Irons before optics

[MJY65]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm trying to learn, not challenge.

I've often read the comment that a shooter needs to learn to shoot iron sights before optics or some aspect of technique will be lost. I'd like a little more insight into that. It seems that by isolating the variables and removing a huge one (iron sight picture) one could focus on the other aspects more effectively. Please understand, I'm not saying that shooting with irons isn't a valuable skill, but I just don't see it as an essential first step any more than learning a slide rule is necessary to run a calculator.

 

[prekarious]

Re: Irons before optics

Reinforces keeping your focus where it belongs and small subtle movements aren't as noticable to the beginning shooter.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MJY65</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me preface this by saying that I'm trying to learn, not challenge.

I've often read the comment that a shooter needs to learn to shoot iron sights before optics or some aspect of technique will be lost. I'd like a little more insight into that. It seems that by isolating the variables and removing a huge one (iron sight picture) one could focus on the other aspects more effectively. Please understand, I'm not saying that shooting with irons isn't a valuable skill, but I just don't see it as an essential first step any more than learning a slide rule is necessary to run a calculator.</div></div>

The scope can be a distraction to good shooting. Because it can serve as a substitute for basic marksmanship, it can deceive the shooter into thinking he actually knows something about good shooting. Of course, even with a scope, without basic marksmanship training, things fall apart pretty quickly when the shooter attempts shots that are beyond what can be hit intuitively.

The problem for a new shooter using a scope is that the shooter can be deceived by the scope into believing that all that's important to getting a good hit is a good sight picture. This is the least important thing. Nevertheless, I see new shooters shoulder the rifle, steering the reticle to target with no consideration for NPA; and, with lots of muscle tension to hold the sight picture, I see these folks abandoning aim as soon as they perceive the job of executing the two firing tasks is done. Since they abandoned aim while the bullet was still in the bore, the bullet goes some place other than where they were so fixated. There's more but the jest is that learning basic marksmanship with irons it's clear when the shooter actually is getting the hang of it. Without an understanding he will not hit where aimed. With a scope and no knowledge of marksmanship at all the shooter may still get good hits, at least at relatively short distances. The bottom-line is the scope essentially masks underdevelopment.

 

[Luke]

Re: Irons before optics

This is a good reason to have a scoped high power rifle, and an iron sight smallbore rifle for practice. Best of both worlds...

 

[fargo007]

Re: Irons before optics

I guess it all depends on what your goal is, and what type of shooting you are interested in. If your only interest is shooting groundhogs at long range, irons could be a waste of time. If we're talking practical type shooting with AR's and such, I do think there is some benefit. Sterling makes very good points about optics hiding marksmanship sins. Irons/Optic - I wouldn't put one necessarily 'before' the other because that implies a departure. Shoot with both, practice with both, and become (and remain) proficient with both.

--Fargo007

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Irons before optics

My view is that while optics can mask deficiencies in marksmanship prowess, it's simpler than that. What works..., works.

Deficencies can and should be resolved, but a 'Chuck with a bullet through its head is not pondering the marksman's weaknesses.

Iron sights are a skill to be mastered if one intends to become a well-rounded and accomplished markesman. There are shooters alive today who will accomplish a lifetome's worth of shooting goals without ever once having peered through a set of iron sights.

It's just another choice.

Greg

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Irons before optics

i'm with greg, it's just another skillset. I have iron sight bases on all of my bolt guns cause i like to take em out and train iron only now and then. tell ya what, it builds a stronger boner ringin steel at 800-1000 using iron sights over a scope, at least for me

 

[Strykervet]

Re: Irons before optics

Well, in the army I trained SDM's. The first thing we did with them was to strip the rifles down and start from scratch. We didn't want loose barrels being an issue and these were plain jane M4's; sometimes we borrowed M16A2 lowers from batt. and used those in conjunction with the M4 upper. That seems to help a lot first off.

In about 4 weeks they were all capable of shooting fairly accurately to 600m using irons and ACOG on those M4's. They started out shooting NM, and this is very important. The NM course is shot using the irons and the shooters are focusing on fundamentals hardcore. We even outfitted them with makeshift NM gear to tighten groups. They called all their shots and learned to spot trace. It was a very good course and a LOT of fun.

Learning to shoot with the sling and irons in those NM positions was the best thing I ever did to improve my aim. Now the upside to this is that you can go shoot and learn all of this as a civilian at organized shooting events. They are a lot of fun are full of like minded people who generally like to share knowledge (until you start scoring better anyway).

I suppose the biggest hurdle is to be still, and a good hint here is not to chicken wing it. Keep those elbows close in. Muzzle should be inline with the firing side foot, a STRAIGHT line, not canted like you always see when prone. This directs recoil directly through the entire body and moves it less, thus affecting the next shot less --and one shot on target isn't shit, it is those following shots that make a group that determine the skill of the shooter combined with the capability of the weapon (skill of shooter is more important; you won't know if you have a 2MOA rifle or a 3MOA rifle if you can't eliminate your own variables). Little details like this matter just as much as mastering irons, trigger pull, etc. With irons and no magnification, it makes it essential to either be perfectly still, or to be able to pull the shot when needed when the "wobbly" irons move over the target. Since you never really can eliminate all the movement totally, it is all about eliminating variables, so the better you are at holding irons over a target as small or smaller than your front post, the better you will be at holding a fine crosshair with 10x at 600m, no?

Finally, all of this is directly transferrable to a small bore or air rifle at very close ranges, and those air rifles are a GREAT way to improve the fundamentals. Samurai used to practice shooting bows at targets just a few feet away. Then they transistioned to shooting off a running horse at range, and those guys pull off William Tell type shots all the time at 30mph. Now THAT is marksmanship and hats off to those guys BIG TIME. The mindset of the samurai, without sounding cheesey, is kind of what you want to think like.

Good luck and safe shooting!

 

[Dagsta]

Re: Irons before optics

Well the one thing for sure you need to make sure of is to "Master" iron sights while you are young.

When you get my age iron sights are as useless as "Tits on a Boar Hog"

Oh how I remember how crystal clear my front sight was at the 50 yard line, and how definitive my front post on all my carbines were. All of that being measured history now!! lol.

Fundamentally I fully agree with the benefits of iron sight shooting!!! So long as you can see the damn things!!!

Cheers

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well the one thing for sure you need to make sure of is to "Master" iron sights while you are young.</div></div>

I'm 65 years old and have 65 year old eyes. I still shoot irons, and shoot them better then I do glass on the whole.

I measured my eye to the front sight, Went to the drug store and bought reading glasses that allowed me to focus on the front sight.

I couldn't see the marks on the sight knobs, nor could read my data book. So I got a pair of reading glassed for normal reading. I switched the right eye pieces of the so I could use my right eye for shootig, and my left eye for seeing close up.

The Army Marksmanship Unit (when they ran sniper schools) started us out with irons, shooting to 900 meters, before they let us put on the ART scopes (M21s). We also worked on positions, sling, unsupported before we went to sandbags or other rest.

When I ran sniper schools for the NG, using M1C/Ds and then M21s I did the same thing with good results.

I do agree that 22s and AirGuns are a good way to stress the fundamentals.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

All,

I'm getting off track here a little bit but will say one more thing about irons. When using a scope, magnification gives us a clear recognition for where the rifle is pointed. With irons, even with a center of mass hold, things are not so clear. For results comparable to what I'd get with a scope I need to take a mental snap shot of my sight picture which I attempt to see again using picture memory. BTW, this is why iron sight shooters are constantly tweeking their zeros. Still, this is not enough to shoot scores with irons as I can with the scope. To shoot as good with irons as when using a scope I also need to build my position so that recoil resistance is consistent to what I describe as a molecular level. This cannot even be contemplated without an insane practice schedule to produce a really hard hold. At any rate, with picture and muscle memory developed to an extraordinary level, my iron sight scores are almost as good in percentage as scope sight scores except at LR. Ironically, my iron sight discipline has improved my scope scores at LR since I'm still working the position to perfection for consistent recoil resistance. Bottom-line, getting real good with irons will help a shooter produce better scores with the scope.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Irons before optics

I don't mean to suggest I don't think irons are worth learning and using. My Garand will never wear a scope, and my recently acquired Mosin-Nagant 91/30 looks like it's gonna get a lot of use, and will also never wear a scope. I love shooting them, despite my 66 years on the planet. My VA Ophthalmologist knows and supports my shooting goals. I shoot irons well enough that I don't really care how they compare against scoped rifles; it floats my boat all high and dry.

Folks over forty can't resolve great differences in distances because the eye's lens loses its flexibility and the eye muscles cannot change its shape well enough for it to do what it once could.

While irons are still a useful tools for me, I do recognize it takes me longer to compose and execute a shot.

Greg

 

[fargo007]

Re: Irons before optics

The doctrine of irons vs. optics in a .mil context is very different now from what it used to be. The underpinnings are just different. It's all about hit probability and effectiveness of fire.

The durability argument made against optics many years ago is moot. Modern combat grade optics are extremely tough and trustworthy. Some have even survived enemy fire and still work.

Although irons are indeed a superior choice for building marksmanship fundamentals, it can't be looked at in the vacuum of civilian NM competition. Irons fall down on the job in quite a few circumstances. Try shooting with irons in low light or darkness. Or rain/snow (NM is canceled for rain, and doesn't shoot at all in Winter). It's nearly impossible, but with an ACOG those aren't even serious distractions.

It's hard to have a discussion of irons without bringing up CMP/NM/Service Rifle. Without a doubt there are excellent marksmanship fundamentals at work there. That said, I don't think it (in its current form) should be held out as a crucible for shaping up people headed for a two way range somewhere. It strips away equipment they will have to use, and become reflex-familiar with, and replaces it with competition-specific things that they cannot. What you CAN do is cherry pick the applicable skills out of it (like sling use, position shooting, etc) and add that to training that is more mission/gear specific.

Every US service branch is now issuing an optic, and requiring it to be used for quals. NM/Service rifle at one time (in Garand days) was a pretty relevant analog to what was going on in uniform. Some celebrate, and some lament the fact that it still remains fixed in that very same time frame: single-loading semi-autos (this makes the ghost of Eugene Stoner cry), no optics, no suppressors, the Garand-inspired loading 8/2 for rapids, round bullseye type targets, etc.

I know some shooters in that sport who would love to see it evolve, and others who would blackball anyone who dared to suggest it.

One mans 'anachronism' is another man's 'tradition.'

--Fargo007

 

[Mister Ridge]

Re: Irons before optics

What would an aspiring marksmen do if they had learned to shoot optics first? Would it be a good idea to go back and spend some time shooting with iron sights?

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Or rain/snow (NM is canceled for rain, and doesn't shoot at all in Winter</div></div>

In my 35 or so years of shooting high power I've only seen one match postponed do to rain. That was at the National Guard Championships in either 78-79. That was do to Little Rock being on the outer edge of a huricane. The only reason they stopped the match was because flash floods were putting the pit crew in danger.

We didn't call matches for snow when I was in Alaska. I do remember one spring we had a heavy wet snow blowing on the target carriers. It was weird. In slow fire at 600, the snow covered the target, it was totally white. You couldn't use a fram hold because of the white back ground which met you couldn't tell what was target what was not.

You had to shoot, the bullet hitting the target would shake off the snow, then you has to shoot as fast as you could before more wet snow covered the bullseye. Was a fun match, but not many good scores at 600.

I believe its easier to shoot in the rain with irons. If the rear sight gets blocked with a drop you can blow it out without getting out of position. If glass is spattered with water it has to be wiped, normally on both ends.

Both have their places. Normally if I can see the target, I can shoot better with irons. But, something like the receint SH Cup, you'd be sucking with irons. There is no way you could have seen the targets without some sort of magnification.

 

[Strykervet]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All,

I'm getting off track here a little bit but will say one more thing about irons. When using a scope, magnification gives us a clear recognition for where the rifle is pointed. With irons, even with a center of mass hold, things are not so clear. For results comparable to what I'd get with a scope I need to take a mental snap shot of my sight picture which I attempt to see again using picture memory. BTW, this is why iron sight shooters are constantly tweeking their zeros. Still, this is not enough to shoot scores with irons as I can with the scope. To shoot as good with irons as when using a scope I also need to build my position so that recoil resistance is consistent to what I describe as a molecular level. This cannot even be contemplated without an insane practice schedule to produce a really hard hold. At any rate, with picture and muscle memory developed to an extraordinary level, my iron sight scores are almost as good in percentage as scope sight scores except at LR. Ironically, my iron sight discipline has improved my scope scores at LR since I'm still working the position to perfection for consistent recoil resistance. Bottom-line, getting real good with irons will help a shooter produce better scores with the scope.</div></div>

Yeah, very well put. My idea exactly.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Irons before optics

Quartering is an aiming preparation technique intended to eliminate the effects of parallax-induced aiming errors when parallax adjustment is not an option.

The shooter looks through the scope at the target while moving the head slightly up, down, left, and right. The eye will reach an 'edge' of the image in each direction where a shadowing will appear at the edge of the image. The shooter then repositions their head to a place midway between where the shadowing appears.

This aligns the eye's pupil in the center of the scope's optical exit pupil, in proper relationship with the scope's optical center axis, eliminating aiming errors that occur as the reticle tracks across the target image when parallax correction is not properly adjusted.

Greg

 

[jerseymike]

Re: Irons before optics

A new shooter using a red dot such as an eotech or aimpoint can grasp the concept of put the red dot on what you want to hit relatively quickly. This would help the new shooter concentrate on other fundamentals like trigger pull, breathing and follow through. Once the shooter has that down, all they need to do is learn how to align and focus on the front sight. So, no you dont have to use irons before optics.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Irons before optics

Would going back to learn iron be a benefit?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, it's not 'going back'; it's going forward to add another skill to your lexicon.

Greg

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jerseymike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new shooter using a red dot such as an eotech or aimpoint can grasp the concept of put the red dot on what you want to hit relatively quickly. This would help the new shooter concentrate on other fundamentals like trigger pull, breathing and follow through. Once the shooter has that down, all they need to do is learn how to align and focus on the front sight. So, no you dont have to use irons before optics.</div></div>

The dot sight is a godsend for many. It's design, which eliminates consideration for alignment, makes focus moot, and does not even require a consistent stockweld, can make anyone shoot like he knows something about good shooting. Thing is, this shooter will not go back to pick anything up. He actually believes the dot sight has done the trick. This shooter will have the same revelation however as that of the guy who thinks he has it made with magnification. Things go well at short range but take it out to mid range and things fall apart very quickly. That's because this golden boy of dot shooting has no understanding of the consequence of angular error which he will get with the magnification he perceives he needs to add to the dot when shooting at what he thinks is long range. Never-mind that this guy's mindset is all screwed up too, to believe in the first place that he needs some magnification to understand where he's aiming. It's a mess. But that's what we've got today, aids to good shooting which are seen as being synonymous with marksmanship when in fact these aids are no substitute for marksmanship at all. For the most part, these aids serve only to undermine, deceive, and distract the shooter from reaching the highest levels of good shooting. These aids are not cures they are treatments, kinda like my high blood pressure medication which I think I need right now.

 

[jerseymike]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jerseymike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new shooter using a red dot such as an eotech or aimpoint can grasp the concept of put the red dot on what you want to hit relatively quickly. This would help the new shooter concentrate on other fundamentals like trigger pull, breathing and follow through. Once the shooter has that down, all they need to do is learn how to align and focus on the front sight. So, no you dont have to use irons before optics.</div></div>

The dot sight is a godsend for many. It's design, which eliminates alignment from the firing tasks, makes focus moot, and does not even require a consistent stockweld, makes anyone shoot like he knows something about good shooting. Thing is, this shooter will not go back to pick anything up. He actually believes the dot sight has done the trick. This shooter will have the same revelation however as that of the guy who thinks he has it made with magnification. Things go well at short range but take it out to mid range and things fall apart very quickly. That's because this golden boy of dot shooting has no understanding of the consequence of angular error which he will get with the magnification he perceives he needs to add to the dot when shooting at what he thinks is long range. Never-mind that this guy's mindset is all screwed up too, to believe in the first place that he needs some magnification to understand where he's aiming. It's a mess. But that's what we've got today, aids to good shooting which are seen as being synonymous with marksmanship when in fact these aids are no substitute for marksmanship at all. For the most part, these aids serve only to undermine, deceive, and distract the shooter from reaching the highest levels of good shooting. These aids are not cures they are treatments, kinda like my high blood pressure medication which I think I need right now. </div></div>


Understood, all im saying is that its one less thing to focus on while maintaining a proper trigger squeeze, breathing, and follow through. Once the shooter feels confident in those fundamentals, all they have to learn is sight alignment with open/ iron sights.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

Yes, I agree with everything you said, except when you alluded the new shooter could pick up with irons after exposure to the dot sight. Once the shooter is satisfied that he can get the job done with a dot he does not have any interest in irons. He perceives irons are not going to be as good as the dot. He will not zero his irons or make any attempt to learn anything about them. If this shooter learned something about irons first he would understand the limitations of the dot sight, as well as the superiority of the irons for scenarios where there may be both UKD and KD targets in the field.

I mostly teach folks how to shoot the M4 with BDC sight. The student trained on how to use this sight usually finds it phenomenal and more versatile than the dot. That's to say the BDC will work to about 600 meters where as the dot at best is limited to about 400 meter hits when adjusted for a 300 meter battle sight zero.

 

[wilecoyote]

Re: Irons before optics

different as apples and oranges, but I think they are two different ways to enjoy even the same rifle, understanding more about the behavior of the rifle you use and about your bad or good shooting habits_ In this perspective,and with the obvious limitations of both systems,they are only two parallel ways, no one fully superior to the other,(excepted the use of the scope for testing reloads), to master what Col.Cooper named, in his fine book,"The Art of the Rifle" _

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wilecoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">different as apples and oranges, but I think they are two different ways to enjoy even the same rifle, understanding more about the behavior of the rifle you use and about your bad or good shooting habits_ In this perspective,and with the obvious limitations of both systems,they are only two parallel ways, no one fully superior to the other,(excepted the use of the scope for testing reloads), to master what Col.Cooper named, in his fine book,"The Art of the Rifle" _</div></div>

What we enjoy is not the question. The fact is a new shooter who has no training or exposure to the principles of marksmanship will likely not do well with irons. This shooter will enjoy the dot. But this shooter will not develop the skill sets as made possible from the use of irons which promote good shooting with any type of sight. This means the shooter who could have taken his game to the next level by starting out with irons will remain at a place other than the desired destination.

 

[wilecoyote]

Re: Irons before optics

Absolutely correct_Sir, I really can't add nothing to your answer_

 

[Lcpl Hinson]

Re: Irons before optics

When u shoot iron sights there are important things to do. You focus on ur front site tip, align your front site tip to where it's flat and evenly spaced In your rear sights. You make ur target blurry, yes I said it blurry. Focus all on front site tip and just have a blurry target. You make sure u have good bone support and then you squeeze the trigger at the end of a natural breath pause. Don't hold ur breath! U can't fill ur lungs the same every time. Slow steady squeeze. All that comes into factor with just basic marksmanship. I shot scopes my whole life untill I went into corps and I was average shooter. Now besides making my target blurry in scope all these things come in play and made me better. Iron sights should be shot on first but u have to teach them properly to. Scopes you have to read the haze, check ur mils, make sure u have no scope shadow, etc. iron sights r way better to start out on. Teaches basics. And scope shooting is a different style just with same basic principles that iron sights teach.

 

[Lcpl Hinson]

Re: Irons before optics

Have you ever tried shooting in the rain, fog, snow because I know it's damn near Impossiable with the lense fogging up every second. Iron sites are way to start out on.

 

[hrfunk]

Re: Irons before optics

I agree. Learning with irons teaches all the marksmanship skills necessary to become an accomplished shooter with ANY sighting system. The transition to an optic sight is then comparatively easy. Whereas, learning with an optic, then making the transition to irons is much more difficult.

HRF

 

[fargo007]

Re: Irons before optics

If you look at the performance potential between magnified, dot, and iron sights, things look a little bit differently.

I have been running practical matches for a long time now. I post these matches here on the hide too, and I score them by three different optics classes, Magnified, Dot, Irons.

Stages involving bad-breath-distance, fast run 'n gun, moving targets at 200-300y, to shots on steel out to 500Y. Many kinds of shooters coming through, with many different sights, and many different backgrounds, and skill levels within them. This includes shooters who are extremely proficient with irons, and do not shoot any other sights almost as a matter of religion.

While we do share the belief that they are a great teaching tool, we would be remiss to not recognize their limited potential compared to modern combat class sighting systems.

What becomes apparent when looking at the overall scores from these matches is that the shooters with a magnified optic as a class will outperform those with any other sight, all circumstances being equal. That one person is able to shoot better with irons than an optic doesn't matter as much because there's no overall or group comparison.

More often than not, a mid-pack shooter with a magnified optic will outperform a seasoned shooter with irons. This is the way the overall scores work out in practical shooting when you have three different optics classes. And there ARE three different optics classes because of the obvious disparity.

Very recent experience with a hard core irons shooter who put an ACOG on his rifle for a DMR course also showed me that it's possible to become over dependent/familiar with irons.

Such that it makes it extremely difficult for that shooter to become effective with anything else. Knowing how competent he was with irons, we were both surprised he had such difficulty with the ACOG. His impression was that the magnified reticle never seemed to stop moving, while he felt his irons were "rock solid." Of course they weren't, but perception becomes reality.

Lesson learned: Extended training with iron sights exclusively does not translate into any greater effectiveness with a different sight.

I still believe that one should endeavor to be able to shoot effectively with all three. Too much time spent on one is not enough spent on the others.

--Fargo007

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

NRA LR is irons for some matches and scope for others. At any level, the shooter will likely shoot better with the scope. Thing is, the shooter who can do it with irons can do it with scope; however, the shooter who can do it with scope but has no experience with irons can not do it with irons.

 

[Lcpl Hinson]

Re: Irons before optics

Original question was is it best to learn on irons. That Im pretty sure everyone's at a yes for reason that it teaches you to build good stance and all the other fundamentals. But I see your point as well. And it's a dm course (designated marksman) nor dmr. That's the rifle they use to shoot. Now it's a emr. As for combat. Every m16/m4 you take with u has flip up sights under the rco in Usmc. Optics break that's why knowing how to shoot up to 500 with iron is good.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

I went out to the range yesterday to try out some bench shooting from the right shoulder since I've lost most of my vision in the left eye. Using irons with post front sight I managed to shoot a group with all shots touching and in the X-ring of the SR-1 target. The group was in the 1/2 inch arena. As my position disintegrated from not being able to maintain consistent elbow placement, vertical, as well as horizontal stringing opened my group up dramatically, making me sorry I did not build a position from prone instead of the more convenient bench. At any rate, my initial grouping with irons, it appeared was on par or better than groups being produced by shooters on the firing line using optics. Just one reason for this, the shooters on the firing line, judging from their awkward positions, clearly had no knowledge of what's important to good shooting. Most, it seemed, had been deceived into believing that the only thing there is to good shooting is a target/reticle relationship. If any of these shooters had some knowledge of the fundamentals such a shooter would have kicked my ass. But, as it was, that did not happen. My point, mastering the fundamentals with irons brings about knowledge of the possibilities a "scope learned" shooter will never understand. That's to say, a shooter who has bypassed irons for a scope does not understand that grouping with irons on par with a scope is possible. This of course precludes the shooter to a scope even in scenarios where irons could be recognized as being more appropriate.

 

[George63]

Re: Irons before optics

my approach/opinion for teaching new shooters is to start out by removing as many variables with the rifle/sights as possible, letting them focus on the fundamentals of position, breathing, trigger control etc. - the variables are best reintroduced when at least a decent command of the other fundamentals has been obtained

too many people start with a crappy rifle, crappy ammo, crappy sighting system and of course crappy technique - how do you really tell which of these is accounting for the crappy results?

I like to start a new shooter with a good 10/22, well suited optics, decent ammo and nice sling/mat - when they do there part they can actually notice the positive results- the next logical step IMO is a bolty scoped .22 or an AR with optics, then a .223 scoped bolty - after reasonable proficiency with these then go to irons/.30 cal etc.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

George,

Have you read from the beginning of this thread? It would seem that having read a few informed opinions here you might have been persuaded to re-think your position on the matter. Not to be argumentative but the scoped 10/22 is not an appropriate rifle for a marksmanship student for a multitude of reasons, with or without scope. Some of these have been discussed on this thread.

Dads like the 10/22 for their kids but they don't understand that this sort of rifle outfit thwarts marksmanship development. The most ideal start for an adult or kid is a .22 with peep sight, such as the Kimber M82 from the CMP, or perhaps the Savage .22 bolt gun with peep. These rifles allow a complete learning experience from the start. You want to start out right since marksmanship is mostly about developing muscle memory and picture memory.

Starting with an optic on a rifle that does not have a comb to accommodate the cheek properly with scope attached is miserable. Plus, parallax is an issue. Now add to this debacle that the student will do everything wrong and still likely get good hits by simply having a target/reticle relationship; and, it's easy to understand when iron sights are later introduced and nothing can be hit, why the student looses interest in irons along with marksmanship in general. Look around, most marksmanship programs at the elementary and high school levels are not using 10/22's with scope sight. It's always a .22 bolt gun with peep, or an air rifle with peep. There's a reason for that.

 

[Graham]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MJY65</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've often read the comment that a shooter needs to learn to shoot iron sights before optics or some aspect of technique will be lost.</div></div>The old racers I know still tell me that I have to learn how to completely assemble and disassemble my motorcycle, just like they learned to do, before I will ever understand how to diagnose suspension set-up or front-end chatter. The truth is that maybe I'm just faster than they are, but still a crappy mechanic.

 

[temecula]

Re: Irons before optics

Fundamentally I fully agree with the benefits of iron sight shooting!!! So long as you can see the damn things!!

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Michael8062</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fundamentally I fully agree with the benefits of iron sight shooting!!! So long as you can see the damn things!!</div></div>

There are a gazillion ways to make the front sight sharp. What sort of trouble do you have with it?

 

[znztivguy]

Re: Irons before optics

Sometimes the problem comes when you have inadequate eyes to go iron sights 100 yards and beyond.
Optics makes things much easier and quicker for me....

 

[jdodd]

Re: Irons before optics

Need to learn to walk before you can run...

Most shooters I know learned iron sights on a .22 of some sort before moving up to a scoped rifle.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: znztiv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sometimes the problem comes when you have inadequate eyes to go iron sights 100 yards and beyond.
Optics makes things much easier and quicker for me....</div></div>

If you think the target is small you have a problem. If you are discouraged by a blurry target you have a problem. In both cases the target has become the big thing, and it has distracted you. For the way it has distracted you, magnification seems the answer. Thing is, it is only an untrained shooter, with no knowledge of how to use irons, who would succumb to such a target. This shooter has the wrong mindset. A properly trained shooter would not perceive the target as being small. He would simply observe a relationship between target and sight which he would attempt to remember to be able to create again. A good shooter does not fear a blurred target. He understands only the sight needs to be sharp. At any rate, the scope is always a deception to good shooting as it easily persuades the novice shooter that all he needs to do is put the reticle on the target for a good hit. A good shooter knows this is the least of what is important to good shooting. Still, deceived shooters visit this forum every day wanting to know what scope is best when they would be better off spending a little time with the concepts of basic marksmanship. They just don't know what they don't know.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Irons before optics

I just went though this with a good friend. He's in his 70's, is a former highly ranked pistol competitor, and has serious eye degeneration issues.

He brought me a kind of Bubba'd Mini-14 that he'd acquired and asked me to sight it in for him.

I immediately added a slip-on recoil pad (to add an inch of LOP, he's tall like me). The Ruger rings he had were 30mm, so I mounted up a pretty generic Wallyworld Centepoint dot scope with selection of red/green reticles. 10 minutes at the range, and it was sighted at 70yd, which is where he tells me most of the 'Chucks in his horse pasture tend to hang out.

I handed him the rifle, now in a case, five boxes of Rem/UMC 55gr FMJ, and a 50rd box of match/varmint handloads set up for my Stag 6 AR employing Nosler 50gr Ballistic Tips. He's one of a small handful of very best friends.

He's a happy guy, now. Seeing him smile..., priceless...

The dot scope eliminates the 'two distances' issue that irons impose.

Focusing on a front sight leaves the target indistinct. With the dot, the shooter focuses on the target with both eyes, brings the dot up to cover the selected POA, and no short distance focusing is needed. For us elder farts, this is a good thing; because age-related eye lens hardening makes back and forth focusing difficult, if not even impossible.

For young shooters, the dot allows for improved speed and simplicity. For old shooters, it can make the impossible possible.

Greg

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Irons before optics

Greg,

The dot sight is, for awhile, and, at limited distances, a pretty good substitute for irons; but, it fails at distance. Some that don't know a thing about iron sight usage might even perceive the dot to be a godsend. Yet, the dot is limited to a battle sight zero. Attempts to turn it into a BDC have not been successful. It's an appropriate sight for any with a vison problem which cannot be corrected, but, make no mistake, the dot is not a substitute for marksmanship with irons.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Irons before optics

Agreed; and for any application where I might want to use it, all it provides is a reference upon which to apply basic Kentucky Windage.

But for short distances, quick opportunities, and where vison is impaired, it can also be that godsend.

Irons and dots are apples and oranges. but sometimes an orange is exactly what one needs.

Besides, anyone who thinks a Mini-14 is a precision implement for LR A) needs magnification at the very least, and B) isn't going to do much better without irons than they would with them.

Marksmanship skills can do no better than the system to which they are being applied, and vice-versa.

BTW, one of the reticle choices the Centerpoint provides is three fine dots in a vertical array. Not quite a BDC, but in ain't chopped liver, either.

The Centerpoint fails when the ambient light is bright; it fades too much against a well lit environment. That's one of the areas where a higher quality reflex sight excels.

Greg