Most tactical AR15 EVER!!

[Penguin]

I've never heard our service men and women, nor friends/acquaintances who have 'been there', refer to shooting an enemy as "bust(ing) a cap into someone."  <smack>

Hence my point, I wanted to discredit his point that I was claiming to have combat experience.  Thus, I chose the tackiest phrase I could for shooting someone. 

-Penguin

[Zeagle]

He was obviously poking fun in the video.

As for stuff on the gun, iron sights only for me. As for shooting knowledge, stay off the ar forums and you tube. You'll be smarter.

I use the ribz setup myself. 100yd setting for our ranges here. Ibz (50/225 with m193) setting for everything else.

[VonMessa]

Scopes are for those of us who prefer a single shot clean kill that lets us recover the most meat possible.

4 generations of my family (and soon a 5th) have been hunting deer with the same Remington .35 pump with iron sights.

So far, one shot one kill, every season without any wasted meat.

@ < 300 yards, there should be no need for a scope, especially on an assault rifle and especially when you are taking fire.

Sitting in a tree stand with a powered scope is not hunting, it is sniping.

[SmokinLoon]

4 generations of my family (and soon a 5th) have been hunting deer with the same Remington .35 pump with iron sights.

So far, one shot one kill, every season without any wasted meat.

@ < 300 yards, there should be no need for a scope, especially on an assault rifle and especially when you are taking fire.

Sitting in a tree stand with a powered scope is not hunting, it is sniping.

That is a very fine cartridge in that 35 Remington you have there.  Is the rifle a Remington 760?  But with iron sights... no meat wasted???  Come now, be serious.   

No need for a scope under 300 yards??? You give the human eye too much credit.     

...and sitting in a stand is not hunting, it is being lazy.  Get out and STALK, you lazy bastage!!!   

On an "assault rifle", optics make it that much more of a threat, especially if the weapon is of the M16 platform.  Few "assault rifles" can beat the M16 in terms of accuracy in any sense.   

[Jayhawk]

4 generations of my family (and soon a 5th) have been hunting deer with the same Remington .35 pump with iron sights.

So far, one shot one kill, every season without any wasted meat.

@ < 300 yards, there should be no need for a scope, especially on an assault rifle and especially when you are taking fire.

Sitting in a tree stand with a powered scope is not hunting, it is sniping.

There is a lot more to hunting than just the shot.  There are plenty of people who are good hunters and even good shots who couldn't make a clean kill with iron sights at that distance, should they just not hunt?  I'm positive my grandfather, who can still hunt, can't see well enough to make that shot.

Sorry, no shame for using a scope.

[katanaso]

I have an Eotech on one of my AR's.  I like the idea that if I ever had to actually 'use' it I could keep both eyes open and hit whatever is targetted by the illuminated ring.  It's just a tool.

Some of these folks are into their 'tactical'-ness rifles just as much as some of the flight simmers are into making simpits. 

[VonMessa]

That is a very fine cartridge in that 35 Remington you have there.  Is the rifle a Remington 760?  But with iron sights... no meat wasted???  Come now, be serious.   

No need for a scope under 300 yards??? You give the human eye too much credit.     

...and sitting in a stand is not hunting, it is being lazy.  Get out and STALK, you lazy bastage!!!   

On an "assault rifle", optics make it that much more of a threat, especially if the weapon is of the M16 platform.  Few "assault rifles" can beat the M16 in terms of accuracy in any sense.   

141

[guncrasher]

I've never heard our service men and women, nor friends/acquaintances who have 'been there', refer to shooting an enemy as "bust(ing) a cap into someone."  <smack>

they did in vietnam.


semp

[Rich52]

Heres my patrol carbine.

While all these young hotshots are spending all kinds of $$ adding every kind of gadget imaginable I found a cheap old A1 barrel, stock, forarm, and turned a standard Armalite into something I carried in better days.

At city ranges I have no problem with standard AR sights. Its not the rifle ; Its the shooter. I was raised the same.

4 generations of my family (and soon a 5th) have been hunting deer with the same Remington .35 pump with iron sights.

So far, one shot one kill, every season without any wasted meat.

[SmokinLoon]

Heres my patrol carbine. (Image removed from quote.)

While all these young hotshots are spending all kinds of $$ adding every kind of gadget imaginable I found a cheap old A1 barrel, stock, forarm, and turned a standard Armalite into something I carried in better days. (Image removed from quote.)

At city ranges I have no problem with standard AR sights. Its not the rifle ; Its the shooter. I was raised the same.

There is nothing wrong with iron sights.  But if anyone thinks the human eye can out perform high quality magnified optics....     I can do quite well in all of the firing positions, with iron sights out to 200 yards (on FBI qualification targets), and even while being shot at.   

[Vulcan]

Sitting in a tree stand with a powered scope is not hunting, it is sniping.

I'm not amercian

[VonMessa]

There is nothing wrong with iron sights.  But if anyone thinks the human eye can out perform high quality magnified optics....     I can do quite well in all of the firing positions, with iron sights out to 200 yards (on FBI qualification targets), and even while being shot at.   

Never was it mentioned that optics aren't as accurate.  Your straw-man is not fluffy enough.

I wasn't aware that you could fire at FBI targets while being "shot at"

Bottom line is that if you are a horrible shot with iron sights, you aren't going to be much better with optics.  In addition, optic sights do not hold up as well, nor retain there accuracy as well as do iron sights in the rigors of life experienced by an average combat soldier.  Once the optics are damaged or out of calibration, the weapon is as useful as a boat anchor.

[Melvin]

Where I live you are lucky to see 100 yards into the forest. I prefer the iron sights on my M-1 Garand. I hate the low capacity though, and would (almost) consider trading it for a nice M-4 variant. I think an M-1A1 upgrade is in order.

In an urban situation I'd opt for a 3 man team. 1 large caliber shooter with 1 spotter equipped with an M-4, and a "back door man" also equipped with an M-4.

With enough trusted individuals, you could build a nice squad around the 30-06, 5.56, and 12 gauge.

No shame in using scopes, they definitely serve a purpose.

 

[Vulcan]

fwiw my last fallow deer (they're about the size of a large goat) was 380 yards, shot through the heart. I use Howa 243 with Nikon 3-9x40 scope. No way I'd make that shot on open sights.

[Jayhawk]

Bottom line is that if you are a horrible shot with iron sights, you aren't going to be much better with optics.  In addition, optic sights do not hold up as well, nor retain there accuracy as well as do iron sights in the rigors of life experienced by an average combat soldier.  Once the optics are damaged or out of calibration, the weapon is as useful as a boat anchor.

Bolded is absolutely true.

However, if optics are so fragile, why do so many soldiers seem to mount them on their rifles?

Here's a link to the Trijicon sight's testimonials page: http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/community/testimonials_list.php?p=ACOG

I can't argue that a shooter should be an expert with iron sights, and be able to shoot with iron sights.  However, some of the optics out there today are damn tough, and make it easier for our troops.