Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 114

Thread: 'Just' irons?

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    2,679
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    From my hunting experience I have learned to take a rifle with back up iron sights or take two rifles or take one rifle with two scopes. I am proficient with irons and stay proficient by frequent practice. If I am ever in an actual gunfight with a rifle I don't think I will be too bummed out. I will in fact likely be thrilled by my incredible foresight or luck of bringing a rifle to a gunfight.
    Last edited by Suwannee Tim; 11-22-10 at 20:39.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    My standard response:
    It's only dark half the day.

    Most people shoot in the light half of the day and don't understand how much better an RDS is in the dark. I'm not saying you can't make do with iron sights but they put you at a proven disadvantage vs an RDS.


    So now you have to rely on a battery powered white light in very dark situations to be able to see your sights. There are times when you should ID your target, move, then engage without using your light.

    My astigmatism makes shooting little groups off the bench hard with an RDS, it does not bother me at moderate/short range and at speed.
    Irons suck at low light I know from first hand experience.

    In my town we had quite few problem bears this year. Not sure why the population of black bears increased but it did. We had one bear that managed to break into an assisted living facility home. We managed to get it out side where it went up a tree approximately 90 feet. It was 0200 hours and black as black could be outside. Fish and Game had told us they wanted all bears that broke into homes destroyed. I had a fairly safe angle of fire on the bear but it was very hard to see even with all the spot lights I had on the tree. I took 4 shots with my 870 shotgun over the course of about 10 minutes. Moving and changing positions trying to get a better angle on the bear so I could get a good shot. The first two shots did not connect but rather hit the tree. The last two did connect but were not fatal. I have a weapon light on my 870 with MMC Ghost ring sights. Similar to AR sights. Finally I put the shotgun away and got out my patrol rifle with my Swarovski Z6i scope with an illuminated reticle. I cranked up the magnification to a comfortable level and I could see the bears eyes clearly. I took the head shot and the ordeal was over. At night even with a weapon light Irons are no match for good optics. I learned a valuable lesson that night and I am sorry the animal had to suffer as long as it did before I got my rifle out.

    I am not saying irons are useless. I have back up sights on all my rifles. But given the choice I will always take a AR with optics over one with just irons. Always.
    Pat
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 11-23-10 at 02:36.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    58
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have been shooting with iron sights on a regular basis since de Gaulle kicked NATO out of France. I always thought using a scope was "cheating". Only lately have I started to use scopes, as my eyes are shot.

    For range shooting in daylight, the practical difference between a high quality peep sight and a mid power (4x) scope is not much out to 200 yards, in good conditions, with good eyes. But iron sights are like scopes - you get what you pay for. It is not a fair contest to compare the performance of factory stock open sights with $900 optics.

    The biggest issue with iron sights is that most people just don't see well enough to use them to their full potential.
    Last edited by fn1889m; 11-23-10 at 03:40.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by hammonje View Post
    I can take a person well trained in analog and get them shooting accurately with an Aimpoint/ACOG in minutes, not so the other way around. They understand the fundamentals.
    The Marine Corps use to think the same thing, but the rifle range qualification didn't point this out (we are talking hundreds of thousands of instances, so it is beyond what I think I can do). Marines just didn't understand their RCOs because they were required to take them off to qualify, so we now require you to qual with an RCO if issued one.

    As to be being as effective, Irons can be as effective in non-dynamic circumstances or on a rifle range. However, we train for not punching holes in paper but killing people who don't want to be shot and who are often firing back. Optics are a force multiple compare to irons sighted fire, I have a feeling most people who think otherwise have very little if any time actually shooting at others.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    191
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.

    What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????

    What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???

    Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.

    I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.

    I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.

    Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.

    I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.
    Last edited by hammonje; 11-23-10 at 07:10.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    My god your arrogance knows no bounds.

    Quasi-wars? I do not serve but I can't believe how insulting that is to hose who have.

    Quote Originally Posted by hammonje View Post
    Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.

    What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????

    What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???

    Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.

    I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.

    I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.

    Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.

    I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    Quasi-Wars. I suggest you shut the **** up.

    Quote Originally Posted by hammonje View Post
    Nope only shooting at paper and hope to keep it that way. Thanks for your service Ron.

    What is a Marine to do when his/her optic breaks?????

    What if he/she needs to take a 400M shot??? ACOG only???

    Doesn't really seem the Marine way to bow to making something easier???? It's difficult for a reason.

    I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun. In all likelihood conflicts will remain small as the former colonies/under-developed world continue to struggle. Again our military leaders underestimated our adversaries and remain overly reliant on technology instead of mastering political manipulation that our adversaries do so well, especially the Asian communists.

    I'm sure it makes it easier, but easier does not mean it's the better way to train someone from scratch. You're cheating them....consistency is difficult and marksmanship is filled with fine details. How are they to discover the effect of head placement and cheek weld???? These are issues that have to be proven during trigger time. You can't learn them with a parallax-free RDO.

    Just b/c the military does something does not make it the best alternative. If they can't qualify then perhaps the instruction is sub-par. Seems to me that Marines have been shooting excellent since their inception.

    I agree wholeheartedly that irons suck compared to RDO in low-light and target acquisition, but that's not the point. The point is that the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control cannot be taught well with a dot.
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,547
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Gentlemen this is about to get shut down.

    Hammonje, since you have already stated that you feel training classes are a waste of time blasting paper at 50m and that you have only "researched" CQB training through a vast amount of books then I'm going to suggest that you tread very very carefully when you feel the need to offer information. We have many veterans of both the Iraq and A-Stan wars, many of whom I call friend, as well as a large number of well trained LEOs and civilians so trying to catagorize wars and training from a self admitted "research only" POV will not go over well. I would suggest you change your tone quickly. This is your only warning.

    Everyone else, let's not stoop below the M4C standards on bickering. We all know it only leads nowhere.
    Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    487
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by hammonje View Post
    I don't know, guys seemed to do pretty well with irons with 03s, Tommy Guns, M1 Garands, M14s, and M-16s through the 20th Century. Those seem to me to be the more major conflicts than the quasi wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting peasants nowhere near as clever as the Viet Cong/NVA or Inmun Gun.
    My friend who died in Afghanistan must have been a real moron to get killed by a roadside IED one of those dumb peasants buried, right? How offensive can you possibly get?

    To the point, "the good old days" don't exist. Every generation, when getting up in years, thinks some point in their childhood or previous were the good old days and that's where we need to return. Thankfully for the rest of us, things march on. In this case, we can choose to better prepare ourselves for a gun fight we don't want to be in with a RDS. If you want to fight an intruder with a Mosin Nagant because that's how great-grandpappy Curmudgeon did it or an author of some book says that's how he did it, that's your business; stop trying to sell it as sound advice.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Its probably also worth pointing out that the romantic notion of vets of prior wars were all dropping one enemy for every pull of the trigger has largely been debunked.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 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
  •