[StealthyBlagga]

In another thread, it has been suggested that non-magnified red dot optics like the Aimpoint M68/CCO (now standard issue on US Army and US Airforce weapons) should be allowed in Tactical Iron (IMA) and Limited (USPSA) divisions. I think there are some compelling arguments for this change:

1) Non-magnified red dot optics are now standard issue in the US military, with several hundred thousand issued already... they are clearly not a passing fad.
2) Non-magnified red dot optics are relatively cheap and robust, representing a step up from iron sights at a price point perhaps 1/3 that of comparable quality magnified optics.
3) Non-magnified red dot optics are simply not competitive in Tactical Scope division, where magnified optics are permitted. Indeed, my guess would be that in many circumstances iron sights would actually be more accurate than a red dot optic. In my judgment red dot sights and iron sights are very comparable, with one having an edge at close range while the other performs slightly better at long range.
4) Since 2004 there has been an explosion of interest in semi-auto M4 carbines... they outsell any other semi-auto rifle hands down. However, they are configured primarily for optics, having an iron sight radius that is too short for serious work. By creating a division in which red dot optics are viable, we are creating a more inviting competitive environment for these many many new M4 owners.
5) Non-magnified red dot optics are relied on to protect our troops who put themselves in harms way daily. It seems to me that we should create a venue for them to compete on a level playing field with the tools of their trade. This is, in my mind, an important secondary role of the practical shooting sports.


The ability to shoot well with iron sights is a venerable and worthwhile skill, but apparently one that a declining number of 3-gunners are interested in. The trend for major match entries speak for themselves - in the last few years the number of Tactical Iron competitors in my local match (SMM3G) has steadily declined and, if the trend continues, could reach single digits in 2010. The choice before us, then, is to allow Tactical Iron/Limited divisions (or whatever new name we come up with) to continue to atrophy, or to do something to revive interest in them.

QUESTIONS: Should match directors change the rules to allow non-magnified (1x) optics in these formerly iron sight-only divisions ? If they did so, would you consider shooting in such a division ? Feel free to explain your thinking.

This post has been edited by StealthyBlagga: 05 November 2009 - 09:31 AM

[mwx40x40]

IF , this were to come about. It should be Non Magnifying Optic only without Iron Sight back ups . I can't see an IS only gun competing with someone with a reddot and IS. However, I would shoot IS against Reddot only all day long.
That being said I personally don't see adding another class this game.

[00bullitt]

Mark.....thats kind of a good point. There is an advantage to shooting distance with dedicated iron sight rifles over non magnified optics due to parallax. But there is also a benefit to shooting up close targets much faster with an RDS style non magnified optic.
I'm with you on that.....one or the other should only be allowed if this ever comes to be.

[Jadeslade]

I like iron sights- I have an SP1 circa 1972, great gun,never leaves the house. I love red dots -have an M4 type carbine with Reflex, again great gun-backup 3Gun and skills maintenance. Love ACOG's-M4 type with TA01NSN. My 3Gun rifle is an M4type with fixed stock and variable 1-4 scope. I thought allowing red dots in iron sight division was to increase participation-I would be for that. I think iron sights is a skill and division that needs to be continued, if at all possible. I think it is a basic sill set that all shooters should know. I am not sure where USPSA fits in the pantheon of shooting, but I feel it is important. Maybe iron sights is just in a downswing, and it will come up the way Single Stack did. I think that Tactical-Iron Sights should remain as is, with improvements made so that it is again viable-targets, distances, etc. I voted no and no.
I agree with mwx40x40.

[Bryan 45]

I wouldn't have any issue w/ 1x optics in Ltd, but I'd still shoot my irons. Close targets or far, give me irons. (At least until we start shooting 3 gun matches between dusk and dawn.)

[kurtm]

Quote " But there is also a benefit to shooting up close targets much faster with an RDS style non magnified optic. I'm with you on that."

Tod, you haven't been paying attention! On close range stages you will often find that iron sight guys win the stage overall in the entire match! Remeber nothing beat irons up close....well except for Lund who finally did so twice, but not by much!

As for letting the red dots into Iron class, I say hell yes! Not a seperate division, but put the two together! make it all "Non-magnified division"! Oklahoma city 3-gun is already doing this and there were 24 "Non magnified" shooters at the first one out of 36 shooters total! Thats how that works! KurtM

[SinistralRifleman]

Not allowing back up irons along with the red dot goes against almost all of the original arguments FOR allowing red dots in Tac-Iron/Limited

1) Back Up Iron Sights are now standard issue in the US military, with several hundred thousand issued already... they are clearly not a passing fad.
2) Back Up Iron Sights are relatively cheap and robust,
3) Back Up Iron Sights are simply not competitive in Tactical Iron division, where longer sight radius are permitted. Indeed, my guess would be that in many circumstances fixed iron sights would actually be more accurate than Back Up Iron Sight.
4) Since 2004 there has been an explosion of interest in semi-auto M4 carbines... most people equip their gun with a red dot and a back up iron sight, making them remove the iron sight is counterproductive.
5) Back Up Iron Sights are relied on to protect our troops who put themselves in harms way daily.

[StealthyBlagga]

Jadeslade, on Nov 5 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

I like iron sights- I have an SP1 circa 1972, great gun,never leaves the house. I love red dots -have an M4 type carbine with Reflex, again great gun-backup 3Gun and skills maintenance. Love ACOG's-M4 type with TA01NSN. My 3Gun rifle is an M4type with fixed stock and variable 1-4 scope. I thought allowing red dots in iron sight division was to increase participation-I would be for that. I think iron sights is a skill and division that needs to be continued, if at all possible. I think it is a basic sill set that all shooters should know. I am not sure where USPSA fits in the pantheon of shooting, but I feel it is important. Maybe iron sights is just in a downswing, and it will come up the way Single Stack did. I think that Tactical-Iron Sights should remain as is, with improvements made so that it is again viable-targets, distances, etc. I voted no and no.

I don't mean to be offensive, but here goes anyway...

I hear this sentiment a lot. There is a plenty of nostalgia for iron sights, and assertions that skill with iron sights should be promoted, from people who do not actually shoot iron sights anymore. This is like the advice to eat plenty of vegetables and lay off the booze that you get from your overweight and breathless doctor... it smacks of "do as I say, not as I do". Are you saying that if we make the targets easier to see and easier to hit, that YOU will come back to shooting iron sights ? I suspect the answer is NO, and that if we make the target easier to hit, the scope guys would be bitching that we are dumbing things down for them.

Oh, and Single Stack came back because two dedicated divisions were created for them (L10 and SS). If these divisions did not exist, do you think we would be seeing a whole bunch of single stack 1911s in Open or Limited, just because ability with a single stack is "a basic skill set that all shooters should know" ?

SinistralRifleman, on Nov 5 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

Not allowing back up irons along with the red dot goes against almost all of the original arguments FOR allowing red dots in Tac-Iron/Limited...

I kind of agree - I'm not sure that BUIS would be that huge an advantage, and it would be a PITA/deviation from SOP for a lot of guys to take their BUIS off their rifles. I'm not hung up on the issue either way.

This post has been edited by StealthyBlagga: 05 November 2009 - 11:17 AM

[Big Bore]

Let the red dots in and let them keep their back up sights. The more the merrier.

Since I shoot irons almost exclusively, and do quite well with them, I'm not really sure how to take the "Nostalgia" comment....Are all Iron sight shooters Nostaligic?? I don't consider myself old fashioned but maybe I am.


"Nothing beats irons up close." I heard that somewhere.......

[Bryan 45]

I always shoot irons, whether they are on an M1A or AR. I do consider myself a bit old fashioned, but not because of my choice of rifle.

I've always looked at it like this: An iron shooter can pick up a scoped rifle and do reasonably well (considering their skills), but the inverse is not necessarily true.

[Jadeslade]

StealthyBlagga, on Nov 5 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

Jadeslade, on Nov 5 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

I like iron sights- I have an SP1 circa 1972, great gun,never leaves the house. I love red dots -have an M4 type carbine with Reflex, again great gun-backup 3Gun and skills maintenance. Love ACOG's-M4 type with TA01NSN. My 3Gun rifle is an M4type with fixed stock and variable 1-4 scope. I thought allowing red dots in iron sight division was to increase participation-I would be for that. I think iron sights is a skill and division that needs to be continued, if at all possible. I think it is a basic sill set that all shooters should know. I am not sure where USPSA fits in the pantheon of shooting, but I feel it is important. Maybe iron sights is just in a downswing, and it will come up the way Single Stack did. I think that Tactical-Iron Sights should remain as is, with improvements made so that it is again viable-targets, distances, etc. I voted no and no.

I don't mean to be offensive, but here goes anyway...

I hear this sentiment a lot. There is a plenty of nostalgia for iron sights, and assertions that skill with iron sights should be promoted, from people who do not actually shoot iron sights anymore. This is like the advice to eat plenty of vegetables and lay off the booze that you get from your overweight and breathless doctor... it smacks of "do as I say, not as I do". Are you saying that if we make the targets easier to see and easier to hit, that YOU will come back to shooting iron sights ? I suspect the answer is NO, and that if we make the target easier to hit, the scope guys would be bitching that we are dumbing things down for them.

Oh, and Single Stack came back because two dedicated divisions were created for them (L10 and SS). If these divisions did not exist, do you think we would be seeing a whole bunch of single stack 1911s in Open or Limited, just because ability with a single stack is "a basic skill set that all shooters should know" ?

I don't hear this sentiment a lot. You are speaking for me and answering as well. I will let you continue. I was giving my opinion, which you asked for in your post. I only speak for myself. If you want to argue, so be it.

[J.Schmitt]

SinistralRifleman, on Nov 5 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Not allowing back up irons along with the red dot goes against almost all of the original arguments FOR allowing red dots in Tac-Iron/Limited

1) Back Up Iron Sights are now standard issue in the US military, with several hundred thousand issued already... they are clearly not a passing fad.
2) Back Up Iron Sights are relatively cheap and robust,
3) Back Up Iron Sights are simply not competitive in Tactical Iron division, where longer sight radius are permitted. Indeed, my guess would be that in many circumstances fixed iron sights would actually be more accurate than Back Up Iron Sight.
4) Since 2004 there has been an explosion of interest in semi-auto M4 carbines... most people equip their gun with a red dot and a back up iron sight, making them remove the iron sight is counterproductive.
5) Back Up Iron Sights are relied on to protect our troops who put themselves in harms way daily.

As to number 3, if you are careful with the equipment they work fine... while I don't use it often I have a 11" upper with mad dog flip up rear that on any given instance can be flipped up, engage and hit a plate at 200. (note:this is not what I use in comp).

My comp rifle has a yankee flip up front fixed rear. I got it for free and haven't changed it yet because it is dead nuts on every shot.

Jay

[StealthyBlagga]

Jadeslade, on Nov 5 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I don't hear this sentiment a lot. You are speaking for me and answering as well. I will let you continue. I was giving my opinion, which you asked for in your post. I only speak for myself. If you want to argue, so be it.

Opinions and robust debate are always welcome. Like I said, I don't wish to offend. And I'm sorry I spoke for you... does that mean you WILL come back to iron sights if the targets are easier to see ?

[Jadeslade]

I would shoot iron sights in a heartbeat. It is just not happening now and I really don't know why. I was thinking about maybe an irons only match and I think someone already said they tried it and it did not work.

[Alaskapopo]

kurtm, on Nov 5 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Quote " But there is also a benefit to shooting up close targets much faster with an RDS style non magnified optic. I'm with you on that."

Tod, you haven't been paying attention! On close range stages you will often find that iron sight guys win the stage overall in the entire match! Remeber nothing beat irons up close....well except for Lund who finally did so twice, but not by much!

As for letting the red dots into Iron class, I say hell yes! Not a seperate division, but put the two together! make it all "Non-magnified division"! Oklahoma city 3-gun is already doing this and there were 24 "Non magnified" shooters at the first one out of 36 shooters total! Thats how that works! KurtM

From my own experience Irons are just as fast as a RDS inside of 15 yards but outside of that RDS rules. One focal plane vs 3. Yes there are Iron sight shooters like your self who do well. But if you put the same time into optics you would probably be even better. As an instructor I have seen a fair number of shooters use irons vs optcs and the optic shooters always do better. Nothing beats an RDS from 0-100 yards. Past 100 the low power variables start to take over.
Pat

[Lance Jensen]

I prefer irons, but red dots do seem to have a slight advantage in awkward positions and low light conditions

[Alaskapopo]

I have put this to paper with a timer and targets with myself and several students and results don't lie. Irons in general are slower than red dots in all but the most skilled shooters hands (then they are equal at close range meaning less than 25 yards). The military and most law enforcement agencies have gone to optics because they give cops and soldiers and edge. Optics simply allow people to shoot faster and more accurately. The advantage is less noticeable at close range in ideal lighting conditions but that advantage becomes more and more apparent as the range increases and as it gets darker. There is never a time that a red dot is slower than irons if two shooters of equal skill are compared. I have heard you talk about matches where limited shooters have beat tactical shooters. Frankly things must be different down there as up here the Iron guys always finish last even on the short CQB stages. I think you are biasing your opinion based on your own personal skill. You like Irons so you shoot them a lot and have got very good with them. I imagine you have not given optics a fair shake. Nor have you fairly evaluated the edge they give other shooters.
Pat

This post has been edited by kellyn: 06 November 2009 - 10:50 AM
Reason for edit: You know

[Mike P]

Alaskapopo, on Nov 6 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Well you are entitled to your opinion even if your not basing it on fact. But I have put this to paper with a timer and targets with myself and several students and results don't lie. Irons in general are slower than red dots in all but the most skilled shooters hands (then they are equal at close range meaning less than 25 yards). The military and most law enforcement agencies have gone to optics because they give cops and soldiers and edge. Optics simply allow people to shoot faster and more accurately. The advantage is less noticeable at close range in ideal lighting conditions but that advantage becomes more and more apparent as the range increases and as it gets darker. There is never a time that a red dot is slower than irons if two shooters of equal skill are compared. I have heard you talk about matches where limited shooters have beat tactical shooters. Frankly things must be different down there as up here the Iron guys always finish last even on the short CQB stages. I think you are biasing your opinion based on your own personal skill. You like Irons so you shoot them a lot and have got very good with them. I imagine you have not given optics a fair shake. Nor have you fairly evaluated the edge they give other shooters.
Pat

Things indeed must be different down here. At the most recent carbine match the winner of heavy irons was 5th overall out of a field of 55. A far cry from last, in fact 6 out of the top 20 overall were using irons. Of course this could just mean that optic shooters suck, or somebody forgot to tell the iron shooters that they were using an antiquated, slower sighting system.

[Big Bore]

Maybe Irons don't work in the Great White North.

Here at the small local matchs I am consistantly in the top 3 with an open shooter and a scoped tac. guy. I must not have gotten the message about irons either...

My observations and experiences here in Utah is that the majority guys, law enforcement or not, don't practice unless its time for quals or the occasional chase the can session out in the desert, and in that case the red dot is quick for unskilled shooters, as long as its zero hasn't been knocked off since last year when it was shot.

This post has been edited by kellyn: 06 November 2009 - 10:51 AM
Reason for edit: Strayed from the path

[Doug H.]

This thread seems to have drifted a bit. What suprises me is that irons are being hotly defended as faster, but people voted 40 against and 35 for letting red dots compete in Limited. I would have thought that iron guys would welcome the RDS so that their prize table would be bigger and better plus the usual suspects would still win the class.

I don't think it is fair to to compare typical police shooters with even average 3 gun competitors. I did some police training in the '70s and it was usually pretty grim. I read one of the reports from the US Army when they were testing dot sights and they found that the optics improved hits with less training than irons. Probably the reason that the government is spending so much money on optics.

Doug

[kurtm]

No! irons DO work in Alaska, last time I was up there I got a real nice Caribou with an 03A3 Springfield with the stock iron sights. It wasn't a particularly long shot, 210 yards...and as my daughter says....Caribou is tasty. One round.

I have used optics Pat, I have won major matches with them...BUT...I also have had and or seen personally just about EVERY type of optic FAIL. U.S. Optic scopes, Trijcon ACOGS, Leopold tactical, Buriss, Aimpoints, Eotechs. etc......I have yet to send in a set of irons for repair.

In Pats defense, it is true that the recruit that just graduated A.I.T., or the new academy grad will in fact be better with a red dot...IF he didn't come from a shooting background. It is much easier to tell a non or new shooter "just put the dot on the target and press the trigger". For the person who shoots very little this will be the case. Once we step up the shooting continuum the more the skill the less the "dot" makes a difference. To make the blanket statement and base it off of Academy Grads, is only picking the facts you want.

Dots are good in low light, they are bad past about 200 and the battery cost sucks. BTW nothing beats irons up close.

Pat, plan out a major match that you would like to attend in the lower 48 bring your dot/Z6I and I will bring a couple of iron guys we will shoot heads up, and then we can make an informed decision about red dot vs. iron, and hopefully we will all be in the same division as I would like to see non magnified take hold. KurtM

[Religious Shooter]

Can the OP add... "Do you currently shoot in Tac Iron/Limited?"

From the other thread the vast majority of the Tac Iron/Limited shooters want this to happen. I think you are getting noise from the Tac Scope and Open shooters.

I mean... right now you have 86 votes. I don't think there are 86 Tac Iron/Limited shooters in the nation.

If there were 86+ shooters then TI/Lim wouldn't be dying.

This post has been edited by Religious Shooter: 06 November 2009 - 09:44 AM

[kurtm]

Right ON Gordon!

[twodownzero]

Red dots, even without magnification, are definitely faster. Leave my iron sight division alone!

[kellyn]

Lay off the personal commentary and keep this thread on track. We are not a bunch of pistol shooters.

I voted no but I really don't care that much. It will make for a larger division by simply cutting into Tac scope's numbers. It will not increase the number of iron sight shooters. It will just be a battle between a large number of RDS shooters and a few hold outs clinging to their iron sights to prove a point. Since many of those die hards are very good shooters they just might.

Sinistralrifleman is right that this new division will be attractive for the new shooter with his M4 carbine and Eotech/Aimpoint. That is probably the biggest reason to have it.

Stealthyblagga is right on with his commentary about people talking about shoot irons but rarely doing so.

And Kurt, I have broken iron sights. Skinny front posts are vulnerable!