Most new shooters learn faster with optics.
From benzy2, post#11
"Its clear that it takes extra skill to shoot irons well compared to a scope. Why start on the harder option if you have to learn all the skills to shoot? "
I agree with benzy2. This is not a question about equipment. It is a question of the characteristics of most students and the process of learning. Benzy2's analogy of learning to drive with an automatic is a good one. On modern vehicles, manual transmissions have few advantages and are a specialty item on specialized types of vehicles for most drivers. (But all drivers should still learn to use a manual after learning with an auto.)
For recreational shooters in the 21st century, iron sights are almost never the best choice (except for economical backup sights, dangerous game at close range, and for target competitions which require irons.) A hunter, plinker, and target shooter (in many, not all, events) can enjoy a lifetime of shooting without ever messing with irons. Even for hunters, carrying a small red dot sight with a quick detachable mount in their hunting packs is a much better choice for a backup sight (if they can afford the extra cost of $100 to 300$.)
As an NRA marksmanship instructor and hunter safety instructor, I've taught well over 1,000 youngsters and 100's of adults to shoot. In those training programs, (and in my own development as a shooter,) most beginners started out with irons, or in case of hunter safety, with whatever they had.
But with my friends and some experimental classes, I taught with scopes and red dots first. For a completely new shooter, that is the way to go. Beginning students progress much more rapidly with scopes and red dots. A beginner can become a very good shot with a low recoil rifle in 8 to 12 (often less) 1 to 2 hr. sessions.
Many young students have more fun and feel more motivated with a red dot rather than a scope. They also learn quickly, but their accuracy is usually more comparable to students with aperture sights.
Most shooters start teaching their children to shoot with a low quality, too heavy .22 rifle with open sights, a poorly fitting stock, and a crappy trigger. Two or three years later, the child is still progressing, but still is not a skilled marksman. You would be amazed at how well 9 and 10 year old students can shoot after 8 to 12 sessions (sometimes as few as 5 or 6) when they learn on lightweight rifles with scopes, a good trigger, and a properly fitting stock. After learning the fundamentals, it's not unusual to see them hitting beer cans pretty consistently at 100 yds. from prone or sitting positions.
There is no doubt that a new shooter can learn to shoot well with irons (if he has decent eyesight), but it should only be done with aperture sights at first. Many who posted on this thread seem to believe that there is some kind of benefit to learning by the harder method first. But in terms of learning efficiency, students learn faster, are better motivated, and have more fun while learning other basic fundamentals without having to concentrate on sight alignment.
The aperture sight is superior to open sights with respect to speed (with ghost ring or wide aperture) and accuracy, and aperture sights can be built in such a way that they are as sturdy and reliable as open sights (as well as not hanging up on saddle scabbards.) Easily adjustable aperture sights are very good for teaching beginners with a .22 rifle out to a range of 50 yd. A quick detachable aperture sight which mounts directly on the scope base is also a good choice for backup sights on a scoped hunting rifle, but it is more expensive and harder to find than using the open sights which were mounted at the factory.
Aside from their expense, one disadvantage with scopes and aperture sights is that they require a good fitting stock if you want to be able to shoot quickly. On most .22 rifles which come with factory open sights, a higher comb will be required for scopes and red dot sights for most shooters. (There are some good add-on cheek pads available for raising the comb height, but most shooters consider them ugly.) Red dot sights and low magnification scopes are faster (for almost all shooters who have practiced with them) than any kind of iron sight, but only if the stock fits correctly. Red dot and open sights on hunting rifles also require a good fitting stock for quick shooting, but the need is less critical with red dot and open sights.
Shooters and manufacturers would both be well served if most rifles came equipped with higher combed stocks, a front sight, and a scope base. More manufacturers could then offer inexpensive quick detachable aperture sights which mount on scope bases. There would never be a need to cut a dovetail in a barrel for the installation of sights. The customer could decide whether to mount a red dot, a scope, or an aperture. If the front sight were screwed on, the customer could decide whether or not to leave it on.
When compared to aperture sights, open sights on rifles for recreational shooters have been obsolete for a 100 years. (Yes, I know. They're cheap; they work; and many shooters shoot well with them.) The only real advantage with open sights is that they are often easier to use than an aperture sight or a scope when the stock does not fit you. The only reasons they still exist is that they are the most economical for the factory to install; many shooters like the traditional look; and that's what many shooters are accustomed to using.
Open sights are the optimal choice only on specialty rifles, like cowboy action. Other than brief familiarization training, learning to shoot well with open sights should be considered an advanced skill for the post graduate shooter who needs them for a special purpose or just likes them because of nostalgia.
