Learning irons before optics; must we?

[rob_s]

I know, we're all supposed to say that everyone should learn irons first. Just like we're all supposed to learn to tell time on a clock with hands before we get a digital, learn to add in our heads before we use a calculator, etc. Of course, we're all supposed to start shooting with a 10/22 and a .38 revolver too, right?

My thinking is that the surest way to get a new shooter coming back is getting hits. At first, they don't really care about all that "what if an EMP knocks out my battery-operated sight and all I'm left with is irons" foolishness. They just want to get hits.

The surest way to get hits is with an optic. An RDS is the easiest optic available to explain to someone. "Put the dot where you want the bullet, pull the trigger". It doesn't get much easier than that. No "center the tip of the front sight in the hole in the rear sight, your eye will naturally center the tip for you, then put that on the target, focusing on the front sight not the target, ok now press the trigger". Just "dot on target, press". They can look through the sighting device, focus on the target, etc.

Later on, if they get interested in fighting/defensive use of the firearm they can obviously go back and learn the irons. There's nothing that says that starting out with an RDS automatically prevents someone from learning to shoot with the irons. And if they never get past the plinking-at-balloons stage, then they'll never really have use for the irons anyway once they've learned on the RDS.

[Stickman]

rob_s,


When we were learning to shoot, there were no electronic optics similar to whats in use today, so the mentality you describe is one that isn't going to continue IMHO. Optics increase hits (just like you said), and thats what counts at the end of the day. We've seen the shift in military use, and sooner or later we will see it in LE work.

I can start a fire and cook my food, but you won't see me doing it every day just to show that I can. The oven is better. The optic is better.

[Failure2Stop]

Rob- I think you may be in the running for the most new topics posted in a single day. At least none of them are about lube or M4 feed ramps!

Anyway-
I think that your reasoning is spot on. RDS makes hits easier, thus making shooting fun for the beginner. Hell, I like RDSs because they let me hit things faster, and I have spent way too much time behind irons.

All too often I think people take a weird self-gratifying position that shooters have to start out on iron sights, if only because they did. To hell with that. As Pat says "We need to get out of the romance of aligning iron sights and into the business of shooting smelly bearded men in the face more efficiently." (Or something reasonably close to that).

Of course we aren't going to start out shooting people in the face (if so, please let me know where you will be teaching), but the concept holds true.

[LOKNLOD]

I'm inclined to agree with your logic, Rob. Red-dot optics make a big difference in the ability of seasoned shooters to get hits on target quickly and accurately. The positive effect for a new shooter is going to be even greater.

If you were going to teach someone who'd never been in a car before how to drive, and you knew that if they continued to drive they'd be 95% likely to have an automatic transmission, you wouldn't go out of your way to make sure they learned on a manual transmission first, would you? There are a lot more fine nuances to driving a stick that can complicate the experience of just piloting a 2 ton hunk of metal down at narrow path at 60 mph. Why complicate things? Same with teaching a new shooter.

There is, I believe, a Pat Rogers quote in someone's sig line, that says we should get over the "romance of aligning sights" and get down to business (to paraphrase). There's truth in that. The iron sights are a starting point for teaching marksmanship. A red dot is probably a better choice if you just want to teach shooting and general weapon handling.

[markm]

This arguement has already been covered a zillion times, but it's always good to revisit it. I've never been outshot by anyone with a RDS. Now, I'm sure that there are shooters out there who could smoke me with an Aimpoint, but I haven't had it happen yet. There's a false assumption that if you run irons that you have to do a sight alignment for contact distance shooting.

But you can actually just use the tip of the front sight post the same way you'd use a dot and get hits just as fast, or faster than a dot at contact distances.

Even KevinB has stated that he is slightly faster with irons, but the dot gives him advantages in less than optimal shooting conditions.

I don't get all assed up if someone wants to go straight to an AIMpoint right out of the gate. It's just annoying when you show up to class and half the guys there can't even get a decent group with their irons or their aimpoint for that matter.

To me, if you learn how accurate the AR can be with irons, you can expect and demand a higher level of accuracy when you use a dot.

[rob_s]

I've never been outshot by anyone with a RDS.

Funny, I've never lost to a guy with irons

It's just annoying when you show up to class and half the guys there can't even get a decent group with their irons or their aimpoint for that matter.

And that's just it, they're not going to have practiced sufficiently to be able to do what they need to, regardless of the aiming device they utilize.

But remember, this is about first-time shooters. Someone taking a basic class for the first time, or even someone that's shooting an AR/centerfire rifle/whatever for the first time.

If I go to a beginner's class, I EXPECT that there will be some people there that can't shoot. It's kind of the point. It would be nice if they all went out and at least plinked a little before the class to get an idea of basically how the gun works, but I've come not to expect it.

[mattjmcd]

I suppose that the best way to answer the question is to say that yes, the RDS is probably better for somebody who is likely to be a casual shooter. If somebody plans on spending more quality time with a rifle, then I reckon it's best to start with the iron sights. At the very least, I would think it best to try to incorporate a healthy amount of time training with the irons/BUIS even if one does elect to start out with an optic.

[markm]

And that's just it, they're not going to have practiced sufficiently to be able to do what they need to, regardless of the aiming device they utilize.

We basically agree. But to me, it's a shame that some shooters will never realize the accuracy of the AR platform because they'll jump straight into a dot.

If I was the king, you'd have to qualify on irons before buying a dot! But then Aimpoint would be out of business.

I can remember a guy here saying that he wanted a scope or something that would give him the ability to hit a milk jug at 100 yards. I have a problem with someone who can't do that all day long with irons.... now I know that's not the purpose of the aimpoint, but I'm just sighting it as an example of a shooter who doesn't know shit about the AR.

[MassMark]

I'm on the fence about the issue - which I suppose is convenient in a debate, but I truly have mixed feelings about it. I bought my first Aimpoint in 1986 and I still have it. I mounted it on an HK94 well after I learned to use the irons. It was a joy to shoot - red dot on target, squeeze, hit - what could be better?

Fast forward to a couple of years ago and I purchased my first M1A - a SOCOM-16. I had only limited experience with Garand-type sights and even though I simultaneously purchased a Trijicon Tripower, it remained in the box for months, until I felt I had familiarized myself with the irons. To this day, I run "RDS down" drills, though now that my SOCOM-16 rides in a Troy MCS, I not longer have to dump my optic into a pouch - I just go to BUIS.

I can see the appeal to new shooters and I guess for a recreational shooter, an introduction to firearms via RDS is an appealing way to remove the mystery. However, I still feel that introduction via irons first can have equal benefits - namely in accomplishment and familiarization with the bare rifle. I have yet to see a new shooter get bored or discouraged shooting my irons only Uzi, or the SOCOM-16 for example, with the Tripower not on deck. Almost like: "Wow, great job getting on target - now try this" <turn on or add RDS here>.... If the user though plans on potential serious use of his/her new rifle, I cannot see the benefit of a red dot first strategy other than to offer a shortcut to rounds on target, but not to the potential of electronic failure and understanding the function, use and potential of the weapon standalone.

I do a fair amount of wilderness guiding, (less now than in the past). I also spend a great deal of time in the woods. I have lost count at the number of "wilderness wannabees" that use a GPS as their primary and disturbingly only navigational aid - no compass, no maps, no apparent sign of dead reckoning skill. I have tested this in the woods on occasion when I've hiked with, or run into folks and am stunned by how heavily folks bet their lives on electronics.

I know GPS and RDS are different - but there are some parallels here which lead me to lean more toward an irons first strategy when introducing new shooters to the craft....

[rob_s]

I suppose that the best way to answer the question is to say that yes, the RDS is probably better for somebody who is likely to be a casual shooter. If somebody plans on spending more quality time with a rifle, then I reckon it's best to start with the iron sights.

What difference would it make? And how would you know right off the bat? Not too many people know from the outset what kind of shooter they're going to wind up being. And even if they do, is there something that precludes someone from learning the irons after they learn the dot?