Irons vs. Reddots

[The Morrigan]

Learning to use irons, and use them well, is a must. Things can happen that will put even an AimPoint out of commission. One of the biggest factors in a wet area like where I live, is getting the lens covered in mud. In a dynamic environment you don't have time to clean it off (this is where having a good QD setup helps. Now, you're shooting irons. . .GO!

There's ways to make irons shine, especially in CQB. I think everyone knows you can shoot accurately at range, but there's a misconception that irons are slower close-in. Let me submit to you that it depends on how you use the irons that determines their speed.

Try this: I like to take sight paint (I pick up orange the best) and paint the front post. But only paint from the top of the post down so that the paint covers as much height as the post is wide. Yep, a dot sight. Now, do some close-in drills. Don't worry about sight alignment, just mount the rifle like you normally would (you do practice getting a consistent mount, right?), and just put the dot of the front sight on the target where you want to shoot it, using the sight ears to bracket the target, and shoot. You may not be dead on (really depends on how consistent your mount is), but you'll be close enough. I find I can reliably drill a silhouette target in the chest to 50 yards accurately enough for a heart shot very, very quickly. Just as quick as a red dot.

The AR has another advantage here, in that you can paint the large ring in the rear sight a different color (so as to focus on the front sight, not the rear) and it helps your eyes automatically line up the sights with you still only focusing on the front. You end up with a sort of iron sight EOTech.

That being said, you also need to learn to use a red dot well, because they have their advantages. One, of course, is low light shooting, or on certain models, compatibility with NVGs. Another is for those that run a 4 MOA dot like an AimPoint. If you figure a frontal or rear view of a human torso is roughly 12 inches wide at the chest, and you use a 300 meter zero, then you use the 4 MOA dot as an ad hoc rangefinder. If the target is the same size or larger than the dot, simply hold dead-on and fire, and you'll put the round somewhere vital.
I think you'll find that while red dots don't have a speed advantage in the 0-50 meter fight, they rule as far as speed is concerned out to 300.

[kwelz]

Guys, please understand that I am not saying I think irons are better than a RDS now. I am just saying that at one range session I realized I was having an easier time with irons. I found this interesting and wanted others opinion on the issue.

I do not have the training or experience you all do. In fact my training and experience are crap and I know it. That is why I value your opinions so much. I know it is based in real world experience I don't have.

I am just a good shooter that wants to become a much more serious shooter. Questions like this are one of the ways I have of doing that. I take what you all tell me and see how it works for me when I shoot. This year I plan to take more formal training. But the more I learn beforehand the more I will be ready to not make a fool out of myself.

[dbrowne1]

If I am shooting from prone or any reasonably stable position at 100+ yard targets, I find that using BOTH the irons and the Aimpoint, together, yields the best results.

I line up the irons so that the tip of the front sight is cutting across the red dot, with the red dot perfectly centered at that point, and put that point on my desired point of impact. This combination allows me to recognize and correct any cant in the rifle, or any other irregularity with respect to the rifle's position and alignment. These are issues (especially the cant) that affect your point of impact at longer ranges and that might go unrecognized if using only one or the other sighting system.

[Mac5.56]

Agree, and I think some confusion lies here.

To the OP: shooting off of a bench is a different environment than so-called "tactical" shooting. So direct comparisons are problematic.

I was going to bring up that I do feel more comfortable shooting standing, and on the move with the red dot, and put way more rounds on target. But I held off saying this because these are very new skills I am putting into my basket with the AR, and I don't feel capable of making an well educated statement in this regard. It could be that I'm just getting more comfortable shooting the gun, or it could be the red dot. Planning on trying the same thing with my irons next trip out.

As for the deer rifle comparison, I think it is fair to bring up here, but I concede to your point about the gun being for a different purpose. But like MarkM brought up, the level of practice I have with the gun means that I have no adjustment issues, or problems when I bring the gun up to shoot, and it is quick, safe, and accurate. That was the only point I was trying to make.

[Mac5.56]

I've shot to stop every hog I've killed. The first one took one round, the second took..... more.

When I was 10 I was charged full charge, head down by a male pronghorn. Dad used me to get the range with his optic, then found the antelope.... That day changed my relationship with the natural world.

Anyway, Katar I agree and I don't. Most of the shots I have seen, in the forests out here are well within the distance of irons for me, and I feel having an magnified optic would destroy my situational awareness in the environment I am in. Having been charged by a member of a herd, I prefer this.

But your right this is getting off topic to a degree. I agree with Rob though that hunting is more reactive then range shooting, so the comparison fits in the middle of the conversation, and isn't completely not worth having.

[C4IGrant]

I should have clarified. I was not shooting off of a bench, however I was not doing anything really dynamic either. My shooting consisted of simply bringing the gun up from rest or low ready, finding the target and getting off a couple round, bringing the gun back down then repeating for the next target. I did this for 3 magazines. It wasn't my gun so I wasn't going to run it hard.

My main surprises comes from the fact that I seem to be more accurate and can acquire targets (In this scenario) as fast as I can with my Aimpoint. It has gotten my attention enough where I plan on testing it further to see either where I am deficient with a RDS or why I seem to do better with the Irons.

I lack the training of many of you. So I am constantly trying to find what works best for me and what I need to improve on. This is telling me that something is up. I am just not sure what yet.

Shooting in this manner (and off a bench), a RDS really has no advantage.

RDS come into their own when you are shooting in the dark/low light, moving and shooting, shooting in weird positions and shooting at moving targets.

Since everyone and everything moves in a gun fight, the RDS is a must have on a DEFENSIVE weapon.


C4

[joshua79109]

I started as a die hard irons guy.

I started using Aimpoints and I really like them and have found that they are good to have. I still train with both irons and the Aimpoints.

I have recently started running a 3x with the Aimpoint and I really like it too. I have played with it for a while, but now I'm actually putting it to use. I'm using it with the LaRue flip and I just swap it from carbine to carbine.

One thing is that adding my Aimpoint and magnifier adds a lot of weight. It feels good when I take out my irons only AR.

I'm not here to say the Aimpoint is better than the irons, my timing doesn't change much either way. One thing I've found that I do like about the Aimpoints is when I'm sweaty and/or in odd positions the Aimpoint is easier for me to pick up quickly and stay on target.

Another thing I found is that using the Aimpoint has made me better with my irons in one way. I can say that I now concentrate less on the sights with both eyes open whey running irons only. I have gotten a little faster with irons up close (with both eyes open) than I was before I ran the Aimpoints.

I now prefer to use the Aimpoint when hunting coyotes, hogs, etc... I can pick up a fast moving animal faster through the Aimpoint than I can with my irons. I still use the irons (through the Aimpoint) when taking a long shot.

I understand the op is not starting a whats better topic and I'm not attempting to say either is better. Just like everything else most of this is determined by the level of training in my opinion.

[RogerinTPA]

Guys, please understand that I am not saying I think irons are better than a RDS now. I am just saying that at one range session I realized I was having an easier time with irons. I found this interesting and wanted others opinion on the issue.

I do not have the training or experience you all do. In fact my training and experience are crap and I know it. That is why I value your opinions so much. I know it is based in real world experience I don't have.

I am just a good shooter that wants to become a much more serious shooter. Questions like this are one of the ways I have of doing that. I take what you all tell me and see how it works for me when I shoot. This year I plan to take more formal training. But the more I learn beforehand the more I will be ready to not make a fool out of myself.

Nothing wrong with what you found during one or a few range sessions, but to get really good at "anything", be it Irons or RDS (Hopefully both), is going to take many many rounds down range, and hours and hours of practice from what you learned, ideally from competent professional training, a few times a year. Most of us exceed 10K rounds a year, with many folks going way beyond that. A RDS will be much easier to master for the novice, than the Irons. You should learn to master both, if for no other reason, RDSs break and batteries fail. RDSs are more efficient at accurate hits with combat accuracy. Some folks can shoot them very well, in the vicinity of MOA, but they are designed for combat, accurate hits under extreme stress, under unusual extreme conditions.

Ideally, as a member of M4C, we should all be striving to master all aspects of any firearm we own, the application of said firearm, in the most likely and unlikely scenarios, that we may have to employ, if we, a family member or friend's life is on the line.

[Surf]

When guys come to our unit they are experienced Officers with at least 10 years, who have been trained in the academy on the AR platform and qualify annually with iron sights. However when they come to us, we start them from scratch through a basic rifle program where they only use iron sights. They are expected to be highly proficient and be able to run our qual with irons only. This not only ingrains good fundamentals it shows them how far their game can go with irons only, especially if their red dot fails at the wrong time. They go further with irons then they more than likely ever experienced prior.

When they eventually transition to red dots in the advanced, then tactical, then HRT shooting evolutions under any and all conditions, they really experience the beauty of the electronic dot sights. I do agree with C4 on the need for these red dot sights on a serious use defensive or working type of weapon, with the assumption that the user has first mastered the fundamentals of irons and are highly proficient with them.

[boltcatch]

Poor lighting is what natural point shooting is for. Red dots are a luxury, and should be treated as such.

But such shooting isn't going to work past a certain distance. Not to take them for granted, but there isn't any way around the fact that they do allow for aimed shots you could not otherwise take.

Now, people will say "what about positive ID of your target", and I'll point out, "what about putting aimed fire on the target you just positively ID'ed - but which then moved to a new orientation which makes your iron sights useless."

That's when you're really going to wish you had a red dot. People like to argue which method is faster and more reliable, but that doesn't help you during those times when one of them doesn't work at all.