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

reply to post by DaddyBare


When I was in I had a brand new M-16 A2... Hated it! Still don't like the .223 round...

Yeah, we shared the same target lenths.

And I concur, the best examples of riflemanship are from the wackos that kill innocents...

I have nothing but respect for Marines... Matter of fact, I have all respect for armed forces equally (except Navy j/k)

reply to post by guppy


Absolutly great post! Thank you so very much for that amazing info! That's the stuff I'm looking for here! Starred...

reply to post by Jkd Up


Excellent. Hope that info helps with your purchasing decision.

What I would also suggest is do a little research of your own between EOTech and ACOG. Here's a Google search link for "EOTech vs ACOG".

Google Search : EOTech vs ACOG

As you can see, it is a heated debate between which optic is the best. Its like those 9mm vs .45 ACP discussions. It can go on-and-on. What it comes down to is which one works best with your style.

BTW, stay away from these type of Chinese-made Red Dot sights:



The price sounds very tempting. But man are they cheap and unreliable. Fragile frame, low battery life, shotty manufacturing, buggy, and defective. I wouldn't even consider using these for paintball guns. Expect these red dots to have a 50% defective rate. The manufacturer sells these to many suppliers who relabel them with their own brand name. Doesn't matter they're all *&#%$@!

reply to post by guppy


I wasn't just looking for myself, but I know that there are fourm after fourm full of "if it was me" and so forth advise, but lets face it, the knoledge here is about as top notch as you are going to get. I like iron sights and unless I get a weapon that out shoots 800 yards, I won't consider a scope, but I know that others are not that fortunate.

Thanks again for the amazing info and please feel free to pass along any other pro/cons you have on any sighting accessories!

Leopold's Close Quarters Tactical Battle Sight....
I would take it over any other scope I've used. Multiple close range targets are as easily dispatched as the ones at a distance.
Please look it up before considering all others.

Iron sights is the way to go, simple is best.
Spend the extra money from buying a scope and get other attachments and ammo.

The British option since the introduction of the SA80 has been scope (SUSAT) for infantrymen and Iron sights for everyone else. The SUSAT allowed for accurate long range shooting but restricted peripheral vision and made close range snap shooting difficult. The iron sight on the other hand made snap shooting a bit easier but the short sight radius and the mars-bar sized front sight blade made lond range accuracy difficult to achieve.

On deployment we are now going for combination optics for all fighting troops. We have a x4 ACOG with mini reflex sight. The ACOG allows for the long range accuracy and removes the need to dial in ranges at different distances. The mini red dot sight make close range snap shooting much easier.

reply to post by PaddyInf


Again, it depends what your shooting style is.

Personally, I am a CQB, tactical, urban, home defender type of shooter. If you ask me to shoot a target +800 yards away with medium to high winds, I'd be hesitant to guarantee a hit with most scopes. But watch me shine in house-clearing scenarios.

My favorite setup is an EOTech co-witness with Magpul MBUS flip-up iron sights. To see what I am talking about, check out this YouTube vid:



Essentially, your red dot and iron sights are zeroed with each other. So when you red dot goes bad, you can immediately switch to iron sights with very little to no adjustments.

Setup is simple. You zero your iron sights (i.e., zero @ 50 yards). Once you verify your iron sights, mount your EOTech and move the dot where it is at the top-tip of your front sight. Reverify zero with both iron sights and red dot. When you are happy, flip down your iron sights.

This will give you a quick, simple aiming system with a reliable backup. When your red dot goes bad (e.g., out of batteries, broken beyond use, or shot up beyond use), flip up your iron sights and you're back in business. With 3 - 5 minutes of practice, you can switch to flip-up iron sights in a fraction of a second without moving your rifle away from target.

As for the Leopold's Close Quarters Tactical Battle Sight, I question its use in CQB. It is like a scope which tends give users tunnel vision. If you can practice using it with both eyes open, then it shouldn't be a problem during CQB situations. Same goes for ACOG with magnification. They are both suited on the battlefield with targets ranging from 200 to 300 yards.

In an urban environment, give me an EOTech + MBUS Flip-up Sights. Rugged and tough. Backup iron sights require no head/cheek adjustments. Best of all, its parallax-free. You can still use EOTech for long range engagements, but you need to practice.

reply to post by guppy


Guppy is right on. I used both the EO Tech and Acog on m4s in Iraq. My prefence is the ACOG. A little bit of magnifaction, and they are tough. The ocassional bumps and knocks wont affect zero. They are incredibly easy to use if zeroed correctly. Cant go wrong with either one.
Also used the Aimpoint m68 its about as good as the EO Tech.

All of my "low caliber" kills are iron sights. My longest rifle kill is about 600m, but the majority of my kills are within 100m given "my" current operating environment (mostly Iraq).

I have been issued red dots but ditch them. I don't want to bet my life on some Chinese batteries and a sight thats going to come out of alignment the first time I butt stroke somebody or run into cover.

There is no need for a short range optic. It is an excuse for poor marksmanship. Anyone serious about CQB should be comfortable with their rifle as is. Seriously, under 100m (the majority of civilian engagements), if you can point at your target with your finger you should be able to hit it with a rifle with good success. Honestly, most of the time I don't even use iron sights- its pure reflex.

Same goes for pistol engagements. Mounting any scope on a pistol is beyond me... Defeats the purpose if you ask me.

In my experience the people who want CCOs or ACOGs are what we refer to as "gear queers." People who want it more for the appearance than the tactical value. Sniper/hunting scopes are a different story when you're shooting past 500m or so on a regular basis. Same goes for lasers and tactical flashlights without the range exception.

The cool-guy factor in the military is due mostly to an unlimited budget and recruiting. More people will sign up to carry a gun strapped to the gills with CCOs, 3x sights, 300 lumen flashlights, and infrared lasers than will a plane-jane rifle with iron sights. Couple that with drop leg pouches, NVGs, and various web gear attachments and you have some heroic Facebook pictures but little else of tactical value.

In my opinion, unless you're planning on long range work or guiding in air support, save your money on optics and cool-guy crap and invest it in ammo. Take your rifle to the range and actually learn how to shoot it.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual

There is no need for a short range optic. It is an excuse for poor marksmanship. Anyone serious about CQB should be comfortable with their rifle as is. Seriously, under 100m (the majority of civilian engagements), if you can point at your target with your finger you should be able to hit it with a rifle with good success. Honestly, most of the time I don't even use iron sights- its pure reflex.

From a legal perspective all shots, close range or not, need to be justified. The current rules of engagement distinctly state that if you open fire you are to fire only aimed shots. To be employed in an armed capacity the following rules need to be in place;

1 The soldier needs to be in date for their weapon test

2 The weapon must be zeroed to the individual

3 The soldier must be in date for judgemental shooting training.

The UK fell foul a while ago when SUSATs were being used at close range. The SUSAT has an emergency battle sight mounted on top which cannot be zeroed. Troops were using this at close range for snap shooting as it was a bit quicker than the glass. This was not an aimed shot from a strictly legal sense, as it didn't meet criteria 2 above. Hence we now have a close range sight that can be zeroed in conjunction with the ACOG. SUSAT can still be used, but the EBS shouldn't.

Same goes for pistol engagements. Mounting any scope on a pistol is beyond me... Defeats the purpose if you ask me.

Agreed 100%. What's the point of using a weapon thats main advantage is its size, then bolting all sorts of crap on to it?

im not sure whether you can buy these in the states but the brittish armys susat sight has both a 4x optical sight and has a back up sight on top www.rm45.com... check it out

reply to post by WhiteOneActual


That is why I stress the 75-25 rule. Train with iron sights 75% of the time and 25% with optics. Iron sights are reliable. But reflex sights (e.g., EOTech) does help you in acquiring target acquisition. Get whatever edge you can. Because, in combat, every fraction of a second counts.

Yes, there is such a thing as "gear queers". But there is a difference between planning and fantasizing. My philosophy is "Plan for the worse, hope for the best". I gear my rifle according to FUBAR plans. Like storing a bore-snake in your fore-grip. Or, using Magpul's MIAD grip for storing a spare bolt and firing pin. You never know when Mr. Murphy will strike. And Mr. Murphy deeply loves me.

On the flip side, you have those who equip their rifles according to "what looks cool" or "what movies display" (which are 95% WRONG). This what I call fantasizing. Or, what some call "gear queers".

Here is a link to a Magpul MIAD grip accessory: Magpul MIAD Grip

Originally posted by PaddyInf Agreed 100%. What's the point of using a weapon thats main advantage is its size, then bolting all sorts of crap on to it?

Because Paddy old chum, it looks really way coooooooool. Come on guy, get hip with the rest of us! Step out of yer closet and in to the 22nd century. You know it makes sense!

Pachmayr Grips; Laserlyte Rear Sight Laser; Streamlight TLR-1 or TLR-2 under-slide torches; SureFire X400 Light/Laser; Mini Survival Knife; Viridian's X5L is a compact light/laser; HexSite Appertures.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cool Paddy. But oh so bloody wrong.

Guess it depends on the intended use....but scopes break..batteries fail, electronics fizzle...and iron sights keep on workin'. Guess if you are going for handgun shots over 100 yards a scope or red-dot is handy though my red dot at 100 yards is the size of the target. If possible become an expert with the iron and then play with the technology.

ghost rings sights like the hipoint carbine uses are the quickest, but you still need at least a good coated lensed 4 power scope with a 30mm tube for light gathering capability. something in a compact or tactical. something like this ncstar is pretty handy
cgi.ebay.com...


for night capability you need a surefire mounted flashlight with strobe affects to blind the target.

i love the red dot but i always leave the damn thing switched on and the batteries die.

if i could find a red dot with an auto-off i guess that would be best.

reply to post by aliengenes


I just can NOT understand people who mount an optic on a handgun. Competition? Its like using a hover car in a NASCAR race. It goes beyond the effective range of handguns - 50 yards. With enough practice, you can hit targets at 50 yards with iron sights standing (not prone or kneeling).

There are only a couple options I would put on a handgun:

-- Trijicon night sights: Practice shooting at night. Its hard to see iron sights in the dark.
-- Flashlight, rail-mounted: Remember light discipline. Flashlights are bullet magnets. After quick use, MOVE.

Originally posted by kinglizard
If possible become an expert with the iron and then play with the technology.

Great saying. Let us hope people reading these posts realize they should focus more on iron sights than optics.

During a training class, I dropped my rifle and it misaligned my optics. It was throwing rounds off by a 3-inches at 100 yards. I quickly adjusted and continued by using my iron sights. When we had a break, I rezeroed my optics. Luckily this happened at the range and not in real life. Point is I was confident about using iron sights than relying on optics 100%.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual

There is no need for a short range optic. It is an excuse for poor marksmanship. Anyone serious about CQB should be comfortable with their rifle as is. Seriously, under 100m (the majority of civilian engagements), if you can point at your target with your finger you should be able to hit it with a rifle with good success. Honestly, most of the time I don't even use iron sights- its pure reflex.

From a legal perspective all shots, close range or not, need to be justified. The current rules of engagement distinctly state that if you open fire you are to fire only aimed shots. To be employed in an armed capacity the following rules need to be in place;

1 The soldier needs to be in date for their weapon test

2 The weapon must be zeroed to the individual

3 The soldier must be in date for judgemental shooting training.

The UK fell foul a while ago when SUSATs were being used at close range. The SUSAT has an emergency battle sight mounted on top which cannot be zeroed. Troops were using this at close range for snap shooting as it was a bit quicker than the glass. This was not an aimed shot from a strictly legal sense, as it didn't meet criteria 2 above. Hence we now have a close range sight that can be zeroed in conjunction with the ACOG. SUSAT can still be used, but the EBS shouldn't.

Same goes for pistol engagements. Mounting any scope on a pistol is beyond me... Defeats the purpose if you ask me.

Agreed 100%. What's the point of using a weapon thats main advantage is its size, then bolting all sorts of crap on to it?

Why would you field a sight that can't be zeroed? Does it even count as a sight?

I can assure you that I was to date on my weapons qual, my weapon was zeroed (I am a battlesight zero, lucky me- 3 rounds and I'm done), and I was to date on whatever the American equivalent to judgmental shooting training is.

Not to sound crass, but the vast majority of people that I have pointed a rifle at are now dead and thus will not be testifying at my trial for not using some sort of technologically enhanced aiming device.

Originally posted by guppy
reply to post by aliengenes

 

I just can NOT understand people who mount an optic on a handgun. Competition? Its like using a hover car in a NASCAR race. It goes beyond the effective range of handguns - 50 yards. With enough practice, you can hit targets at 50 yards with iron sights standing (not prone or kneeling).

There are only a couple options I would put on a handgun:

-- Trijicon night sights: Practice shooting at night. Its hard to see iron sights in the dark.
-- Flashlight, rail-mounted: Remember light discipline. Flashlights are bullet magnets. After quick use, MOVE.

Originally posted by kinglizard
If possible become an expert with the iron and then play with the technology.

Great saying. Let us hope people reading these posts realize they should focus more on iron sights than optics.

During a training class, I dropped my rifle and it misaligned my optics. It was throwing rounds off by a 3-inches at 100 yards. I quickly adjusted and continued by using my iron sights. When we had a break, I rezeroed my optics. Luckily this happened at the range and not in real life. Point is I was confident about using iron sights than relying on optics 100%.

pistols are pretty useless when someone is shooting back at you. a good shorty HK or AR with ghost rings will do nicely. if your using a tactical scope just remember to keep both eyes open as you move and shoot