Irons vs. Reddots

[shadow65]

Red Dots are for quick target aquisition. Irons for me are for slower, more precise shots. Now the Eotech with a 1 moa dot is great for precision. An Aimpoint with 4 moa, not so much.

[Mac5.56]

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".

I can't agree with that man. I was with you this entire time until you wrote this sentence. This is the same attitude that is being applied at Universities; That the modern world is to complex to require traditional teaching techniques in things like English and Math, especially considering the technology available. The result is always that once you take the student out of the coddled environment they suffer from a failure to perform, think on their feet, and problem solve.

I agree that starting with a revolver, and starting with a .22 are antiquated. Teaching Irons however is not, and should never be looked at in that way.

[CAVDOC]

I still beleive in teaching Irons first and 22's and revolvers for first guns!
regarding red dots/irons, being a long time NRA high power shooter I was very used to irons but got an aimpoint m4 for my deployment to Afghanistan and in short order started shooting better than with the irons. With irons to be effective you MUST focus on the front sight. with the red dot you can focus more on the target (threat) and still get good hits.the human eye CAN NOT focus at more than 1 point at once,so you are forced to the front sight with irons, no such problem with a dot

[rob_s]

I can't agree with that man. I was with you this entire time until you wrote this sentence. This is the same attitude that is being applied at Universities; That the modern world is to complex to require traditional teaching techniques in things like English and Math, especially considering the technology available. The result is always that once you take the student out of the coddled environment they suffer from a failure to perform, think on their feet, and problem solve.

I agree that starting with a revolver, and starting with a .22 are antiquated. Teaching Irons however is not, and should never be looked at in that way.

You can bemoan the state of the universe all you want, but it's the reality that I face at the range every first Tuesday night of the month for the last 2+ years when I supervise 15-25 other shooters on the line at our practice night. Putting a gun with an RDS in their hands increases their hit probability, removes one aspect of an often overwhelming experience so they can focus on other fundamentals, and most importantly increases their enjoyment. They don't have to be there, and if you make it hard for them to perform well they simply won't come back.

One can either stamp their feet and hop up and down and get dogmatic about how they think other people should learn and what those people's intended application is, or you can face reality, accept the fact that they will progress further faster with an RDS, and get them hooked before lecturing them on what they should do. There is always time to learn irons later, and the idea that somehow not knowing how to use iron sights (which, BTW, isn't rocket surgery and most will figure out on their own how to use them in a pinch) is going to result in the death of a non-LE civilian is pretty far fetched if you think about it for a second.

Don't confuse making things easy for new shooters with saying that learning irons at all has no place. I just think the idea that learning irons first is a requirement is antiquated hogwash. This is not basic training and I am not a drill instructor.

[rob_s]

Red Dots are for quick target aquisition. Irons for me are for slower, more precise shots. Now the Eotech with a 1 moa dot is great for precision. An Aimpoint with 4 moa, not so much.

FWIW
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34995

[Mac5.56]

One can either stamp their feet and hop up and down and get dogmatic about how they think other people should learn and what those people's intended application is, or you can face reality, accept the fact that they will progress further faster with an RDS, and get them hooked before lecturing them on what they should do. There is always time to learn irons later, and the idea that somehow not knowing how to use iron sights (which, BTW, isn't rocket surgery and most will figure out on their own how to use them in a pinch) is going to result in the death of a non-LE civilian is pretty far fetched if you think about it for a second.

Don't confuse making things easy for new shooters with saying that learning irons at all has no place. I just think the idea that learning irons first is a requirement is antiquated hogwash. This is not basic training and I am not a drill instructor.

Good points and well put.

[shadow65]

Red dots are great, until they go down.

[opmike]

This is the same attitude that is being applied at Universities; That the modern world is to complex to require traditional teaching techniques in things like English and Math, especially considering the technology available.

As a mechanical engineering student with a parent that is a civil engineer, I think you're painting universities (at least ones that are decent) with too broad a brush. But I don't want to hi-jack this thread any further.

[RogerinTPA]

With irons to be effective you MUST focus on the front sight. with the red dot you can focus more on the target (threat) and still get good hits.the human eye CAN NOT focus at more than 1 point at once, so you are forced to the front sight with irons, no such problem with a dot

Bingo! That's where RDS really shines. Human nature is to look at what is threatening you. Not the sights. With the RDS, you can engage and concentrate on the threat, while placing/aiming the dot with a soft focus sight picture.

[Surf]

I don't disagree, and in a perfect world of training fighters I would suggest the same method of learning irons before optics.

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".

I will preface by saying, I try to be very progressive and remain on the cutting edge of training from all aspects, LE, military and the civilian shooting sports or recreational world. Within my teaching peer group, no matter where I go, I am usually considered pretty much on the outer edge of what is generally considered the norm in LE. Perhaps it is my competition background, or my drive not to remain stagnant and not allow for progression within my field? I try to remain a student of the game and enroll in training classes civilian, LE or military, whenever or wherever I can get it. I do not look down on any category of class or background of instructor. You do not have to be a BTDT or in the LE field. I like to pull heavily from the civilian world and attempt to test and possibly integrate techniques into my working skill sets.

I will say that 80% or so of my professional career is dedicated to teaching / training within a full time unit. We also provide training for differing agencies and some military units. So yes, perhaps my fishbowl is a bit different and yes mostly I have the luxury of time and resources on my side, but I have worked in the civilian arena also. We run dedicated classes for about 3-4 months out of the year, in between normal firearms training and instruction.

Having said that, we used to take our new guys with prior LE experience (no less than 10 years) and take them straight into red dots. They tended too rely to heavily on that dot and IMO their basic fundamentals greatly suffered. It was very hard to attempt to ween them off of red dots and teach them the proficiency with irons that we expected from them. We can only teach as fast as the slowest person and this can vary greatly. Over the years it put us all over the map with the many guys that came through the program and in this regard it was a mess.

So yes, we revamped the program and started every new guy from zero. We took nothing for granted and EVERYONE went from basic pistol, to basic rifle to basic shotgun, all irons only. Granted this is over a 2 week course. However, it has always been a bonus that even for veteran guys that we revisit the basics. Even from time to time when I take a basic pistol or rifle course, it is a positive to reinforce the basics, no matter how I may feel. This method has been a huge success and the transition to red dots is not even a half a day. Pretty much by the time their dot is zero'd they are gtg. The training time perhaps saved for going straight to a dot is IMO not worth the other factors.

Again from my experience from teaching both civilian and non-civilian one thing has always remained constant. So why even worry about irons when ACOG's or Aimpoints almost never fail 99.5% of the time. Well there is that .5%, but that isn't really my argument, but it is a valid concern. Taking a new shooter from irons to red dots and not vise versa has been a better progression with better long term results. Why do I say this? Because in my experience, irons teaches or forces a shooter to more strictly focus on all of their fundamentals. Much more so than just sight alignment. Irons magnify the problems with our other fundamentals and forces us to focus and be accomplished at them all and not to take any of them for granted and how combined they can truly drive a shooter to another level.

Irons forces us to think about our stance, grip, or rifle hold, our breathing, importance of follow through but perhaps most important being our trigger control. IMO, maintaining to points to align really makes us focus on this one of two most important skills. Sure this can be done with a dot, but IMO and in my experience, it is nowhere near as effective. Of course not every person can be put into a generalization, but this is the norm that I have experienced.

Also most people who go straight to a dot, really have little desire to do what they consider "going backwards" and learning irons. And from my assertion above, they really miss out on a lot of fundamental skills that could make them that much better.

So again, anyone who takes on the responsibility of using a firearm to defend themselves or their family, it is my opinion that they find the means to learn proper fundamentals and progress from there. It will take some effort on their part, but it really won't take that much more time than learning straight from a dot. Provided you have quality instruction. They will be much better off for it. Now if they want to show up at the range on the first Tuesday of every month and want mediocre gratification then so be it. But if they really are serious about defensive shooting, then they should invest the time up front, the money needed and do it properly.

Again my opinion.