View Full Version : I get the feeling that many people don't realize how accurate Iron Sights can be
I only wish I had my own targets to post. Alas I am stuck with 100yd ranges near me and I need improvement anyway.
So let me go ahead and use this gentleman and his Service Rifle* as an example of the capabilites of an A2 with iron sights:
5 — SFC SINGLEY, GRANT L USA 2385-102x
SFC Singley placed 5th Overall using the Service Rifle at the 2009 NRA National Highpower Rifle Championship (up to 600yds distance). This event is open to both Match Rifles and Service Rifles.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/natpdf/cp400-09.pdf
A perfect score for this event is 2400-240x
1 — HOULE, NORMAN G 2387-124x
2 — BERNOSKY, CARL R 2386-125x
3 — TUBB, DAVID 2385-133x
4 — HENDRICKS, JOSEPH W 2385-133x
5 — SFC SINGLEY, GRANT L USA 2385-102x
Here is a US Army Marksmanship team video showing A2 rapid fire (40 rnds in 50 seconds) at 600yds on an E-type silhouette (approximately 40” tall by 20” wide) and the resulting group size at the end.
http://www.usaac.army.mil/amu/Videos/videos.html Click on the 'Service Rifle Team Infantry Trophy' video
=======================
* for reference
Service Rifle http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/M16.htm
The 2004 edition of the CMP Competition Rules expanded the definition of legal service rifles by including, for the first time, the M16 A4 rifle. This means that now both the M16 A2, which has been used by service rifle shooters for many years, and the M16 A4, the so-called “flat-top” version with a removable carry handle, or commercial equivalents of those two service rifles, are now legal for use in CMP EIC (leg) or National Trophy Matches. All commercial equivalent rifles must be “of the same type (configuration) and caliber.” Highpower service rifle competitors also may continue to use the M14 service rifle or its commercial equivalent, the M1A.
The decision to add the M16 A4 to the list of legal service rifles was made because this version is now used in Army basic training and is being issued to many military units including units in Iraq. Rules concerning legal service rifles are quite restrictive. To be recognized as a service rifle, a rifle must not only be a U. S. military rifle, but it must be a rifle that is commonly issued to large numbers of military personnel. CMP Competition Rules do not recognize special purpose military rifles as service rifles because they do not meet this criteria. This is to assure that all service rifle shooters have rifles with similar capabilities.
Subsequent to making this rule change, the CMP has received many questions about how the M16 A4 or its commercial equivalents must be configured to be legal for use in service rifle competitions. These guidelines seek to clarify and answer those questions. M16 A4 or commercial equivalent rifles must meet the following requirements:
Carry Handle and Rear Sight. The rifle must be equipped with a carry handle and rear sight that has the same configuration as the carry handle on the M16 A2 (height, type of sight, etc.). No optical sights are permitted. It is recognized that the elevation screw shaft in the M16 A4 removable carry handle must be shorter.
Carry Handle Location. The carry handle must be attached to the rifle’s “upper” in such a way that the location of the handle and rear sight corresponds with the carry handle and sight location on the M16 A2. This is to assure that the sight radius of all M16/AR15-type rifles remains the same.
Front Sight. A standard M16 front sight must be fixed in the same location as it is on the M16 A2.
Upper Handguard. A standard handguard or tube without an accessory rail must be used. The sling swivel can attach to the front ferrule of the handguard or the front tip of the tube in accordance with Rule 6.2.3 (10).
Butt Stock. To accommodate shooters of smaller stature, a standard butt stock from an M16 A1 rifle may be fitted to either the M16 A2 or M16 A4.
for further reference here is my Service Rifle:
http://www.danpassaro.com/img/v7/p34502222.jpg
A link to the RRA site with the specs http://rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=226
Example of Match Rifle
http://dynamicarmament.com/items/ar-15~ar-10-rifles/les-baer/les-baer-custom-ultimate-nra-match-rifle-lbnramatchrifle-detail.htm
The primary difference to the Match Rifle is the use of diopter sights.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/highpower.asp
High Power Rifle Competition
For additional information please call the NRA High Power Rifle Dept. at (703) 267-1479
Courses of Fire
There are 4 strings of fire which are the basic building blocks of any NRA high power rifle course of fire or tournament. These are:
1. Slow Fire, standing - 10 rounds at 200 yards in 10 minutes.
2. Rapid Fire, sitting or kneeling - 10 rounds at 200 yards in 60 seconds.
3. Rapid Fire, 10 rounds prone - 300 yards in 70 seconds.
4. Slow Fire, 10 rounds prone - 500 or 600 yards in 10 minutes.
Every NRA High Power Rifle match for which classification records are kept is a multiple or a combination of one or more of these strings. The popular National Match Course, for instance, consists of 10 rounds slow fire standing; 10 rounds rapid fire sitting or kneeling; 10 rounds rapid fire prone and 20 rounds slow fire prone. Matches fired all at one distance and in one position are known as "single-stage" matches and are usually 20 shot matches (2 times one of the basic strings).
"Slow Fire" does not require much explanation. The shooter takes his position on the firing line, assumes the prescribed position and is allowed one minute per shot to fire the string.
"Rapid Fire," on the other hand, is more elaborate. In rapid fire sitting or kneeling, the shooter uses a preparation period to establish sitting or kneeling position; then comes to a standing position and, on command, loads either 2 or 5 rounds (depending on the firearm) into the rifle. When the targets appear or the command to commence fire is given, the shooter gets into the firing position, fires the rounds in the rifle, reloads with 8 or 5 more for a total of 10 and finishes the string. The procedure for rapid fire prone differs only in the firing position and the time spent.
Equipment
Rifle: Rifles to be used in High Power Rifle competition must be equipped with metallic sights (Some long range, 1000-yard matches allow the use of "any sights"), should be capable of holding at least 5 rounds of ammunition and should be adapted to rapid reloading. Tournament programs often group competitions into two divisions, Service Rifle and Match Rifle. The rifles currently defined as "Service Rifles" include the M1, M14, M16 and their commercial equivalents. Winchester and Remington have made their Model 70 and Model 40X rifles in "match" versions and custom gunsmiths have made up match rifles on many military and commercial actions. 1903 and 1903-A3 Springfield, 1917 Enfields and pre-war Winchester Model 70 sporters in .30-06 are all equipped with clip slots for rapid reloading. The most suitable rear sights are aperture or "peep" with reliable, repeatable 1/2 minute (or finer) adjustments. Front sights should be of either the post or aperture type.
Sling: The shooting sling is helpful in steadying the positions and controlling recoil. The sling may be used in any position except standing.
Spotting Scope: A spotting scope or a substitute optical device is important for scoring and observing the placement of shot spotters on the target. The beginning shooter will benefit from the use of about any telescope which gives an erect image. The most suitable spotting scopes, however, have a magnification of from 20 to 25 power and an objective lens at least 50mm in diameter. Eyepieces angled at 45 to 90 degrees are convenient for using the scope without disturbing the shooting position.
Shooting Coat: The shooting coat is equipped with elbow, shoulder and sling pads which contribute to the shooter's comfort. Since there are several styles of shooting coats of varying cost, the shooter is advised to try out several types before making an investment.
Shooting Glove: The shooting glove's primary function is to protect the forward hand from the pressure of the sling. Any heavy glove will serve the purpose until the shooter makes a final choice among several shooting gloves available.
Sight Blackener: The shooter using an exposed front sight such as the blade found on the service rifle will require some means of blackening the sight. A carbide lamp will do this job or a commercial sight black sold in spray cans can be used.
Scorebook: If the shooter is to learn from experience, they should record the conditions and circumstances involved in firing each shot. Sight settings, sling adjustments, wind and light conditions and ammunition used all have a place in the scorebook. Actual shot value is the least important data recorded.
Ammunition: Most competitors eventually turn to handloads. Careful handloading will yield ammunition less expensive and more accurate than otherwise available. Both tracer and incendiary ammunition are prohibited by NRA Rules and armor-piercing ammunition may be prohibited by local range regulations.
Long Range Competition
NRA rules provide for slow fire prone competition at ranges beyond 600 yards. The Palma Match is one such event. It is conducted at distances of 800, 900, and 1000 yards. Some of these matches permit the use of telescopic sights.
Reduced Distance
High power rifle shooting at the full regulation distances requires a range with firing lines at 200, 300 and 600 (or 500) yards.
Every official NRA stage or course of fire normally conducted at 200, 300, or 500 yards can be run at 100 yards on the NRA official reduced targets. The SR-1 target simulates the 200 yard target; the SR-21 is the 100 yard equivalent of the 300 yard target and the MR-31 gives the same appearance at 100 yards as the normal 600 yard target does at the full distance.
Because of their small size, the reduced targets are well adapted to being hung on stationary frames. Because of the short distances involved, it is practicable to walk down to the targets after each string and remove them for scoring elsewhere or to score them on the frames. The use of stationary target frames eliminates the complications that sometimes arise when the number of shooters on the line is not equal to the number of target operators in the pits.
Reduced 300 and 600 yards targets are also available for firing at 200 yards. The NRA can provide a list of target sources, including reduced targets.
High Power Sporting Rifle
The High Power Sporting Rifle Rules were introduced in 1985. This variation is fired with hunting type rifles which may be equipped with telescopic sights. The course is fired at a single distance - either 100 or 200 yards - and rapid fire strings are only 4 shots to accommodate the typical hunting rifle.
Littlelebowski
04-06-10, 11:51
I don't think anyone on here is saying that they are inaccurate. Posting an extreme example however,does not do too much for your cause, whatever it may be since no one on here is saying that iron sights are inaccurate.
I don't think anyone on here is saying that they are inaccurate. Posting an extreme example however,does not do too much for your cause, whatever it may be since no one on here is saying that iron sights are inaccurate.
Right.
Slower? Yes. Inaccurate? No.
I don't think anyone on here is saying that they are inaccurate. Posting an extreme example however,does not do too much for your cause, whatever it may be since no one on here is saying that iron sights are inaccurate.
Whenever the subject comes up about training guys out to 600m (see the Taking Back .5k thread) they bitch about being able to hit targets at 300m with 4x ACOGs.
This is for the naysayers. The example does plenty since it shows that with proper training a soldier can hit out to 600 with iron sights. The video alone illustrates it
Like mentioned above, this is an extreme example.
For this, you are shooting at a 60 inch wide bull at 600 yards. The ability of iron sights to align with precision at a 60 inch wide bull at this range is pretty good, hence you can get good groupings.
Even if you hit the 6" X ring every time, your ability to resolve a 6" target through match iron sights (let alone standard non-hooded rear aperture and standard front sight) isn't going to be very good. You will loose precision as your sight picture/alignment are not as reproducible and you will shoot larger groups.
Again, the above discusses an extreme example where the sights and targets are designed to benefit the shooter.
While I'm not a naysayer, I just wanted to point out that shooting these large bulls with match grade service guns allows for groupings that don't have much bearing on any other style of shooting.
Littlelebowski
04-06-10, 12:23
Whenever the subject comes up about training guys out to 600m (see the Taking Back .5k thread) they bitch about being able to hit targets at 300m with 4x ACOGs.
This is for the naysayers. The example does plenty since it shows that with proper training a soldier can hit out to 600 with iron sights. The video alone illustrates it
With a looped sling in the prone, right? Extreme example. I've done it myself out to 500 in the Marines. Doesn't mean it's the solution. This is a tactically oriented forum so realize folks are talking about doing more than sitting there on the KD course carefully applying sight black and cinching up that sling.
This is one of the E-type silhouette targets shot in the National Trophy Infantry Team Match. It ain't a bullseye, and in the real world it's not going to stand still after the first shot kills someone -- but it will give a shooter and coach feedback on how he's holding.
600- and 500-yard targets are exposed for 50 seconds -- it's the shooter's job to get as many hits (with iron sights and a sling) as fast as he can hold. The 6-man team gets extra points for hits from farther out. Eight targets are hoisted up in the air, so the farthest left and right shooters have to "Swing" between targets 1&2 and 7&8.
Teams get a points bonus if all targets have a minimum number of hits (I believe at 600 it's 6 or 7 hits).
The number on the score board is the number of hits on-target. I don't know if this was a 600 or 500 target, but a really good gunner can get 40 aimed shots off at 600 in 50 seconds.
http://www.arringtonaccuracy.com/images/rattle/Mvc-004s.jpg
You can see what look like four 5.56mm miss holes right, left, and high.
Like mentioned above, this is an extreme example.
For this, you are shooting at a 60 inch wide bull at 600 yards. The ability of iron sights to align with precision at a 60 inch wide bull at this range is pretty good, hence you can get good groupings.
Even if you hit the 6" X ring every time, your ability to resolve a 6" target through match iron sights (let alone standard non-hooded rear aperture and standard front sight) isn't going to be very good. You will loose precision as your sight picture/alignment are not as reproducible and you will shoot larger groups.
Again, the above discusses an extreme example where the sights and targets are designed to benefit the shooter.
While I'm not a naysayer, I just wanted to point out that shooting these large bulls with match grade service guns allows for groupings that don't have much bearing on any other style of shooting.
the shooters in the video are firing on an E-type silhouette (approximately 40” tall by 20” wide) at 600yds.
op updated
edit: looks like someone beat me to it :D
.
MarshallDodge
04-06-10, 12:37
I think the term "accurate" is being misused here.
When I think of iron sights, I think more difficult to use. Those that have mastered them have spent some serious time behind the wheel.
I have shot 3-gun with a guy that shoots irons and at that time he placed in the top three 3-gunners in the area. That doesn't make iron sights better, it only indicates that this guy knew how to shoot and shoot well.
Every time I'm at a 600 yard match with a scoped bolt action rifle, and someone with an iron sighted AR outshoots me, I am made acutely aware of what irons are capable of.
However, my ability to identify a target at 600 yards with even a 1-4 scope, let alone a 4.5-14, is much better than theirs...
I think the term "accurate" is being misused here.
When I think of iron sights, I think more difficult to use. Those that have mastered them have spent some serious time behind the wheel.
I have shot 3-gun with a guy that shoots irons and at that time he placed in the top three 3-gunners in the area. That doesn't make iron sights better, it only indicates that this guy knew how to shoot and shoot well.
The point.
Someone got it.
The training is the key which is why I agree with the Major in his paper about the 0.5k
Every time I'm at a 600 yard match with a scoped bolt action rifle, and someone with an iron sighted AR outshoots me, I am made acutely aware of what irons are capable of.
However, my ability to identify a target at 600 yards with even a 1-4 scope, let alone a 4.5-14, is much better than theirs...
I won't begrudge the advantage of target ID, especially with the ROEs that I hear about.
The only point I make is that training will make the bullet and target meet at 600.
Nothing wrong with iron sights; everyone should be able to use them. However, there are better options out there than irons.
I'm a pretty good shot but without a rest of sorts at 600yds, I doubt I could hit a truck.
The ability to hold on target with irons or ANY optics at long ranges offhand is what impresses me.
With a looped sling in the prone, right? Extreme example. I've done it myself out to 500 in the Marines. Doesn't mean it's the solution. This is a tactically oriented forum so realize folks are talking about doing more than sitting there on the KD course carefully applying sight black and cinching up that sling.
Army is pop-ups out to 300m right? and they only have to knock it down right? (so they don't know where exactly they hit)
USMC is out to 500 and they show groups right?
So with an A2 out on a two-way range, with the target at 400m:
The basically trained Soldier would say:
"That looks farther than 300m ................... I think .................... and its definitely bad guys, but I can't even touch that"
The basically trained Marine would say:
"That looks farther than 300m .................. might be 400m ................ and its definitely bad guys, let's give it a shot."
Am I totally off base?
If I'm even remotely on base here then the only difference is training. The Marine has the confidence, having done it in Basic, to at least take the shot and do so with a reasonable chance of hitting the target.
At worst fire superiority is achieved because the rounds are close, putting the enemy's head down, and at best its a hit putting the enemy out of the fight.
Robb Jensen
04-06-10, 13:29
I can shoot irons about twice as more accurately than I can an Aimpoint (even with a magnifier) but the irons are slower for me.
Littlelebowski
04-06-10, 14:12
Army is pop-ups out to 300m right? and they only have to knock it down right? (so they don't know where exactly they hit)
USMC is out to 500 and they show groups right?
Yup, at least when I was in (95-04). I shot expert on bother Army and Marine ranges.
I can shoot irons about twice as more accurately than I can an Aimpoint (even with a magnifier) but the irons are slower for me.
+1. Agreed.
Smuckatelli
04-06-10, 15:55
I can shoot irons about twice as more accurately than I can an Aimpoint (even with a magnifier) but the irons are slower for me.
+1...This plays into what the RCOs were designed for; rapid target engagement. Shooting with iron sights out to 600 yds isn't that difficult but it is slower.
Submariner
04-06-10, 16:29
Shooting with iron sights out to 600 yds isn't that difficult but it is slower.
Especially when the target is not Target Indicator Black against a white background as pictured above.
Smuckatelli
04-06-10, 18:51
Especially when the target is not Target Indicator Black against a white background as pictured above.
Ya screwed up there ;) I know you meant when the target 'IS'
You already know this but the rest may not. Tereza (15 yr at the time) shot a 6920 at the CMP match last year.
http://www.odcmp.com/Photos/09/EJrHPClinic/cimg1273.htm
I had to do an emergency buy from Gotm4's store of the 6920. I ended up trading the 6721 for a RRA NM4A for Perry.
600 yrds is her sweet zone........especially when the paper can't shoot back.
I shot Expert in the Corps (84-88). It was 500 Meters on the Left Coast and 500 Yards on the Right Coast from the prone. So I know how to shoot irons and know that they can be deadly accurate. But at 44 with bad eyesight, a good RDS is a Godsend. My eyes haven't deteriorated to the point where I can't get minute of man out to 200 with military irons (without prescription shooting glasses), but I can do it a hell of a lot faster with a dot. So I'll leave the irons to you 20somethings. :)
I agree with "glocktogo" except mine was the Army from 73-80. I am 11 years older than he. I too am much faster with a RDS. Also, I believe, the amount of ammo and training required to become proficient with an optic is much less than iron sights.
In your example video they were exceptional shooters with "NM" rifles (weighted butt stocks, NM sights, free float handguards, tuned triggers...,) shooting jackets, slings... That is not the average grunt.
I agree that a person can become extremely accurate with iron sights, but the amount of training to first learn and then the amount of "maintenance shooting" to retain that precision is more than the average grunt, cop or civilian will get.
trunkmonkey
04-06-10, 23:50
Not to mention the rifle I was shooting with in the Corps was a beat up old piece of crap compared to anything I own today.
Expert last time on the KD course with a score of 56. The range week high.
I don't know why it's faster to train someone with optics than irons. How hard is it? front aperture inside rear, bang.
Some people have an issue the consistently aligning the front sight in the rear aperture and that is more difficult to learn than place the dot on the target. Also many seem to have difficulty with a consistent cheek weld which is more crucial with irons than a RDS. I am not saying they should have these issues, but many cops are not firearms enthusiasts and I have seen more issues training them to use their iron sights with the same level of accuracy they use their RDS.
The other issue is maintaining focus on the front sight. It takes discipline to keep from focusing on the target instead. That dot grabs your eye though and you can still focus on the target.
It's not just young guys that can hit with irons and not always with match grade rifles.
Case in point: Back in '91, I was in my mid-20s and had been in the Highpower game a couple years when an older gentleman showed up at a match - looked to be in his '70s at least. He did not have a rifle of his own, so he picked an M1 off the rack (one of the club guns), looked her over and with a simple "this'll do", he set up in the position next to me. As the match started, he commented to me that it had been many years since he'd fired an M1, and hoped he'd do ok in the match.
Since we were next to each other, we ended up scoring each other's targets. Much to my amazement, the guy posted a high expert score. I was giving him a little crap about his earlier comments and he responded (quite graciously, I might add) "son, you didn't have to learn to shoot like I did". Turned out he was in the Pacific with the Marines during WWII. He told me, "we had to make our shots count and them bastards was shootin' back at us". I was truly humbled that day.
So, it's not the tool, it's knowing how to use it that counts.
Littlelebowski
04-07-10, 06:28
It's not just young guys that can hit with irons and not always with match grade rifles.
Case in point: Back in '91, I was in my mid-20s and had been in the Highpower game a couple years when an older gentleman showed up at a match - looked to be in his '70s at least. He did not have a rifle of his own, so he picked an M1 off the rack (one of the club guns), looked her over and with a simple "this'll do", he set up in the position next to me. As the match started, he commented to me that it had been many years since he'd fired an M1, and hoped he'd do ok in the match.
Since we were next to each other, we ended up scoring each other's targets. Much to my amazement, the guy posted a high expert score. I was giving him a little crap about his earlier comments and he responded (quite graciously, I might add) "son, you didn't have to learn to shoot like I did". Turned out he was in the Pacific with the Marines during WWII. He told me, "we had to make our shots count and them bastards was shootin' back at us". I was truly humbled that day.
So, it's not the tool, it's knowing how to use it that counts.
Good story and all but who said "it's just young guys?"
John_Wayne777
04-07-10, 06:58
That iron sights can be used with great precision under ideal circumstances has never been an open question. That they can be used with relatively good speed under ideal conditions has similarly never been a point of controversy. The problem is that serious social interactions with rifles do not seem to occur under ideal range conditions terribly often. So while the iron sights may work very well on a nice bright range day with a target courteous enough to stand still and to be colored in such a manner to provide the best possible sight picture, it doesn't necessarily follow that the irons will have the same utility in low light on a moving target who is rude enough to move and shoot back.
Personally I cannot fathom why this issue seems to be so confused. Nobody with any sense that I'm aware of has ever said that iron sights are useless or impossible to use well. Under ideal conditions they can be used with excellent precision and accuracy. The reasons behind the endorsement of RDS by knowledgeable people has everything to do with the dynamic nature of gunfights.
Littlelebowski
04-07-10, 07:25
I think someone had an axe to grind and didn't understand the nature of this site, JW7777.
RogerinTPA
04-07-10, 07:40
I think someone had an axe to grind and didn't understand the nature of this site, JW7777.
Agreed with this and your initial post.
To the OP:
I have never read anything on this site nay saying the use of iron sights. I've used Iron sights since the age of 13, for many years, on various Army teams competitively using match grade .22s, M1As, M16s, to include Camp Perry, with several Infantry Trophy, President's Hundred, and several other matches out to 1000 meters. So I have no illusions about what raw iron sights can do as far as precision is concerned.
Here, it's all about efficiency. Especially when compared to the "average" shooter. Red Dot Sights and powered optics are simply "more" efficient in getting accurate hit's faster in a tactical environment or carbine class, than Irons, for both experienced and novice shooters.
Robb Jensen
04-07-10, 07:56
What I see with a lot of newer AR shooters or shooters without military training is that many can't shoot iron sighted rifles very well at all.
By newer AR shooters I'm meaning shooting ARs for less than 5yrs. Most can shoot scopes and RDSs pretty well but couldn't hit a whiff if shooting for shit with iron sights. 99% of AR shooters with more than a few years of military training can shoot irons pretty damn well.
I think someone had an axe to grind and didn't understand the nature of this site, JW7777.
My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.
The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.
Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.
A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
Littlelebowski
04-07-10, 08:40
My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.
The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.
Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.
A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
I can't argue with much of that. However, more attention needs to be paid to getting off the square range and dynamic gunfighting rather than engaging with the service rifle at 500 and beyond.
My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.
The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.
Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.
A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training it's people and that they need to step it up? What about your experience in the service leads you to this conclusion? What I hear, over and over again, from guys that come back from Iraq and come out to shoot with us is "man, this in the kind of training we needed before we went overseas. that long-range shit they taught us did me no good standing in a mud hut" (or words to that effect).
Personally, I am a non-LE civilian firearms enthusiast with an interest in self-defense application of guns. While I have enjoyed my experiences shooting at distance, other than marksmanship training I find them to be all but useless. Unless I'm preparing for the barfcom fantasy, me shooting someone at 600 yards is not only highly unlikely, but is going to present a big challenge in court IMHO. So I can use long-distance shooting as a way to work on my marksmanship skills, to stress the fundamentals, but beyond that....
And then there's the issue of just how great my marksmanship skills with a carbine need to be at non-LE civilian distances. In my experience with our matches when it comes to the long gun manipulations and confidence with the platform make up for lack of marksmanship skills in almost every case. We just had a "long range" match and several of our shooters that often excel at CQB did horribly simply trying to shoot at egg at 75 yards, or a 4" steel plate at 50 (myself included).
So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever it's being called now) but I'm not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I don't know why I'd want to. ;)
This cuts right through the BS:
What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training it's people and that they need to step it hut" (or words to that effect).
...... (Snip for brevity) .......
So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever it's being called now) but I'm not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I don't know why I'd want to. ;)
Spot on and applies to the military as well.
I have hit my share of targets with a standard M14 at 500 yards with iron sights. That was then & this is now. There is no legit military need to spend the huge amount of training and practice resources required to bring people that level of iron sight skill anymore. Red dots are the way to go for regular grunts . Some swing-out magnifiers ( etc ) for some of the guys can be good -- but wieght is always a consideration.
Almost looks like another troll thread to me.
I can't argue with much of that. However, more attention needs to be paid to getting off the square range and dynamic gunfighting rather than engaging with the service rifle at 500 and beyond.
Sure, I agree with that. It can be done after Basic. Get the fundamentals and the rest is easy.
How would you compare/contrast Army basic marksmanship training with USMC? (serious question, you're one of the few who has done both and I'm curious)
What I see with a lot of newer AR shooters or shooters without military training is that many can't shoot iron sighted rifles very well at all.
By newer AR shooters I'm meaning shooting ARs for less than 5yrs. Most can shoot scopes and RDSs pretty well but couldn't hit a whiff if shooting for shit with iron sights. 99% of AR shooters with more than a few years of military training can shoot irons pretty damn well.
<raises hand> This is probably me. I've only been shooting AR-15 type firearms for 3 years now - and I started on an indoor range with a 9mm. Despite growing up shooting a lot of iron sights on 'adult' airguns and .22s, the ergonomics and the sight picture of the AR-15 did take a little getting used to.
I would guess that lack of trigger time is the reason most non-military new AR owners suck at irons. That, and the absence of any formal or even semi-formal training on the platform.
As far as RDSs and other optics go, new shooters are attracted to them because they make hitting the target easier. Plus, optics are cool. So many times I see a first time AR-15 owner decking out his rifle with some sort of optic before ever firing a shot. Is this worng? No. It's his/her rifle, and he/she can do whatever he/she wants. But i think it illustrates a growing trend among new AR-15 shooters of skipping over basic fundamentals to obtain instant gratification.
What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training it's people and that they need to step it up? What about your experience in the service leads you to this conclusion? What I hear, over and over again, from guys that come back from Iraq and come out to shoot with us is "man, this in the kind of training we needed before we went overseas. that long-range shit they taught us did me no good standing in a mud hut" (or words to that effect).
Personally, I am a non-LE civilian firearms enthusiast with an interest in self-defense application of guns. While I have enjoyed my experiences shooting at distance, other than marksmanship training I find them to be all but useless. Unless I'm preparing for the barfcom fantasy, me shooting someone at 600 yards is not only highly unlikely, but is going to present a big challenge in court IMHO. So I can use long-distance shooting as a way to work on my marksmanship skills, to stress the fundamentals, but beyond that....
And then there's the issue of just how great my marksmanship skills with a carbine need to be at non-LE civilian distances. In my experience with our matches when it comes to the long gun manipulations and confidence with the platform make up for lack of marksmanship skills in almost every case. We just had a "long range" match and several of our shooters that often excel at CQB did horribly simply trying to shoot at egg at 75 yards, or a 4" steel plate at 50 (myself included).
So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever it's being called now) but I'm not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I don't know why I'd want to. ;)
The 0.5k Report would never have happened if Army marksmanship training were adequate. Where is the USMC equivalent report?
I agree with the Major that Basic RM needs serious improvement. The Army certainly realizes this or the SDM 'position' within the squad wouldn't even exist.
====================
7-29. MISSION OF THE SQUAD DESIGNATED MARKSMAN
The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with his squad and performs all the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fires.
The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation.
=====================
I'm a lot like you; HSLD and Precision classes and then competitions. The fundamentals in competition translate perfectly to the classes.
A recent Precision class I attended included an Army E-5 Silver Star back from Afghanistan. His comment was that he wished he had this long range training before going over there.
Based on what you hear, what I hear, and the report ...... both are needed.
In my armchair opinion that's fundamentals in Basic and advanced afterward.
and you never know if a barfcom fantasy may come true :p
.
I actually see nothing wrong with starting a new shooter out on an RDS, and think in many cases it's a good idea. Especially when we're talking about adult shooters.
The majority of people get into shooting first because it's fun, with "defense" as a concept in the back of their mind. Fun is hitting the target, and having an RDS increases the likelihood of new shooters hitting the target. Splitting an atom, or hitting at 600? no. But hitting the target at 25-50 yards using an RDS is just so much simpler to pick up.
If someone is interested in preparing for the post-battery (or post-emp) world they can ALWAYS go back and learn the irons. I hear people say all the time "yeah, but they won't!" In which case I say "**** 'em, they weren't serious about their end-use anyway". ;)
This may or may not differ from the military model. Having never served I'm not qualified to talk about what they do, other than to share anecdotal stories from those who have served. Given my bias it is entirely possible that I only remember the stories that jibe with my opinion. :p
A recent Precision class I attended included an Army E-5 Silver Star back from Afghanistan. His comment was that he wished he had this long range training before going over there.
Well we're just two leg-humpers discussing things, but by all accounts Iraq is different than Afghanistan in many ways, length of engagement being one. I just spoke to a young Marine last week who just got back from the "push" who started his career in Iraq a few years ago and he said this very thing.
However, not to sound overly crass, I don't care what the military does. I want our guys to get the best training, from the best people, and the best tools, but I am not qualified to say what all of that is. It's not for me to say they should learn irons, or optics, or close range, or long range.... and at the end of the day NONE (or at best VERY little) of it applies to me. I prefer to look at what they are doing, figure out if it's applicable to my situation, and throw out what doesn't. I do not face the threats they face, but I also don't have artillery support, air lifts, medics, radios, a "team", UAVs, etc. so in truth I wind up discarding a great deal of it. Interesting, in a passing way, but not applicable.
Who shoots what and how at 500, 600, or even 200, yards is way out of my lane.
Robb Jensen
04-07-10, 10:41
I'm not saying it's bad for new shooters to learn optics I'm just saying what I see.
I see a lot of people who can't shoot irons but can shoot optics.
FWIW people who don't shoot irons on rifles well usually can't shoot iron sighted handguns well either.
When I was growing up I'd occasionally shoot rifles with irons but my primary shooting was with handguns. My dad made me learn this way. It worked. If you can shoot a handgun well with irons then you can shoot a iron sighted rifle well too.
My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600.
No, your gripe is against those against training out to 600 with irons. Using what amounts to the far right side of the bell curve of that particular skillset? It's disingenuous to display a competition team as proof-of-concept of the capability. Of course the competitive guys are going to be able to do that; of course the weapon is capable of that level of performance -- the "DUUUHHHH!" factor is over the top. Service competition guys are often guys that write "professional" articles for the Marine Corps Gazette in which they vehemently insist that the pressure of competition is THE SAME as the stress of combat (I only wish I were making that up).
Suffice to say that they do not represent the capability and attitudes of the rank and file warfighter. A warfighter is a generalist (think MMA), whereas the comp guys are specialists (think boxer) that may or may not come from or go back to warfighting. Tons of examples of airframe machanics and paralegal MOSs on the competitive teams
Don't get me wrong...I'm with you in regard to getting riflemen trained to distance. The current love affair with close-in stuff is fun, makes for some great opportunities for manual-of-arms training, and can do a lot for bolstering confidence in the individual as to how to handle their weapon. Unfortunately, such an evolution, in the military, usually ends up being a trigger-mashing Dump-Ex that is mistaken for being sufficient to translate into skill at dealing with intermediate ranges, irons or optics. Afghanistan is mostly a distance fight of one sort or another, so training to shoot @ distance is pertinent...but to do it with irons when you have other options? Step backwards. Ineffecient. Lunacy.
Warfare isn't competition, it's warfare. In warfare, in the current military idiom, irons are the backups to optics. At the basic level, by all means, teach the fundamentals on irons, and make sure that sustainment training hits on irons. From an effeciency, speed, terrain and lighting conditions standpoint, holding to training with irons out to distance makes no sense unless the intent is to return to irons being the primary method of engagement. That's madness. As they are, at best, a secondary method, thinking of them in a secondary role and ceding to them secondary consideration is apprppriate.
What we NEED to do for our warfighters is train them to the happy medium between Quigley Down Under and the "Death Blossom" button from The Last Starfighter.
I don't know why it's faster to train someone with optics than irons. How hard is it? front aperture inside rear, bang.
Optics = line up clear target and clear aimpoint, bang.
Irons = line up fuzzy rear, clear front, fuzzy target, with focus wanting to pop back and forth until you get and maintain clear sight picture, which takes training, bang.
More variables = takes longer, and not everybody is you. They're them, and may have differing eyesight, depth perception...just for starters.
Could be you're just a ball of fire. :D
A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
I totally disagree. I am for any good marksmanship training but the reality is training time is limited. Training priorities must be made.
The SDM is not an addition to the Squad. Any time spent SDM training is time away from regular Infantry training WITH his Squad/Team. At some point the SDM with specialized weapon and time spent SDM training won't just add capability to the Squad, he is no longer able to perform rifleman duties and the Squad is down one rifleman.
Irons at 600m is not a practical solution based on my combat experience and the availability of optics that are fielded.
There is the problem of PID at 600m. If PID is not a problem then the liberal application of crew served weapon (or indirect) is probably the best solution. The M249 could have very good hit probability at 600m without much additional training.
With limited training time available I would rather have two grunts trained only with an M4/A4 and ACOG to 5-600m than one with a heavy service barreled SDM or M14 who can shoot irons at 600m.
No, your gripe is against those against training out to 600 with irons.
..................
I had to read to twice to be sure and yes you are correct :D To clarify, I'm only talking about iron usage in training to cement fundamentals.
USMC does iron training out to 500. Where is their 0.5k Report?
Even if a trainee only achieves 80% mastery of irons, when he gets on the optic his shooting will be that much better.
He recognizes the advantage of a steady sight picture, smooth trigger pull, proper cheek weld, etc. He may not use it that instant but he understands he has additional options.
Instead we get "the M4 sucks" from Big Army because the 2MOA dot covers the target and they don't understand why they're hitting dirt.
'Death Blossom' .............. that's awesome. Great movie :D
I wonder what stops people from learning the fundamentals with their primary sighting system and learning their backup iron sights after that . As far as the dot covering the target -- the front sight of an M14 , or an , M16 or , an M4 cover the target more.
The way that I hit targets at 500 or a little more was by using reference points : a tree , a rock , a bare patch of ground -- whatever was handy near the actual target .
Some bullseye shooters might recognize the old school "frame hold " that some shooters used at a 1000 . Same principle.
Even if a trainee only achieves 80% mastery of irons, when he gets on the optic his shooting will be that much better.
He recognizes the advantage of a steady sight picture, smooth trigger pull, proper cheek weld, etc. He may not use it that instant but he understands he has additional options.
Keeping it limited to the "trainee" specification, there's no gaping holes in the idea that irons are a damned good start, from the standpoint of establishing and utilizing all of the marksmanship fundamentals. Shooters that are already a good shot with irons pretty much universally transfer that over to their optic...on a square, KD range.
Get them into a dynamic situation, weird positions, unsupported, moving, kicking doors, having creme pies, kangaroos and mariachi bands thrown at them? Only certain fundamentals can be reasonably applied under those circumstances, and the optic helps the bulk of the shooting population reduce variables. And that applies to virtually any range when the goal isn't to hit the gnat's ass, but to suppress/neutralize/kill a target.
OTOH, it's one of the truisms we push when conducting training, that if one is a ganked-up shooter to begin with (on irons), then slapping a 4X RCO on their gun will NOT automatically make them a better shot. It has about equal a chance of increasing the results of their errors by a factor of 4, presuming that that magnification doesn't show them how unstable they are to begin with and give them a reminder to apply fundamentals. It can be a help or a hindrance...
Which brings us back full circle to the Most Holy: Training [/hushed, reverent tone]
The whole thing is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Unlimited potential for an asspot full of "less filling/tastes great" discussions. Fun!
RogerinTPA
04-07-10, 21:15
The 0.5k Report would never have happened if Army marksmanship training were adequate. Where is the USMC equivalent report?
I agree with the Major that Basic RM needs serious improvement. The Army certainly realizes this or the SDM 'position' within the squad wouldn't even exist.
====================
7-29. MISSION OF THE SQUAD DESIGNATED MARKSMAN
The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with his squad and performs all the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fires.
The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation.
=====================
I'm a lot like you; HSLD and Precision classes and then competitions. The fundamentals in competition translate perfectly to the classes.
A recent Precision class I attended included an Army E-5 Silver Star back from Afghanistan. His comment was that he wished he had this long range training before going over there.
Based on what you hear, what I hear, and the report ...... both are needed.
In my armchair opinion that's fundamentals in Basic and advanced afterward.
and you never know if a barfcom fantasy may come true :p
.
Agreed to a point, but as far as marksmanship programs, it's apples and oranges. The type of MOS you hold, the type of job your unit is expected to perform and FUNDING has a lot to do with it. Basic Infantrymen are better shots than clerks. HSLD Infantry (Rangers, Teir1 groups, folks assigned to USAMU) are way better shots than basic infantryman because....the have FUNDING and they have to be MORE efficient across the spectrum of warfare from CQB to long distance Sniping.
The Marine Corps has an extremely long and rich tradition with long range rifle marksmanship and continues that tradition, among others, to a fault (Hence the reluctance to go with M-4s, and they don't look as squared away during D&C/Parade ground purposes without full sized battle rifles).
The Army, which is 3 to 4 times the Corps size, has a similar marksmanship tradition, but morphs back and forth, occasionally forgetting what it's purpose is, due to political expediency, and FUNDING.
Example: When a SOCOM General was the Army's C of S, he instituted many war fighting skills be instituted so every soldier, regardless of MOS, could run a crew Served Weapon, Could do a 4 man CQB entry, could fire and maneuver, call for fire, etc... so we would not have anymore Jessica Lynch episodes, and the Basic Soldier, could be a War Fighter. Today, it is being dismantled do to FUNDING.
Failure2Stop
04-07-10, 22:25
USMC does iron training out to 500. Where is their 0.5k Report?
Why should the USMC write a paper just because some Army dude decides to write one (in which he makes several inaccurate statements about USMC marksmanship training)?
We have a progressive training program that covers known distance shooting from 200 to 500 yards, close range marksmanship from 5 to 50 day and night, long range known distance night shooting, supported unknown distance shooting from 25 to 500 meters, and compressed timeframe engagements with multiple shots per target from 25 to 300 meters.
A report?
Our report is dirt-napping booger eaters with impunity.
Iron sights at long range in a real gunfight?
No thanks.
Semper
Why should the USMC write a paper just because some Army dude decides to write one (in which he makes several inaccurate statements about USMC marksmanship training)?
We have a progressive training program that covers known distance shooting from 200 to 500 yards, close range marksmanship from 5 to 50 day and night, long range known distance night shooting, supported unknown distance shooting from 25 to 500 meters, and compressed timeframe engagements with multiple shots per target from 25 to 300 meters.
A report?
Our report is dirt-napping booger eaters with impunity.
Iron sights at long range in a real gunfight?
No thanks.
Semper
thank you.
as I suspected; the USMC doesn't have the same difficulty putting rounds on target
A report?
Our report is dirt-napping booger eaters with impunity.
Semper
Quote of the month material right there! :D
Example: When a SOCOM General was the Army's C of S, he instituted many war fighting skills be instituted so every soldier, regardless of MOS, could run a crew Served Weapon, Could do a 4 man CQB entry, could fire and maneuver, call for fire, etc... so we would not have anymore Jessica Lynch episodes, and the Basic Soldier, could be a War Fighter. Today, it is being dismantled do to FUNDING.
Interesting comment re: the man in charge.
We shoot at the same facility as the local sheriff's office. Under the old (now a convict) sheriff we NEVER saw them at the range. He was non-sworn (which means he couldn't arrest you) and came from a politics career not an LE career. Under the acting sheriff after his removal and the current sheriff, with a full career of actual law enforcement? We can't get rid of these guys! :p Now every time I go out there for a Tuesday night event they are there training. They're using the shoot-house that I frankly thought was out of commission under the old guy, they're on the range and in the classroom all the time, etc.
No idea about budget issues for them, but having a Sheriff that comes from a law enforcement background vs. one that comes from essentially an admin background.
Link to a previous thread on the SDM/DM topic
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=50731
Link to the .5K write up
http://www.designatedmarksman.com/files/TakingBackInfantryHalfK.pdf
I found the write up to be very forward thinking for the Army. The author is clearly trying to stay on top of current trends and capabilities and apply this knowledge to molding future Army standards.
Why should the USMC write a paper just because some Army dude decides to write one (in which he makes several inaccurate statements about USMC marksmanship training)?
You ain't kidding. I think this guy did his "research" by watching Sands of Iwo Jima after getting E coli from a bad pizza.
The Marine Corps still uses shooting jackets and slings when conducting qualification and engages bullseye targets, not silhouettes.
Wow, really? I mean, really? You SURE about that, Slappy? :rolleyes:
Dude's as bad at fact-checking as Glenn Beck and Dan Rather. Probably thinks the Ribbon Creek incident was last year and that recruits wear chromed helmets, too.
I'm no expert but in my experience iron sights impede me more at distance then they do at 7 yards, when using a carbine length sight radius.
At the 7 yard line I am not that much slower than the RDS shooters on the line (we're talking about well lit outdoor conditions on stationary targets).
At 100 yards prone, using a carbine with BUIS, I can readily get a 4 inch group, and if I slow down and don't run a 100 yard standard, I can do better.
But at 300 yards, a hard front sight focus using the carbine results in the target completely washing out for me, as in I can't see it anymore, and I'll be lucky to get 3/5 torso hits on your typical silhouette target, using an in between or back and forth focus.
So while my ability to use iron sights is good, a lot depends on the type of sight (open vs peep, etc.) and the sight radius available.
So ironically, to me it seems that a RDS is almost crucial on a carbine, even when, or especially when, shooting at distances beyond 200 or 250 yards.
That's not even to mention the superiority of a RDS in low light conditions, moving targets, etc.
I saw in one of the Magpul videos that they use some sort of high contrast white paint on the front sight to see it easier. Might solve most iron sight problems. Not sure what the paint is though.
atlantaguns
04-08-10, 18:57
I saw in one of the Magpul videos that they use some sort of high contrast white paint on the front sight to see it easier. Might solve most iron sight problems. Not sure what the paint is though.
you dont want that. Flat black with no reflection is best and proven over time.
Tomahawk_Ghost
04-08-10, 21:47
I was talking with a friend of my brother-in-law, who works for Xe, about ARs a while back and I asked him what kind of optic he uses. His response was he didn't he used irons. His reason was he had seen every optic out there take a dump at the wrong time. He's 44 years old so he is kind of old school on his equipment.
I can't believe I MISSED this thread.
I can't tell you how many classes I've shown up to an smoked every red dot on the line. The MYTH that the red dot is faster is perpetuated by...
1. Incompetent shooters who can't deploy them efficiently or...
2. Sales pitch instructors like Pat Rogers who have buddies at Aimpoint and get their shit for free and make "unbiased recommendations" to thier lackies so that they feel pressured to buy the stuff.
Red dots have their place. But they're not the mandatory gear that some jokers make them out to be.
I can't believe I MISSED this thread.
I can't tell you how many classes I've shown up to an smoked every red dot on the line. The MYTH that the red dot is faster is perpetuated by...
1. Incompetent shooters who can't deploy them efficiently or...
2. Sales pitch instructors like Pat Rogers who have buddies at Aimpoint and get their shit for free and make "unbiased recommendations" to thier lackies so that they feel pressured to buy the stuff.
Red dots have their place. But they're not the mandatory gear that some jokers make them out to be.
You should stay "on the line" at the 4 hours of mid day or "some jokers" are going to smoke your ass during the other 16 hours downrange:rolleyes:
RetreatHell
04-09-10, 06:18
I can't believe I MISSED this thread.
I can't tell you how many classes I've shown up to an smoked every red dot on the line. The MYTH that the red dot is faster is perpetuated by...
1. Incompetent shooters who can't deploy them efficiently or...
2. Sales pitch instructors like Pat Rogers who have buddies at Aimpoint and get their shit for free and make "unbiased recommendations" to thier lackies so that they feel pressured to buy the stuff.
Red dots have their place. But they're not the mandatory gear that some jokers make them out to be.
Have you shot at human beings with irons while they're shooting back at you at the same time? ****ers do the damnedest things when they're trying not to be killed, things that make it hard to line up iron sights on their chests.
Now, if you have shot at and killed live human beings who were shooting back at you using only irons, and still feel that they are superior to the red dot sight, then I can respect the shit out of that. That would definitely make you a better man than me, and I'd never want to be on the receiving end of your muzzle in a gunfight and would feel sorry for those that find themselves in that position.
It's a LOT harder to make hits when it actually counts under stress with iron sights than with red dot sights. When it comes to fighting against other determined men with a carbine, not shooting paper, red dot sights are superior in every manner. At CQB distances on non- or slow-moving targets, the advantage of the RDS for the purpose of hitting a smelly, bearded muj ****er in the chest is mostly negligible.
Look, I like to shoot irons on occasion. And it feels really good when I shoot a nice group at 100 yards with my folding backup irons, and then see the dude's nasty ass target next to me whose rounds are all over the place and was using a red dot, or even a magnified optic. It makes me crack a smile and think to myself, Self, you are one badass mofo, and the Marine Corps trained you damn well on iron sights.
And it's obvious that you're an experienced shooter, so I don't doubt that you're as good with irons as you make out to be. However, the bottom line is that irons are great on a safe gun range here at home, but they suck balls in combat compared to a parallax free, both eyes open red dot sight that you simply have to place the dot where you want to hit. This is especially true to newer shooters that don't have a ton of experience. It takes a LOT longer to become extremely proficient with iron sights as you are than with a red dot sight. Recreational and Competition shooting are one thing, but when your life and the lives of your brothers-in-arms are on the line in the heat of battle, where you're out of breath and gasping for air from running several hundred yards, sweat pouring down your face, and you've got a dozen+ bad guys moving around at varying distances while shooting at you and your mates, you'll take a red dot over irons. It makes everything easier and is retard-proof. Hell, even a caveman could do it!;)
But what's with all the Pat Rogers hate, man? He used iron sights in combat a long time ago in Vietnam and for a very long time thereafter. Now he uses and advocates red dot sights over irons, just like pretty much every other very respected top-tier instructor out there. He prefers and recommends aimpoints over eotechs, just like the majority of other instructors, although there are some very experienced and well known instructors out there who advocate the eotech over the aimpoint. However the fact remains that they all advocate the RDS over iron sights when it comes to gunfights against bad guy(s), as well as training for those potential engagements.
To call him a "sales pitch instructor" is just plain bullshit and makes it appear that you personally have something against the man. Have you been to one of his classes and trained under him? Is that where you came to that conclusion? He's not going to run and advocate shitty gear to make a buck or get "shit for free." If he did, he would be called on it. And in his line of work, word-of-mouth advertising and your reputation are everything. To risk all that would be asinine.
But that's all just my opinion, and I'm defending a fellow Marine and brother-in-arms who's done quite a bit in service to this country. What can I say, we're all members of the Marine Corps Mafia and will have each other's backs for as long as we live. That's just how it goes.
Take care and Semper Fi,
-Paul
But what's with all the Pat Rogers hate, man?
Pat was mean to him once, on barfcom, in response to mark's own standard rudeness, and mark has been crying in his Wheaties and taken every opportunity to run Pat down ever since.
It's not the only reason I have mark on ignore, but it's one of them. :p
(and if you keep quoting him his posts show up through that ignore, damnit! ;) )
Let's kill the myth that that an Aimpoint with a 4 MOA dot can't deliver decent accuracy with an AR. Molon did the testing:
' Range Report: Precision Shooting with an Aimpoint"
www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34995&highlight=Aimpoint
Mounted on an extremely accurate AR , the 4 MOA dot was not a significant handicap compared to iron sights.
This identifies the second issue concerning red dots vs iron sights:
I'm no expert but in my experience iron sights impede me more at distance then they do at 7 yards, when using a carbine length sight radius.
... (snip for brevity)...
At 100 yards prone, using a carbine with BUIS, I can readily get a 4 inch group, and if I slow down and don't run a 100 yard standard, I can do better.
[ ADDED COMMENT: The following is key to the value of the red dot when the time comes to reach out and touch someone at a distance. ]
But at 300 yards, a hard front sight focus using the carbine results in the target completely washing out for me, as in I can't see it anymore, and I'll be lucky to get 3/5 torso hits on your typical silhouette target, using an in between or back and forth focus.
[ ADDED COMMENT: Back and forth focus is critical to hits at a distance with iron sights .]
...( Sfb)...
So ironically, to me it seems that a RDS is almost crucial on a carbine, even when, or especially when, shooting at distances beyond 200 or 250 yards.
That's not even to mention the superiority of a RDS in low light conditions, moving targets, etc.
Iron sights on rifles , carbines and belt-feds are obsolete for serious military use by US units . It really is that simple.
Out of time.
ETA:
The key to engaging distant targets with iron sights is deep training in rapidly shifting the eye focus from the target ( actually , often , the target reference markers ) to the front sight - and back & forth as needed. Truly deep training -- to the depth required to hold up under stress and hit distant fleeting , obscure targets -- takes a very long time: Years , not weeks or months.
A very well known and respected firearms instructor once said and I paraphrase, "two way gunfights are not sub-MOA". So whether you use irons, magnified optics or red dots, it is not as simple as sitting at a bench and shooting paper bullseye at any distance.
FMJs-of-Freedom
04-09-10, 10:28
I grew up on irons and now am spoiled with T-1's. FMJs-of-Freedom
My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.
The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.
Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.
A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
Can you talk hold-overs and hold-offs with currently issued red dots? That might be useful.
Can you talk hold-overs and hold-offs with currently issued red dots? That might be useful.
I'm a complete tyro concerning red dots. And I've only used a holosight once (didn't like it).
Here is some discussion though concerning precision with an Aimpoint:
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34995
I can't believe I MISSED this thread.
I can't tell you how many classes I've shown up to an smoked every red dot on the line. The MYTH that the red dot is faster is perpetuated by...
1. Incompetent shooters who can't deploy them efficiently or...
2. Sales pitch instructors like Pat Rogers who have buddies at Aimpoint and get their shit for free and make "unbiased recommendations" to thier lackies so that they feel pressured to buy the stuff.
Red dots have their place. But they're not the mandatory gear that some jokers make them out to be.
So, you don't think you'd be faster/more consistent in low light or nighttime conditions, or in unconventional shooting positions with an optic?
You don't think there are some shooters who's proficiency with an optic exceeds your proficiency with irons? If this is the case, why couldn't we then flip the argument around in favor of optics? Individuals falling outside of the bell curve aren't representative of the entire population.
Comparing yourself with some unknowns at a class isn't really useful data.
I keep hearing people extol irons, but most of the examples seem to be from shooting on a square range in relatively ideal lighting conditions. In any case, irons are something that you SHOULD become proficient with.
Also, do you SERIOUSLY think that the two reasons that you mentioned are the only two reasons many advocate the use of an optic when available? I feel like I'm at GlockTalk...
I shot expert on the KD range course every time with a M16A2.
Can irons be shot well? Sure.
Given a choice, no stinkin' way I'd pick irons over a RDS for use on the two way range.
Have you shot at human beings with irons while they're shooting back at you at the same time? ****ers do the damnedest things when they're trying not to be killed, things that make it hard to line up iron sights on their chests.
Take care and Semper Fi,
-Paul
People tend to forget that a range is not a gun fight. I'll take a red dot any day.
S/F
Dozer
Ammo Sphere
04-10-10, 16:31
There is nothing wrong with Iron Sights, they just become a problem when you have poor eye sight or you want to shoot something really far. An Acog would come in handy.
Army is pop-ups out to 300m right? and they only have to knock it down right? (so they don't know where exactly they hit)
USMC is out to 500 and they show groups right?
So with an A2 out on a two-way range, with the target at 400m:
The basically trained Soldier would say:
"That looks farther than 300m ................... I think .................... and its definitely bad guys, but I can't even touch that"
The basically trained Marine would say:
"That looks farther than 300m .................. might be 400m ................ and its definitely bad guys, let's give it a shot."
Am I totally off base?
If I'm even remotely on base here then the only difference is training. The Marine has the confidence, having done it in Basic, to at least take the shot and do so with a reasonable chance of hitting the target.
At worst fire superiority is achieved because the rounds are close, putting the enemy's head down, and at best its a hit putting the enemy out of the fight.
Ive seen Joes shoot at things 7-800m out, has nothing to do with the fact we qual to 300m.
Littlelebowski
04-21-10, 06:58
I think his point is that Marines are at least trained out to 500 and have the confidence to do that. Doesn't take away from what you saw with the Army, N Franklin.
Have you shot at human beings with irons while they're shooting back at you at the same time? ****ers do the damnedest things when they're trying not to be killed, things that make it hard to line up iron sights on their chests.
Now, if you have shot at and killed live human beings who were shooting back at you using only irons, and still feel that they are superior to the red dot sight, then I can respect the shit out of that. That would definitely make you a better man than me, and I'd never want to be on the receiving end of your muzzle in a gunfight and would feel sorry for those that find themselves in that position.
It's a LOT harder to make hits when it actually counts under stress with iron sights than with red dot sights. When it comes to fighting against other determined men with a carbine, not shooting paper, red dot sights are superior in every manner. At CQB distances on non- or slow-moving targets, the advantage of the RDS for the purpose of hitting a smelly, bearded muj ****er in the chest is mostly negligible.
Look, I like to shoot irons on occasion. And it feels really good when I shoot a nice group at 100 yards with my folding backup irons, and then see the dude's nasty ass target next to me whose rounds are all over the place and was using a red dot, or even a magnified optic. It makes me crack a smile and think to myself, Self, you are one badass mofo, and the Marine Corps trained you damn well on iron sights.
And it's obvious that you're an experienced shooter, so I don't doubt that you're as good with irons as you make out to be. However, the bottom line is that irons are great on a safe gun range here at home, but they suck balls in combat compared to a parallax free, both eyes open red dot sight that you simply have to place the dot where you want to hit. This is especially true to newer shooters that don't have a ton of experience. It takes a LOT longer to become extremely proficient with iron sights as you are than with a red dot sight. Recreational and Competition shooting are one thing, but when your life and the lives of your brothers-in-arms are on the line in the heat of battle, where you're out of breath and gasping for air from running several hundred yards, sweat pouring down your face, and you've got a dozen+ bad guys moving around at varying distances while shooting at you and your mates, you'll take a red dot over irons. It makes everything easier and is retard-proof. Hell, even a caveman could do it!;)
But what's with all the Pat Rogers hate, man? He used iron sights in combat a long time ago in Vietnam and for a very long time thereafter. Now he uses and advocates red dot sights over irons, just like pretty much every other very respected top-tier instructor out there. He prefers and recommends aimpoints over eotechs, just like the majority of other instructors, although there are some very experienced and well known instructors out there who advocate the eotech over the aimpoint. However the fact remains that they all advocate the RDS over iron sights when it comes to gunfights against bad guy(s), as well as training for those potential engagements.
To call him a "sales pitch instructor" is just plain bullshit and makes it appear that you personally have something against the man. Have you been to one of his classes and trained under him? Is that where you came to that conclusion? He's not going to run and advocate shitty gear to make a buck or get "shit for free." If he did, he would be called on it. And in his line of work, word-of-mouth advertising and your reputation are everything. To risk all that would be asinine.
But that's all just my opinion, and I'm defending a fellow Marine and brother-in-arms who's done quite a bit in service to this country. What can I say, we're all members of the Marine Corps Mafia and will have each other's backs for as long as we live. That's just how it goes.
Take care and Semper Fi,
-Paul
Agreed.
Years ago we ran optic and iron tests with some troops.
Inside 25m doing things like el Presidente etc static, iron sights won. Add in movement - tgt and/or shooter, weather, low light, and you see CCO's accuracy skyrocket.
There are reasons why the units at the cutting edge of the spear had CCO's a long time before the rest of the military.
Ive seen Joes shoot at things 7-800m out, has nothing to do with the fact we qual to 300m.
This sentence means exactly what it says as typed. "...shoot AT things." I can sit here in Stafford, apply some superelevation to my barrel, and take a shot at the Nat'l Museum of the Marine Corps to my north, but I'm not going to start using a shot that I'd missed as an argumentative point. Because IT MISSED.
Plenty shoot AT things; whether they hit them or provide for "acoustic suppression" is another question, one that relates pretty damned directly to things that include the fact that the Army only quals to 300. It's not limited to it, though.
Marines miss similar shots all the time, too, and it ties pretty damned directly to not enough time spend on unknown distance ranges with whatEVER aiming system they happen to have.
Not limited to one branch or the other, so don't key in on perceived potshots taken at your little gun club. They're merely that; perceived.
RetreatHell
04-21-10, 16:29
Agreed.
Years ago we ran optic and iron tests with some troops.
Inside 25m doing things like el Presidente etc static, iron sights won. Add in movement - tgt and/or shooter, weather, low light, and you see CCO's accuracy skyrocket.
There are reasons why the units at the cutting edge of the spear had CCO's a long time before the rest of the military.
A few months back, me and a buddy of mine were at the range doing some training around dusk, as well as several hours into the dark night to get some good low-light training in. Before the sun went completely down, we decided to have a little contest. My friend was running irons, I was running an Aimpoint T-1 RDS, and we wanted to see who could score their hits on target faster. One of us would run the timer while the other would fire 3 rounds into an 8-inch target zone in the high center chest on the silhouette in front of us. We started at the 5 yard line and would move back 3-5 yards after each of us had fired. We have around the same level of skills with the carbine, with myself being a little better and having more time on the gun, mostly with irons too.
From 5 yards to almost 15 yards, my friend dominated me running his iron sights. Since he kept beating me so damned easily, I insisted that we each fire 3 times at every yard line, just in case this was a fluke... but it wasn't. I tried to increase my rate of fire to compensate for my lack in speed, and wound up throwing a shot or two, I just couldn't keep up. At one point, I forget which range it was at, he beat my time (from the buzzer to the third shot fired) by almost a full second! Except for the one time I shot fast as hell and threw a shot or two, I never once beat him... until we got out to 15 yards that is.
Once we hit the 15 yard line, he couldn't beat me, not once! At 15 yards, I consistently beat his time by roughly .3-.4 seconds. When we got back to the 20 yard line, I beat him by almost a full second each time, except for the one time that he threw a few shots trying to increase his rate of fire to keep up with me... and I wasn't even having to try all that hard either.
At the 25 yard line, I beat his time easily by 1.5 seconds. We (actually "he") decided to stop the competition there.
Not only was I faster out past 15 yards because I didn't have to line anything up or quickly acquire my front sight post and get a good sight picture in general, but because of the rapidly setting sun as we got to the 20-25 yard lines, he had even more trouble simply finding his black front sight. Although we both already knew before we even fired our first shots that my Aimpoint would prevail over his irons, both of us were surprised to see how much he kicked my ass at the closer ranges shooting irons, and how badly I owned him past 15 yards using my T-1 RDS.
It was definitely an even larger eye opener for us both. I'd recommend that anyone here that has any doubts to run the drill/competition that me and my buddy did, or something similar, with a fellow shooter around the same skill level. It'll quickly make you a believer.
Semper Fi,
-Paul
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.