It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red Dot vs. Scope vs. Sure Shot vs. iron sights...

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Alright, there seems to be a lot of visual aids on the market for our firearms. One could waste a years worth of paychecks just getting their choice correct. But why bother? We have ATS to help out with our problems!

I would like your input in the strengths and weaknesses of each type of sight and what you have individually found the sight best suited for (ie: rifle, pistol, etc).

I have used the Sure Shot style sighting aid on a 357 revolver and 22LR plinker and found that they were a great way not to limit your sight picture, but give you quick adjustment to other targets.

Scopes of course are great on everything from 44 Mags to hunting rifles, however, I have never tried a "Combat" scope and therefore do not know anything about them.

I love iron sights. Love them, love them, love them. Love the time involved in getting use to them and all the ammo you can blow away tuning yourself into that particular weapon. However, the further the distance you are shooting, the more you will need magnification to ensure a hit.

Red Dots/ Green Dots/ Blue Dots seems like a fun package, but I only shot one once and therefore, I will let someone better versed in them to explain their abilities/ capabilities.

I know there are people here who know infinatly more about the subjects and I look forward to their input!




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is a great topic.

I had the chance to shoot a fiber optic front site on a .22 target pistol a couple weeks back and I'm totally sold.

I'm curious to see what others think. Pistol and/or brush gun, carbine, etc. where a scope wouldn't be needed?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
All have their pros and cons.

For me in a survival situation, iron sites don't require batteries, don't fog up, and are harder to break than a scope.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


Thank you! I have never tried a fiber optic... Just another one of the many things I have not yet used. But now can look for because I know. And knowing is half the battle (G.I. Joe!
)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
All have their pros and cons.
.



That's the point.

I like iron sights as well, but I don't want this just to be about survival situations, though your point is very valid. Thank you!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Iron sights 100%. I dont like the dots. you hit them once or bumb them into a wall or drop to the ground and your sights are off. I can hit anything with iron sights!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
When shooting for fun I like the old iron sites best. It's more challenging and requires that you become a great shooter. For long range shots that need to count I like a scope and laser so that my chances of missing the target are minimized. Still though, depending on the range, a scope and laser can be deceptive because you still have to know your weapon and adjust for conditions.

I think that a lot of people don't realize how hard it is learn to shoot a gun. I was out recently with some kids shooting a .22 pistol and they were surprised how difficult it was to hit the cans we were shooting at from about 10 yards. Pretty much all of them did better with the .22 rifle. The funniest part was when I handed one of them the other little revolver. They aimed and shot and their arm went flying back from the kick. The noise was deafening and the boys were all stunned! Maybe I should have told them that the revolver was a Taurus Judge containing .410 shotgun shells!
In the case of that pistol, no sites necessary!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I have the option to use red dot (no magnification) on one of my pistols. Used it for years at the range but I'm back to iron sights. I like the challenge and there is no equal if you become proficient in their use.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Dot targeting systems came out of the competition shooting world
a way to quickly get on target
as for colors most of the ones they make today have a couple of choices, mine will do red or green... green is no good when shooting against a green background... red makes for good contrast and preserves your night vision.... so does blue...

Mill dots scopes also work as a range finder, if you know how, you can place the steada lines over the targets chest and that gives you a distance you can dial in...

I learned to shoot with iron sights and by and large find them more trust worthy than anything else... However...
I'm an old guy now, wear bifocals... the front sight blade they put on a Ruger 10/22 is horrible for someone with my eyes... yes I have a scope on her because I just cant see that bead. the flip side is mounted on my mini 14 is a Williams peep sight and for me it's faster and more accurate then any scope, with or without my glasses on...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 
I like a peep sight.

I had an Uncle who swore by them, used nothing else. He could shoot rabbits running and ruffed grouse on the wing with a .22 lr bolt action using a Lyman peep sight. He shot with both eyes open, of course.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think Iron Sights are a must for beginners. Definatly, (as mentioned) the basics. But what ranges do the Dot Sights offer? Is there a point where the dot will be too big for the target, therefore making it a bad choice?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I like the idea of a combo setup for M4 style combat rifles, a red/green dot scope with no magnification and a small 3x magnification scope mounded in-line with a special flip up base so that you can snap the magnification up and out of the way when you don't need it or drop it down for reaching out beyond close range targets. As for something survival wise if I had to pick a dot-type scope at all it would have to be a Trijicon ACOG simply because it requires no batteries at all, just a little bit of natural light is enough for the scope to do its thing.

www.cheaperthandirt.com...

There is the mount type I'm talking about, allowing you to swap out a magnification scope, couldn't find the type that just let it flip up and out of the way, probably a custom job by some small company.


edit on 9/14/2010 by Helig because: adding a link and information



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I think the most important thing is application.
any thing close by you need a quick reaction.
a mad man attacking you?
you dont have time to mess about.
so the iron sight is best.
what a well trained solider can do with a iron sight is amazing.
but! for long range you need a zoom scope.
and you need to train a lot.
learn how the wind drops or lifts the shot.

keep it simple.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
What is the average persons range with iron sights anyhow?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


I recommend spending the extra cash on EOTech or Trijicon ACOG.

EOTech is my number 1 pick.

Pros
- Parallax free
- Glass is hard as steel
- If glass cracks, red dot is still functional and accurate
- Durable casing all around
- NV compatible
- Cheaper than ACOGs

Cons
- No magnification - separate accessory
- Far less battery life than ACOG
- Dot recticle only
- No fiber-optic illumination

Despite the cons, EOTech fits my style (tactics and strategies).

Remember all! Practice 75% Iron Sights; 25% Optics. When your optics fail, you better know how to use your iron sights.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jkd Up
What is the average persons range with iron sights anyhow?


Good question.

The army (back in the 80s) used iron sights for all but snipers and a few other designated positions.

A soldier had to shoot pop-up man sized targets from 50 meters(yards) out to 300 meters.

Most of the infantrymen I knew could shoot 30-35 out of 40 and a good number could shoot 37-40 out of 40.

I don't know about other job performances but I was a grunt.

I hit 40 out of 40 my fair share of the time. ( I learned to shoot with a red ryder bb-gun and then a 22)

With M16s 5.56mm, we could engage man sized targets out further but after about 350-400 yards you just couldn't see them and ballistics didn't support single shot accuracy.

As a machine gunner (M-60, 7.62mm) we could engage out to 1000 meters on designated targets or groups of troops in the open. Once again. The distance to target necessitates a visual aid such as spotting scope or binoculars.

Good training will allow anybody with normal reflexes and eyesight to shoot effectively within the range of their vision and ability of their equipment.

Once these skills are aquired, any shooter will be able to learn to use scoped firearms to increase their range and accuracy.

The problem today is that too many shooters use the scope as a crutch to support inefficient shooting skills.

I watched a 12 year old kid with a 22 rifle and iron sights outshoot a grown man with a 2500 dollar "sniper " rig on 100 yard targets at a range one time. It was very embarrasing for the guy with the big money rig to get outshot by a kid with a squirrel gun.

Learning to use iron sights effectively is the best way to start. Then go to the glass.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
During the late 60s and early 70s my fellow airmen and I experimented with SinglePoint. As far as I can remember, the sight was just a lightweight black plastic tube with an orange filament or fibre running the length of said tube.

It was set in a transparent inner tube made of 'white' plastic or glass which allowed the shooter to see the target and not just the filament or fibre. Once set on our trusty FN SLRs, we bore sighted then grouped and zeroed in the normal fashion.

However when we deployed to NI, the VSOs said we could not mount them on the SLRs as that smacked of dirty tricks. What a pity nobody told the IRA that using the odd AK and an M60 was not playing the game when we Brits had to swop empty mags for mags containing 10 rounds and then ask, "Please Sir - may I return fire?"

Anyway, I digress. I have used a variety of issued and commercial sights mainly for military weapons and have found them to be excellent.

As a former pistol instructor who taught the 9 milly Browning, I always taught my soldiers to fire the weapon keeping both eyes open and fire by instinctive alignment - i.e point the weapon in the direction of the target's central mass and double tap!

The only time I taught personnel to use sights was when they were aiming for head shots and only then, when firing at stationary targets at ranges of 50 metres or less, firing single rounds.

Target aquisation comes with constant practice, especially when using a handgun.

These days what with lasers, reflective and other optical sights, you are almost guarenteed a first round hit but in the heat of battle...........................................



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
My kids thought I was nuts until they tried it.

I put a tri-rail mount on my 12 ga. One side has Xenon flashlight with pressure switch on left side of pump grip. I then mounted a laser under the barrel with pressure switch on right side of pump grip. I have it sighted for a slug at 25 feet.

Ask me what the longest run in my house is?

I had my kids use one of my shotguns using sights on barrel. They aimed at a 12 inch circle. Some were better shots than others. Then I had them use my pimped out shotgun. Then using both eyes to aim, point and bingo. Point made...

BTW: my youngest kid will turn 21 in a couple of weeks. So my kids are adults for all intents and purposes.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The new gadgets are, of course, far more accurate and efficient than the old-tiney rifle sights I grew up with...some day you'll be boring your grandkids with tales of traditional sights and they will look at you like something out of the paleolithic era.

The advantage of using traditional sights is that you improve and maintain your natural skills. Rely too much on any modern technology and you lose your basic skills, be they in shooting or anything else. On the other hand, when you absolutely, positively need to get the job done right...well, why take chances, right? I suppose it would be good to know how to use several different systems.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


If you were to join my beloved Marine Corps during your boot camp training you be given an old well worn M16 with iron sights where you would be taught to shoot at targets at 100, 150, 200 and 500 meters...

don't scoff at Marine marksmanship either...
remember old Charles Joseph Whitman??? maybe you remember him as the Texas clock tower sniper...
Charles Joseph Whitman is an an ex-Marine who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others during a shooting rampage on and around the university's campus on August 1, 1966.

or another former U.S. Marine, Lee Harvey Oswald.
using the alias A. Hidell he mail order an Italian made 6.5 mm caliber Carcano bolt action rifle.he took a 270 foot shot at a moving target got two head shoots did hit a secondary target, Governor Connally, riding in the same limousine he lived...

I know not the best examples to hold up but just goes to show you what a real marksman can do with proper training



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join