Is This Obsolete?: Iron Sights on ARs

The word “obsolete” gets thrown around a lot these days, but is it being overused? Are things that used to be mandatory now truly obsolete, or are people just looking to move products? I think that this is worth looking into. But first, definitions.

Dictionary.com defines Obsolete as 1) no longer in general use, 2) of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date. Merriam-Webster and Wordnik have similarly worded definitions. Those are a little vague, so I asked Matt from Everyday Marksman what his definition was. Here’s his response:

Hmmm, you know what…now that you asked, I’m having a hard time thinking of a definition. I guess I could say that it means something has been surpassed to the point that it is no longer relevant, useful, or needed. [emphasis added]

Matt

I think that’s much better. Let’s get to it.

What Are Irons Sights?

Iron sights are a way to visually index the gun, so that it may be repeatably pointed in the same direction. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, if it needed to be aimed, irons were how it was done. Let’s move on.

Are Iron Sights Needed?

For ARs and other similarly patterned rifles, I’m going to say no. The reason I say no is because other sighting options exist. Red dots, holographic, telescopic, and even occluded eye gunsights, allow the user to aim without using the existing irons. If they can be removed entirely from the weapon and the weapon still functions, then they do not meet the definition of ‘needed’.

Are Iron Sights Useful?

I’d say yes. The AR-15 has pretty good iron sights, to be honest. An Ar-15’s sights are rear aperture/peep sights. They take advantage of some very interesting phenomena of physics and geometry that allow the user to be very precise once they know how and practice a little. The New Rifleman has a great set of articles that I’ve enjoyed on the AR’s iron sights and how surprisingly useful they really are. There are plenty of high power matches where the competitors shoot iron-sighted ARs out to 600 yards, the outer limit of the cartridge itself. Anyone who tells you that iron sights on an AR are useless is either lying to you, or just plain ignorant. Other contemporary rifles have terrible sights in comparison, the AK being among the worst.

AR irons are also very robust. The term ‘backup irons’ came about for a reason. The front sight post is widely considered to be literally bombproof, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall ever seeing a broken front pyramid sight. I even did an image search and couldn’t find one! I’m sure it happens, but the astounding lack of evidence is convincing enough that I’d consider it extremely unlikely. The rear sight holds more “fiddly bits” and is more fragile by comparison, but still widely regarded as very robust.

Are Iron Sights Relevant?

Not really. Irons require explanation, understanding, and practice. Not a lot, but more than red dot optics. Here’s how you explain a red dot to someone: “Look at your target. The dot shows where the bullets go.” There is no need for the understanding of ‘equal height, equal light’, or ‘front sight focus’ or ‘6 o’clock hold vs bullseye hold’, none of it. Put the dot where you want the bullets to go. Irons aren’t overly complicated, but red dots are just so simple that’s not even fair. What do irons give you for that increased time required to become effective? Up close, not much if anything. There’s a reason that red dots are the default sighting option.

Irons may be more more reliable and damage resistant than a red dot, but Aimpoint’s offerings have more than proven their ability to resist damage. Anything that breaks an Aimpoint will probably break the rifle as well, even if the irons survive. While that may not be true of anything else (Holosun, Sig Optics, Primary Arms, etc.), Aimpoints are undeniably resilient.

A person might say that irons are more accurate than red dots. I’d say that depends a lot on the red dot specifically, but let’s just go with it. Even if irons are more accurate than red dots, telescopic sights are more accurate by far. If you want a combo of up-close speed with precision, well that role is dominated by the LPVO.

Verdict?

Obsolete. Everything that irons do, something else does just as good, or better, and usually with less learning required to reach equal effectiveness. There is no real performance benefit to running irons over something else.

Conclusion:

Irons can be fun if that’s your thing. If it is, rock on. Just don’t think that fun and effectiveness are correlated.

Optics don’t make the gun steadier, or more accurate. Optics allow you to see what you’re pointing at, and make corrections. Anything that allows you to aim the gun is doing the same job as irons, so if something else allows you to do it better, or with less of a learning curve, or to do so while focusing on the lethal threat instead of the gun itself, is a better option.

I’m not going to say that you shouldn’t have or own irons. I think that a well rounded shooter can shoot more than just his/her preferred setup, and do so to an acceptable level. I believe in doing things you’re bad at to improve the thing you’re good at. I also think that for people with good enough eyesight (hint: not me) shooting irons can be very rewarding. Like shooting a revolver or driving an stick-shift, there is something fun about going old-school. Just like shooting a revolver or driving a stick shift, you need to understand that the fun you’re experiencing comes from your voluntary choice to use a less capable solution. It’s fun because it’s obsolete.

Please note: This discussion pertains specifically to AR-15s, mostly to similar rifles, and very little to anything else. Pistols are another matter entirely, as are shotguns.

Stay objective. I’ll see you next Friday. -S_S