Why aren't electronic/magnified sights standard on guns?

[Warp]

I still like my iron sights over say a red dot scope on an m4. If it was an eotech, I would prefer the by a thousand!

What red dot sight(s) do you have experience with?

 

[Cee Zee]

Actually a red dot sight is far, far easier to pick up quickly and far, far more forgiving on eye placement than iron sights

.

Do you think I haven't used red dot sights? They aren't easier IMO. And I learned to point shoot with iron sights so that I don't have to be sighting perfectly with them. I have a box full of red dot sights that I tried for a while and well now they're in a box. I'm not the only one that thinks that either. My friends gave me about half of the red dot sights I have. They were always touted as a better sight than laser sights. That isn't true either iMO. It isn't even close. I can shoot from the hip with a laser sight. No way to do that with a red dot except point shoot.

 

[Inebriated]

Do you think I haven't used red dot sights? They aren't easier IMO. And I learned to point shoot with iron sights so that I don't have to be sighting perfectly with them. I have a box full of red dot sights that I tried for a while and well now they're in a box. I'm not the only one that thinks that either. My friends gave me about half of the red dot sights I have. They were always touted as a better sight than laser sights. That isn't true either iMO. It isn't even close. I can shoot from the hip with a laser sight. No way to do that with a red dot except point shoot.

What have you tried them on, an what red dots? You may have tried 'em, but you also may have tried them incorrectly, if a red dot is slower to you than irons. Unless you've got some sort of vision problem that is brought out by the dot itself, red dots, when used properly, are much faster than irons.

 

[Warp]

What have you tried them on, an what red dots? You may have tried 'em, but you also may have tried them incorrectly, if a red dot is slower to you than irons. Unless you've got some sort of vision problem that is brought out by the dot itself, red dots, when used properly, are much faster than irons.

Pretty much this ^

 

[Cee Zee]

I love how you people treat others like morons. Did you even read my post? I don't think you did. I've used this example a lot because it stands up so well. I've shot flying bats with a .22. No red dots. No lasers. Just iron sights. You can't tell me red dots are faster than that. I've tried them. They aren't. Try being respectful of others opinions. I told you I had tried red dots and I didn't like them that much. Do you think every human is the same? Do you think I can throw away 50 years of shooting experience and learn a reflex action all over again and have it be better than what I've spent my life practicing? I started shooting when I was 7. I'm 58. The first shot I ever took I hit a clay with a 16 ga. shotgun. I've never had a problem with iron sights. 7 years old and I was hitting clays first try. Well I did spend a couple of years with a BB gun before that.

Do you really think I don't know why people think red dots are faster? I don't agree. It's that simple. I've tried them. They make claims that aren't supported most of the time. Maybe if I spent $1000 on one it might work right. I don't need one though. I can shoot quite well with iron sights thank you. My reflexes have been trained to work with irons over a lifetime. If you can hit running squirrels in the head you might keep up with me. If you can shoot small birds flying and bats flying then you might keep up with me. I've done both and yes I had a reason to do it. And before you judge my reasons remember you don't know what they are.

 

[Inebriated]

I love how you people treat others like morons. Did you even read my post? I don't think you did.

How did I treat you like a moron? And what does me asking how and what you've used, indicate that I haven't? There is a correct way to use red dots, whether you realize it or not. They do NOT magnify what you're seeing, there are tons that do NOT limit FOV any more than irons, and in fact, many give you a less obstructed FOV, and anyone using them correctly is going to be faster with it than irons when shooting at moving targets.

 

[d2wing]

Different hunters have different preferences and different styles of shooting. I can go CZ a step beyond iron sights. I have a rifle with no sights for training. In the Army I was taught the quick kill. most people with good coordination, good eyesight and are both right eye and right handed can be taught to throw a quarter in the air and hit it with a bb gun, then with a rifle if a suitable range can be found. It is a scientific form of point shooting. I am not sure if this is the same thing. Many people shoot shotguns this way without knowing it.
The Army dropped this program. it worked for some of us at close range, some could place shots before they were fully aware they were shooting. The Army felt that aimed shots were more effective and less dangerous in the long run I suppose and electronic sights don't require much training to keep up skills. I don't think there is a better way to deal with an ambush but it is hard to keep up the skill and situational awareness is extremely intense. Maybe that is factor in PTSD.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I'm pretty sure if this forum existed in the 1800s there would be all kinds of posts about how those brass cartridges are never going to work as well as loading by hand.

Red dots work. Aimpoints have been proven to be more durable than the rifles you mount them on. They have been used for ten years in war under the harshest conditions imaginable. There is not a modern army in the world that is not using some form of electronic sight. My guess is they may well be more durable than iron sights. I've heard more than once of someone knocking an iron sight off a rifle. Focus on the front sight doesn't allow you to see a battle better than both eyes open looking at the battle. In the dark there is no comparison particularly with NVGs. With an Aimpoint a battery could last through multiple year long deployments and returns. Sure if you buy a cheap one then you got something cheap that did not work.

 

[ojh]

And the target should appear fuzzy with a scope or irons as you can only focus on one plane at a time. Be that the front sight or the optic reticle, that's where your focus is, not on the target.

If parallax is adjusted right, the picture of the target and the reticle are on the same focal plane inside the scope. If the eyepiece (i.e. focus) is adjusted right, you see everything on this focal plane evenly sharp, and the position of the reticle on the target is not affected by the position of the eye. That's the whole idea of a telescopic sight.

Mental focus is of course a different thing.

 

[Garak]

Back to the original question: I guess optics are sold separately, because people want to buy them separately. Personal preference and all that. You really can't make a good "all-purpose for all people" scope.

 

[Tirod]

You can pick up a moving target far, far easier with iron sights.

Some people can. Most cannot. The US Army went to red dots because it was proven beyond doubt the average soldier could acquire a sight picture on a target faster, and more accurately, with a red dot than iron sights.

That doesn't happen for some, tho. Astigmatism and constant use of iron sights means they work out better for them. Some just don't have the right combination of factors, and it's recognized. Saying it's all one way or the other isn't reality.

Iron sights on guns weren't all standardized in their day. Many upgraded to different posts, different rear sights, some went with target sights to have more control in long distance situations. A lot of iron sights were taken off guns and replacements were common in the day. The magazines and catalogs were full of advertisements. In the day, factory iron sights weren't considered the best, just adequate. And boys being boys, we all play that silly game where "I am better than You."

That's exactly how this thread is getting sidetracked.

In the late 60's and into the seventies, rifles started changing to scopes, and by the 80's, many no longer had iron sights as standard. They were special models. Scopes were all the rage, as everyone wanted to be the Great White Hunter and have a magnum with 3x9 to hit elk or grizzly out to 500 yards - if you were to believe the magazine ad writers. Tried it, didn't work for me. Scopes aren't my cup of tea. I do better with a no magnification red dot. I bought a first generation Aimpoint and regret that I quit using it.

That red dot had variable intensity, used a size N battery, and it had an 8 hour life. Consider that carefully when asking, Why isn't that standard on the gun? The way makers build guns, it would be semi permanentl with it's own proprietary mount and difficult to replace inexpensively. The darn thing cost almost as much as the rifle I had it on.

At the start of the current conflicts in 2002, what was state of the art in optics is now off the market and a collector's curiosity. The military is keenly aware of how quickly technology can become obsolete, and their answer to that was a universal rail mount on the weapon, rather than a proprietary semi permanent sight. And, they even reengineered their iron sights to use it. Modern rifles now are commonly using that mount and it means that innovative new sights are easy to put on it and learn how to use, NO gunsmithing. It's given, of course, that they will likely have a working life of less than ten years.

In combat, the average red dot has a much shorter life, and there are some reasons for it. Bullet strikes, being run over by trucks, getting beat around laying on truck floorboards or kicked in weapons racks inside vehicles, it all takes a toll. Combat exiting a tiny armored vehicle door or hatch, it gets banged around. Combat entry going into hostile penthouses in Pakistan, it gets banged around. So do iron sights, and they don't always put up with the abuse, either. Especially folding BUIS with delicate little parts and screws. Most soldiers take them off and leave them off, dead weight, and they are accountable for their loss in the field.

Even with the disadvantages, the Armed Forces and most hunters use optics in the field. Iron sight shooters are primarily pistol and revolver now, it's a limited application. And, don't forget, with lasers, night sights, and other enhancements, iron sights aren't what they used to be.

What could be done to improve a red dot? First, the price. It's outrageous at the upper levels. It's two flat lenses and a projected dot by either a laser or led. The housing is die cast, in some cases CNC, but compare to the same priced pair of binoculars - which have precisely ground lenses for magnification, adjustable focus, prisms, and two independent sets, too. They are vastly more complicated with double the elements and priced the same. Take a long long look. Bluntly, we are getting taken for a ride.

Secondly, the makers won't use damage resistant glass. Your average cell phone screen is likely more durable, and there are materials available that could resist even more. The cost to move up might be significant, the durability would be exponentially higher. The one limiting factor is the technology change hasn't slowed down enough to limit obsolescence. Unbreakable lenses would mean working optics past their prime, like LED flashlights from ten years ago. Nice piece of work, abominably dim output. We were bragging about 25 lumens then, 100 is passe now.

Iron sights? It too late to ask why we don't see them on rifles anymore. They have been relegated to retro shooting leagues. The modern shooter doesn't consider them except on their CCW gun, where it's likely he/she may have night sights and a laser, too. Iron sights are no longer current tech, about as common as cars with the roof painted white to cut down on heat. Just one or two off road models do it now. It was the standard in the '50s - and then, so were iron sights.

 

[BSA1]

I think the O.P. has never done any hunting or camping for several that did not have electricity.

Cee Zee I've got your back. Use of iron sights is a lost skill by many shooters that try to make up for their lack of training by using a electronic device. Of course they are pretty much screwed if the battery wasn't made right and has less than the eight hours or whatever life that is claimed (which is common with them).

Fastest rifle sight. Hands down recieved mounted aperture and post front sight.

 

[Comrade Mike]

Because a lot of people wouldn't buy them? Almost everything I shoot is iron sights only.

 

[Fremmer]

Lol the OP would remember extra batteries, but would forget the ammo.

 

[hardluk1]

Simple, dollars and choices.

 

[Warp]

Use of iron sights is a lost skill by many shooters that try to make up for their lack of training by using a electronic device.

This low road personal insult is dead wrong.

Just so you know.

 

[Skribs]

Cee Zee, I understand a bit of where you're coming from. Sometimes things just don't work for me the same way they work for other people. There are a lot of things going on in your subconscious when using ironsights that you probably don't even think about that are completely different with a red dot. It's like Sam1911 has said in some of his posts in long gun vs. handgun debates, is that while he recognizes the benefit of long guns, he has so much more practice with his handguns that he would likely do better with them.

However, I will echo what others have said regarding red dots. A cheap RDS is not likely to have the benefits of a real one. I've got a cheap one on my airsoft rifle right now. It requires you to have the dot centered in your FOV, or else it's warped and not exactly on target. It has a short battery life, meaning you need to turn it on when it's needed (an extra step) and you need to replace the battery. It also has a lot of features, such as color, brightness, reticle, and on/off, which make it incredibly complex to turn on and off. While it looks cool, honestly "plastics" (because they definitely aint iron) would be better, because you have better cues for when you're aiming correctly.

I also have a couple of shotguns, one with ghost ring sights (fiber optic front sight) and the other with an aimpoint. The aimpoint is FAR FAR EASIER to aim than the irons. It is much more forgiving on where your eye is compared to the reticle, and it works better (especially for me) with both eyes open.

So, while irons might work better for you, I do not agree that a quality RDS is slower than irons or less forgiving than irons.

---

As to the OP, I think it was fairly well summed up by others by saying "price". Cheap irons are much, much better than a cheap RDS. Now, if the rifle I was looking at had an aimpoint on it (and they only upped the price by the cost of the aimpoint instead of by $1000 or more), it would be a strong consideration. However, if it came with an eotech or a trijicon reflex sight, I wouldn't buy the rifle, because you'd be looking at an extra several hundred dollars for equipment I'd replace with an aimpoint. Ironsights give you good enough for cheap that they are replaceable.

Sam1911, unless we're talking about different things, the RDS used on pistols tend to come with backup irons designed for suppressors. Sometimes suppressor sights are used for the rear sight, and others the body of the RDS has a notch put in to use it as both the rear sight and the RDS.

 

[Warp]

I love how you people treat others like morons. Did you even read my post? I don't think you did. I've used this example a lot because it stands up so well. I've shot flying bats with a .22. No red dots. No lasers. Just iron sights. You can't tell me red dots are faster than that. I've tried them. They aren't. Try being respectful of others opinions. I told you I had tried red dots and I didn't like them that much. Do you think every human is the same? Do you think I can throw away 50 years of shooting experience and learn a reflex action all over again and have it be better than what I've spent my life practicing? I started shooting when I was 7. I'm 58. The first shot I ever took I hit a clay with a 16 ga. shotgun. I've never had a problem with iron sights. 7 years old and I was hitting clays first try. Well I did spend a couple of years with a BB gun before that.

Do you really think I don't know why people think red dots are faster? I don't agree. It's that simple. I've tried them. They make claims that aren't supported most of the time. Maybe if I spent $1000 on one it might work right. I don't need one though. I can shoot quite well with iron sights thank you. My reflexes have been trained to work with irons over a lifetime. If you can hit running squirrels in the head you might keep up with me. If you can shoot small birds flying and bats flying then you might keep up with me. I've done both and yes I had a reason to do it. And before you judge my reasons remember you don't know what they are.

What red dot sights have you tried?

How much time have you put in behind an Aimpoint?

 

[Sam1911]

Cee Zee I've got your back.

Awwww, that's sweet! Hearts and flowers.

Use of iron sights is a lost skill by many shooters that try to make up for their lack of training by using a electronic device.

What are you going on about? I can personally attest that a recognition of the superiority of optical sighting systems for a wide variety of uses has nothing to do with a LACK OF TRAINING or a LOST SKILL. (Speaking humbly as a long-time 3-pos. smallbore shooter and High-Power/DCM competitor.)

One might just as validly say that the defense of irons above optics is evidence of blinkered stubbornness, gross ossification of habit, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that one's personal "olde favourites" have been surpassed by advancements and growth.

If one were so inclined.

Probably best not to even go down the road of presupposing others' reasons and abilities, though.

 

[Skribs]

Use of iron sights is a lost skill by many shooters that try to make up for their lack of training by using a electronic device.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that for most people who use an RDS (like me), if that RDS fails, you're done. If the batteries run out, if there was an orbital nuclear detonation that wiped out all electronics, or if any number of things happened to make the RDS fail, I would have to rely on my backup irons.

In the case of my shotgun, I have no backup irons. Even if I did, I wouldn't be trained on them, because I've always relied on my RDS. This means I will be much slower than someone who has only practiced with irons.

So it is easily possible that people who train extensively on an RDS are less trained on irons. It is also easily possible that they practice with both "just in case". As RDS get better and better, I think the chances of failure consistently go down, and this becomes less of an issue.

With that said, I do not believe that anything in the firearm industry that provides an advantage is "only used to make up for where you don't have skill." If it's an advantage, it's an advantage. That advantage might be less pronounced on people with more experience, but that's the nature of the beast.

 

[Mike1234567]

Scopes needn't be electronic to be single plane of focus.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think if it raises the base price of the firearm, it should be an optional treatment. Not everyone can afford the best. Not everyone wants it either. How much magnification do you need at 10 feet?

 

[Cee Zee]

How did I treat you like a moron?

"...you also may have tried them incorrectly..."

I have Aimpoint red dots in my box BTW.

Look I don't care if the whole world goes to red dots, I've tried them and I won't be using them again. And those who go down the road of assumptions then act as if they didn't can just assume this - I don't care what you think. I can shoot just fine without red dot sights. I'm not suggesting everyone follow my lead but I know that irons can do things well if you know how to use them. And I've even used more than one design. How do you guys think shooters got along without red dots? If they work for you that's great. But I see a lot of rifles without them and without magnified scopes too. Poor fools.

 

[gdcpony]

Sorry, I want to put my own sights on!

 

[Cee Zee]

Sorry but it wasn't an Aimpoint in my box. I could believe a red dot that expensive would work better than the stuff I've used but I don't have a box full of $30 red dots. I just don't think I need a red dot that expensive. I'd rather spend money on a glass scope. I just spent more than the price of an Aimpoint on a Weaver T-36. Now there's a scope that will do things for you.