Printable View
Not everyone has the time or money to become highly proficient with irons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf
I would rather see someone get good with an Aimpoint than still be working on mastering irons if they have to use a carbine defensively.
Simply put the likelihood of an Aimpoint going down are small, the likelihood of it being night when you need a carbine for defence are high. I would prioritize limited training time based on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by C4IGrant
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
Maybe save the money they used on the Aimpoint for training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
There are plenty of things most people don't need on a carbine, and people who tend to buy them are pricing themselves out of proper training. A RDS is generally thought to be one of the essentials of a defensive carbine, along with white light and a good sling. People spend way too much money on furniture and other shit (including stuff that doesn't hold up and needs replaced) that doesn't truly enhance their ability to fight with the carbine, and this is the type of useless spending that usually keeps people from training.
Others have plenty of iron sight training under their belts via different platforms, prior military service, etc. to make them proficient--if not masters--with their irons. When these people who can already shoot go on to add a RDS they tend to up their game, either being able to push the envelope or gain situational awareness or both.
Training is essential, but a RDS is a necessary component of a fighting carbine.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by C4IGrant
The main advantage is being able to make hits easier while under stress, with weird positions, improper cheek weld, and or worrying about fouling up sight alignment.
To the OP I find that I am more constant using a RDS but Irons can be every bit and more accurate than an RDS depending on the person using them. Got to remember high power and palma shooters have no problem with Irons even at distance.
Agreed, I did it for years and Irons can be extremely accurate for a seasoned competitor, but it's also a different type of shooting (competitive VS tactical) with different rules, weapons, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas M-4
The biggest reason I started with a red dot is that due to the specific brand of contacts I wear I see multiples of the rear sight and can't get a good picture with irons. Incidentally, I can use irons just find while wearing glasses.
Sometimes it is about the practical reasons...
I understand what you are saying and don't completely disagree, but my point is that someone who is going to entrust their lives to a firearm should have it within their means to be a good master of basic marksmanship fundamentals, which irons play heavily into much of the learning. The fundamentals quickly and easily translate into an electronic dot optic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
Edit - Just to add, I personally feel that many people skip good learning fundamentals and go right to red dots, many people without even learning good fundamentals with irons on a pistol. IMO a person is doing themselves a favor by investing the time to learn proper fundamentals with irons. Believe it or not, we have had a few people come into my unit with zero red dot experience. The learning curve for the red dot transition is minimal once they have mastered the irons. IMO irons to red dot transition with good instruction is very smooth and does not require that much more. I think a proper foundation being laid first is a much better route to take.
My main question about the necessity of a RDS is when a bright light is involved. When I practice at a reasonable HD distance, my Surefire gives me a great sight picture with irons and almost drowns out my M2. I really only notice the need for an RDS on a carbine, or night sights on a pisto,l when shooting at dusk, and at a distance that could be questionably long (For civilian defense).
An RDS does seem a bit easier to use, and I'm not giving mine up, but how necessary do you think it is for HD (or relatively short range) when you also have a quality white light?
I would rather have it than not, but I see a good light as much more important.
I don't disagree, and in a perfect world of training fighters I would suggest the same method of learning irons before optics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf
My world is a little different than that, and putting a carbine in someone's hands with a red dot sight actually allows them to focus on the other fundamentals besides sight alignment, especially in terms of manipulations. We also often encounter people who (perhaps rightfully) view the carbine as nothing more than a toy, and as such they're not really overly concerned with learning things the hard way. If that same shooter one day turns out to be interested in the defensive application of the carbine can easily go back and learn the iron sights at a later time. Well, perhaps not "easily", but certainly no harder than learning them to start with, and perhaps even more easily given that you can ignore all the other fundamentals.
I believe in this method, in part, because it's the way I did things. I'm not as proficient with irons as I should be, but I surprise myself every time I do use them with frankly how easy it is to get hits with them from a static position, and how quickly I can get hits at close range. Part of that is having been exposed to things long enough now that I know some of the tricks (like ignoring the rear sight at close range).
IMHO, in the world of civilian gun ownership, "learn irons first" is for kids, and is part of an antiquated methodology that includes things like "start with a .22 rifle" or "buy a revolver first".