Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 77

Thread: I get the feeling that many people don't realize how accurate Iron Sights can be

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    I think someone had an axe to grind and didn't understand the nature of this site, JW7777.

    Agreed with this and your initial post.

    To the OP:

    I have never read anything on this site nay saying the use of iron sights. I've used Iron sights since the age of 13, for many years, on various Army teams competitively using match grade .22s, M1As, M16s, to include Camp Perry, with several Infantry Trophy, President's Hundred, and several other matches out to 1000 meters. So I have no illusions about what raw iron sights can do as far as precision is concerned.

    Here, it's all about efficiency. Especially when compared to the "average" shooter. Red Dot Sights and powered optics are simply "more" efficient in getting accurate hit's faster in a tactical environment or carbine class, than Irons, for both experienced and novice shooters.
    Last edited by RogerinTPA; 04-07-10 at 08:44.
    For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    What I see with a lot of newer AR shooters or shooters without military training is that many can't shoot iron sighted rifles very well at all.

    By newer AR shooters I'm meaning shooting ARs for less than 5yrs. Most can shoot scopes and RDSs pretty well but couldn't hit a whiff if shooting for shit with iron sights. 99% of AR shooters with more than a few years of military training can shoot irons pretty damn well.
    Last edited by Robb Jensen; 04-07-10 at 08:57.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    567
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    I think someone had an axe to grind and didn't understand the nature of this site, JW7777.
    My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.

    The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.

    Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.

    A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
    Dan Miami, FL

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,469
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.

    The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.

    Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.

    A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
    I can't argue with much of that. However, more attention needs to be paid to getting off the square range and dynamic gunfighting rather than engaging with the service rifle at 500 and beyond.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.

    The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.

    Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc …… anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.

    A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
    What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training it's people and that they need to step it up? What about your experience in the service leads you to this conclusion? What I hear, over and over again, from guys that come back from Iraq and come out to shoot with us is "man, this in the kind of training we needed before we went overseas. that long-range shit they taught us did me no good standing in a mud hut" (or words to that effect).

    Personally, I am a non-LE civilian firearms enthusiast with an interest in self-defense application of guns. While I have enjoyed my experiences shooting at distance, other than marksmanship training I find them to be all but useless. Unless I'm preparing for the barfcom fantasy, me shooting someone at 600 yards is not only highly unlikely, but is going to present a big challenge in court IMHO. So I can use long-distance shooting as a way to work on my marksmanship skills, to stress the fundamentals, but beyond that....

    And then there's the issue of just how great my marksmanship skills with a carbine need to be at non-LE civilian distances. In my experience with our matches when it comes to the long gun manipulations and confidence with the platform make up for lack of marksmanship skills in almost every case. We just had a "long range" match and several of our shooters that often excel at CQB did horribly simply trying to shoot at egg at 75 yards, or a 4" steel plate at 50 (myself included).

    So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever it's being called now) but I'm not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I don't know why I'd want to.
    Last edited by rob_s; 04-07-10 at 09:51.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,019
    Feedback Score
    0
    This cuts right through the BS:
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training it's people and that they need to step it hut" (or words to that effect).
    ...... (Snip for brevity) .......

    So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever it's being called now) but I'm not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I don't know why I'd want to.
    Spot on and applies to the military as well.

    I have hit my share of targets with a standard M14 at 500 yards with iron sights. That was then & this is now. There is no legit military need to spend the huge amount of training and practice resources required to bring people that level of iron sight skill anymore. Red dots are the way to go for regular grunts . Some swing-out magnifiers ( etc ) for some of the guys can be good -- but wieght is always a consideration.

    Almost looks like another troll thread to me.
    Last edited by A-Bear680; 04-07-10 at 10:24. Reason: clarity.
    "... in common use at the time... for all lawful purposes... "

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    567
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    I can't argue with much of that. However, more attention needs to be paid to getting off the square range and dynamic gunfighting rather than engaging with the service rifle at 500 and beyond.
    Sure, I agree with that. It can be done after Basic. Get the fundamentals and the rest is easy.

    How would you compare/contrast Army basic marksmanship training with USMC? (serious question, you're one of the few who has done both and I'm curious)
    Last edited by danpass; 04-07-10 at 11:23.
    Dan Miami, FL

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    173
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    What I see with a lot of newer AR shooters or shooters without military training is that many can't shoot iron sighted rifles very well at all.

    By newer AR shooters I'm meaning shooting ARs for less than 5yrs. Most can shoot scopes and RDSs pretty well but couldn't hit a whiff if shooting for shit with iron sights.
    99% of AR shooters with more than a few years of military training can shoot irons pretty damn well.
    <raises hand> This is probably me. I've only been shooting AR-15 type firearms for 3 years now - and I started on an indoor range with a 9mm. Despite growing up shooting a lot of iron sights on 'adult' airguns and .22s, the ergonomics and the sight picture of the AR-15 did take a little getting used to.

    I would guess that lack of trigger time is the reason most non-military new AR owners suck at irons. That, and the absence of any formal or even semi-formal training on the platform.

    As far as RDSs and other optics go, new shooters are attracted to them because they make hitting the target easier. Plus, optics are cool. So many times I see a first time AR-15 owner decking out his rifle with some sort of optic before ever firing a shot. Is this worng? No. It's his/her rifle, and he/she can do whatever he/she wants. But i think it illustrates a growing trend among new AR-15 shooters of skipping over basic fundamentals to obtain instant gratification.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    567
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training it's people and that they need to step it up? What about your experience in the service leads you to this conclusion? What I hear, over and over again, from guys that come back from Iraq and come out to shoot with us is "man, this in the kind of training we needed before we went overseas. that long-range shit they taught us did me no good standing in a mud hut" (or words to that effect).

    Personally, I am a non-LE civilian firearms enthusiast with an interest in self-defense application of guns. While I have enjoyed my experiences shooting at distance, other than marksmanship training I find them to be all but useless. Unless I'm preparing for the barfcom fantasy, me shooting someone at 600 yards is not only highly unlikely, but is going to present a big challenge in court IMHO. So I can use long-distance shooting as a way to work on my marksmanship skills, to stress the fundamentals, but beyond that....

    And then there's the issue of just how great my marksmanship skills with a carbine need to be at non-LE civilian distances. In my experience with our matches when it comes to the long gun manipulations and confidence with the platform make up for lack of marksmanship skills in almost every case. We just had a "long range" match and several of our shooters that often excel at CQB did horribly simply trying to shoot at egg at 75 yards, or a 4" steel plate at 50 (myself included).

    So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever it's being called now) but I'm not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I don't know why I'd want to.
    The 0.5k Report would never have happened if Army marksmanship training were adequate. Where is the USMC equivalent report?

    I agree with the Major that Basic RM needs serious improvement. The Army certainly realizes this or the SDM 'position' within the squad wouldn't even exist.

    ====================
    7-29. MISSION OF THE SQUAD DESIGNATED MARKSMAN

    The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with his squad and performs all the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fires.

    The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fires using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition. He may or may not be equipped with an optic. The SDM must, therefore, possess a thorough understanding and mastery of the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship as well as ballistics, elevation and windage hold-off, sight manipulation, and range estimation.

    =====================


    I'm a lot like you; HSLD and Precision classes and then competitions. The fundamentals in competition translate perfectly to the classes.


    A recent Precision class I attended included an Army E-5 Silver Star back from Afghanistan. His comment was that he wished he had this long range training before going over there.


    Based on what you hear, what I hear, and the report ...... both are needed.

    In my armchair opinion that's fundamentals in Basic and advanced afterward.





    and you never know if a barfcom fantasy may come true


    .
    Dan Miami, FL

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I actually see nothing wrong with starting a new shooter out on an RDS, and think in many cases it's a good idea. Especially when we're talking about adult shooters.

    The majority of people get into shooting first because it's fun, with "defense" as a concept in the back of their mind. Fun is hitting the target, and having an RDS increases the likelihood of new shooters hitting the target. Splitting an atom, or hitting at 600? no. But hitting the target at 25-50 yards using an RDS is just so much simpler to pick up.

    If someone is interested in preparing for the post-battery (or post-emp) world they can ALWAYS go back and learn the irons. I hear people say all the time "yeah, but they won't!" In which case I say "**** 'em, they weren't serious about their end-use anyway".

    This may or may not differ from the military model. Having never served I'm not qualified to talk about what they do, other than to share anecdotal stories from those who have served. Given my bias it is entirely possible that I only remember the stories that jibe with my opinion.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •