Rifle Scopes David Tubb sights?= total confusion

[TacticalSasquach]

can anyone shed light on these type sights.

I dont see how it is humanly possible to be better than high quality glass.

I am talking about the tubular ones he has mounted on the front and back of his rifles

 

[Mudcat-NC]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

Are you talking about "iron" sights? IE, apeture sights? If so, I dont think anyone, even David, is saying that irons are better than a scope, but, when youre bullseye shooting, like in high power, there are a lot of us that can actually shoot better with irons than with a scope.

With Irons, as long as your reference point is the same and you can easily define the SAME reference every time, like shooting at the appropriate size bull in HP at the right distance, one can shoot to within their hold and equipment/ammo. Also why a lot us will shoot irons even in any/any matches cause that is what we are used to and its really not a handicap.

John

 

[Erud]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

Two whole different ball games. Mudcat does a good job explaining. Aperture sights are great for NRA HP type shooting from position, but not terribly practical outside of that. I love sights and shoot better with them than with optics in that type of scenario. Also, if shooting with a sling like in HP, your pulse can make any magnification very tough to deal with.

 

[Mag 300]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

I will have a rifle with these to try this week and from what I unbderstand the Iron sighters do not consider them a handicap at all.
I was also surprised
Bill

 

[Mudcat-NC]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

Dont expect to light the world on fire the first time you step out with irons though...they take a bit of getting used to. I remember when i transferred from the service rifle to the match rifle....ouch...took a couple months of matches to get to where I knew what an X looked like.

What is really scary is when you get good enough to call a X at 6 or 3, etc when the X ring is 1 MOA. Yes, it can be done.

John

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

I learned to shoot on iron sights, both notch type and peeps. later, in the service and in combat, I became literally dependent for my life on my proficency with micrometer peep sights.

It wasn't until well after I reentered the shooting arena in my mid-40's that I progressed from handguns to Service Rifle Highpower match shooting, and then eventually became acquainted with riflescopes and tactical comps.

Nowadays, we train youth with rimfire rifles, and they are completely free to use riflescope, notch, or peep sights. The grand majority simply bypass the irons, and I think they are shortchanging themselves; but I also believe it's a choice they need to be allowed to make for themselves, without bias on the instructors' parts. Still, I must confess to a warm feeling when I see one of them shooting an offhand string with peeps.

Greg

 

[Mudcat-NC]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

The best way to show a nonbeliever the precision of irons is to lay a $100 bills on the bench and see who wins.

John

 

[Swamper]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cobb_50</div><div class="ubbcode-body">can anyone shed light on these type sights.

I dont see how it is humanly possible to be better than high quality glass.

I am talking about the tubular ones he has mounted on the front and back of his rifles
</div></div>

A Warner micrometer sight is a very awesome precision instrument. Add in a 22mm ladder globe sight up front maybe mounted out there on a barrel extension tube and you get the full space gun effect. But, Cobb says, "I dont see how it is humanly possible to be better than high quality glass."

Easy. Here's how: Any sight is simply a means of adjusting the muzzle elevation so that bullet trajectory and aiming point coincide. Glass has nothing to do with it. Your sight picture/aiming point has nothing to do with how clear you view your target, but everything with where you hold your sights.

A scopesight does give the advantage of a single aiming element, the reticle; versus alignment of rear and front sights. The micrometer match sight system offers the user choice of rear aperture, often via an adjustable iris; plus the ability to interchange the front sight since these are interchangeable from post or aperture style of almost any dimension.

Might research the Palma match shooting discipline for more detailed info on your question above, Cobb. Guys shoot .308win with maximum bullet weight of 155gr at 1000yds in that sport and do so very precisely. Of course, it is a game, a match competition, and sights are optimized for the target fired upon, and the rifles are not what you could regard as "field optimum", but give one of those guys an M1a with NM sights and no doubt he could acquit himself very well in a field setting.

AR-15 Service Rifle shooters often are firing .5moa ten shot groups at 600yds with their match component A2 field-ready sight system. How many on this board can shoot that well from a bench, with their "top-notch glass", much less with sling and shooting coat as their only firing position aids? Not too damn many.

I am no world class competitor and don't pretend to be. But I would take a Service Rifle without hesitation in a hostile situation. About the only thing I would do is drill out the float tube to make it a bit lighter.

The Marine and Army sniper system rifles that evolved after VietNam both featured Redfield International micrometer sights as backup to the scope sight. My gripe with many on this board is the preoccupation with glass quality as main criteria of "the scopesight". Far from it.

Actually, the Warner micrometer sight is probably the most precise sight ever manufactured. No scopesight can compete with its features for backlash free precision of movement. People who confuse telescopic visual clarity with sight picture don't grasp the zen of shooting. Precision shooting is not so much about seeing your target in most vivid contrast and clarity as it is aligning your sights upon that target with precision, speed and executing a smooth trigger press.

A battle rifle with national match quality iron sights is one helluva tool for precision shooting, and superior to any similar rifle with an extra 3 to 4 lbs of scope and mount system. The guys here who tout their 17-19lb rifles as "awesome" are correct, but they are toting very specialized and limited application instruments.

Anyway, try an aperture rear sight with plain post front sight. You may be amazed at the results.

 

[matchking]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A battle rifle with national match quality iron sights is one helluva tool for precision shooting, and superior to any similar rifle with an extra 3 to 4 lbs of scope and mount system.</div></div>
There are a few statements there that I would disagree with.

 

[Lindy]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

Yeah, me too. While optical sights don't necessarily help you shoot better, they definitely help you <span style="font-style: italic">see</span> better.

There's a reason while both the Army and the Marine Corps have gone to optical sights for pretty much everyone.

 

[WRM]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While optical sights don't necessarily help you shoot better, they definitely help you <span style="font-style: italic">see</span> better.</div></div>

Spot on.

I've heard average unaided sight is being able to see a 1" black square on white at 100 yards, and if you can't see your target, you're not likely to connect. That's why open sight targets generally have a big black bull against white, and 1k benchrest sights in on 4" clay pigeons setting on the dirt berm....

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Mudcat-NC]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

I think there is another reason the military has went to optics!

 

[Mudcat-NC]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WRM</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While optical sights don't necessarily help you shoot better, they definitely help you <span style="font-style: italic">see</span> better.</div></div>

Spot on.

I've heard average unaided sight is being able to see a 1" black square on white at 100 yards, and if you can't see your target, you're not likely to connect. That's why open sight targets generally have a big black bull against white, and 1k benchrest sights in on 4" clay pigeons setting on the dirt berm....

Cheers,

Bill </div></div>

Guys, keep in mind that those of us that shoot "irons" in HP/LR matches are shooting at a "constant" target, a black circle, with a "fixed" diameter that is proportional from 100 yards to 1000 yards. What we are trying to say is that yes, the glass optics are going to let you "see" better and are advantageous on a non-bullseye type target. But on a HP target, your optics are not going to give ME an advantage of my Warner/RightSight combo (irons). Ever wonder why a lot of us HP shooters dont bother sticking scopes on our rifles when we have the option in an "any sight" match?

While I dont agree with a prior poster about the service rifle being optimum (I am getting old enough that the short sight radius on a NM AR is giving me fits) but running a 36 inch sight radius using a Warner/Gehman rear, 30mm RightSight with +.5 diopter up front, I can shoot just as good or better off the sling with the irons as I can with the scope.

I know, some of yall still doubt it.......

John

 

[Swamper]

Re: David Tubb sights?= total confusion

How is an M1a with NM sights as far as a field rifle, IE in a fight?

I was not saying that a chrome-lined bore with 1:12 or 1:9 twist is "optimum" for precision shooting. Was trying to get the point across that a 10.5lb AR or M1a will be more easily handled and also durable in the field. That these rifles can be made to perform so well at SR distances is very much an optimum battlefield scenario.

Or do you really think a 5 or 10 round bolt action with 28" #9 or palma contour barrel with 3 to 4 lbs of scopesight system is "optimum"? Depends on if you have a spotter or platoon backing your ass up in the field.

The current AO of hostile operations is largely open desert, desolate, sparse hillside, or urban/village setting. A scopesight can be very fast, but we are not talking about the heavy USO/S&B/NXS/Hensoldt etc top line precision longrange scopesights. The military is not issuing anything beyond a 4x Acog to line troops, and Designated Marksman soldiers get 3-9x scopes that weigh about 14oz.

I have read a letter on the NM forum, written by an active duty Captain, decrying the inability of the M4 to reach out. This Service Rifle competitor was hoping to find a 20" barreled rifle so he could reach enemy out around 500yds. Something the M4 won't do reliably.

Funny thing. I bought AR-10 rifles because my M1a with NM sights was clumsy with a scope. I acquired a couple of A2 AR-10 upper receivers and mounted spare 10T barrels on them and WOW! A 13lb precision performer with match sights and 20rds. The weight reported includes 1.75lbs for loaded magazine.

How much can you do with a longrange rifle that weighs 11 lbs empty, has a med-heavy profile barrel and sights that allow precision engagement to .5moa out 750yds or maybe more?

Cut 2, maybe 3 lbs out of the equation if you go with an AR-15. 75/77 gr bullets from the magazine weigh half as much. In the field, are we killing or hitting? The hit does more damage than the kill as far as logistics of your enemy.

Which rifle is more versatile in the field? The AR is. A 20rd semi does more than any bolt operated 5 or 10 rd rifle, when things are moving fast and unexpectedly.

A John Holliger pinned A2 rear sight is a rather wonderful thing. An adjustable iris on your A2 could be even better. I have modified one of the AR-10 A2 carryhandles to take a Trijicon Reflex on A2 mount. With a scope rail and low power scope like a 1-4 or 1.5-5x Leupold, the cheekweld is very close to the same with the irons. Gotta use extra low Weaver Mounts, but it works!

The other A2 10T I have is a 6mm/.22-250AI with a Hart 27" barrel. Now there, Mud-Cat is your sight radius; or almost. It measures 35", plus has barrel band relief so use ladder sight or tall spacer on barrel band and easily keep that A2 sight on target at 1000yds. (But that is my hypothetical; no 1k range anywhere near me).

Have ARs in A4 configuration too, but am rethinking the scope situation.

If my NXS 2.5-10 24mm or Leupold MR/T will mount on the carryhandle with decent stockweld, I will be really pleased! The NXS weighs 16oz and does have great image rendition. The Leupold is 15oz. The VXII 1-4 weighs 9oz. Most tactical ringsets weigh more than that!

Iron precision sights and reflex or illum fast response scopes to choose from. That with the weight savings and versatility the rifle brings will be about my ideal weapon.

Yet,