Is adjusting elevation antiquated?

[T-Dot]

When I first learned to really shoot with the Marine Corps, mine was one of the last classes at TBS to qualify on the rifle range with iron sights. Since then, I have only ever had to shoot with the ACOG, but always put a lot of value in knowing how to adjust for elevation and windage. With my personal weapons, want to maintain that capability and I have spent a lot of time lately looking at some of the options for backup iron sights with adjustable elevation, and thinking through how to translate those sight settings to a 308's trajectory.

That all said, I've wondered why so few elevation adjustable iron sights seem to be in use (cost and complication aside). There are a few explanations I can think of: the chief of which (concerning iron sights specifically) being the use of holdover techniques (which I can see being simple, but only practical to a certain range). For any reason, I'm just wondering what other shooters think: Does anyone out there still adjust for elevation? Is it worth it to you to pay a little extra for irons with elevation adjustment? Does anyone (or even me, to be honest) need to shoot out far enough to where holdover isn't a better option anyway?

Thanks for the replies.

[JackFanToM]

Being old school USMC as well (got out in 1993) I went and purchased kac micros so I could do elevation and windage in a compact package.

[echo5whiskey]

This is just a guess, but perhaps it has to do with space while maintaining durability. The four elevation-adjustable options that I know of are

1) Standard A2/A3 carry handle
2) Stand-alone A2-Style sight
3) MaTech Adjustable Flip-up rear sight (which has mixed reviews throughout this site)
4) Wilson Combat Tactical Flip-Up Detachable Rear Sight

I do not have one (I'm sure you can find some info here on M4C), but the Wilson seems to combine the best of both worlds: it is a space-saving flip-up, but it's also elevation adjustable. Other than that, I'm sure there are more technical answers that have to do with engagement distances, zeroing distances, etc.; but I'll leave my opinion out of those.

I was a range instructor during the transition from qualifying with iron sights to RCOs, so I feel your pain. At the time I got out ('13), BUIS still weren't a standard-issue item. Only IAR gunners were getting them.

[Rascally]

There are at least a few more:

http://www.knightarmco.com/portfolio...t#!prettyPhoto

https://www.primaryarms.com/MagPul_M...t_p/mag527.htm

https://www.primaryarms.com/Spike_s_..._p/sas80r1.htm

[T-Dot]

Thanks for the replies: I actually didn't know that magpul sight was adjustable for elevation.

So far it seems like the only people who adjust elevation are in the same boat as me: Marines who learned to do it once. And if it was good enough for Chesty, then it's good enough for me.

[echo5whiskey]

I say better to have and not need, than need and not have.

[ndmiller]

This is just a guess, but perhaps it has to do with space while maintaining durability. The four elevation-adjustable options that I know of are

1) Standard A2/A3 carry handle
2) Stand-alone A2-Style sight
3) MaTech Adjustable Flip-up rear sight (which has mixed reviews throughout this site)
4) Wilson Combat Tactical Flip-Up Detachable Rear Sight

I do not have one (I'm sure you can find some info here on M4C), but the Wilson seems to combine the best of both worlds: it is a space-saving flip-up, but it's also elevation adjustable. Other than that, I'm sure there are more technical answers that have to do with engagement distances, zeroing distances, etc.; but I'll leave my opinion out of those.

I was a range instructor during the transition from qualifying with iron sights to RCOs, so I feel your pain. At the time I got out ('13), BUIS still weren't a standard-issue item. Only IAR gunners were getting them.

There are at least a few more:

http://www.knightarmco.com/portfolio...t#!prettyPhoto

https://www.primaryarms.com/MagPul_M...t_p/mag527.htm

https://www.primaryarms.com/Spike_s_..._p/sas80r1.htm

Thanks to above for links and options, I wasn't aware of any flip up elevation adjustable and was going to settle on another set focusing on holdovers. Seems like I have some reviews to read so I can choose for my new 16" mid length build.

Noah

[Mysteryman]

Your front post is about 10MOA in size. At ranges beyond 300 metres the front post is over twice the width of an average human torso. Target ID becomes challenging and the shot far more. Yes it can be done, but it is far from practical. Keep in mind most rifles have BUIS as in BACK UP Iron Sights, not primary iron sights. They're not intended as dedicated replacements.

MM

[echo5whiskey]

Before optics were issued, iron sights were the primary sighting system. Up until several years ago, every Marine graduating boot camp had to use irons out to 500 yards. I'm not saying they're better than optics, I'm just saying that taking shots beyond 300 meters is feasible; so in a worst case scenario, why not have irons that assist?

[the 556 guy]

Nothing really substantial to add, but to confirm...

I got out in 94, so never saw a RDS or optic on a rifle in the service, ever.

My rifles all have the $60 magpul BUIS rear and I've had good groups out to 200 yards. That is using Both the standard front sight block post and the magpul $40 BUIS (which looks 30-40% wider than standard). I've been thinking the same, why not get a range adjustable rear.

For defensive shooting, The issue raised above is legitimate: civilian shots farther than 100 meters (maybe even closer) raise problems justifying the shot. Plus target ID is even more critical.

For target shooting out to 500 meters, I'd get the elevation adjustable rear sight. Many articles on CMP competition shooting equipment for ar15's.

They make it hard to be complacent about marksmanship. Paris island. Rah...