View Full Version : Learning irons before optics; must we?
I know, we're all supposed to say that everyone should learn irons first. Just like we're all supposed to learn to tell time on a clock with hands before we get a digital, learn to add in our heads before we use a calculator, etc. Of course, we're all supposed to start shooting with a 10/22 and a .38 revolver too, right?
My thinking is that the surest way to get a new shooter coming back is getting hits. At first, they don't really care about all that "what if an EMP knocks out my battery-operated sight and all I'm left with is irons" foolishness. They just want to get hits.
The surest way to get hits is with an optic. An RDS is the easiest optic available to explain to someone. "Put the dot where you want the bullet, pull the trigger". It doesn't get much easier than that. No "center the tip of the front sight in the hole in the rear sight, your eye will naturally center the tip for you, then put that on the target, focusing on the front sight not the target, ok now press the trigger". Just "dot on target, press". They can look through the sighting device, focus on the target, etc.
Later on, if they get interested in fighting/defensive use of the firearm they can obviously go back and learn the irons. There's nothing that says that starting out with an RDS automatically prevents someone from learning to shoot with the irons. And if they never get past the plinking-at-balloons stage, then they'll never really have use for the irons anyway once they've learned on the RDS.
rob_s,
When we were learning to shoot, there were no electronic optics similar to whats in use today, so the mentality you describe is one that isn't going to continue IMHO. Optics increase hits (just like you said), and thats what counts at the end of the day. We've seen the shift in military use, and sooner or later we will see it in LE work.
I can start a fire and cook my food, but you won't see me doing it every day just to show that I can. The oven is better. The optic is better.
Failure2Stop
07-21-08, 10:23
Rob- I think you may be in the running for the most new topics posted in a single day. At least none of them are about lube or M4 feed ramps!
Anyway-
I think that your reasoning is spot on. RDS makes hits easier, thus making shooting fun for the beginner. Hell, I like RDSs because they let me hit things faster, and I have spent way too much time behind irons.
All too often I think people take a weird self-gratifying position that shooters have to start out on iron sights, if only because they did. To hell with that. As Pat says "We need to get out of the romance of aligning iron sights and into the business of shooting smelly bearded men in the face more efficiently." (Or something reasonably close to that).
Of course we aren't going to start out shooting people in the face (if so, please let me know where you will be teaching), but the concept holds true.
I'm inclined to agree with your logic, Rob. Red-dot optics make a big difference in the ability of seasoned shooters to get hits on target quickly and accurately. The positive effect for a new shooter is going to be even greater.
If you were going to teach someone who'd never been in a car before how to drive, and you knew that if they continued to drive they'd be 95% likely to have an automatic transmission, you wouldn't go out of your way to make sure they learned on a manual transmission first, would you? There are a lot more fine nuances to driving a stick that can complicate the experience of just piloting a 2 ton hunk of metal down at narrow path at 60 mph. Why complicate things? Same with teaching a new shooter.
There is, I believe, a Pat Rogers quote in someone's sig line, that says we should get over the "romance of aligning sights" and get down to business (to paraphrase). There's truth in that. The iron sights are a starting point for teaching marksmanship. A red dot is probably a better choice if you just want to teach shooting and general weapon handling.
This arguement has already been covered a zillion times, but it's always good to revisit it. I've never been outshot by anyone with a RDS. Now, I'm sure that there are shooters out there who could smoke me with an Aimpoint, but I haven't had it happen yet. There's a false assumption that if you run irons that you have to do a sight alignment for contact distance shooting.
But you can actually just use the tip of the front sight post the same way you'd use a dot and get hits just as fast, or faster than a dot at contact distances.
Even KevinB has stated that he is slightly faster with irons, but the dot gives him advantages in less than optimal shooting conditions.
I don't get all assed up if someone wants to go straight to an AIMpoint right out of the gate. It's just annoying when you show up to class and half the guys there can't even get a decent group with their irons or their aimpoint for that matter.
To me, if you learn how accurate the AR can be with irons, you can expect and demand a higher level of accuracy when you use a dot.
I've never been outshot by anyone with a RDS.
Funny, I've never lost to a guy with irons ;)
It's just annoying when you show up to class and half the guys there can't even get a decent group with their irons or their aimpoint for that matter.
And that's just it, they're not going to have practiced sufficiently to be able to do what they need to, regardless of the aiming device they utilize.
But remember, this is about first-time shooters. Someone taking a basic class for the first time, or even someone that's shooting an AR/centerfire rifle/whatever for the first time.
If I go to a beginner's class, I EXPECT that there will be some people there that can't shoot. It's kind of the point. It would be nice if they all went out and at least plinked a little before the class to get an idea of basically how the gun works, but I've come not to expect it.
I suppose that the best way to answer the question is to say that yes, the RDS is probably better for somebody who is likely to be a casual shooter. If somebody plans on spending more quality time with a rifle, then I reckon it's best to start with the iron sights. At the very least, I would think it best to try to incorporate a healthy amount of time training with the irons/BUIS even if one does elect to start out with an optic.
And that's just it, they're not going to have practiced sufficiently to be able to do what they need to, regardless of the aiming device they utilize.
We basically agree. But to me, it's a shame that some shooters will never realize the accuracy of the AR platform because they'll jump straight into a dot.
If I was the king, you'd have to qualify on irons before buying a dot! :p But then Aimpoint would be out of business.
I can remember a guy here saying that he wanted a scope or something that would give him the ability to hit a milk jug at 100 yards. I have a problem with someone who can't do that all day long with irons.... now I know that's not the purpose of the aimpoint, but I'm just sighting it as an example of a shooter who doesn't know shit about the AR.
I'm on the fence about the issue - which I suppose is convenient in a debate, but I truly have mixed feelings about it. I bought my first Aimpoint in 1986 and I still have it. I mounted it on an HK94 well after I learned to use the irons. It was a joy to shoot - red dot on target, squeeze, hit - what could be better?
Fast forward to a couple of years ago and I purchased my first M1A - a SOCOM-16. I had only limited experience with Garand-type sights and even though I simultaneously purchased a Trijicon Tripower, it remained in the box for months, until I felt I had familiarized myself with the irons. To this day, I run "RDS down" drills, though now that my SOCOM-16 rides in a Troy MCS, I not longer have to dump my optic into a pouch - I just go to BUIS.
I can see the appeal to new shooters and I guess for a recreational shooter, an introduction to firearms via RDS is an appealing way to remove the mystery. However, I still feel that introduction via irons first can have equal benefits - namely in accomplishment and familiarization with the bare rifle. I have yet to see a new shooter get bored or discouraged shooting my irons only Uzi, or the SOCOM-16 for example, with the Tripower not on deck. Almost like: "Wow, great job getting on target - now try this" <turn on or add RDS here>.... If the user though plans on potential serious use of his/her new rifle, I cannot see the benefit of a red dot first strategy other than to offer a shortcut to rounds on target, but not to the potential of electronic failure and understanding the function, use and potential of the weapon standalone.
I do a fair amount of wilderness guiding, (less now than in the past). I also spend a great deal of time in the woods. I have lost count at the number of "wilderness wannabees" that use a GPS as their primary and disturbingly only navigational aid - no compass, no maps, no apparent sign of dead reckoning skill. I have tested this in the woods on occasion when I've hiked with, or run into folks and am stunned by how heavily folks bet their lives on electronics.
I know GPS and RDS are different - but there are some parallels here which lead me to lean more toward an irons first strategy when introducing new shooters to the craft....
I suppose that the best way to answer the question is to say that yes, the RDS is probably better for somebody who is likely to be a casual shooter. If somebody plans on spending more quality time with a rifle, then I reckon it's best to start with the iron sights.
What difference would it make? And how would you know right off the bat? Not too many people know from the outset what kind of shooter they're going to wind up being. And even if they do, is there something that precludes someone from learning the irons after they learn the dot?
hit a milk jug at 100 yards. I have a problem with someone who can't do that all day long with irons.... now I know that's not the purpose of the aimpoint, but I'm just sighting it as an example of a shooter who doesn't know shit about the AR.
What difference does it make if he can do it with a dot and not with irons? Do you think there are really that many people out there that are capable of hitting a milk jug with an Aimpoint that can't (physical infirmities aside) do it with the irons too?
2 cents The way I read it, you're asking to build a cheap AR to loan out to a new shooter, possibly to bring them into our community. They shoot, they like it and you say-for this amount of $$, you can get started. This gun is not the "best" gun with the top name brand parts and set up for a run/gun 3 day shoot class-right? From what I've read, you probably have enough spare parts to build several guns anyway;) YHM 9680 BUIS $70-that's why they're called back up, behind an EOTech 512. Easier/faster target acquisition for "new" shooters, don't have to do the whole class on sight alignment. Point and click for the video game crowd. Get them in the door 1st, then let them go from there. :D
Get them in the door 1st, then let them go from there. :D
To an extent, this is exactly right.
What difference does it make if he can do it with a dot and not with irons? Do you think there are really that many people out there that are capable of hitting a milk jug with an Aimpoint that can't (physical infirmities aside) do it with the irons too?
No. This guy wasn't looking at an aimpoint specifically. The point was that you can't buy shooting skills. My philosophy on the subject is don't use technology as a crutch for poor marksmanship.
Now my opinions are from my perspective of course. If someone just wants to build a casual plinker and doesn't need/want to be an accomplished shooter than the dot makes things easier.
The dots do have value for younger shooters or women who don't listen. :p My kid shoots the dot sight on the 22, and he hasn't learned rifle irons yet. He's really not going to have the attention span to learn irons at this point. But for adults... there's no excuse! :D
It sounds like you're simply advocating making things more difficult just because... well hell, why are you advocating making things more difficult? Some fanciful notion that the enemy is going to detonate an EMP?
That's the point. Shooting with irons shouldn't be that difficult.
That's the point. Shooting with irons shouldn't be that difficult.
And there it is...
There what is, exactly?
Is anyone honestly going to take the position that shooting with a red dot sight is not easier than shooting with irons?
If you are deploying your weapon, or a student is, and it's equipped with a RDS: Shouldn't it have the irons up to begin with?
I have recently switched to shooting Aimpoints with the BUIS up. It doesn't seem to slow me down much, and it gives me a good frame of reference for using irons, if necessary.
A Marine SGT at one of Pat's EAG/10-8 classes on Quantico used an iron sighted 20" AR for the whole class. His only difficulty was with the asymetric prone positions, otherwise he cleaned up nicely on his targets.
Then again, he is a Marine.
CarlosDJackal
07-21-08, 13:37
FWIW, I have found that the RDS is an excellent training tool for first time shooters even in learning how to shoot a pistol. What I have found is that not only can they can concentrate on achieving the proper trigger manipulation without the added "distraction" of trying to align their sights; if you combine the RDS with a BUIS, you can demonstrate what the proper sight picture should be (by having them use the BUIS by putting the dot on top of the front sight post).
After that it seemed a lot easier to then teach them the rest of the fundamentals even on a firearm that did not have an RDS. I must emphasize that I think that it is a very bad idea for anyone not to learn how to use the iron sights. YMMV.
There what is, exactly?
Is anyone honestly going to take the position that shooting with a red dot sight is not easier than shooting with irons?
Rob - you make it sound, (perhaps unintentionally) as if iron shooting is some mystical, complex holy grail that is beyond the understanding of new shooters - it isn't. You also make it sound, (perhaps unintentionally) as if new shooters are turned off by shooting a gun with irons only - that somehow an Aimpoint will magnetize them and steer them from the "difficulties" (?) of iron sight shooting - it won't. It's a bit absurd sounding, so perhaps you can provide some personal experiences of people shooting an iron sighted M4 and walking away going: "yuck no red dot"... ;) It seems as if you're trying to make a point to an issue where there isn't one...
A rifle does not come from the factory with a red dot installed. Generally, they come with irons - be they a carry handle, BUIS or fixed sights - they are a part of the basic rifle - so what is so wrong about learning how to use them first? If one cannot teach new shooters to get on paper in relatively short order with irons, then it may speak to the method of teaching - rather than the method of target acquisition.
I recently took part in an Independence Day shoot as part of a regional gun forum I belong to, (NES). There were at least a dozen new shooters - many whom had never handled a weapon in their lives - let alone fired an EBR. I did not hear a single one complain that acquiring targets with iron-only guns they were handed was anything short of blissful....Again - issue where one may only minimally exist?
We basically agree. But to me, it's a shame that some shooters will never realize the accuracy of the AR platform because they'll jump straight into a dot.
If I was the king, you'd have to qualify on irons before buying a dot! :p But then Aimpoint would be out of business.
I can remember a guy here saying that he wanted a scope or something that would give him the ability to hit a milk jug at 100 yards. I have a problem with someone who can't do that all day long with irons.... now I know that's not the purpose of the aimpoint, but I'm just sighting it as an example of a shooter who doesn't know shit about the AR.
What is the requirement to "qualify" on irons? OOC.
Is anyone honestly going to take the position that shooting with a red dot sight is not easier than shooting with irons?
Depends on what kind of shooting.
At contact distance, it is much easier and faster for me to shoot irons.
At long range, Irons are dramatically more precise.
At some mid ranges, in some adverse conditions, and RDS might give me an advantage over irons.
Believe me, I wouldn't run my home defense weapons without an Aimpoint if I thought I could do better with one. I run what I can shoot best and fastest.
What is the requirement to "qualify" on irons? OOC.
5 shots, Sub 4 MOA at fifty (under a 2 inch group) with a carbean sight radius.
For rifle, Sub 3 MOA at 100 yards. :D
No time limit or limit on number of attempts. Any ammo you choose.
I find this an interesting topic since this is a problem I have had trouble deciding between an RDS and irons. I have collected guns for a while, but I'm ashamed to say that I neglected to get good with them. I want to change that. Currently I have an m4 type rifle that didn't come with a carry handle, but I have been borrowing a carry handle off another gun so I can shoot it. However I have had trouble shotting good with irons, partially because for some reason(I'm guessing I'm doing something wrong) my front sight get very blurry. I've been considering getting getting an aimpoint and use what ammo I have on hand, but for the same price I could get a 1000 rounds of 5.56 an an iron sight and practice a bunch. I have noticed that I have gotten better over time with irons, but the blurry front sight issue remains. Is that something that would improve the more I use it? What would you guys say would be a better way to go(aimpoint or rear sight + ammo)? Sorry if this to much of a topic shift, but with a limited budget I want to ask the experts before I spend my money.
5 shots, Sub 4 MOA at fifty (under a 2 inch group) with a carbean sight radius.
For rifle, Sub 3 MOA at 100 yards. :D
No time limit or limit on number of attempts. Any ammo you choose.
Ok, good. I was getting 2MOA with a Carbine at 100yrds:
http://s218.photobucket.com/albums/cc212/olava1/100yrd_comp4ms_nvske/th_IMG_0938.jpg (http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc212/olava1/100yrd_comp4ms_nvske/IMG_0938.jpg)
and sub 2MOA with a Carbine at 50yrds:
http://s218.photobucket.com/albums/cc212/olava1/50yrd_target_compm4_nveske/th_IMG_0917.jpg (http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc212/olava1/50yrd_target_compm4_nveske/IMG_0917.jpg)
Prone.
Ok, good. I was getting 2MOA with a Carbine at 100yrds:
and sub 2MOA with a Carbine at 50yrds:
Good shooting!
I'll approve your RDS permit. Keep in mind you have to requal in one year!
Good shooting!
I'll approve your RDS permit. Keep in mind you have to requal in one year!
Yes Sir!
this subject is apparently very shooter-dependent.
while mark is somehow able to be surgically precise and lightning fast with his peep and post....my shooting experience is vastly different. I am faster, more accurate with an RDS no matter how much i have and do train with irons.
Ill definitely kill the guy with irons, but ill put two in his heart and one in his thinker with an RDS.
For me, irons require a higher degree of concentration, and that costs me time. RDS shooting is essentially brainless. nothing to concentrate on, or align, even with flash sight pictures.
while mark is somehow able to be surgically precise and lightning fast with his peep and post....my shooting experience is vastly different. I am faster, more accurate with an RDS no matter how much i have and do train with irons.
That's just it. I don't use the peep at contact distance. I only use the post... looking just over the top of the peep. Precision is not the idea. Rather fast center of mass hits with the same margin for error that you'd get with a dot system.
The idea is EXACTLY the same as the RDS concept except that I can see the front sight coming up onto the threat/target and time the break of the shot so that the hammer is dropping as soon as the front site is on target.
Now at mid ranges (40 to 50 yards or so) I can get a fast sight aligned pic with practice. But this is where you might catch up to me with a Dot. Generally I can plant the toe of the stock in my shoulder and get pretty good snap sight alignment with little to no adjustment. But a good dot shooter might get me in the medium ranges.
I don't think it matters what order "we" learn them, as long as you learn to use them both appropriately. If the person is going to use the carbine for defensive situations, they should have BUIS. Therefore, they should no how to use them. I think many people start on irons as youngsters, therefore think that is a good way to learn.
If it isn't for defensive situations, then I don't think it is a big deal. Everything else is just a game.
I'm currently teaching my children (15, 10, and 8) and my wife to shoot. My experience was that with the proper pre-shooting training sessions with field expedient training aids, they didn't have that hard of a time learning to use irons. My son in fact impresses the hell out of me with his marksmanship skills using nothing more than a run of the mill 'cricket'. They have been shooting enough now that I was going to add the scopes to their rifles.
But then I see this thread and I have to think. Did I train them this way because it is the best way or because its the way I was taught and if it was good enough for me, then its good enough for them. After all the kids have to master using a compass and map before I'll introduce them to a GPS. I have to think that I am teaching them how to shoot because I am being stodgy. If they want to master the art of armed combat then they can do what their parents did and enlist.
But right now I'm just spending the day at the range with them having family time. Im doing an activity that we can all enjoy. There are things that can be done to make it more enjoyable. I can add color changing targets, reactive targets, animal shaped targets, and eventually have the younglings take up trap, skeet, or sporting clay. But what else can I do to make the experience more entertaining. What can I do to make things easier and more enjoyable to new shooters?
So I am now thinking that starting off with an RDS just may be a better option. If you are starting a shooter out with an RDS, the train up time is almost nill. God knows how bored I got in basic rifle marksmanship classes years ago and yes I could see my kids eyes glazing over at times too. Maybe its a good way to introduce them to the concepts of firing and firearms safety while making it a more rewarding experience. Then if they take to it (as my two youngest have) then I can take the time to refine their skills through such things as sight picture, trigger control, breathing control, etc.. But why not let em have fun at first.
What difference would it make? And how would you know right off the bat? Not too many people know from the outset what kind of shooter they're going to wind up being. And even if they do, is there something that precludes someone from learning the irons after they learn the dot?
Nope. I don't think anything would prevent somebody from learning to employ the irons later on.
I think that you are correct about many (most?) of us who are neither .mil or civilian law enforcement. There may not be an accurate way to determine early on how "into it" the typical shooter is going to get. But for those of us here who are military or LEO, the use of the rifle might be part of a long term job description. In those cases I still maintain that it might be best to start with the irons.
I *think* I agree with you, though, in that an RDS for the average shooter is a good idea since it is a) easier(IMO) and b) likely to produce better results quickly- thus keeping the shooter engaged, excited, and willing to learn more. It seems like that approach might let a new shooter learn the basics of markmanship will still allowing them to focus on other fundamentals like manipulations and whatnot.
Funny, I've never lost to a guy with irons ;)
And that's just it, they're not going to have practiced sufficiently to be able to do what they need to, regardless of the aiming device they utilize.
But remember, this is about first-time shooters. Someone taking a basic class for the first time, or even someone that's shooting an AR/centerfire rifle/whatever for the first time.
If I go to a beginner's class, I EXPECT that there will be some people there that can't shoot. It's kind of the point. It would be nice if they all went out and at least plinked a little before the class to get an idea of basically how the gun works, but I've come not to expect it.
I understand your point and I believe that you're correct in that first time shooters will probably group better with a RDS right out of the gate. First time shooters would probably also be attracted to the "tech" aspect of a RDS and be engaged on that level as well. IMO I feel like learning to use firearms is akin to learning any other skill, start with the basics. Marksmanship is a skill that should be respected and passed on, and those looking to learn the skill should pay his/her dues so to speak. Not that it's an exclusive club, but, putting in some work weeds out those that aren't really interested in the first place. IMO if it's a one time deal just for fun, run the RDS, if it's someone looking to learn put'em on the irons. Interesting thread.
Gutshot John
07-21-08, 17:54
What do people think of a 45 degree offset mounted BUIS?
Especially when using a magnified optic. My only concern is that they'd hang on gear, but if someone knows better I'd love to know.
I don't know if it should be a whole other thread, but it seemed relevant here.
What do people think of a 45 degree offset mounted BUIS?
I see that on match guns with magnified optics sometimes. It's perfect for that setting where you can't cowitness yet need an unmagnified short range site.
Gutshot John
07-21-08, 18:04
I see that on match guns with magnified optics sometimes.
Does that mean you don't think it's tactical?
I've only seen it on match guns as well, but I wondered if there was something practical/tactical there.
Lonestar.45
07-21-08, 18:45
Whatever happened to training with a Red Ryder and 10,000 BB's? Seriously. That's how I learned to shoot irons from 7 years old on up, from my Vietnam vet Marine dad.
Not everyone gets that experience or introduction into shooting these days though. IMHO, I don't think there's anything wrong with introducing new shooters with RDS. Whatever makes it fun and makes them want to do it again. Like Rob said, I think it's about hits. Nothing says you can't go back later and learn to shoot irons.
Whatever happened to training with a Red Ryder and 10,000 BB's? Seriously. That's how I learned to shoot irons from 7 years old on up, from my Vietnam vet Marine dad.
I like that. I went from my pump bb gun to a single shot Remmington target master bolt gun (made in the 40's and passed down 3 generations). Then
a mini 14 back in 1981.
I don't suggest, however, that anyone should have to suffer through a mini 14 before and AR though! :p
IrishDevil
07-21-08, 19:11
I think teaching new shooters with an RDS is much easier than irons. I know how to use my irons, but I use them very little. The Aimpoint gives a huge advantage as far as speed goes. To effectively use irons you have to have a good/repeatable cheek weld, not so with a RDS. You aren't always going to be able to get a perfect cheek weld. Vision problems withstanding, most people will be faster with the RDS and more precise with irons. Some people are fast with irons, but I've seen few people able to match the speed of someone with a RDS. One of the biggest performance gains is when shooting on the move.
One of the biggest performance gains is when shooting on the move.
I'll give you that one. And that reminds me that I need to do some box drills or something next time I'm out.
The other thing that I haven't warmed up to with an RDS is the extra bulk. Although Aimpoint has that micro thing out now.
Gutshot John
07-21-08, 19:19
I see that on match guns with magnified optics sometimes. It's perfect for that setting where you can't cowitness yet need an unmagnified short range site.
So do you or don't you like it as a solution?
Did you notice any problems the match guys were having with it?
I too got my irons training with thousands upon thousands of pellets and bb's shot in the backyard as a youngster.
So do you or don't you like it as a solution?
Did you notice any problems the match guys were having with it?
I couldn't say. It seems to be a good choice for a magnified optic AR. But I've never tried it or asked anyone about it.
I too got my irons training with thousands upon thousands of pellets and bb's shot in the backyard as a youngster.
Me too. But it was with blade sights. So it was almost a complete waste of time.
Don't get me started on those retarded open blade rear apps that you can install on an AR. Built by for special shooters who have no fookin clue!! :rolleyes:
Interesting debate.
Hell, I started on iron sights when I first started shooting competition years ago (iron sights). Another reason I used iron sights was because I was broke from buying the gun, and didn't think about buying optics. :D
On a side note, I suppose it's mostly personal preference. Iron sights don't need batteries like most red dots, but red dots give you a better field of vision and quicker target acquisition as others have stated.
But if I was shooting in a 3 gun match or IPSC, I'd sport a reflex sight on my AR.
Why just not learn to use both? If you're going to shoot handguns a lot, you'll be most likely be using iron sights. Doesn't hurt to start getting the skill and proficiency of both while they're starting early.
I guess it's like learning how to drive with a manual or automatic transmission with a car. Doesn't hurt to learn how to drive in either one. :cool:
My thinking is that the surest way to get a new shooter coming back is getting hits. At first, they don't really care about all that "what if an EMP knocks out my battery-operated sight and all I'm left with is irons" foolishness. They just want to get hits.
Methinks there is a bit of generalization in terms of "new shooter" categories.
If you're trying to introduce a kid to shooting, or to convert a person who is aversive to firearms, then getting them a highest chance of hits is probably important.
However, if the shooter is an adult who went shooting on his/her own volition, and this [supposedly mature] person requires that much of positive reinforcement to come back, I am not sure I really care if he/she comes back.
Not every "new" driver enters the Indy 500 on their 1st drive. Not every "new' shooter picks up a rifle and shoots 20 in a row into the X ring. Some people might take longer on mastering the concept of aligning 3 separate objects and pulling the trigger at the same time. So, to have a "new" shooter leave frustrated, disappointed because they couldn't master the concept of iron sites on their 1st try, would tend to not make them come back. But, if they were able to put the red dot on target, pull the trigger and hit the center of the target, it would give a higher level of satisfaction and most likely ensure a return visit. Called instant gratification. Right, Rob? $.02
However, if the shooter is an adult who went shooting on his/her own volition, and this [supposedly mature] person requires that much of positive reinforcement to come back, I am not sure I really care if he/she comes back.
I doubt you would find many experts in the field of adult education who'd agree. Positive reinforcement is a pretty well established thing. Maslow, anyone?
The easiest way to motivate someone is to make him feel good about himself. Pretending that this basic human nature indicates some kind of weakness would be silly.
There is absolutely no question in mind that the students who have the most fun are the ones who learned the most, and the ones who learned the most are the ones who had the most fun.
hornblower
07-22-08, 08:37
What is the purpose of shooting?
To hit the target.
I am a first time shooter and I just bought a Colt LE6920.
I don't even know how to zero the sights.
I bought an Aimpoint CompM4s but I haven't mounted it as yet, because I want to learn to shoot with the iron sights.
Learning some of this stuff isn't the easiest thing to do, partly because of some of the attitudes expressed in this thread.
A guy like Rob S really helps new shooters get into shooting.
I wish I lived near him as I am sure he would willingly help me to learn much of what I need to know.
Moving down from the North, where guns were anathema, I welcomed the opportunity to learn to shoot to be able to protect myself and my family.
I find that I enjoy shooting and I am going to the range at least once a week, but, learning isn't easy.
I have already taken a Handgun 101 course with Randy Cain, and I took that right after I bought my first gun, a Springfield XD 45 4".
I had put about 200 rounds downrange before going to the course, as that was what time would permit.
I took the course because I want to learn how to shoot safely, and to shoot well - i.e. to hit the target.
I had taken the Collier County Sheriff's CCW course and had applied for my CCW.
I wish I had found a real beginners course - how do you zero a weapon, how do you strip it, how do you clean it, etc.?
In the final analysis, I will do, or buy, whatever is necessary to be able to hit the target.
In a self defense situation, it sure as hell won't matter to me whether or not I hit the target with iron sights or an RDS.
Todd, I agree with almost all you said. I wasn't questioning a value of positive reinforcement, I was wondering if we overdo it here.
A small point of disagreement with this statement:
There is absolutely no question in mind that the students who have the most fun are the ones who learned the most, and the ones who learned the most are the ones who had the most fun.
Folks who have fun while learning are more likely to continue learning or return back. So, they'll spend more time in their learning activity quantitatively.
This is - to me - not the same is to "learn the most".
Why do we say that we learn most from our mistakes [i.e. negative reinforcement]? Because negative reinforcement produces more durable results.
Again, I don't argue with value of positive reinforcement; my argument if we go too far with it. I mean, shooting guns is fun, isn't it? Why do we need to positively reinforce engaging in activity that is fun to begin with? It's not like we're making them sit through a statistics class. And where do we stop? An ice cream if they hit 10-ring? Free sex if they manage to follow all safety rules?
I guess I'd like to see shooting community as a bunch of self-motivated folks. Utopia, perhaps....
Rant mode off, thanks for reading, no more arguments from me.
Failure2Stop
07-22-08, 08:58
Some incorrect terms being thrown around here.
A Positive Reinforcer is an appetitive event whose presentation follows an operant response. The positive reinforcer increases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again under the same circumstances.
A Negative Reinforcer is an aversive event whose removal follows an operant response. The negative reinforcer increases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again under the same circumstances.
Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior.
This is verbatim from some reference material I have here.
Sorry for the tangent, but this stuff annoys me.
Gutshot John
07-22-08, 09:15
I couldn't say. It seems to be a good choice for a magnified optic AR. But I've never tried it or asked anyone about it.
Thank you for the input, I knew I was asking for an uneducated opinion, but I haven't heard anything about a 45 degree setup here.
GEBR doesn't say anything about it, and I can't remember LAV saying anything yay or nay.
I doubt you would find many experts in the field of adult education who'd agree. Positive reinforcement is a pretty well established thing. Maslow, anyone?
The easiest way to motivate someone is to make him feel good about himself. Pretending that this basic human nature indicates some kind of weakness would be silly.
There is absolutely no question in mind that the students who have the most fun are the ones who learned the most, and the ones who learned the most are the ones who had the most fun.
Maslow's primary contribution to psychology is his Hierarchy of Needs.
I think you mean B.F. Skinner a behaviorist.
Maslow's primary contribution to psychology is his Hierarchy of Needs.
Right, which puts esteem needs over things like love & family. My point, perhaps poorly explained, was that wanting to feel good about our results is a very powerful force.
Why do we say that we learn most from our mistakes ? Because negative reinforcement produces more durable results.
We're confusing micro- and macro- here. Sorry.
On a shot to shot basis, feedback is important and both positive (hit) and negative (miss) feedback serves a purpose. As an aside, one of the biggest mistakes many shooters make is using one paper/cardboard target a hundred times, quickly losing the ability to tell the difference between where the last bullet landed and the one they fired eight drills ago. That's why I prefer to use cheap targets like 3x5 cards and paper plates ... you can afford to put up a new target every few runs of a drill.
However, on a day to day basis, students who are having fun and enjoying the experience will learn more. A guy who gets negative feedback (shot to shot) and gets frustrated is not learning. A guy who gets negative feedback (shot to shot) but feels challenged & enjoys himself is learning. I had a student in an IALEFI class years ago who fit that mold exactly. He was well below the basic prereq for the class but opted to stay even after I told him I wasn't going to correct his mistakes as long as he was safe, because it would slow down the class. Even though he sucked -- [i]SUCKED -- he still had a ball and wrote up one of the most positive critiques I've ever received. He was having fun and by the end of the class he'd genuinely made progress.
Do we overdo it? I don't think you can make a general statement. My wife needs to be coaxed into practicing. If I give her a RDS gun and reactive targets, she'll practice much more because she's having fun. Once the mental link is made between "shooting" and "fun," she's more likely to practice the stuff that isn't as fun.
Pavlov found that most shooters drool when shown a picture of an Aimpoint.
Pavlov found that most shooters drool when shown a picture of an Aimpoint.
I know I do!:D
[homer simpson] hmmmm, Aimpoint...[/homer simpson]
My thinking is that the surest way to get a new shooter coming back is getting hits. At first, they don't really care about all that "what if an EMP knocks out my battery-operated sight and all I'm left with is irons" foolishness. They just want to get hits.
The surest way to get hits is with an optic. An RDS is the easiest optic available to explain to someone. "Put the dot where you want the bullet, pull the trigger". It doesn't get much easier than that. No "center the tip of the front sight in the hole in the rear sight, your eye will naturally center the tip for you, then put that on the target, focusing on the front sight not the target, ok now press the trigger". Just "dot on target, press". They can look through the sighting device, focus on the target, etc.
Later on, if they get interested in fighting/defensive use of the firearm they can obviously go back and learn the irons. There's nothing that says that starting out with an RDS automatically prevents someone from learning to shoot with the irons. And if they never get past the plinking-at-balloons stage, then they'll never really have use for the irons anyway once they've learned on the RDS.
Sounds like your intended purpose is to introduce new shooters and maybe get them to come back for more. I cannot think of a single good reason why you should not slap a C3 on that gun and be done with it. Hammer in safety and trigger control. These are the most important aspects of marksmanship in my mind. Even if the shooter decides they want to get into it, learning to master the trigger should be first and foremost. Red dots provide a fantastic training solution. Ignore the romanticism of learning to align sights and learn to pull the trigger with as few distractions as possible (blasphemy I know!). If you can get a shooter to not jerk the trigger, anticipate the shot, etc., then using the iron sights will come quite easily after teething on a red dot IMHO.
I do not want to discount the use of iron sights. They must be learned by serious shooters. I just think we waste time with new shooters by making them learn to use the iron sights and manipulate the trigger at the same time when the most important aspect is manipulating the trigger. Even experienced shooters seem to be chasing "el snacho" around long after they have learned what a proper sight picture looks like. I know I do anyway.
LegalAlien
07-22-08, 12:18
my .02c worth.
I am researching and saving up for my first AR
I am not new to shooting - having grown up with pellet guns and .22 with iron sights and having done my South African Army stint with iron sights on the FAL clone (R1) back in the late 60's.
I like the idea of optics to get hits quickly and get that 'instant gratification', but at the same time I am going to get my first AR without optics and only iron sights.
Since I got back into shooting, I have used iron sights on my handguns and supplemented one of them with a CTC lasergrip (to help these aging eyes).
It is still a personal challenge to get proficient with iron sights and it will be an extreme personal satisfaction to be able to get close to my old R1(FAL) proficiency with iron sights on my first AR when I am ready.
I will probably invest in some form of optics at another point, but my first goal is going to be getting reasonable hits out to at least 100yds without any additional optics.
Time will tell, but those are my goals.
From an AR noob
An ice cream if they hit 10-ring? Free sex if they manage to follow all safety rules?
Where do I sign up for this range or class?
Submariner
07-22-08, 17:16
I think that your reasoning is spot on. RDS makes hits easier, thus making shooting fun for the beginner. Hell, I like RDSs because they let me hit things faster, and I have spent way too much time behind irons.
All too often I think people take a weird self-gratifying position that shooters have to start out on iron sights, if only because they did. To hell with that. As Pat says "We need to get out of the romance of aligning iron sights and into the business of shooting smelly bearded men in the face more efficiently." (Or something reasonably close to that).
Amen! Only hits count. The quicker, the better!
"Master irons first" is great when someone else is paying for ammo. Since I am paying for the ammo, my children start out prone with an Aimpoint and a dedicated .22LR upper learning sight picture (put the red dot where you want the bullet to go) and trigger control (press; ease to reset; sight picture; repeat as necessary.) Then manipulations, positions, shooting on the move and multiple targets. Then transition to a Colt carbine and a class with Pat. Shooting out back and an annual class for sustainment training. (Number One Son, in the backround below, has been to Boone County each summer since 2002 and his sister since 2004.)
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/1629311092871.JPG
The latest member of the Clan Paskey at his first carbine class. Mark commented that running the .22LR at home paid off in the end.
Number Two Son's first exposure to irons was turning off the Aimpoint and using it as a "ghost" ring. (Heresy!!!) Since we came home from Boone County, he learned to use the BUIS.
Of course we aren't going to start out shooting people in the face (if so, please let me know where you will be teaching), but the concept holds true.
I dunno about that. Timed brain shot shoot-off at 3-, 5-. 7-, 10-, 15-, 25-, 35-, and 50 yard lines on TD2 at EAG Carbine Operator Class. Number One Son left at the 25; Number Two Son left at the 35; Number One Daughter and Dad missed at the 50.
Then if they take to it (as my two youngest have) then I can take the time to refine their skills through such things as sight picture, trigger control, breathing control, etc.. But why not let em have fun at first.
Because then you have to spend time and money unlearning bad habits.
A square 10
07-22-08, 20:11
having read thru this extensive thread i must agree with those who use the fixed BUIS [not the flip up one] in a cowitness position , it allows the RD to be the basis for your shooting but in that EMD case you have already been using your BUIS without realising it , i find it comforting to know i can use both
RogerinTPA
07-22-08, 21:13
My philosophy on the subject is don't use technology as a crutch for poor marksmanship.:D
I beg to differ, but that's the exact reason why the Army went to the RDS, to speed up training in marksmanship, and increase the hit probability of the average person going through basic training who has probably never fired a weapon before or not in a combat arms unit. In this war, it proves the decision was a good one. even REMF's (Rear Echelon MoFo's) can engage with lethal accuracy using RDS. BUT.... a person should always have a good understanding of using the irons via BUIS, in case his RDS goes T/U. Being on many rifle teams in my life, I can tell you it takes an extraordinary amount of skill and discipline to effectively hit the X ring in the 500-1000 meter range using just iron sights. Add in a combat scenario and the hits will be that less effective until you get "seasoned". You should also remember that this war's RDS was designed for the two way shooting range of combat. The stress of that alone, makes the RDS the more efficient sight system in shooting Tangos with the higher probability for effective hits, even with the novice shooter.
Amen! Only hits count. The quicker, the better!
"Master irons first" is great when someone else is paying for ammo. Since I am paying for the ammo, my children start out prone with an Aimpoint and a dedicated .22LR upper learning sight picture (put the red dot where you want the bullet to go) and trigger control (press; ease to reset; sight picture; repeat as necessary.)
I agree with this. Like I said above, my kid is on the dot with a 22 rifle right now. He'll learn irons later if he has the interest in continuing to shoot.
My stance, however, is that there's a mental block in the notion that a Dot is ALWAYS faster than irons. It's just not true 100% of the time. If you have a shooter who is trying to do sight alignment at a short range target, then yeah... he's going to hurt his speed. Especially if it's a new shooter.
Failure2Stop
07-23-08, 09:42
My stance, however, is that there's a mental block in the notion that a Dot is ALWAYS faster than irons. It's just not true 100% of the time.
My point is that the dot is faster to learn.
How fast one is able to pull the trigger is simply a function of finger speed.
The speed at which one is able to accurately hit a target will be dependant on the shooter's interaction with, and perception of, the weapon system and target.
Some are better/faster with different things.
But I am pretty sure that most of us are saying the same thing, simply colored by our preferences.
My point is that the dot is faster to learn.
For sure. You don't even have to say a word. Just hand the weapon to someone, and I'd bet they'd figure it out.
No Bananas
07-23-08, 10:55
I'm kinda in the same boat as the OP. I'm filing my paperwork for a SBR 10.5" LMT. I'm not planning on taking any courses and I'll probably be shooting at 50 yds. at the range most of the time. I'd kinda like this one to be my SHTF rifle (heaven forbid that should ever happen).
I don't have a lot of experience w/Aimpoints. I bumped into a guy at the range who works in a local gunshop. This guy knows his stuff, and takes courses all kinds. In fact, there's a picture of him in S.W.A.T. magazine at one of the courses. I shot his SBRs (11.5" & 10.5") w/ Aimpoints. One had a 4 MOA the other a 2 MOA. I couldn't really tell the difference.
I had flourescent organe targets which the dot blended into. Other than that I found it easier and faster to shoot. But DO I really need it. I'm looking at a min of $450-$500 for an Aimpoint w/ respectable mount. Everyone tells me that I have to have a QD mount on a SHTF rifle. "What if the optic gets shot?" they tell me.
I'm guessing that the Aimpoint/EOtech would help in the instances where I'm shooting a bit longer at 100-200 yds. Although, I don't think I'll be making those shots often w/ a 10.5" set up. I guess it's just that $450-500 will buy a lot of ammo or other guns right now, awith a ban likely in the next couple of years. that means a lot. Especially since I don't think the politicians will ban the optics. I'll get a flat-top just in case. But, considering its use, won't I really be OK with an Iron Sight Carry Handle for the most part?
Submariner
07-23-08, 11:44
I'm filing my paperwork for a SBR 10.5" LMT. I'm not planning on taking any courses and I'll probably be shooting at 50 yds. at the range most of the time. I'd kinda like this one to be my SHTF rifle (heaven forbid that should ever happen).
No courses? Where did/do you learn marksmanship, manipulation and mindset? Money for training is some of the best money we have spent.
What I have found is that not only can they can concentrate on achieving the proper trigger manipulation without the added "distraction" of trying to align their sights; if you combine the RDS with a BUIS, you can demonstrate what the proper sight picture should be (by having them use the BUIS by putting the dot on top of the front sight post).
Yes. Then turn off the RDS and the student is left with the proper sight picture for iron sights. It really works.
I must emphasize that I think that it is a very bad idea for anyone not to learn how to use the iron sights. YMMV.
Has anyone ever said this? The question becomes when to learn to use them. For my money (and this what drives our training,) it's after sight picture and trigger control; manipulations; positions; shooting on the move; and multiple target engagement. In other words, after their first class. YMMV.
i think its a matter of simple evolution. Old war planes used to have iron sights to you know... One day the thought of even using iron sights will be ridiculous. The future advancements in Optics will prevail :cool:
on another note, it would be cool if they revamped the iron sight technology completely with a new 1 post concept. Put the single post where the rear sight would go and have it on some sort of gyro type thing that compensates for user movement much like a HWS. Wonder if they could make an iron work like a HWS on some sort of gyro system or something? just a thought I had concerning future devolopment of weapon sights; i mean that would make an Iron as quick as a HWS. It would be lighter and you could put a tritium tip on it too. could eliminate the use of RDS/HWS all together
if not a gyro system maybe some other sort of optical illusion type technology that may or may not exist, yet
Then if they take to it (as my two youngest have) then I can take the time to refine their skills through such things as sight picture, trigger control, breathing control, etc.. But why not let em have fun at first.Because then you have to spend time and money unlearning bad habits.
I hear ya, but Im only talking about taking them out once or twice to see if they like it before transitioning them to irons. I think (I cant say for sure though) that life long bad habits will be built up after only a day or two at the range, especially with a youngling.
Submariner
07-23-08, 21:31
I hear ya, but Im only talking about taking them out once or twice to see if they like it before transitioning them to irons.
And if at that point it is no longer fun but drudgery?
And if at that point it is no longer fun but drudgery?
Its only drudgery if you teach it like that. You can be a dynamic, interesting instructor whose lessons are engaging and keep your students interested or you can be the Ben Stein clone from hell. So you get em hooked then they are willing, then its on you to be a good instructor.
Not everyone has what it takes to be a teacher, no matter how much they know about the subject. You can't force someone to have fun. They just might be interested in other things. On the other hand, you'd be surprised who might become interested in shooting and had never shot before in their life. Like someone said earlier, there's positive and negative reinforcement, and some people need no encouragement at all. Just expose them and away they go. Just need some careful guidance after that.:cool:
Submariner
07-24-08, 20:34
Its only drudgery if you teach it like that. You can be a dynamic, interesting instructor whose lessons are engaging and keep your students interested or you can be the Ben Stein clone from hell. So you get em hooked then they are willing, then its on you to be a good instructor.
Even if you are an "interesting instructor whose lessons are engaging and keep your students interested," you can't push a rope.
So far, my approach has worked with three children (22, 20, 14.) In July of 2006, one was high shooter in an EAG class.
Your results are?
Even if you are an "interesting instructor whose lessons are engaging and keep your students interested," you can't push a rope.
So far, my approach has worked with three children (22, 20, 14.) In July of 2006, one was high shooter in an EAG class.
Your results are?
Promising. My 8 year old is the one who is showing the most interest and promise. I'll let you know when he gets big enough to compete. But as for the other two (10 and 15), they are more than competent and are quite capable of putting their rounds where they belong. So my approach is working quite well so far as well. Makes you proud doesn't it
I'm a noob here but I've been fortunate to have been shooting for 45 years and reloading for 40. If an RDS helps someone new to the sport shoot better out of the gate then fine, why not? They can, and should learn to shoot iron sights later. Get someone hooked and they can learn the finer points as they progress in their proficiency and interest. You wouldn't require someone to learn how to reload before they could shoot would you? We need more new people into the sport/hobby whatever it takes especially given the current political climate. Oh, and I am passing down my knowledge and equipment to my children just like my Dad did with me.
on another note, it would be cool if they revamped the iron sight technology completely with a new 1 post concept. Put the single post where the rear sight would go and have it on some sort of gyro type thing that compensates for user movement much like a HWS. Wonder if they could make an iron work like a HWS on some sort of gyro system or something? just a thought I had concerning future devolopment of weapon sights; i mean that would make an Iron as quick as a HWS. It would be lighter and you could put a tritium tip on it too. could eliminate the use of RDS/HWS all together
if not a gyro system maybe some other sort of optical illusion type technology that may or may not exist, yet
Uh, negatory.
Submariner
07-25-08, 06:48
Promising. My 8 year old is the one who is showing the most interest and promise. I'll let you know when he gets big enough to compete. But as for the other two (10 and 15), they are more than competent and are quite capable of putting their rounds where they belong. So my approach is working quite well so far as well. Makes you proud doesn't it
Yes, it does. Keep up the good work!
As a former L.E. firearms instructor, for most folks the simplest thing was the best as many only showed an interest in firearms training because it's something they HAD to do 2-3 times a year to stay current.
As far as a new shooter goes I think that keeping/developing an interest in shooting skills would progress faster when the individual actually sees the results....hits on target. Be it holes in the paper, pins dropping or metal clanging. Once that "I CAN do this" mentality evolves within the new shooter then the other finer points can be introduced such as the use of irons.
I've only had my AR for about a year now and still shoot irons and feel quite comfortable out to 200 yds.
An optic will come soon (when the wife isn't looking).
All that blathering aside, I think that just about any way you can grab that interest for a new shooter is good and then bring them along as their skills and comfort level progresses.
.02
davestarbuck
07-25-08, 17:13
Red dots make people better fighters, and at the end of the day that's why we train isn't it? I love to be a great shooter someday, but I'll settle for being a good fighter now... :cool:
-dave
Red dots make people better fighters, and at the end of the day that's why we train isn't it? I love to be a great shooter someday, but I'll settle for being a good fighter now... :cool:
-dave
hmm, most targets past 300yds require irons for good shot placement (w/o scope ofcourse)
I would think you would be a more efficient 'Fighter' if you were able to shoot accurately out to 600yds w/ irons... Red dot works great for CQB but even suffers at mid-range wich is why so many go to the 1-4x variable tactical scopes. There was new HWS 1-4x replacement for current EOtech/Aimpoint lovers at shot show but it was a prototype. I believe it will start at 2,500 also...
davestarbuck
07-25-08, 18:57
In my world, if I got someone past 100 yards trying to kill me,, I'm sneaking away... ;). Sure hitting someone at 600 yards is a good skill to have, and I can hit such a target (with a scoped rifle). But in a real world civilian self defense problem I'd most likely have to use my hands,my knife, then my pistol and if I'm really lucky I'd get to run to the truck and grab the AK....:eek: :cool:
My point is that red dots allow you to get good hits on target fast, with minimal rounds of practice. Which is good for people like me with mortgages, working 50 hours a week, and 1 range trip a week (if I'm lucky). My overall goal with my firearms practice is to get better at killing "bad guys" faster than they kill me.
-dave
Submariner
07-25-08, 20:12
hmm, most targets past 300yds require irons for good shot placement (w/o scope ofcourse)
Don't most folks who can legitimately take a 300m shot actually use ARTY, CAS, Naval Gunfire Support or some organic crew-served weapon?:D
Failure2Stop
07-28-11, 09:12
You have to master irons before graduating to optics.
Perfect example of the "higher order" type of myth I'm talking about.
The discussion on this over in an "AR Myths" thread coupled with complaints about discussing a "myth" in a "myth" thread has prompted me to create this alternate thread on the topic.
I am going to chop over the relevant posts, and let those interested discuss our opinions and experiences on the matter.
I don't think that this will be the pen-ultimate final discussion on the matter, but there might just be a myth to be rooted out, one way or the other.
-F2S
Submariner
07-28-11, 17:16
You have to master irons before graduating to optics.
sig line #1.:big_boss:
As to 'you have to master iron sights before you shoot with an optic', I equate that that to 'you have to learn how to navigate with a map and compass before you use a GPS'.
No, you don't, but you'll be better qualified to use either tool if you do... and better qualified to deal with technology failures.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't give a shit who thinks mastering iron sights aren't necessary, they're wrong. GPS, BFT, CCO's, they all can fail, or worse get damaged beyond repair. If you can't use your backup system you're screwed, and so is everyone you're working with.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't give a shit who thinks mastering iron sights aren't necessary, they're wrong. GPS, BFT, CCO's, they all can fail, or worse get damaged beyond repair. If you can't use your backup system you're screwed, and so is everyone you're working with.
There's a huge difference between "mastering" and "being able to use" iron sights.
By and large, "mastering" iron sights is somewhat more effective than masturbation in this day and age of reliable Aimpoints, but not by much.
It's fine if you want to waste your time, but don't mislead others as to the utility of wasting their time and ammo doing so.
BTW, I grew up on irons.
There's a huge difference between "mastering" and "being able to use" iron sights.
By and large, "mastering" iron sights is somewhat more effective than masturbation in this day and age of reliable Aimpoints, but not by much.
It's fine if you want to waste your time, but don't mislead others as to the utility of wasting their time and ammo doing so.
BTW, I grew up on irons.
Maybe the use of the word 'mastering' goes a little too far as to imply a zen like state of training, but you better be able to hit what you're aiming at.
I see too many young Soldiers right out of AIT who can't hit shit with irons because they're being taught CCO right from the start. Too many young troops don't even know how to adjust their own sights or sighting systems because the range cadre just wants to get them off the firing line. This is a real world issue that I've seen play out in training, not some imaginary issue the pops up on the internet. As always YMMV.
There's a huge difference between "mastering" and "being able to use" iron sights.
By and large, "mastering" iron sights is somewhat more effective than masturbation in this day and age of reliable Aimpoints, but not by much.
It's fine if you want to waste your time, but don't mislead others as to the utility of wasting their time and ammo doing so.
BTW, I grew up on irons.
I myself have been guilty of arguing one should master iron sights before switching to optics. I should have said learn instead. Learning the use of iron sights does make for a better rifleman and does not take much time. Mastering iron sights can be the pursuit of a lifetime
polydeuces
07-30-11, 12:16
The way I see it, when it comes to sights there are no levels of priority. One should not selective choose to learn how to use only parts of ones rifle platform. Including iron sights etc.
Knowing how to use them and being proficient with them does not interfere with whatever set-up is being used, but only makes you a more competent shooter. Red dots, etc and BUIS are not/can not be mutually exclusive.
Its really surprising when people somehow choose to not want to learn something, for whatever reason.
Truth be told - i did gobble down that "iron sights first" myth. Now I am in the "learn it all" school.
"M193 or M855 is a good choice for defensive ammo."
The concept of NEEDING to learn irons FIRST is the myth. Not that we shouldn't learn at all. Given that most have a limited training budget (time, ammo, money), it is hard to argue that focus should first be on the backup sight system and not the primary.
[QUOTE=Todd.K;1061475
The concept of NEEDING to learn irons FIRST is the myth. Not that we shouldn't learn at all. Given that most have a limited training budget (time, ammo, money), it is hard to argue that focus should first be on the backup sight system and not the primary.[/QUOTE]
That right there makes the most sense of anything in this thread.
...The concept of NEEDING to learn irons FIRST is the myth. Not that we shouldn't learn at all. Given that most have a limited training budget (time, ammo, money), it is hard to argue that focus should first be on the backup sight system and not the primary.
Quite frankly, we're arguing over semantics.
No, you don't NEED to learn to use iron sights. Not ever.
Should you? I think so.
When is the best time to learn to use them? I happen to think it's a good idea to learn to use them first. You need not master them (whatever the hell that means), but the skills learned aren't merely applicable to shooting with irons.
It's not a matter of whether you learn the "primary" or the "backup" first; it's a matter of what will build the stronger base for future skill development. Unless, of course, you always plan to use a rifle with a RDS. But whatever floats your boat is fine.
There is no right answer here, so I don't understand all the quibbling.
polydeuces
07-30-11, 19:41
Quite frankly, we're arguing over semantics.
No, you don't NEED to learn to use iron sights. Not ever.
Should you? I think so.
When is the best time to learn to use them? I happen to think it's a good idea to learn to use them first. You need not master them (whatever the hell that means), but the skills learned aren't merely applicable to shooting with irons.
It's not a matter of whether you learn the "primary" or the "backup" first; it's a matter of what will build the stronger base for future skill development. Unless, of course, you always plan to use a rifle with a RDS. But whatever floats your boat is fine.
There is no right answer here, so I don't understand all the quibbling.
It's not quibbling - its communicating, a friendly back and forth.
When there's "quibbling", you'll know without the slightest doubt.:D
...the skills learned aren't merely applicable to shooting with irons.
...it's a matter of what will build the stronger base for future skill development.
I think you nailed "the myth" right there. That you cannot learn the other skills of shooting with an RDS or that you can't properly learn irons second.
I would argue that it can be good to have a new shooter focus on just the trigger press, not the trigger press and sight alignment and what plane to focus on all at once.
It's a major myth that either of these statements are complete in and of themselves:
You have to (or it's "best to") learn irons first
You don't have to learn irons first (or it doesn't matter if you don't)
Rob, I agree.
BUT,
Dont you think that it should be a comprehensive experience of learning both. The guy who shoots a hundred rounds a year, he's not going to give a shit about training. The 5000 round count class nut superninjaseal is going to tear it down to the DNA of his Weaponshield.
Not being new to shooting, but new to training, where is the happy medium in that myth...irons and optics.
My idea is learn both first. Eliminate bad habits. You'll be a long time "mastering" either.
Enlighten the ignorant.
End-goal matters, as does prior experience, intelligence of the shooter (and instructor for that matter), and a whole host of other things. This is why those are both incomplete statements.
You can't simply say "you should learn irons first" as there are too many other variables that matter to be that absolute and that brief.
This is all fresh in my mind because we just got done running a 10-shot COF with ~40 shooters a total of ~80 times (many shot more than once), all done with irons, all with various levels of ability, experience and skill of the shooters. As is usually the case with these things I learned more from the shooters I supervised than I learned the times I shot the COF myself. Some people get too attached to their own, antiquated, preconceived dogma to analyze the realities that present themselves if they pay attention.
It's a major myth that either of these statements are complete in and of themselves:
You have to (or it's "best to") learn irons first
You don't have to learn irons first (or it doesn't matter if you don't)
I think that's a fair statement.
I suppose we could take that a step further and conclude that all absolute statements are myths.
But then we'd have ourselves a paradox.
The modern myth is that learning irons is useless.
The reality is, one can go a lifetime shooting nothing but optical sights. If the optics never fail, no problem. If the optics fail, the rifle will still shoot but does the shooter have enough grasp on form to shoot effectively?
One can also go a lifetime shooting nothing but iron sights. If they fail, it's still a problem but the shooter who has a good grasp of iron sights generally has a better grasp of form as the use of iron sights is rather dependent on form. Shooters with good form are generally a better shooter, sights or no sights.
Before this argument raises it's ugly head, good form does not mean being limited to the stances used in formal competition.
Will learning iron sights make a better combat shooter? I cannot say as I've never been in a gunfight. My experience has been, those who learn iron sights are generally better at adapting to varying shooting situations.
This often gets bumper stickered down to "Learn Irons First" or "Master Irons" for the sake of simplicity, but there is more to it than that
I think you nailed "the myth" right there. That you cannot learn the other skills of shooting with an RDS or that you can't properly learn irons second.
I would argue that it can be good to have a new shooter focus on just the trigger press, not the trigger press and sight alignment and what plane to focus on all at once.
I haven't read the posts after this one but I strongly disagree with this line of thinking. Yes, you can shoot RDS w/o any practice using irons. And if you are not trained or going to do so that is fine.
BUT, learning irons first is important to developing good fundamentals! Unlike pistol shooters, the primary issue with carbine shooters is NOT trigger control. With 4 points of contact, you can get away with a good deal of jerking the trigger without throwing your shot. After understanding sa and sp, most new carbine shooters struggle with their grip! Best way to create a consistent grip? ... yeah, consistency. Quality red dots are parallax free (at least to a point especially cqb distances). So with an optic, the shooter can be wildly inconsistant with his grip and especially cheek weld and wiggle and cheat to get the dot on target. This makes for bad fundamentals.
Again, I get that it isn't for everyone but if you are gonna learn to run the gun, I say always start with irons.
As a side note, I am not saying grip and other fundamentals will always be perfectly consistent. In the real world you're never gonna have a perfect cheek weld and shoulder stock placement, etc... This doesn't change the fact that on a flat range, we try to build consistent movements so on the day, our fundamentals give us that edge.
Failure2Stop
08-03-11, 13:08
BUT, learning irons first is important to developing good fundamentals!
Odd isn't it that several of the finest long-range shooters in the world have never shot without an optic of some sort?
Why don't we have to "master" point-shooting before irons?
What is your metric for mastery?
Worrying about perfect sight alignment while trying to break a low-percentage shot is not a good way to learn the fight, and distracts the shooter's attention away from important things to actually master, such as cheek-weld, stock pressure, trigger control, breath control, patience, and discipline. Nowhere has anyone proven that looking at metal sights improves those skills any better than using optics, and the skill to ignore the target in favor of the front sight perched precisely in the center of the rear aperture is completely irrelevant when the primary sighting device has neither of those parts.
Am I saying that iron sights are unneeded or that they might as well be removed from the gun? No. I am simply stating exactly what my post said:
There is no reason to master iron sights before training with and gaining proficiency with a quality combat optic.
You still need to train it. What kind of trainer would tell someone that they didn't need to train for a worst-case scenario? Iron sights can be used to good effect at close range with a white light, and if you have a serious desire to be effective accross a range of possibilities, one should know what he can and can't do with all aspects of his gear, weapons, and skillsets, but should focus his training on taking maximum advantage of his primary tools.
F2S - I didn't say anything about "mastery" with irons. Just that starting with irons facilitates fundamentals development better, by far, than only shooting with optics.
Also, I never said I would run without an optic in the real world. The benefits of a good optic are unmatched.
And the point shooting argument doesnt make sense to me. Point shooting is an important skill but the point of basic instruction with the carbine us fundamentals. And I think we can both agree that there are very few fundamentals that go into point shooting.
Finally I disagree with the idea that training for a low percentage shot with irons is a waste because there are other fundamentals which are more important. Real world, hell yes there are more important things to worry about. But training in a flat range is a different story and if you spend time with irons, you will be a more consistent shooter. I don't want to reexplain this but I believe it is generally accepted that if you can shoot irons, you can adapt to optics pretty fast where the opposite is not true. With irons you have to line things up reasonably consistently, not so much with a red dot. Again consistency yields solid fundamentals. After some exposure to irons, I never said mastery, the red dot will line up consistently (and if you are doing it right, your irons will cowitness well).
Sorry for the crappy flow, I'm rushing. Gotta get to my nephew's ball game.
Failure2Stop
08-04-11, 13:35
sboza-
You seem to be bristling at a perceived attack on you. I am in no way attempting to discredit you, but rather engage in thorough examination of often heard statements. I am not directing my every comment at you, but rather to the community as a whole, from my experience.
The counters I am employing are against your statements as they relate to my view, not me against you. I have been in the firearms training profession for well over a decade, I have extensive experience in competition (fundamental and dynamic), advanced specific training for high-threat duties, combat (from muzzle to 700 meters), and directly training individuals and units for success in all of those environments.
I state my position not to try to chest-bump you out of the conversation or into submission, but to give depth to my seemingly absolute statements. I'm not the best competitive shooter in any discipline, I'm not the 1 man for any Tier 1 Unit, nor am I the guy with the longest confirmed hit in theatre, but I'm not bad either. I am passionate about efficiently training people, and the optic vs irons debate is not a new phenominon in the training community or on the internet where strangers can argue about who is better informed.
We have a finite amount of time to train. Wasted time means being less prepared when the moment comes. This applies to a Battalion of Rangers before being dropped into badguy land, or the prepared civilian when the back door gets a brick through it followed by psychopaths.
Just that starting with irons facilitates fundamentals development better, by far, than only shooting with optics.
Prove it.
I have trained over 1,000 people on the use of iron sights (to a testable level of proficiency and mastery), as well as optics (ranging from RDSs to 5-25X long-range precision).
I have yet to see a clear correlation between performance in the desired environment with learning a different sighting concept than the one being employed.
What I do see is a difference in those that understand the fundamentals of marksmanship and those that do not.
Aligning iron sights is not a fundamental.
Building your position with an understanding of proper eye-placement is. It isn't spelled out as such, but it is a result of doing everything else (position-wise) correctly.
I think a problem with this is that most people don't actually know what the fundamentals of marksmanship are, so I deliver this:
Sight Alignment and Sight Picture (Aiming)
Breath Control
Trigger Control
Follow Through
Some will light up and spring from their seats, pointing at "Sight Alignment and Sight Picture (Aiming)", giggling to themselves that I am a dumbass because "sight alignment" is an iron-sight concern. Sadly, they are a bit too hasty, on two counts.
1- Sight alignment is still a necessity with optics. Scope shadow, and it's proper management is "sight alignment".
2- It's really about "Aiming"; properly using the optic to tell you where the bullet is going to go.
And the point shooting argument doesnt make sense to me. Point shooting is an important skill but the point of basic instruction with the carbine us fundamentals. And I think we can both agree that there are very few fundamentals that go into point shooting.
There are certainly circumstances that will require a shooter to pull the trigger without looking through the sights, or while seeing something less than perfect sight alignment and/or sight picture. But it still requires the skill of aiming the weapon with a sufficient degree of accuracy to achieve hits on what needs to be hit. The more perfect the sight alignment and sight picture in conjunction with perfect application of the other fundamentals the more precisely the shot will land. The reverse is also true.
Sights, no sights, optics, or lasers, everything requires some level of aiming. The big thing that matters is knowing when you have enough to get the job done. We don't just use sights to shoot small groups, we use them to their crispy edge of effectiveness.
I brought up the point-shooting thing as it is pretty much the most base of all firearm instruction:
At 3 yards, point trigger at the center of the IDPA target and pull the trigger as fast as you can 5 times.
Not hard, it still requires the fundamentals, but it doesn't care how big or small your sights are or whether they have a dot in the middle or not. The user is simply "aiming" with something other than the sights.
"Fundamentals" are not exclusive to 600 yard prone shooting, they are a part of every shot, we are simply shifting focus to achieve the needed hit.
Finally I disagree with the idea that training for a low percentage shot with irons is a waste because there are other fundamentals which are more important.
There may be a disconnect in what I mean by "low percentage shot".
A low percentage shot, in my definition, means a target that is covered so that there is only a small percent of the target available on which to place the shot(s). This might be a guy behind a wall with only his AK, hands, right arm and right eye exposed at 100 meters, or a guy holding your child's head in front of his own with only his left eye exposed with a knife tip to throat while moving. Low percentage targets also tend to move, further reducing the time that one has to make the shot.
So when I am talking about training low percentage shots and how frustrating it is with iron sights (especially in the dark, when stressed, and failure means irrepairable harm), I am talking about something specific, something that should be a part of everyone's training as soon as possible if one intends to use their weapons to fight, not just shoot.
It is not an issue of Trigger Control, Breath Control, or Follow-Through being more important fundamentals at the time, but rather that iron sights suck in that application due to their focus requirements for sufficient precision and the need to know exactly what is happening when the shot breaks.
Take two equally trained shooters with two identical weapons, one with irons and one with a quality RDS, and give them random-time exposures of 1/2 of a 6" piece of steel at 100 yards in poor lighting, and the RDS guy is going to give better performance. I would much rather have a shooter achieve this level of performance earlier in the training cycle than later.
I don't want to reexplain this but I believe it is generally accepted that if you can shoot irons, you can adapt to optics pretty fast where the opposite is not true.
The same thing is said for shooters moving from pistols to rifles.
Why?
Solid fundamentals. Pistols are harder to shoot than rifles. Trigger control must be on the verge of what would be considered "mastery" on a rifle to be even a mediocre pistol shooter. Trigger control is arguably the most important fundamental. Follow-through is also a critical skill in pistol shooting, and the ease of a shoulder supported weapon for follow-through is cake compared to breaking a good shot while holding the pistol completely still through the recoil cycle and regaining sight picture.
It isn't that hard to learn to not inhale or exhale while breaking the shot, so, breath control...check.
It isn't hard to learn to line up the top of the front sight with the top of the rear sight, with an equal amount of light on both sides between the front sight and rear sight notch, and to place that where you want the bullet to go, so, aiming...check.
So when it comes to moving from irons to optics it's not too bad of a transition because the fundamentals are all still there. You don't have a different breath control cycle when you change optics, all you have is a new sighting device. If that device is easier to use efficiently, why the hell am I going to waste time on something less efficient for initial training? Why not spend as much time as possible with the tool that best does the job, from the begining?
With irons you have to line things up reasonably consistently, not so much with a red dot.
The closer the dot is to the position it was in when zeroed, the more accurately it will predict the fall of shot.
I tell users to center the dot in the optic, ignoring everything else mounted on the gun, focus on the target and put the dot in the middle of the black dot (target). This is as consistent as needed, and no more different that telling someone to put the front sight in the middle of the aperture, except that they don't have to focus on the front sight, and can instead focus on sight alignment and sight picture, with both in focus, at the same time.
However, should the shooter be using a traditional optic, there is the requirement to achieve proper eye-relief and position behind the optic. That's sight alignment.
The reticle still needs to be placed on the target.
That's sight picture.
So, you have the need to consistently correctly achieve sight alignment and sight picture (with an even higher requirement for consistency in eye-relief than irons) to achieve satisfactory results. How would irons improve that?
Again consistency yields solid fundamentals.
Agreed in concept.
I would tweak your statement a bit:
Consistent application of the fundamentals yield consistent shot placement.
I can consistently do the same thing incorrectly and it will not improve my fundamentals. Just ask anybody working through anticipation. If you consistently anticipate the shot you will consistently place the shots low. It won't have the precision of a group fired by a non-anticipator, but it will be consistent. Consistency leads to dependable prediction. If the dependable prediction is something other than getting the hit I need, why would I want to continue down that path?
After some exposure to irons, I never said mastery, the red dot will line up consistently (and if you are doing it right, your irons will cowitness well).
You have two concepts here kind of smooshed together as one.
Exposure to iron sights is not what puts the dot on target, consistent presentation does. Iron sights have a much tighter requirement for eye placement than RDSs. If you practice presentations with irons (with perfect sight alignment), you will get good at it. However, you can get just as good by presenting with the RDS and striving to have the dot centered in the tube when it stops on the target, AND you will have a higher degree of acceptable error if you have to do it under stress, AND you will be using the same sight picture as you did in training, AND you will have the same head position as you did during training.
Now, talking about cowitness. Some people like absolute cowitness. I am not one of them, but this discussion isn't really about that. If you are aware of your iron sights lining up when you present the RDS, you are focusing on the wrong thing, regardless of where your sights are in the field of view.
________
This might read like a slam against iron sights, which some will think applies to BUIS as well.
No.
Back Up Iron Sights are crucial on a firearm you intend on using seriously, as is their training. They need to be trained to their application, as does their employment in the event of a primary optic failure. It just makes no sense to me to focus initial training on a device that is a back-up.
I prefer to train shooters on the BUIS immediately after the primary on each skill-set (from zeroing to supported positions), and I have found that once the shooter understands what to line up, their primary discovery is not that the optic is easy to use, but that it's harder to see what to shoot with irons.
Just because a whole lot of us had to learn irons first (for a variety of reasons) doesn't mean that everybody has to.
F2S - That's a very well thought out response and I don't disagree much at all. Need dictates training. I have a lot on my plate right now but I'll try to write up some thoughts in the near future.
I never felt attacked by you nor did I mean to sound like I was attacking you brother. I need to work on my forum/Internet communication skills - sometimes my tone just doesn't come out right. I have a lot of respect for you.
Similar to "you have to learn to drive a manual before you drive an automatic." No, you obviously don't...but what if your optic goes down? What if you are, for whatever reason, forced to drive a manual transmission? To master something you aren't going to use is silly- to learn to use something you may have to use one day, is not.
Then again, it's all moot for me, as my rifle is irons-only.
Just go to a gun range and watch people shoot. Especially handguns.
The part where people loose their shit isn't in aligning sights or placing a dot, its firing the weapon while maintaining that alignment. People get how to point a gun. The hangup is pointing it where you want the bullet to go and pulling the trigger w/o pointing the gun somewhere else in the process.
Front and rear sights aren't controls for a partical accelerator. It's pretty damn simple.
Of course we all know the fundementals, but teaching someone to apply it is another matter.
To that end, I would focus my teaching on getting someone to be able to pull the trigger without disturbing the sight alignment & sight picture. Whatever the sighting system is.
R Moran, I certainly hope you mean all you have to do is focus on the TARGET if you're using a red dot sight, as that is the primary advantage of them. ;)
No, I mean I focus on the dot. Shooting groups, zeroing, high percentage shots, or is it low?
I know everyone says its wrong, but its the way I do it, and I seem to do OK.
Bob
Well I can't figure out, how come this post keeps up ending up here, instead of below aaron c's post
Help??
maybe I'm different but I don't give a lot of thought how to shoot a rifle with irons sights because it seems so much easier than shooting a pistol with irons. adding a RDS is easier yet.
I practice and/or have enough experience shooting a pistol that I would say that I have a "mastery" of the concept of shooting irons on a rifle, it's just the other marksmanship skills that need polishing.
if I lost my RDS, I don't/haven't seen a lot of disadvantage to using irons for combat accuracy inside of 100 yards. probably the RDS is measurably slower, and I know I certainly prefer it over irons, but I would never tell someone they have to "master" their irons before they mount an optic if they have shown me they know how to shoot a pistol with some skill...
Alaskapopo
08-04-11, 20:03
Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't give a shit who thinks mastering iron sights aren't necessary, they're wrong. GPS, BFT, CCO's, they all can fail, or worse get damaged beyond repair. If you can't use your backup system you're screwed, and so is everyone you're working with.
A back up system can be another optic such as runing dual optics on a rifle. (ACOG and a micro red dot etc) It can also be a separate optic in your pack. I learned on irons but honestly in this day and age I don't think you have to learn them first.
Pat
Well, I don't think I can add anything to what F2S said....but that never stopped me anyway.
I don't think anyone advocating not learning irons sighted shooting, only, that it need not be first, and certainly not "mastered".
As pointed out, one can learn to shoot quite well w/o iron sights. Once the shooter understands the importance of trigger manipulation, the rest is cake. When they can get good solid consistent hits with an optic, explaining how irons work, is relatively simple. Much simpler then trying to explain proper trigger control.
To follow some of the logic proffered here, one should learn to navigate by the stars and moon, or with a sextant and quadrant, before a compass/map/protractor.
As F2S alluded to also, most "gunfighting" organizations have a multitude of competing training requirements for a limited amount of training resources. Contrary to popular belief, its not all about shooting. Wasting time, getting guys to master something they'll most likely never use, is a waste of the troops time and a disservice to them.
ETA:
I never thought irons were all that difficult to use anyway. Look straight thru the rear, focus on the front, place that on wht you want to hit, apply the fundamentals of marksmanship, and bang...of course I also focus on the dot;)
Bob
R Moran, I certainly hope you mean all you have to do is focus on the TARGET if you're using a red dot sight, as that is the primary advantage of them. ;)
Another example- I'm in my senior year of accounting at my university, and they have taught us extensively to do accounting the "old way", i.e. without a computer. Do we ever PLAN on doing our jobs without a computer, without a calculator, etc.? Hell no- but if we ever HAVE to, we'll know how. That's how irons should be IMO. If you have a set of irons folded down on your rifle and not sighted in, because you'll "never use them" and you've never trained to quickly deploy them (who has time to take their busted RDS off and put another one on in a gunfight, anyway?) and use them, you may end up SOL. MASTERING irons if they are just your backup? That would be silly and a waste of time. LEARNING them well...that seems like common sense to me. Like knowing how to change a flat tire.
All of us here justify things like owning an AR15, owning an Aimpoint over other brands, and such, with the fact that we want to be the most prepared we can be if something bad happens. Why not be the most prepared you can be if something bad happens to your OPTIC too?
militarymoron
08-04-11, 21:23
sounds like common sense, but i think that you should pretty much learn to use what you mount on your gun - irons, RDS, scope, whatever - probably doesn't matter what comes first. i'm just speaking from the hobbyist point of view.
if you have BUIS, learn how to use them well enough for their intended purpose, or they're just dead weight.
Irons are great to learn on, I grew up shooting irons and did not use an optic for 19 years. The aimpoint pro on my DD is so easy to shoot with its incredible. I dont think learning irons is nessecary.
Irons are great to learn on, I grew up shooting irons and did not use an optic for 19 years. The aimpoint pro on my DD is so easy to shoot with its incredible. I dont think learning irons is nessecary.
You don't think it's necessary to learn them at all? Not even train on them once in a blue moon in case your Aimpoint takes a dump? If so, then I would assume you don't even run iron sights at all and rely fully on the Aimpoint?
You don't think it's necessary to learn them at all? Not even train on them once in a blue moon in case your Aimpoint takes a dump? If so, then I would assume you don't even run iron sights at all and rely fully on the Aimpoint?
What are you basing that assumption off of? You aren't making sense bro, I didnt say anything that would lead you to think that. I do run buis an still shoot with them.
Is learning irons necessary for effectively using an AR with an optic?
No
What are you basing that assumption off of? You aren't making sense bro, I didnt say anything that would lead you to think that. I do run buis an still shoot with them.
Is learning irons nessecary for effectively using an AR with an optic?
No
necessary...
It is not required. We have to start look at it like all other weapon systems, when the primary sighting system goes down the weapon is in the degraded mode of operation.
Glad to see this finally split off. Now when people want to argue about this we can simply link to this thread and go back to whatever the topic at hand is. I would suggest editing the thread title to "learning" instead of ";earning" though. Can we start one on aftermarket triggers too so we can sideline those debates too.
On the topic at hand, a few things strike me as needing to be gotten out of the way.
The first is that if you don't have a wide range of experience training, or at least being present for the training of, multiple shooters, your opinion is probably of little value here. Just because something worked for YOU does not mean it is the way to do things for everyone. You need a larger sample size to have an informed opinion.
The second is that context matters. In this poll (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=85857) the most commonly selected reason for training with the AR is home defense, followed very, very closely by personal development. Interesting that these two top the list as which is more important to you matters a great deal in the context of this discussion. What someone "should" do and in what order matters almost entirely on why they are doing it.
The third is that we should try to avoid absolutes. Things like "you must learn irons first" or "all shooters should learn optics first". There are no absolutes, and outside of professional end-use the situations are as varied as the eyeballs looking through the optics... or irons.
Finally, I'll plant this seed. When I was getting into handguns the prevailing suggestion at the time was that a shooter start with a revolver. Or, if they insisted on a semi-auto, a rimfire. Or worse, a rimfire revolver. You see very, very few people still recommending this line of thinking especially for the adult looking to purchase a firearm for self-defense. This is just one example of antiquated thinking that has thankfully fallen by the wayside in the last <20 years. Why? Because people applied logic and reason and figured out that it was horseshit in the context and because technology advanced (in truth, in that time frame, it didn't advance as much as people finally figured out it had advanced). I am of the opinion that the same thing is happening now with the irons/optics debate.
I have and RDS on my 10/22 that I let my kid and new shooters use. I don't think it's necessary to master irons first... Especially for young shooters who don't have a huge attention span.
It's easier to get someone up and having fun with and RDS.
What are you basing that assumption off of? You aren't making sense bro, I didnt say anything that would lead you to think that. I do run buis an still shoot with them.
Is learning irons necessary for effectively using an AR with an optic?
No
Hey Wiggity, not trying to bash you or anything. My interpretation of what you said was that you don't think it's necessary to learn irons at all- not that you don't think learning irons is necessary to use an RDS. I agree that learning irons probably won't help you shoot an RDS better, I just hope nobody thinks that irons are useless because they have an RDS or optic.
Hey Wiggity, not trying to bash you or anything. My interpretation of what you said was that you don't think it's necessary to learn irons at all- not that you don't think learning irons is necessary to use an RDS. I agree that learning irons probably won't help you shoot an RDS better, I just hope nobody thinks that irons are useless because they have an RDS or optic.
i think you have to pretty strictly read/interpret what he said.
Is learning irons necessary for effectively using an AR with an optic?
and he correctly said "no". you do not have to know how to use irons to learn how to use an optic. This nonsense example people use of learning your times-tables before using a calculator is just that, nonsense. there is no prerequisite to learning to shoot with an optic.
I think some of you are getting unnecessarily upset lol. All I'm saying is that learning irons is good because no piece of electronics is immune to breaking. I'm not saying you can't shoot with an optic unless you know how to use irons, but there is a reason some carbine course instructors do the whole 'your optics just went down, switch to irons' deal. If you don't ever train with irons at all that's fine I guess, whatever works for you.
The person who is responsible with training you with iron sights has a name:
Dad.
You learn iron sights with your dad at age 8 to 12 and/or at Boy Scout camp. If that's missing then THAT'S the problem we need to be fixing FIRST before we go off in other directions with contingent theories about solutions. We are meant to be a nation of riflemen. Departure from that is the bellwether of serious maladies which we are overdue to address.
I think some of you are getting unnecessarily upset lol. All I'm saying is that learning irons is good because no piece of electronics is immune to breaking. I'm not saying you can't shoot with an optic unless you know how to use irons, but there is a reason some carbine course instructors do the whole 'your optics just went down, switch to irons' deal. If you don't ever train with irons at all that's fine I guess, whatever works for you.
Learning irons is a good thing to do man. No one is arguing with you on that one.
Agree 100%. I shot with various iron sights all the time growing up. While it took a little bit getting used to the irons of an AR (I'd only shot open sights before), it didn't take long at all (like a couple mags tops) and I'll always be glad to know that if I have an optic go down, I'm still GTG whether it's at a carbine course, the range, or mowing down zombies in my yard during the impending zombie invasion I jokingly use when people ask why I own an assault rifle.
The person who is responsible with training you with iron sights has a name:
Dad.
You learn iron sights with your dad at age 8 to 12 and/or at Boy Scout camp. If that's missing then THAT'S the problem we need to be fixing FIRST before we go off in other directions with contingent theories about solutions. We are meant to be a nation of riflemen. Departure from that is the bellwether of serious maladies which we are overdue to address.
NOBODY IS SAYING NOT TO LEARN THE IRONS AT ALL.
The issue at hand is does it matter which you learn FIRST. Go back and re-read the thread title. We are talking about SEQUENCE, not two things that are mutually exclusive.
Rob you are dead on here.
I think some of you are getting unnecessarily upset lol.
you are probably right, and these kinds of statements are why:
All I'm saying is that learning irons is good because no piece of electronics is immune to breaking. I'm not saying you can't shoot with an optic unless you know how to use irons, but there is a reason some carbine course instructors do the whole 'your optics just went down, switch to irons' deal. If you don't ever train with irons at all that's fine I guess, whatever works for you.
I can't tell if these sorts of statements are intentionally incorrectly interpreting the opposing viewpoint in order to try to discredit it, if the people making these statements lack the basic English comprehension skills to understand the posts they are reading, or if their ignorance has just completely shut down their ability to absorb ideas.
NOBODY IS SAYING NOT TO LEARN THE IRONS AT ALL.
The issue at hand is does it matter which you learn FIRST. Go back and re-read the thread title. We are talking about SEQUENCE, not two things that are mutually exclusive.
Until people get this basic understanding this topic is never going to go anywhere.
The person who is responsible with training you with iron sights has a name:
Dad.
You learn iron sights with your dad at age 8 to 12 and/or at Boy Scout camp. If that's missing then THAT'S the problem we need to be fixing FIRST before we go off in other directions with contingent theories about solutions. We are meant to be a nation of riflemen. Departure from that is the bellwether of serious maladies which we are overdue to address.
and then you go unlearn all that stupid shit half those dads taught their kids. If I had a nickle for every time somebody told me they'd been shooting since they were a kid and then couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with an AR...
Wow Rob, taking shots at things like my language comprehension and profession, huh? That is very mature of you. I wasn't choosing sides either way, just giving my opinion on the topic, which is that you should learn your irons at some point if they are going to be on your rifle. Not all irons are the same, and I feel you should know your specific irons well, whether you learn them before or after putting some glass on there. Maybe you should do some research on the word "if" and then reread my post that wadded your panties. Better yet...
If: conj.
1.
a. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
b. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
c. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
2. Although possibly; even though: It is a handsome if useless trinket.
3. Whether: Ask if he plans to come to the meeting.
4. Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish: If they had only come earlier!
One final note before I bow out of this before I someone blows a gasket. I can't tell if these statements are being made because you are actually that thin-skinned, or if you're actively seeking something to complain about.
One final note before I bow out of this before I someone blows a gasket. I can't tell if these statements are being made because you are actually that thin-skinned, or if you're actively seeking something to complain about.
None of the above.
So which is it? You're exaggerating to win an internet argument, or you actually think that someone is arguing that people not ever learn iron sights at all?
If you think I'm taking this personally you're out of your tree. I couldn't care less about you other than the fact that you are misrepresenting my argument with I find distasteful regardless of the reason.
Let's not make this about "rob hurt my feelings on the internet" and stick to the topic at hand, which is SEQUENCE in which we learn the two different sighting systems, and leave the hyperbolic statements like the one you made that started this out of the discussion, as well as the emotional problems of those who don't like to be called on their hyperbole.
Back on topic...
I was able to run approximately 40 shooters through a carbine stage last weekend where we had 10 rounds to make 9 hits on steel ranging from 25 to 50 yards and at ~100 degrees to either side of the shooter. Total number of runs was somewhere north of 80 with several of the shooter running more than once.
The comments from the shooters were rather interesting. We had another BCM demo carbine there with an XPS on it, and many asked it they could run the stage with that gun as they felt uncomfortable with the irons. The answer was "no", the stage was an irons stage on purpose. Even these shooters, who clearly were more comfortable with the optic, many of whom professed that they "never" shoot with their irons, did extremely well on the stage getting hits on steel targets that were COM or smaller at those distances. I found this extremely interesting, especially in light of the recent discussions here. Were they likely to be shooting the mythological 2" groups at 100 yards with irons with no practice? No. But certainly they are capable of making the hits they might need in a defensive environment without much in the way of instruction or training or practice with the iron sights.
As has already been mentioned, there are plenty of people who shoot precision rifles who have never shot without an optic. Then there are a few folks I shoot with who do not have optics on their ARs. There are even a few folks I shoot with who don't have BUIS on their carbines for whatever reason. To each their own.
There is no perfect formula for a marksman. Whatever process works for the individual is what is best for that person. For me, that meant learning irons until I had a grasp on the fundamentals, then moving on to optics. For others, that may not be their choice. Whatever works...
H
...
Finally, I'll plant this seed. When I was getting into handguns the prevailing suggestion at the time was that a shooter start with a revolver. Or, if they insisted on a semi-auto, a rimfire. Or worse, a rimfire revolver. You see very, very few people still recommending this line of thinking especially for the adult looking to purchase a firearm for self-defense. This is just one example of antiquated thinking that has thankfully fallen by the wayside in the last <20 years. Why? Because people applied logic and reason and figured out that it was horseshit in the context and because technology advanced (in truth, in that time frame, it didn't advance as much as people finally figured out it had advanced). I am of the opinion that the same thing is happening now with the irons/optics debate.
I'm glad you qualified "horseshit" with "in the context," because I'd contend that the original thinking wasn't necessarily antiquated, nor was the logic flawed. People are no smarter today than they were 20 years ago. What has changed in is the goal of the typical shooter--particularly in the last couple of decades with the proliferation of concealed carry permits--and the environment in which we live (or the way we perceive that environment).
If someone wants to learn to shoot, then I still think a rimfire is an ideal way to start--even for an adult. I used italics because in the "good old days" learning how to shoot (at least in the rural area where I grew up) meant acquiring the ability to effectively use firearms in general. One of these firearms might be pressed into service to defend the household (and my father's Stevens 20 gauge was indeed used in such a fashion one evening), but that was a secondary purpose.
Nowadays, however, "learning to shoot"--particularly for adults--usually means learning to defend oneself with a firearm. Different goal...different path to get there. I agree that telling a guy who wants to get his carry permit to protect his family that he needs to buy a S&W Model 17 before he gets a Glock is silly. (I'd still say that an hour or two spent with a borrowed rimfire would be a great introduction, but perhaps my bias is showing.)
FWIW, when my young adult daughter recently asked me to teach her to shoot a handgun (we moved to Germany when she was 12 and didn't return to the States until she'd left for college, so we missed that aspect of her education) we started with...a 5" S&W Model 63.
I guess a good summary of this blathering would be that before we whip out an answer to a question (such as optics or irons?) we probably need to clearly define the "problem."
I'd add that while I absolutely agree that it's bad to reach a firm conclusion based on a sample size of one, we also need to remember that a conclusion reached by a single observer, regardless of how many observations he or she is made, might not be correct--particularly if the majority of those observations were made under similar conditions or if the sample is relatively homogeneous. We all have biases. For example, while I trained or observed the training of goodness-knows-how-many individuals during my military career, the Army widely fielded red dot sights near the end of that period. Virtually everyone I've worked with learned irons first and transitioned to optics later. I'm sure my opinions will be very different from guys younger than me who've worked with people who started off with optics. (Do they really use them in basic now?)
theblackknight
08-05-11, 17:52
and then you go unlearn all that stupid shit half those dads taught their kids. If I had a nickle for every time somebody told me they'd been shooting since they were a kid and then couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with an AR...
I think someone hooked up your coffee w a shot of haterade. This is like a coach from baseball summer camp grumbling over all those stupid dads teaching their son to play catch.
Herp, and derp.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Frailer, as of last summer, they (AF) still use carry handle sights in basic. I can't speak for any other branches.
To the point someone tried to make- if your semi-auto centerfire handgun goes down, it doesn't morph into a revolver or rimfire handgun. It's not a like comparison.
I think someone hooked up your coffee w a shot of haterade. This is like a coach from baseball summer camp grumbling over all those stupid dads teaching their son to play catch.
Herp, and derp.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
That's out of context.
If somebody wants to go to the range and spend time with their kid that may or may not result in the child learning anything of value as pertains to shooting. We have ALL been at the public range and watched a father and son. We can both admire the fact that the father is spending time with his son (too often these days they don't) and cringe at the bad habits they are conveying simultaneously.
theblackknight
08-06-11, 07:00
http://twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/Girl-shooting-a-machine-gun-634x423.jpg
I hope this haunts your dreams.
Thread relevant: It dosent matter which if they dont use them!
It is difficult to step outside of one's own experience to opine on this question.
As kids living on ranches in southern Oregon we were lucky enough to be taken on hunting trips, at about age 12 trusted with our own guns (mine was a Remington Nylon-66) and we could usually hit what we were aiming at.
If there were any scopes on the rifles, those must have been dad's because all I remember was iron sights.
Fast forward to today: I have an Aimpoint on a LaRue 150 just forward of the Troy folding rear, left up in a lower-third co-witness on my 6920 rifle.
If the Aimpoint gets disabled, I can use the irons, if the irons get whacked, then the Aimpoint probably will still work, I hope. I practice with both.
This is all to say, if a weapon has both types, optics and irons, (or three types, such as a laser) then it makes sense to be able to proficiently use all those sighting systems, and most important to do so from a foundation of good shooting basics.
Whether one should come before another is up to the user, seems to me, so long as the shooter winds up at the proper destination, -being proficient and safe- I don't care how they get there. I'm more interested in the results than the process.
Just because it happened in my case that irons came first does not necessarily mean it has to be that way for everyone else.
Solid post, Doc.
Starting at, I dunno, about 5 or 6 years old I learned irons on BB guns. Irons on .22's, irons on shotguns, scopes on deer rifles, irons on handguns, RDS on AR15, and back to irons on AR15 for now.
Submariner
08-06-11, 17:05
The person who is responsible with training you with iron sights has a name:
Dad.
You learn iron sights with your dad at age 8 to 12 and/or at Boy Scout camp. If that's missing then THAT'S the problem we need to be fixing FIRST before we go off in other directions with contingent theories about solutions. We are meant to be a nation of riflemen. Departure from that is the bellwether of serious maladies which we are overdue to address.
This is how I started, too, drinking deeply of "the nation of riflemen" heady brew: four years of shooting most every school day at an MCJROTC range, small bore and big bore competition, Camp Perry and, finally shooting for the USNA rifle team. Nevertheless, as it is my time and my money paying for the training, I looked for a better way.
Jeff Cooper appears to have agreed with you, in part, and disagreed with you, in part. The following quotes are from Cooper's Commentaries, Vol. 13, No. 7 July 2005. Bold is added for emphasis; italics are original text:
Considered carefully, the great marksmanship masters are now spread rather widely across the country, and no particular group of teachers is currently confined to any one school. There are several noteworthy shooting masters whom I have not personally taught, so I cannot speak for the entire group, but among the greats I would list John Gannaway, Louis Awerbuck, John Pepper, Pat Rogers, Clint Smith, the Stock brothers, Larry Mudgett, Tom Russell, Marc Heim, and Michel Röthlisberger. There may be others, as I have suggested, but the foregoing names may be listed now as "Doctors of Practical Marksmanship." I guess I should get up a program of certification attesting to this.
****
We are steadily asked about the age at which to teach young people to shoot. The answer to this obviously depends upon the particular individual; not only his physical maturity but his desire. Apart from these considerations, however, I think it important to understand that it is the duty of the father to teach the son to shoot. Before the young man leaves home, there are certain things he should know and certain skills he should acquire, apart from any state-sponsored activity. Certainly the youngster should be taught to swim, strongly and safely, at distance. And young people of either sex should be taught to drive a motor vehicle, and if at all possible, how to fly a light airplane. I believe a youngster should be taught the rudiments of hand-to-hand combat, unarmed, together with basic survival skills. The list is long, but it is a parent's duty to make sure that the child does not go forth into the world helpless in the face of its perils. Shooting, of course, is our business, and shooting should not be left up to the state.
****
Marc Heim tells us that the novice should be started using telescope and bipod, so as to allow concentration on one thing at a time. I never thought of the matter quite this way, but the idea certainly seems to have merit. Once the apprentice learns about sight picture and trigger control, he can then study shooting position and successive matters.
I'm a Dad and have been responsible for training six of seven children. We are starting with the seventh now. Five of the first six to learn started on an M4 and an Aimpoint with a bipod or monopod (magazine.) (Their sister started on an M&P 15-22 and a bipod.) Safety first. Trigger control and sight picture. Breathing and follow-through. Then off to Pat Rogers so they don't have to "unlearn all that stupid shit half those dads taught their kids." After that, they come back home to practice what they learned and learn irons, too. No big deal.
Heim's idea does, indeed, have merit. We have been applying it, apparently with some success, since 2003. No one seems to have suffered from learning first with an Aimpoint instead of irons.
There were three (3) girls in the class, all sisters, 24, 18 and 15.
And they rocked. As did their two Brothers.
And Dad.
And in the class before that, a Father and son.
S/F
Pat sends
www.eagtactical.com
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/458100756/m/83320313763
I don't think anyone said that a soldier shouldn't have an Aimpoint. Some just say that you should learn irons first, or at least learn them before you go into harms way. And learn them well enough to be proficient, which in my opinion, takes quite a bit longer than an RDS (which is the beauty of them).
The person who is responsible with training you with iron sights has a name:
Dad.
You learn iron sights with your dad at age 8 to 12 and/or at Boy Scout camp. If that's missing then THAT'S the problem we need to be fixing FIRST before we go off in other directions with contingent theories about solutions. We are meant to be a nation of riflemen. Departure from that is the bellwether of serious maladies which we are overdue to address.
Oh please...
To quote Vince from The Magnificent Seven.... "noble thought".
There's the world the way we wish it was, and the way the world is....guess which one we live in?
I was raised a block from Queens(I "grew up" in the Army), my Dad wasn't a shooter or hunter. I was lucky and had a rifle team in HS, many don't. Many kids don't have the opportunity to learn to shoot, or all that other nostalgic shit Cooper talks about.
So the reality is this...
New recruit arrives at Basic, never shot or handled a real gun in his life. Army now needs to get him to an acceptable level of proficiency with an M4, that will in all likely hood be outfitted with an Aimpoint.
They also need to get him to an acceptable level of proficiency with everything else associated with being a Soldier or Infantryman. Time is limited, what to do?
After the experiences of WW2, and to a lesser extent Korea, the Army took a hard look at the realities of modern combat, & training & equipping men for it.
These same studies, are what led to the assault rifle and GPMG.
It is far more efficient to train large numbers of troops to be mediocre to OK shooters, then to spend huge amounts of resources to train them to be "expert" marksman, and equip them with a rifle to match, when, by and large, that capability is not used on the modern battlefield.
So, for those who think irons must be mastered first, and that electronic sights "fail"....what if the same shooter, is presented with a situation that he would greatly benefit from having an Aimpoint? But now he doesn't, because he's mastering his irons?
i got news for ya, your adversary doesn't care if you learned to shoot the "right way", only that your effective.
And right now, we are stacking jonny jihad like cordwood, with Soldiers who didn't learn to shoot the "right way".
Bob
Finally, I'll plant this seed. When I was getting into handguns the prevailing suggestion at the time was that a shooter start with a revolver. Or, if they insisted on a semi-auto, a rimfire. Or worse, a rimfire revolver. You see very, very few people still recommending this line of thinking especially for the adult looking to purchase a firearm for self-defense. This is just one example of antiquated thinking that has thankfully fallen by the wayside in the last <20 years. Why? Because people applied logic and reason and figured out that it was horseshit in the context and because technology advanced (in truth, in that time frame, it didn't advance as much as people finally figured out it had advanced). I am of the opinion that the same thing is happening now with the irons/optics debate.
I mostly agree with this Rob, but...
From a pure shooting perspective, learning on a .22 has some benefits, mostly in the lack flinch/jerk/snatch inducing recoil. Most .22 autos are very accurate, inexpensive, you can shoot them all day long with little fatigue, or cost.
But, see my above on the realities of not living in a perfect world.
I've seen far to many good to excellent shooters/operators who learned to shoot with a Glock 22 and M4, to think the romance with the old way, is at all needed.
One co-worker, went from having never shot a handgun in his life, to being taught to shoot one with a G22, to winning the DOE annual shooting competition, in less then a year.
Bob
....... Some just say that you should learn irons first, or at least learn them before you go into harms way.......
Actually, some insist that everything must be done a certain way or it's wrong, from zeroing, to learning to shoot with irons VS RDS, to moving the support hand as far forward as possible with the thumb on top of the rail, .........
Two things have influenced my reasoning with training RDS first.
1. This forum, and many of the well-respected members who advocate it.
2. My work over the last 2 years. Since I first started this pony ride in 1982, I've transitioned slowly from meat-eater to more of a "Ferdinand the Bull" type, but the last 2 years I've been working with folks who are not used to firearms, nor do they have much interest in doing anything on their own with them. With few exceptions, they express interest in my carbine and pistol, as they by and large depend on me to keep them safe.
So, when I train them up to be somewhat self-sufficient, I know that a) I have limited time I can devote to training and b) they will do nothing on their own to get good at shooting. I even went to the extent of purchasing a Chinese AK training air rifle and Gamo air pistol and constructed a range near our living quarters, but unless I am out there shooting, they will not even touch the air guns.
So, knowing that they will probably shoot 100 rounds in the span of their lifetime, I don't **** around with teaching irons. I show them how to adjust the Aimpoint brightness, and warn them to leave it on "8" when they aren't using it, and try to work on their trigger pull. Anything else is more or less a waste of time or worse, it will confuse them. I just have too many demands on my time to become every one of my succession of partners'/colleagues' gun training guy. Just "put the dot on the target and squeeeeeze the trigger".
Alaskapopo
08-07-11, 00:24
The person who is responsible with training you with iron sights has a name:
Dad.
You learn iron sights with your dad at age 8 to 12 and/or at Boy Scout camp. If that's missing then THAT'S the problem we need to be fixing FIRST before we go off in other directions with contingent theories about solutions. We are meant to be a nation of riflemen. Departure from that is the bellwether of serious maladies which we are overdue to address.
Good luck fixing the way society is today with a single parent home almost being as common as a two parent one.
Pat
This is how I started, too, drinking deeply of "the nation of riflemen" heady brew: four years of shooting most every school day at an MCJROTC range, small bore and big bore competition, Camp Perry and, finally shooting for the USNA rifle team. Nevertheless, as it is my time and my money paying for the training, I looked for a better way.
Jeff Cooper appears to have agreed with you, in part, and disagreed with you, in part. The following quotes are from Cooper's Commentaries, Vol. 13, No. 7 July 2005. Bold is added for emphasis; italics are original text:
I'm a Dad and have been responsible for training six of seven children. We are starting with the seventh now. Five of the first six to learn started on an M4 and an Aimpoint with a bipod or monopod (magazine.) (Their sister started on an M&P 15-22 and a bipod.) Safety first. Trigger control and sight picture. Breathing and follow-through. Then off to Pat Rogers so they don't have to "unlearn all that stupid shit half those dads taught their kids." After that, they come back home to practice what they learned and learn irons, too. No big deal.
Heim's idea does, indeed, have merit. We have been applying it, apparently with some success, since 2003. No one seems to have suffered from learning first with an Aimpoint instead of irons.
The problem is the PMIs and coaches spend a large part of their time at recruit training, un-learning what they were taught prior to getting there.
Submariner
08-07-11, 06:09
The problem is the PMIs and coaches spend a large part of their time at recruit training, un-learning what they were taught prior to getting there.
My response was to yellowfin's post. Did I miss that the context here is recruit training? Uncle Sam can (and does) print enough money to buy as much (or little) ammunition as he thinks necessary for initial training of his employees as well as their sustainment training.
None of my children plan to join the Marine Corps. (I must be a bad father.) So are you suggesting they not learn to properly operate a carbine? Only government employees need to be taught to properly operate a carbine?
I didn't think so.
BTW, have you read this thread (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38540)?
I just got back into shooting again a little more than a year ago now, and several months ago I attended a Trident Concepts Combative Carbine 1 course instructed by Jeff Gonzales. Prior to attending Jeff’s class I thought I was already extremely competent and deadly with the carbine, but I was very wrong. After completing that 3-day course I can now say with complete confidence that had I somehow been able to attend a Trident Concepts, EAG Tactical, Gunsite, or MagPul Dynamics carbine course (or similar training offered by a quality instructor) before I deployed to war back in 2003, and had been able to learn and put into practice all of the things taught in the carbine courses they offer, I would NOT have been shot in the manner in which I was on that Sunday afternoon in Iraq.
Submariner
08-07-11, 06:53
As I think you (or someone else) said here (or elsewhere) there is a difference between teaching a child the fundamentals and an adult to defend themselves.
Isn't this a distinction you choose to make? Don't the adults need to learn the fundamentals as well? Cannot the two be combined?
I taught my stepson on an iron-sighted Ruger 10/22 youth model.
Could you have chosen to teach him on an M&P 15-22 as well? Would it have fit him then and as he grows? Might it have been a more versatile and cost-effective training tool for all hands? And couldn't you mount one of your Aimpoint C3s on it to teach him the fundamentals of trigger, sight picture, breathing, follow-through, natural point of aim, etc.?
I mostly agree with this Rob, but...
From a pure shooting perspective, learning on a .22 has some benefits, mostly in the lack flinch/jerk/snatch inducing recoil. Most .22 autos are very accurate, inexpensive, you can shoot them all day long with little fatigue, or cost.
But, see my above on the realities of not living in a perfect world.
I've seen far to many good to excellent shooters/operators who learned to shoot with a Glock 22 and M4, to think the romance with the old way, is at all needed.
One co-worker, went from having never shot a handgun in his life, to being taught to shoot one with a G22, to winning the DOE annual shooting competition, in less then a year.
Bob
As I think you (or someone else) said here (or elsewhere) there is a difference between teaching a child the fundamentals and an adult to defend themselves.
I taught my stepson on an iron-sighted Ruger 10/22 youth model. I got his mother a Glock 19 and was building her a lightweight AR to wear a micro-compact ACOG and a Surefire X300.
We're deviating into the realm of the specific/personal instead of the genera/conceptual but I'll indulge this to a point.
Isn't this a distinction you choose to make? Don't the adults need to learn the fundamentals as well? Cannot the two be combined?
No, it's a distinction that reality makes. Yes the adults need to learn the fundamentals but the goals are different, or more importantly, the timeline may be compressed. Yes they can be combined in adults.
Could you have chosen to teach him on an M&P 15-22 as well? Would it have fit him then and as he grows? Might it have been a more versatile and cost-effective training tool for all hands? And couldn't you mount one of your Aimpoint C3s on it to teach him the fundamentals of trigger, sight picture, breathing, follow-through, natural point of aim, etc.?
No, he couldn't learn on the M&P, I bought one and it was too heavy out of the box, alone with a C3 or even an R1. The Ruger proved the most cost-effective and best solution for the specific situation.
Ruger 10/22 Compact = 4.5 lbs (http://ruger.com/products/1022Compact/models.html)
S&W M&P15-22 = 5.5 lbs (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766348_-1_757786_757784_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y)
While a 1 lbs difference matters a lot on a potentially 10lbs complete rifle, it is a HUGE difference in a gun that weighs half that much in the hands of a child or new shooter.
Submariner
08-07-11, 11:17
We do rimfire matches that we allow the kids to shoot in. He needs to be able to carry it.
Recognizing you chose to use a different method, could he have used the M&P you bought along with the R-1 and a bipod from prone to learn the fundamentals of trigger, sight picture, breathing, follow through and natural point of aim?
Yes or no?
Added:
I quoted rob_s and posted. Why this appears above his post and at an earlier time is unkown.
Submariner
08-07-11, 12:00
No, he couldn't learn on the M&P, I bought one and it was too heavy out of the box, alone with a C3 or even an R1. The Ruger proved the most cost-effective and best solution for the specific situation.
...
While a 1 lbs difference matters a lot on a potentially 10lbs complete rifle, it is a HUGE difference in a gun that weighs half that much in the hands of a child or new shooter.
Thank you for indulging me but this is no deviation from the thread.;)
Would the weight difference be as much of an issue if the M&P 15-22 and R-1 were on a bipod (instead of as scope and bipod as advocated by Heim above?) Remember, it's about teaching the novice (any age) the fundamentals of trgger, sight picture, breathing, follow through and natural point of aim.
We do rimfire matches that we allow the kids to shoot in. He needs to be able to carry it.
GhostOfWar
08-11-11, 16:14
I'm gonna have to say this has been an interesting thread to read. Maybe I need to start getting on this forum more often.
In my limited experience teaching the people I know, I find that starting off with a rimfire with an optic helps tremendously. Now, I'm not talking about young gunfighters heading over to Astan in a few months, I'm talking about relatives, friends, and my wife. These people have no training whatsoever and I know that if they don't have fun, they will lose interest. If they lose interest, they wont listen. If they don't listen, they wont learn. So I normally let them shoot a rimfire rifle and some metal swingers, cans, or other reactionary target first.
Basically, start them off with something easy that they can easily master. No one wants to go to the shooting range and not hit the target. That is frustrating and boring. Spark an interest first and work from there. Its hard to teach something that a person has no interest in.
Now, the military and LE side is another story. I tend to agree with both sides of the argument to some degree.
NOBODY IS SAYING NOT TO LEARN THE IRONS AT ALL.
The issue at hand is does it matter which you learn FIRST.
We are talking about SEQUENCE, not two things that are mutually exclusive.
.
From theoretical prospective, the sequence makes no difference.
From practical, or human nature prospective, going with "irons first" makes more sense to me. Call me skeptical or cynical, but I have hard time believing that significant percentage of shooters who started with RDS would have enough discipline, dedication and tolerance of declined performance to go and learn a sighting system that's harder to use.
Submariner
10-14-11, 11:33
Not a necropost as F2S directed the latest irons vs. RDS thread here.
5 shots, Sub 4 MOA at fifty (under a 2 inch group) with a carbean sight radius.
For rifle, Sub 3 MOA at 100 yards. :D
No time limit or limit on number of attempts. Any ammo you choose.
Oh, Great King, do you shoot this at night?;)
I'll wager someone with your level of skill will get faster hits than you if he uses an RDS.
We shot Pappabear's Doc Optics little reflex sight that's on top of his ACOG. He was getting hits out to 500 on steel.
I don't think I scored a hit. That amber dot was bright as hell.
TriviaMonster
10-15-11, 01:31
We shot Pappabear's Doc Optics little reflex sight that's on top of his ACOG. He was getting hits out to 500 on steel.
I don't think I scored a hit. That amber dot was bright as hell.
How are those doc optics sights? I have never had the chance to use one. I am a bit of a rare breed, I prefer Irons sights with a BURDS:jester:
viperashes
10-15-11, 04:31
No. This guy wasn't looking at an aimpoint specifically. The point was that you can't buy shooting skills. My philosophy on the subject is don't use technology as a crutch for poor marksmanship.
Back when I went through bootcamp, we still used iron sights. When I went through MCT/SOI, we got a short introduction to the RCO.
flash forward a couple of years and RCOs were issued Marine Corps wide. A study was made at Quantico with new Lts going through OCS. A class that used iron sights had a 40% higher UNQ rate than the second class, which used RCOs and had NO UNQ Marines.
The Marine Corps has changed it's rifle doctrine. When I came through, we started by learning the fundamentals of irons. I already had been shooting for a long time, so I had to unlearn bad habits, but I had a general understanding of how to shoot a rifle. Some kids had never even SEEN a gun in their life, and many of them failed. When we got RCOs Corps-wide, rifle score statistics went up. More lethal shooters.
Now, the Marine Corps tailors it's rifle doctrine around the RCO, and then teaches young Marines how to use and shoot with iron sights second because why? They are [u]secondary sights[/b] and most Marines will never be issued a BUIS anyway. The point is, yes, it is a crutch for poor marksmanship, but it is a crutch that allows a MUCH shallower learning curve.
Once someone has the hang of shooting, then make it more difficult by taking away that nifty 4x magnification optic, go back to the basics, and teach them how to use more primitive technology. They, at that point, have the fundamentals down, they have at the very least a general understanding of the rifle and it's characteristics, so challenge them then, not when they just first start shooting. It's one of the few things that the Marine Corps has ever done that makes a DAMN bit of sense, and that my friend, is what we call a hint.
Optics are not a crutch, they are a tool. If they are used as a crutch, they being used wrong.
I believe in learning the use of iron sights. I feel that rifleman who doesn't understand the basics of iron sights is incomplete. I also feel the same is true of learning the use of optics.
I posted the mantra "Learn Iron Sights First" as easily as most will post "Sell that Bushy" and probably with less thought. That's because those who taught it to me understood what it means. That simple phrase speaks volumes to those who understand the culture from which it arose. It means "Learn iron sights. Learning iron sights will teach you the fundamentals that will become a firm foundation for skills that can be adapted to allow you to become a good shot in any situation, with or without sights."
I have to keep learning over & over again, most here were not raised in that same culture and that phrase doesn't mean the same thing. To a new shooter I would say "Learn to shoot your rifle with iron sights. Learn to shoot it with the optics. Learn to shoot with no sights. Learn the limits of each type of sighting. Use what works".
Hopefully, this means I am learning
viperashes
10-15-11, 05:42
Optics are not a crutch, they are a tool. If they are used as a crutch, they being used wrong.
I believe in learning the use of iron sights. I feel that rifleman who doesn't understand the basics of iron sights is incomplete. I also feel the same is true of learning the use of optics.
I posted the mantra "Learn Iron Sights First" as easily as most will post "Sell that Bushy" and probably with less thought. That's because those who taught it to me understood what it means. That simple phrase speaks volumes to those who understand the culture from which it arose. It means "Learn iron sights. Learning iron sights will teach you the fundamentals that will become a firm foundation for skills that can be adapted to allow you to become a good shot in any situation, with or without sights."
I have to keep learning over & over again, most here were not raised in that same culture and that phrase doesn't mean the same thing. To a new shooter I would say "Learn to shoot your rifle with iron sights. Learn to shoot it with the optics. Learn to shoot with no sights. Learn the limits of each type of sighting. Use what works".
Hopefully, this means I am learning
What I meant by the fact that "optics are a crutch" is that it is something for a new shooter to lean on to build confidence in their shooting ability, but don't allow them to build poor habits around that crutch before taking it away and making them learn the right way. It builds a basis in that new shooter's mind that helps them decide "yes, I want to learn this the right way".
I completely agree that many are not brought up in the culture as it seems that you and I have. I grew up around guns my entire life. I remember being 5 and shooting my grandfather's M1 Garand (with a little help of course). I remember my first AR in 2004 right after the ban expired. A brand new *ahem* Bushmaster, which itself, is still a decent rifle for what it was used for, even knowing what I know now. I know the guy who still has it and he still shoots the crap out of it, with all the original parts it came with from factory, including iron sights.
Get a shooter interested, by making it easy for them to pick it up. Once they have the basic understanding down, strip it away and make it harder, but give them the reward of learning proper technique that builds on the foundation and builds up to using whatever fancy gizmos that were available that made them a better shooter.
I have never used a RDS on my rifles. However last year I purchased a cheap RDS for my son's rifle and just this last weekend, we sighted it in finally for him to use coon hunting. He was all grins when he told me what happened. His friends were shooting at a coon with iron sights, no hits. My son shoots one time and nails him with his RDS, distance was about 30 yards.
I have done some night shooting, usually to dispatch skunks, and it would definitely be easier with a RDS. Just need to save up for an Aimpoint.
I believe in learning the use of iron sights. I feel that rifleman who doesn't understand the basics of iron sights is incomplete.
Some people are not interested in achieving some romanticized title. For some people the end-state is getting rounds on target in the fastest way possible and with the least amount of runup possible.
I wouldn't teach a new driver today to start on a stick shift, but once he was capable of everything else I would want for him to learn to use one in case he was confronted with the need. I am not interested in making him a "driver", I'm interested in giving him the ability to get from point A to point B in the easiest way possible with the tool he is most likely to have. Eventually I'd also teach him to ride a motorcycle, because it is also a good skill to have, but it is not a requirement for him to get to work every day.
People are too stuck in how they learned, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. The world has moved on. Nobody is going to catch on fire if they learn things in a different progression than their predecessors did. "I learned irons first". well, no shit, that was the only thing available to you at the time. But someone else taking advantage of more recent technology doesn't negate your process. Especially if your process worked for you and you're happy with the outcome and your title as "rifleman". Nor does your antiquated methodology negate their process. If a guy only ever learned to shoot with a CCO but is over there burning down smelly bearded dudes in man dresses then who am I to question his process? If someone started out learning to shoot with an Aimpoint but is now winning 3-gun matches left and right who am I to question his process.
I'm not saying don't learn irons first, or that someone should have to learn on an Aimpoint first, but that seems to be the difference between those of us on this side of the fence and the "irons first" crowd: we are not stuck in dogma, titles, and romanticism.
viperashes
10-15-11, 07:13
If a guy only ever learned to shoot with a CCO but is over there burning down smelly bearded dudes in man dresses then who am I to question his process?
I'm not saying don't learn irons first, or that someone should have to learn on an Aimpoint first, but that seems to be the difference between those of us on this side of the fence and the "irons first" crowd: we are not stuck in dogma, titles, and romanticism.
I laughed at burning down smelly bearded dudes. :laugh:
But that second paragraph definitely sums it up. Regardless of if someone learns first on irons or with an RDS, the desired end state is the same, accurate rounds on target as quickly as possible with the least amount of shots taken. The stick shift and motorcycle analogy really sums it up the best. I had actually thought about using a similar analogy in my previous post.
I laughed at burning down smelly bearded dudes. :laugh:
But that second paragraph definitely sums it up. Regardless of if someone learns first on irons or with an RDS, the desired end state is the same, accurate rounds on target as quickly as possible with the least amount of shots taken. The stick shift and motorcycle analogy really sums it up the best. I had actually thought about using a similar analogy in my previous post.
I'm and old guy, Parris Island in 1975 kind of old. My personal thoughts on irons vs optics are predictable. My oldest child is 28 and my youngest is 23. I taught my kids to shoot irons first because I felt like "the basics" were important. Once they knew the basics of good sight picture, natural point of aim and trigger control etc then shooting with an optic would be a no brainer.
By chance (and to our good fortune) my kids and I used to shoot at a range that had military rifle shoots every month. Only irons were allowed at 200, 300 and 500. Pop-up, paper and steel targets. During at least one stage you might be asked to move over one firing position for that stage. You shot that stage with whatever rifle was there. That was some of the best training I ever got, in or out of the Marine Corps. It was easy to tell who had solid fundamentals and who didn't. My boys, both Marines now, say the same thing.
I wanted my kids to know irons in part because I wanted them to be able to pick up any weapon at any time and be able to shoot it. No matter what it was or what kind of sights it had on it. When they were learning to drive I taught them to drive a manual transmission for the same reason. I wanted them to be able to drive any car or truck they might need to drive at any time.
I still think that way but I'm not sure it matters anymore. Times have changed. Today if you have to pick up a strange weapon and use it in a pinch there is a good chance it will have optics mounted. It can be argued in that case that if you don't know optics then you don't know the "basics" you need to know. The chances of unexpectedly finding yourself behind the wheel of a car or truck with a manual transmission are pretty low.
I don't have a problem with people learning to shoot with RDS. But I still feel they need to learn irons.
Me, I still shoot with irons every now and them. I can't see the fookin front sight post any more though so my go to weapons have either T-1's or a Comp M4s mounted.
I love me some RDS.
viperashes
10-15-11, 08:58
I don't have a problem with people learning to shoot with RDS. But I still feel they need to learn irons.
Me, I still shoot with irons every now and them. I can't see the fookin front sight post any more though so my go to weapons have either T-1's or a Comp M4s mounted.
I love me some RDS.
This is the exact argument that is being made. Basically what it boils down to is that someone that doesn't have the background and training that we do that wants to learn how to shoot, especially those like my father, who at 50 years old, is just starting to get into firearms, and just learning to fire a rifle, it's easier to teach him the basics with an RDS so that he knows the basics of the weapon, and then for me to move into fundamentals such as shooting with iron sights, or proper bone support, or breathing control.
Those things are no less important now than they were when you were in the Corps, but now, we have technology that makes the learning curve much shallower, because many things can be taught in a shorter amount of time, with less effort, and with less ammunition required down range.
Building confidence in a shooter is far more important in the beginning than proper form is. That's like putting clear coat on a show car before you prime it. It just doesn't make any damn sense. It's not so much about irons vs. RDS as it is making sure that there is a foundation to build on that makes follow-on skills the easiest for a novice shooter to pick up on.
I know, we're all supposed to say that everyone should learn irons first. Just like we're all supposed to learn to tell time on a clock with hands before we get a digital, learn to add in our heads before we use a calculator, etc. Of course, we're all supposed to start shooting with a 10/22 and a .38 revolver too, right?
My thinking is that the surest way to get a new shooter coming back is getting hits. At first, they don't really care about all that "what if an EMP knocks out my battery-operated sight and all I'm left with is irons" foolishness. They just want to get hits.
The surest way to get hits is with an optic. An RDS is the easiest optic available to explain to someone. "Put the dot where you want the bullet, pull the trigger". It doesn't get much easier than that. No "center the tip of the front sight in the hole in the rear sight, your eye will naturally center the tip for you, then put that on the target, focusing on the front sight not the target, ok now press the trigger". Just "dot on target, press". They can look through the sighting device, focus on the target, etc.
Later on, if they get interested in fighting/defensive use of the firearm they can obviously go back and learn the irons. There's nothing that says that starting out with an RDS automatically prevents someone from learning to shoot with the irons. And if they never get past the plinking-at-balloons stage, then they'll never really have use for the irons anyway once they've learned on the RDS.
Absolutely correct.
This is the exact argument that is being made. Basically what it boils down to is that someone that doesn't have the background and training that we do that wants to learn how to shoot, especially those like my father, who at 50 years old, is just starting to get into firearms, and just learning to fire a rifle, it's easier to teach him the basics with an RDS so that he knows the basics of the weapon, and then for me to move into fundamentals such as shooting with iron sights, or proper bone support, or breathing control.
Those things are no less important now than they were when you were in the Corps, but now, we have technology that makes the learning curve much shallower, because many things can be taught in a shorter amount of time, with less effort, and with less ammunition required down range.
Building confidence in a shooter is far more important in the beginning than proper form is. That's like putting clear coat on a show car before you prime it. It just doesn't make any damn sense. It's not so much about irons vs. RDS as it is making sure that there is a foundation to build on that makes follow-on skills the easiest for a novice shooter to pick up on.
Agreed....I think we are on the same page. When I take new shooters out they shoot both irons and RDS. When I turn them loose and tell them to grab a weapon and put some more rounds down range they grab the RDS every time. As long as we turn a non shooter into a good safe shooter it makes no difference how we do it.
viperashes
10-15-11, 09:16
Absolutely correct. I've taught hundreds of newbies to shoot AR's and 1x Aimpoints work so much better than irons that there is no comparison.
The best new shooter complete package for a bargain price available right now at an affordable price is the Patrol Rifle package from Palmetto State Armory = M4gery 16", Aimpoint PRO and Magpul BUS all for $999. Quality hardware at an affordable price.
I think what is happening is that a large portion of OUR community, The competition/SHTF/enthusiast community, The kind of people that actually read and contribute to M4C, get into a one lane mindset and forget that at one point, we too were ignorant. Some people just want to take a rifle or pistol out on the weekends, use their little aimmy pointy thing and shoot bullets at paper in the tightest grouping possible. Or go shoot cans off of a milk crate.
We get so wrapped up in our own ideas and vices that we don't realize that we're still using a rifle that was designed 50+ years ago. Back then, a forward assist was NECESSARY. Now, it's nice to have, but some people even opt for uppers that delete it and think of it as just another part that can break. Yes, the forward assist is antiquated technology. It DOES serve a purpose, but it is one of those things that very rarely actually gets used for it's full intended purpose.
The same thing can be said about iron sights. They're nice to have "just in case" and knowing how to use them is similarly useful, but at the end of the day, they too are antiquated and have a very limited application for the majority of shooters. They've been replaced by better technology through people like us saying "hey, I can do this better with better equipment."
Look at rails. Look at FREEFLOAT rails. Pmags, plastic furnature, lightweight aluminum furniture, the carbine length gas system, the midlength gas system, ratchet mount suppressors, match triggers, combat triggers, ambidextrous selector levers, selector levers with removable levers, adjustable gas blocks, ammunition. The list goes on and on. If somebody hadn't somewhere stepped up and realized that what they were using was doing a job that could be done easier with a better device, we'd still be using rocks to beat each other to death, because we wouldn't have figured out that we could chip the rock to make it sharp, tie it to a stick, and stab each other to death.
viperashes
10-15-11, 09:17
Agreed....I think we are on the same page. When I take new shooters out they shoot both irons and RDS. When I turn them loose and tell them to grab a weapon and put some more rounds down range they grab the RDS every time. As long as we turn a non shooter into a good safe shooter it makes no difference how we do it.
Precisely.
As long as we turn a non shooter into a good safe shooter it makes no difference how we do it.
I would teach them to shoot with Popsicle sticks glued to the top of the barrel if I could accomplish this transformation more often.
I can start a fire and cook my food, but you won't see me doing it every day just to show that I can. The oven is better. The optic is better.
Absolutely agree
personally i feel this way, RUN BOTH with your choice of co-witness. my reasoning behind it because you are inadvertently learning the irons while using a red dot. if the red dot fails you will still have the feel and familiarity of what proper sight picture should look like with irons.
Some people are not interested in achieving some romanticized title. For some people the end-state is getting rounds on target in the fastest way possible and with the least amount of runup possible.
I wouldn't teach a new driver today to start on a stick shift, but once he was capable of everything else I would want for him to learn to use one in case he was confronted with the need. I am not interested in making him a "driver", I'm interested in giving him the ability to get from point A to point B in the easiest way possible with the tool he is most likely to have. Eventually I'd also teach him to ride a motorcycle, because it is also a good skill to have, but it is not a requirement for him to get to work every day.
People are too stuck in how they learned, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. The world has moved on. Nobody is going to catch on fire if they learn things in a different progression than their predecessors did. "I learned irons first". well, no shit, that was the only thing available to you at the time. But someone else taking advantage of more recent technology doesn't negate your process. Especially if your process worked for you and you're happy with the outcome and your title as "rifleman". Nor does your antiquated methodology negate their process. If a guy only ever learned to shoot with a CCO but is over there burning down smelly bearded dudes in man dresses then who am I to question his process? If someone started out learning to shoot with an Aimpoint but is now winning 3-gun matches left and right who am I to question his process.
I'm not saying don't learn irons first, or that someone should have to learn on an Aimpoint first, but that seems to be the difference between those of us on this side of the fence and the "irons first" crowd: we are not stuck in dogma, titles, and romanticism.
I guess I wasn't clear- While I would suggest new shooters try irons first, I wouldn't insist that's the only way for them to start. If they start thinking they'd like to learn to shoot, then I'd suggest they learn to shoot with irons, optics and without sights because they won't know until they try them.
I was also trying to explain coming to the realization that my simply posting "Learn Irons First" was based on an assumed cultural commonality and that the assumed commonality isn't there. If I were to post "He's a Dougaloid" to explain someone's approach to getting a job done, those who've never worked at McDonnell-Douglas would never understand the reference.
There are folks that focus on one type of shooting. They care nothing about any other aspect. In this case it's to kill badguys. To use your driving analogy, this is like telling folks that learning any skills not needed to get around the oval track as fast as possible is a waste of time. Is it any less a dogmatic romanticism to achieve the title of "face-shooter" than "rifleman"?
As far as the dinosaurs go, we killed the last one so you new guys wouldn't have to worry about getting stepped on. But don't worry. You're turn as caveman is coming :D
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but my aging eyes see the front post as kind of a blur. After 40, this happens. I could shoot the irons, but optics are now a necessity. I run a Leupold M4 as a main optic with an Aimpoint H1 on a LaRue one o'clock mount (right side) for CQB. Great combo for me anyway.
These are generalizations that I believe can be applied to the majority. Not everyone is alike and what works best for most people, does not necessarily apply to everyone. There are some people who are more "naturals" and take to any skill better than others. While the bulk of my instruction is now focused around combat or tactical style shooting, mostly in a CQB or MOUT environment, I come from a long range precision shooting background in my formal or adult training life and I feel my roots are based in the sniping community. These are the major factors that form or drive my opinions based off of my experience. Having said that....
Do I think it is necessary for a shooter to learn iron sights first? No.
Can a shooter become good with learning say a red dot only? Yes.
Do I think a shooter will become an overall better shooter learning basic marksmanship fundamentals in a set and progressive manner? Yes
Do I think that iron sights are a critical component to a correct and progressive manner for learning the basic fundamentals of marksmanship that will apply to firearms in general? Yes.
Shooters who come under my instruction full time are persons who have certain physical, mental and working skill sets prior to entering or making the transition to the full time teams. They must show a high level of proficiency in their firearms use prior to acceptance into the training program. In the past we just started them on optics, which most were already very accustomed to using. Being a very precision or accuracy based person, I expect a lot from those I teach and mentor. Over time, I noted that some very top notch FNG's shot very well by most standards but I wanted more out of them and started looking for reasons why they just couldn't seem to step up their shooting game. My job is to find out why and make it work to the standards that I want. I finally dug deep into many guys shooting backgrounds, specifically in their learning progression. I took a test group, stripped off their red dots and put them through a one week, irons only basic type of carbine course. Focus was on pure fundamentals and basic manipulations etc. These guys had been through enough advanced shooting courses that one extra week of trigger time wasn't the difference. What was the difference? Teaching them to crawl, walk and then run with the basic fundamentals of marksmanship in a correct and proper learning progression. In one week these guys stepped their game up to a level that not even they thought possible with iron sights. With the red dots and the added advantages, they were simply amazing. Every guy admitted that the pure focus and practice of the fundamentals on iron sights was the difference and most hadn't learned correctly even in their prior formal training.
For the last few years, we have gone to a basic 3 day pistol course and 4 day rifle course with irons only. We start literally from scratch and the rifle course is irons only. By starting them at bare bones and focusing on correct fundamentals, we purge any other poor habits which were learned or ingrained by poor instructing principles and techniques. We standardize them using a base crawl, walk, run philosophy by teaching fundamentals in a proven and what I feel is a correct manner. Since we have implemented this basic concept to those who are supposed to be advanced already, we have found that overwhelmingly the quality of the shooters who have come through the program learning in this manner are much higher quality shooters than those who didn't come through in this revised program. Of course we have gone back to work with incumbents but reverse engineering isn't easy especially with some old dogs with years of improper ingraining.
I definitely infuse a lot of my concepts and beliefs on shooting to my students. Shooting on the move a lot, shooting at long distances, or combining both of these concepts while still focusing on precision and accuracy along with many other concepts with much more frequency than might be considered the norm by others in my field. I am definitely considered a bit "outside of the box" within my teaching peer community but I like to let the results do the talking. Even though I am very progressive in my teaching, often infusing many non-traditional styles or techniques into combat shooting, I am a stickler on precision and accuracy. Ironically even though I am often looked at as "outside of the box", I still base EVERYTHING off of pure fundamentals which I feel should be learned in a correct and progressive manner and IMO that manner involves iron sights.
I wouldn't teach a new driver today to start on a stick shift, but once he was capable of everything else I would want for him to learn to use one in case he was confronted with the need. I am not interested in making him a "driver", I'm interested in giving him the ability to get from point A to point B in the easiest way possible with the tool he is most likely to have. Eventually I'd also teach him to ride a motorcycle, because it is also a good skill to have, but it is not a requirement for him to get to work every day.
People are too stuck in how they learned, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth...
This is an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure it works, YET...
1. It wasn't long before I learned to drive that a "standard" transmission was a manual, and automatics were only available as expensive options in luxury cars.
So, people learned to drive in cars with "standard" transmissions.
2. By the time I learned to drive (the late 1980s), automatics were ubiquitous, but they were typically crappy 3-speeds, and manuals were 5-speeds.
The automatics were typically slower, less efficient, seemed to be always in the wrong gear, and anybody who knew how to drive a standard well could do it more smoothly than most automatics.
Anybody who had any pretentions about driving well ultimately learned to drive a stick.
3. Nowadays, of course, the automatic transmission is the "standard" (so much that C&D is pleading to "save the manuals").
Automatics cost little or nothing extra, and they're fabulous — they have as many or more gears than manuals, and they're faster, more efficient, and the good ones are as smooth as anybody driving a manual.
So, the question for me is: at what stage RDSs are in this parallel technological progression?
Basically, I think they're still at the first or second stage.
Virtually all guns come with irons sights, and hardly any come with RDSs. Irons are still very much "standard."
Sure, you can add an RDS to just about any gun, but as everybody here points out, the good RDSs are not inexpensive, and the inexpensive RDSs are not good.
Especially for a beginner's gun, a decent RDS is an absurdly expensive luxury item — would you really pay $400+ to mount an Aimpoint on a $150 10/22?!
Even for a decent $1,000 rifle, $400+ for a top-shelf RDS is a major incremental expense. How many people would opt to pay a 40% premium for an automatic transmission? Not many.
On the other hand, a crappy cheap RDS is the frustrating equivalent of the agonizing 3-speed slushbox in my first car.
I'd have much rather had a "standard" transmission, just as now I'd rather use (or teach people to use) a good aperture sight than a cheap RDS.
So, yes, at SOME point irons are going to be for dinosaurs, but — just as the cheap, excellent automatic transmission has largely made the "standard" transmission obsolete — it'll be the point when a new Aimpoint barely costs any more than a decent set of BUIS .
Being a firearms instructor I tend to look at novice shooters the same way as advanced shooter. I ask one question:
What is their training?
If the answer is a new shooter who can barely remember where the safety is even though you told them for the third time 5 minutes ago arguing RDS or IS is pointless.
If you have them shoot 100 rounds a month for a year then we can start asking if RDS or IR is right for them. Actually by then they should be able to figure it out. Think of other physical skills you have learned over the years and how you progressed. For me skiing comes to mind. I spent more time on my butt the first year than on my feet. Some training and time on the slopes later and on those nearly flat slopes and I was ready for the next level. Of course now that it is a little steeper some more skills are in order, so back to the ski instructor. With those newfound skills I could practice the steeper slopes. I got good at those. Eventually I graduated to the top of the hill. There was no slope I couldn't handle. Of course I could go a half dozen times in a year no problem so it was easy to stay there. Once work and other things slowed down my ski trips I ad to take it easy and back it down a notch or two. All that time up and down the skill levels I had different gear. Bigger slopes? Need bigger skis. Hitting the moguls hard? Better have skis that can turn fast.
Now as time progresses the new shooter should be asking themselves "What should I train with?"
The answer should be, "Whatever is on the gun."
Got a sling? Do you know how to use it without thinking?
Got a light? Do you know how to use it? Do you know when to use it?
Got a RDS? Have you trained with it under the circumstances, conditions, and distances you are likely to use it in?
Got BUIS? Have much have you trained with them recently?
Being one who has aperture sights on all my long guns and an astigmatism in the dominat eye I tend not to care for RDS. Of course I don't need one as much because IS work well for me since that is all I use. When I slack off on my shooting IS can become trickier. Of course with an astigmatism RDS would also be a problem if I didn't train with them.
What we should always remember the most important thing about teaching a new shooter is to expose them to various skills and equipment and let them choose. How many times have you seen someone on the internet ask what gun they should get for their girlfriend? Shouldn't the girlfriend have some say in the matter?
Same goes for the novice shooter. If you are handing them your rifle and you have a RDS and BUIS why not have them try both? Maybe they will go out and buy a rifle with no sights on it and then slap an RDS on it because that is what they like. Then later on when they are ready for a rifle class they can maybe try shooting BUIS sights just so that they have a clue to what they are doing. Or maybe they decide RDS just aren't for them. All they want to do is hit tin cans at 25 yards. They can go out and buy a fixed carry handle for all they care. If they eventually want to go to RDS there are ways of fixing that without much trouble. There are scope mounts and new uppers can be bought easily.
Why must we impose on new shooters what we prefer?
IMHO, I'm going to have to disagree with most the posts and say that it is important to learn with irons first, if only briefly.
I'm definitely no iron sight elitist: I recently picked up an eotech and love it. I would recommend it and other rds to anyone. I agree that you can definitely get rounds on target faster.
However, I disagree with learning solely on rds for one reason: someone learning on irons has to developed proper sight alignment. Without knowing any other way of shooting in their history, proper sight alignment will become muscle memory, at which point I think they could switch to rds and have the time of their lives.
On the other hand, someone who learns on rds won't be forced to get those good habits and might have a bit of an uphill battle if/when they have to learn irons.
I'll admit, this argument might not apply to the casual shooter who may very well go their entire lives without using irons, but if I'm teaching my wife and son to shoot I want it to be fun for them, but I want them to be capable too.
How are those doc optics sights? I have never had the chance to use one. I am a bit of a rare breed, I prefer Irons sights with a BURDS:jester:
Not too bad. Dot was too big and bright for me. I've never spent much time on one... but one dot isn't much different than another.
As long as the turd is on when you need it.. :confused:
On the other hand, someone who learns on rds won't be forced to get those good habits and will have a bit of an uphill battle if/when they have to learn irons.
Agreed, although minor correction :D
Shooting irons simply magnifies any deficiencies in fundamentals. With a new shooter, I wouldn't mind starting them off RDS. Once they decide they really want to learn to shoot, I start them off on irons. I firmly believe in ironing (no pun intended) out the bad habits before they get too ingrained in the new shooter.
It seems to me that many of these posts aren't necessarily proposing to have a shooter learn to shoot without irons altogether, but really just to get the potential student "on the hook". That I might agree with. I know for me, though, I was so happy to just hold a boom-stick,let alone shoot it my first time that it really wouldn't have mattered that much if I had a rds or a scope or nothing at all.
Different strokes, I guess.
Great thread... never really thought about it, just started irons first cause thats what I was told. That said, I bought an rds and my groups tightened up 25%.
After looking at all the responses, Id say its good to start with optic. As stated, It builds confidence and lets the shooter concentrate on form and trigger control. Once thats down, Id say it is important to learn irons for a couple reasons. One, optics can go down. second, 90% of people use irons for pistols, so you might as well learn them now. third, probably not as important. It builds overall confidence in the weapon, but I feel the same about building a lower or totally taking the gun apart(at reasonable levels) so you can see how every piece works together.
One question. People in this thread have stated that irons>rds for long shots (500yds for example). Why? Wouldnt an rds offer a better field of view (target is covered by post vs dot floating above target)? Also couldnt the dot be used to get a precise hold-over? For exaple, a 4moa dot, at 400 yds, if you need 12" hold over that 3/4 of the dot above target. How can you measure that with a post quickly other than guessing. Not trying to derail, but I think it applies here.
charmcitycop
10-18-11, 11:14
......
Great thread... never really thought about it, just started irons first cause thats what I was told. That said, I bought an rds and my groups tightened up 25%.
Although possible to shoot decent groups with an RDS... something out of whack.
If you don't have vision issues, the opposite should have been true for you.
One question. People in this thread have stated that irons>rds for long shots (500yds for example). Why? Wouldnt an rds offer a better field of view (target is covered by post vs dot floating above target)? Also couldnt the dot be used to get a precise hold-over? For exaple, a 4moa dot, at 400 yds, if you need 12" hold over that 3/4 of the dot above target. How can you measure that with a post quickly other than guessing. Not trying to derail, but I think it applies here.
Good irons are calibrated and can be dialed up so you don't hold over. Floating the dot for holdover can work in a pinch... but most people don't see a nice clear dot size. Depending on the brightness and the shooters vision, most dots appear to be a glob... not evenly shaped enough to use for MOA estimates.
We tried some 500 yard shots with a dot sight the weekend before last, and it sucked. The dot covered too much of the target at that distance... and we were covering up the small steel gong and losing it behind the dot.
Now if you have some flip up crap irons that don't dial up, then yeah.... you're better off holding over with your RDS.
RogerinTPA
10-18-11, 11:41
I used to be in the "Irons" first crowd since it's what I was first taught and competed with for many years. Since using the RDS for quite a few years and teaching a few new shooters with them along the way, the RDS wins in efficiency as far as economy of time and resources are concerned, to quickly bring a new shooter up to speed (accuracy and enjoyment of learning a new skill). Since this is M4C, I would advocate IF you are planning to use such skills in any type of real world armed scenario, then learning both aiming methods will aid in increasing your chances of surviving an armed encounter if the RDS fails for what ever reason.
the RDS wins in efficiency as far as economy of time and resources are concerned, to quickly bring a new shooter up to speed (accuracy and enjoyment of learning a new skill).
No question. If you're teaching someone new, it's pretty easy to say put the dot on the target and shoot.
I've shown kids, girls, and broads what to do with irons by drawing a pic in the sand dozens of times though. They always get a hit on their first shot.
I think a big reason we tell new shooters to use irons first is because WE as shooters (some of us) learned on irons, and the results dont lie.
We practiced until we got it right and we KNOW how to use them.
All of that work, we dont take it for granted.
Maybe thats why "we" preach irons first
Im near sighted but wear contacts. I didnt have a hard fsb focus though. Ive been focusing on pistol recently and have gotten much better with sight picture. I realized I was doing it wrong. Sucks being self-taught. Need to go to an appleseed in a bad way. Im gonna try it next time Im out. I have a primary arms rds and the dot is pretty much a circle. Sunny day I turn it up and center it in the black dot on the target. Best I have with irons was 4"@100yds(handguard on a bag) However my irons are MI flips that came on the gun... I CANNOT wait to graduate and build a quality rifle. For now its practice with what I have.
However my irons are MI flips that came on the gun... I CANNOT wait to graduate and build a quality rifle. For now its practice with what I have.
4" at a hundo isn't anything to sneeze at... with irons. That's a head shot as far as I'm concerned.
2" is nice and doable with a rifle sight radius and standard Fixed sights. I'm near sighted too, but the rifle radius brings everything into decent clarity.
4" at a hundo isn't anything to sneeze at... with irons. That's a head shot as far as I'm concerned.
2" is nice and doable with a rifle sight radius and standard Fixed sights. I'm near sighted too, but the rifle radius brings everything into decent clarity.
2"? maybe match grade ammo. Im using a stag upper with m193 clones. I dont think my rifle is capable of 2" 10-shot group with that combo. Smallest was 3.25" 20 shot with rds.
8" target, as I remember was hard to find the exact center of my fs post(post isnt even, not a pretty sight picture by any means). the dot was very fast and easy to center in there. Like I said, I gotta hit the range and try again. Ill take some match ammo.:D
and um... How do you PM? I dont want to keep spamming this thread with O.T. discussion but cant find anything but "quote" and "reply". Is the a probational period for PMing?
2"? maybe match grade ammo. Im using a stag upper with m193 clones. I dont think my rifle is capable of 2" 10-shot group with that combo. Smallest was 3.25" 20 shot with rds.
Nah! If you get a good sight picture.... 2MOA is doable in good light with 55 grain. I've done it a few times with standard 55 grain 223 loads.
JoshuaJJackson
12-30-11, 20:14
I used to be in the "Irons" first crowd since it's what I was first taught and competed with for many years. Since using the RDS for quite a few years and teaching a few new shooters with them along the way, the RDS wins in efficiency as far as economy of time and resources are concerned, to quickly bring a new shooter up to speed (accuracy and enjoyment of learning a new skill). Since this is M4C, I would advocate IF you are planning to use such skills in any type of real world armed scenario, then learning both aiming methods will aid in increasing your chances of surviving an armed encounter if the RDS fails for what ever reason.
When I was on the rifle range recently the Gunner there had something interesting to say about this.
He said he came from the irons first crown as he's been around awhile. But apparently the Marine Corps been doing some testing with all of this, and they found when teaching candidates/recruits with an optic first they were all shooting better than there counterparts that where being taught on irons first. Said he was surprised at the results, but because of this he was saying you might now see recruits coming in the Marines learning to shoot with optics at boot camp.
That's interesting.... The upside to shooting with a magnified optic is that you can see the weapon's movement more.
I had to bust out the 20" A2 yesterday for 200, 300, 400, and 500 gong shooting. I was getting too used to Pappabear's ACOGs.
When I was on the rifle range recently the Gunner there had something interesting to say about this.
He said he came from the irons first crown as he's been around awhile. But apparently the Marine Corps been doing some testing with all of this, and they found when teaching candidates/recruits with an optic first they were all shooting better than there counterparts that where being taught on irons first. Said he was surprised at the results, but because of this he was saying you might now see recruits coming in the Marines learning to shoot with optics at boot camp.This is interesting as it is quite opposite from my experience, but I will admit that I may not see hundreds of guys a year, but on the plus side I am more able to closely work with those that I do see. I may have said this earlier in this thread, but I find that the guys I get are generally red dot types and are generally proficient base shooters before entering my courses. One thing that I my unit has progressed to is that we take every shooter back to zero and start from scratch in a distinct progression of learning. This ensures uniformity across the board and an exact understanding of what the student knows or understands about fundamentals etc, as we don't take things for granted or leave anything to chance. We go back to basics with irons only for an entire week long course. What we have found that we have produced a higher overall quality of shooter in the long term. Even guys who were very proficient with a red dot invariably become even better shooters once the red dot goes back on the weapon. I will admit that our guys probably get much more individual attention than perhaps on a Military basics range.
I might also be led to believe from my speaking with the Military guys doing the basics teaching is that red dots are becoming the "norm" and that it is much easier to produce better shooters when teaching and pushing out larger numbers of students quickly. I can completely see how this can be the case and do not disagree with the this approach when you are limited in instructional time and personal attention to each shooter, but overall I do not believe that this produces a higher quality shooter in the long term. All the truly great shooters that I can think of or that I know are amazing iron sight shooters and probably started on irons.
The upside to shooting with a magnified optic is that you can see the weapon's movement more.
The magnification issue can be a double edged sword for some shooters. While I tend to think of it as a positive it can create shooters to enhance other potential issues with their fundamentals, particularly poor breathing and more importantly poor trigger control. This is where a good coach / instructor can help monitor the shooter. Heck I sometimes have to remind myself of certain things especially when I have added physical stress prior to shooting to the point that my pulse or heart beat shows up on my crosshairs. Can't control the heart beat, but we can adjust for our breathing even under great amounts of physical exertion.
RogerinTPA
01-01-12, 18:03
When I was on the rifle range recently the Gunner there had something interesting to say about this.
He said he came from the irons first crown as he's been around awhile. But apparently the Marine Corps been doing some testing with all of this, and they found when teaching candidates/recruits with an optic first they were all shooting better than there counterparts that where being taught on irons first. Said he was surprised at the results, but because of this he was saying you might now see recruits coming in the Marines learning to shoot with optics at boot camp.
From what I've read a while back and from talking to active duty friends and troops in Bagram, Army basic training doesn't teach iron sights anymore. It is just more efficient (time, instruction, ammo & other resources) to teach & qualify large amounts of troops how to shoot the CCO/RDS, who've never fired a weapon before. That is interesting that the Marines came to the same conclusion. I did notice quite a few Marines without a BUIS on their rifles.
JoshuaJJackson
01-01-12, 18:18
This is interesting as it is quite opposite from my experience, but I will admit that I may not see hundreds of guys a year, but on the plus side I am more able to closely work with those that I do see. I may have said this earlier in this thread, but I find that the guys I get are generally red dot types and are generally proficient base shooters before entering my courses. One thing that I my unit has progressed to is that we take every shooter back to zero and start from scratch in a distinct progression of learning. This ensures uniformity across the board and an exact understanding of what the student knows or understands about fundamentals etc, as we don't take things for granted or leave anything to chance. We go back to basics with irons only for an entire week long course. What we have found that we have produced a higher overall quality of shooter in the long term. Even guys who were very proficient with a red dot invariably become even better shooters once the red dot goes back on the weapon. I will admit that our guys probably get much more individual attention than perhaps on a Military basics range.
I might also be led to believe from my speaking with the Military guys doing the basics teaching is that red dots are becoming the "norm" and that it is much easier to produce better shooters when teaching and pushing out larger numbers of students quickly. I can completely see how this can be the case and do not disagree with the this approach when you are limited in instructional time and personal attention to each shooter, but overall I do not believe that this produces a higher quality shooter in the long term. All the truly great shooters that I can think of or that I know are amazing iron sight shooters and probably started on irons.
The magnification issue can be a double edged sword for some shooters. While I tend to think of it as a positive it can create shooters to enhance other potential issues with their fundamentals, particularly poor breathing and more importantly poor trigger control. This is where a good coach / instructor can help monitor the shooter. Heck I sometimes have to remind myself of certain things especially when I have added physical stress prior to shooting to the point that my pulse or heart beat shows up on my crosshairs. Can't control the heart beat, but we can adjust for our breathing even under great amounts of physical exertion.
+1 Agree completely
From what I've read a while back and from talking to active duty friends and troops in Bagram, Army basic training doesn't teach iron sights anymore. It is just more efficient (time, instruction, ammo & other resources) to teach & qualify large amounts of troops how to shoot the CCO/RDS, who've never fired a weapon before. That is interesting that the Marines came to the same conclusion. I did notice quite a few Marines without a BUIS on their rifles.
BUIS are not issued on an individual basis it's more or less if they have any available and you want one. The same gunner was also talking about they will soon be issued to 100% due to possibility of switching to a free float rail system starting with the infantry battalions.
The Marine Corps already settled on a BUIS along with the EREKs for the RCO.
The free floating rail should make it to the next ground board for decision as part of the overall PIP, there has been discussion about it (rail and collapsible stock) to be type classified as the A5.
This is interesting as it is quite opposite from my experience,
Factor in what some may consider "better...."
One of the tests they did at TBS, they qual'd optics-only and used a particular collimation device in lieu of the LBS. Reduced time/rounds expended for zeroing = "better."
The actual scores were not statistically different in any way that I could see; the aggregate is still a whopping 5-6 points difference. Enough to affect those that border from Marksman to Sharpshooter, and SS to Expert, so, it edges the trend upward into the "better" realm from a qualification standpoint. Whether they are, individually, better on-demand shooters or not isn't touched by this.
Also, they had WAY fewer Unq's in the end because they reduced the amount of time to cycle folks through, meaning that they had more time to re-run those Unq's until they got their pizza-box score. From a throughput POV, that's gonna get called "better." It doesn't mean that the shooters are better shots, it just means that the crappy shooters managed to get un-crappy enough to hit their minimum score, upon which they're told to immediately show clear and un-ass the range, which is the common practice, irons or optics....
RE: BUIS, while the stock TA51 mounts were the most common, putting a BUIS behind an optic that required a tool to remove seemed a waste, particularly on the A4, where the shooter almost absolutely needed that rearmost 1913 rail slot to get eye relief. As noted, that's changing, though I'm uncertain where they ended up in terms of swapping to throw-arm mounts to match those of the SDO/MDO.
Until last year, I'd say I was firmly in the "iron sights for starting out" and maybe even the "iron sights all the time" group. I grew up on iron sights, and can shoot decently with them.
Then I discovered the ACOG. And realized that there was a reason that I was one of the few folks around still using only irons... there's something better out there.
Aligning the sights doesn't seem to be the problem for most people... unless you're a complete moron, you can learn how to line up rifle sights in about 15 seconds. The issue seems to come down to flinching, breathing, jerking, and other such problems... not sight alignment.
If we can provide new shooters with a tool (a RDS) that allows them to focus on what their body is doing in preparation and response to firing a shot, rather than playing "eye games"... why wouldn't we do that? Once they get the more difficult aspects of shooting down, where the problems usually lie, it is easy to throw iron sights into the mix at a later date.
At least... that's what I think.
RE: BUIS, while the stock TA51 mounts were the most common, putting a BUIS behind an optic that required a tool to remove seemed a waste, particularly on the A4, where the shooter almost absolutely needed that rearmost 1913 rail slot to get eye relief. As noted, that's changing, though I'm uncertain where they ended up in terms of swapping to throw-arm mounts to match those of the SDO/MDO.
When 2/4 relieved my Battalion last September they had throw lever mounts for their ACOGs. Not sure of the manufacturer but if you go to 2/4's Facebook page you can see pics. Sorry for not posting the photo directly but NMCI likes facebook and doesn't like M4Carbine.
sinlessorrow
01-18-12, 21:49
i think everyone should learn irons well enough to zero them. thats about as well i know them, ill stick with red dots
i think everyone should learn irons well enough to zero them. thats about as well i know them, ill stick with red dots
I think they should experience the thrill of the 500 yard gong hit. When you ping that thing four or five times you'll at least know the impressive capability of A2 sights.
Then if you want to run a dot for general use, go for it.
I think they should experience the thrill of the 500 yard gong hit. When you ping that thing four or five times you'll at least know the impressive capability of A2 sights.
Then if you want to run a dot for general use, go for it.
I always thought people just set the sights(50yd zero) and left them alone, now I'm thinking hard about getting an a2 BUIS and actually learning how to use it. Im actually dissapointed with myself that I dont know that yet... thanks guys, just one more improvement to add to the list.:cool:
I think they should experience the thrill of the 500 yard gong hit. When you ping that thing four or five times you'll at least know the impressive capability of A2 sights.
Then if you want to run a dot for general use, go for it.
I agree. It feels good to hear steel banging with irons!
Last weekend I had the AK out at 300 yards bangin away.
Plain old boring wood stocks and irons.
Always good to know how to use iron sights, But when I get a new rifle I first get the Iron sights zeroed then if I put a scope like an ACOG I never go back to the iron sights, I consider the Acog permanent and just as dependable as the rifle itself. There are some military rifles now that do not have iron sights.
Canonshooter
04-18-12, 11:14
I think they should experience the thrill of the 500 yard gong hit. When you ping that thing four or five times you'll at least know the impressive capability of A2 sights.
I agree completely - being able to shoot irons well is a very satisfying skill.
A few observations;
1. Irons seem to be a second-thought to many. They have them "just in case" but never spend the time to learn to use them effectively.
2. Even within just the AR platform, not all irons are created equal.
3. If the only "irons" a new shooter was ever exposed to were a set up plastic flip-ups set up a short distance apart, they would never know/appreciate what a good set of sights are capable of (such as NM sights on a 20" HBAR).
That said, I concur with Rob's point - for new shooters who fire their first shots with a RDS, their chances of a satisfying experience (hitting the target) are greatly improved. I guess the question is if they learn with a RDS/optics, will they ever take the initiative to become proficient with irons?
At least for a general use carbine, I think a solid set of irons and learning to use them is mandatory. It's comforting to know that if for some reason you have to jettison the optic* in a time of need, you have have the confidence and ability to carry on without missing a beat.
*For a rifle with BUIS, I believe the optics should always be installed with a QD mount.
I guess the question is if they learn with a RDS/optics, will they ever take the initiative to become proficient with irons?
and the answer is, who cares?
If they aren't backing me up, or part of my unit, or part of my fantasy militia, what difference does it make to me? Unless, of course, they're beating my ass on the range and I need something else to blame it on.
Metal_Mania
06-09-12, 13:23
Im kinda of new to firearms. I bought my first firearm a couple of months ago (AR 15) and I just want to hit targets!
I have a flatop with a $30 rear sight and gasblock front sight, but I'm thinking of getting some cheap optics to increase my accuracy.
At the end of the day its so much more satisfying to hit most of the targets you aiming at, then wasting ammo and not hitting anything.
"Cheap optics" are a waste of money. The minimum I would even consider spending for rifle caliber would be a Primary Arms for $100+ Plenty of guys on this site may say even that's a waste. If your optic doesn't hold up, what's the point?
Metal_Mania
06-09-12, 13:59
"Cheap optics" are a waste of money. The minimum I would even consider spending for rifle caliber would be a Primary Arms for $100+ Plenty of guys on this site may say even that's a waste. If your optic doesn't hold up, what's the point?
Around $100 is kind of what I meant for a "cheap optic". I probably wouldn't consider anything lower than that for an AR 15.
Speaking of primary arms, what do people have to say about their 1-4x scope? Does it hold a zero good, is it accurate?
I bought a utg 4x optic and that thing was p.o.s! I couldn't even tell the difference between looking at 100 yards with my eyes and the scope. I returned it.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't a 4x at 100 yards supposed to look like 25 yards?
Oneupsuperdog
09-26-12, 12:54
I know this is off the subject and i am sorry. I am new to forums and new to the ar. I have a colt LE6920 on lawaway and i have been on here tryin to learn some stuff before i get it. I plan on keeping it bone stock till i get to know her. Can someone tell me on the back sight is the center of the of the big apiture at the same hight as the center of the small apiture. And a again i know this is not how to ask a question but i can not find the button to make my own thread or post.
I know this is off the subject and i am sorry. I am new to forums and new to the ar. I have a colt LE6920 on lawaway and i have been on here tryin to learn some stuff before i get it. I plan on keeping it bone stock till i get to know her. Can someone tell me on the back sight is the center of the of the big apiture at the same hight as the center of the small apiture. And a again i know this is not how to ask a question but i can not find the button to make my own thread or post.
No. They are not the "same plane" apps. Forget the big app, and run your small app.
Oneupsuperdog
09-26-12, 15:18
No. They are not the "same plane" apps. Forget the big app, and run your small app.
Ok. Thanks. The way i had read to sight it in had me sure that the little one was higher but the guys at work that have had ars for the last year didnt know. I think ill stick to askin u guys my questions. I have already learned alot from yall. Thanks.
Oneupsuperdog
09-27-12, 07:02
Can someone help me find the new thread button? I guess im over looking it.
Go into FORUMS, then click on AR General, for example... When you're just into the appropriate forum for your thread, the button will be on the left with yellow letters.
I usually have the first timers shoot something relatively low recoil with a 4x scope on it. They're usually pretty stoked on their "natural skills."
Great point. If you don't have to worry about target acquisition, you can focus on learning breathing, trigger control, etc. Then, add back in the sighting. AND, if the new shooter is enthused, he/she is much more likely to continue.
oodalooper
12-25-12, 10:31
I hear the argument that irons don't run out of batteries and rarely ever fail. These are the reasons given for not running optics. For me, I'm cheap. I'd rather buy more things that go bang.
One day I will buy a sweet acog knockoff that belongs on airsoft for the Larue I'm saving my pennies for, lol. (Kidding, I would NEVER disgrace that rifle!)
All too often I see people(to include Soldiers), want to throw an optic on their weapon to "make them more accurate". Consistently performing perfect fundamentals makes you accurate. If you don't understand the fundamentals of marksmanship, then adding more bells and whistles to your weapon will probably just magnify any errors, especially magnified optics since there are so many things that go into using an optic properly. There is a reason that the Army has students in the Squad Designated Marksman course shoot for a week with irons from 100y-600y before ever throwing on the ACOG. And if you don't pass irons you go home. Back in 06, 14 of 31 went home after week one.
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Master the basics, or atleast the level of accuracy you desire, before throwing on an optic.
Alaskapopo
02-08-13, 04:46
All too often I see people(to include Soldiers), want to throw an optic on their weapon to "make them more accurate". Consistently performing perfect fundamentals makes you accurate. If you don't understand the fundamentals of marksmanship, then adding more bells and whistles to your weapon will probably just magnify any errors, especially magnified optics since there are so many things that go into using an optic properly. There is a reason that the Army has students in the Squad Designated Marksman course shoot for a week with irons from 100y-600y before ever throwing on the ACOG. And if you don't pass irons you go home. Back in 06, 14 of 31 went home after week one.
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Master the basics, or atleast the level of accuracy you desire, before throwing on an optic.
I learned on irons but frankly in this day and age making students learn irons before optics is just a waste of time. Your right if shooters don't have a fundamental base they will not shoot well regardless of what they throw on the rifle. However you don't need to learn that base on irons that is an antiquated notion.
Pat
... adding more bells and whistles to your weapon will probably just magnify any errors, especially magnified optics .... :stop:
Using good optics will make you more accurate, all other things being equal. That is why I think the statement quoted here is simply not true. If you can see the target better and faster, how can that be bad?
:stop:
Using good optics will make you more accurate, all other things being equal. That is why I think the statement quoted here is simply not true. If you can see the target better and faster, how can that be bad?
Unless you don't understand your wobble zone in non supported positions, and you snatch the trigger when you think your magnified optic is in the exact center of the target.
If you can see the target better and faster, how can that be bad?
One can not see "faster". Light travels way to fast for the human eye to detect that monumentally insignificant difference.
You can see the target better/clearer though.
Unless you don't understand your wobble zone in non supported positions, and you snatch the trigger when you think your magnified optic is in the exact center of the target.
"All things being equal," including amount of training time, you'd be better on the optic, even if it doesn't make you see faster.
"All things being equal," including amount of training time, you'd be better on the optic, even if it doesn't make you see faster.
Depends on the shooting... I mean... there are certainly times when a magnified optic is preferred.
When we get out to 4 and 5 hundred yards, I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't like an ACOG or a 1-6.5, etc.
From contact to around 150 or 200 yards... I don't want that crap in the way at all.
What about Aimpoint vs irons? I know it's impossible to go back in time, but what if you were trained on optics instead of on irons? How about for average Joe who has limited training time...which way will make him faster and more accurate...sooner?
The only difference I see in Aimpoint vs. Irons is that in some conditions the Red dot is easier to pick up. Conversely.. in some instances the dot is hard to pick up... like if you have it set low and go to take a shot in bright sunlight.
Irons work the same to me... just snap the stock to your jaw and the front sight is there.
You get these short little old instructors who babble on about lining up irons... well you don't line up irons if you're worth your ass. SNAP! They're there.... BANG.
The only difference I see in Aimpoint vs. Irons is that in some conditions the Red dot is easier to pick up. Conversely.. in some instances the dot is hard to pick up... like if you have it set low and go to take a shot in bright sunlight.
Irons work the same to me... just snap the stock to your jaw and the front sight is there.
You get these short little old instructors who babble on about lining up irons... well you don't line up irons if you're worth your ass. SNAP! They're there.... BANG.
Great stuff.
Yeah... I'm running an aimpoint now on one of my shorties. I like it for the most part. If it weren't for Aimpoints battery life, I wouldn't touch a Red Dot with a 10 foot pole.
The increased reliability of them now is everything.
And the 2moa dots aren't bad for medium range shots too. 300-400 yards, it's easier to hold the dot a little over and see the target.
Failure2Stop
02-08-13, 09:57
All too often I see people(to include Soldiers), want to throw an optic on their weapon to "make them more accurate". Consistently performing perfect fundamentals makes you accurate. If you don't understand the fundamentals of marksmanship, then adding more bells and whistles to your weapon will probably just magnify any errors, especially magnified optics since there are so many things that go into using an optic properly. There is a reason that the Army has students in the Squad Designated Marksman course shoot for a week with irons from 100y-600y before ever throwing on the ACOG. And if you don't pass irons you go home. Back in 06, 14 of 31 went home after week one.
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Master the basics, or atleast the level of accuracy you desire, before throwing on an optic.
This actually proves the point.
What if irons were left out? What if it started with the ACOG (the device that was going to be used 99.9% of the time in the actual job) and had the irons at the end of the class, after all the other fundamental stuff was done? Do you still think that there would be an almost 50% drop rate? I don't, and I don't think that's a bad thing. In the end, all that forcing use of irons for a week did was reduce the number of people that graduated the class, reducing the number of high level performers out doing the job.
Further, the A2 rear sight is anything but simple, definately not simpler in use than the ACOG BDC.
Iron sights are not synonymous with fundamental marksmanship, the sooner people accept that you can work fundamentals with any kind of sights the better off we will all be.
"All things being equal," including amount of training time, you'd be better on the optic, even if it doesn't make you see faster.
I think a you would be better off with a red dot than irons but not necessarily a magnified optic over either a red dot or irons. If I were commandant I would phase out the TA-31 and issue aim points and leave the automatic gunner with TA-11 variant that is now issued. But as F2S said its better to train with what you will be using the vast majority of the time than something you will not be using that often.
On another note I do not see why a high attrition rate is such a bragging point in military schools. If the US government is paying thousands of dollars to send service members to schools they should be passing them, not failing. I am not saying to lower standards but to do a better job remediating those who are below standard to pass the standard. Either that or have a screener at home station before you can get orders to the school.
This actually proves the point.
What if irons were left out? What if it started with the ACOG (the device that was going to be used 99.9% of the time in the actual job) and had the irons at the end of the class, after all the other fundamental stuff was done? Do you still think that there would be an almost 50% drop rate? I don't, and I don't think that's a bad thing. In the end, all that forcing use of irons for a week did was reduce the number of people that graduated the class, reducing the number of high level performers out doing the job.
Now that would be a facinating experiment.
Further, the A2 rear sight is anything but simple, definately not simpler in use than the ACOG BDC.
This is true. And for shooting distance, I NEVER make a wind adjustment. Hold off only....
And rarely make an elevation adjustment The markings on the wheel rarely match the ammo and barrel length I'm running anyway.
This actually proves the point.
What if irons were left out? What if it started with the ACOG (the device that was going to be used 99.9% of the time in the actual job) and had the irons at the end of the class, after all the other fundamental stuff was done? Do you still think that there would be an almost 50% drop rate? I don't, and I don't think that's a bad thing. In the end, all that forcing use of irons for a week did was reduce the number of people that graduated the class, reducing the number of high level performers out doing the job.
Further, the A2 rear sight is anything but simple, definately not simpler in use than the ACOG BDC.
Iron sights are not synonymous with fundamental marksmanship, the sooner people accept that you can work fundamentals with any kind of sights the better off we will all be.
I completely agree with training to the 99%. It's why I've moved away from a fixed fsb on my personal ARs, although I used to be a big advocate.
But because of military training me on irons most of the time, I'm actually better with irons than with a 2moa aimpoint at long distance.
i agree that if for some crazy reason my potentially fallible optics fail i want to know how to be very accurate with my weapon. i always dial in irons first and stick with them
I hear the argument that irons don't run out of batteries and rarely ever fail. These are the reasons given for not running optics. For me, I'm cheap. I'd rather buy more things that go bang.
One day I will buy a sweet acog knockoff that belongs on airsoft for the Larue I'm saving my pennies for, lol. (Kidding, I would NEVER disgrace that rifle!)
what this guy said too :D
Failure2Stop
02-25-13, 07:21
i agree that if for some crazy reason my potentially fallible optics fail i want to know how to be very accurate with my weapon. i always dial in irons first and stick with them
The question is not Irons vs Optics, but rather the sequence of education and proficiency.
I am certainly not coming from a concept of "no irons", and I don't think that anyone in this thread is.
Failure2Stop
02-25-13, 07:25
But because of military training me on irons most of the time, I'm actually better with irons than with a 2moa aimpoint at long distance.
Quite a few shooters (myself included in the past) make similar statements regarding precision at range with irons.
As a reference point, most shooters that are familiar with irons (and especially those like us that spent a long time behind iron sights) will be caipable of greater precision with good irons than with a RDS, as long as the target is clearly defined to permit the shooter to focus on the front sight. As soon as the target makes an active attempt to not get shot, or the target is not cleanly defined from the background, a sighting system that permits the shooter to focus on both the target and the aiming device is pretty valuable.
Do you know why that is? I can't figure it out, the red dot is smaller than the front sight post, it doesn't require aligning sights, it has more contrast... But to me is still less accurate when target shooting.
Do you know why that is? I can't figure it out, the red dot is smaller than the front sight post, it doesn't require aligning sights, it has more contrast... But to me is still less accurate when target shooting.
I think it's because your head is off the stock... you break solid cheekweld with an RDS.
My one gripe about the RDS is that it makes my cheekweld discipline get loose.
Failure2Stop
02-25-13, 12:24
Do you know why that is? I can't figure it out, the red dot is smaller than the front sight post, it doesn't require aligning sights, it has more contrast... But to me is still less accurate when target shooting.
The width of the front sight is actually kind of irrelevant since the front sight should really only be bisecting the target (or even just touching the bottom of the target blur). Smaller front sights can help with lateral placement, but finding the center of the target blur is relatively simple with a uniformly sized target. This can get a bit more difficult with oddly shaped targets (see the USMC "Dog" target), but one can do simple sight adjustment to give center hits with alternate aiming points (such as adjusting the sights to give a center hit with a target frame hold at a specified distance) but these skills don't translate into a running gunfight.
One of the issues with RDSs is user perception of dot and dot contrast with background. The consistency of iron sight picture is better than that of most RDSs on most targets throughout the illumination spectrum. Parallax is also not an issue with irons, and all optics are subject to parallax issues (though most are transparent to most applications, especially those in which the RDS is best applied).
I personally prefer low-powered variables for anything over 100 meters, as they give me a better sight picture than any RDSs (lots of corneal damage) and better awareness of target than is possible with irons without losing precision; though that was not asked. To too many people the "Irons vs Optics" discussion is A2 irons versus Aimpoints. There are a whole host of options other than those. For example, I personally prefer a good iron sight setup on pistols over RDS/MRD equipped options, but that's due to the method of employment, employment distances, and relevant target sizes. That doesn't mean that they don't have their place, or that people that use them are "cheating".
In the end, it is performance that matters in your selected conditions. If budget was a major factor, and the $450 was either going to go to an optic or a class, I would recommend the class first. The skills learned in a good class will transfer readily between sighting devices.
Thanks Jack! Actually I had kind of forgotten that - aimpoints often appear as non-circular blobs to me and change shape all the time. With an eotech or etched glass optic (is that a phrase/acronym used?), it's much clearer and more uniform, more like iron sights. But the eye box/relief of magnified etched glass optics kind of annoy me, they're hard for me to use in non-traditional shooting positions.
F2S,
I have been shooting for some time and have been fortunate to attend a lot of training and I have never heard/read anyone explain the the reason behind shooting irons better at a static target than what you presented. Thank you.
I was a die hard irons guy and only had a T-1 on my rifle for shooting with an APR. I have trained with CSAT, Tiger Swan and Mid South and I was always able to perform to a high level with irons...on static targets.
The eye opening moment came when my team received the Speer ATK bolts. After several force on force scenarios against motivated OpFor it was very apparent how much of an advantage the optics can give.
Now I have shot force on force several times in the past with iron sighted sim ARs and MP5's but, it was very different when using my own carbine with an optic.
Since the inclusion of these bolts in to our training I have worked harder with my optics at distance and am getting comfortable with my wobble zone and I am starting to make as good of hits at distance on static targets...which is a confidence booster.
Sorry to ramble but I wanted you to know I appreciated the info and the time you took to give it.
D.
Quite a few shooters (myself included in the past) make similar statements regarding precision at range with irons.
As a reference point, most shooters that are familiar with irons (and especially those like us that spent a long time behind iron sights) will be caipable of greater precision with good irons than with a RDS, as long as the target is clearly defined to permit the shooter to focus on the front sight. As soon as the target makes an active attempt to not get shot, or the target is not cleanly defined from the background, a sighting system that permits the shooter to focus on both the target and the aiming device is pretty valuable.
That's the best explanation I've heard.
My seven year old little girl is right handed and left eye dominant. If it didn't frustrate her so much would be pretty funny. :D I see a red dot in her future. I tried to get her to use her right eye and then to switch to a left handed shooting position last time she shot her 10-22. She was quickly frustrated so I dropped it. I need to practice more with her.
So I've changed my mind a bit. I see the value of a RDS or low power scope in getting my little girl on target and having fun. I don't want her to give up too soon.
So I've changed my mind a bit. I see the value of a RDS or low power scope in getting my little girl on target and having fun.
I'll buy that. RDS is a patch for those with High levels of women hormones.
I'll buy that. RDS is a patch for those with High levels of women hormones.
At 7 years old? I dunno man.
;)
At 7 years old? I dunno man.
;)
Women are hard coded out of the gate. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.