How many of you go without BUIS?

[Doc Safari]

If that were actually anywhere close to being true, how come we don't see any elite combat units choosing to run an irons only rifle in combat? Why are they consistently choosing RDS and LPVO optics depending on their mission? Are they choosing them to purposefully degrade their capability? Or to enhance their capability?

Hell, the Son Tay raiders figured this out in Vietnam using super shitty FO sights by today's standards.

Irons were used by sharpshooters and just plain riflemen for centuries and worked just fine. It just took practice and training. Even the excerpt you quoted makes me suspicious that optics are, or can be, an excuse for minimal training. I won't argue that optics are nice to have, essential at night, and might even be quicker to deploy than iron sights to get good hits, but when they go down they are just dead weight on the rifle, and you have to go back to irons. I disagree strongly with the excerpt that there are no liabilities than additional weight: I think they promote complacency. One gets used to the optic and its relative ease and quickness of use and it promotes sloppiness in acquiring a proper stance and sight picture. The short version is that optics are so easy to use the shooter eventually gets sloppy.

Just my opinion. Not trying to dictate doctrine or anything. I just know from my own experiences that (myself included) people use optics to the extent that they stop practicing with irons, then the first time the optic goes down in a stress situation, they sit there and struggle with irons. Only people who maintain their practice with irons don't struggle with them when forced to ditch an optic.

Geez--maybe I just made a good argument for always having a co-witness.

But I still prefer a folding rear sight.

[hile]

I thought so at first too but after thinking about it, it isn't an awful idea. The number of Aimpoints or high quality scopes are few. Majority are running something along the lines of a Vortex Sparc and most aren't going to shoot it enough or check the battery enough besides that pre shift check to notice if it were to die so to make them have a backup sight option is a decent idea. They don't have to be fixed they just have to be on the gun. I can run a LPVO and run folded and get it approved so its not something worth arguing with them over.

If they mandate absolute vs lower 1/3 cowitness, I could see that as a bit more awful, so to speak. I see it less necessary with a LPVO in a Geissele mount, too. From a pragmatic standpoint, mount is not QD -- and I probably wouldn't run an LPVO in other than a G mount -- so I can't easily use them anyhow, unless they're offset irons.

[vicious_cb]

Irons were used by sharpshooters and just plain riflemen for centuries and worked just fine. It just took practice and training. Even the excerpt you quoted makes me suspicious that optics are, or can be, an excuse for minimal training. I won't argue that optics are nice to have, essential at night, and might even be quicker to deploy than iron sights to get good hits, but when they go down they are just dead weight on the rifle, and you have to go back to irons. I disagree strongly with the excerpt that there are no liabilities than additional weight: I think they promote complacency. One gets used to the optic and its relative ease and quickness of use and it promotes sloppiness in acquiring a proper stance and sight picture. The short version is that optics are so easy to use the shooter eventually gets sloppy.

Just my opinion. Not trying to dictate doctrine or anything. I just know from my own experiences that (myself included) people use optics to the extent that they stop practicing with irons, then the first time the optic goes down in a stress situation, they sit there and struggle with irons. Only people who maintain their practice with irons don't struggle with them when forced to ditch an optic.

Geez--maybe I just made a good argument for always having a co-witness.

But I still prefer a folding rear sight.

I disagree that the biggest force multiplier you can put on your rifle is not just nice to have.

Also irons, esp folding ones are MORE susceptible to damage and loss of zero from being banged around than a quality optic.

[Doc Safari]

I disagree that the biggest force multiplier you can put on your rifle is not just nice to have.

Also irons, esp folding ones are MORE susceptible to damage and loss of zero from being banged around than a quality optic.

I have heard this. I've heard/read over the years that a blow that will disable an iron sight might not even damage an ACOG. Folding ones, too seem to be more vulnerable than fixed ones.

Maybe that's another vote for a fixed rear sight.

Optics are great--no question. I'll concede that "more is better" and having both irons and an optic is an advantage over just one by itself.

My position is I'm a strong advocate of training with iron sights. Having used irons for the first 40+ years of my life I'm used to them and can use them (in my case: competition) even faster than an optic. I've had even quality optics go down in the heat of a shooting match. Not often, but it has happened. I just don't trust optics to be superior to irons except in one area: ease of use. YMMV.

Bottom line: I consider irons and the proper use thereof essential. Optics are "nice to have" and increase a person's capabilities, but shouldn't be used exclusively. I know you argue that the optic is a force multiplier, but in the event the optic goes down you're stuck with irons. In that sense irons, even as a backup, are a force multiplier too.

Just my opinion, from the perspective of one who shot 3-gun and carbine matches for several years.