Most tactical AR15 EVER!!

[VonMessa]

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.

(Image removed from quote.)

Honestly, I don't know, unless they have a belief that they need it.  I honestly think that in any situation under 300 yds they are superfluous.

In the time it takes to acquire a target and settle your breathing to a point where the scope is actually steady enough to be more accurate than a weapon with iron sights, the guy with iron sights is already putting rounds down-range.  This is especially true when not in a prone position or when your heart is racing from the adrenaline rush of contact with an armed foe.

I was just up in Hew Hampshire a few weeks ago, visiting with friends and their family.  Our host had a S&W .44 revolver with a scope on it that he claimed to use for "deer and coyote hunting".  It was the most laugh-out-loud ridiculous thing I have ever seen.  It was fancy and new and heavy as hell.  In the time it took him to get one accurate shot off, I had already emptied my .32 S&W revolver and was reloading.
Was the .44 accurate?  Yes, without a doubt, after you could steady the thing long enough to get a good shot off..  Was it practical?  not in the least.

It really boils down to preference and experience.  In no way am I denying the accuracy of a scope.  When comfortably set up in a good hide, with a spotter and a fairly calm pulse rate, at a range of a few hundred yards, a scope is awesome.  When running around, seeking cover/concealment, taking fire with your heart racing from the exertion/adrenaline, the average boots-on-the-ground soldier, in my opinion, would be hampered by a scope.

I guess that I am just old-school.  It was the way I was taught.  It was a giant advantage when I was in the Army and I thank my grandfather for teaching me the way that he did.  In all the years that I served, I never shot less than expert.  I will teach my kids the same way.

 Every year when I go hunting, there is always someone(usually one of the younger guys) that breaks my balls about my 70 year-old, open sight rifle and my preference of actually hunting without using a tree stand.  I usually leave them a present of my field-dressing leavings in a bag in their tree stand as I sit in the cabin and drink beer in front of the fire for the next few days while he is freezing his arse off in the woods. 

[PAKFRONT]

Honestly, I don't know, unless they have a belief that they need it.  I honestly think that in any situation under 300 yds they are superfluous.

In the time it takes to acquire a target and settle your breathing to a point where the scope is actually steady enough to be more accurate than a weapon with iron sights, the guy with iron sights is already putting rounds down-range.  This is especially true when not in a prone position or when your heart is racing from the adrenaline rush of contact with an armed foe.

I was just up in Hew Hampshire a few weeks ago, visiting with friends and their family.  Our host had a S&W .44 revolver with a scope on it that he claimed to use for "deer and coyote hunting".  It was the most laugh-out-loud ridiculous thing I have ever seen.  It was fancy and new and heavy as hell.  In the time it took him to get one accurate shot off, I had already emptied my .32 S&W revolver and was reloading.
Was the .44 accurate?  Yes, without a doubt, after you could steady the thing long enough to get a good shot off..  Was it practical?  not in the least.

It really boils down to preference and experience.  In no way am I denying the accuracy of a scope.  When comfortably set up in a good hide, with a spotter and a fairly calm pulse rate, at a range of a few hundred yards, a scope is awesome.  When running around, seeking cover/concealment, taking fire with your heart racing from the exertion/adrenaline, the average boots-on-the-ground soldier, in my opinion, would be hampered by a scope.

I guess that I am just old-school.  It was the way I was taught.  It was a giant advantage when I was in the Army and I thank my grandfather for teaching me the way that he did.  In all the years that I served, I never shot less than expert.  I will teach my kids the same way.

 Every year when I go hunting, there is always someone(usually one of the younger guys) that breaks my balls about my 70 year-old, open sight rifle and my preference of actually hunting without using a tree stand.  I usually leave them a present of my field-dressing leavings in a bag in their tree stand as I sit in the cabin and drink beer in front of the fire for the next few days while he is freezing his arse off in the woods. 

Make that 2.. Good summation, I agree..

[katanaso]

In my experience, it's quicker to get a red dot sight/illuminated reticle on a target than iron sights.

I'm not talking about a true scope though.  It takes me longer to acquire the target through my scoped rifle than when I'm using the iron sights on it.

Those Trijicons are 4x, but still with an illuminated reticle, so perhaps it's a nice trade off for a little magnification with quick target acquisition.  I don't know - I've never used one.

But I think the discussion is a talking about a lot of things at the same time -- hunting deer/woods, our soldiers, and then paper targets. 

[SmokinLoon]

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.

I've not been fired at in anger at while shooting qualifications, but I have been shot at with simunitons while advancing and keeping the same rate of fire and nearly the same accuracy on the target.  The amount of stress is 100 fold, but I knew I wasnt going to get killed if I got hit.  I give a huge amount of credit to those who do it under real fire in combat.  You dont want to get hit with simunitions, they hurt big time.  The point of the training is to keep going if you get hit, you cant stop just because you get hit. 

Im not sure you understand that optics will in fact make a soldier/marine a more deadly weapon on the battlefield.  If the optics do fail, and you are correct in saying that optics cant hold up to the same stress as irons, but if the optics do fail all the soldier/marine has to do is take off the optics and flip up the iron sights.  Why not have the best of both world?     

I'll argue against your "under 300" argument all day long.  If your enemy if bunkered and all you can see of him is the top 4 inches of his head and the end of his barrel as he is shooting at you, do you really think you can put a round in a 4in x 6in box at 100 yards with iron sights on a regular basis?  While kneeling?  Standing? What about 200 yards?  Kneeling?  Standing?  From a bench with a very well supported rifle, under no stress, then maybe at 100 yards.  But beyond that no way.  That is where most people forget about the non-bench and under high stress situations.  Kneeling, I can hit a 16in gong at 200 yards 4/5 times, in about 8 seconds with my AR15"A4" with an ACOG TA31 mounted on top (4X w donut ret.).  At 200 yards iron sights completely cover up the gong and your guessing a lot more than I am.  I might give you a "less than 100 yards" argument, but not "less then 300".   

The ONLY place I would give iron sights on a rifle preference over low magnified optics is when clearing a building.  Some deputies had 2 different AR15's for exactly that reason.  Under a federal "hand-me-down" program call "Northstar" (I dont remember the name for sure), the sheriff's office had 2 dozen M16A1's handed to us for patrol purposes.  Some deputies used the M16A1's as their "outside" rifle after mounting optics on it and then used their own or department issued M4 variant (with no optics) for clearing buildings.  I always preferred my Sig 226/9mm to any rifle, shotgun, or sub-gun.  Having the extra hand free for flashlight use, opening doors, moving debris, etc, always seemed easier. YMMV.   

[VonMessa]

I've not been fired at in anger at while shooting qualifications, but I have been shot at with simunitons while advancing and keeping the same rate of fire and nearly the same accuracy on the target.  The amount of stress is 100 fold, but I knew I wasnt going to get killed if I got hit.  I give a huge amount of credit to those who do it under real fire in combat.  You dont want to get hit with simunitions, they hurt big time.  The point of the training is to keep going if you get hit, you cant stop just because you get hit.  

Im not sure you understand that optics will in fact make a soldier/marine a more deadly weapon on the battlefield.  If the optics do fail, and you are correct in saying that optics cant hold up to the same stress as irons, but if the optics do fail all the soldier/marine has to do is take off the optics and flip up the iron sights.  Why not have the best of both world?      

I'll argue against your "under 300" argument all day long.  If your enemy if bunkered and all you can see of him is the top 4 inches of his head and the end of his barrel as he is shooting at you, do you really think you can put a round in a 4in x 6in box at 100 yards with iron sights on a regular basis?  While kneeling?  Standing? What about 200 yards?  Kneeling?  Standing?  From a bench with a very well supported rifle, under no stress, then maybe at 100 yards.  But beyond that no way.  That is where most people forget about the non-bench and under high stress situations.  Kneeling, I can hit a 16in gong at 200 yards 4/5 times, in about 8 seconds with my AR15"A4" with an ACOG TA31 mounted on top (4X w donut ret.).  At 200 yards iron sights completely cover up the gong and your guessing a lot more than I am.  I might give you a "less than 100 yards" argument, but not "less then 300".  

The ONLY place I would give iron sights on a rifle preference over low magnified optics is when clearing a building.  Some deputies had 2 different AR15's for exactly that reason.  Under a federal "hand-me-down" program call "Northstar" (I dont remember the name for sure), the sheriff's office had 2 dozen M16A1's handed to us for patrol purposes.  Some deputies used the M16A1's as their "outside" rifle after mounting optics on it and then used their own or department issued M4 variant (with no optics) for clearing buildings.  I always preferred my Sig 226/9mm to any rifle, shotgun, or sub-gun.  Having the extra hand free for flashlight use, opening doors, moving debris, etc, always seemed easier. YMMV.  

If the enemy is bunkered and I can only see the top of his head, it's time to call for the sniper or put some ordinance on his soon-to-be carcass.  

I also understand that most folks do not have the opportunity to learn how to shoot from the age of 6.  I have been firing some type of weapon since that age with help from my grandfather.  It started with a bb gun, progressed to a .22 when I was 10 and after becoming proficient with that it was hunting rifles and handguns.  By the time I went to Basic Training, BRM classes/training were almost laughable.  I remember all the ribbing I would get about "Pennsylvania deer hunters", but most of that stopped once they realized that I could qualify with just about any weapon they put in my hands.

I imagine that the new technology in optics has breezed by me since I haven't used a weapon with a scope in almost 10 years.  They are probably really advanced, these days, but open irons is all I know.  I may not be able to hit that bunkered guy's 4" of head sticking out at 300 yds, but I can guarantee that I can get close enough to make his arse pucker and keep his head down while another solution is settled upon. 

 I will have  equate it to my wife learning to drive my Jeep (manual trans).  She can do it, but not as well or fluid as I can because this is the first and only manual trans vehicle she has ever attempted to drive.  On the other hand, I have been driving equipment/vehicles with a manual trans since I worked on a farm at the age of 14 and have only owned (personally not counting the wife's cars) 2 vehicles with an auto trans. in 25 years and I absolutely hated them.  Stick-shift is pretty much all I have  ever known.

I suppose it is what you are used to and comfortable with.  Speaking for myself, the thought of taking to the battlefield as an average infantryman with a scoped weapon gives me the willies.  The worst case scenarios always cross my mind:  Will I knock the scope and damage it or put it out of calibration, will the glint of the glass alert an enemy to my position, will I be able to acquire a target quickly enough to put rounds down-range before he can do the same to me, will the optics be clean enough, etc.

Probably the biggest reason for me not using a scope, though is that my grandfather (who is 91 and still alive) would never let me live it down  

 

[PR3D4TOR]

You guys need to google/youtube "Bindon aiming concept" and get your heads into this century.

[Vulcan]

In the time it takes to acquire a target

Dunno bout you but my target acquisition time on a scope is fairly instant. I shoot both eyes open, iron sights or scope.

[katanaso]

You guys need to google/youtube "Bindon aiming concept" and get your heads into this century.

I didn't know it had a name, but my posts covered that.

[Jayhawk]

I imagine that the new technology in optics has breezed by me since I haven't used a weapon with a scope in almost 10 years.  

I can understand your point, but I think this statement is important.  I think you would be amazed at the technology is some of the optics of today.

[PR3D4TOR]

I didn't know it had a name, but my posts covered that.

cc that.

[BillyD]

Trijicon is putting a small red dot on top of the ACOG these days. And the obligitory bible verses what a poo storm.....

[Gman]

Trijicon is putting a small red dot on top of the ACOG these days. And the obligitory bible verses Smiley what a poo storm.....

Funny story:  

A good friend of mine I worked with up here in Canada before he moved to the USA to be the Military/LE rep for Knights Armament, Kevin Boland, came up with the idea to glue a homemade mount for one of our Doctor Optic small red dot's to the top of his Leupold M3LR Optic on his precision rifle, and on top of the Acog NSN on our carbines.  This was back in 2000 or 2001.  After a huge service rifle shoot that our team did at Fort Lewis back then, everybody had a lot of laughs at the idea, but it didn't take long for some guys to start writing about the idea with some pictures of our rifles that were equipped with this "back up close range dot" system.  The idea spread slowly at first, but took off like wildfire a number of years later.

Fast forward to today, there are dozens of companies that make a dedicated mount for this setup, which differs little from the rigged up version we used 12 years ago.  


Also, I have to agree with a lot of what VonMessa says regarding Iron sights.  I know that in addition to my company, a lot of the other major PMC groups do much of their testing with new applicants with ONLY iron sights as a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Triple Canopy for instance did all of their courses of fires over their 3 day testing rigamarole for new applicants with Glock 19 stock pistols with the 5 lb trigger and a very stockish M4 rifle with the carry handle or a BIUS flip up rear sight only - no optics.  Being able to use irons is very important because, as stated earlier, they don't break or fall off, or run out of battery power.

That said, the advantage you get at ANY range with either a close range dot or a magnified combat scope cannot be disputed IMO.  Even at very close range, a small dot like a Dr. Optic, or even just a big dot front sight a la XS sights on a pistol makes the acquisition and sighting phase of a shot go MUCH faster.  This advantage only increases during low light conditions as well.  At medium ranges, a 4x NSN Acog, or any Acog type sight, like an Elcan or whatever gives the shooter a big advantage as well.  VonMessa is correct somewhat in that it may take some shooters a bit longer to acquire their target with this type of magnified sight, but at medium to longer ranges that extra time IMO is well worth the trade off of being able to put rounds on the target with much more accuracy.

Initially way back when I started working in my business it was mainly the contractors that could afford it, and better equipped SF units that even HAD optics on their service rifles or carbines:  now every soldier you see has an optic on his rifle I think.  In fact, many non American troops in Afghanistan have rifles with built in optics as their primary sights now, so as important as being able to use irons may be, I'd have to say many troops now a days don't even have the ability to use them if they wanted to due to their rifle configuration.  

[SmokinLoon]

Funny story:  
A good friend of mine I worked with up here in Canada before he moved to the USA to be the Military/LE rep for Knights Armament, Kevin Boland, came up with the idea to glue a homemade mount for one of our Doctor Optic small red dot's to the top of his Leupold M3LR Optic on his precision rifle, and on top of the Acog NSN on our carbines.  This was back in 2000 or 2001.  After a huge service rifle shoot that our team did at Fort Lewis back then, everybody had a lot of laughs at the idea, but it didn't take long for some guys to start writing about the idea with some pictures of our rifles that were equipped with this "back up close range dot" system.  The idea spread slowly at first, but took off like wildfire a number of years later.
Fast forward to today, there are dozens of companies that make a dedicated mount for this setup, which differs little from the rigged up version we used 12 years ago.  
Also, I have to agree with a lot of what VonMessa says regarding Iron sights.  I know that in addition to my company, a lot of the other major PMC groups do much of their testing with new applicants with ONLY iron sights as a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Triple Canopy for instance did all of their courses of fires over their 3 day testing rigamarole for new applicants with Glock 19 stock pistols with the 5 lb trigger and a very stockish M4 rifle with the carry handle or a BIUS flip up rear sight only - no optics.  Being able to use irons is very important because, as stated earlier, they don't break or fall off, or run out of battery power.
That said, the advantage you get at ANY range with either a close range dot or a magnified combat scope cannot be disputed IMO.  Even at very close range, a small dot like a Dr. Optic, or even just a big dot front sight a la XS sights on a pistol makes the acquisition and sighting phase of a shot go MUCH faster.  This advantage only increases during low light conditions as well.  At medium ranges, a 4x NSN Acog, or any Acog type sight, like an Elcan or whatever gives the shooter a big advantage as well.  VonMessa is correct somewhat in that it may take some shooters a bit longer to acquire their target with this type of magnified sight, but at medium to longer ranges that extra time IMO is well worth the trade off of being able to put rounds on the target with much more accuracy.
Initially way back when I started working in my business it was mainly the contractors that could afford it, and better equipped SF units that even HAD optics on their service rifles or carbines:  now every soldier you see has an optic on his rifle I think.  In fact, many non American troops in Afghanistan have rifles with built in optics as their primary sights now, so as important as being able to use irons may be, I'd have to say many troops now a days don't even have the ability to use them if they wanted to due to their rifle configuration.  

My ACOG TA31 says: "ACOG4X23JN8:12".  Pay attention to the "JN8:12".      I want to find the one that has RM8:14 on it, that is my favorite.   

I wont argue a bit on the iron sight/dot sight vs magnification at close ranges for sight acquisition, at least up close and personal.  Though I will say while on foot patrol and while at "ready gun" position, I can pick up a target 50 yards and out no slower than those with iron sights... and my shots are more accurate.     The thing I like about the ACOG TA31 is the wide open reticule that offers a very good field of view.  There is a reason the British mounted the SUIT 4X combat scope on their L1A1's long before any other army considered optics (late 1960's) for their front line infantryman: they knew the benefits of having the extra range ability afforded by magnified optics (and there was a legit worry of having thousands of Soviet or Sino infantry charging an entrenched position and being able to bear as much long range firepower was key to survival).  On the other hand, because the British chose to have that heavy, long, and magnified "battle rifle" for the infantryman they were "plagued" by having to keep around the sub-guns (Sterling) for urban operations (as in North Ireland).  When the British went to the SA80 assault rifle, they greatly reduced the weight and length of the rifle, but they kept the 4X optics w/ a large FoV. 

US infantrymen today go through basic training learning iron sights.  They don't see optics for their M4's until they get to AIT, or until they get to the field.  It is much easier to teach someone how to use the ACOG TA31 than it is to teach all the intricate details of using iron sights.  No worry, the basics of using iron sights are still being taught in the US Army and the US Marine Corps.  On the contrary, I've seen videos of British soldiers going though basic training and they have optics, I'm not sure where their iron sight vs optic training comes in to play.  BTW... even though is is standard in the British infantry to have the 4X optics, they still carry iron sights on their rifles.