Optics or Irons?

[IndianaBoy]

I know that expensive sights like the Acog have proven themselves in Iraq and A-stan, but since I can't afford one. (Well I could, if I quit buying ammo.) I prefer the robustness of iron sights.


I don't want to depend on something that requires batteries.


KISS.

 

[bigfoot311]

its always best to be proficient with your irons, however i dont see optics as ever being detrimental.

as for magnification, EOTech makes a Flip To Side Magnifier. 4x-6x for long range, then throw a lever and the glass moves over for close in combat.

 

[bigfoot311]

Yes, as does cheek weld. And tell me, how would you attach optics satisfactorily to a Garand or SVT-40? SKS? Mosin? Enfield?

Ash

the svt-40 has a specialized scope mount that can be bought on ebay almost always for cheap, i got one for under $10. i think the mosin has something similar

 

[DMK]

And tell me, how would you attach optics satisfactorily to a Garand or SVT-40? SKS? Mosin? Enfield?

Yes, mounting optics on some guns is problematic. In many cases, the mounts that are available are unsatisfactory and until someone solves those engineering problems, it might be better to get a different gun to mount optics on. Just because something is better doesn't mean that it's better for every gun. Those old designs have their limitations.

The OP is talking about an M1A and an AK though. There are lots of decent options available there.

The SVT-40 did have a scope mounted on it in WWII. As did the Mosin Nagant. Those apparently worked well in service. There are also pretty decent options to mount a scope on an Enfield No.4. Unfortunately, that does require a cheek pad and removing the rear iron sight. I'm a big believer in backup irons. Optics are great, but it's nice to have a plan B.

 

[Ash]

I have the Mosin 91/30 PU sniper and it did work fine. The SVT-40 on the other hand, was not a successful sniper. But these mounts are specialized and installing them will always ruin the value of an otherwise un-mounted rifle - including the SVT-40. Scout mounts are popular options, but not really all that satisfactory for me.

As to AK's and M1a's, I did reply to that one early on. It is a matter of preference. I prefer irons.

Ash

 

[bond007]

You can also be like me and put detachable rings on your scope.

I've got an M1A Scout and am heading to the rifle range tomorrow. I'll probably start with iron sights, screw on the red dot for some fun and then screw on the scout scope to try to get some really good groups. At the end of the day I'll go back to iron sights and bounce some bottles around then head home.

I love iron sights and optics, but even more love not having to choose.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Yes, as does cheek weld. And tell me, how would you attach optics satisfactorily to a Garand or SVT-40? SKS? Mosin? Enfield?

And how would you get an EOTech or AimPoint on a Brown Bess musket?

 

[Ash]

Don't have a Brown Bess, but I do have a 69 caliber Belgian smooth bore flint that would not likely benefit from any kind of sights beyond its blade on the front barrel band.

Ash

 

[Dienekes]

My M4gery wears crutches: a good aftermarket trigger and a compact ACOG.

I prefer to think of them as ways to shoot faster, better, and smarter. My timer and the holes in the paper agree. The irons are there all the time anyway.

 

[Ash]

A good after market trigger is not related to optics.

But, okay. I'll just assume I'm dumb and leave it at that.

Ash

 

[briansmithwins]

The OP was asking if optics are worth the bother on combat rifles. Optics on rifles get you hits faster than irons. Rifle fights are determined by who gets a hit in first.

Unity power (1X) scopes are excellent in short range (<100 yards) fast fights where target acquisition and ID are not a problem. For the mid range (100-400 yards) I prefer low power (3X to 6X) for acquisition and IDing of targets. You need to maintain situational awareness and a low power scope can be of great assistance when scanning for targets.

I've been shooting iron sights at out local rifle matches for the past 6 months. I'm slower but I like the challenge and the feeling when I outshoot people that are using optics is great.

After the match the optics go back on the rifle. Real life is too serious to give up any advantage.

Tough, dependable optics I've used:
Aimpoint. I use a 3X magnifier behind mine to get the best of both worlds.
Acog. Mounted on my wife's rifle, it a great 4X scope that's uber tough.

BSW

 

[elmerfudd]

I like scopes myself. I probably do about 1/2 my shooting with scopes and half with iron sights and I do a good deal of shooting. Scopes are just easier to use and are better in low visibility situations. They are also faster assuming you're not using too much magnification. A red dot is basically an illuminated 1x scope after all.

I do however see four things that iron sights have over optics; cost, weight, size and ruggedness. Sometimes those outweigh the advantages of scopes. If I'm packing a pistol I want it to be small, light and tough and there's no way I'm going to put some sort of optic on it. I buy milsurps for cheap shooting and to appreciate the history of them. Putting a scope on one usually seems wrong, although I'd make an exception for a K31. A very compact or lightweight rifle can also be better with iron sights.

 

[Ash]

The OP also pondered if they were worth installing on his own equipment but could not justify the cost. That, fundamentally, is the heart of my replies.

For me, who did scope an M1a, who has scoped military rifles, who has military sniper rifles with installed scopes, who loves scopes on his hunting rifles, I prefer iron sights. But, I do not compete in long range competitions where scopes are allowed, nor do I engage in the carbine combat competitions or SWAT-style training. I merely shoot for practical improvement in my ability as well as pleasure. A large number of my firearms available to not have any optics mounting options. On others, the option exists, but I cannot justify installing optics on them because I enjoy shooting them open-sighted. The FAL, for instance, has fine sights for this kind of work. Any enhancement from scoping it would be lost on me, because I do not hunt with it, nor do I engage in combat with it. However, I can safely and effectively hunt with said FAL, with open sights, up to 200 yards. I have done so with a Mosin 91/59, which has served as my ranch-rifle in the past (did not have a lever gun).

Ash

 

[USSR]

I've been tossing about the idea of installing optics on my M1A and AK but am finding it hard to justify the cost. Is there enough of an advantage in their use to justify the expense?

IMHO, installing optics with magnification on an AK47-type rifle is like putting lipstick on a pig, since you have a cartridge/platform with a 300 yard effective range. However, you can make the case for a non-magnifying red dot/halographic type sight for quicker target acquisition. A .308 with it's greater potential effective range is another story. If the platform you are using allows for easy optics mounting, and you mount a scope with a low-end magnification no greater than 3X - 4X, then you can extend it's effective range considerably.

Don

 

[DMK]

The OP was asking if optics are worth the bother on combat rifles.

This is the core of it really. Whether or not you can successfully put an optic on your favorite antique or C&R is not the issue. Some can be adaptable to modern use, some can't. That's a discussion for another thread.



Assuming that you have a viable combat rifle for modern SHTF, HD or SD use, would a quality optic (and mounted properly) make it a better weapon?

Optics on rifles get you hits faster than irons. Rifle fights are determined by who gets a hit in first.

 

[BeJaRa]

I really like irons, but then again I am a minimalist. Also my eyes are still young enough that it is not an issue. I used to hunt with my Dad's 30-30 that had a 2x or 4x scope on it. shot great until I tripped while climbing out of a creek bed, the scope got knocked off just a little bit but it was enough to mean a miss at the 6 point buck 150yrds away later than morning. I like reliability and that means no batteries, and no extra mounts. and I agree with with the earlier post, if you are well versed with your irons and can walk the walk with iron sites then by all means get some optics and have fun.

 

[DMK]

MHO, installing optics with magnification on an AK47-type rifle is like putting lipstick on a pig, since you have a cartridge/platform with a 300 yard effective range.

A low magnification (4x or less) scope is plenty effective from 50 to 200 or 300 yards. Don't discount that a target might be behind cover or camouflaged.

I have a 1x-4x variable that I use on my AK. It works well and allows me to put rounds on a smaller target much quicker than the mediocre irons that the AK comes with.

That said, I agree that a holographic optic is likely a better choice for this weapon platform in most situations.

 

[Zouave Rifle]

I've been considering the AK mount also, but can't justify spending a minimum of $150 to mount a red-dot on my MAK-90. The mount i've seen costs about $100 (the Ulti-mak mount that replaces the gas tube). The remaining $50 would be for a Simmons 30mm red-dot sight. I don't really want to remove the rear sight on my AK to mount a scout type mount, so what are my options?

On my Type 53, I removed the rear sight and used a no gunsmith mount w/ a 2.5 power LER scope and illuminated reticle.

 

[MHBushmaster]

Irons are great for rifle ranges and shooting in ideal conditions with lots of ambient light.

Red Dots/Holograms really earn their place on a rifle whenever those "ideal" conditions are not met.

Example: Take your iron sighted rifle, and try and aim it in a dark environment. Add stress and the possibility of incoming fire to the mix, and you've got a decent recipe for missing your "target" due to the slow acquisition of getting the sights aligned properly, etc.
Now try the same with an Aimpoint or Eotech or other decent red dot type optic.

"Red dots" are for when you absolutely need to get bullets on target and your not in ideal or "rifle range" conditions: ex. dynamic positions like: shooting underneath a car, in a dark hallway, weak hand shooting due to a strong hand injury, etc.

ETA: No reason why you can't have both: save up for your quality "red dot" type optic, and then save some more for a decent BUIS (Back Up Iron Sights). Depending upon your rifle, you may just use the already furnished iron sights and the red dot optic will co-witness or be easily removable.

 

[H2O MAN]

Iron sights

These two will never wear any optics - irons only

 

[benEzra]

For the AK, an unmagnified optic makes the platform much more shootable. Putting a Kobra on my AK easily cut my groups in half, and made me much faster at all ranges beyond across-the-room distances.

And in anything but perfect lighting, the optic's advantage multiplies. Try using an AK's iron sights at twilight...

 

[ArmedBear]

Optics on rifles get you hits faster than irons.

Optics don't get you hits at all. They can facilitate quick hits by a shooter with a lot of practice. I'm not entirely sure about initial hits. And I think gun fit matters more.

SHTF, HD or SD use

To an extent, these are short-range applications. The shooter who can get the gun up to his shoulder, point and shoot somewhere near center-mass the fastest has the advantage. It seems that few people practice this. If you do, more power to ya.

If you think that optics really matter, instead of gun fit, "pointability", and practice, in this scenario, try bird hunting sometime. Or try hitting hand-thrown clays with your rifle. It can be done (with a proper backstop). Cheek weld, body movement, and the way the gun handles all matter. The sights, whatever they are, are only used subconsciously. If you don't move with the gun, and if the gun doesn't naturally move with you, optics won't be all that fast, either.

So sure, optics are great. But at HD ranges, the optics don't hit the target, fast or any other way. You do.

Now at 150 yards in twilight, of course a good scope is going to work a lot better than irons. My home, however, isn't that big.

 

[daddyo]

I prefer iron. Years ago when I only saw 1 front sight, I could shoot the top off a soda bottle at 50 yards. Now, my eyes have degraded such that I see 2 front sights and I can never remember which is the real one. I still hit the same point, just one is on target the other is a few degrees right. So I guess its optics time for me. If I were 20 again though, I would go with iron. Always there, always work, always the same. Optics have their usefulness, though, as even though I can hit something at 100 yards I may not be able to tell what it is.

 

[Ash]

DMK,

As I said earlier, the OP also pondered if they were worth installing on his own equipment but could not justify the cost. That, fundamentally, is the heart of my replies.

 

[NMshooter]

An optical sight provides a dramatic improvement in capability for even the most inexperienced shooter.

I learned that one teaching folks how to shoot.

Backup iron sights are still a must.

Putting optics on an AK is not easy if it did not come with the receiver rail...

For the M-14 type rifles, I always preferred the ARMS mount, as much of a pain in the butt as it can be to properly install it. It may block your irons when your scope is mounted, but you really should have throw lever rings for a scope on that rifle. Mounts that raise the scope enough to clear the iron sights may also raise it enough that you want a cheek piece, which would make it very difficult to use those irons...

No easy solutions either way, some rifles are easier to put optical sights on than others. Probably why a full length rail on the receiver appears on all future combat rifles.

Good luck!