Scope takes the "fun" away? Irons funner? Red dot?

You need to provide some real evidence for a claim like that, I think. Most of the world's military members run irons and are perfectly capable of succeeding with them. Red dots and other similar optics systems have been known to fail in adverse conditions; something that an iron sight will never do.

Telescopes will obviously be superior to either of the above but are for a different purpose than iron sights and as such aren't really comparable in such a discussion, in my opinion.

Well said. I love my optics, but have a passion for Irons. Well shot irons can keep up in precision to any scope (within 500m) Of course, accuracy will always favor a magnified optic.
 
You need to provide some real evidence for a claim like that, I think. Most of the world's military members run irons and are perfectly capable of succeeding with them. Red dots and other similar optics systems have been known to fail in adverse conditions; something that an iron sight will never do.

Telescopes will obviously be superior to either of the above but are for a different purpose than iron sights and as such aren't really comparable in such a discussion, in my opinion.

Are you f**king serious?! I guess the fact that Canada, the US, Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Netherlands, To name a few are all dumb for issuing optics to every infantry soldier. I'm sure they enjoy spending billions on optics that offer no advantages over iron sights.. :rolleyes: In addition to the nations above who issue optics as standard equipment, there are countless other nations who's rifles are capable of mounting optics. Have a look around and tell me how many service rifles of current aren't manufactured with a flattop(that's an M1913 picatinny rail if you weren't sure) for mounting optics? How many SOF units aren't running optics of some sort?? Can you tell me if the trend in hunting rifles is in favor of iron sights or optics??? I'll give you a hint, it's definitely not in favor of irons. On the civilian side do you see more optics or irons being used in competition? Oh and I'm aware of the iron sight only divisions which are separated from the optics users for good reason...

The fact that iron sights have a nearly 100% failure rate when used in low or no light conditions means that iron sights are a "half a day" sighting system. The fact that iron sights require your eye to focus independently on three different objects at three different focal planes means they're very slow, especially when used on moving targets(you end up focusing on one only as your eye cannot focus on more than one at a time). The fact that iron sights require very consistent head position to be effective means they are very slow. Iron sights require you to mount the rifle to be used.

A quality reddot sight for example is very robust and works in all lighting conditions. The reddot also works with sub optimal head position or body position as in not having to mount the rifle to be used. A reddot offers both eyes open visual acuity and single focal plane focus. A superimposed dot appears on the target which is where BOTH of your eyes are focused. This makes placing rounds very easy and very fast. Tracking a moving target and superimposing the reddot is intuitive with both eyes open and the single focal plane concept.

Magnified optics of either the fixed or variable power design also offer many of the same advantages. Magnification offers a more precise aiming point(aim small miss small) and also greatly aids in positive target ID something that irons don't do. Optics offer the single focal plane advantage like a reddot. On lower magnification levels two eyes open is easily achieved. In fact with ACOG optics they require the user to keep both eyes open to take advantage of the Bindon Aiming Concept. Trijicon just manufacturered their 1,000,000th ACOG in November of 2017. the ACOG line is the most fielded military optic ever...But I'm sure it's just a gimmick as iron sights are just as good as optics.. Oh and Aimpoint has been selling their reddot sights to militaries for over 20 years, again just a gimmick. :rolleyes:

the Son Tay raiders used Singelpoint(later known as Armson) OEG(occluded Eye Gunsight) optics to achieve 40 kills without losing a single member. This was done at night by the way, and the optic was selected as it offered serious advantages over iron sights... Have a read below.
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/11/19/sof-carbines-comparing-the-son-tay-gau-5aa-and-the-m4a1-cqbr-part-i/

Your statement about optics failing is a possibility. There is also the possibility of irons failing or the rifle itself. Use quality products and the issue isn't one. Optics also work well with eye issues, a reddot is much easier to see than irons. For those with astigmatism there are magnified and non magnified options that work with astigmatism. Irons only work with good eyes and daylight.

perhaps a few hours watching some informational videos and reading some articles might bring you up to speed on the advantages of optics over irons. Start with Aimpoint's youtube channel below.
https://www.youtube.com/user/AimpointChannel

Here's some guy demonstrating the difference between a reddot and irons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZkQO6KdM4U
 
Well said. I love my optics, but have a passion for Irons. Well shot irons can keep up in precision to any scope (within 500m) Of course, accuracy will always favor a magnified optic.

Really?! So why don't I ever see iron sighted guns at PRS matches?? I rarely see iron sighted guns at 3 gun and they definitely don't place top ten or better.

Do you think you could achieve the group below with irons?
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/05/amazing-wagner-shoots-0-349-50-2x-group-at-600-yards/

Or meet or beat this group?
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/05/benchrest-world-record-jim-carmichel
 
Really?! So why don't I ever see iron sighted guns at PRS matches?? I rarely see iron sighted guns at 3 gun and they definitely don't place top ten or better.

Do you think you could achieve the group below with irons?
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/05/amazing-wagner-shoots-0-349-50-2x-group-at-600-yards/

Or meet or beat this group?
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/05/benchrest-world-record-jim-carmichel

Man, you wind up better than a Mickey Mouse watch :)

You like scopes, and red dots. We get it. For some folks enjoy the challenge of irons is another discipline beyond point and click. Just because you can't shoot them, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot enjoy their many redeeming virtues.

Billy Dixon made an impressive shot a while back. 7/8ths of a mile on a moving target... sounds pretty good to me :) Practice makes perfect.
 
Really?! So why don't I ever see iron sighted guns at PRS matches?? I rarely see iron sighted guns at 3 gun and they definitely don't place top ten or better.

Do you think you could achieve the group below with irons?
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/05/amazing-wagner-shoots-0-349-50-2x-group-at-600-yards/

Or meet or beat this group?
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/05/benchrest-world-record-jim-carmichel

Thats is the tightest group Ive seen. I certainly couldn't come close, no matter how good a scope I used.
 
Wow! Some pretty extreme viewpoints here...and presented by some pretty extreme outbursts.

Be realistic. Optics, especially magnified optics, make hitting a target easier, plain and simple. Hitting with irons is more difficult, and therefore more satisfying to many users. Not everybody is looking for the easy way out all the time.

For hunting, which is often done in the poor light of dawn or dusk, magnified optics are absolutely superior. They will always allow you to shoot earlier and later than irons.

Optics are going to be bulkier and heavier, and might negatively affect the balance or handling; this would apply to some guns more than others. Same thing for aesthetics; some guns look ridiculous scoped, others not so much.

Optics become more and more indispensable as your eyes age. Enjoy your iron sights while you can.

And probably most important: there are irons...and then there are irons. Comparing a set of cheaply made open sights (such as are supplied by many manufacturers as standard equipment) to a set of precision-made sights with an aperture at the rear (like an Anschutz target .22, a Sharps .45-70 competitive gun, or a Swiss Arms semi) will reveal far more of a difference than comparing a $100 scope to a $3000 scope. The expensive scope is definitely better than the cheap scope; but the quality iron sights are so far beyond the cheap ones that they aren't even in the same ballpark.

In the long run, you are handicapping yourself by choosing irons over optics; that's why some people do it.

Of course, others do it because they are just cheap. :)
 
Really?! So why don't I ever see iron sighted guns at PRS matches?? I rarely see iron sighted guns at 3 gun and they definitely don't place top ten or better.

Do you think you could achieve the group below with irons?
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/05/amazing-wagner-shoots-0-349-50-2x-group-at-600-yards/

Or meet or beat this group?
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/05/benchrest-world-record-jim-carmichel

I was thinking of running iron sights next CQB, I'll do it for the challenge :p

Problems with red dot and other optics is like any other sighting system, they are bound to fail. Battery, glass, electronics. Its good to know how to shoot with iron sights and be good with it, but yeah optics makes life "easier"
 
^^ Tried it on my first CQB match. Longer target acquisition and after a mag change...times up! Lol.
 
Hitting with irons is more difficult, and therefore more satisfying to many users.

They may have a higher learning curve maybe, but I disagree that they're more difficult to use once you get the knowledge down.

In the long run, you are handicapping yourself by choosing irons over optics; that's why some people do it.

It's the other way around. When that other fancy optic fails you and you don't have the ability to run irons comfortably, you fail too. There's a reason irons are oft referred to as "backups". When all else fails, irons don't.
 
They may have a higher learning curve maybe, but I disagree that they're more difficult to use once you get the knowledge down.

Okay, if you say so...although even your argument boils down to them being more difficult to hit with.



It's the other way around. When that other fancy optic fails you and you don't have the ability to run irons comfortably, you fail too. There's a reason irons are oft referred to as "backups". When all else fails, irons don't.

Completely ridiculous logic.

There's a reason why back-up sights are called back-ups. They are a distant second choice, a no-more-than-adequate substitute for your first-line sights which you will use only if you are forced to do so-up. The same goes for "back-up" anything else: rifles, cars, tools, girlfriends, you name it. If they were better than the alternative...they wouldn't be the friggin' back-ups; they'd be the first choice.
 
I think shooters (especially younger ones) who disregard iron sights (post and non-magnified rear aperture at most) as being too difficult to master or not accurate enough are really doing themselves a dis-Service and missing out on an important aspect of shooting.
I think the lessons one receives while using them with respect to a number of principles of marksmanship - consistent cheek weld, sight picture, breathing, take up, and follow through are muddled or could be entirely lost on someone who starts with red dot or a scope, as those two items can mask to a certain extent poor marksmanship principles.
They can act like a crutch, especially at shorter ranges where phenomena like stringing and pulling those ‘flyers’ isn’t as pronounced.
 
Your right,when I was a teenager I never owned anything with a scope and I could hit almost anything I seen with irons. And I didn't waste much time either.
 
I think shooters (especially younger ones) who disregard iron sights (post and non-magnified rear aperture at most) as being too difficult to master or not accurate enough are really doing themselves a dis-Service and missing out on an important aspect of shooting.
I think the lessons one receives while using them with respect to a number of principles of marksmanship - consistent cheek weld, sight picture, breathing, take up, and follow through are muddled or could be entirely lost on someone who starts with red dot or a scope, as those two items can mask to a certain extent poor marksmanship principles.
They can act like a crutch, especially at shorter ranges where phenomena like stringing and pulling those ‘flyers’ isn’t as pronounced.
I think there is something ultimately satisfying to be able to shoot a rifle at 100m and be good at it with iron sights.. perhaps keeping one rifle around just for that reason is enough justification
 
Wow! Some pretty extreme viewpoints here...and presented by some pretty extreme outbursts.


In the long run, you are handicapping yourself by choosing irons over optics; that's why some people do it.

Of course, others do it because they are just cheap. :)


Extreme Viewpoints? NAW, KIDDX and I go for a beverage once every 2 years. As we sip the second glass of good stuff, He says, Juicey, it's been a couple years, wanna start some chit? So I say, sure why not, do you want to do another Irons V Optics thread? It's been 2 years, and it always goes over well.

And that is usually how it goes down. (Full Disclosure, while I have not as yet met KX I enjoy sparring and one day we will probably GTG for a beverage, and charred steak.)

Good irons can cost as much as a decent optic :)
 
Back
Top Bottom