open sights vs red dot sight

which do you think is better open sights or reflex optical sights ?

Im not talking about long range scopes, just the short range reflex sights with minimal optical zoom.

www.defense-update.com...

My personal preference is open sights.

My other question is do you think all soldiers should have optical sights standard on there rifles. Personally I think its a bad idea to have soldiers dependent on sights that could malfunction at any time.

I like open sights on pistols, red dots for cqb, scopes for daytime and or potential long range situations.

Open sights are better at night, unless you have NVG's.

A good light is a must for your cqb weapon.

I prefer open sights for cqb, reflex sights mess up my peripheral in cqb. I tend to focus to much on the scope and not my targets.

I agree though for night shooting open sights are better especially fiber optic glow sights. Night vision scopes are nice just not the price you have to pay for them.

Red Dot. I have 5 EOTECH 553s and they are the fast! I have them on 2 Post Dealer HK UMP45's and 1 on a Post Dealer 416. I have one more I want to put on my Negev and a spare. You can't go wrong with a Eotech.

Way back in the 60's here in the UK, you used to be able to purchase a sight for your 12 bore 'over and under' shotgun.

It was called SinglePoint and consisted of a small plastic tube, a plastic lense at each end with a bright orange filament running through it, mounted on an adjustable screw-fiz clamp. SinglePoint was also used by some Brit squaddies [myself included] on our FN SLRs.

Although I am a proponent of the Marksmanship Principles and believe that all squaddies never spend enough time on the range mastering their art which is, after all shooting, the types of sights described in the article

Advanced Weapon's Sights Improve Infantry Firepower, Accuracy

are a great improvement over standard iron sights.

Having said that, accuracy with this type of sight can only be achieved if the weapon and sight are correctly bore-sighted with a Collimator, then a check group should be fired.

I prefer red dot projection onto the sight lense.

The main reason being that it does not project a telltale laser beam to the target, which could ultimately 'give away' the sniping position of the shooter to his mark.

After that, in close combat situations, no optical scope would be quicker and easier to target enemy shooters than regular iron sites. The field of veiw is too restricted, especially in the dark.

For long range snipes, a projected laser to target system with optical zoom sighting would be ideal.

I personally prefer a red dot when available, but firmly believe you need to know how to engage effectivelly with iron sights first. And you gotta practice with the iron sights from time to time. But putting a red dot on your pistol .... You've just negated the whole purpose of a pistol. I do however love my red dot on my ppsh 41, I always felt bad about not being accurate enough to use the rounds it fires to their full potential range.

Red dot optics are a huge improvement over iron sights.

They are just THAT much faster, especially in low light conditions.

Originally posted by Retseh
Red dot optics are a huge improvement over iron sights.

They are just THAT much faster, especially in low light conditions.

I just gotta disagree with you, sure red dot scopes are faster in most situations, but when it comes to precision and accuracy iron sights still have a significant edge over red dot.

For those of us in the younger generations blitz that are used to reticles projected on E violence... Red dots and other optics are considerably more comfortable I admit. This isn't to say I can't shoot over iron sights or point shoot, it just means I FEEL i have the best control over my weapon when using a sight.

ANd although it may be heresy to purists, FEELING you have control of the weapon is prolly the single biggest contributor to accuracy you can have.

Originally posted by roguetechie
For those of us in the younger generations blitz that are used to reticles projected on E violence... Red dots and other optics are considerably more comfortable I admit. This isn't to say I can't shoot over iron sights or point shoot, it just means I FEEL i have the best control over my weapon when using a sight.

ANd although it may be heresy to purists, FEELING you have control of the weapon is prolly the single biggest contributor to accuracy you can have.

No doubt control and confidence over your weapon is the key to accurate shooting.

But your first statement about the younger generation, that is just my point. you become to comfortable with your point and shoot scopes.

Take the scope off of an individuals rifle who has used it for several months in combat, or just for target shooting. It will take them several days or more depending on the person to shoot there weapon as effectively as before.

This is why one buys any of the superb no zero quick mount scope options out there and never burns more than 50% of their rounds while using the scope for the day.

It might sound obsessive but flip up backup iron sights are better than sighting down the empty rail and hoping for the best if your scope takes a round or is otherwise FUBAR'ed. Also though alot of younger shooters can in theory use iron sights if they have to but do not know how to adjust them for range and windage so they have to guesstimate...

In all reality I agree with you that most casual shooters should probably just use iron sights because that's what they'll have in an emergency most likelly. And also there are many fiendishly good iron sight systems out there right now that can improve your efficiency night shooting etc for not a whole bunch of cash.

I prefer red dot sights. There's no parallax like with a regular scope, and where the dot is if sighted correctly, is where the bullet goes. At night with both eyes open you have no problem finding the target. Flip up iron sights as a backup are mandatory.

Zindo

THat;s the setup I prefer as well zindo.. I was moreof making commentary on why I can see blitz's point.

Because if you train on iron sights chances are a red dot isn't going to throw you as much as going from red dot to iron sights and trying to be effective. Plus there's the whole angle of I believe people should learn some of the operating principles and guiding factors behind why bullets fly the way they do. Generally speaking if one has a grasp of the principles behind something they tend to treat it with more respect.

Originally posted by roguetechie
THat;s the setup I prefer as well zindo.. I was moreof making commentary on why I can see blitz's point.

Because if you train on iron sights chances are a red dot isn't going to throw you as much as going from red dot to iron sights and trying to be effective. Plus there's the whole angle of I believe people should learn some of the operating principles and guiding factors behind why bullets fly the way they do. Generally speaking if one has a grasp of the principles behind something they tend to treat it with more respect.

That is exactly my point, I could not of worded it better myself.

Thank you and good day.

Originally posted by Blitz

I just gotta disagree with you, sure red dot scopes are faster in most situations, but when it comes to precision and accuracy iron sights still have a significant edge over red dot.

Since red dot scopes are designed specifically for close range engagements, the accuracy issue is moot, and for long range you would use a magnifying optic which is once again vastly superior to iron sights.

Iron sights on long guns are strictly for back up only these days (hence the term BUIS - back up iron sights).

I think that some posters are missing the point.

Firstly, I am referring to military users and not hunters or tin can plinklers.

Secondly, I am of the opinion that infanteers should spend more time on the ranges getting the basics right before adopting the Gucci add-ons as standard.

Somebody has posted that Iron sights are more accurate than Red Dot or Optical sights.

Unfortunately my friend, neither sight system is accurate per se. It is the end user who is accurate, the sights are just providing an aiming point.

To be able to shoot accurately and constantly with iron sights, you must apply the 4 Marksmanship Principles. As I am old school, I will explain them in that way:

a. Position and hold must be firm enough to support the rifle;

b. The rifle must point naturally at the target without undue physical strain;

c. Sight alignment [aiming] must be correct;

d. The shot must be released and followed through [without disturbing the position].

These principles are taught to every Brit serviceman or woman who has to carry a firearm of whatever description, in his or her line of duty.

This is the basic ethos of shooting within the Brit armed forces and has been taught for several hundred years.

Although weaponry and terminology may have changed, the marksmanship principles and theory of small arms fire, has not.

If you do not master the marksmanship principles and apply them correctly and connstantly with each successive shot, it makes little difference whether you have iron sights, optical sights or the latest add-on gizmo. You will still miss the target!

I feel like a bit of a hypocrite here as I've been using "optics" (SUSAT)since I joined the army back in 1990 (though I did have a couple of years on the HK53/G3KA4 in the middle so I don't have to be completely ashamed). I am a firm believer in the ethos that you need to get the basics right before you move on. Infanteers should develop skills on iron sights before moving onto SUSAT/ACOG/whatever. There are still systems in use that don't use scopes as standard (the GPMG for one).

The main thing I would like to get across is that the optic sight is a great piece of kit when it comes to training the battle shot. Quite simply it makes it easier to train someone to shoot accurately with it. You no longer need to train your eye to focus on the foresight blade while the target and rear sigt are out of focus; with a SUSAT everything is in focus. You don't have to mess about alligning the eye/rear sight/foresight/target. You simply get the right eye relief, put the pointer where you want to hit and (assuming the weapon is properly zeroed) the rounds should hit there.

However this does not teach the basics. A shooter should be able to build up a decent position quickly. They should be able to apply the marksmanship principles as described by my good friend fritz. They should have full control of the weapon. I feel that optics make the shooter lazy. Iron sights (at least for me) bring back the basic concept of what the sights are designed to do - line the barrel up so that the metal flys in the right direction. Nothing more.

For all of you who only use optics, try shooting for a few weeks with irons at the same ranges you do now. Note how you really have to think about building up your position etc. When you start out your groups will be bigger and your effective range will drop, but after a while things get better and you are making some decent hits. Then go back to optics. You will note how much better those scores are than before you started. This is because you are now utilizing the technology as opposed to relying on it. It is an aid to your inherrant accuracy, not a crutch you rely on.

Remember that terry taliban doesn't use a scope, and they're making some decent long range hits with supposedly less accurate weapons. Hell in the Balkans it was quite normal to see some of the Bosnians or whoever we weren't shooting at that week make some fantastic hits at 500-600m with old G3s with no scopes. I'd like to see how some of our shooters would fare at these ranges with these weapons. Makes you wonder who the better shots are sometimes.

I compete in Service Rifle matches and consistantly score 490's out of 500 with Iron sites at the 300 and 600 yard combined. Like I said in my last post, red dots are very usefull at night because, unless you've opted for tritium iron, you realy can't get a diffinative sight picture at night. Accuracy is, indeed, due to the shoters prowess with the weapon of choice. Its also a matter of a fine weapon, built with care and knowledge!

Zindo

[edit on 9/29/2008 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by PaddyInf[/url]

No you are not Paddy. Your posts always tell it like it is and I have noticed that you always explain things in a logical and well thought out manner.

One of the reasons that the MOD finally came down off the fence and purchased Sight Unit Infantry Trilux sights for the FN SLR, is because so many of us purchased SinglePoint and SurePoint [US version] and this was frowned on.



[edit on 29-9-2008 by fritz]