Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    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.
    Well we're just two leg-humpers discussing things, but by all accounts Iraq is different than Afghanistan in many ways, length of engagement being one. I just spoke to a young Marine last week who just got back from the "push" who started his career in Iraq a few years ago and he said this very thing.

    However, not to sound overly crass, I don't care what the military does. I want our guys to get the best training, from the best people, and the best tools, but I am not qualified to say what all of that is. It's not for me to say they should learn irons, or optics, or close range, or long range.... and at the end of the day NONE (or at best VERY little) of it applies to me. I prefer to look at what they are doing, figure out if it's applicable to my situation, and throw out what doesn't. I do not face the threats they face, but I also don't have artillery support, air lifts, medics, radios, a "team", UAVs, etc. so in truth I wind up discarding a great deal of it. Interesting, in a passing way, but not applicable.

    Who shoots what and how at 500, 600, or even 200, yards is way out of my lane.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    I'm not saying it's bad for new shooters to learn optics I'm just saying what I see.

    I see a lot of people who can't shoot irons but can shoot optics.

    FWIW people who don't shoot irons on rifles well usually can't shoot iron sighted handguns well either.

    When I was growing up I'd occasionally shoot rifles with irons but my primary shooting was with handguns. My dad made me learn this way. It worked. If you can shoot a handgun well with irons then you can shoot a iron sighted rifle well too.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600.
    No, your gripe is against those against training out to 600 with irons. Using what amounts to the far right side of the bell curve of that particular skillset? It's disingenuous to display a competition team as proof-of-concept of the capability. Of course the competitive guys are going to be able to do that; of course the weapon is capable of that level of performance -- the "DUUUHHHH!" factor is over the top. Service competition guys are often guys that write "professional" articles for the Marine Corps Gazette in which they vehemently insist that the pressure of competition is THE SAME as the stress of combat (I only wish I were making that up).

    Suffice to say that they do not represent the capability and attitudes of the rank and file warfighter. A warfighter is a generalist (think MMA), whereas the comp guys are specialists (think boxer) that may or may not come from or go back to warfighting. Tons of examples of airframe machanics and paralegal MOSs on the competitive teams

    Don't get me wrong...I'm with you in regard to getting riflemen trained to distance. The current love affair with close-in stuff is fun, makes for some great opportunities for manual-of-arms training, and can do a lot for bolstering confidence in the individual as to how to handle their weapon. Unfortunately, such an evolution, in the military, usually ends up being a trigger-mashing Dump-Ex that is mistaken for being sufficient to translate into skill at dealing with intermediate ranges, irons or optics. Afghanistan is mostly a distance fight of one sort or another, so training to shoot @ distance is pertinent...but to do it with irons when you have other options? Step backwards. Ineffecient. Lunacy.

    Warfare isn't competition, it's warfare. In warfare, in the current military idiom, irons are the backups to optics. At the basic level, by all means, teach the fundamentals on irons, and make sure that sustainment training hits on irons. From an effeciency, speed, terrain and lighting conditions standpoint, holding to training with irons out to distance makes no sense unless the intent is to return to irons being the primary method of engagement. That's madness. As they are, at best, a secondary method, thinking of them in a secondary role and ceding to them secondary consideration is apprppriate.

    What we NEED to do for our warfighters is train them to the happy medium between Quigley Down Under and the "Death Blossom" button from The Last Starfighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by trunkmonkey
    I don't know why it's faster to train someone with optics than irons. How hard is it? front aperture inside rear, bang.
    Optics = line up clear target and clear aimpoint, bang.
    Irons = line up fuzzy rear, clear front, fuzzy target, with focus wanting to pop back and forth until you get and maintain clear sight picture, which takes training, bang.

    More variables = takes longer, and not everybody is you. They're them, and may have differing eyesight, depth perception...just for starters.

    Could be you're just a ball of fire.
    Last edited by JSantoro; 04-07-10 at 11:50.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,458
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
    I totally disagree. I am for any good marksmanship training but the reality is training time is limited. Training priorities must be made.

    The SDM is not an addition to the Squad. Any time spent SDM training is time away from regular Infantry training WITH his Squad/Team. At some point the SDM with specialized weapon and time spent SDM training won't just add capability to the Squad, he is no longer able to perform rifleman duties and the Squad is down one rifleman.

    Irons at 600m is not a practical solution based on my combat experience and the availability of optics that are fielded.

    There is the problem of PID at 600m. If PID is not a problem then the liberal application of crew served weapon (or indirect) is probably the best solution. The M249 could have very good hit probability at 600m without much additional training.

    With limited training time available I would rather have two grunts trained only with an M4/A4 and ACOG to 5-600m than one with a heavy service barreled SDM or M14 who can shoot irons at 600m.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    567
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverine View Post
    No, your gripe is against those against training out to 600 with irons.
    ..................
    I had to read to twice to be sure and yes you are correct To clarify, I'm only talking about iron usage in training to cement fundamentals.

    USMC does iron training out to 500. Where is their 0.5k Report?

    Even if a trainee only achieves 80% mastery of irons, when he gets on the optic his shooting will be that much better.

    He recognizes the advantage of a steady sight picture, smooth trigger pull, proper cheek weld, etc. He may not use it that instant but he understands he has additional options.

    Instead we get "the M4 sucks" from Big Army because the 2MOA dot covers the target and they don't understand why they're hitting dirt.



    'Death Blossom' .............. that's awesome. Great movie
    Last edited by danpass; 04-07-10 at 12:32.
    Dan Miami, FL

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,019
    Feedback Score
    0

    Question

    I wonder what stops people from learning the fundamentals with their primary sighting system and learning their backup iron sights after that . As far as the dot covering the target -- the front sight of an M14 , or an , M16 or , an M4 cover the target more.
    The way that I hit targets at 500 or a little more was by using reference points : a tree , a rock , a bare patch of ground -- whatever was handy near the actual target .
    Some bullseye shooters might recognize the old school "frame hold " that some shooters used at a 1000 . Same principle.
    "... in common use at the time... for all lawful purposes... "

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    Even if a trainee only achieves 80% mastery of irons, when he gets on the optic his shooting will be that much better.

    He recognizes the advantage of a steady sight picture, smooth trigger pull, proper cheek weld, etc. He may not use it that instant but he understands he has additional options.
    Keeping it limited to the "trainee" specification, there's no gaping holes in the idea that irons are a damned good start, from the standpoint of establishing and utilizing all of the marksmanship fundamentals. Shooters that are already a good shot with irons pretty much universally transfer that over to their optic...on a square, KD range.

    Get them into a dynamic situation, weird positions, unsupported, moving, kicking doors, having creme pies, kangaroos and mariachi bands thrown at them? Only certain fundamentals can be reasonably applied under those circumstances, and the optic helps the bulk of the shooting population reduce variables. And that applies to virtually any range when the goal isn't to hit the gnat's ass, but to suppress/neutralize/kill a target.

    OTOH, it's one of the truisms we push when conducting training, that if one is a ganked-up shooter to begin with (on irons), then slapping a 4X RCO on their gun will NOT automatically make them a better shot. It has about equal a chance of increasing the results of their errors by a factor of 4, presuming that that magnification doesn't show them how unstable they are to begin with and give them a reminder to apply fundamentals. It can be a help or a hindrance...

    Which brings us back full circle to the Most Holy: Training [/hushed, reverent tone]

    The whole thing is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Unlimited potential for an asspot full of "less filling/tastes great" discussions. Fun!
    Contractor scum, AAV

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    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


    .
    Agreed to a point, but as far as marksmanship programs, it's apples and oranges. The type of MOS you hold, the type of job your unit is expected to perform and FUNDING has a lot to do with it. Basic Infantrymen are better shots than clerks. HSLD Infantry (Rangers, Teir1 groups, folks assigned to USAMU) are way better shots than basic infantryman because....the have FUNDING and they have to be MORE efficient across the spectrum of warfare from CQB to long distance Sniping.

    The Marine Corps has an extremely long and rich tradition with long range rifle marksmanship and continues that tradition, among others, to a fault (Hence the reluctance to go with M-4s, and they don't look as squared away during D&C/Parade ground purposes without full sized battle rifles).

    The Army, which is 3 to 4 times the Corps size, has a similar marksmanship tradition, but morphs back and forth, occasionally forgetting what it's purpose is, due to political expediency, and FUNDING.

    Example: When a SOCOM General was the Army's C of S, he instituted many war fighting skills be instituted so every soldier, regardless of MOS, could run a crew Served Weapon, Could do a 4 man CQB entry, could fire and maneuver, call for fire, etc... so we would not have anymore Jessica Lynch episodes, and the Basic Soldier, could be a War Fighter. Today, it is being dismantled do to FUNDING.
    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

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by danpass View Post
    USMC does iron training out to 500. Where is their 0.5k Report?
    Why should the USMC write a paper just because some Army dude decides to write one (in which he makes several inaccurate statements about USMC marksmanship training)?

    We have a progressive training program that covers known distance shooting from 200 to 500 yards, close range marksmanship from 5 to 50 day and night, long range known distance night shooting, supported unknown distance shooting from 25 to 500 meters, and compressed timeframe engagements with multiple shots per target from 25 to 300 meters.

    A report?
    Our report is dirt-napping booger eaters with impunity.

    Iron sights at long range in a real gunfight?
    No thanks.

    Semper
    Last edited by Failure2Stop; 04-07-10 at 23:26.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    567
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    Why should the USMC write a paper just because some Army dude decides to write one (in which he makes several inaccurate statements about USMC marksmanship training)?

    We have a progressive training program that covers known distance shooting from 200 to 500 yards, close range marksmanship from 5 to 50 day and night, long range known distance night shooting, supported unknown distance shooting from 25 to 500 meters, and compressed timeframe engagements with multiple shots per target from 25 to 300 meters.

    A report?
    Our report is dirt-napping booger eaters with impunity.

    Iron sights at long range in a real gunfight?
    No thanks.

    Semper
    thank you.

    as I suspected; the USMC doesn't have the same difficulty putting rounds on target
    Dan Miami, FL

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •