Iron sights are one of the many topics that can spark up an instant debate in the gun community. Some folks swear by the rugged reliability of the age-old system, while others think that modern optics have made iron sights an archaic practice. So where does it all land?  

Before I start this debate, I am going to set some parameters. I understand that there are many different categories of optics, but for this, I think it is fair to compare iron sights to non-magnified red dots. By restricting the category of optic, we get a better “apples to apples” comparison.

The facts about iron sights

In modern perception, iron sights are an old-school approach to shooting. There is no denying the rugged and reliable nature of the iron sight. There are no batteries nor glass to fog up, and they are less subject to harsh conditions. But that is not to say that the system is infallible. 
 

Iron sights are much more difficult to master, as opposed to the ease of a red dot. Often, there are special tools for windage and elevation adjustments. After making the adjustments, the nature of matching up the front and rear sight can limit the field of vision, limiting situational awareness.
 

The facts about red dots

On the flip side, there is also little debate on the advantages of modern optics. Massive leaps in red dot technology over the past decade have led to a renewed relevance in this debate. In fact, the expansion of pistol optics over the past few years has began a whole new side to this discussion.

Red dots offer a massive advantage in speed and target acquisition. Not having to line up two separate pieces at the front and rear of a firearm, a bright contrasting reticle, and the open field of view lend a great deal of advantage to the red dot. 
 

There are a few liabilities to be addressed, especially considering that most systems are dependent upon batteries. Now, I will say that the battery life argument is not as relevant as it once was. With even the inexpensive optic brands like Holosun, SIG Sauer, and Primary Arms all boasting over 50,000 hours of battery life, the industry has come a long way from the red dots that needed new batteries after only a day of use. 

Optics have also been criticized for lack of durability. Again, without even having to name brands like Aimpoint or Trijicon, inexpensive optic companies have produced inexpensive optics that have endured a barrage of brutal testing. Iron sights are also not immune to damage, as harsh use can easily break and bend components, regardless of the design. 
 

So which is better?

So, the big question: are iron sights going the way of the dodo? Time and technology have both been extremely generous to iron sights, but I am prepared to stand on the side of red dots. 

I am somewhat torn. As an avid firearm collector, I have a deep love for old military surplus firearms and would consider it a deep abomination to add an optic to about 75 percent of my collection. But, if we are talking about modern shooting, modern platforms, and trying to get the best performance out of a certain system, there is no denying the advantages of the red dot. 
 

With modern sporting rifles and considering that just about every handgun line out there features an optic-cut model, it seems the industry’s opinion on the topic is plain. Competition shooters, the United States military, and law enforcement agencies are all adding to the consensus that red dots are the way to go. 

Now, let’s expand on the place of iron sights a little further. Anyone who has built an AR can tell you that there is a certain financial pain that is felt after you fork out the money for an optic, just to have to fork out a little more for backup iron sights. My question is, considering the advancements in red dot technology, is that justifiable? 
 

Zombieland?

Some gun owners fear that in some unlikely scenario, red dots would fail and render their firearms useless. Whether it is the EMP argument, the “what if my firearm gets damaged from incoming fire?” question, or the concern that the world will run out of batteries, there’s always someone with apocalyptic anxiety in a discussion about red dots. 

If you are subject to an EMP strike, your problems are probably bigger than the depleted function of a red dot. If you’re taking direct fire significant enough to damage your optic, it’s most likely also damaged the firearm and user, thus creating bigger concerns than the function of the red dot. And while batteries are a limiting factor, the modern battery life and the availability of solar-powered optics help alleviate concerns about long-term function. 
 

None of this is to say that iron sights are useless, or that there is no place for them. In fact, you will still find me during hunting season stalking deer with my bare-bones Remington Model of 1917. It is just hard to deny that the red dot has firmly challenged the throne of effectiveness.  
 

Conclusion

With all of these facts added up, I conclude that iron sights are at least on the chopping block. Factoring in how far we have come in the past decade with technology, I surmise that iron sights will continue to fall further behind in the debate.  

As with any discussion, there is a natural subjective nature to the debate. The most important thing, regardless of what camp you fall into, is training. Practice, work hard, master the craft, and do your part to be a responsible gun owner.