issue peep sight.
- Winchester Model 94 with Williams 5D peep sight.
- Remington M1903A3 Springfield
- Smith-Corona M1903A3 Springfield
- M1 Garand
- M1898 sporterized Krag with cocking piece sight.
And of course all my handguns have iron sights.
Not here. I use/practice with open sights, and peep sights, reddots, ACOG, and scopes ranging from 2.5X to 36X. With my Springfield M1A "Loaded", I was able to hit a old stainless steel toaster at 300 yards, 20 for 20 shots. Peeps sights are the best! IMHO. 
I fire my Kimber G82 as-accurately at 30 yards with the target sights as I do with a 36X target scope. Like I said, peep sight...the best! I prefer that a rifle have iron sights and a scope.
Geno
I fire my Kimber G82 as-accurately at 30 yards with the target sights as I do with a 36X target scope. Like I said, peep sight...the best! I prefer that a rifle have iron sights and a scope.Geno
LeonCarr
Member
Maybe I am very old school, but I feel anything that runs on batteries is a liability in combat. I like open sights, especially the A2 sights on ARs.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
DougW
Member
I guess my AR's are a good indicator of where I am at. The A2 is iron sights, one M4'gery with a TA31F ACOG, one M4'gery with an Aimpoint ML2, and the 20" HB with a Leatherwood 1.5X6. BUIS on the M4'gey's only.
Of course, all the Enfields and the rest of the milsurp's run with the iron sights. I just don't shoot them past 200 yards. Older eyes have limitations.
Of course, all the Enfields and the rest of the milsurp's run with the iron sights. I just don't shoot them past 200 yards. Older eyes have limitations.
Caliper_Mi
Member
I agree with those who accuse modern rifles of not having the ergonomics for iron sights and/or having inferior irons.
Look at the old mil-surp rifles. Adjustable rear leaf for every 100yd (or m). Of course, this relies on using the right ammo, but still beats the "one adjustment fits all" approach of current leafs. I really love the triple flip-up rear sight on my M69 trainer. 25, 50, 100 rear sights that are just right for standard velocity .22LR's. The sights on a M1 Garand are supreme with quick click adjustability for range and windage. Great stuff.
Look at the old mil-surp rifles. Adjustable rear leaf for every 100yd (or m). Of course, this relies on using the right ammo, but still beats the "one adjustment fits all" approach of current leafs. I really love the triple flip-up rear sight on my M69 trainer. 25, 50, 100 rear sights that are just right for standard velocity .22LR's. The sights on a M1 Garand are supreme with quick click adjustability for range and windage. Great stuff.
Modern bolt actions with tall combs are that way specifically for scopes. In the days of iron sights, they had more drop to get down on the barrel where they are. Shoot what goes with the stock.
I've been shooting iron sights since high school with .22 International. From there I went to an HK91, and added a 1Gen Aimpoint. That was a great training setup for years, too much rifle and too little battery life. At the same time I continued to qualify annually on an iron sighted M16. The change with the A2 was not to the better in my experience, but the sight picture made no difference.
For short range precision, I'd prefer irons. In a combat/CQB, a red dot. Hunting in woodland, a red dot. If the red dot goes down - mud on the lens, impact damage, dust, rain, fog, ice, snow,bark, wet leaves, blood . . .
What, you don't have those problems at your range? How nice.
. . . sweat, tears, spit, water from a camelbak, fuel, food, whatever. A soldier in combat can have a lot of stuff flying around during a long day. If it has a lens, it can be obscured, and you cannot rely on it staying clean. It has to be constantly checked and maintained.
Iron sights? Not so much. Durable, resilient, and difficult to damage or obscure. Bang an Aimpoint against your boot to force the mud off the lens? Scrape it with a pocket tool or knife? Rub it down with spit on your thumb? Iron sights, yes, red dot, no. Scope? Even more so.
Optics lenses must be treated with constant PMCS. Iron sights, just a look and maybe a brush off. It's a tradeoff, be careful being overly dependent on them.
I've been shooting iron sights since high school with .22 International. From there I went to an HK91, and added a 1Gen Aimpoint. That was a great training setup for years, too much rifle and too little battery life. At the same time I continued to qualify annually on an iron sighted M16. The change with the A2 was not to the better in my experience, but the sight picture made no difference.
For short range precision, I'd prefer irons. In a combat/CQB, a red dot. Hunting in woodland, a red dot. If the red dot goes down - mud on the lens, impact damage, dust, rain, fog, ice, snow,bark, wet leaves, blood . . .
What, you don't have those problems at your range? How nice.
. . . sweat, tears, spit, water from a camelbak, fuel, food, whatever. A soldier in combat can have a lot of stuff flying around during a long day. If it has a lens, it can be obscured, and you cannot rely on it staying clean. It has to be constantly checked and maintained.
Iron sights? Not so much. Durable, resilient, and difficult to damage or obscure. Bang an Aimpoint against your boot to force the mud off the lens? Scrape it with a pocket tool or knife? Rub it down with spit on your thumb? Iron sights, yes, red dot, no. Scope? Even more so.
Optics lenses must be treated with constant PMCS. Iron sights, just a look and maybe a brush off. It's a tradeoff, be careful being overly dependent on them.
An AR carbine with a collapsible stock is not a rifle, and it doesn't really work quite like one. It's a different sort of firearm from a Garand, a Model 70, or even an M16-configuration AR.
A red dot can do a lot at close range, on that design of a firearm.
However, it does not offer a "huge" advantage on a traditional full-size rifle. A magnifying scope can, though, because you can't hit what you can't see, or what you can't discern at a distance.
A red do can offer a lot on a handgun, and it's used extensively in any competition where it's allowed. It is also unwieldy for a carry gun, generally, so you won't see it there, very often.
I was getting sick of irons, as I don't always shoot in excellent light. Then, I discovered apertures... Suddenly, I like irons again. There's a reason, as someone else said, that the aperture sight makers are all still in business (and there are a few new ones doing pretty well these days, also).
By and large, I enjoy shooting with iron sights, and I always have. The scopes I have serve practical purposes, and aren't generally on my "go-to" guns when I want to shoot targets for fun or to clear my head.
A red dot can do a lot at close range, on that design of a firearm.
However, it does not offer a "huge" advantage on a traditional full-size rifle. A magnifying scope can, though, because you can't hit what you can't see, or what you can't discern at a distance.
A red do can offer a lot on a handgun, and it's used extensively in any competition where it's allowed. It is also unwieldy for a carry gun, generally, so you won't see it there, very often.
I was getting sick of irons, as I don't always shoot in excellent light. Then, I discovered apertures... Suddenly, I like irons again.
There's a reason, as someone else said, that the aperture sight makers are all still in business (and there are a few new ones doing pretty well these days, also).By and large, I enjoy shooting with iron sights, and I always have. The scopes I have serve practical purposes, and aren't generally on my "go-to" guns when I want to shoot targets for fun or to clear my head.
Zerodefect
member
Some of ya'll are making the bold assumtion that a fighting rifle with a red dot deosn't still have irons.
It deos, often lower 1/3rd cowitness meaning you see your irons in your Aimpoint/eotech picture. Or some use a flip up rear sight.
So your giving up absolutly nothing with a red dot sight. If my Aimpoint fails, unlikely, I can rip it off and toss it in about 2 seconds.
Our troops are making record level head shots and shooting better than ever with ACOGs and Aimpoints.
It deos, often lower 1/3rd cowitness meaning you see your irons in your Aimpoint/eotech picture. Or some use a flip up rear sight.
So your giving up absolutly nothing with a red dot sight. If my Aimpoint fails, unlikely, I can rip it off and toss it in about 2 seconds.
Our troops are making record level head shots and shooting better than ever with ACOGs and Aimpoints.
The picture you see through it is not as clear as what you see through air.
There's no free lunch, though I do think that, generally, you gain more from a red dot than you give up on a carbine for close-range use (not a rifle, really -- there's a reason for the ACOG).
WarMachine
Member
I'm not understanding you. Why would a red dot be less effective on a rifle than on a carbine? It sounds to me like you're talking more about the application, and the distance you're shooting at.
A T-1 on an M4 is no less effective than a T-1 on a M16, all things being equal. Obviously, a scope, or a magnified optic will put you at an advantage when shooting long distances and at a disadvantage in close-in work. This is the same for both platforms (granted an M16 should be more accurate at range).
pikid89
Member
not mine
I got tech sights..i can hit most of the time at 200 with my 10/22 and irons
www.tech-sights.com
Cheek weld.
The primary advantage of a red dot over all other sighting systems is that you can look through it from a relatively wide range of angles, and it will work fine. A carbine in close-quarters use will be held in all sorts of positions, and the red dot will work.
If you're shooting a rifle that fits you, you will shoulder it consistently, and you end up looking through the sights or the magnifying scope naturally. The red dot offers only the illuminated dot, if you are always looking straight through it. Maybe it is better, but not hugely so -- and it's inferior to something like the ACOG for longer-distance work.
And yes, a rifle and a carbine like the M4 are designed for different roles. Ideally, they would be used accordingly, though of course this isn't always the case.
The primary advantage of a red dot over all other sighting systems is that you can look through it from a relatively wide range of angles, and it will work fine. A carbine in close-quarters use will be held in all sorts of positions, and the red dot will work.
If you're shooting a rifle that fits you, you will shoulder it consistently, and you end up looking through the sights or the magnifying scope naturally. The red dot offers only the illuminated dot, if you are always looking straight through it. Maybe it is better, but not hugely so -- and it's inferior to something like the ACOG for longer-distance work.
And yes, a rifle and a carbine like the M4 are designed for different roles. Ideally, they would be used accordingly, though of course this isn't always the case.
Zerodefect
member
I don't think he meant that the red dot is less effective, but that long rifles have better iron sights and are easier to aim.
I have to squint my weak eye and focus on my front sight with irons. I can't even see my target anymore without loseing focus of that front sight with one eye. With my Aimpoint I focus ON the target with both eyes open, which is a huge help for moving targets.
With an Aimpoint and both eyes open the target is in complete focus and the sight blurs as your weak side eye sees around it. As if the sight wasn't even there. And the dot is just there. A little fuzzy maybe. But its there, and I can concentrate on my moving target and not on my front sight.
And because I don't have to squint either eye for it to work well, transitioning to my other side/eye to make better use of cover is acheivable. Shoot left handed around the left side of cover and right handed at on the right side of cover. I can't do that with Irons.
I have to squint my weak eye and focus on my front sight with irons. I can't even see my target anymore without loseing focus of that front sight with one eye. With my Aimpoint I focus ON the target with both eyes open, which is a huge help for moving targets.
With an Aimpoint and both eyes open the target is in complete focus and the sight blurs as your weak side eye sees around it. As if the sight wasn't even there. And the dot is just there. A little fuzzy maybe. But its there, and I can concentrate on my moving target and not on my front sight.
And because I don't have to squint either eye for it to work well, transitioning to my other side/eye to make better use of cover is acheivable. Shoot left handed around the left side of cover and right handed at on the right side of cover. I can't do that with Irons.
Last edited:
groundhog34
Member
There are 2 main problems with iron sights. First distance limitations, second scopes do gather light so are more effective in low light circumstances.
- Status
