Iron Sight Accuracy...

[Sooter76]

So it goes without saying that we all shoot better scoped vs not. That said, I’m curious what the consensus is for accuracy with iron sights?

I took one of my Lee Enfield No.4’s out yesterday with a Fulton of Bisley ‘no drill’ mount and got 1 MOA average over four 5 shot groups at 100 yards. I then took the mount off and shot it again with irons and got 3.5 MOA average at 100 yards. It isn’t unexpected that my groups would open up with irons (especially with my eyes aging), but with most of my rifles not being set up for scopes I’m curious what people consider good accuracy with iron sights?

 

[structureaggie]

If you have an X min rifle with a scope then you should have an X minute rifle with irons. I see to shoot service rifle comps and found it quite hard to make the change. Getting the radar sight and the front sight lined up exactly the same every time takes reps. Concentrating on the front sight post and letting your mind and muscle movement get the rear in line is a hard thing to do. It’s easy to sit behind a scope and zoom in and hold the same place. That’s a confidence builder. With irons, you Light one off and then have to go to a spotting scope to see results, then having to rebuild your position again can be deflating and tiring if you aren’t getting what you like. At the end of the day, I found that working with circular NRA type of targets, or putting a thick blue piece(s) of painters tape across the middle of the target horizontally made a difference. You have to concentrate on the front sight post though. That’s the key. Oh, and reps. Lots of reps. I also found that a front globe sight works well too over a post. That might not be possible though. I had to switch rifle classes. I like the challenge though. Keep at it.

 

[Dan M]

A good iron sighted group from an accurate milsurp should be around 1.5-2” @100 yards. I can do that with the rifle bagged front and rear with my M1903s, Model 1911 and K31 Swiss using GP11 and my Canadian Ross 1905 and 1910 straight pulls using hand loads. The occasional group can be MOA...shot a .75” group once with the Swiss Gewehr 1911, but 1.5-2” is average group size for a good shooting iron sighted milsurp.

Use surplus ammo and all bets are off. There is some superb milsurp ammo such as GP11, but much of the other surplus ammo was poorly stored for decades...even when new the ammunition was not manufactured to be match accurate. Had some ancient .303 British and some 7.92x57 that hung badly.

 

[sandwarrior]

The hardest part about shooting irons is dealing with the conditions. If everything is perfect, i.e. sunlight at the right angle and not too bright, wind...~nil, rifle bagged and steady, and I'm on my game, I've shot 1/2 moa groups. That certainly isn't the norm. As holding for wind, it messes up the sighting technique you use to hold on an NRA target. Bright sun, especially from an angle, causes you to hold to one side. And, a slight wind causes light to change as clouds move over. So, one time you hold dead center, the next slightly to one side.

Considering it's an accomplishment to shoot 2 moa, the 10 ring, (and a bonus to shoot 1 moa) when you are sighting around the six ring, I'd say shooting out on the open range one would expect to double that in tough conditions, 4 moa. But, when things are perfect, or you understand what condition is doing what to you, you can cut that substantially. Which brings you to 3 moa or better. Better shooters are staying in the 2 moa or better range. Occasionally, dropping those critical points, or not, which mean the match.

One thing here is that normally the sights match the target. Understanding that gives you a way to narrow down your shot placement. If not shooting peep sights at a competition style target, things get a lot tougher. i.e. animal targets at long range with nothing to zero down on, just holding center mass on a target whose color isn't easy to distinguish. Anybody's guess how you'll do in those situations.

 

[W54/XM-388]

It also depends on how good the sights are.
Some are very well setup, some are not.
With the Match grade M1A for example, the sights are good enough that someone who knows what they are doing can reliably do 1000 yard shots on man sized targets using them & a sling.

 

[Dan M]

Agreed. Sights with a narrow, blade type front can produce excellent results. Try shooting consistent groups with a barleycorn front and V notch rear...it is an exercise in frustration.

 

[Strykervet]

It also depends on how good the sights are.
Some are very well setup, some are not.
With the Match grade M1A for example, the sights are good enough that someone who knows what they are doing can reliably do 1000 yard shots on man sized targets using them & a sling.

We trained SDM's to shoot E types and match targets using stock M4's with iron sights, a modified M14 sling used as a shooting sling, and a rappel glove used as a shooting glove. They didn't move onto the ACOG until they mastered this (when WE ran it, whatever Benning calls SDM is not even half what we taught). With M16 lowers mated to the M4 uppers, they did a lot better than I'd have expected. 600m was the maximum range for the M4 in that role and it goes transonic just after that so no reason to push it.

Most of these guys learned to shoot to the limit of their weapons system. They all had great dope when they left.

But irons can be just as accurate as an optic, more or less, if you know how to use 'em. They're also much faster. Optics actually add problems for new shooters making them worse so we taught fundamentals first before moving onto optics. Far fewer problems that way. Walk before running and all.

 

[Dan M]

A big variable in accuracy is the age and service use of the arm...take a surplus arm with 50 to 133 years of use...that use has a significant impact on the target accuracy of the arm. My oldest surplus cartridge arm was manufactured in 1886 and is like new...all my Gewehr 98s are between 103-119 years old...my newest surplus rifle is an M1 mfg in 1956. Some of my surplus arms in my hands are tack drivers...others don’t shoot nearly as well...yet I still love them equally for what they are... a feat of engineering and a piece of military history.

 

[natdscott]

1/2 minute is very achievable.

Post and notch rear is probably very hard-pressed to maintain 1 MOA.

Post and rear aperture is very capable of 3/4 Minute, and 1/2 is possible in very good hands and conditions. I’ve shot groups in the 4’s sling prone with an A2.

Dual aperture irons are extremely capable. 1/2 minute groups are certainly in the range of normal for them, when used on round targets. On anything else though? Not as much.

The best all-around combination is an aperture rear with a hooded front blade of reasonable (NOT narrow) front blade.

It’s a misconception that tiny narrow front blade = better precision.

 

[pmclaine]

Properly set up target sights, like Lyman 48 with a globe front, can be extremely accurate.

Use an O'Hare sight micrometer with the leaf scale on a 1903 and your sights are repeatable and able to be accurately adjusted to the 1/4 MOA.....just pray there is no wind.

 

[pmclaine]

1/2 minute is very achievable.

Post and notch rear is probably very hard-pressed to maintain 1 MOA.

Post and rear aperture is very capable of 3/4 Minute, and 1/2 is possible in very good hands and conditions. I’ve shot groups in the 4’s sling prone with an A2.

Dual aperture irons are extremely capable. 1/2 minute groups are certainly in the range of normal for them, when used on round targets. On anything else though? Not as much.

The best all-around combination is an aperture rear with a hooded front blade of reasonable (NOT narrow) front blade.

It’s a misconception that tiny narrow front blade = better precision.

I did a comparison of the USMC #10 sights vs a standard thin front blade sight set up with my 1903s.

The tests were not very scientific and I probably didn't control the variables all that well but what I think was noticeable was that the #10 USMC sights made a much better "combat" sight - easy to pick up, better in low light, brought the leaf down BZO to 200 yards vs 547 yards with the standard sight but...…..

I got better groups with the thin standard sight.

I made a post about it on the CMP forum....

USMC Sight/Standard Sight Comparison - CMP Forums

Use this forum to discuss 1903s, A3s, A4s, 1917s, Krags, and other CMP bolt-action rifles

forums.thecmp.org

Others commented that the Marines found similar and as competition mattered more than combat at the time the USMC decided to remove the #10 sight sets and use more standard apertures and blades.

The sight picture of the #10 is really nice though. I think if I had of ditched the big rear aperture and paired the big blade with a smaller aperture I might have gained a better target clarity, reduced parallax and perhaps improved my shooting.

Walter Walsh kept the N0 10 front sight on his 03 when he was winning at Perry, Im guessing he used a tight aperture with it.

 

[antithesis]

<<<<------ these irons hit on a 20 x 30 at 1200 meters. Biggest issue is wind calls. 100 yards is a chip shot.

 

[natdscott]

I did a comparison of the USMC #10 sights vs a standard thin front blade sight set up with my 1903s.

The tests were not very scientific and I probably didn't control the variables all that well but what I think was noticeable was that the #10 USMC sights made a much better "combat" sight - easy to pick up, better in low light, brought the leaf down BZO to 200 yards vs 547 yards with the standard sight but...…..

I got better groups with the thin standard sight.

I made a post about it on the CMP forum....

USMC Sight/Standard Sight Comparison - CMP Forums

Use this forum to discuss 1903s, A3s, A4s, 1917s, Krags, and other CMP bolt-action rifles

forums.thecmp.org

Others commented that the Marines found similar and as competition mattered more than combat at the time the USMC decided to remove the #10 sight sets and use more standard apertures and blades.

The sight picture of the #10 is really nice though. I think if I had of ditched the big rear aperture and paired the big blade with a smaller aperture I might have gained a better target clarity, reduced parallax and perhaps improved my shooting.

Walter Walsh kept the N0 10 front sight on his 03 when he was winning at Perry, Im guessing he used a tight aperture with it.

Tight aperture, yes. Small blade, no.

Most high level shooters with the AR A2 found, eventually, that an 0.062” blade produced superior windage control than did the 0.052” (which equals the bull).

The 0.072” standard blade has been used to win National Championships and President’s matches, but it was never AS common as something narrower.

I never could get used to that lincoln log out there, and stayed at 0.062”....after it took me 5 years, a Distinguished Badge, and President’s Rocker to figure out that I could just possibly be WRONG (along with the Corps, and Jim Owens himself) about the “bull must match the black” 0.052 blade. Slow learner from all the Illinois guys kicking our asses with 72s....

 

[natdscott]

Course, now none of it matters, seeing as my A2 is an antique.

 

[pmclaine]

Course, now none of it matters, seeing as my A2 is an antique.

But what a great rifle.

 

[SD Carpenter]

My k31 has the iron sights marked out to 1200, my local range only goes to 880... But if I'm calling my wind right I'm ringing that plate

 

[natdscott]

My k31 has the iron sights marked out to 1200, my local range only goes to 880... But if I'm calling my wind right I'm ringing that plate

The only post-and-notch I ever really shot MOA was a 1911.

Good rifles. DAMN good ammo.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Twice the MOA of the front sight itself at 100 Yards/Meters

 

[natdscott]

Twice the MOA of the front sight itself at 100 Yards/Meters

Please clarify.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Example, your front sight covers 2 MOA of the target. No different than a 2 MOA red dot. Twice that for groups at 100 would be good.

 

[sandwarrior]

Example, your front sight covers 2 MOA of the target. No different than a 2 MOA red dot. Twice that for groups at 100 would be good.

Four moa or one moa? Four isn’t much to expect from a good rifle.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Nah, not that at all. There is a formula to figure out your front sight MOA. Your accuracy is sort of limited to that. Come on people, even with a scope complex PRS style matches average 2 MOA. Think about it.

 

[pmclaine]

Four moa or one moa? Four isn’t much to expect from a good rifle.

Four MOA was the standard for accepting a Garand.

Should get you hits on the width of a human out to beyond 300 yards.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Thank you. It is the same benchmark for the SKS, which is 6 MOA. Ruger mini rifles are notoriously not very accurate by our standards but an approx. 10 MOA front sight doesn't help either.

 

[pmclaine]

Thank you. It is the same benchmark for the SKS, which is 6 MOA. Ruger mini rifles are notoriously not very accurate by our standards but an approx. 10 MOA front sight doesn't help either.

Funny comment I heard about Mini 14 accuracy was....

Load a full mag

Place target of choice on target stand

Throw hula hoop to Two O'clock of shooter.

Take well aimed shots and empty mag

Inevitably pattern of spent brass in hula hoop will be tighter than rounds on target.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

LOL, just yesterday I was shooting a 4x scoped Mini 30 on a 10" chicken silhouette at 200 meters with decent Russian steel case ammo. Probably 80% hit rate. Then I tried a SKS with iron sight. The front sight covered the chicken except the head. 60% approx. I was just plinking off the bench. I consider both "good" considering the rifles and ammo. The OP is not asking for "Expert" badges. He specifically used the word "Good".

 

[natdscott]

Example, your front sight covers 2 MOA of the target. No different than a 2 MOA red dot. Twice that for groups at 100 would be good.

That’s what I thought you meant.

I disagree in a big way.

An example: my 0.062” front blade intentionally covers about 10.5” at 100 yards. There’s no freakin way I’m shooting groups of 20 rounds anywhere CLOSE to even ONE front blade diameter.

That would mean, just standing there, I’d be lucky to hit a pie plate with all my rounds.

That’s not even close to “....good accuracy...” as questioned by the OP.

....but it’s not a problem with the sights.

 

[natdscott]

LOL, just yesterday I was shooting a 4x scoped Mini 30 on a 10" chicken silhouette at 200 meters with decent Russian steel case ammo. Probably 80% hit rate. Then I tried a SKS with iron sight. The front sight covered the chicken except the head. 60% approx. I was just plinking off the bench. I consider both "good" considering the rifles and ammo. The OP is not asking for "Expert" badges. He specifically used the word "Good".

That 60% figure probably IS pretty good...but that legitimately MIGHT be a rifle problem.

If you had a 1/2 minute AR in your hands, you should do a helluva lot better than 60% on a 5 MOA target from that kinda position.

IF you can see the sights well. If not, well, put down the irons, because it’s not really your fault.

 

[pmclaine]

No matter what the sight is you get out of it what you put into it.

My first "gun" was some eastern European manufactured pellet gun that one of my Canadian uncles gave me.

I noted an empty dovetail on the receiver that I never knew what the purpose was for until after years of shooting I realized that was where the rear sight buckhorn was supposed to be.

I fired that gun for years with only a front sight blade.

I was deadly on toy soldiers from the length of the house range....approx 30 feet.

Compound my lack of rear sight issue with the fact I only had BBs to load in it.

Id load it muzzle loader style than had to fire the BB before it would roll out of the muzzle of the depressed rifle.

Practice lots and as long as the rifle has some sort of "cone" of accuracy you will hit shit.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

That 60% figure probably IS pretty good...but that legitimately MIGHT be a rifle problem.

If you had a 1/2 minute AR in your hands, you should do a helluva lot better than 60% on a 5 MOA target from that kinda position.

IF you can see the sights well. If not, well, put down the irons, because it’s not really your fault.

Yes, a peasant battle rifle does pose a problem with accuracy. However, they have been known to give Americans PTSD.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

That’s what I thought you meant.

I disagree in a big way.

An example: my 0.062” front blade intentionally covers about 10.5” at 100 yards. There’s no freakin way I’m shooting groups of 20 rounds anywhere CLOSE to even ONE front blade diameter.

That would mean, just standing there, I’d be lucky to hit a pie plate with all my rounds.

That’s not even close to “....good accuracy...” as questioned by the OP.

....but it’s not a problem with the sights.

I like your post. But come on....

 

[sandwarrior]

Four MOA was the standard for accepting a Garand.

Should get you hits on the width of a human out to beyond 300 yards.

That’s the same criteria a M16 was supposed to hold too. A M16 can hold a lot better than that.

Yeah, we know the farther you go out the harder it is to shoot smaller groups/size. That’s a fact of every facet of shooting. We’re talking about given ranges on standard targets of known size. I can tell you it’s a helluva lot easier to lock in on a 1K NRA target than an animal target @ 500 yds.

Point is, the rifle could be as good as any you ever shot. With the right sights on the right target you can hammer it pretty precisely. Trying to “hammer” what you can’t see clearly is an exercise in futility. All you can do is hold center-mass of what you can see.
Try shooting p-dogs @200 with open sights. It’s a lot toughr than shooting standard targets.

 

[natdscott]

I like your post. But come on....

What?

I hope you don’t think I am trolling. Not the case.

 

[Scarface26]

What?

I hope you don’t think I am trolling. Not the case.

I think something's getting lost in the translation, @natdscott.

With a sling and irons I can regularly hold moa. ish.

HOWEVER, if that moa-ish group was regularly where it was supposed to be then I'd have a lot more street cred! Just need to move that group centered up on the edge of black and white (or all in the white) to the X!

Point is, my rifle and ammo are capable of precision and consistency. I am the weak link in the system. Regularly.

FWIW, it's a lot easier on a large target (so your front sight doesn't obscure the whole thing - consider a 6 o'clock hold) or with a target aperature. Culpeper, if you already know all this, then please forgive me for trying to sound like I know something. If I totally missed the point then disregard everything other than the last two lines.

Good shooting

God bless America

 

[sandwarrior]

Some things of note here, depending on how you sight your rifle. A wider blade narrows the gaps between the edges of the front and rear sight. However, it’s pretty obvious that a wide front sight spans a lot Of material that could be used for sighting from left to right!

So, how do you break that down?! I scribed a vertical line on the post front sight. I try to zero the rifle where the scribe mark hits the 6 o’clock position.. This works well for static and minimal wind variances.

The thin front sight will give a better “fine” point from which to adjust. But, is harder to guage side to side within the notch style sight.

It comes down to what you can work with best. You have to understand each sighting system. And, how you sight with open sights to get the most out of them.

I do not believe it is “good” to only get twice as wide as the front sight as acceptable accuracy.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I'll settle within front sight size as good at 100. I'm no monument to never changing.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

There's iron sights and then there are iron sights....

Confederate snipers were using these Whitworth's out to 1500 yards during the Civil War. And they were certainly capable of hitting "Minute of General" on more than a few occasions.

And don't confuse accurate with repeatable. The important thing is repeatable... whether in machining things or hitting targets at long ranges!

There are definitely iron sights that are just fine shooting out to some incredible ranges. But you have to master them! And it's a lot harder to master an iron sight (especially a diopter and/or peep and/or tang and/or ladder... I can go on!). These guys were masters.

Today we don't teach people to master iron sights before moving on to fancy sooper snipery scopes. But there are a few out there who have. I'm not one of them... but @buffalowinter has it down pretty good, or so I believe!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Took me some time to find them... but here are the results of the British Ordnance Board tests of the Whitworth vs. the standard Enfield rifle... These were done c. 1857 on the eve of the American Civil War when Joseph Whitworth was trying to get them to adopt his rifle as superior to the .577 Three-band Enfield rifle.

The comparative tests of 1857-58 proved that the small bore military rifle is clearly superior compared to the standard issue Enfield rifle muskets. More than 1000 rounds were fired from each rifle, IIRC.

Distance (yards)	Average group size (feet)	Average group size (feet)
	.577 Enfield Rifle	.451 Whitworth Hex bore
300	0,79	0,33
500	1,6	0,68
800	4,17	1,46
1000	No hits	2,18
1200	No hits	3,91

Note that at 300 yards, the Whitworth with iron sights... in the hands of expert shooters, was shooting 4" groups. That's roughly 1.3 MOA... with iron sights. At 300 yards.

At 1200 yards, still c. <4 moa if my math is right. With a muzzle-loader. And iron sights. And cast lead bullets. And black powder.

Masters indeed!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[natdscott]

I think one of the moat impressive things about those fellas was, indeed, the accuracy achievable with the manufacturing methods available at the time.

It’s well accepted that even those of us that can break through the MOA barrier are still very much the limiting factor in the groups on paper. I am 100% certain that even in PRS and Highpower—semi precision games at best—there are BR-competitive rifles floating around... like.. grouping ability in the zeroes.

The Whitworth...well, maybe notsomuch.

 

[buffalowinter]

Modern irons, Anschutz 7002

 

[acudaowner]

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/sniper-shot-record
thought that would qualify as a great shot and no modern rifle scope was used .

 

[natdscott]

Modern irons, Anschutz 7002

Here’s my version, captured by one of the NRA staff at the 2017 Long Range Nationals. This was during the Farr 1,000 yard, I think.

Not exactly my silo Annie...

 

[Deleted member 10043]

How did you do?

 

[natdscott]

3rd for the Service Aggregate in 2017, 7th in 2018.

...and I think I’m bout done with that crap.

Ed Agle, a scholar and gentleman, and probably a better M14 gunner in his 70s than anybody on this forum is NOW, was the only guy in a few States I even shot with regularly in Service LR. He’s now dead, and besides that, I think I flogged myself enough with the .22 at 1,000.

...or at least enough to know it takes a -10A4 to win.

 

[ptosis]

As already said, that's a difficult question with many variables.
In the best case scenario: a good shooter who knows the gear, good eyesight, good conditions and a "comfortable to aim" target -- I would expect the same accuracy with or without optics.
This was proven time and again with Stgw 90, Stgw 57 and K31 at 300 m (the most popular shooting discipline in Switzerland) -- for a good shooter, adding optics does not make any noticeable difference in the results.
E.g.

Military-issue Stgw90, original diopter iron sights, prone / standard bipod, 300m, ISSF 10 zone = 10 cm diameter.
(done that recently in a match, can't do much better with optics)

However...

...one beer too many the night before, tired shooter, less experienced shooter, degrading eyesight, difficult conditions (e.g. constantly changing light), or simply less elaborate iron sights (stgw 57 and 90 diopters are quite exceptional -- built for precision shooting) -- and that's where I see that optics leave a much more comfortable margin for aiming errors.

In my case (stgw 90, 300m) it is, on average, 91-93/100 irons, and 93-95/100 with good optics.

 

[sandwarrior]

I'll settle within front sight size as good at 100. I'm no monument to never changing.

I would agree that someone learning to shoot irons, that if they did it all by the numbers, that would be acceptable accuracy.

 

[natdscott]

I would agree that someone learning to shoot irons, that if they did it all by the numbers, that would be acceptable accuracy.

I concur. Maybe half the width. But certainly not 1” groups out of a 10” sights. And if we are talking about ALL irons in ALL positions on ALL targets,..well, 1 width might be a reality.

I’ll be the first to admit that where some of us take the “irons games” is so far beyond practicality that most other shooters think we’re crazy, and they might be right. I’ll also point out that I’m only maybe a 98-99th percentile shooter, and there is a HELL of a lot of difference in that last % or two. Just a ton. I’m far enough that I can SEE how they do what they do, and it no longer looks like magic, but I cannot get it done the way they can.

When I switch from irons to scope on the same rifle, my scores do not change MUCH, but it does make good scores easier. I will say that in the most stable positions (prone), cleans with a ton of X’s are a lot easier.

Shooting good scores in standing is not as easy, but shooting well in the field is better with a decent scope....big surprise.

The larger world of shooting, and mine, isn’t just about competition, but I think people need to be able to make good hits with irons out to 200 meters, and 300 is far preferred.

 

[Billiam1211]

I’ve been working backwards coming from high magnification precision bolt action to learning to shoot my 12.3” pistol with irons / red dot. I’m shooting hand loads and have the Daniel Defense fixed irons and also a Trijicon MRO cowitnessed.

I’ve found with the MRO I can maintain 2 MOA groups on the lightest setting. With straight irons I can actually shoot a hair better, 1.2-1.5 MOA. I think with a service rifle specific platform 1 MOA is certainly achievable given time to build a stable position.

 

[pmclaine]

I’ve been working backwards coming from high magnification precision bolt action to learning to shoot my 12.3” pistol with irons / red dot. I’m shooting hand loads and have the Daniel Defense fixed irons and also a Trijicon MRO cowitnessed.

I’ve found with the MRO I can maintain 2 MOA groups on the lightest setting. With straight irons I can actually shoot a hair better, 1.2-1.5 MOA. I think with a service rifle specific platform 1 MOA is certainly achievable given time to build a stable position.

I dont think I would consider the move from irons to red dot an accuracy decision.

To me its purely a speed benefit.

Irons can be fast enough.

When looking for accuracy.....with irons you consider three points of reference and engage the brain/hand/eye coordination much more.

Red dot.......it puts the dot on the spot.

 

[260shooter]

I shot my first 1K benchrest match in 90-91. I was in the buts first, the guy I pulled targets for was a longtime Palma team shooter. He was shooting his 308 Palma rifle with open sights. His first 3 shots were either in the 10 or X ring and I could have covered them with a silver dollar. Amazing! I want to say he won that day with a 15 inch 10 shot group.