Optics or Irons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
i use optics, and more specifically red dot type sights for th etype of shooting and work that i do, they are faster and they are easier to use. however that dosen't mean that i stop traing with my irons, i use them every once in a while but my go to sight is the red dot, ie an eotech.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I guess that is a matter of opinion. Properly mounted, quality optics will definitely give you an advantage in most conditions.

It's up to the individual shooter to decide if it is worth the additional cost, weight and maintenance.

The only thing I can suggest to the OP or anyone else with these questions, is try it. Buy a mount and a decent scope or holosight. If you feel that it's not worth the price and if you bought quality equipment, then you will easily sell it on the trader here in the forums.

I'm very happy with my three Bushell Holosights on AR15s and am seriously considering an Aimpoint or Trijicon Reflex for my AK. I'm also trying a Fulton Armory mount with a low power EER scope on my M1 Garand (heretic!) to see how that will balance.

I won't be giving up my irons on those guns, but will use them along with the optics.
 
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?
Click to expand...
I was going to send this in a PM, but maybe someone else here might find this useful.

I bought one of the UTG mounts for my SAR1 AK. ($60 at AIM). It's made in China and sold by Leapers/UTG. Not the most distinguished company, and it's certainly not A.R.M.S. quality. However, there really aren't many choices on the market for a AK forward rail, and this unit isn't bad at all. The only weak point I can see is the four small screws threading into aluminum. This is combined with the fact that some folks have cranked these things down enough to bend their gas tubes. So, don't crank it down. Tighten it up enough (and with a cross pattern) so that it won't move, no more.

So far, it seems like it will work fine, and I even have a forward handgrip mounted on the bottom. Right now I'm using a cheap BSA red dot on it, just because I had one in a junk drawer. After a little more testing, I'll be putting an Aimpoint or Trijicon Reflex on it with a quick release mount.
 
An optical sight provides a dramatic improvement in capability for even the most inexperienced shooter.

I learned that one teaching folks how to shoot.
Click to expand...

IMO this is a classic case where skills that work "better" for beginners can really hamper their ultimate ability. Sports are full of examples.

Irons enforce disciplined use of the body. Combine this learned skill with a red dot, and you can get really good.

Start with a red dot, bypass learning to handle a rifle well, and you will plateau early.

That's fine if someone doesn't plan to really practice a lot. But it can be a problem for someone who wants to shoot seriously.

Ask the guys who spend their Saturday morning shooting 4" flying objects without sights whether it's the sight, or the proper use of the body, that makes for quick target acquisition.
 
Good Optics > Irons every time.

If you don't agree with this I'd refer you to the fact that the USMC is going to have ACOGs on every service rifle.

And in fact, the M16A5 will have an integral ACOG (kidding).
 
I have both but prefer iron sights. I coon hunt and go through some pretty inhospitible stuff a scope would get broken much to easily. I prefer irons because they are more reliable. In addittion they are easier to see at night.
 
NMshooter 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.
Click to expand...
SEI, SADLAK, GDI also make great mounts for the M14, but once you get the scope mount properly installed you are still faced with a cheek rest issue.
Here is an example utilizing a USGI synthetic stock.

m14se.009.jpg

m14se.008.jpg

The SAGE M14ALCS Designated Marksman, M14, EBR Tactical Aluminum Chassis Stock has a built-in telescoping butt stock,
adjustable cheek rest and butt pad making it easier for the shooter to dial-in.
 
Seems that it merely comes down to what I use my rifles for and for any perceived scenarios where I might need to rely on them for HD or otherwise.

Optics do add weight, bulk and are more sensitive to abuse than the irons are and some do require a power source which creates a reliance situation. I too have always been of the K.I.S.S. mentality. But it seems that either the manufacturers are pushing their products more or that we just see so many military rifles with them installed that it makes us think that they must have an overwhelmingly positive effect on accuracy.

On the large use of them by the military, I have always heard of how rifle training has taken a back seat to other priorities. Is their widespread adoption of optics been their stopgap answer to this lack of training? Is it cheaper to put ACOGs on a rifle than to spend the extra time to make them all better riflemen with their irons? Or is the rifle training adequate and installing the optics makes them even more accurate?

Either way, I guess when it comes down to it for me, I have to make that choice based on what advantages I "know" I can garner for the money spent. As irons have been so adequate (or much better for other rifles, Garand, M1A, etc.) for so many for so long I believe that when the entertainment funds become large enough I might invest in them, otherwise I cannot feel inadequate with the iron sights provided with my rifles.
 
I love using a good red dot on a 'battle' style rifle. I hate squinting to see those tiny iron sights, and then the target is blurred anyway.

I hope whoever came up with the idea is filthy rich.
 
Is it cheaper to put ACOGs on a rifle than to spend the extra time to make them all better riflemen with their irons? Or is the rifle training adequate and installing the optics makes them even more accurate?
Click to expand...

I've shot with one former Marine, and he can hit faraway small things with A2 sights, no problem. If he gets an ACOG, it will be the latter.

OTOH, there are some who may think it's the former.

BTW I took said former Marine to the trap range for the first time. He hit 19/25 the first time out, with the gun I handed him. Most rifle shooters can't beat 10, and many not even that, because they can't shoot. They can look through the sights and hit a target, but they can't shoot, meaning acquire a target quickly using their whole body and keeping a good cheek weld, worth diddley-squat. But he could, and AFAIK he learned to do it in the USMC with the M16A2. Whether they still teach that, I don't know. But he did serve in Iraq a few years ago.
 
Practicing bad techniques and methods is a poor choice.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.:)

Most people don't know they're doing it, though. And young men with guns seem particularly averse to taking any sort of advice.
 
On the large use of them by the military, I have always heard of how rifle training has taken a back seat to other priorities. Is their widespread adoption of optics been their stopgap answer to this lack of training? ... As irons have been so adequate (or much better for other rifles, Garand, M1A, etc.) for so many for so long I believe that when the entertainment funds become large enough I might invest in them, otherwise I cannot feel inadequate with the iron sights provided with my rifles.
Click to expand...
I believe that the failrly recent military adoption of optics is due to the fact that firearms optics technology has matured to the point where we have extremely rugged and compact units such as the Eotech, Aimpoint, and ACOG. These optics have been fielded in combat many times, after action reports have deemed them to be an asset to the units involved, so they started to get included as standard gear more and more. I have never heard of any reports condemning these optics either by unit commanders or individuals returning from war zones. In fact the common comment seems to be "we need more!"

During WWII, Korea and Vietnam, potential military issue optics were just not as good as they are today. What they did have were for specially trained soldiers to be used to specialized tasks. I believe that if we had ACOGs and Aimpoints in WWII, they would have been used on the front lines, at the very least by Rangers and Commandos.

Gear of any sort is never a replacement for training and technique. But a well trained and practised individual will do even better with the best gear.

If you enjoy shooting with irons, that's great. I do too. Everyone should be as familiar with shooting with iron sights as they are with optics. Unfortunately many aren't (and unfortunately many sporting rifles today come sans iron sights). But don't condemn the gear because someone is using it improperly. That's as close minded as condemning guns because someone murders someone with one. It's the individual who has the malfunction, not the gear.
 
Modern optics are durable and rarely fail. You're more likely for your A2 rear elevation disc to be bumped off zero than your ACOG or Aimpoint to fail.

Optical sights, 1x or magnified, are a force multiplier. They make the shooter more effective.

-z
 
On the large use of them by the military, I have always heard of how rifle training has taken a back seat to other priorities. Is their widespread adoption of optics been their stopgap answer to this lack of training? Is it cheaper to put ACOGs on a rifle than to spend the extra time to make them all better riflemen with their irons? Or is the rifle training adequate and installing the optics makes them even more accurate?
Click to expand...

Optics are an attempt to work around the simple fact that accuracy in combat with individual weapons tends to be be simply and utterly dismal.

It's not the only approach to the problem -- there has been a consistent drive to make training more realistic and relevant to the actual battlefield, study of how the body functions and reacts under high levels of stress, etc. But, the different approaches work best when applied in combination.
 
There is more to life than sunny days on the range with fouling shots, spotting scopes, and bullseye targets.

On those days, optics gets you its faster.

BSW
 
Age is also factor: How old are your eyes?

Some old eyes don't do "front site" all that well anymore...

You should know how to use both. That's being prepared and knowledgable. Then use whichever lets you get hits better in the circumstances you are in now. To know how to use irons is good. To use them even if optics would let you get better hits is silly.
 
First and foremost: All shooting is fun!

That said, nothing brings me more pride than shooting MOA (or close to it) with iron sights. After shooting an hour or two with iron sights, changing to a scoped rifle seems so easy.
 
the answer is yes to the ops question.but of course, practice with your irons.i wouldn't go 50/50 because you have way less chance of using your irons unless you had bright light washout,which is one of the reason i like to co witness,besides a potential mechanical failure.
 
Age is also factor: How old are your eyes?

Some old eyes don't do "front site" all that well anymore...

You should know how to use both. That's being prepared and knowledgable. Then use whichever lets you get hits better in the circumstances you are in now. To know how to use irons is good. To use them even if optics would let you get better hits is silly.
Click to expand...

As your eyes get older, there are some tricks you can use for iron sights.

For the AR's (and M1's) you can replace the front post sight with a ring sight. I've heard that helps a lot. A smaller aperature in the rear sight helps as well.

My favorite type of sights are ghost rings. For the normal 'V' style sights, I can never be sure if you suppose to put the target on the front beed, or just above it. And if above it, how far above it. With two rings, it's a no-brainer.

Bit

Almost forgot... You can get glasses that will help with this loss of vision capability as well. I've heard they're pricy though, about $2-300, not sure. Heard about these in a class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Iron Sights
Replies
18
Views
849
browneu
B
MTMilitiaman
  • Locked
Horus 1.5-8 Blackbird experience?
Replies
2
Views
676
G27RR
G
amprecon
  • Locked
$1,000+ Worth of Improvement?
Replies
9
Views
489
Vaarok
V
S
  • Locked
AR irons + optic opinions
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Ehtereon11B
E
D
  • Locked
Which optic for my Rifle?
Replies
5
Views
849
doctorhumbert
D
Back
Top