Modern optics & the future of sighting systems, an interesting question

K

Kimio

New member
A while back I was watching a Q&A featuring Karl and Ian from Inrange TV. The question that was raised in this Q&A was what they thought would be the next real inovation/future of firearms or something along those lines. They stated that they think optics will be the area small arms will continue to see some of the greatest improvements.

Which raises an interesting thought for me. Optics have the "potential" to fail, but for the average, every day shooter, who will likely never be found out in the brush fighting in a warzone, does having back iron sights make much sense. With how modern optics are continuously becoming more and more reliable, do you think we'll eventually reach a point that optics become so reliable, that it'll render tradition iron sight systems obsolescent?

Case in point, I was watching a video where Ian was shooting a heavily customized G3 rifle that he commissioned from Brethren arms where the iron sights were rendered completely unusable due to the stock he was using raising his cheek weld above the stock sights. To get around this, he used a raised aimpoint like optic and didn't even bother installing back up irons (or rather modifying the gun to allow them in the first place) on the rifle.

For the purposes of a non-combat oriented shooter, someone who really only goes to competition type events (like the ones Ian and Karl typically attend), would it make more sense to simply forgo the use of irons and build a rifle entirely around a quality optic.

Outside of the military/combat aesthetic of Ian's and Karl's competitions that they participate in, I'm curious to hear what people think about this and the future of firearms sighting systems.
 
I have not had a rifle with iron sights of any kind since my 10/22, bought in the early 1990s. Even those were never used, save a brief period where I experimented with see-through bases.
I have had no use for iron sights, never had a scope fail during a hunt and only had 2 failures total, both on very cheap optics and even then both after many years of use. In fact, the latest failure is the scope on that 10/22, which has been there since the same day I bought the gun... about 25 years ago... and originally cost me about $35 at Walmart.
 
1) Look at Tracking Point for optics. Integrated ballistics calculators for more variables.
2) Smart projectiles. EXACTO is a very smart and ultra expensive projectile developed by DARPA which required a smooth bore .50 rifle. A prior employer developed a system to fire semi-smart projectiles capable of first time hits out well past a mile. The technology was very simple and proven and could be used in existing rifles. It was killed because of conflicts with traditional ammo markets.
 
Most of my rifles don't have iron sights. It's been decades since I had a scope fail while hunting.
After a shooter actually learns to use optics and uses appropriate magnification, there's no real advantage to open sights for short ranges.
 
Even the military is moving away from irons. A quality optic does everything better. I've been shooting and hunting since the 1970's. Even going back that far I've never had an optical sight fail to work. I've had iron sights fail twice. The only rifles I own with irons are some old lever actions. Even my 10-22's have no irons on them.

So far there isn't anything small, and inexpensive enough to be practical on a carry handgun. On range or HD handguns yes. I look for that to be the next step.
 
I have iron sights on two rifles

one a cz527 in 223 I use them for fun

second is a combination rifle and I used the irons for quite a while because it obviously works with both rifle and shotgun bullet and it was usually a driven type hunt, later got two mounts, one for a 6x45 scope and one for a reddot
and I use them now

I have a BLR who gets used heavily, real knock around rifle but the aimpoint holds up to abuse

never had a scope failure so it has never been an issue
 
What I would like to see (that is probably available now but super expensive)

I want digital scopes, imagine a scope that lasersights the distance to the target and adjusts itself

or one where you can have different loads/bullets/calibres preset, so when you shift from practise ammo to hunting ammo or longrange target ammo, just select the one you are using and it adjusts to it
 
Which raises an interesting thought for me. Optics have the "potential" to fail, but for the average, every day shooter, who will likely never be found out in the brush fighting in a warzone, does having back iron sights make much sense. With how modern optics are continuously becoming more and more reliable, do you think we'll eventually reach a point that optics become so reliable, that it'll render tradition iron sight systems obsolescent?
Click to expand...

Not in Alabama. I was reminded today when I went outside to fit some guns to a new ATV rack I installed. Within 30 seconds all glass scopes and RDS were completely unusable. This can happen in the cold weather too depending upon weather conditions.

They sweated pretty good for about an hour and even then scopes were not clear for about two hours. Had I needed to use the guns at that time I would have required the use of BUIS (which I have installed).
 
Husqvarna said:
What I would like to see (that is probably available now but super expensive)

I want digital scopes, imagine a scope that lasersights the distance to the target and adjusts itself

or one where you can have different loads/bullets/calibres preset, so when you shift from practise ammo to hunting ammo or longrange target ammo, just select the one you are using and it adjusts to it
Click to expand...


Saw this the other day. https://www.atncorp.com/x-sight4k-pro-day-night-rifle-scope-5-20x
 
The near future of scope technology is plastic lenses of a quality as good or better than glass. Ultra light weight scopes will be possible & prices will drop.

The only time I use iron sights these days is on a lark to try to see what hunting use to be like. On a Win 94 thurty-thurty of course! :)
 
scopes

It is pretty common to have a sporting (hunting) rifle with a conventional optical (scope) sight only. Many sporting rifles are sold that way, (no irons) and MUST have a scope. I've set up several sporters where I've removed the iron sights when I installed a quality scope. The optics industry has been making scopes now for a long time, and good scopes are pretty darn dependable.

But my life or livelihood does not depend on my scope holding up on a hunt. If I have a scope fail, I cuss it as bad luck, go home (or back to the Bronco) get another rifle and hunt again when convenient. Thing is, in near 40 yrs of hunting with a scoped rifle, I can only think of only one scope that actually failed on a hunt. That was in the '70's with a Bushnell Banner that clouded up, but it was still usable to a degree. I've had some reticles fail on cheap scopes on rifles carried in the trunk too, or beat to pieces by recoil. Until I put a decent scope on my Mini30, it killed several cheap scopes.

But if I were military, still in LE, or off grid on a homestead or the hunt of a lifetime, my rifle would have a set of irons. And I'd have a second scope back at camp or in my war bag.

One thought is mounting systems. I've had more issues with rifles loosing zero due to rings or bases trouble more often than any type of optic trouble. Some type on monolithic base/ring/optic arrangement that is more bomb proof than our conventional bases/rings arrangement, all held in place by tiny screws. Ruger's on the right track with their proprietary rings and corresponding base slots milled into the rifle. Imagine a scope that used b bases milled into the receiver, and the rings/mount hardware were one piece and part of the scope tube. That oughta be solid.
 
I'm going the other way....

For military purposes, winning is everything. So there will always be an arms race when losing is not an option. But for hunting, we don't need any more advances in technology. How much more of an advantage do you have to have before you will be satisfied? Sure, there's a scope on the 270 and it has no provision for iron sights. So it has been sitting at home while the vintage 30 WCF with a Lyman tang sight is getting almost all of the centerfire action. Two otherwise identical Marlin 22's, one scoped, the other has a Williams aperture sight. The one that gets to go out in the field is almost always the one with the peep sight. My eyes are going on 63 years old and aren't quite what they used to be; I'm wearing readers right now. But a peep sight sharpens everything up quite well. Everybody else seems to be addicted to scopes; and bipods and bench-rests and range-finders, chronographs, too, for that matter. Whatever happened to standing up on your hind legs and shooting like a man, for Pete's sake?;)
 
The last rifle i bought that had open sights on was my first Savage 110 in 30-30 bought in 1984. ( man i'm getting old!!).

While at the outdoor show in Harrisburg this past spring i came accross an interesting scope. Had illumination (obviously), built in 2,000 yards range finder, temp, altitude, pressure density, compass. Plug into computer and tell it G7 BC and velocity.
Range and it shows you what to hold.
Price was in the $4,000 range. Was heavy as all get!
Told the guy to get weight down in the 1lb range and chop about $2K and he'd sell out.
 
My most active hunting years were from 1964 through 2004. All my rifles were scopes-only, and I never had a problem of any sort.

Bouncing around on rough jeep trails didn't hurt. A couple of "oopsie" fall-downs in the house didn't hurt. Still held zero.
 
BunbleBug said:
The near future of scope technology is plastic lenses of a quality as good or better than glass.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought. I haven't had glass lenses in my eye glasses for decades. I wonder whether plastics could be used in prismatic scopes to reduce weight, or if the necessity of using more material would reduce any benefit.

I do find an advantage in iron sights that no 1x optic has, the clarification of the target by the rear aperture. At 2x, an optic is probably as good as an aperture, and can be used in lower light.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion on scope vs. irons.
My Barrett .50 has iron sights, which is incredibly humorous to me, considering the most useful range of the weapon is beyond 600+ yards, generally outside the effective range of iron sights.
 
zukiphile said:
That's an interesting thought. I haven't had glass lenses in my eye glasses for decades. I wonder whether plastics could be used in prismatic scopes to reduce weight, or if the necessity of using more material would reduce any benefit.
Click to expand...
The technology is called "gradient refractive index lenses". Lenses are made in layers down to the molecular level & for this reason they are often referred to as "nano-layered" lenses. A typical scope has up to 6 lenses inside. By making a sort of hybrid nano lens, this can reduce the number down to 2 or 3 polymer lenses. Along with the obvious lens weight reduction, the scope tube can be made much shorter & lighter. Some of the technology is already being used in military night-vision scopes which by nature are bulky & heavy.

It will be interesting once it's all perfected & reaches mass production.
 
BumbleBug said:
The technology is called "gradient refractive index lenses".
Click to expand...

I had to google a bit to grasp this. If I understand this correctly, one could make a single block of polycarbonate with varying index values that would do what the ocular and objective lenses do, focus light down to a reticle then out to the eye. This shouldn't require an airtight tube.

Can this be done now by joining a series of pieces with varying index values?
 
zukiphile said:
I had to google a bit to grasp this. If I understand this correctly, one could make a single block of polycarbonate with varying index values that would do what the ocular and objective lenses do, focus light down to a reticle then out to the eye. This shouldn't require an airtight tube.

Can this be done now by joining a series of pieces with varying index values?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. However the benefit of having the layers internal to the polycarbonate is that you don't have a hard transition. And you wouldn't be able to put glue in between the pieces, more than likely, therefore they would just be separate pieces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top