I think iron sights are becoming pointless.

E

Evil Monkey

New member
These reflex sights are getting better and better as the years pass. They're getting smaller, tougher, and have better features.

There's a couple like the leupold prismatic sight and some russian sights that have a red dot but if the battery goes out, you can still use the etched reticle, thus eliminating the need to use back up iron sights.

example borrowed from the net.
russian PKAS
PKAS-Reticule01.JPG


leupold prismatic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrsBUDgtbc4

With such optics becoming available, what's the point of irons? It seems like they aren't needed any more. Soon they will be as small and tough as a rear sight assembly.

Even if you use a magnified optic and need sights for close range, you can mount a tiny red dot instead of a pair of iron sights.

more examples from around the net.

note the protective tabs to protect the red dot sight.
DSCN0049-2.jpg


RRAXTRFFDDmount.jpg


discuss.
 
Nah I doubt I'll give up my iron sights.

I'm mostly a target shooter, in High Power and CMP GSM games they are required.

Also I spent too much time in Alaska to trust my shooting to batteries. Plus my iron sights have never fogged over with frost.

Scopes, lasers, red dots, etc etc, have their place but I wouldn't say they made the iron sights pointless.
 
I agree with Kraig (not that he needs my agreement, he knows of what he speaks)- irons are fool proof, simple, cheap, and reliable. If your irons won't work, your rifle is likely toast too.

Optics, especially high quality ones, are certainly approaching this point. But I'm not convinced they're quite to that point yet. While I've been willing to pay good money (and a fair amount of it) for real Aimpoints, I've also put iron sights on those rifles- compared to the expense of the optic, they're cheap insurance.

We may well be nearing the day when irons are indeed superfluous when a rifle is equipped with a quality CQB optic. I can even see how the claim can be made that we may be there now. But given the cost vs. risk, I'll spend the money and the rail space for some backups. :)
 
They are just not going away, ever !!!!

It seems like they aren't needed any more.
Click to expand...
Not so and it all depends on the application. .... ;)

Example;
During our Hunter Safety classes, it is a requirement to have only open sights. We also have a youth state competition that is also limited to open sights and perhaps this also a requirements of other states. There are also many rifles that would just look goofy without open sights. Take a Henry, Marlin 39a and even the more common 10/22 carbine and so on .... ;)


Be Safe !!!
 
Let me know when they get as small, inexpensive and as indestructible as iron sights. Till that day comes you are really better off learning basic marksmanship with iron sights and every other sight system will serve you better for knowing the fundamentals.
 
For clarification, the topic is about the evolution of the sighting systems used for combat of any kind (war/home defense/police) and hunting.

competition and such need not apply.

Also I spent too much time in Alaska to trust my shooting to batteries. Plus my iron sights have never fogged over with frost.
Click to expand...

This is a good response as to why irons may be better in some instances.

A solid rebuttal.

carry on.
 
I personally don't think we will ever see the end of ironsights, They are becoming less popular, yes, in fact a lot of sporing bolt rifle don't even offer them as options. But glass can always break, crack, fog, ice over. Reticles can fail and batteries will die, and according to Murphy, those things will happen at the worst possible time. I will always have a set of BUIS for when those times come.
Also, you have to account for competitions such as palma rifle and vintage rifle that only allow irons. And personally, I think learning to shoot with irons before optics makes you a better marksman. But that is just one mans opinion, take it for what its worth.
 
Steady,wet snow.Rain.Drizzle.Wet vegetation.Monsoon.Wet glass.Wet kleenex wet bandanna.I do like optics.If all the stakes are is whether or not a deer tag gets filled,optics only is OK.I am not a soldier or a veteran,but I observe our troops make good effective use of optics.They do have backup irons.I have never been to Africa,but I speculate the professional hunters ,for themselves,would take irons only over optics only.It may be more accurate to say good iron sights still make other sights unnecessary,but some very useful ,nice to have benefits can be had with optics.And,those who can see,that are proficient with irons can shoot groups not much different than optics.
 
For clarification, the topic is about the evolution of the sighting systems used for combat of any kind (war/home defense/police) and hunting.
Click to expand...

OK lets set "competition" aside and talk about combat. I'll not address desert because I don't have much experience but their are other environments besides deserts.

I spent a great deal of time with the Alaska National Guard in the Arctic. It gets extremely cold and battery life goes south in a hurry. Scopes (regardless of quality) fog over. Imagine being in a tent setting by a Yukon stove. You have to grab your rifle and head outside. Its 40 below. Guess what that does to your glass.

I also have actual combat experience in jungles. Trust me, that stuff wont work as effective as iron sights. I could type forever and not explain it like these pictures can.

I'm not saying this stuff doesn't have their place, they do, but in no way will they make iron sights obsolete.

These fancy sights wont work in every environment, iron sights will.
01.jpg

02.jpg
 
Let me agree and disagree.

Iron sights will never be totally supplanted, IMO. They are just too inexpensive, reliable, and foolproof to be totally replaced by optical sights. They take training and discipline to use correctly, but once you have it with iron sights, you can move to optical sights and back with no problem. Not so if you are trained only with optics, iron sights present an incomprehensible puzzle until you are taught how to use them.

On the plus side, optical sights are much more reliable than even 10 or 15 years ago, and the quality available for minimal cost is amazing to me. The reason optical sights are so much easier to use is that you focus on the target (a natural action when you are trying to hit the target), as opposed to iron sights where you focus on the sights when trying to hit the target.

My range rifles and hunting rifles all wear optical sights (except for my XTC AR), and I have never felt underequipped. Could a bad day happen? Sure, but in that case all I have to do is go home and swap out the scope. Not so if I were in combat (not likely to happen again any time soon) where iron sights used to rule supreme, and where they are still an integral part of weaponcraft.
 
I think modern sights are very good. But I'm happy that I learned on open sights and old fashioned peep sights. I think I was well served by starting there and then moving to optics.

I still prefer iron sights on a pistol. On a rifle I acknowledge the superiority of optical sights. But just because you own an automatic doesn't mean you shouldn't learn to drive a stick.
 
"Pointless" is entirely subjective. Since you narrowed the topic down to combat and hunting, I would half agree with you. Iron sights have all but disappeared on bolt action hunting rifles, which themselves could be called "pointless." Whitetails don't shoot back, so if your scope breaks on a hunt it's no big deal.

As for combat, I have never seen a soldier leave the wire without back up iron sights. Optics are getting better, but they are not anywhere near acceptable reliability when your life is depending on your ability to hit targets that are shooting at you.
 
I've met younger shooters who have no idea how to use iron sights, kind of like most young folks today have no idea how to drive a manual transmission.

I actually took the scope off a Ruger 77 in .308win to use it woods deer hunting, it swings faster and is lighter.

Most of my rifles don't have iron sights, but I definitely still use them on a few guns. I agree that one should learn to shoot with iron sights before going to a scope.
 
I think iron sights are becoming pointless.
Click to expand...

Even though optics offer many advantages over most iron sights it still use the irons on my M14s and AR-100.

Well designed iron sights stand the test of time.
 
These fancy sights wont work in every environment, iron sights will.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you agree that even iron sights (especially peep sights) would be fouled up in that type of environment (muddy water)?

Also, how about if the optic had iron sights on them for back up?

Like this elcan specter, 1x-4x, plus peep sights just in case. I know it's not going to be as accurate as adjustable iron sights but since it's for emergency use, what could be the problem?

Elcan-Specter-DR,-Docter-Optic-MRD-Mount-B.jpg


There's also acogs like that.

It's stuff like this that makes me think traditional rifle mounted iron sights are dying out.

imagine if that russian reflex sight I posted earlier had some basic iron sights on it like the elcan and acog. It would be the perfect package. You could use the optic with the red dot on or off, and if the lens gets obstructed, there are immediate iron sights available. (let's assume it was NOT offset to the left like it is on the AK and instead mounted low on an AR):D
 
Iron sights are all I use on all but 2 of my guns (I don't hunt and my range is 50yds deep). I prefer using iron sights myself (fiber optic included), way more fun IMO and the only sights that are truly 100% reliable.
 
Scopes, lasers, red dots, etc etc, have their place but I wouldn't say they made the iron sights pointless.
Click to expand...

Me neither.

Irons SMOKE optics for durability and lack of logistical support requirements.

While I've seen an occasional bent front sight post, or broken rear sight, I have seen FAR more broken ACOGS / Aimpoints / Eotechs etc...

Eliminating iron sights would be a foolish course of action, and completely unnecessary, as they take nothing away from the gun, and offer the most reliable source of fire control.

This is similar to the debate about equipping fighters with guns back in the day. With the advent of super-sonic fighters and "high speed" missile technology, some (cough IDIOTS..cough) thought that equipping fighters with guns was pointless. They argued that future air to air fights would rely on missile shots from long range, and that guns would prove to be ineffective due to the higher speeds of engagement. Hence was created the F4 Phantom.....without a gun.

Our experience in Viet Nam soon proved what a bunch of frustrated and ****** off fighter pilots knew from the start: When technology fails you NEED a back up.

ROE required pilots to get a visual ID before they could engage, which eliminated any range advantage their missiles may have had. (Never underestimate the ability of the U.S. to hamstring itself in combat!) While starting at high speeds, air to air fights would soon end up taking place at sub-sonic speeds due to maneuvering, which made the use of guns appropriate and effective, or WOULD have, if they had them. The MOST insulting thing of all IMO, is that pilots would find themselves TOO CLOSE to enemy aircraft for an effective missile launch, and had NO gun with which to burn the bogie.

Needless to say, we soon realized that sometimes "technology" is not all its made out to be, and having a back up is a good idea. EVERY fighter designed after the F4 came equipped with a gun...go figure.

Irons should be a part of every firearm that one intends to actually fire accurately.
 
I'll say again,I like optics.ACOGs are great.Also,I am not a Vet.Kraikwy's pix say a lot.I missed the universal glue that bonds infantry veterans together.Mud.Ricepaddy mud,armor track mud,european mud,etc.Suppose those guys have a dry,clean hanky?They may have a toothbrush in the pen slot of their left jungle fatigue breast pocket.
Those little irons on top an ACOG are a nice to have,but OP,do you understand its not a big deal for a person with the basic skills to eat up a paperplate at 300 yds with an iron sight battle rifle like a Garand?I suspect you may be under rating irons.
OP,I notice you refer to the Falklands.Seems like I heard there were more casualties due to weather in the Falklands than fire.Sounds inclement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top