
Originally Posted by
R Moran
I thought we already had a few irons vs. the world threads...
The problem with the OP's question is, he seems to equate "need" with accuracy. I think we can all agree, one can be very accurate with iron sights.
Unfortunately, accuracy, is only part o the problem. And an optic, such as an Aimpoint, is not really directed at "accuracy" as much as it is directed at speed, and ease of engagement in non standard positions, on the move, limited visibility, etc.
I spent a lot of time shooting M16a1's, M16a2's, M16a2 carbines, CAR15's and M4's with iron sights, so I'm no stranger to them, I've been known to shoot tighter groups with them.....laying down and zeroing.
I spend a lot of time now, shooting M4's with EoTech's and Aimpoints....under various conditions, like...on the move, limited visibility, non standard positions, Pro-mask and SCBA, etc etc. There is absolutely no question that a RDS is not only better under these conditions, but I would go so far as to say essential.
Your accuracy "needs" are different then your "expectations" so, rather then say, "when I can shoot XX moa, I'll move to an optic", or "when I master irons, then I can move to an optic"(whatever "master" means)
perhaps the question should be, what accuracy do I need, and under what conditions am I expected to deliver that accuracy?
Then, one can go about setting him/her self up for success under those conditions. If that means a RDS/variable mag. optic, a better trigger(why is a tuned 1911 trigger a good thing, but a tuned M4 trigger is bad??), FF forend, SF light, etc. so be it. Then set about acquiring what you need(equipment & training) to be successful in your mission.
No where is it written that the acquisition of an optic or tuned trigger automatically absolves you of the need to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship.
While many will boohoo about irons teaching you the importance of "cheekweld", sight alignment, sight picture, head position, stance, blah blah blah, I submit....Who F'in cares! An Aimpoint will all but eliminate the importance of such minutia that will not be employed under most "combat" type conditions. Such that they are now the de facto sight with most any organizations who's primary mission is shooting under such conditions.
I've also yet to see a good argument for learning irons first.
Mr. Falla gave an excellent post, and I assume his marksmanship standards are for a somewhat rested gun, on a static range, doing zeroing type exercises.
I once asked Larry Vickers about accuracy requirements, and wish i could recall them exactly, but as I remember, he said with a typical defensive type carbine and ammo, you should be able to hit the 5.5" NRA bull, standing at 50mtrs, and prone at 100mtrs.
Another way to look at it:
Pat Rogers designed targets utilize an 8" circle, "between the nipples"
Paul Howes designed target utilizes a 6" by 12"(?) rectangle down the center(IPSC A zone)(he gives no points for hits outside this)
Vickers designed target utilizes a 5.5" bull( he's used the NRA bull for a long time)
Jim Smith utilizes NRA 5.5" bulls
So, 4 well known and respected instructors utilize a "max scoring" ring of 5.5 to 8 inches across, so lets call 6.5 inches.
So, it would seem to me, the minimum accuracy you require would be....to be able to hit a 6.5" circle at whatever the max effective range of your weapon is. For the carbine, most accept 200-250mtrs as the true max effective range. Under all conditions.
If an Aimpoint, Geisselle trigger and FF rail help you do that, drive the F**K on.
Perhaps we should require new Soldiers to stand on line and fire volley's from muskets, before we "allow" them repeaters?
Bob
Bookmarks