Didn't see any other optic/sight main thread in catalog, so I'll throw one out.
Been shooting offhand at a 12 inch steel plate at 80 yards for couple of years now, its good practice for more general, on the foot hunting/combat shooting, especially trying to rapid fire. I like to shoot near dark a lot to keep up low light shooting skills, and I've noticed I can do pretty damn good with old fashioned open iron sights, even to the point where I can hit the target when its too dark to see it by aiming using the surroundings to trianagulate where its still at. With high end combat apertures on some of my rifles I find I can't do this at low light; its harder to see the target when I can, and it obstructs and constricts my view of the surroundings to shoot at it Kentucky windage style.
So, tl;dr, what is your favorite iron sight, what do you use for optics on your weapons, what is the advantages and disadvantages of each? Is the rifleman's aperture ALWAYS superior to traditional open? Are cheaper optics making irons almost obsolete?
I prefer notch and post for its simplicity. Only recently got into it, never had much experience, though I got a red dot on my AR and once used a rifle with a low-end 4x optic.
Aperture sights are useless in low-light conditions. As soon as dusk comes around you will struggle to find the front sight unless you have night sights. It's why I prefer notch and post, since I can still have a vague idea of where I'm aiming.
I'd argue it's more that less rifles have iron sights necessitating optics that's driving the price down. A cheap and reliable Bushnell red dot is cheaper than a rear sight for a flat-top AR, for example.
Cooper Wright
Austrian spacemagic memesights.
Like the other user said they don't work in low light, however they are definitely much easier to use in low-light conditions. I'd say that if your irons are your primary sighting method then aperture is superior because it's faster and easier, but if irons are your backup in case your main optic breaks then go with notch-and-post, as it's usable in low light and you want your backup sights to be useful at all times.
To a point, at least on rifles. Although personally I think its as much to do with tougher optics as it is about cheaper ones–a good Aimpoint is probably less likely to fail on you than a flip-up rear sight at this point. On pistols, though, irons are still better than trying to bolt a red dot onto your slide–pistol optics are hella expensive for one, they're only marginally faster than irons and even then that's only with training, they aren't more accurate and make the gun bulky. They have use for police or security that OC a pistol and no rifle, but that's all for the moment.
Do different glawks really use different sights, or is it the same dovetail on every pistol, and you can put whatever you want into them? Also, are there blueprints for those dovetails out there, or is it something that everyone reverse-engineers on their own?
I like that, but what's the name of it?
So it's not powered at all, and in essence just a 1x optic sight?
Matthew Bennett
yes.
Aiden Sullivan
Preference for pistol sights is a triangular sight, such as the SureSight or Advantage tactical. suresight.com/
I dunno about functionality but i've got a huge hard on on the PSO chevron reticle. It's so thin, clean and crisp. And the ^ thingy just feels like it would be best at pointing without covering the target.
I'd prefer the center reticle to bigger though tbh.
Kevin Miller
Maybe it's just slav blood in me speaking but it really reminds me of my childhood times when all was mostly shit but still comfy, like rural house where you can do whatever stuff you wanted including the crazy one impossible or stupid to do in the city.
How does Vlad get away with that without Trijicon REEEing about patents?
Trapezoidal sights, found on Steyr's pistols.
Don't suppose anyone's done a direct comparison of these and trapezoidal sights?
Camden Fisher
I have to agree with that, but if you have the night sight I think it's superior, at least in the right circumstances. You shouldn't be shooting at targets you can't see and identify when hunting. I won a Marlin 45-70 GBL at a gun bash and I am not a fan of semi-buck horn sights, even if they don't shoot 6" low at max elevation at 25yds. I considered the receiver rail with built in aperture and even a scout mounted pistol scope. I went with the Williams fool proof rear with matching fiber-optic front. I like it more than the fire sight rear u-notch I have on my turkey gun, the green rear sight seems to wash out the dimmer red front. With the aperture the front sigh is always the brightest thing. I can hand it to a novice, tell them to look through the hole and put the orange dot on what they want dead and they will consistently hit the target. It's fast and simple, exactly what I want on a brush gun. A red dot might be quicker but I have astigmatism and even high end ones have blurry pseudo pods half again as wide as the dot to one side or the other.
Angel Baker
Noice. And why would it be better for a bow than for a gun?
Ayden Rivera
I prefer the standard leaf and front post, though I don't complain about apertures.
Vlad and company don't give any shits about copyright bullshit, what are you gonna do, sanction me again?
Fragility issues, though the one I had didn't mind the shotgun it was thrown onto.
Ian Cruz
That Pilad sight is specifically designed to be mounted on a shotgun, on the ventilated plank specifically. Also the circle makes right about perfect gauge for shot spread. You can actually cover the middle point with a piece of duct tape at the stencil, so you just get the circle.
I dunno about mounting optical sights on a bow. The way arrow gonna fly entirely depends on your stance, having the bow pointing in specific direction ain't gonna do shit. Would work fine for crossbows though.
Kayden Cruz
Also yeah I own this sight technically I gifted it to my grandpa but he never uses it and the light intensity is always perfect, if it's clear or overcast or dusk. Optics produce a little bit of distortion at the edges but as far as I'm aware, every single sight that's not based on holographic technology has this problem.
Jayden Watson
If it fit 1913 rails I'd buy one for my 930. But no vent rib…
Jordan Kelly
I wish the eye relief on this sight wasn't so close, you gotta mount it all the way back on your rail for a good picture, which may explain the rubber ring around the back end. The Very rugged though; I've fumbled it before, and it hasn't budged from its zero. I've noticed it's hard to come by lately; got it for 750 leafs, but can't seem to get a price check on it today.
does that hexagonal mesh blur the sight very much?
Mason Nelson
Last time I looked through it without the mesh, it was a little brighter; I've only really used it in sunny conditions, now that I think about it. As far as clarity goes, it didn't really seem to cause any noticeable blurring to me. I'll take some comparison photos when I get a chance to see if the difference can be captured on camera. The glass quality is very nice overall, though. Here's a shitty photo I took a few years ago when I first got it; it takes a CR123 as a power source.
Interesting stuff, good to see some perspective. Also I'm replying after having an issue tonight, besides shooting all that iron on top of most of my rifles, I've been using a 4x ACOG on my PTR-91 ontop of a German claw mount. It worked for the most part, but it was difficult having an optic that sat about a mile in the air over the rifle. Tonight I finally put it on the Trijicon specific mount for the rifle and now I see my fucking front iron sight. Anyone have any similar experiences or corrections?
BTW its a damn good sight. I could hit said 12 inch steel target right up to nightfall with it no problem.
Noah Turner
Did you have to modify the claw mount to get it to fit on the PTR? I heard it's necessary to do that.
Jason Wilson
Diopter is fun and very accurate. Not great in low light.
I can hit minute of man at 75 meters using the sights on my RIA. Clean, concise, a great size. It's very accurate for a factory pistol. I'm also partial to the irons on my S&W 686, but I haven't got a picture of that. I should really take more pictures of my guns, but I'm not much of a camera person, sadly.
No, I didn't. Fit on easy and strong without a problem. Might be an issue, receiver to receiver perhaps. One thing I would note is, my PTR never failed before, and after a while of shooting 5-10 rounds a day and not cleaning it every single day that would catch the 4th round I fired wrong and jam it sideways into the chamber. Yes, its not best form to not clean it after every use (but not gonna clean it every 5 round daily session) but I think the force from the claw mount was causing enough spec issue to get the gun to malfunction when not perfectly clean, never a problem before. Receiver is good enough to fight with, maybe just not pefectly inspec enough for Bundeswehr equipment. Or were the problems with UTG claw mounts?
I'll probably report wither it will fit on my C93 or not, and if it does fit if the pressure causes it some grief. Of note, the C93 suffered a minor torture test of 10 rounds per day without cleaning for 76 days straight before a stoppage. Interesting to see if it interrupts that weapon as well.
Tried to find a Hensoldt, couldn't find one. So I put a set of picininny rails on it so I could mount my ACOG instead, which was simply so high off the rifle that even though the mount and scope worked, it was simply too sky high to be comfortable. If you have any leads on a proper scope for my STANAG I am all ears.
