Am I the only one starting to prefer iron sights?

[C-grunt]

I can't possibly see why you would want to intentionally do it that way, unless the standard height was too low for you because of big cheek bones or something. The standard height is comfortable for me, and where I naturally end up when I bring the stock to my cheek. Why would I want to lift my cheek off the comb just to look over my sights? Seems like if you were going to do that you would just switch to a lower third spacer and avoid the whole parallax thing.

Why would I intentionally do it that way? Because that's the way it's supposed to be used. Even when using an absolute co-witness mount, dont look through the rear iron sight.

[C-grunt]

double tap

[utahjeepr]

I guess I'm just posting this for my own entertainment.

FOR ME, a tall mount under a red dot is faster. It is all about shooting, moving, and transitioning on multiple targets. My head is upright, letting my sense of balance function at its best. Not having my head craned forward allows more freedom to scan and be aware of my surroundings. I transition more quickly and naturally from one target to the next. I am aware of the dot but I am looking at the target, both eyes open. I can hit the dirt, fire a few shots from prone, and move. Long periods of shooting prone suck, but that's not my priority with a "fighting carbine" wearing an RDS.

Who the hell knows, maybe I'm crazy.

[titsonritz]

Why would I want to lift my cheek off the comb just to look over my sights?

To maintain a natural up-right position. Same thing goes for cross-dominate eyed people crooking there neck to one side to get their sight picture, not do that, bring the optic to the eye not the eye to the optic.

Seems like if you were going to do that you would just switch to a lower third spacer and avoid the whole parallax thing.

You have brought this up a couple of times, but at the distances you're talking about it makes zero difference.

[okie]

To maintain a natural up-right position. Same thing goes for cross-dominate eyed people crooking there neck to one side to get their sight picture, not do that, bring the optic to the eye not the eye to the optic.



You have brought this up a couple of times, but at the distances you're talking about it makes zero difference.

I get that, but several folks have mentioned longer ranges, and I'm just saying I don't know why you would intentionally invite parallax.

[okie]

Read more. Post less. Seek training.

Irons sights: look at sights.

Red dot: look at target.

There's a million threads and posts on how this is done.

Read more. Post less. Seek training.

Now you've lost me completely. Like I've mentioned already several times, I don't "look" at the sights. Nor do I consciously line them up. I focus on the target and bring the gun up to my cheek, and the sight picture is just there, regardless whether it's irons or the dot. Or a prism with an etched reticle for that matter.

Why you would compel me to want to get rid of that reference point with the comb is absolutely beyond me.

[C-grunt]

Ive shot out past 600 yards with carbines with dots on a lower 1/3 mount and even a couple higher mounts. Parallax isnt a big deal if you look through the the optic remotely correct. At longer distances, unless you are shooting from a weird position, parallax of a red dot is pretty low on the reasons of why you will miss.

[markm]

Yeah. You have to really pull the dot towards the edge before paralax is more than negligible.

[ViniVidivici]

You dont look through your irons when using a dot. Look over your iron sights and through the optic.

Exactly.

Doesn't everybody know this?

Oh wait.....everybody but okie.

Men, the horse has been led to the water. It seems insistent on dying of thirst regardless.

There is none so blind, as he who will not see...

[markm]

Ironically okie has a thread titled "who should I use to mill my glock for an RMR?" currently active.