The Great Optics vs Irons Debate.

[sgt z]

I was raised on the irons and am more comfortable with them but I too suffer from old eyes and now scope everything but my shotgun. I plan to use irons in a tight spot because its what I'm used to.

 

[headspace]

I remember a thread where someone brought up learning point shooting with a handgun and getting crucified. Now sights aren't important. I'm finding that a little ironic. Please disregard this post if it irks you. I'm not trying to stir the pot. But if you want to talk fundamentals, I think it's a little difficult to exclude the basic staple of sighting systems. If for no other reason than a potential failure of your optics, as stated above. I think that's a good reason but there are others. One basic fundamental is looking down the top of the weapon at your target. well, thats where the sights are. I think anyone who learns to shoot with a scope or other form of optic will eventually have a handicap to overcome. Like people who learn to drive a car with an auto trans and never take the time to learn to drive a standard. I'm sure one day there will be folks who can type a hundred words per minute on a computer keyboard and barely write their name. Or maybe they're already using speakeasy because they never learned to type.
If you bothered reading this far, again, not trying to offend or turn a worthwhile discussion into another name calling throwdown. Just giving another perspective. If all you ever want to own a gun for is to shoot paper at ranges too far for the naked eye, don't give it another thought.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Point shooting a pistol (no sight alignment) and using an optic on a rifle have nothing to do with each other.

The point is fundamentals are fundamentals regardless if using irons, an RDS, or a magnified optic. No one is suggesting you shouldn't know how to properly align iron sights. But that is a lesson learned in 10 minutes. Beyond that the other fundamentals take over and are not sight specific. If you can perform proper trigger control and sight acquisition with a red dot, you can with irons too. Literally the only difference is aligning a dot on a target vs aligning a front sight post on a target. Beyond that the skills are universal.

I've probably spent 10% of my time shooting irons vs 90% shooting optics. I shoot irons just as accurately, albeit slower than a red dot.

 

[mcinfantry]

i dont believe irons and optics are the same.
irons you have to put the front site on the target and align the rear site and maintain 3 points, (one focal point) where the target and rear sight are not in focus.

a scope allows you to see a clear target, clear aiming point and you DO NOT have to align anything in the scope. a parallax free scop allows your head to move, or not be centered and still accurately shoot

with all that being said, optics are the future.

im sure when they rifled barrels all the people with smoothboores were mad as hell.

 

[general mills]

the poll said minimum, not what you have. Perhaps you do feel that an optic is a minimum. I am comfortable with iron sights, and consider that an acceptable minimum.

 

[general mills]

I also wouldn't consider a tac light a minimum. But I would want a sling. A sling helps my aim more than a optic

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I remember a thread where someone brought up learning point shooting with a handgun and getting crucified. Now sights aren't important. I'm finding that a little ironic. Please disregard this post if it irks you. I'm not trying to stir the pot. But if you want to talk fundamentals, I think it's a little difficult to exclude the basic staple of sighting systems. If for no other reason than a potential failure of your optics, as stated above. I think that's a good reason but there are others. One basic fundamental is looking down the top of the weapon at your target. well, thats where the sights are. I think anyone who learns to shoot with a scope or other form of optic will eventually have a handicap to overcome. Like people who learn to drive a car with an auto trans and never take the time to learn to drive a standard. I'm sure one day there will be folks who can type a hundred words per minute on a computer keyboard and barely write their name. Or maybe they're already using speakeasy because they never learned to type.
If you bothered reading this far, again, not trying to offend or turn a worthwhile discussion into another name calling throwdown. Just giving another perspective. If all you ever want to own a gun for is to shoot paper at ranges too far for the naked eye, don't give it another thought.

An optic is a sight. 26k US Army Infantrymen a year disagree with your premise.

 

[SpeedRacer]

I also wouldn't consider a tac light a minimum. But I would want a sling. A sling helps my aim more than a optic

Maybe it wasn't clear in the OP, but the discussion is in regards to defensive weapons.

 

[doc ace]

I also wouldn't consider a tac light a minimum. But I would want a sling. A sling helps my aim more than a optic

Tac light can be used as a deterrent in a situation simply by blinding and disorienting intruder/BG. Pitch black, maybe variable lighting, sneak up, bam 10,000 lumens in BGs eyeballs, and you've got a clear target in your crosshairs/irons ready to engage.

 

[JNieman]

The bare minimum, I put irons.

Quality irons are quite a lot cheaper than an optic. If we're talking about bare minimum, I assume we're talking about the difference between not bothering with the rifle, or shelling out the money to get an adequate rifle that meets /minimum/ requirements. You can do fine with irons, if you can't scratch up the dough for a quality optic yet. So it's better to have a rifle with irons than no rifle at all.

The benefits of a quality red dot or 1x optic are written upon in greater detail and by more intelligent/experienced people than me so I won't bother rehashing it. TL;DR? Optics are better than irons. I also do not believe in requiring that someone learn irons before optic. If anything, logically, optics would be first, because it's a natural progression. With an optic, there are only 3 factors in the Eye-Target-Line which is the Eye, and the Reticle, and the Target. It will be easier to proficiently use that before moving on to Iron sights which have 4 factors in the ETL, which is Eye, Rear Sight, Front Post, Target. There's no reason to throw the most complicated system at a person first if they're new. Unmagnified optics are also more forgiving of improper cheek weld or slight misalignment of the optic within the eye-target-line. With that compensated for, the shooter can focus on recoil management, trigger control, follow through, proper grip, stance and shouldering, without a more complicated sighting system causing possible distraction.

There is no "basic shooting principle" that is /based/ on Iron Sights. Does your trigger control base itself on the irons? Does the placement of the buttstock in your shoulder depend on the irons? Does the placement of your hand on the grip rely upon the irons? Do the iron sights somehow dictate your support hand placement and usage? No. Not one bit. Not at all. Zero. The only people vouching for a mandatory learning course with irons before they "deserve" an optic are people rooted in history who think that the simple fact that it was done before, means it should always be done in the future.

You know what you used to do in the Marine Corps? Stick your elbow out at a 90 degree angle to the bore. You know what people used to train to do in a gun fight? Stand still, square up to the target, and fully erect like they have a board sticking from the pants to their shoulders. People learn and experiment, and as time goes on, we drop the silly stuff. The advent of a large pool of civilian shooters and training participants has changed things. I was not in the military. I don't care what traditions they have, if they're not rooted in practical applications to achieve success in putting holes in a target. Don't they still make the Marines in boot camp use that silly "boot strap" sling that goes from the front sight block to the bottom rear of the buttstock? I know very recently, anyways, that was the case. I think we all know how useless that is. Civilians have only their own beliefs to adhere to in equipment. We don't have armorers or rules about issued-gear-only or whatever. If something is demonstrably better, we use it. If it's easier, we do it. We don't need approval. We just need proof. So we change faster and easier. We're also more free to sit around and experiment with **** in our free time, and find new ways to solve problems. Yea, that results in a bunch of retarded mall ninja **** on the market, but you get a peanut in the turd sometimes.

Oh, and I learned drafting with a pencil, first, on a board, before computer drafting. I used to be able to write perfect concise standard lettering as fast as most people could take notes in class. Now I can barely write my name legibly. ****in' computers. So I'm one of those, I guess.

 

[JNieman]

*derped*

 

[SpeedRacer]

i dont believe irons and optics are the same.
irons you have to put the front site on the target and align the rear site and maintain 3 points, (one focal point) where the target and rear sight are not in focus.

Of course, but the fundamentals don't change. Sight alignment is still sight alignment. From the moment your front and rear sight are aligned (which specifically requires no skill) you're on even ground. The challenge then becomes not disrupting your sight alignment, which affects all sighting systems. A red dot or may get you on target faster, but it certainly won't make you shoot any more accurately. A miss with irons is a miss with a red dot.

Scopes are obviously a different animal, since they add a different capability. Of course it's easier to shoot accurately at 300yds with a scope than it is with irons, but again bad fundamentals will still screw you up just the same.

 

[doc ace]

Thanks for the pros and everyone giving input! Keep the critique and criticism and opinions flooding. I'm not surprised how important bacon is to a lot of you as well!

 

[headspace]

An optic is a sight. 26k US Army Infantrymen a year disagree with your premise.

yup, an optic is a type of sight. That's for certain

 

[headspace]

Thanks for the pros and everyone giving input! Keep the critique and criticism and opinions flooding. I'm not surprised how important bacon is to a lot of you as well!

i was actually gonna vote bacon...

 

[headspace]

Maybe it wasn't clear in the OP, but the discussion is in regards to defensive weapons.

it seemed clear to me too

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

And approx 26k Infantryman are trained a year primarily using an electro optical sight.

 

[goteron]

The bare minimum for a defensive rifle for me is:

Sling, optic, light

Lights also don't blind, and even the Fury's are only 570 lumens. You can't identify and aim without ambient or white light.

Optics allow target focus and speed.

Just my 2c

 

[mcinfantry]

Having pointed a gun at men, I would prefer the ease an simplicity of an optic.

I believe it is quicker and easier for me.

Apparently so does the military.

I would rather fight against a man using iron sights against me, and I have an optic of any type at any range.

Popping paper isn't pointing guns at people.

 

[headspace]

I guess I misunderstood the OP's question and the entire poll. I thought the question was what is your minimum. Didn't realize the question was what I thought was the best type of sight. So I'll take fire and forget smart scopes for 500 Alex.