Irons vs. Reddots

[Surf]

Back to the topic. I shot rifles and shotguns with iron sights for 25 years before I finally got an EOTech about 3 years ago. Never had an optic of any kind. The sight was a revelation with defensive style shooting. Everything was faster. Maybe it was because of all the time with irons but I don't know. Since we are talking defense I certainly believe someone starting with a RDS would be ahead of someone starting with irons. With similar talent and time in the RDS guy will probably always be ahead in the defensive area.

Red dot sights are for 99% of people much quicker, especially with a little quality training. They are a key component to a fighting or defensive rifle no doubt.

However this is where I differ from your statement. I can take 50 of my guys and put them on the range and run them through various drills. You will be able to pick out the better shooters immediately. You can pretty much guarantee that these better shooters are also better with their irons than the others and have a better mastery of the basic skills. This doesn't necessarily mean that they spend more time at the range than the other guys either.

Sure you can be a great shooter without ever learning irons, there are Michael Jordan's out there who are just natural talent. However you can bet that Michael Jordan also spent countless hours, years learning, practicing and mastering the fundamentals, which adapted into his own unique style. So my assertion that no matter how good you are with a red dot, your mastery of fundamentals will make you that much better. I don't know how this point can be argued. What can be argued is my assertion that the best way to learn and master these skills is with two separate sights that require an alignment throughout the entire fire process.

Again I understand not everyone will agree.

[hatt]

Red dot sights are for 99% of people much quicker, especially with a little quality training. They are a key component to a fighting or defensive rifle no doubt.

However this is where I differ from your statement. I can take 50 of my guys and put them on the range and run them through various drills. You will be able to pick out the better shooters immediately. You can pretty much guarantee that these better shooters are also better with their irons than the others and have a better mastery of the basic skills. This doesn't necessarily mean that they spend more time at the range than the other guys either.

I imagine the better shooters would be better with their irons than the other, lesser shooters. A better shooter is likely going to be better in most areas. Especially in more difficult areas. Some people have more natural talent to do certain things. So some people will be better than others with the same time in.

This isn't about the better shooters or the more talented shooters. It's about taking people with similar talent and giving them similar training and seeing what happens. You seem to be comparing guys who have it to those who don't. That doesn't prove anything. Starting with RDS or iron is the question.

[Surf]

I imagine the better shooters would be better with their irons than the other, lesser shooters. A better shooter is likely going to be better in most areas. Especially in more difficult areas. Some people have more natural talent to do certain things. So some people will be better than others with the same time in.

This isn't about the better shooters or the more talented shooters. It's about taking people with similar talent and giving them similar training and seeing what happens. You seem to be comparing guys who have it to those who don't. That doesn't prove anything. Starting with RDS or iron is the question.

Maybe your not reading my posts completely or I am not getting my point across clearly enough. I am 99.9% convinced that I can make the same person a much better shooter in the long run by teaching them fundamentals via iron sights than with a red dot. This was an obvious assertion over the years of watching the results from the guys who have gone through our program. The guys who went straight to red dots on the whole tend to be poorer shooters than since we revamped the program and started everyone off from scratch with irons. The overwhelming results really do speak for themselves in our instance.

In essence and IMO with irons,

1. With irons you truly get a grasp of how important all of the fundamentals are in relation to your shooting skills. By having to align two different sights (front and rear) and having to maintain such a disciplined sight alignment, shows you how easily things go bad when you are lacking in any one discipline of the fundamentals. You get a true appreciation of all of the fundamentals and how they work in harmony with one another to produce amazing results when applied correctly.

2. When Number 1 is accomplished the shooters tend to quickly and more easily translate all of the fundamentals into non magnified red dots and magnified optics.

3. The overwhelming majority of persons that I have come across who start out with red dots get that instant gratification and generally have much less interest in learning irons. Which generally leads them to have a poorer grasp and mastery of basic fundamentals as a whole, which are critical and apply to all shooting. Most people, not just cops, do not like to "take a step backwards" with irons, because when they initially do so most initially shoot much worse than they did with a red dot. Few have the patience or the wherewithal to stick it out and become a master of the fundamentals in this manner. They have the typical I want it now attitude that most show and either give up mastering the skills, or just go through the motions waiting for the time to put that red dot back on the rifle.

As someone mentioned in this thread red dots are pretty damn reliable these days, so why bother with the rest. Just point and click. This is a very bad idea IMO and it has nothing to do with old school regimented mantra and a lack of willingness to get into the modern world.

I really don't know how to say it any differently?

[hatt]

I don't think we are that far off anyway. Your statement:

The overwhelming majority of persons that I have come across who start out with red dots get that instant gratification and generally have much less interest in learning irons.

pretty much goes along with my original post in this thread. For people who don't have the time and money for the right training, they are going to start off better with a RDS.

I'm not going to endlessly argue this. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject.

[Mac5.56]

IMO any person who finds the need great enough to have a weapon readily available and the willingness to deploy it in a defensive situation to save their own life or the life of a loved one, should be able to make the effort and invest the time to master the basic fundamentals

I second this statement, and personally think it is the most valuable thing I have read in this entire thread thus far in regards to my opinion and approach towards training myself to become a competent shooter, as well as others I introduce to shooting. I've read this entire thread, and every post. I see both points of view, but fail to see how encouraging instant gratification is in any way a good thing in regards to firearms.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of something I see with new shooters when they have a semi auto 10-22 or something similar. If their ownership and mastery of the fundamentals fails, they quickly follow up with a second shot in an attempt to gratify their desire to hit the target, while never really mastering the fundamentals.

[Surf]

I don't think we are that far off anyway. Your statement:

pretty much goes along with my original post in this thread. For people who don't have the time and money for the right training, they are going to start off better with a RDS.

I'm not going to endlessly argue this. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject.

Not a problem my friend. Imagine how boring it would be if we all just agreed on everything.

[MistWolf]

Red dots allow you to engage threats in situations where you wouldn't normally be able to employ irons. If you are shooting from behind or around certain cover your dot (essentially parallax-free) may be at the far edge of your tube - but you can still hit.

Try that with irons.

Please read my previous post. It's #70. You'll see I agree with this

[Surf]

Wow. I didn't mean to stir up this much shit. I just wondered why I was hitting better with Irons!.

Again, I do not think you are stirring up shit. I tend to think that my online personna rubs people the wrong way, especially when I disagree with them. This tends to turn things south.

In any event, I came across an interesting topic right here at M4C that relates to this one. While they are talking pistol, the fundamentals concept is highly stressed and even suggested that individuals start to learn basic fundamentals on a pistol with irons no less. To which I wholeheartedly agree. Ironic how that thread seems to contradict this one. http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=52172

Actually, I believe all of the highly touted trainers in that thread would concur about the importance of learning basic fundamentals and how they apply to all shooting. I would even think they all do their basic progression of teaching these basic fundamentals of marksmanship on iron sights, even Randy Cain who was mentioned twice in that thread. Ironically I mirror Randy Cain's training philosophy and do exactly what he does. Break it down to the basics no matter the shooters supposed background, start from scratch, get everyone on the same page, so that the class moves as a whole without people all over the place which causes many issues. This works quickly and very very effectively. It doesn't take that much more effort or time with quality instruction and an instructor who is good at diagnosing the problem and the ability to teach the shooter how to fix it.

http://www.guntactics.com/philosophy.htm
http://www.guntactics.com/tactical101.pdf

In any event, it is probably a good thing that I stay out of the training and tactics forum. Imagine the disagreements just for the sake of disagreeing that might ensue.

[MistWolf]

Hey Surf, don't feel like the Lone Stranger. Some folks take my posts the wrong way too. I've been guilty of reading posts and before I get through it, I think "Not THIS crap again!" and completely misconstrue what it said.

Kwelz, you couldn't stir a pot that didn't exist

[rob_s]

I find the comparison to handguns to be a red herring. The tech, and technique, of pistol shooting with optical sights is completely different as are the limitations of putting an optic that is 50% again the size of the gun itself vs. a carbine where the optical sight is maybe 5-10% of the overall size and shape.

I don't disagree that in an ideal world when training guys with a real need for a high level of proficiency with a carbine it would be nice to train them first on iron sights. In fact, I would spend the whole first day of a 3-5 day class doing nothing but marksmanship training with iron sights, and then spend the rest of the class running through more dynamic evolutions, again with the iron sights.

However, when training hobby-level shooters that don't have a real need (regardless of what they may tell themselves) who may not be committed to what they are doing to begin with and for who fun:reality ratio is more like 90:10, leading off with the optic allows them to get to the dynamic (and therefore, "fun") aspects that much quicker can make the difference between creating an enthusiast and creating a safe-stuffer or picture-poster.

I find it interesting that the "always start with irons" crowd is quick to argue for the drill instructor methodology of forcing people to do something they may not want to do is also quick to say that people won't go back and learn the irons. I believe they are far more likely to appreciate the application of irons AFTER they've become a convert than shooters that go through the motions just to get to the "fun".

There's another aspect to this, which goes to the OP a bit more, and that's application. Let's assume that the hobby shooter really does have a need for a carbine. What serves them better, teaching them all the finer points of a marksman and making hits out to 300 yards with iron sights, or teaching them to get acceptable hits at close range and manipulating the firearm and getting familiar with using it in a dynamic scenario? If they go home at the end of TD1 and their house gets broken into, are they going to need a total grasp on the fundamentals of making hits at 100+ yards or are they going to need to understand how to get acceptable hits quickly in a stressful and potentially low-light setting?