I think iron sights are becoming pointless.
- Thread starter Evil Monkey
- Start date
What I like most about iron sights is the lack of bulk, weight and general unbalanced, unhandyness (I think I just invented a new word here 
) posed by typical scope and other "prismatic" optics. Though I have scopes installed on most of my rifles, I have, at last count, four that have Williams "FoolProof" receiver sights mounted on them. These rifles are employed when in heavy cover, especially during inclement weather, when the shots are intended for (possibly) jumped and moving whitetails at anticipated ranges of 150 yards or less-sometimes much less.
As much as I like and appreciate the merits of a good scope, if I were required to choose between iron sights and a scope for the rest of my days for uses that included survival, self-defense, target/plinking and hunting scenarios, I would absolutely opt for a rifle equipped with a good receiver sight.
) posed by typical scope and other "prismatic" optics. Though I have scopes installed on most of my rifles, I have, at last count, four that have Williams "FoolProof" receiver sights mounted on them. These rifles are employed when in heavy cover, especially during inclement weather, when the shots are intended for (possibly) jumped and moving whitetails at anticipated ranges of 150 yards or less-sometimes much less.As much as I like and appreciate the merits of a good scope, if I were required to choose between iron sights and a scope for the rest of my days for uses that included survival, self-defense, target/plinking and hunting scenarios, I would absolutely opt for a rifle equipped with a good receiver sight.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Evil Monkey said:
If it has an etched reticle, then by definition, it isn't a reflex sight. A reflex sight uses projected light on a lens to generate a reticle. As a result, it can produce a reticle that is virtually parallax-free.
bassfishindoc said:
I disagree. Establishing a good sight picture is only one aspect of marksmanship. Whether you are doing that with a red dot or an aperture sight, you've still got to use your body mechanics to steady the rifle and execute a good trigger pull to hit your target. I find that optics make that easier to do than iron sights, so that is how I start new shooters. Once they understand the basics, it is easy enough to explain the differences in irons if they are still interested; but I don't see a compelling argument that learning irons first makes you a better marksman.
kraigwy said:
True; but reflex sights like the Trijicon Reflex or Meprolight whatever don't even require batteries. And the Aimpoint sights (H1, T1, M3, M4) have a battery life of between 50,000-80,000 hours. Even if the battery drains 8 times faster due to environmental issues, that is 4,000-10,000 hours of battery life - meaning all you have to do to keep it running is replace the batteries every 6 months (8,760 hours in a year) - even if you leave it on non-stop.
Battery life may have been a concern at one time in the development of these sights; and may still be a concern for some optics; but by and large, there are optics now that even the most die-hard battery phobe can use with minimal maintenance.
I'd disagree with the overall theme that iron sights are pointless; but it is pretty clear they are no longer the predominant sighting system. I think they will continue to be useful for many years to come as low-cost, rugged, backup sights though.
Yes, the reflex sights and scopes are getting better. From 1965 to 1995, I saw the bolt gun makers go from iron sights included on every gun, to sightless guns available for order, to sighted guns available to order, but most on the rack set up for scope mounting. By the time I bought a Rem 700 in '92, iron sight bolt actions were few and far between. Pro hunters recommended taking another scope mounted with matching rings already sighted in for trips overseas.
The military adopted reflex and red dots once the technology was proven, and it's been a big help. As a red dot user since the first generation Aimpoint, todays cheap version run circles around it in everything but quality.
Nonetheless, for combat, glass lenses are not durable enough to rely on, a set of iron sights is the only thing you can trust 99.44%. If they go bad, you really are having problems.
For a hunting, recreational, or range rifle, BUIS are an expensive, weight adding, and unnecessary redundancy to a rifle, especially an AR. Another red dot or reflex can be mounted for the same money as iron sights. What many are overstating is whether that recreational gun even justifies the cost. It's NOT a life and death duty tool.
On a duty gun, I would only use milspec iron sights - because they are the most durable, cheapest, and failure free design. All the clampon BUIS sold cost three times as much as a standard FSB and carry handle M4 rear sight. They are NOT more durable OR more accurate, they are just cooler looking and cost more.
I built my AR with milspec sights because they are, and only cost me about $65. They will not crack a lenses, go dead, eat batteries, or fall off. They also won't be as fast or easy to shoot as a red dot, so for hunting, that will be my primary sight. If the gun falls over in the parking lot and the optic fails, I can take it off in one minute and continue the hunting trip not much the worse. Just like scope users in the '50's and '60's.
In another 25+ years, optics will be even more durable - with Gorilla glass lenses, like touchscreen phones, and nearly unlimited battery life, like an Aimpoint. They may actually be sealed units not serviceable by the owner, meaning one less gasketed joint to fail, making them even more durable. Putting the windage and elevation back in the base will mean no inverter or fancy machining, or intrusions to the sealed interior. The only openings will be for the lenses. Completely maintenance free. Just not quite bullet proof, but neither are iron sights.
And I don't want to be holding that carbine in the live testing phase ....
The military adopted reflex and red dots once the technology was proven, and it's been a big help. As a red dot user since the first generation Aimpoint, todays cheap version run circles around it in everything but quality.
Nonetheless, for combat, glass lenses are not durable enough to rely on, a set of iron sights is the only thing you can trust 99.44%. If they go bad, you really are having problems.
For a hunting, recreational, or range rifle, BUIS are an expensive, weight adding, and unnecessary redundancy to a rifle, especially an AR. Another red dot or reflex can be mounted for the same money as iron sights. What many are overstating is whether that recreational gun even justifies the cost. It's NOT a life and death duty tool.
On a duty gun, I would only use milspec iron sights - because they are the most durable, cheapest, and failure free design. All the clampon BUIS sold cost three times as much as a standard FSB and carry handle M4 rear sight. They are NOT more durable OR more accurate, they are just cooler looking and cost more.
I built my AR with milspec sights because they are, and only cost me about $65. They will not crack a lenses, go dead, eat batteries, or fall off. They also won't be as fast or easy to shoot as a red dot, so for hunting, that will be my primary sight. If the gun falls over in the parking lot and the optic fails, I can take it off in one minute and continue the hunting trip not much the worse. Just like scope users in the '50's and '60's.
In another 25+ years, optics will be even more durable - with Gorilla glass lenses, like touchscreen phones, and nearly unlimited battery life, like an Aimpoint. They may actually be sealed units not serviceable by the owner, meaning one less gasketed joint to fail, making them even more durable. Putting the windage and elevation back in the base will mean no inverter or fancy machining, or intrusions to the sealed interior. The only openings will be for the lenses. Completely maintenance free. Just not quite bullet proof, but neither are iron sights.
And I don't want to be holding that carbine in the live testing phase ....
Double Naught Spy
New member
Of course, most of the people who say this didn't learn with optics first. I know that training newbies with a red dot gets them on target and shooting with much less instruction than with iron sights.
Working with iron sights seems to introduce an additional level of complexity that does not seem to be necessary with optics, the issue of alignment. Then there is that whole mess about teaching people to watch their front sight and not the target, a concept difficult to grasp for many. So the sights have to be aligned, you have to watch the front sight but not the rear (so alignment is even more difficult), then focus not on what you are shooting at but on the sight itself. That really does seem unduly difficult compared to optics like a nice little red dot optic where all you need to do is to see that the dot in where you want it on the target, not concentrate on the dot, and shoot.
However, if the claim that iron sights makes you a better marksman, then no doubt going further back to simply a straight tube before iron sights will make you a superb marksman! Talk about being reliable and idiotproof. There is nothing to adjust and nothing to get whacked out of alignment from the barrel since the barrel is the sight.
Iron sights are fine and are very good in many circumstances and many types of guns, but given a choice, I like my optics on long guns.
I have glass on my hunting rifles. If they screw up no biggie.
If I were in combat, I want irons. Maybe back up irons but I want irons.
Thats why I like the Army's M21 & M24 better then the marines M40. you have back up irons.
Back to the prom dress, with army rifles, the glass comes off ALMOST as fast a s prom dress and you got your irons.
If I were in combat, I want irons. Maybe back up irons but I want irons.
Thats why I like the Army's M21 & M24 better then the marines M40. you have back up irons.
Back to the prom dress, with army rifles, the glass comes off ALMOST as fast a s prom dress and you got your irons.
Stephanie B
New member
Not being able to shoot effectively with iron sights is like being an airplane pilot and not knowing how to fly an airplane that has a tailwheel.
Come and take it.
New member
If I am using a REAL combat rifle that will get muddy, banged around, dropped, accidentally stomped on, dragged....
I would have to have back up iron sights if for no other reason that I could get mud, grime or fog on my optic rendering it useless temporarily at a time when I need it the most.
Also for militaries that cannot afford the expense of outfitting their entire armed force with glass optics will issue iron sighted rifles to their regular troops out of financial shorfall.
guerilla militias will always rely on iron sights. They dont exactly have a choice as they sometimes rely on the barest of supplies.
I would have to have back up iron sights if for no other reason that I could get mud, grime or fog on my optic rendering it useless temporarily at a time when I need it the most.
Also for militaries that cannot afford the expense of outfitting their entire armed force with glass optics will issue iron sighted rifles to their regular troops out of financial shorfall.
guerilla militias will always rely on iron sights. They dont exactly have a choice as they sometimes rely on the barest of supplies.
Last edited:
I think Irons atleast back up ones are a must. I am no where near on the level as Kraig, but after growing up shooting various iron sight rifle competitions I am greatly comfortable in my ability with them. The best part about a lazy day at the range before deer season is I see guys trying to accomplish what I do with iron sights with their scopes.
The shooter is more important than the rifle ... or the sights.
I have and still do use a variety of optics... specially on my AR (it's worn an EOtech, Leupold Mark 4 CQT, Trijicon Reflex, Trijicon ACOG, even a regular 1-4 rifle scope.)
I always keep back up iron sights, if your life depending on the firearm, and you use it hard, your red dot may fail you eventually. Optics can shatter and break.
The shooter is more important than the rifle ... or the sights.
I have and still do use a variety of optics... specially on my AR (it's worn an EOtech, Leupold Mark 4 CQT, Trijicon Reflex, Trijicon ACOG, even a regular 1-4 rifle scope.)
I always keep back up iron sights, if your life depending on the firearm, and you use it hard, your red dot may fail you eventually. Optics can shatter and break.
My favorite feat of rifle marksmanship was when I fired my Winchester M-70 XTR in 308. Using the iron sights I put 3 rounds into a 1.25" group at 100 yards in fading light using GI Ball ammunition..
My personal opinion-FWIW-is that you learn to shoot with irons, once you master that optics give you an edge but if you haven't learned to shoot they give a false sense of superiority. Much the same way large magazine capacity does not make up for lack of accuracy. Also with a lot of modern things I question the quality of manufacture. I have bought PRC made binoculars that compared poorly to my 1979 vintage Japanese made ones.
My personal opinion-FWIW-is that you learn to shoot with irons, once you master that optics give you an edge but if you haven't learned to shoot they give a false sense of superiority. Much the same way large magazine capacity does not make up for lack of accuracy. Also with a lot of modern things I question the quality of manufacture. I have bought PRC made binoculars that compared poorly to my 1979 vintage Japanese made ones.
I won't disagree that optic technology has really taken off in the past couple years, making quality glass and reflex/holos more affordable for the avg consumer...
but I have to disagree about never needing irons. No matter how much I love my glass, the irons stay on... that doesn't mean I won't run nice glass (see below) but I'll never leave myself open to not having any sights if my trij fails.
but I have to disagree about never needing irons. No matter how much I love my glass, the irons stay on... that doesn't mean I won't run nice glass (see below) but I'll never leave myself open to not having any sights if my trij fails.
Attachments
Evil Monkey
New member
did you cowitness your irons with the magnified acog?
armoredman
New member
Irons are outdated...irons are pointless...hmm, can I mention one thing?
Iron sights generally have a thing that the optics cannot ever beat...they generally come with the firearm. I cannot afford an ACOG that is worth more than my car, I can't even afford buy another EOTech to replace the one I sold last year. The quality may be outstanding, useable in all climates by all people indigenous or sophisticated, the cats meow for every combat soldier ever spawned...but I can't afford them. I like my irons. Maybe I will never have the same accuracy as the fancy schmancy, but my combat days are long behind me, when I got my lonely "hero button" in the Persian Gulf in 1988.
I got my bolt action CZ 527M specifically because it COMES with irons, and the next CZ rifle I get will also come with irons, too.
Here is my feces-impacting-the-rotating-atmospheric-agitator rifle, and it hits a man size object with ease at 100 yards. Maybe, if I can afford it I might get the Bushnell TRS-25 that many people say is an excellent low cost holo/reflex sight. I doubt my vz-58 will ever go into a jungle, or the Arctic, or even much farther than the local range, ( I hope), but I think it will work for what I use it for, and maybe even if the brown stinky becomes airborne.
Posing with the CZ SP-01 Phantom, btw.
Iron sights generally have a thing that the optics cannot ever beat...they generally come with the firearm. I cannot afford an ACOG that is worth more than my car, I can't even afford buy another EOTech to replace the one I sold last year. The quality may be outstanding, useable in all climates by all people indigenous or sophisticated, the cats meow for every combat soldier ever spawned...but I can't afford them. I like my irons. Maybe I will never have the same accuracy as the fancy schmancy, but my combat days are long behind me, when I got my lonely "hero button" in the Persian Gulf in 1988.
I got my bolt action CZ 527M specifically because it COMES with irons, and the next CZ rifle I get will also come with irons, too.
Here is my feces-impacting-the-rotating-atmospheric-agitator rifle, and it hits a man size object with ease at 100 yards. Maybe, if I can afford it I might get the Bushnell TRS-25 that many people say is an excellent low cost holo/reflex sight. I doubt my vz-58 will ever go into a jungle, or the Arctic, or even much farther than the local range, ( I hope), but I think it will work for what I use it for, and maybe even if the brown stinky becomes airborne.
Posing with the CZ SP-01 Phantom, btw.
the rifleer
New member
With automatic transmissions what the point of having a manual? Why do we still have propeller driven aircraft when we have turbo jets? Why do we have sail boats when we have all kinds of fancy water engines. Why do we have bicycles when we have motorcycles?
The list goes on. If you drop your scope onto cement or your red dot into water, you are screwed. If you have a good set of irons, it doesn't matter.
Irons are here to stay.
The list goes on. If you drop your scope onto cement or your red dot into water, you are screwed. If you have a good set of irons, it doesn't matter.
Irons are here to stay.
As you point out, they're not adjustable.
In addition, the sight radius is very short, shorter even than what you'd see on a typical service pistol. And the other problem with this particular set of sights is that they require you to position your head higher than normal which is not really optimal.
Finally the fact that some of these manufacturers are equipping their sights with built-in backup iron sights is really a better argument for the utility of iron sights than it is for their lack of utility. If even the manufacturers acknowledge that it's important to have backup iron sights for their optical sights, it's hard to argue with them.
Come and take it.
New member
From a mechanical point of view, iron sights will always be more stable than optics. No trembling electronic guts or a bouncing erector tube. Many mysterious flyers were never the fault of the gun itself but the optics mounted on it. Iron sights wont give you unexplained flyers.