Conventional rifle shooting doctrine has always been to shift your focus between the front sight, target and rear sights, settling on a sharp front sight with slightly blurry target and rear sight. A clearer rear sight further down the barrel helps my 50 year old eyes more than a few inches of sight radius.
What's the deal with open sights?
- Thread starter BBroadside
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Right!
Again, though, that's RIGHT -- for "open" sights. Not "right" for aperture sights.
It appears to me that some of us are arguing past each other a bit. As there are (at least) two different systems in use, let's make sure we're not wasting our breath arguing over unrelated things.
If you're using "open" (v-notch, patridge, buckhorn, express, etc.) sights, you do have to have the rear sight forward enough to be able to focus on it, at least briefly. Saying that this sight shouldn't be forward far enough to focus on it clearly is incorrect.
If you're using aperture sights (like those on a 1903A3, or Garand, M1 Carbine, M14/M1A, M16/AR-15 or most dedicated target rifles) the rear sight will be MUCH too close to the eye to be brought into focus. Usually, they're somewhere between nearly touching the face and ~2" away from the eye.
henschman
Member
I think manufacturers sell rifles this way because there are a lot of rifle owners but not very many Riflemen in this country. They are gearing the product toward the audience.
35 Whelen
Member
Hogwash!! I wish there were some way that every man, woman and child who endeavored to fire a rifle could attend a High Power match and see exactly what can be done with iron sights. Too, there'd be far less foolish statements and assumptions about iron sights.
This year at Camp Perry, the winner fired 2396 out of a possible 2400. The difficult part of this accomplishment was that she (yes, it was a woman) put 20 out of 20 shots, fired prone, into about a 12" circle at 600 yards with metallic sights, three times! Now tell me iron sights are strictly for backup "these days". Most wannabe snipers and mall ninjas can't do that shooting a scoped rifle from a bench.
Regarding sight acquisition, I recently discussed sight picture with one of our fellow High Power shooters who happens to be a Distinguished Marksman pistol competitor. He told me point blank: Focus on the front sight every time. Period. Not rear, then target, then front, etc. Focus on the front sight...the target should look fuzzy...like a ball of lint.
Of course good optics are better than iron sights, but iron sights are far, far from useless. It's a shame that iron sights are so misunderstood.
35W
35W
Last edited:
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
I really don't care.
To me, a firearm is either for defense or hunting game. With that in mind, I would like the best sighting instrument I can acquire for best results. That certainly wouldn't be iron sights.
788Ham
Member
Make sure to use a 2 1/2 lb. dead blow hammer to remove the dovetailed sights! Left to right!
to be fair, that is only because they are forced to by the rules. if the rules permitted optics for "service rifle" then i'd wager you'd see a scope on every gun on the line.
most NRA mid- and long-range matches have "Any sight / any rifle" and "iron sight / any rifle" and "service rifle" divisions. and camp perry has a scoped 1000 yrd match too. i'd be surprised if anyone shot in the "any sight" category with irons.
35 Whelen
Member
Very true. But the point of the the quoted post above is that iron sights are anything but a thing of the past and that their capable of some incredible accuracy.
Camp Perry High Power competitors, according to the rules, cannot use any sort of a rest. Eliminate that rule, and they'd all be competing using some sort of rest. But that's not an indictment on shooting with slings!
Regards,
35W
no question they are capable of extreme accuracy, but it does require 'perfect' conditions: a five-foot black bullseye on white background, etc.
while we are diverging a bit from the OP, i'd think about it this way: could you reasonably construct a match that would actually favor iron sights? you can do that with slings easily enough by just holding the match where there aren't any benches; e.g. most people don't carry front/rear bags around on field precision/sniper matches.
while we are diverging a bit from the OP, i'd think about it this way: could you reasonably construct a match that would actually favor iron sights? you can do that with slings easily enough by just holding the match where there aren't any benches; e.g. most people don't carry front/rear bags around on field precision/sniper matches.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Shooting with irons is great and I think it's important to know how to use them properly, but I don't understand hostility towards optics either. Optics are a huge step up over iron sights and there really is no debate on the subject.
Welding Rod
Member
I don't know about that.
Optics tend to be more fragile.
Optics cost substantially more.
Optics are heavier.
Optics are not well suited to some firearm designs (i.e. M14)
I have more long guns with optics than without, but I do have iron sighted guns that will stay that way due to various combinations of the reasons above.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Of course, that's why you have BACK UP IRONS.
So does an Ed Brown, and a BMW, and a lot of other things that are "better".
Small price to pay for the upgrade.
Yet, DM's still use optics on them.
Look, iron sights are good. People should learn to use them. Generally speaking though, iron sights are a step down on optics.
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
I agree on learning to use iron sights.
But let's not act like iron sights are so incredible and deserve praise here and praise there. There are some people in competition or what have you, who use them with excellence and that's great.
However, for using a firearm against hostile human beings or killing an animal with great percision for the sake of an ethical kill, it is wise to purchase a high quality optic.
But let's not act like iron sights are so incredible and deserve praise here and praise there. There are some people in competition or what have you, who use them with excellence and that's great.
However, for using a firearm against hostile human beings or killing an animal with great percision for the sake of an ethical kill, it is wise to purchase a high quality optic.
35 Whelen
Member
I agree that optics are of course better than sights. There's no question about that. I own about 15 centerfire hunting rifles and all of them wear scopes. But my two dead-nuts serious hunting rifles, one an elk rifle and one a deer rifle, both have sights on them. You spend enough time in the field, and not at the keyboard, and eventually you'll do something to your scope to render it useless. It's happened to me twice; once when a mule lost her temper because she didn't get her way, another time when my scope impacted a hard object and lost its zero.
To indicate that sights are a thing of the past is and serve no purpose is silly. But this is the mentality of most shooters these days and as such most of them have no idea how to properly use sights and will probably never learn.
Sorta like the hunters who say "Why do I need to learn range estimation when I have a range finder?"
Or those who see no need in growing food or hunting because they can get all they need at the grocery store.
And of course those who see no need in gun ownership because the police will protect them!
I think Andrew Smith summed it up quite well and this certainly applies to those who see no need or application for iron sights:
"People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer."
Regards,
35W
To indicate that sights are a thing of the past is and serve no purpose is silly. But this is the mentality of most shooters these days and as such most of them have no idea how to properly use sights and will probably never learn.
Sorta like the hunters who say "Why do I need to learn range estimation when I have a range finder?"
Or those who see no need in growing food or hunting because they can get all they need at the grocery store.
And of course those who see no need in gun ownership because the police will protect them!
I think Andrew Smith summed it up quite well and this certainly applies to those who see no need or application for iron sights:
"People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer."
Regards,
35W
BCRider
Member
I'm seeing an amazing number of mistaken thoughts on this topic. It's got nothing to do with leaving room for scopes or because gun makers can't clock the barrel to the reciever. The rear sight is where it is half way down the barrel because of how our eyes work.
It all comes down to depth of field. Photographers understand this idea in a flash as it's a primary goal to alter the settings of a camera lens to achieve an acceptable level of focus for both near and far objects. When we sight our shot with irons we don't actually focus on each of the rear, front and target in turn and back and forth. Instead we focus on the front sight and see the rear and target as slightly out of focus objects that are a little fuzzy but sharp enough to be recognized and used. If the rear sight was further back our eyes would see it as so far out of focus that the notch would be ghosted to a point of not being useable.
Those of us with poor eyesight know this for a fact when trying to use irons in poor light and with our eyes dilated open due to the light level. Under such conditions the rear blade is more fuzzy than in good bright light and shooting really well becomes more a guess at getting the front bead to sit nicely in the notch. Yet in bright light our eyes iris down and that makes it easier to see the rear sight at an acceptable level of sharpness to use it easily. At the same time in bright light the distant target is more clear for the same reason and all in all it's a lot easier to shoot with irons in bright light.
So the fellow that mentioned moving the rear sights forward for his buddies WAS actually was helping them. Yes the sight base leg was made shorter. But at the same time the shooters would still be able to use them better due to seeing the rear sight more clearly while holding the front bead in focus. And a sharper view of the rear sight trumps the longer sight baseline hands down every time.
Some of us with less than ideal eyesight like to switch to rear peeps or even full blown small aperature target peep sights. The shift to a small or very small aperature rear peep acts to reduce the problems of poor eyesight by acting the same as closing the aperature on a camera lens. Using a smaller aperature or using a peep rear sight increases our depth of field and at the same time reduces any lack of sharpness due to poor eyesight. So we actually see both the front bead and the distant target more clearly when looking through a rear peep. So as noted already that is why a peep sight is located well back and a notch rear iron is located half way toward the front bead.
It all comes down to depth of field. Photographers understand this idea in a flash as it's a primary goal to alter the settings of a camera lens to achieve an acceptable level of focus for both near and far objects. When we sight our shot with irons we don't actually focus on each of the rear, front and target in turn and back and forth. Instead we focus on the front sight and see the rear and target as slightly out of focus objects that are a little fuzzy but sharp enough to be recognized and used. If the rear sight was further back our eyes would see it as so far out of focus that the notch would be ghosted to a point of not being useable.
Those of us with poor eyesight know this for a fact when trying to use irons in poor light and with our eyes dilated open due to the light level. Under such conditions the rear blade is more fuzzy than in good bright light and shooting really well becomes more a guess at getting the front bead to sit nicely in the notch. Yet in bright light our eyes iris down and that makes it easier to see the rear sight at an acceptable level of sharpness to use it easily. At the same time in bright light the distant target is more clear for the same reason and all in all it's a lot easier to shoot with irons in bright light.
So the fellow that mentioned moving the rear sights forward for his buddies WAS actually was helping them. Yes the sight base leg was made shorter. But at the same time the shooters would still be able to use them better due to seeing the rear sight more clearly while holding the front bead in focus. And a sharper view of the rear sight trumps the longer sight baseline hands down every time.
Some of us with less than ideal eyesight like to switch to rear peeps or even full blown small aperature target peep sights. The shift to a small or very small aperature rear peep acts to reduce the problems of poor eyesight by acting the same as closing the aperature on a camera lens. Using a smaller aperature or using a peep rear sight increases our depth of field and at the same time reduces any lack of sharpness due to poor eyesight. So we actually see both the front bead and the distant target more clearly when looking through a rear peep. So as noted already that is why a peep sight is located well back and a notch rear iron is located half way toward the front bead.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Right.
Again, though, we're comparing apples and oranges. As a High Power shooter, he's using aperture sights. He couldn't focus on the rear sight no matter how hard he tried -- and that would be counter-productive. His sight picture is just as you described: clear focused front sight, centered on/under a fuzzy target bull.
If he was using open sights (notch, patridge, express, buckhorn, etc.) that wouldn't work at all. But no high-power competitors use those, so he's not giving you instructions on that sighting system.
bhk
Member
Been shooting all kinds of rifles for 50 years now. Most of mine have scopes, but my levers have peeps and I have a couple of old .22s with open/notch rear sights. Even with those notch rear sights, I always aquire the front sight first. Always have and always will. My brain knows instintively that that front sight is the object that must be in focus through my shot cycle. I also shoot a lot of shotgun, so may this 'front sight' first aquisition may be due to that. It is most certainly the fastest rifle method for ME.
I love scopes, but I love the few rifles I have without them. Nothing beats a lever with peeps. It carries better than any other gun in the woods. But I also know to leave it at home if my shots are going to be long. I grew up shooting four-position small-bore with rear peeps. Extremely accurate, but the woods are different.
Also, most of the posters are correct in the fact that an open/notch rear sight needs to be a good ways down the barrel to be effective. I really cringe when I see a manufacturer put the rear sight too far to the rear.
I love scopes, but I love the few rifles I have without them. Nothing beats a lever with peeps. It carries better than any other gun in the woods. But I also know to leave it at home if my shots are going to be long. I grew up shooting four-position small-bore with rear peeps. Extremely accurate, but the woods are different.
Also, most of the posters are correct in the fact that an open/notch rear sight needs to be a good ways down the barrel to be effective. I really cringe when I see a manufacturer put the rear sight too far to the rear.
Hangingrock
Member
A previous Commandant of the Marine Corps made a telling statement that the greatest improvement to combat marksmanship have been the new sighting systems (optical-electro-mechanical) being employed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While I employ aperature sights on my dedicated target rifles and a receiver sight on one of my two reaming center fire hunting rifles optics is the way to go.
I’m also old enough to remember when state of the art was Redfield/Lyman receiver sights. The change over to optics relegated receiver sights to 2nd status to back up the optics mounted in quick attach or swing/flip mounts.
A good reference is Rifles a Modern Encyclopedia by Henry M Stebbins Copyrighted 1958. Copies may be found on Amazon.Com. A good perspective is chapter 23 titled Sights, Iron And Glass. Yes the book is from a perspective of 53 years past none the less worthy of reading.
While I employ aperature sights on my dedicated target rifles and a receiver sight on one of my two reaming center fire hunting rifles optics is the way to go.
I’m also old enough to remember when state of the art was Redfield/Lyman receiver sights. The change over to optics relegated receiver sights to 2nd status to back up the optics mounted in quick attach or swing/flip mounts.
A good reference is Rifles a Modern Encyclopedia by Henry M Stebbins Copyrighted 1958. Copies may be found on Amazon.Com. A good perspective is chapter 23 titled Sights, Iron And Glass. Yes the book is from a perspective of 53 years past none the less worthy of reading.
BCRider
Member
If you think about it when you shoot with open sights the natural progression of eye focus is first focus on the target. Then as the rifle comes up into the line of sight we focus back to the front bead or blade as the rifle is shouldered and the point of focus shifts. There's no need to actually focus on the rear sight and doing so is just wasting time. Instead the rear is slightly fuzzy but focused acceptably well enough to place the front bead/blade into place in the slightly fuzzy notch and then pull the trigger. If the shooter actually moves their focus back to the rear and then to the front and onto the target and back to the front sight then they really are wasting time. The final shot is going to be taken with the front bead in sharp focus and the rest looking a little fuzzy.
Getting back to the whole depth of field and eyesight sharpness thing it's interesting to realize that there's no one ideal rear sight location. With a sharp eyeed shooter on a very bright sunny day their pupils will close down and that increases their depth of field such that the rear sight COULD be farther back and still be at an acceptable level of focus. However a guy with poor or weakeyes that needs reading glasses, like many of us, shooting in poor dark conditions will find that their eyes are dilated to where the rear sight and target will be a very vague blur. For such folks it would actually be better to have the rear sight further forward and closer to the front sight. So there is no ideal location for the rear open iron sight. It's a matter of finding the location that works for the most eyes acceptably under the average lighting condition.
It's when trying to shoot in bad light that us old farts need some help. For some this means a shift to receiver or tang mounted peep sights. For others it means mounting an optic of some sort. Typically this means a scope. But for some that don't need or don't want the magnification for whatever reason a red dot sight can work well. The interesting thing is that because the red dot sights presents the dot at a virtual infinity point the shooter can wear his prescription distance viewing glasses and see both the target AND the red dot in equally sharp clarity. For those of us that find we are having trouble with irons but for whatever reason just can't bring ourselves to mount a scope on our rifle a small pistol style open frame red dot may be a way to shoot with a compact and prescription glasses friendly option that doesn't look clunky on the gun.
Getting back to the whole depth of field and eyesight sharpness thing it's interesting to realize that there's no one ideal rear sight location. With a sharp eyeed shooter on a very bright sunny day their pupils will close down and that increases their depth of field such that the rear sight COULD be farther back and still be at an acceptable level of focus. However a guy with poor or weakeyes that needs reading glasses, like many of us, shooting in poor dark conditions will find that their eyes are dilated to where the rear sight and target will be a very vague blur. For such folks it would actually be better to have the rear sight further forward and closer to the front sight. So there is no ideal location for the rear open iron sight. It's a matter of finding the location that works for the most eyes acceptably under the average lighting condition.
It's when trying to shoot in bad light that us old farts need some help. For some this means a shift to receiver or tang mounted peep sights. For others it means mounting an optic of some sort. Typically this means a scope. But for some that don't need or don't want the magnification for whatever reason a red dot sight can work well. The interesting thing is that because the red dot sights presents the dot at a virtual infinity point the shooter can wear his prescription distance viewing glasses and see both the target AND the red dot in equally sharp clarity. For those of us that find we are having trouble with irons but for whatever reason just can't bring ourselves to mount a scope on our rifle a small pistol style open frame red dot may be a way to shoot with a compact and prescription glasses friendly option that doesn't look clunky on the gun.
35 Whelen
Member
Sam1911 wrote:
Read my post carefully. I said "...I recently discussed sight picture with one of our fellow High Power shooters who happens to be a Distinguished Marksman pistol competitor."
If you're not familiar with the "Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge" as it is officially referred to, here is a brief description from the CMP website:
"The Distinguished Rifleman and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badges are the highest honor that most military and civilian rifle and pistol shooters can aspire to earn. "
Bearing that in mind, when my co-competitor explained sight picture to me, he was speaking of both rifle and pistol. And given the honor he has earned, I'm inclined to listn to anything he says regarding matters of shooting, sights, etc.
He was giving me instruction on sight picture with ANY sight. I'm quite certain he doesn't use aperture sights on his pistols, and I'd hate to tell him that he used the wrong sight picture to earn his badge!
35W
Read my post carefully. I said "...I recently discussed sight picture with one of our fellow High Power shooters who happens to be a Distinguished Marksman pistol competitor."
If you're not familiar with the "Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge" as it is officially referred to, here is a brief description from the CMP website:
"The Distinguished Rifleman and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badges are the highest honor that most military and civilian rifle and pistol shooters can aspire to earn. "
Bearing that in mind, when my co-competitor explained sight picture to me, he was speaking of both rifle and pistol. And given the honor he has earned, I'm inclined to listn to anything he says regarding matters of shooting, sights, etc.
He was giving me instruction on sight picture with ANY sight. I'm quite certain he doesn't use aperture sights on his pistols, and I'd hate to tell him that he used the wrong sight picture to earn his badge!
35W
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It was not perfectly clear to me that he was speaking about all types of sights.
It very well may be that this is the way he sees his sights with all firearms. With his great level of practice, he may not need to consciously dress the rear sight vis-a-vis the front at all, which takes a step out of what I said.
However, I do completely agree on what his final sight picture is and what it should be. At the moment of breaking the shot, the front sight should be in sharpest focus.
I'd love to shoot with just iron sights, but my contacts and glasses (multifocal glasses and monovision contacts) are such that I can't use them on a rifle- I have to use a scope. Ironically, I can use irons on a pistol, mainly because they ARE so close to each other, but beyond 15 yds the target gets very fuzzy.
BBroadside
Member
Since I'm always thinking about developing new shooting sports (usually ones that would be either impossible to set up, or not very popular, or unsafe to shoot), I'm surprised that I haven't thought of this one.
The only way I could think to actually favor iron over glass would be - sprinkle all the shooters with a fine spray of muddy water before they shoot and after they've finally readied their guns for the shot. (See, I said "not very popular"!)
On the other hand, most optics are magnifying. If there were no red dots or reflex sights, USPSA 3-gun* would almost certainly put irons at least on reasonably equal footing with telescopes. But then a 2x scope might still beat a ghost ring, express sights, whatever. I know little about 3-gun so maybe someone could enlighten us.
*Edit: I am thinking of some pretty short-range shoots I have seen. Now that I think about it, 3-gun rifle can probably go out to a few hundred yards where what I've said wouldn't apply. Hmmph. Back to the drawing board.
Last edited:
35 Whelen
Member
Shooting in competitions where iron sights are required is simply a self-imposed handicap. I've used scopes my entire life until I discovered High Power. It appealed to me because it was a challenge and I felt learning to use iron sights to the degree necessary to compete would make me a better rifleman. It has. I've figured out that if a man can shoot 18" -24" groups at almost 3/8 of a mile with iron sights and nothing but a sling for support, that using a scope is a piece of cake. This incidently has nothing to do with the sights themselves, rather the methods of shooting that maximize the usefullness of sights.
There have been two instances in the field for me that really stand out where shooting High Power greatly benefitted me.
The first was a few years ago when I jumped a bull elk out of a stand of timber in a basin. He was running towards cover and without even thinking I had dropped my pack, assumed the same sitting position I use for Rapid Sitting in matches, had my sling wrapped tight around my left arm and had fired at (and hit) the bull in about five seconds time.
A couple of seasons ago I spotted a bull making his way through the sparse timber at the bottom of the same basin. I barely had time to range him (355 yds.), drop to the prone position, get my sling tight around my arm, hold about 6" over his back, deep breath...release 1/2 of it and fire the instant the crosshairs were where they needed to be. The fleeting moments prior to squeezing off the shot, I could hear one of my co-competitors and High Power mentors saying "Shoot the first "10" you see." which means when the sights or crosshairs are in the right place shoot RIGHT THEN.
None of these posts have been an indication on my part that sights are in any way superior to good optics. When I'm deer, hog or elk hunting I almost always use a scope...if for no other reason than they are vastly superior in low light conditions when so much game is seen.
35W
There have been two instances in the field for me that really stand out where shooting High Power greatly benefitted me.
The first was a few years ago when I jumped a bull elk out of a stand of timber in a basin. He was running towards cover and without even thinking I had dropped my pack, assumed the same sitting position I use for Rapid Sitting in matches, had my sling wrapped tight around my left arm and had fired at (and hit) the bull in about five seconds time.
A couple of seasons ago I spotted a bull making his way through the sparse timber at the bottom of the same basin. I barely had time to range him (355 yds.), drop to the prone position, get my sling tight around my arm, hold about 6" over his back, deep breath...release 1/2 of it and fire the instant the crosshairs were where they needed to be. The fleeting moments prior to squeezing off the shot, I could hear one of my co-competitors and High Power mentors saying "Shoot the first "10" you see." which means when the sights or crosshairs are in the right place shoot RIGHT THEN.
None of these posts have been an indication on my part that sights are in any way superior to good optics. When I'm deer, hog or elk hunting I almost always use a scope...if for no other reason than they are vastly superior in low light conditions when so much game is seen.
35W
Last edited:
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,660
Y'know...I wonder about that. I understand that the discussion has focused on High Power.Service Rifle match shooting but....in a Prone .22 match championship, there are frequently two matches - metallic sights and any sights. The difference in score between the metallic sight match and the any sight match is often negligible. last year at Perry the difference was one point (2396 and 2397).
Pete
- Status
