View Full Version : 'Just' irons?
SpookyPistolero
11-20-10, 20:21
Just curious- Does anyone rock just irons on their primary/defensive AR? The more I shoot mine, the more I enjoy the light weight and the easy balance without my aimpoint on top. I suppose picking up a T1 would help, but I can buy my M&P for that much.
D. Christopher
11-20-10, 20:38
Not on my primary, but I do have one carbine that is just irons and I love it. Don't admit you do it around here or you'll get some pretty nasty comments from the dogmatics about you and your RCR or "Reduced Capability Rifle". If you don't conform you are a blasphemer and a charlatan. :D
Just curious- Does anyone rock just irons on their primary/defensive AR? The more I shoot mine, the more I enjoy the light weight and the easy balance without my aimpoint on top. I suppose picking up a T1 would help, but I can buy my M&P for that much.
Not on my primary. A high end reddot like a T1 just gives you too many advantages over irons, primarily speed and a more open field of view. AR irons aren't that great in low light either.
Combat is something that you just don't make compromises with. Adding up all the little incremental advantages in training and equipment can mean all the difference between life and death.
michael word
11-20-10, 23:34
I use a2 sights on my primary rifle. In fact, all of my HD firearms have iron sights. I tried red dot sights and have never felt comfortable with them. My eyes are also not the best so I see more of a blob than a dot. Another reason I went to iron sights is the fact that you do not have to worry about batteries dying or forgetting to remove the lens covers when you half asleep. When used with a good white light, I am able to see the front sight just fine.
My home defence SBR is a BCM 11.5" iron only rifle....;)
ThirdWatcher
11-21-10, 00:08
My H.D. weapon (KISS Carbine) is a Colt AR6520 (stock, except for the BCM FA BCG & CS Buffer Spring).
If you are using a carbine it already has serious inherent range and power limitations. You can make the case that with M193 ammo a 16" barrel is awfully short on power by 175 yards. Irons may give up some real advantages but they also have advantages as you mentioned. The gun is lighter, irons are fairly bombproof, and not slow. Sometimes less can be more; you have to decide. If you have the eyes of the eagle, I envy you. Enjoy it while it lasts.
I shoot a low power compact ACOG because I have the eyes of the bat. There are a lot of things from my youth that I miss but this one was a relatively easy fix. Not cheap--just easy.
I use a2 sights on my primary rifle. In fact, all of my HD firearms have iron sights. I tried red dot sights and have never felt comfortable with them. My eyes are also not the best so I see more of a blob than a dot. Another reason I went to iron sights is the fact that you do not have to worry about batteries dying or forgetting to remove the lens covers when you half asleep. When used with a good white light, I am able to see the front sight just fine.
You see a blob if you focus on the dot and not on your target. A reddot sight like the T1 is not like a regular rifle scope.....the focal point is on the target, not on the optic's crosshairs/dot. Basically you get your cheek weld, and then look down the length of the rifle at your target. That is major advantage of a reddot in that almost all people, when involved in a shooting(extrememly stressful) get selective sight and they only focus on the threat. When you are in this state of mind and stress, it takes a considerable amount of mental effort to line up iron sights on the threat. A reddot takes advantage on the natural tendencies of the body to get tunnel vision in combat stress and focus on the threat. Think of the cheek weld being glued to your face, and the rifle moving everywhere that you look.....the speed and field of view advantage is easily measurable in a carbine class. Even if your cheek weld is off and the irons wouldn't like up properly, the dot remains centered on the target so you can see it from less than idea angles(unlike irons). Very few LE agencies and military use iron only sights anymore if they have the option to use a reddot. As far as battery life goes, a T1 can be left on for a continuous year on the regular daylight setting and still not burnout on you. If the hell has frozen over and the T1 doesn't work for some reason, just flip up your rear sight and you can use your irons right through the optic. Not to mention it works quite well at night(unlike irons), and you can add a 3x magnifier for longer ranged shooting or night vision.
I had irons only for a while, but I think many folks are kidding themselves when they go "irons only", it seems to be the trendy way to say that an Aimpoint is not in your budget yet.
That being said, I value the trigger time with irons and will spend the first range trip with my SBR upon completion with irons only prior to zeroing the H-1.
You see a blob if you focus on the dot and not on your target. .
Those with poor eyesight/astigmatism can also see blobs, figure 8's, stars, ect, even when using the sight correctly. It's hard for those with excellent natural vision to understand this sometimes.
Yeah I've got irons only, but that's only because I never set aside money for an EOTECH since my last Ar-15 got stolen over a deployment. With that said, its my only home defense weapon now since my glock got stolen as well and I'm fairly confident I could probably hip shoot someone in the head in the limited confides of my house.
I shoot a low power compact ACOG because I have the eyes of the bat. There are a lot of things from my youth that I miss but this one was a relatively easy fix. Not cheap--just easy.
I have to say I think any "power" (other that 1X) ACOG is about the worst home defence optic you could have. I have a 2500 square foot house and not one area where ANY magnification would help, in fact could get me in a bad spot real fast. IF I had any type of optic on a HD gun (like I did with my 870 police) it would be eotech or aim point. Again, you dont really need help when the guy is only 5 yards away.....
pilotguyo540
11-21-10, 11:06
I had irons only for a while, but I think many folks are kidding themselves when they go "irons only", it seems to be the trendy way to say that an Aimpoint is not in your budget yet.
That being said, I value the trigger time with irons and will spend the first range trip with my SBR upon completion with irons only prior to zeroing the H-1.
I would agree with this in my case. Every time I go to buy my optic, something big come up. Usually associated with a short tempered red head. I am going to go the TR-24G route.
I run irons only on my primary, and I do not feel inadequate. irons require a skill set I don't want to part with either. I see the value in an aimpoint, but I don't think I am a second rate hack with out one. I am a second rate hack for many other reasons ;) plus, I can draw on a coyote and bust him in the ass plenty quick with in 150 yards. My house isn't that big.
I believe that in learning on a rifle and mastering it in its basic form, irons only, makes a person that much better when adding "accessories" later. While I train with irons quite often and feel I am very proficient with them, a red dot sight makes me that much better. In a defensive situation there is no way that I would not chose a red dot if I had the choice. I will take every advantage that I can get if my life or the lives of my family or others are on the line.
Yes some people with astigmatism or other eye conditions may have a problem with a red dot. Generally more so with an EoTech due to the type of technology. The dot on the Aimpoint is generally a better option for these people.
My standard response:
It's only dark half the day.
Most people shoot in the light half of the day and don't understand how much better an RDS is in the dark. I'm not saying you can't make do with iron sights but they put you at a proven disadvantage vs an RDS.
Another reason I went to iron sights is the fact that you do not have to worry about batteries dying or forgetting to remove the lens covers when you half asleep. When used with a good white light, I am able to see the front sight just fine.
So now you have to rely on a battery powered white light in very dark situations to be able to see your sights. There are times when you should ID your target, move, then engage without using your light.
My astigmatism makes shooting little groups off the bench hard with an RDS, it does not bother me at moderate/short range and at speed.
SpookyPistolero
11-21-10, 15:01
Good points. I'll keep my M2 on until I can afford the H1/T1/whatever.
I have a an Aimpoint H1 on my primary defense carbine, but the one I have shot and enjoyed the most lately is this one:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/sdcromer/AR15/IMG_1238.jpg
Lightweight and more fun than a barrel full of monkeys!!!
EzGoingKev
11-21-10, 17:12
Not another one of these I-am-my-own-hero-because-I-only-shoot-irons threads.
pilotguyo540
11-21-10, 17:18
Not another one of these I-am-my-own-hero-because-I-only-shoot-irons threads.
Allow me to toot my own horn and say, yes, I am super bad ass.:sarcastic: JK. I don't really think that was anyone's intent. If you need lessons, I am sure one of us would be happy to help.
Just curious- Does anyone rock just irons on their primary/defensive AR? The more I shoot mine, the more I enjoy the light weight and the easy balance without my aimpoint on top. I suppose picking up a T1 would help, but I can buy my M&P for that much.
Irons are fine, but remember that they have their downsides as well. If you do not know what they are, take either a low light class or shoot at moving targets (while standing still and on the move).
C4
I like irons, but I see the usefulness of my red-dot. If I had to use my AR for home defense, my max range would be approx 100 yards. I know the various zeroes...to the big tree, to the driveway, from my bedroom to the room down the hall, etc., so I would be comfortable with shooting iron sights in that scenario. Otherwise, since I have never had to use my AR for home defense, and since my primary HD weapon is a dog followed by a pistol, the chance I would have to use my AR for HD is very, very infantismal. So, about the only time I 'play' with my red-dot sight is at the range. But I could go either way.
michael word
11-21-10, 19:43
So now you have to rely on a battery powered white light in very dark situations to be able to see your sights. There are times when you should ID your target, move, then engage without using your light.
If my weapon mounted light should fail, I can just pull out my trusty flashlight. If all else fails, I guess I could just turn on the house lights. In a home defense situation, the intruder is most likely going to run when they know you are there than turn and fight. How many people have had a home invasion with a group of people bent on killing you?
The_Hammer_Man
11-21-10, 19:53
Up until recently I was an "irons or scope only" sort of guy. Irons for anything inside 200 meters and a scope for anything beyond that.
Then I mounted,and used, an H-1 for the first time. Like a lot of people I wear glasses so RDS sights have always been prolemetical for me. Not anymore.
"Put the blobby thing on the target and squeeze!" Improved my time on target and general accuracy during training drills with some of my local LEO friends by a considerable margin. Especially when shooting from cover in some rather weird postures.
It is nearly impossible,for me, to get a clear sight picture using a scope or irons while crawling under a car/truck.
Not only do I run "just irons" on my home D bean. I run irons only on every AR I have... like 5 or six variants.;)
I haven't yet trained under any of the instructors who have made wink wink arrangements to tell the class they NEED to have an aim dot.. even if it means selling a kidney or whoring out his wife, etc. :eek: I won't train with instructors who are paid to shill crap.
I use a2 sights on my primary rifle. In fact, all of my HD firearms have iron sights. I tried red dot sights and have never felt comfortable with them. My eyes are also not the best so I see more of a blob than a dot. Another reason I went to iron sights is the fact that you do not have to worry about batteries dying or forgetting to remove the lens covers when you half asleep. When used with a good white light, I am able to see the front sight just fine.
Another thing to consider is moving from cold to hot or hot to cold. It will make any scope pretty useless untill the temperature stabilizes and the fog goes away.
I sold my H1's and now have a pair of M4's. The smaller MOA in the M4 is much easier on my eyes. My third gun has a TR24G which is even better with my astigmatism than the M4's but it is big and heavy and expensive. My next gun/upper will be an A1 or A2. Leaning towards an A1 with M4 feed ramps.
My standard response:
It's only dark half the day.
If it was reasonable to expect I'd be using a particular rifle during the day, it would be irons without doubt.
Most of my rifles wear a micro aimpoint and a weaponlight since I don't.
Paul Howe is a big fan of iron sights.
My first 15 or so years of shooting M16fow was done with nothing but irons.
Having said that, I won't willingly go back to irons only.
The RDS, offers to much, with little drawbacks. While many talk about how well they shoot their irons, its almost always on teh flat range.
Try shooting your irons only at night, at dusk, with a pro mask on, from awkward positions, around over cover/barricades/obstacles, on the move, with armor, w/o armor,.......
If you know for a fact, every shot you fire, will be with your sight verticle and your nose to the charging handle, well go for it. Oh but it doesnt really matter, cause the bad guys gonna run away, got it.
Learn your irons first is BS. Learn trigger manipulation first, and the rest will fall into place.
MarkM,
I see you make reference like this all the time. It would appear you are talking about Larry Vickers and Pat Rogers. I know both of them, and one of them calls me "friend", I can assure you, not that you'd listen, that their integrity is in place, especially since they both post under real names, and not some internet screen name.
Why don't you just name names, and stop beating around the bush?
Or train with them, and find out first hand what they say, before you talk shit about them.
Or how about this? The United States Army issues, what is it now, 1 million Aimpoints, do they lack integrity, are shills for crap, or just fell for the shills crap?
Bob
I think the advantages of using a red dot or reflex sight far outweigh the disadvantages of not having one for whatever reason. A red dot is unarguably easier and faster to pick up and get on target than irons are, especially under stress and when time is crucial.
Stress, anxiety, fear, panic, adrenaline, etc. all retard your reaction time and how efficiently you can perform even a simple task. In a situation where life and death are at hand, simplicity is key to efficiency.
In any case, for a fighting carbine that's not using a fixed or variable power optic, I firmly believe fixed front and back irons with a lower third co-witnessing mount and RDS are mandatory.
Why argue about running one over the other when you can use either instantaneously and enjoy the benefits that each offers?
Red dots and other optics can be fast. They can also cause problems with people with astigmatism. Irons can be slow. Shooting at night can be a problem. There are solutions for that. Tritium works. Flashlights are good for both sighting systems.
Both sighting systems work if you train and maximize them.
Oh yea,
If you bring your weapon up, and your RDS is off, battery is dead, cover is still on, etc. its your own damn fault.
Why would you turn an aimpoint off? not change batteries or leave covers on in a duty type gun?
Thats like advocating using a club, instead of a carbine, because it might not be loaded.
Bob
A RDS is an awesome advantage.
Learning to use iron sights first is not BS it is practical and I would argue necessary. Just like the fire direction guys need to know how to do their job with out their computers and we all need to know how to use and carry a compass in case the GPS shits the bed or the trees are too thick to get a clear signal.
I have several corded phones in my house because the cordless will not work when the power goes out. They are also cheaper, easy to use and more reliable.
I would hope the same Army issuing a million Aimpoints teaches soldiers to use their irons first. It sounds like the folks choosing to use irons only are making informed decisions. RDS, GPS, cell phones and computers are great but we did just fine with out them and some people choose not to use them.
Not only do I run "just irons" on my home D bean. I run irons only on every AR I have... like 5 or six variants.;)
I haven't yet trained under any of the instructors who have made wink wink arrangements to tell the class they NEED to have an aim dot.. even if it means selling a kidney or whoring out his wife, etc. :eek: I won't train with instructors who are paid to shill crap.
The first official use of Red Dot type sights by the US military was on the Son Tay raid. When preparing for the raid they discovered how much quiker and better hits the sights allowed them to better, faster hits under combat situations, including low light, moving targets, shooting while moving, etc.
These types of sights were subsequently adopted by the most elite military units in the country for the same reasons, and the Army as a whole has since bought hundreds of thousands of them.
I have many longarms that I don't have these sights on--like AKs, an M1 Carbine, my shotguns, etc. These are not my frontline defense guns and I find them more fun to shoot in a clean, original configuration and work with open sights.
If you don't personally like these sights, that's fine.
If you want to keep your gun slick, that's fine as well.
But don't try to pretend that these sights don't represent an enormous force multiplier for home defense or a two-way range.
I never said to not learn to use iron sights, only that learning them first is BS.
I have yet to see a single advantage to learning to shoot with iron sights first.
Shooting accurately is all about manipulating the trigger with out disturbing sight alignment/picture. What kind of sights they are has nothing to do with it.
Not having to worry about the visual gymnastics of iron sights allows the student to concentrate on proper trigger manipulation, after you have that down, the rest is cake.
It sounds more like people choosing irons are making more assumptions and bad TTP's then informed decisions.
Yea we did fine w/o a lot of stuff, we also got on line and shot at each other with muzzle loaders, I don't see anyone advocating that anymore though. Some of you guys need to take a look at the calendar.
Bob
ThirdWatcher
11-22-10, 00:56
I've read some pretty valid points here. I'm thinking I've got another RDS in my future.
I also agree with Bob about attention to detail as it pertains to your weaponry.
1* ;)
I did the whole "Grass Roots Badass" thing a few years ago when I built my M4 with an A2 upper and put Trijicon sights in it. The whole "master irons" and "nothing to fail" mentality is a crock when your going against people with optics. For me, the realization happened on a one-way range in the form of a "tactical" rifle match where I was beaten in speed and accuracy by guys running optics. (Mind you, I didn't finish last and actually beat some of the guys running optics) But if that were instead a two-way range, they're alive, I'm dead. By all means, you need to learn to use the irons. But once you know how they work, move on. Scopes and Dots have limitations too, and they won't solve all your problems, but they beat irons every time. (Shooters being equal).
Not only do I run "just irons" on my home D bean. I run irons only on every AR I have... like 5 or six variants.;)
I haven't yet trained under any of the instructors who have made wink wink arrangements to tell the class they NEED to have an aim dot.. even if it means selling a kidney or whoring out his wife, etc. :eek: I won't train with instructors who are paid to shill crap.
Vickers advises everyone to have a RDS and you are basically a MORON for not having one (on a fighting weapon).
Oh and no, he is not paid in any way by Aimpoint, EOTech or Trijicon.
C4
Yes some people with astigmatism or other eye conditions may have a problem with a red dot. Generally more so with an EoTech due to the type of technology. The dot on the Aimpoint is generally a better option for these people.
Interesting. I have an astigmatism and find the exact opposite to be true.
I never said to not learn to use iron sights, only that learning them first is BS.
I have yet to see a single advantage to learning to shoot with iron sights first.
Shooting accurately is all about manipulating the trigger with out disturbing sight alignment/picture. What kind of sights they are has nothing to do with it.
Not having to worry about the visual gymnastics of iron sights allows the student to concentrate on proper trigger manipulation, after you have that down, the rest is cake.
God I'm glad to see someone else say this.
(not to mention everything, and I do mean everything, else you've said in this thread)
"just irons" is something that is very fresh in my mind right now. one week ago today I was starting TD1 of a three-day Randy Cain Carbine 1 course which I took with all iron sights for an article in SWAT magazine (so excuse me if I don't entirely scoop myself :sarcastic:). I can say without question that the iron sights not only made it harder for me to get hits at distance, but also slowed me down significantly, and even more so in the dark. I had to concentrate much harder on the fundamentals in order to get my hits at 200 yards, and even then I had more of a pattern than a group.
Combat is something that you just don't make compromises with. Adding up all the little incremental advantages in training and equipment can mean all the difference between life and death.
How many of us here are actually taking our rifles to combat????
Probably 5% or less, so with that in mind....get an Aimpoint. Especially a home defense rifle. Can you see the irons in the dark????
Obvious advantage with a red dot optic. Go with the micro H-1 or T-1and you will not be disappointed. Cost about $600, but worth every penny for close-ups.
Yes some people with astigmatism or other eye conditions may have a problem with a red dot. Generally more so with an EoTech due to the type of technology. The dot on the Aimpoint is generally a better option for these people.
I have a mild astigmatism only about 10 degrees, and I have actually find the reverse of this to be the case. I have both EOTechs and Aimpoints, and I have found the smaller 1MOA EOTech dot blooms much less than the 2 or 4 MOA Aimpoint dots. I can shoot the EOtech more precisely at distance due to the smaller dot, and faster at close range due to the circle than the Aimpoint T1 with or without glasses/contacts.
Cameron
RogerinTPA
11-22-10, 09:57
RDSs are a requirement for me and as many have stated, have way more advantages to personal survival than the Irons ever can. Having said that, it is still prudent to be proficient with the Irons in case your RDS goes tits up, for any reason. Irons only for any serious social purposes? Hell no.
I never said to not learn to use iron sights, only that learning them first is BS.
I have yet to see a single advantage to learning to shoot with iron sights first.
Shooting accurately is all about manipulating the trigger with out disturbing sight alignment/picture. What kind of sights they are has nothing to do with it.
Not having to worry about the visual gymnastics of iron sights allows the student to concentrate on proper trigger manipulation, after you have that down, the rest is cake.
Bob
Wrong....you forgot position and biomechanic involvment in excellent marksmanship. Everyone should learn with irons and the analog way of doing things and work up. A red dot is a snap to a trained marksman. Yeah...go shoot that silhouette at 50M. I'm sorry but that is a joke to someone that is an expert marksman. Speed is lost, but much is gained that you are over-looking.
Dry-firing, establishment of NPOA and trigger control is essential to be a great marksman. The only way to acquire this is through dry-firing and iron sight shooting. NPOA becomes a reflex and cannot be taught well using red dots.
So, I whole-heartedly disagree with folks either too ignorant or lazy to learn fundamental marksmanship skills. I can pick up any rifle on earth and shoot it well. Why???? Because I learned the fundamentals of marksmanship and that did not involve optics. I can take a person well trained in analog and get them shooting accurately with an Aimpoint/ACOG in minutes, not so the other way around. They understand the fundamentals.
Shooting irons also allows one to appreciate dope more precisely. Irons can be used effectively out to 6-800M. Don't BS b/c I routinely shoot 1000 YD with an M14 and well at that. Red dots are too inaccurate unless you are closer than 200M.
Learn to shoot the irons and then move on. Otherwise, when your optics fail you will be a liablility to those depending on you, either the family you are trying to defend or your cadre around you.
The issue is that learning the fundamentals of marksmanship is labor intensive. You have to dry-fire to learn trigger control and establish a natural point of aim. Consistent cheek-weld is also necesaary. These fundamentals are not possible to work out with a red dot b/c the red dot is not precise enough to allow target feedback to what one is doing incorrectly.
I never could get myself to a carbine class b/c I found it ridiculous to shoot 1500 rounds at targets 50M away. I won't miss unless I experience a failure or am concussed. I can learn mag changes, gear placement, and failure drills on my own. Don't need to destroy a rifle to do it and doubt I will ever be able to survive an engagement where I shoot that many rounds. All these tactical to practical folks thinking they are going to survive with a 2 man team against an assault in which they dump through 8 mags. Yeah right. The guy you don't see b/c it is impossible to maintain 360 degree security with 2 men is the one that puts you down.
Just some things to think about. I am sure all the dogmatists will try and poke through my arguements. I could care less, b/c I proved them to be correct for myself.
Wrong....you forgot position and biomechanic involvment in excellent marksmanship. Everyone should learn with irons and the analog way of doing things and work up. A red dot is a snap to a trained marksman. Yeah...go shoot that silhouette at 50M. I'm sorry but that is a joke to someone that is an expert marksman. Speed is lost, but much is gained that you are over-looking.
Dry-firing, establishment of NPOA and trigger control is essential to be a great marksman. The only way to acquire this is through dry-firing and iron sight shooting. NPOA becomes a reflex and cannot be taught well using red dots.
So, I whole-heartedly disagree with folks either too ignorant or lazy to learn fundamental marksmanship skills. I can pick up any rifle on earth and shoot it well. Why???? Because I learned the fundamentals of marksmanship and that did not involve optics. I can take a person well trained in analog and get them shooting accurately with an Aimpoint/ACOG in minutes, not so the other way around. They understand the fundamentals.
Shooting irons also allows one to appreciate dope more precisely. Irons can be used effectively out to 6-800M. Don't BS b/c I routinely shoot 1000 YD with an M14 and well at that. Red dots are too inaccurate unless you are closer than 200M.
Learn to shoot the irons and then move on. Otherwise, when your optics fail you will be a liablility to those depending on you, either the family you are trying to defend or your cadre around you.
The issue is that learning the fundamentals of marksmanship is labor intensive. You have to dry-fire to learn trigger control and establish a natural point of aim. Consistent cheek-weld is also necesaary. These fundamentals are not possible to work out with a red dot b/c the red dot is not precise enough to allow target feedback to what one is doing incorrectly.
I never could get myself to a carbine class b/c I found it ridiculous to shoot 1500 rounds at targets 50M away. I won't miss unless I experience a failure or am concussed. I can learn mag changes, gear placement, and failure drills on my own. Don't need to destroy a rifle to do it and doubt I will ever be able to survive an engagement where I shoot that many rounds. All these tactical to practical folks thinking they are going to survive with a 2 man team against an assault in which they dump through 8 mags. Yeah right. The guy you don't see b/c it is impossible to maintain 360 degree security with 2 men is the one that puts you down.
Just some things to think about. I am sure all the dogmatists will try and poke through my arguements. I could care less, b/c I proved them to be correct for myself.
your avatar betrays your bias. too bad you couldn't be bothered to get to a class, so you could speak from a position of experience instead of one of ignorance.
you haven't proved anything, other than you'd prefer to jam your fingers in your ears, scrunch your eyes up tight, and holler "nananananananana" whenever an opinion you disagree with comes along.
I find it ironic that you're talking about civilian use of firearms in the same post as shooting to 800+ yards with irons sights, and poo-pooing CQB-distance skills.
I never said to not learn to use iron sights, only that learning them first is BS.
I have yet to see a single advantage to learning to shoot with iron sights first.
Shooting accurately is all about manipulating the trigger with out disturbing sight alignment/picture. What kind of sights they are has nothing to do with it.
Not having to worry about the visual gymnastics of iron sights allows the student to concentrate on proper trigger manipulation, after you have that down, the rest is cake.
It sounds more like people choosing irons are making more assumptions and bad TTP's then informed decisions.
Yea we did fine w/o a lot of stuff, we also got on line and shot at each other with muzzle loaders, I don't see anyone advocating that anymore though. Some of you guys need to take a look at the calendar.
Bob
Bob,
I have an eight year old and I've struggled trying to teach him sight alignment and sight picture with the peep sights on his little Savage .22. I have access to a S&W 15-22 and I think putting my M4 on the gun will help him. The RDS or scope gives a new shooter confidence and the ability to concentrate on other fundamentals. I still want him to know how to use his sights but you bring up a good point. I want to avoid the idea that his sights are not important. When he is old enough to drive I want to teach him how to drive a standard too, that may prove difficult. I also believe having confidence in your irons helps when your optics are not available for what ever reason. My serious guns all have optics. I want a gun with irons only for fun and nostalgia.
I first came to a RDS about 12 years ago. I was in a class by a guy named "Jim Crews" and he had some sort of RDS on his gun. Back when battery life was in the 10s or 100s of hours.
I was shooting irons and I also wear glasses. Well, at the time I wore glasses, I have since had IntraLASE Lasik correction. In this class I was shooting pretty well from standing or kneeling positions but from prone positions I was shooting about 12" or 15" low on average (I don't remember the exact amount).
Mr Crews wanted to find out what my problem was and watched me shoot. He handed me his rifle, with RDS, and from the prone position I had no problems at all. We figured out that in the prone position, I was looking through my glasses at an angle instead of straight through and the light was being bent enough to make me aim 12-15" off when dealing with a 2 position (front and rear) iron sight. The single red dot of his RDS did not have this problem. I believe it was a sort of parallax.
So I went out and got myself a Trijicon reflex sight (no batteries etc). That worked well enough for me until I learned about Aimpoint and CompM2/ML2, and that the battery life had been improved significantly at which point I traded up.
I find it ironic that you're talking about civilian use of firearms in the same post as shooting to 800+ yards with irons sights, and poo-pooing CQB-distance skills.
I figured that's how the yellow hat guy would respond. You always did make fun of my avatar. Your issue is you only look to find fault with anyone's position when it differs from yours instead of finding any commonality.
A rifleman that finds error in learning to shoot analog is just not a competent rifleman. The CQB stuff is OK, boring in about 5 minutes to someone that can handle a rifle. Folks take it way too far as being the only skill necessary. You need both and the long-range shooting is much more difficult to master and requires thought. You have to know dope and environmental factors. Not so with just shooting hundreds of rounds downrange at a 50M target. What bozo can't hit a target at 50M with a red dot??? You still aren't a marksman b/c you won't be able to hit crap at 500M.
I just think rationally about what threats I actually may face. Someone or 2-3 people breaking in my house or a mugger on the street. I'm covered. The rest is a death sentence. All these carbine class fools either need to join a militia in Montana or join the military. Without support you would not last but a few minutes in combat. It's the guy you don't see that kills you easily. How can you maintain security with 2 people???? You would have to disengage and maneuver to find concealment/cover or die quickly. The scenerios presented are just ridiculous to anyone with a basic knowledge of small unit tactics. The pretense it that you have a unit to depend on in the first place. You need at least to be able to form a wheel/360 degree defensive screen.
I figured that's how the yellow hat guy would respond. You always did make fun of my avatar. Your issue is you only look to find fault with anyone's position when it differs from yours instead of finding any commonality.
I didn't make fun of it, I pointed out that you're a wooden-gun guy, with a wooden-gun mentality. Is that not true?
A rifleman that finds error in learning to shoot analog is just not a competent rifleman. The CQB stuff is OK, boring in about 5 minutes to someone that can handle a rifle. Folks take it way too far as being the only skill necessary. You need both and the long-range shooting is much more difficult to master and requires thought. You have to know dope and environmental factors. Not so with just shooting hundreds of rounds downrange at a 50M target. What bozo can't hit a target at 50M with a red dot??? You still aren't a marksman b/c you won't be able to hit crap at 500M.
I'd love for you to come out with all your skills and test yourself. I personally think you won't, not because you disagree with the concept but because you're afraid all of your bravado won't translate to results.
I also don't see where anyone has said anything about only skills, not further learning distance shooting, etc. What Bob was talking about was initial approach out of the gate, and I happen to agree with him. Your insistence on learning irons first is as outdated as your guns (to "make fun" of your avatar again).
I just think rationally about what threats I actually may face. Someone or 2-3 people breaking in my house or a mugger on the street. I'm covered. The rest is a death sentence. All these carbine class fools either need to join a militia in Montana or join the military. Without support you would not last but a few minutes in combat. It's the guy you don't see that kills you easily. How can you maintain security with 2 people???? You would have to disengage and maneuver to find concealment/cover or die quickly. The scenerios presented are just ridiculous to anyone with a basic knowledge of small unit tactics. The pretense it that you have a unit to depend on in the first place. You need at least to be able to form a wheel/360 degree defensive screen.
So which is it? You're engaging at close range, in which case CQB skills are the necessary tools, or you're engaging at distance and accepting your "death sentence"? and what does one who believes the fight, and the legally defendable fight, will take place close range have to do with a military or a militia?
At this point I don't think you can even cohesively make your own argument as I frankly can't follow your posts or your "logic". What is it that you think you're preparing for by only testing yourself at long range and ignoring the close range? Or is it just your assumption that you'll pick right up on speed loads, tac loads, hold over, shooting on the move, use of cover and concealment, firing from unconventional positions, assessing the intended final resting place of your projectiles vs. what flat paper has taught you is the aiming point, on a moving target, in the dark.... and all with iron sights?
In regards to the OP, I think a RDS is the most important upgrade to any gun intended for home defense right behind a flashlight. Without a flashlight you can't identify your target so you can't shoot, and if you've identified a threat you will want to have effective rounds flying to meet them as quickly as possible which is where a RDS shines.
I think it's silly to neglect a sighting system that is extremely effective at night on a HD rifle. It's also easy to show how much faster a RDS is compared to irons on the same gun. The only real obstacle is the entry price.
I have a mild astigmatism only about 10 degrees, and I have actually find the reverse of this to be the case. I have both EOTechs and Aimpoints, and I have found the smaller 1MOA EOTech dot blooms much less than the 2 or 4 MOA Aimpoint dots. I can shoot the EOtech more precisely at distance due to the smaller dot, and faster at close range due to the circle than the Aimpoint T1 with or without glasses/contacts.
Cameron
I have a friend with an astigmatism and his problem is with EOTechs. I think the upshot is that if you have an astigmatism, try a RDS before you buy it!
I never could get myself to a carbine class b/c I found it ridiculous to shoot 1500 rounds at targets 50M away.
out of curiosity, which is it?
I have been to two carbine classes with the rifle and she still shoots my 64 gr PP self-defense handloads at 1 MOA or better.
I just think rationally about what threats I actually may face. Someone or 2-3 people breaking in my house or a mugger on the street. I'm covered
Simo Häyhä? Is that you?.. You lost me on the above statement. You are defending a distance w/ irons skillset, spatting on carbine classes, but admit your realistic and rational threats are CQB distances...What is the probability that you will be posted up in a tree pinging targets at that distance? Train for whats practical right?
Wrong....you forgot position and biomechanic involvment in excellent marksmanship. Everyone should learn with irons and the analog way of doing things and work up. A red dot is a snap to a trained marksman. Yeah...go shoot that silhouette at 50M. I'm sorry but that is a joke to someone that is an expert marksman. Speed is lost, but much is gained that you are over-looking.
WRONG!! see I can play that game also. I never said I forgot any of that, did I? Only that once you master trigger manipulation, the rest is cake. I've been taught and shown, by Expert marksman, does the AMU count in your book? That you can do all the other fundamentals of marksmanship perfectly, but if your jerk/snatch the trigger, you miss, conversely, you can screw up the rest to some degree, but if you properly manipulate the trigger you hit.
Dry-firing, establishment of NPOA and trigger control is essential to be a great marksman. The only way to acquire this is through dry-firing and iron sight shooting. NPOA becomes a reflex and cannot be taught well using red dots.
That's ridiculous, how does what kind of sight you have affect dry firing? As far as natural point of aim, try getting that when your running thru a timed tactical proficiency exercise, wearing body armor a helmet, pro mask, & shooting around and over cover/barricades. Good luck with your NPOA:laugh:
So, I whole-heartedly disagree with folks either too ignorant or lazy to learn fundamental marksmanship skills. I can pick up any rifle on earth and shoot it well. Why???? Because I learned the fundamentals of marksmanship and that did not involve optics. I can take a person well trained in analog and get them shooting accurately with an Aimpoint/ACOG in minutes, not so the other way around. They understand the fundamentals.
My experience has been different. I disagree with people to ignorant or lazy to get off their ass, outta the prone, and shoot a carbine in a manner that replicates the reality of real world modern combat, not some Walter Mitty fantasy they've created that vindicates their training regimen.
Shooting irons also allows one to appreciate dope more precisely. Irons can be used effectively out to 6-800M. Don't BS b/c I routinely shoot 1000 YD with an M14 and well at that. Red dots are too inaccurate unless you are closer than 200M.
Again that silly. Depending on your RDS of choice, your dot will be 1,2, or 4 MOA, that's smaller then your average front sight on a combat rifle/carbine
Learn to shoot the irons and then move on. Otherwise, when your optics fail you will be a liablility to those depending on you, either the family you are trying to defend or your cadre around you.
Learn to press the trigger properly, otherwise you wont hit anything. Once you've done that, learning irons is easy. There's nothing magical about irons sights, other then fat old bald guys learned on them, so everyone should.
When you cant see your irons, because your in the roll over prone, or on your tip toes shooting thru the only available port in your cover, & taking forever to make a shot, what kinda liability are you?
The issue is that learning the fundamentals of marksmanship is labor intensive. You have to dry-fire to learn trigger control and establish a natural point of aim. Consistent cheek-weld is also necesaary. These fundamentals are not possible to work out with a red dot b/c the red dot is not precise enough to allow target feedback to what one is doing incorrectly.
See my above comments, that's just not the case. Understand why RDS were evaluated and adopted, and where they excel. Or just look at a calendar.
I never could get myself to a carbine class b/c I found it ridiculous to shoot 1500 rounds at targets 50M away. I won't miss unless I experience a failure or am concussed. I can learn mag changes, gear placement, and failure drills on my own. Don't need to destroy a rifle to do it and doubt I will ever be able to survive an engagement where I shoot that many rounds. All these tactical to practical folks thinking they are going to survive with a 2 man team against an assault in which they dump through 8 mags. Yeah right. The guy you don't see b/c it is impossible to maintain 360 degree security with 2 men is the one that puts you down.
Of course you haven't gone to a class, why should your immense ego take the hit, when you can sit back and pontificate about how great, smart and hard working you are! If you haven't been you don't know.
Its not about marksmanship, its about fighting with a gun. Albeit, shooting with guys like LAV, marksmanship is a huge part of it.
If 1500 rounds destroys a rifle, your making bad rifle choices.
You can work out mag changes and other skills on your own? Good for you, others prefer to learn from recognized subject matter experts, who tried a lot of different way's, have seen them succeed or fail in combat for real, not just some living room/flat range fantasy world.
Not sure what classes your talking about, with the two man tactics, bit, but most simply try to expose you to team type tactics, working as a team, and operating under pressure.
But, for some of us, 2 may be all we have, and we have no choice but to go thru the door.
Just some things to think about. I am sure all the dogmatists will try and poke through my arguements. I could care less, b/c I proved them to be correct for myself.
What did Rob say about sticking your fingers in your ears?
Answers in red.
Bob,
I have an eight year old and I've struggled trying to teach him sight alignment and sight picture with the peep sights on his little Savage .22. I have access to a S&W 15-22 and I think putting my M4 on the gun will help him. The RDS or scope gives a new shooter confidence and the ability to concentrate on other fundamentals. I still want him to know how to use his sights but you bring up a good point. I want to avoid the idea that his sights are not important. When he is old enough to drive I want to teach him how to drive a standard too, that may prove difficult. I also believe having confidence in your irons helps when your optics are not available for what ever reason. My serious guns all have optics. I want a gun with irons only for fun and nostalgia.
vet,
When I was with my old girlfriend, I would take her son to the range as often as I could. Great kid, miss him.
What I did first, was give him a Ruger MK Govt model w/ a heavy barrel and Tasco propoint. I put it on a sand bag, lined up some soda cans, and let him have at it. Once he got it out of his system, and was hooked. I told him, if he really wanted to learn to shoot, I would teach him, but it wont be fun, and it'll be work. He was in to martial arts at the time and working towards his blackbelt, so he understood.
I got him a marlin youth single shot .22, with another cheap RDS on it, so he didn't have worry about getting a good cheekweld on a still to long stock, s trying to line up three things, what to focus on, blah blah blah, he would loose interest fast.
Again I put it on the sand bag, and had him shoot at the cans, teaching him to press the trigger properly. Pretty soon he moved to dots on paper, when he saw ME shoot little groups, I told him, when he can do that, I'll get him a new gun, the seed was planted and we were on our way.
Unfortunately, me and his mom "broke up", so it all went to waste.
The plan was always to move up to various other fundamentals, once he could make little groups from a sandbag. Once he understood all that, teaching him to line up sights would be easy.
Bob
Answers in red.
NPOA becomes a reflex with practice. You don't need to think about it, your subconscious mind just does it. That's what training and dry-firing is for. So your reflex response is the correct one. You have to train your body to align the sights correctly. You don't have time to think it through when rounds are flying.
Good luck with that 2 man thing.
I figured that's how the yellow hat guy would respond. You always did make fun of my avatar. Your issue is you only look to find fault with anyone's position when it differs from yours instead of finding any commonality.
I find it ironic you make that comment, from the high horse you've perched yourself on.
A rifleman that finds error in learning to shoot analog is just not a competent rifleman.
See what I said about the high horse
The CQB stuff is OK, boring in about 5 minutes to someone that can handle a rifle. Folks take it way too far as being the only skill necessary. You need both and the long-range shooting is much more difficult to master and requires thought. You have to know dope and environmental factors. Not so with just shooting hundreds of rounds downrange at a 50M target. What bozo can't hit a target at 50M with a red dot??? You still aren't a marksman b/c you won't be able to hit crap at 500M.
I don't know where you get this stuff. Its about fighting, and ingraining manipulation skills, so they will be second nature in a fight. Range has nothing to do with it. What bozo cant hit a target on the move, in armor, helmet, pro mask, after scaling a fence, pulling a dummy, scaling a wall? And yes, that is part of my job, not my fantasy world.
I just think rationally about what threats I actually may face. Someone or 2-3 people breaking in my house or a mugger on the street. I'm covered. The rest is a death sentence. All these carbine class fools either need to join a militia in Montana or join the military. Without support you would not last but a few minutes in combat. It's the guy you don't see that kills you easily. How can you maintain security with 2 people???? You would have to disengage and maneuver to find concealment/cover or die quickly. The scenerios presented are just ridiculous to anyone with a basic knowledge of small unit tactics. The pretense it that you have a unit to depend on in the first place. You need at least to be able to form a wheel/360 degree defensive screen.
So, whats with all the insults, fools? bozo's? You get your feeling hurt at the 50mtr line once?
I think about my most likely scenario also, its way more then 2-3 people, or a mugger, and they'll be better trained and armed then MS13, that's for sure.
If you haven't been to a course, how do you know what the scenario presented is?
Where did you learn your basic knowledge of small unit tactics? you don't need a wheel to get 360 degrees.
Somewhere around here is a thread by a young marine, who's now paralysed, and still attending training. The thread is along the line of how his official/dogmatic training, mostly in long rang shooting skills, with iron sights, failed him in combat. Perhaps that would be a good read for you.
Bob
NPOA becomes a reflex with practice. You don't need to think about it, your subconscious mind just does it. That's what training and dry-firing is for. So your reflex response is the correct one. You have to train your body to align the sights correctly. You don't have time to think it through when rounds are flying.
Good luck with that 2 man thing.
That's BS, period. It may work when you have all the time in the world, on a flat range, with impossibly blue skies and wispy white clouds.
Try it when your cold, wet and tired, having just humped a 100 pound load for a few klicks, wearing armor, and a heaving chest, and johnny jihad pops up and starts popping rounds at you.
Unless your telling me, you are so hard working, because I'm lazy, right? that when you go to the range, you practice NPOA under every possible condition you might find yourself?
Why don't you stick to yellow glasses, & battlerifles.com
Yea NPOA can and is important under certain circumstances. I never said it wasn't. I only said, you do not need to learn to shoot iron sights first, to be a proficient marksman. After you master trigger manipulation, everything else is cake.
What you are advocating, is taking a young shooter, and throwing him to the wolves.
So now he's laying there in the prone, trying to remember every little nuance that you told him is of paramount importance. Gritting his teeth, try to maintain his steady position, NPOA, breathing, grip, focus on front sight, but make sure you line it up in the rear, back to front, center of mass on target, back to front, steady position....and snatch!!! he'll miss
Remove all that, teach him trigger skills, then slowly add in all the other fundamentals.
Bob
Bob
jasonhgross
11-22-10, 11:47
To the poster who has 5 or 6 rifles all with irons only: Maybe next time consider your mission priorities, or work on developing them a little further. You may find that instead of 5 or 6 rifles that two rifles with red dots might be more effective. I expect you can only use on at a time anyway. That and a backup are all you really "need." I suspect you will still have money left over for ammo and training.
You need at least 4 to get 360 security. One person cannot watch 180 degrees and catch movement.
I learned small unit tactics from FM 7-8 Infantry Platoon and Squad. Also through intensive studies of Soviet small unit engagments during WWII, mainly Stalingrad, Poznan, Breslau, and Berlin, and studying the Vietnam conflict. Haven't gotten into Iraq or Afghanistan history yet as not much has been written. Korean Conflict was mainly a large scale conventional war. Not much to learn there except Cold War politics, which are very interesting in their own right.
That's BS, period. It may work when you have all the time in the world, on a flat range, with impossibly blue skies and wispy white clouds.
Try it when your cold, wet and tired, having just humped a 100 pound load for a few klicks, wearing armor, and a heaving chest, and johnny jihad pops up and starts popping rounds at you.
Unless your telling me, you are so hard working, because I'm lazy, right? that when you go to the range, you practice NPOA under every possible condition you might find yourself?
Why don't you stick to yellow glasses, & battlerifles.com
Yea NPOA can and is important under certain circumstances. I never said it wasn't. I only said, you do not need to learn to shoot iron sights first, to be a proficient marksman. After you master trigger manipulation, everything else is cake.
What you are advocating, is taking a young shooter, and throwing him to the wolves.
So now he's laying there in the prone, trying to remember every little nuance that you told him is of paramount importance. Gritting his teeth, try to maintain his steady position, NPOA, breathing, grip, focus on front sight, but make sure you line it up in the rear, back to front, center of mass on target, back to front, steady position....and snatch!!! he'll miss
Remove all that, teach him trigger skills, then slowly add in all the other fundamentals.
Bob
Bob
I don't think about any of that while I am shooting. It is all reflex and only took me a few years to master. if you train right...you don't need to think, but you must be trained properly. You can't train a marksman with a red dot. How will you learn sight alignment with a parallax free dot???? You will never get any feedback about head position and cheek-weld. You will also never get a consistent sight picture b/c of the 2-4 MOA dot. Learn the fundamentals and then move on. What other occupation/sport does not teach the fundamentals before moving on to more complex topics???? I can think of none.
You obviously know a lot more about tacti-cool stuff and I'll call it that unless it is your profession. If you are military than step up, if not then step off.
I get all the need for the CQB stuff if I were going to combat, but I am not. I am defending my home, family, and person. I am not going to attack anyone. I read about this stuff out of curiousity. I have read more than 3k books concerning conflict. After that many you start to pick up on unit tactics and can even begin to devise one's for yourself with the fundamentals of security and movement in mind.
vet,
When I was with my old girlfriend, I would take her son to the range as often as I could. Great kid, miss him.
What I did first, was give him a Ruger MK Govt model w/ a heavy barrel and Tasco propoint. I put it on a sand bag, lined up some soda cans, and let him have at it. Once he got it out of his system, and was hooked. I told him, if he really wanted to learn to shoot, I would teach him, but it wont be fun, and it'll be work. He was in to martial arts at the time and working towards his blackbelt, so he understood.
I got him a marlin youth single shot .22, with another cheap RDS on it, so he didn't have worry about getting a good cheekweld on a still to long stock, s trying to line up three things, what to focus on, blah blah blah, he would loose interest fast.
Again I put it on the sand bag, and had him shoot at the cans, teaching him to press the trigger properly. Pretty soon he moved to dots on paper, when he saw ME shoot little groups, I told him, when he can do that, I'll get him a new gun, the seed was planted and we were on our way.
Unfortunately, me and his mom "broke up", so it all went to waste.
The plan was always to move up to various other fundamentals, once he could make little groups from a sandbag. Once he understood all that, teaching him to line up sights would be easy.
Bob
Bob,
Great idea. The M4 is a little on the heavy side but with a good rest he should be good to go. With the little ones you need to catch them early and keep their intrest. The first time I had him shoot the .22 he complained about the recoil. He was only three. :laugh:
Here is a link to a post by USMC03. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=4209 I thought it was a sticky. I had a tough time finding it. I think USMC03 brings up some of the points shared by the irons only crowd here in this post. Below is USMC03's info:
"By self defense, I'm going to guess that the place you are most likely to use an AR15 is in defense of your home.
For a home defense carbine I would suggest a simple carbine with iron sights and a white light. This is not the "coolest" answer, but it is probably one of the most practical.
Most guys don't deal with violent criminals on a daily basis and often times on the internet posts like this often generate more responses that are based on "theory" rather than responses that closely follow circumstances that a armed civilian is likely to find himself in.
That being said, I see a lot of threads like this, and most of the responses are based on theory and best case scenerios. Any fighter (boxer, soldier, cop, civilian defending themselves) should always train for the worst case scenerio, not the best case. As the saying goes, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
If as an armed civilian you are unlucky enough to be the intended victim of a violent crime, you are most likely going to be involved in a defensive or reactive fight, not an offensive fight. The criminal, much like an animal of prey will pick the intended victim, the date, the time, and the place for the attack.
As a victim of a violent crime, you will almost always find yourself dealing with the situation on the criminals terms. You will be reacting to his actions. As is proof in the OODA loop, actions are always quicker than reactions.
If a criminal kicks in your front door to committ a home invasion robbery, he isn't going to sit in the front living room like a prom date and wait for you (the victim) to turn on your optic, put on your multi-cam plate carrier, and get ready for the fight. He is there it dominate you and to control you and to get what he wants (steal something of monitary value, take a human life, exact revenge, etc) In most cases you are barely going to have enough time to roll out of bed and grab your gun (much less turn on an optic, mess with a sling, insert a mag and chamber a round, etc) before the bad guy is in the same room as you. Crimes like this happen VERY quickly."
Bob,
Great idea. The M4 is a little on the heavy side but with a good rest he should be good to go. With the little ones you need to catch them early and keep their intrest. The first time I had him shoot the .22 he complained about the recoil. He was only three. :laugh:
Sounds like an excuse to buy a S&W M&P15-22:laugh:
Good luck.
Bob
Beat Trash
11-22-10, 12:22
I've read 3 pages of this topic so far. Wow...
Some good thoughts so far. And I think some may need to stop for a minute and take a deep cleansing breath!
I think one must learn the basic principles of marksmanship first. Sight alignment is just one of those basic principles. What type of sight is being aligned? I don't think the world will end if a red dot optic is used at first. It eases the learning curve as it's simpler. It allows the student to concentrate on trigger control, breath control, ect.
I do strongly believe an individual should learn how to proficiently use iron sights at some point.
To the OP,
Just curious- Does anyone rock just irons on their primary/defensive AR? The more I shoot mine, the more I enjoy the light weight and the easy balance without my aimpoint on top. I suppose picking up a T1 would help, but I can buy my M&P for that much.
I've used just irons for a long time. Still do with my agencies guns (only because there is no option to add optics to department owned weapons). I no longer do so for my personally owned guns.
I am very proficient and effective shooting my AR in a defensive/home protection senerio. But I am much more effective when using a RDO such as the Aimpoint T-1. There are 3 pages of reasons why a RDO is a benefit for self defense.
I can not think of any senerio within CONUS where as a LEO or a civilian protecting my self that I would need to take a 600-800 yd shot at an individual. Kinda tough for me to ID an individual as a threat at that distance.
Are RDO's expensive? Hell yes they are! About 1/2 the cost of a decent AR. If the gun was only for plinking and playing, then I might have a hard time justifying the cost. But for a gun I plan on using for defense of my self and my family, the added advantage is worth the cost to me.
Bottom line for me is simple. I own a bone stock Colt 6920 that forced to, I could effective use to to protect myself. I also own a Colt 6920 that has a light and a Aimpoint T-1 on it. I can use this gun more effectively than the first to protect myself.
I have run through my agencies low light "shoot house" with both guns. The results were very "enlightening" to say the least!
When I consider the probability that any incident I would become involved in would occur in low light, under 50 yds and be dynamic adn fast paced, then it's easier for me to justify the cost of a red dot optic. My life's worth trading one less gun in the safe for the funds for a RDO.
Thank you!!!
Common sense is not really all that common in these threads.
I have an Aimpoint on my home defense rifle, but I learned how to shoot the thing analog.
I did not think that I would be popping 800M in Atlanta, GA. Just that it can be done with irons, but not with a red dot. Irons are more precise and dope can be established for certain conditions. That's were a log comes in. Take notes of how your rifle performs in different circumstances.
A rifleman is competent in alll scenarios, not limiting himself to one area. Learn them all and be confident.
Sounds like an excuse to buy a S&W M&P15-22:laugh:
Good luck.
Bob
I meant the M4 Aim Point. Yes I want a S&W 15-22, our PD has one and I can check it out for shooting on the cheap. It is a great little gun and the adjustible stock is a huge plus for kids.
You need at least 4 to get 360 security. One person cannot watch 180 degrees and catch movement.
I learned small unit tactics from FM 7-8 Infantry Platoon and Squad. Also through intensive studies of Soviet small unit engagments during WWII, mainly Stalingrad, Poznan, Breslau, and Berlin, and studying the Vietnam conflict. Haven't gotten into Iraq or Afghanistan history yet as not much has been written. Korean Conflict was mainly a large scale conventional war. Not much to learn there except Cold War politics, which are very interesting in their own right.
Did you just read 7-8? or apply it?
I learned small unit tactics in 12 years as an 11Bravo with the 82nd Airborne and 25th Infantry Divisions. Applying 7-8 in every terrain, Desert, Mountain, Jungle, MOUT. I also have more then a few friends, coworkers and acquaintances that have taught and attended Ranger School, the premier small unit tactics and leadership school in the world.( I failed the swim test 5 times:( ) Everything we did was straight out of the Ranger handbook. IIRC the 7-8 has been superseded.
Add to that, a attending a Federal agency's Special Response Team course, am a current member of a SRT, I've also attended the SWAT course of one of the most active and proficient swat teams in the country. Along with a sundry of other training courses.
The Preferred method was a triangle, three elements provided 360 security.
Bob
Thank you!!!
Common sense is not really all that common in these threads.
I have an Aimpoint on my home defense rifle, but I learned how to shoot the thing analog.
I did not think that I would be popping 800M in Atlanta, GA. Just that it can be done with irons, but not with a red dot. Irons are more precise and dope can be established for certain conditions. That's were a log comes in. Take notes of how your rifle performs in different circumstances.
A rifleman is competent in alll scenarios, not limiting himself to one area. Learn them all and be confident.
you're contradicting yourself again.
are we engaging for defensive purposes at close range (let's call it under 50, since you seem fixated on that from the classes you took... or didn't take... which is it again?) or at distance? If defensive use of firearms is the goal, what's the point about meeting your definition of being a rifleman?
I don't think about any of that while I am shooting. It is all reflex and only took me a few years to master. if you train right...you don't need to think, but you must be trained properly. You can't train a marksman with a red dot. How will you learn sight alignment with a parallax free dot???? You will never get any feedback about head position and cheek-weld. You will also never get a consistent sight picture b/c of the 2-4 MOA dot. Learn the fundamentals and then move on. What other occupation/sport does not teach the fundamentals before moving on to more complex topics???? I can think of none.
You need to, because you have obviously never done it. I once had to shoot from an elevated position in a sorta box, that could best be described as roll over kneeling. Good luck w/NPOA
Where did I say not to learn the fundamentals, only which ones need to be learned first, and are most important, and the realities of using a carbine under real world stress.
You obviously know a lot more about tacti-cool stuff and I'll call it that unless it is your profession. If you are military than step up, if not then step off.
Tacti-cool!!! God how I wish that word would be stricken from our language. IT is my profession. I did step up, thank you very much. But, shooting is shooting, once the gun is up, its the same thing. Putting as many round as accurately and quickly as possible into the bad guy. Good luck finding your proper cheek weld and NPOA, when johnny jihad is pointing an AK at you from bad breath distance.
I get all the need for the CQB stuff if I were going to combat, but I am not. I am defending my home, family, and person. I am not going to attack anyone. I read about this stuff out of curiousity. I have read more than 3k books concerning conflict. After that many you start to pick up on unit tactics and can even begin to devise one's for yourself with the fundamentals of security and movement in mind.
So, all of this is from reading!! Have you ever been a grunt? Cop? anything?
Answers in green,
ETA: You really need to find that thread by the Wounded Warrior
Bob
Nice. You have a pdf of the Ranger Handbook. I would like a copy to peruse.
Is the triangle element part of a larger defensive foramtion, say at the platoon level????? Who's watching the back trail???? I just cannot wrap my head aorund how one intends to survive in a combat situation with 3 people. In Vietnam most LRP teams had at least 6-12 individuals. One person is strictly relegated to the comms and someone has to watch the back trail.
I would be most interested in learning about these more novel tactics before I begin to read history concerning novel conflicts.
I'm not sure where small units came into this, at all...
Anyhow...
Here is a link to a post by USMC03. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=4209 I thought it was a sticky. I had a tough time finding it. I think USMC03 brings up some of the points shared by the irons only crowd here in this post. Below is USMC03's info:
"By self defense, I'm going to guess that the place you are most likely to use an AR15 is in defense of your home.
For a home defense carbine I would suggest a simple carbine with iron sights and a white light. This is not the "coolest" answer, but it is probably one of the most practical.
USMC03 then goes on to list different optics and his experiences on them, indicating that he had already been using Aimpoints for years at the time of the post on his rifles. I'm not sure how you can say irons are what's practical for HD, then say on your HD gun you use a RDS--I thought they weren't practical? I think irons are practical for HD the same way a shotgun is--they are much less expensive while maintaining the most important aspect of a HD gun, reliability. If you can't afford a RDS I'm certainly not going to tell you to go without a gun in your home, though.
The whole thing about being prepared when things go bump in the night is a nonstarter of an argument, IMO. I keep my Aimpoints turned on and the irons up if they fold on any HD gun when applicable. If I pick up my gun and the battery in my Aimpoint has died, I'm at the same place I'd be without one. Next to the AR-15 by my bed I have a solo magazine laying there ready to be inserted in the gun and a bandoleer style 3 magazine pouch made by US Grunt Gear. If I only have time to pick up the magazine and shove it in and run the charging handle then so be it. If I have time to get the bandoleer on and gun's sling over my head, even better.
I definitely agree with the part of USMC03's post about not having all the time in the world. I think at the most I'd consider a battle belt for home defense, but those still take a good bit of time to get on.
Never been a soldier or seen any combat. I would always defer to those that did. That's why I asked. Probably could have toned it down some, but anytime you make a point that is different from the dogma someone wants to jump all over you. No biggie as I learn from the discussion.
I get the history bug from a D-day veteran, 27 yr US Army CSM grandad and a Vietnam War 2 tour father. I would've loved to serve, but they wanted me to go to school and hence I am now a molecular virologist/Professor of Pediatric Infectious Diseases. Been a firearms enthusiast/history buff for most of my life.
And you????? What are your creds?????
I use my shoty as my primary go to weapon in the house anyway. No need to rack, just place off safe and squeeze. I assume being awaken in the night I am not going to be 100% mentally fit anyway. I need the spread to make my hits count. My home defense rifle is in the closet with the Aimpoint on and a magazine in the rifle. Rack, take off safe, and roll. That shouldn't take too long if my alarm gives me any warning.
anytime you make a point that is different from the dogma someone wants to jump all over you. No biggie as I learn from the discussion.
and any time someone has a position they can't defend they want to brush off the counter argument as "dogma". ;)
It's easy to accuse the other side of "dogma" and "group think" and holler at them "but you're not a soldier" when logic and reason, and experience to draw on, fail you.
The topic of this thread, regardless of small unit tactics (theory or reality) is "just irons". Ultimately what we have is very few who would advocate for the use of iron sights only on a carbine intended for fighting, especially when better, and faster, options are available. Is the optic as necessary as the light? No. Is it still an invaluable tool and a force multiplier in the right hands? I believe it absolutely is.
The topic of which to train on first came up, and things got derailed, but the core topic at hand is one that all but the most intentionally anachronistic (often to their own detriment) agree on. Even the majority who are running irons-only at the moment concede that they are either doing so out of a desire to learn the basic carbine or due to budgetary constraints.
I have read more than 3k books concerning conflict. After that many you start to pick up on unit tactics and can even begin to devise one's for yourself with the fundamentals of security and movement in mind.
I have over 24 years of doing this, after that long you start to pick up on things, and realize anything you "think up", has already been thought of, and succeded or failed. Trust me, you don't have any special insight on this.
Bob
Nice. You have a pdf of the Ranger Handbook. I would like a copy to peruse.
Is the triangle element part of a larger defensive foramtion, say at the platoon level????? Who's watching the back trail???? I just cannot wrap my head aorund how one intends to survive in a combat situation with 3 people. In Vietnam most LRP teams had at least 6-12 individuals. One person is strictly relegated to the comms and someone has to watch the back trail.
I would be most interested in learning about these more novel tactics before I begin to read history concerning novel conflicts.
What is it you said......"Step Up" well raise your hand a few times and they'll give you your very own Ranger handbook. But, you don't need it, you've read of 3K books on the subject.
Never been a soldier or seen any combat. I would always defer to those that did. That's why I asked. Probably could have toned it down some, but anytime you make a point that is different from the dogma someone wants to jump all over you. No biggie as I learn from the discussion.
I get the history bug from a D-day veteran, 27 yr US Army CSM grandad and a Vietnam War 2 tour father. I would've loved to serve, but they wanted me to go to school and hence I am now a molecular virologist/Professor of Pediatric Infectious Diseases. Been a firearms enthusiast/history buff for most of my life.
And you????? What are your creds?????
I use my shoty as my primary go to weapon in the house anyway. No need to rack, just place off safe and squeeze. I assume being awaken in the night I am not going to be 100% mentally fit anyway. I need the spread to make my hits count. My home defense rifle is in the closet with the Aimpoint on and a magazine in the rifle. Rack, take off safe, and roll. That shouldn't take too long if my alarm gives me any warning.
I don't see it as dogma when I have proven to myself that a RDS is significantly faster going through a course than using just iron sights. I'm talking entire seconds. Is it realistic that I will have 5+ home intruders? No. Does making a shot 0.2 seconds faster matter? Hell yes it could.
I think where you're differing from other peoples' opinions is your use of a rifle. You are clearly (from posts in this thread anyhow) focused on accuracy and precision. Losing 1/2 or 1 MOA going to a red dot doesn't matter one whit to me, if I even lose that much accuracy. If I want to make a longer distance shot, I can always just flip up my irons--or use my Recce type rifle that has a 1-4x Burris on it.
I'd mention something about shotgun patterns inside a house, but there are already enough side arguments in this thread :laugh:
Anyhow, the rifles I have ONLY irons on are essentially range toys. They will make serviceable combat guns in a pinch, but it'd be a pretty bad pinch if I'm resorting to using one of them, as I haven't done much drilling with them and don't have much range time on any.
These things go off topic because someone always makes a ridiculous or just plain incorrect comment. Allowing it to go unanswered, only perpetuates it.
-years ago, I taught Jumpmaster school, nomenclature was immensely important. If a student asked a question and used wrong nomenclature, I was to correct it, if I didn't, I was no better, and was made to pay for it.-
No one said iron sight's are not viable or usable. Obviously, we have been using them for a long time, same as muzzleloaders, clubs, swords, etc. When something better came along, we moved on.
Red Dot sights offer a lot of advantages, with few drawbacks, less and less as the sights get better and better. Most of the drawbacks can be mitigated by good TTP's and PCI's.
I've trained with USMC03, so I wont poo-poo his thread. But, his main point is time to get into action,not accuracy, being a true marksman, reliability, etc.
With an aimpoint T/H1 you have a battery life in the 10's of thousands, why turn it "off" aimpoints are never really off.
If your rifle is intended for immediate use,why have lens covers on them? Why would you not change batteries long before you need to?Why have the mag out of the gun? etc. etc. If you go for your gun, and the sight is dead, covers are on, or its turned off, that's your fault. If you can't trust yourself to ensure your optic is in good working order, how do you trust yourself to ensure your carbine is in good working order?
If you can't afford a good optic, oh well, make do with the irons.
If you have an eyesight issue, oh well, make do with the irons.
But don't sit here and pretend that optics of any kind are useless, tacti-cool, crap from shills, unreliable, etc.
And certainly, don't insinuate that if you use an Aimpoint you are not a "real marksman", whatever that is.
As Pat Rogers says, we need to get over the romance of aligning iron sights, and get on with the business of killing our adversaries.
Bob
What is it you said......"Step Up" well raise your hand a few times and they'll give you your very own Ranger handbook. But, you don't need it, you've read of 3K books on the subject.
It's actually more than 3k. Not only on the subject of small unit tactics, but you pick it up after that many. They obviously evolve over time as things are learned and weapons evlove as well. Ever read Chuikov's memoires about the seige of Stalingrad??? Probably not....doesn't apply to the present, right. He was the first to effectively employ storm group tactics in built up areas using modern weaponry. It's a great read. Mostly defensive, but also used in counterattack.
I got a copy from soemone here already. Thanks though.
Mr. Moran, when you state that learning iron sights first is total BS, it comes across as, "why bother to learn iron sights?"
It doesn't jive with your claim that you never said one shouldn't learn the fundamentals of shooting iron sights.
I do not make the claim you are deliberately misleading or any other such nonsense. Merely to give feedback as to how your choice of words are coming across to me
:lol:
Your killin me. No I didn't have time to read obscure books on military history, I was to busy diggin a fighting position and actually executing small unit tactics.
Are you really trying to say reading over 3K books on the subject, is the equivalent or superior, to actually doing it??
:suicide:
And I wont need a NPOA for that.
Bob
Mr. Moran, when you state that learning iron sights first is total BS, it comes across as, "why bother to learn iron sights?"
It doesn't jive with your claim that you never said one shouldn't learn the fundamentals of shooting iron sights.
I do not make the claim you are deliberately misleading or any other such nonsense. Merely to give feedback as to how your choice of words are coming across to me
No need for mister....
I've clarified my point, and I believe we've discussed this before.
As you can see, many believe that it is necessary to learn to use iron sights FIRST I disagree. You can learn to shoot proficiently with any kind of sight.
Should you know how to use iron sights, absolutely. Do you need to know that, before anything else, or an optic, absolutely not.
Bob
:lol:
Your killin me. No I didn't have time to read obscure books on military history, I was to busy diggin a fighting position and actually executing small unit tactics.
Are you really trying to say reading over 3K books on the subject, is the equivalent or superior, to actually doing it??
:suicide:
And I wont need a NPOA for that.
Bob
No....only relaying where my information/experience was coming from. I appreciate your service.
Mr. Moran, when you state that learning iron sights first is total BS, it comes across as, "why bother to learn iron sights?"
It doesn't jive with your claim that you never said one shouldn't learn the fundamentals of shooting iron sights.
I do not make the claim you are deliberately misleading or any other such nonsense. Merely to give feedback as to how your choice of words are coming across to me
I don't see how you, or anyone else, can say this.
I never said to not learn to use iron sights, only that learning them first is BS.
I have yet to see a single advantage to learning to shoot with iron sights first.
Shooting accurately is all about manipulating the trigger with out disturbing sight alignment/picture. What kind of sights they are has nothing to do with it.
Not having to worry about the visual gymnastics of iron sights allows the student to concentrate on proper trigger manipulation, after you have that down, the rest is cake.
It sounds more like people choosing irons are making more assumptions and bad TTP's then informed decisions.
Yea we did fine w/o a lot of stuff, we also got on line and shot at each other with muzzle loaders, I don't see anyone advocating that anymore though. Some of you guys need to take a look at the calendar.
Bob
The topic of this thread, regardless of small unit tactics (theory or reality) is "just irons". Ultimately what we have is very few who would advocate for the use of iron sights only on a carbine intended for fighting, especially when better, and faster, options are available. Is the optic as necessary as the light? No. Is it still an invaluable tool and a force multiplier in the right hands? I believe it absolutely is.
The topic of which to train on first came up, and things got derailed, but the core topic at hand is one that all but the most intentionally anachronistic (often to their own detriment) agree on. Even the majority who are running irons-only at the moment concede that they are either doing so out of a desire to learn the basic carbine or due to budgetary constraints.
Here it is, distilled to it's essence. My HD rifles are all iron sighted because it's either impractical to mount an optic sight or because I cannot yet afford one. As confident as I am in the use of iron sights, I hope to have a dedicated HD carbine with an optic or RDS
No need for mister....
I've clarified my point, and I believe we've discussed this before.
As you can see, many believe that it is necessary to learn to use iron sights FIRST I disagree. You can learn to shoot proficiently with any kind of sight.
Should you know how to use iron sights, absolutely. Do you need to know that, before anything else, or an optic, absolutely not.
Bob
We have. I've come to understand your position. Though I don't agree completely, that discussion helped me realize there are more points where I agree with you than I first realized. It also brought forth important points for me to ponder
coyote hunter
11-22-10, 15:48
First off, settle people :sarcastic:
On hammonje's first post (mainly the first few sentences) I agreed with him. Then I kept reading.
I have to say that learning irons is mandatory from all shooters, not that is hast to be first, but it sure as hell should be done before you even get off the bench.
I teach Archery, Rifle, and Shotgun merit badge at a Boy Scout camp, and I can't tell you the amount of times I have a father son combo come up telling us instructors how good of a shot their son is. Not that being proud is bad, but that’s getting off topic. Usually the first question I ask is, “on what rifle and what kind of sights?” The answer is usually some bolt action .22 of some random make topped with a 3-9 power scope. Then I see the scout at the bench with the camp 22s we provide, getting less than satisfactory groupings. I see the father standing a few feet away wondering where he went wrong.
I have seen many cases like this where a few sessions of one on one coaching resolve the matter and the skills they already know begin to show.
Where learning irons FIRST is not always the best route, the skill should be mastered before the shooter leaves the bench.
From what I understand the best HD setup would be a light, red dot or other similar sight with BUIS, with the BUIS as a fall back if something goes south with your optic. My idea is, if your backup is a skill you haven’t mastered, why is it your backup? (Not that any of you have said DON'T bother with irons. it's just my idea)
So my main point is red dots are fantastic tools, but irons (and all other fundamentals) should be mastered before you bother with any sort of defensive weapon.
Where you guys picked up group tactics on this topic I'll never know :laugh:
Lots of craziness over something that is so basic.
I'm proficient with both my irons and my Aimpoint. Does it matter which one I learned first?
SpookyPistolero
11-22-10, 16:27
Is there any reason that I would need a T1 over an H1, if I don't use NVDs?
NCPatrolAR
11-22-10, 16:51
Is there any reason that I would need a T1 over an H1, if I don't use NVDs?
Nope.
Is there any reason that I would need a T1 over an H1, if I don't use NVDs?
Unless you go diving with your rifle, no.
Hammonje,
No need for appreciation, my service was long ago. The studs over there right now, deserve alot more praise!
Mistwolf,
No worries!
Coyote Hunter,
Thanks I always appreciate when relatively new members tell us all how to act:sarcastic:
What bench?
I ask this, and it may be considered off topic, but I consider it a central theme to most of these types of discussions.
I came to this board, long ago, because its central premise was the serious use of the M4 carbine, unlike other web forums, that allow silly BS type posts and info, this one was to be kept on the straight and narrow.
While everyone is welcome, it was not meant primarily for High Power shooter, plinkers, gun owner(as opposed to shooters), and Call to duty warriors.
I'm not sure what arcahic standards and TTP's the boy scouts teach, nor do I care.
It is easy to stand back, and claim we must spend more time teaching the fundamentals, iron sights, position shooting, etc etc etc.
The reality is, when you are prepping young men and women to serve as Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen & Coastguardsmen, or LEO's, there is a finite amount of training resources available.
It isn't all about shooting, its also about moving and communicating. Its also about any number of occupation specific skills. Land mines, Land Nav, communications, IFF, PT, recoup time, first aid, etc etc, then there is the ever present touchy feely mandatory type briefs.
LEO's have to learn law, statutes, Use of force options, driving, etc etc.
You'd be surprised at the stuff I have to know at my current job. Try rad con dress out and decon.
as it stands now, it takes me 4 days to qual on every weapon system we deploy, and a few other tactical skills.
I think you see what I'm getting at.
Whatever gets me or my fellow operators trained to an acceptable level of performance, for the most likely scenarios, is going to allow me to move on to other necessary training.
Do I wish we had more time to truly master shooting skills? Land Nav w/ &w/o GPS/compass? PT? everything else? Sure I do, but as they say, there's the world as we wish it was, and the world as it is, guess which one we live in?
I'm sure Hammon will be happy to know, I learned to shoot in HS, with an Anshutz supermatch rifle, shooting smallbore 3 position competition.
When I got to basic, I figured I was set. Unfortunately, most of those skills go out the window, when you are straddling 2 pieces of rebar, in a deep upturned section of sewer pipe, being used as a fighting position, leaning over ragged out and 1/2 empty sandbags, trying to find the 300mtr target covered by overgrown grass.
Also consider the myriad of other situations I've alluded to in my previous posts. The only thing that might remain remotely consistent, is your grip on the gun and hopefully your trigger press, get that right, and your home free.
Sorry for the rant, but it helps to understand where most of us are coming from.
Bob
coyote hunter
11-22-10, 17:51
No worries, I was just trying to throw my "knowledge" into the mix.
I don't see how you, or anyone else, can say this.
Rob & Bob
That might be my fault. I thought Bob was saying learning irons was BS. I understand now he was saying you need to learn them but you do not need to learn them first. I agree with him. Having to teach my son was enlightening.
I think we all need to think about where people are coming from. For a long time I was convinced rails, vertical fore grips, lasers and optics were all toys. I bought my first rail for an A2 carbine because I wanted to mount a light.
I was taught to shoot a certain way and I brought that perspective and those prejudices along with me. Part of it was a cocky Boot Marine attitude. I belived all the hype. I shot expert with my M16 A2 and I had open sights a sling and training to explain it. Part of that attitude is a good thing. I was completely confident in my ability to fight with my weapon. I lived with it and felt naked w/o it. This is my rifle there are many like it but this one is mine.... all that good stuff.
If I grew up learning about weapons from my WWII Vet Dad and a Vietnam Vet I would I am sure have certain likes and dislikes because of it.
All of my long guns are locked in my safe and their switches are off. When I take them to work they are turned on and left on.
I have two Glock pistols to deal with bumps in the night at home. I have three small kids so I lock up most of my guns .
SpookyPistolero
11-22-10, 17:56
Crud, no more underwater IDPA I guess. :)
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 18:11
Revolver guys know the answer to this question. You learn to use irons before you get an AR. You learn to use irons about the same time you learn to ride a bicycle. Sad to say, I think small children learning to shoot is a thing of the past for the most part.
SWATcop556
11-22-10, 18:25
Everyone is getting wound a little tight here. Deeps breaths and maybe cold adult beverages are needed.
The bottom line is you must do what works for you. For 95-99% of the shooters out there, they would be selling themselves short to not run an RDS. Irons only are fine but a RDS is a force multiplier.
FWIW Bob's creds are sound and he speaks from experience. Studying a subject and doing it are two completely different things. Otherwise everyone that owns a Magpul DVD is combat ready with an AR, pistol, and shotgun while utilizing a helicopter.
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 18:42
For perspective, I was at a free public range some weeks ago and two fellows couldn't hit a 26 inch square at 7 yards with a Glock with irons.:sad:
Bob
Looks like we were typing at the same time reference where folks are comming from. You beat me to the post button. It musta been cause you had your RDS on. :D
How about this:
You can have just irons.
You can just have an optic.
You can have both.
Different things work for different people. I imagine that those used to running optics as their primary sighting system would look at me with my irons only and shake their head. I suppose they think I am handicapping myself. To be honest I would be handicapping myself with a red dot since they blur. The best of them, the Aimpoint, looks like a comet streaking through the scope. At 50 yards I don't see much of the target from all the distortion. I can turn down the scope to lessen it but then when I run into brighter light the dot disappears. So I run irons on all my guns and don't bother turning on the EOtech with the issued rifle. It helps that I went through a couple of instructor schools and I have access to the range to practice.
Now if you are one of those luck ones to be able to run optics, enjoy. But remember to practice with those irons. You should try to make sure you can hit as well as with your BUIS as you can your primary. Why? Because if your primary sight goes down for any reason in the middle of a fight you better know how to use your irons as well as you primary.
So in the end in my opinion it comes down to training. Train with everything you plan to bring to a fight. Got a light on your gun? When was the last time you trained with it? Ever try it in your house? Ever try it out under street lights? A forest?
Got an optic on your rifle? Do you train with it?
Got irons on your rifle? Do you train with them?
If you don't train with what you have you might as well not have it.
Militant83
11-22-10, 19:35
I would say have both and be proficient in using both. Cant go wrong with that.
Suwannee Tim
11-22-10, 19:38
From my hunting experience I have learned to take a rifle with back up iron sights or take two rifles or take one rifle with two scopes. I am proficient with irons and stay proficient by frequent practice. If I am ever in an actual gunfight with a rifle I don't think I will be too bummed out. I will in fact likely be thrilled by my incredible foresight or luck of bringing a rifle to a gunfight.
Alaskapopo
11-23-10, 01:35
My standard response:
It's only dark half the day.
Most people shoot in the light half of the day and don't understand how much better an RDS is in the dark. I'm not saying you can't make do with iron sights but they put you at a proven disadvantage vs an RDS.
So now you have to rely on a battery powered white light in very dark situations to be able to see your sights. There are times when you should ID your target, move, then engage without using your light.
My astigmatism makes shooting little groups off the bench hard with an RDS, it does not bother me at moderate/short range and at speed.
Irons suck at low light I know from first hand experience.
In my town we had quite few problem bears this year. Not sure why the population of black bears increased but it did. We had one bear that managed to break into an assisted living facility home. We managed to get it out side where it went up a tree approximately 90 feet. It was 0200 hours and black as black could be outside. Fish and Game had told us they wanted all bears that broke into homes destroyed. I had a fairly safe angle of fire on the bear but it was very hard to see even with all the spot lights I had on the tree. I took 4 shots with my 870 shotgun over the course of about 10 minutes. Moving and changing positions trying to get a better angle on the bear so I could get a good shot. The first two shots did not connect but rather hit the tree. The last two did connect but were not fatal. I have a weapon light on my 870 with MMC Ghost ring sights. Similar to AR sights. Finally I put the shotgun away and got out my patrol rifle with my Swarovski Z6i scope with an illuminated reticle. I cranked up the magnification to a comfortable level and I could see the bears eyes clearly. I took the head shot and the ordeal was over. At night even with a weapon light Irons are no match for good optics. I learned a valuable lesson that night and I am sorry the animal had to suffer as long as it did before I got my rifle out.
I am not saying irons are useless. I have back up sights on all my rifles. But given the choice I will always take a AR with optics over one with just irons. Always.
Pat
I have been shooting with iron sights on a regular basis since de Gaulle kicked NATO out of France. I always thought using a scope was "cheating". Only lately have I started to use scopes, as my eyes are shot.
For range shooting in daylight, the practical difference between a high quality peep sight and a mid power (4x) scope is not much out to 200 yards, in good conditions, with good eyes. But iron sights are like scopes - you get what you pay for. It is not a fair contest to compare the performance of factory stock open sights with $900 optics.
The biggest issue with iron sights is that most people just don't see well enough to use them to their full potential.
I can take a person well trained in analog and get them shooting accurately with an Aimpoint/ACOG in minutes, not so the other way around. They understand the fundamentals.
The Marine Corps use to think the same thing, but the rifle range qualification didn't point this out (we are talking hundreds of thousands of instances, so it is beyond what I think I can do). Marines just didn't understand their RCOs because they were required to take them off to qualify, so we now require you to qual with an RCO if issued one.
As to be being as effective, Irons can be as effective in non-dynamic circumstances or on a rifle range. However, we train for not punching holes in paper but killing people who don't want to be shot and who are often firing back. Optics are a force multiple compare to irons sighted fire, I have a feeling most people who think otherwise have very little if any time actually shooting at others.
Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.
What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????
What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???
Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.
I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.
I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.
Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.
I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.
My god your arrogance knows no bounds.
Quasi-wars? I do not serve but I can't believe how insulting that is to hose who have.
Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.
What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????
What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???
Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.
I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.
I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.
Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.
I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.
Quasi-Wars. I suggest you shut the **** up.
Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.
What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????
What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???
Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.
I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.
I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.
Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.
I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.
SWATcop556
11-23-10, 06:45
Gentlemen this is about to get shut down.
Hammonje, since you have already stated that you feel training classes are a waste of time blasting paper at 50m and that you have only "researched" CQB training through a vast amount of books then I'm going to suggest that you tread very very carefully when you feel the need to offer information. We have many veterans of both the Iraq and A-Stan wars, many of whom I call friend, as well as a large number of well trained LEOs and civilians so trying to catagorize wars and training from a self admitted "research only" POV will not go over well. I would suggest you change your tone quickly. This is your only warning.
Everyone else, let's not stoop below the M4C standards on bickering. We all know it only leads nowhere.
I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun.
My friend who died in Afghanistan must have been a real moron to get killed by a roadside IED one of those dumb peasants buried, right? How offensive can you possibly get?
To the point, "the good old days" don't exist. Every generation, when getting up in years, thinks some point in their childhood or previous were the good old days and that's where we need to return. Thankfully for the rest of us, things march on. In this case, we can choose to better prepare ourselves for a gun fight we don't want to be in with a RDS. If you want to fight an intruder with a Mosin Nagant because that's how great-grandpappy Curmudgeon did it or an author of some book says that's how he did it, that's your business; stop trying to sell it as sound advice.
Its probably also worth pointing out that the romantic notion of vets of prior wars were all dropping one enemy for every pull of the trigger has largely been debunked.
Hammon,
Really!?? What is your point?
I don't know where to start.
US forces did fine with muzzle loaders and single shots for years, should we revert back to them?
An ACOG, being magnified, had parallax.
You obviously have no idea, I suggest you raise your right hand, and find out firsthand how sub par, any of our services training and equipment is. Until then...
Bob
Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.
Then STFU
What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????
Shoot bad guys, ACOG rarely "break"
What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???
I believe Marines qual with irons out to 500mtrs
Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.
How would you know? Get over the romance and join the rest of us here in reality. The Marines also resisted the M1 Rifle, til they saw the advantage of them.
I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.
To keep this on shooting, I'll not address your inane comments about policy and quasi wars.
We used alot of stuff for a lot of years, we found better ways of doing things.
Snipers have used scopes since the civil war, and as pointed out, Special Forces used RDS on the Son Tay raid.
You really don't know what your talking about.
I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.
In this case, Easier most definitely is better. Cheating? Really. Again you need to acquaint your self w/ the reality of shooting in a real world combat conditions, not flat ranges and books.
Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.
I don't even know how to address that bit of silliness
I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.
That is exactly the point, period end of story. You keep preaching from your pulpit squarely placed on the 1000mtr line, and that just does not jive w/ reality. And all the facts in the world will not budge you from your predetermined answer. You're like one of those bible thumpers I work with.
Answers in green.
Bob
Bob he's typical of most people. Reach a conclusion based on ignorance or incomplete facts and then fabricate a reality to support it.
SWATcop556
11-23-10, 08:12
I think this one has run it's course.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.