Mike and Karl discuss using iron sights

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

8:15 ninja bigfoot in the background.

[@jukkatalari3896]

No bigfeet in Finland - gotta be a Metsänpeikko (forest troll) upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Theodor_Kittelsen_-_Skogtroll%2C_1906_%28Forest_Troll%29.jpg

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

@@jukkatalari3896 Thanks, I love learning about Finnish culture, had not heard of Metsänpeikko before.

[@jukkatalari3896]

​@@Matt_The_Hugenot Peikko = troll. Metsä = forest - the -n in the end of the Metsän denotes ownership, like -s in the end of a word in English. Metsäneläimet = animals of the forest

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

@@jukkatalari3896 I knew that -n at the end of a word can indicate possession, didn't know it could be in the middle of agglutinative words.

[@jukkatalari3896]

@@Matt_The_Hugenot Wow! Now I belive... :D Anyway: there are a lot of those agglutinative words with possession in the middle... for some reason all examples that come to my mind right now are names like Hämeentie (The road to Häme)

[@KevWilOG]

I admit I learned to shoot with iron sights (and still shoot this way) the way Ian does it. I've never tried anything else, can't imagine holding the sight in one spot and expecting the impact to be "somewhere" else. That said, I'm going to go try it and see if I can get my head around the concept.

[@vigunfighter]

the whole point, the reason for doing it their way, is that you have a very clean, well defined aiming point. it's easier to see exactly where the black target meets the white paper than to determine the exact middle of a black circle (especially with a black front sight) This also works with how the human visual processing system works where our eyes are drawn to the edges of shapes. (If you look at a door, or wall, or other shape, you may start in the middle, but your eye will be immediately drawn to the edge(s). Its the edges that define the shape and tell you what the object is. If you are a precision target shooter, use Bloke/Karl's method. If not, and you shoot for fun or self defense, set your sights (if adjustable) to the center of the target. Here is a test for you. Take two bullseye targets. on one, shoot a 5 shot group as carefully as you can, aiming at the center of the circle. Then do it again, aiming for the edge, at 6 o'clock, where the black meets the white. Don't worry where the bullets go. Which gave you a smaller group? For most people it will be the 6 o'clock hold. Here is another clue: Does your pistol have adjustable sights? If not, aim center...

[@RaduB.]

In the army we had our sights set for 300m so we were always aiming low because all of our targets were closer than that. It seems a bit strange now but it's a matter of how you are used to... I tend to agree with Bloke and Karl: you aim better when you see your target.

[@tatsuhirosatou5513]

@@vigunfighter I learned the same way Ian did and I've tried the 6'o clock hold and hate it with a passion

[@lindybeige]

Needs more wind noise.

[@caturix4541]

Haha lindy you are the best 😂

[@me2bfc]

I've tried this a bit with good success. I was able to consistently hit 1" bullseyes with my open sights and aperature sights at 25 yards using a 6 o'clock hold. In other words, the POI is 0.5" higher than POA. I've had trouble doing that with a center hold, as that 1" red dot on a black background is hard to see, even more so when half of it is covered. This video was very helpful and I'll test it out to 100 yards and set things up accordingly if it works that far. The 2 guns are a Henry lever action 22 with open sights and a Marlin 22 with Tech Sights aperature sights.

[@CaptainCiph3r]

Im with Ian on this, if I'm shooting at a torso target i dont want to aim for the belt buckle to hit the A zone.

[@wingracer1614]

I agree with both. For target shooting at small, round discs, 6 o'clock hold is the way to go. You can be a lot more precise lining up the top of your front sight right on the bottom edge of that disc. For more high speed combat style shooting at closer ranges on silhouettes, I want my POI to be right on my POA.

[@Sk0lzky]

The problem is - and warrior poet mentions it - we instinctively want to have a clear picture of an attacker so in a stressful situation (especially combat) people tend to keep the gun lower than they should so the sight doesn't obstruct the target. Weird, also explainable by stressful situation causing us to think faster and therefore pull the trigger when we think expect we'd be fully presented and we're not because our muscles don't catch up, but most likely both are true. Tl;dr reptilian brain makes us remove obstruction (sight) from the target in moment of stress so it's better to zero slightly below.

[@Sk0lzky]

@@wingracer1614 I don't think changing it is a good idea, I don't know much about competitive speed shooting but what I do is that both in combat and in competitive it's all a matter of fractions of seconds in which your CNS repeats the pattern engrained by hundreds of hours of exercise with a specific setup. If you keep changing it you end up confusing the system and you're worse at both situations.

[@CaptainCiph3r]

@@Sk0lzky having been there I disagree, but it may be different for others.

[@Stigstigster]

@@CaptainCiph3r If there ever was a situation where there is no clear answer for everyone, it's this subject. To me it is logical to not cover the target you are shooting at and I would argue it's the best way and that's what I prefer (no military experience, just shooting experience). Then you talk of your experience and do better with the Point of Aim is Point of Impact method and nobody can argue with that. That's what works better for you so it's totally legit. Everyone should try both.

[@radialrothary]

The Finnish Defence forces way is to aim "instictively" to the point of impact (covering half of the target). The variation in the elevation of the point of impact at the 100-200m range with the standard battle sight setting of 150m is considered small enough to remain practical for combat (for 200-400m you use battle sight setting of 300m, and beyond 400m you don't even bother). You should still be able to see the target in its entirety though, as you're supposed to shoot both eyes open to minimize any unnecessary muscle tension affecting your aiming eye, so you'd just see a "ghost image" of the front sight hovering over the target pointing the exact point of impact, not really obstructing it. You see black on target, you fire. I've no clue which way is actually better for whatever purpose, if either, but this is the FDF doctrine just for reference.

[@DRNewcomb]

One of the more interesting iron sight holds I've used is "neck hold" when shooting silhouettes in ITT (Infantry Team Trophy) competition. In this hold the front sight rests right on top of the "shoulders" of the silhouette target. It works almost like "line of white".

[@yunggolem4687]

Seems like the worst of all worlds... then even more of your sight picture is blocked by the irons and top of the slide AND you don't have an intuitive aim point.

[@SinginShooter]

The E silhouette is the same height as the MR-1. Just use your normal 600yd sight picture.

[@SinginShooter]

A snowflake of Aim Small-Miss Small.

[@benhaney9629]

That combines the worse elements of the two ways they’re talking about...

[@SgtKOnyx]

Personally my issue is kind of "where is six o clock?", not as a polar reference, but a linear one. How far down do you actually hold for any given distance / target? To me it seems there are fewer "assumptions" in POA=POI

[@3of11]

I thought that too... You can rectify this by knowing where on your iron sight dial a POI=POA hold is (but you are likely to be more accurate doing this zero with a 6 o clock hold on paper). Example: I want to check or zero my irons at 300m. I shoot 6 o clock hold and zero the sights so the "3" setting puts me on the bottom tip of the circle I was shooting at. If I know the ballistics of my range dial (or these are fine target sights with 1/2 MOA clicks) Im in business. I can dial up from 3 however high I want the bullets to land from this base zero. The goal is half as many inches as the target is approximately tall, so on a 18 inch gong, say, I want to dial up six 1/2MOA clicks. Or about the "4" setting if its a 50m-increment type of sight works well good enough for run-n-gun. It is oh so much easier to get a repeatable sight picture using peep/aperature rear and front blade sights using 6 o clock holds. Cutting tiny fuzzy targets in half is very hard, putting the post on the bottom of the fuzz is much easer

[@SgtKOnyx]

@@3of11 Thank you for making my point.

[@BlokeontheRange]

But even when POA=POI for a given range, if you get the range wrong you've still got to aim up or down :)

[@wingracer1614]

They aren't talking about hold overs (how far above or below the target you aim to adjust for range). They are talking about zeroing the rifle for a particular sight picture. Standard target shooting practice is a 6 o'clock hold. IOW, shooting at a black disc on a white background, you place your front sight right on the bottom edge of that black disc or possibly just slightly lower than that depending on preference. Then you adjust your sights to get your POI on the bullseye with that hold at that range. Some people such as Ian prefer to have the impact right on the point of aim, more like you would zero a scoped rifle. This seems more intuitive but has the disadvantage of partially obscuring the target with your sight.

[@ToastbackWhale]

This is exactly my issue. With a “six o’clock” hold, I would never, ever know where to actually put my post. Meanwhile with a center mass hold, I just put my post on the target.

[@andrewmn3024]

Now we know why Ian wasn’t allowed to go to Finland....

[@vacgyverfin5170]

Was going to write a question about where this is filmed, because the nature looks rather familiar.

[@cameronjames5960]

you probably dont care but if you're bored like me during the covid times then you can stream pretty much all of the latest movies on Instaflixxer. Have been watching with my brother recently =)

[@augustinewillie136]

@Cameron James yup, have been using InstaFlixxer for months myself :D

[@redburton2661]

I'm with Ian (and Col. Jeff Cooper) on this. I want my point of impact to be right at the top of the front post.

[@Gahmaz0z]

I come from a varmint hunting background and I put the post directly on the target. If you did 6 o clock hold for varmints your point of aim would be 🤔... somewhere on the ground lol

[@butchmonster8031]

I'm with Ian

[@themastermason1]

I'm with Ian as a fellow lefty and COM-holder

[@pecnorthernvalley4892]

I’m with Ian on this one! Center mass!

[@NordPrecision]

I agree

[@sugarnads]

Youre still aiming centre mass. Theyre not saying aim at their feet to hit the chest

[@dacoobob]

Sasquatch sighting at 8:10

[@LeArquebus]

Phil Mueller it was a mennikainen.

[@lucasfaracocantelli1426]

Yeah omg

[@ManDuderGuy]

I don't dig the 6 o'clock hold at all. Then again, I don't usually shoot irons at longass range. When I do, I usually just tilt the front sight up a tiny bit (AK-style sights), to work against the bullet drop.

[@tisFrancesfault]

Shooting like Ian is for me better. I feel it's easier to get consistent shots. Assuming its zeroed to where the post shows half, covers half at optimal range.

[@Kaboomf]

Yes, I find 6 o'clock works very well on round targets and known distances but especially with pistols I find it useless at varying range and irregularly shaped targets. May be just a training issue, but how far to hold under changes drastically with range. if you're zeroed for "just touch the bottom of the black" at 10 meters then you have to aim half a target diameter under the black at 20, if shooting the same size target at both ranges. A whole target diameter under at 30 , one and a half under at 40. Like,wtf? No time to think about stuff like that. Your hold becomes this imaginary point a fixed angle over your front sight, but relating that angle to different shapes and sizes of target at various range seems like more hazzle than it is worth. Especially when training conscripts, you want to minimize the mental gymnastics needed to get hits on target. With a rifle, one or two inches high at 100 is fine as that's not enough of an angle to put you way over at 200 or whatever. Zero a rifle 2"high at 25 though, and you're in trouble. On my government issue patrol carbine (an MP5 with a semi selector), I keep both irons and red dot zeroed a bit high at 50 so I don't have to worry about the trajectory out to unrealistic engagement range for police work.

[@GreetingsandSalutations4007]

tisFrancesfault Ian wasn’t in this video? Did he make a separate one?

[@brianlee6849]

I totally agree with you and your buddy. 6 hold. My father taught me to hold at 6 because we were hunters. We would sight a 270/308/30-06 at 300 max shot and hold under at a normal hunting range of 100 to 150 for deer and hogs. This way has never failed me especially if you are shooting a relatively flatter shooting cartridges. I think for self defense would also work well. Thanks

[@F1ghteR41]

5:33 This line of thinking will likely betray you in the mountain combat. 8:40 There's quite a strong argument against such a practice in modern times, since one would be hard pressed to find a torso-sized target on the battlefield to begin with. You'd more likely to find a head-sized target, however.

[@brandonalmeida5493]

I used a Holland style sight on my fal at a match once. Stage had targets at 200yd, 350yd and 450yd. 200 was easy but could not hit the 350yd and 450yd because the post covered the target and the terrain offered no reference for a hold. Same stage another time with normal adjustable sights, easy peasy

[@timbersniper2084]

Lol who else saw sasquatch in the back at 8:10? Great video guys!

[@vincetytler6175]

Interesting, currently my iron sighted rifles are currently sighted in at POA > POI. I have encountered the issues discussed. Thanking I am going experiment with this 6 o’clock hold next time I am at the range

[@danielaramburo7648]

Depends what your situation is. Sighting the rifle for combat is different than deer hunting than long range shooting. In combat, if you hit the enemy in the stomach or chest, it doesn’t matter, you got him. But deer is different, you have a smaller area to hit so your MOA must be more exact.

[@vincetytler6175]

Daniel Aramburo this is for iron sights, at longer ranges if the target is hidden behind the front site your chances of getting a hit drop considerably, doesn’t matter what your shooting at or why

[@1917Enfield]

I agree gentlemen. Well presented info. Thank you.

[@MrLulzbot]

Great in theory, but speaking from experience in combat targets are so fleeting that poa-poi works better for snap engagements and one is demanded lucky to even see an opponent beyond 300 meters.

[@SonOfTheDawn515]

Sheeit, ours were well under 150 meters majority of the time. Hell, across the street. Assfuckistan may be a different story but good luck spotting shit at any great distance with the naked eye.

[@MrLulzbot]

@@SonOfTheDawn515 Exactly, it is hard to explain to people just how small Someone looks at those distances, much less positively IDing a targeting and engaging before they are out of sight, get the sights on em and give em a squirt, all the fancy stuff goes right out the window.

[@dbmail545]

There is no accounting for taste. I shoot at 300 yards or less and use a standardized zero on all my guns. 1 mil high at 100, dead nuts at 200 and 1 mil low at 300. This works out to 4" high at 100, 12" low at 300. The consistency between guns is a big deal to me.

[@SonOfTheDawn515]

@@dbmail545 Uhm, different calibers and weapons won't all be performing that way and also, that isn't what we're talking about here. We're not discussing at what distance we zero firearms at rather how we zero them (where the front sight post is on target).

[@AUSly09]

Yeah, people under stress tend to place the post on the target and fire or point and shoot at close distances. I will agree that when shooting for groups, a 6:00 hold works extremely well for the reasons mentioned in the video. But my modern patrol rifle is poa/poi and 50 yards. Great video as always.

[@ROFTheRookie]

I agree with Bloke and Karl. Top of the front sight should be at the bottom of the black circle not cutting it in half. I shoot all of my old WW1 and WW2 rifles in this fashion, have never adjusted the sights and hit bang on at all ranges attempted. ( 180 yards being my longest shot. )

[@seancooney1310]

I shoot like Ian. It's how I know it and it's what works for me. I also understand your points at longer ranges, but when I've never had a range much longer then 100 I can shoot so I have not experienced it.

[@LeutnantJoker]

When I learned to shoot Iron Sights in the German military I THINK we shot it like Ian also. But I can't say I would be super opposed to the other ways. I can certainly see the argument of wanting to have your entire target visible. Howver I think we shot like that at 200m. So for shorter ranges we'd do the 6 o'clock to compensate.

[@Kaboomf]

Same. And for holding over when required, both eyes open and it's a nonissue. Left eye sees target, right eye sees sight. Your brain does enough image processing to make you see the sight superimposed on the target. Norwegian Army, shooting the G3 we were officially supposed to use different range settings on the sight but I always found it quicker and more convenient to hold over at 300 and 400 meters, hitting a torso sized target was no problem.

[@3of11]

at 100 its not too a big of a deal which you do, and I did POA=POI. When I acquired access to a 300 yard range, I realized I sucked and 6 o clock hold made me suck much less.

[@CitizenSmith50]

I learned to shoot 1950's as a child in the Australian Outback, hunting rabbits for food or foxes for skins. That's when you aim directly at the head or the animal, not the dirt below it, or it's feet or arse, depending on which way it's pointing! So, like Ian, I like to aim at what I intend to hit, not some arbitrary spot below it!

[@wingracer1614]

Ever do any longer pistol shooting? 6 o'clock is the way to go when trying to shoot small discs with a pistol at 25 to 50 meters.

[@leonardwei3914]

I would say do what works best for you. In the Army, we always zeroed center mass (25 yards), but on the range I ended up always having to shoot 6 o' clock since most of the targets were closer than 300 and I hated that. But with iron sights, we were also taught to come up from below when engaging targets so that you first see the target before lining up the front sight post.

[@samfischer3897]

Useless video. EVERYBODY knows that you need THREE interviewees to get a proper group!!!!!

[@Plastikdoom]

Yep, same range processes, just a bit longer, and for sure the 6 o’clock hold is best. What we were taught and trained to do, before we got our ACOGS.

[@stephenchapman4440]

Bloke pretends not to be as hammered as Karl, and fails. Good stuff. :)

[@Fpseth]

Center mass all the way. Split the target.

[@pancakerizer]

Maybe Karl and Ian could compromise, and settle for a 3 o' clock hold?

[@jonathandoe1367]

Underrated comment. XD

[@ryanpeck3377]

6 o’clock hold is most effective for bullseye target shooting. For self defense/combat shooting POA/POI is better

[@randonwilston]

I agree with the 6 o’clock hold on most milsurp sights except for with good apiture sight like an M1 Garand or Mas 36 I like having it be almost like a low tech red dot.

[@wingracer1614]

I can see that with apertures. Can't say from experience since most of my iron shooting has been with pistols (6 o'clock hold) and most of my rifle shooting has been with scopes (obviously POA=POI). One of these days I want to get an M1 and/or Enfield 1917 to give an aperture a try.

[@cheesenoodles8316]

That 6 o clock hold is what I was taught...by an accomplished deer hunter. Kept that way ever sense.

[@Quality_Guru]

I saw a video from Rob Ski in which he zeroed his AK iron sites using the 6 o’clock hold. Within the video he showed how the front post of the iron site covered over the target he was shooting at 100 and then at 200 yards. It made perfect sense to me to use 6 o’clock hold.

[@videodistro]

Ian is right. Whenever bullet hits right at the line, it is an exact. measurement. Otherwise you are guessing and making an assumption of where the bullet will hit. Your 6 o'clock hold changes impact based on size of an imaginary, or real, dot.

[@SinginShooter]

If set to MPBR, don't matter. A reasonably practiced rifleman should sense their offset relative to target size. Small target - aim "low". Big target - aim "high".

[@billmelater6470]

I personally like the 6 o'clock but I can't say that center mass is a bad idea. I've never served, but knowing that the tip of your post is the impact seems to take a lot out of the equation in a high stress situation. Like most things, I think the key is to practice and get comfortable with your method. All I really get to do in my area is bench shooting so 6'oclock for target shooting I will take a stand and say it is superior if you're going for tight groups. I had switched from center mass and saw a huge improvement.

[@Stigstigster]

I'm with the bloke on this. I don't want my front sight half covering what I'm aiming at. The way I describe it to people is to imagine a ball sat on top of a fence post which represents the front site. I want my impact point to be the at the centre of that ball. Now, the size of the ball you imagine is up to you and you and will depend upon personal preference and application but I think it does an easy job of telling someone how I like my sights set up. Obviously the impact point will differ whether you imagine a ping pong ball or a basketball but I think you get the idea. Each to their own though and try both variants and "ball sizes" (snigger) to see what works for you if that setup works at all for you.

[@BlokeontheRange]

Indeed, exactly :)

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

I used to shoot target pistol disciplines (badly) and found the standard six o'clock hold difficult, centre aiming was even worse, a good compromise was to let the width of the front post make a chord with the black ring rather than touching the bottom.

[@CandidZulu]

It should not touch the bottom, it will encourage looking at the target. Hold in the 6 or lower ring, and focus on front sight and fundamentals. The black dot can be fuzzy. If that annoys too much an adjustable iris can be use witch enhances depth of field.

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

@@CandidZulu thanks

[@3of11]

"flat tire" hold

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

@@3of11 Yes, though what worked best for me was a very flat tire.

[@wazza33racer]

having owned a lot of different bolt action WW1/WW2 guns, the best I found in competition snap/rapid/deliberate at any range was the SMLE No1 Mk3. Fast target acquisition, windage adjustment is super easy, no fuss, no bullshit battle rifle. Ugly but effective.

[@judsongaiden9878]

"Iron sights are all you need." ~something that Marines sometimes say

[@rockerdude8000]

Not anymore I went through bootcamp in 2015 we had acogs from day one of our marksmanship training

[@judsongaiden9878]

@@rockerdude8000 Oh. I'm out of touch with the times.

[@jagx234]

@@rockerdude8000 the new tables are good. I especially like 03's getting more tables to fire. I like the ACOG. I think it's a force multiplier. I also think it's made Marines worse marksmen. There shouldn't be a single pizza box anywhere with a 4x optical sight.

[@RealRonSwanson]

If you can even see a target at 300 yds. and beyond with the naked eye you're doing pretty damn well.

[@roflchopter11]

I understand this method for shooting at a target of known fixed size at known range. Once you change either of those, the question becomes, how big is the target, probably in MOA or mil?

[@bananas9809]

I'm with Ian. I've only ever shot POA POI, no six o clock holding. Videogames taught me this ;)

[@jonathandoe1367]

I've also learned that from video games. I haven't gotten around to shooting an irl rifle yet, but when I do, I don't want to lose all that "training" I've had. Plus, I hate iron sights, and I'd probably be using an optic most of the time, so learning something special just for iron sights I'll baely use doesn't seem all that practical. I'd have to agree with Gun Jesus on this one. #imwithian ;)

[@yosarianilivestech4018]

I think for shorter distances center mass is a better sight picture for accuracy, but once you get further out and there's an issue of covering the target then six o clock is probably better. Definitely seen Ian have trouble hitting targets further out on some guns specifically because the target was smaller than his front post.

[@CrudeConduct666]

I'm with Ian.

[@nirfz]

Your explanations sound very reasonable, but may i ask something? (I only used optics on a rifle, so my iron sights usage is limited to pistols only at max 25m.) When you do your 6 o clock hold, technically i would think this means you have to use a certain size target to be able to do so, know where you hit as well as you have to know the distance, and try it out beforehand to know where to hold for target shooting. What i mean is if your target is a 30cm circle or a 50cm circle at the same distance and you hold at 6 o clock your POI will differ because of target size, if you hold center the target size doesn't matter that much. And under stress without knowing a distance isn't it counterintuitiv to have to "hold low"? (Ok at least chances are slim that you shoot over, and mayby you are lucky to see the low impact... unless you are in snow)

[@maximilianmustermann5763]

It depends on how low we're talking. I have my target pistols set to 10 cm low at 25 meters, for a very specific black circle target. I wouldn't offset it that dramatically for dynamic competition shooting I guess. But you could set it just a tad lower so that the point of impact is just a tiny bit above your sights. I guess that should work pretty well for IPSC.

[@RonJohn63]

Wasn't Ian also was in competitive target shooting?

[@godnaut]

I think he did IPC. Which is short-range with air-pistols as far as I know.

[@J24-k8f]

6 one way, half dozen the other. I put post directly on target, left eye squinted(my right is dominant). Plenty of bucks and hogs as well as soda cans have holes in them. If you can drill the shiny bottom of an overturned soda can while standing with your rifle at 70 to 100 yards with iron sights three times in a row consistently, then whether you aim above, below, or underwater while weaving baskets, then you are going to hit what you're aiming at with irons. Beyond a hundred and twenty yards, I don't usually use irons because my eyes just don't hold up. This is just the opinion of one hunter with no military experience and very little range time beyond my family's. I was taught by family who fed themselves during the Depression via hunting and had significant military experience, but so are a lot of people.

[@williamjeffery9653]

A Switzer and a a Yankee pair of gun nerds talking about iron sights for 13 minutes. The internet is a beautiful thing.

[@horrorclose9462]

I stand with Ian! Ps. "How do you aim when you're covering the target with your front sight?" Keep both eyes open!

[@BlokeontheRange]

Now do that at 300 yds while focusing on the front sight ;)

[@yunggolem4687]

@@BlokeontheRange This is a difference between pistols and rifles, some people are talking about rifles and some are talking about pistols which is confusing the matter. Obviously you can shoot a 6oclock hold on vintage rifle irons or a scope and gain advantage of a clearer sight picture, particularly on small targets or at long range. On typical carry pistol irons there is no elevation adjustment, you can't even shoot a 6 oclock hold if you want to without taking a file to the sights, but of course carry pistols aren't shot at 300yd, they're rarely shot beyond 5 yards and you keep both eyes open to maximize your peripheral vision in the situations in which you would actually use a tool of personal defense such as a carry pistol. You can easily adjust a pistol red dot for a 6oclock if that's what you've trained for, but there's little to no advantage to a 6oclock hold with a red dot when you should have both eyes open anyway and the red dot is far less obstructive to your sight picture than irons and the top of a slide are which means you're not realistically gaining any sight picture advantages from a 6oclock hold.

[@workingguy-OU812]

Thanks guys. Just commenting on that wind - that constant sound makes it sound just like the map of DayZ.

[@tatsuhirosatou5513]

I like my sights center mass too makes more sense

[@oldmanSturzl]

Great timing and much appreciated! I just purchased my first Swiss K31 and I have been struggling with sight picture and hold. This should help. I'm hesitant to make adjustments yet since it has Swiss comp stickers on the stock. It did not however have a muzzle cap so it could have been bumped.

[@BlokeontheRange]

It will probably have been shot with diopters which will have been taken off before sale. Don't hesitate to drift the front sight or replace it with a longer or shorter one if you need to.

[@liamcraig374]

I tend to think 6 o clock hold is more of a target shooting method where as center of mass is more of an intuitive practical/combat method. That’s just my personal outlook on it and YMMV. Interesting discussion

[@briankerr4512]

Point of aim is correct. The bullet actually hits where you are aiming. 6 o'clock is for target shooting for score. I use both . I use 6 o'clock for my target pistols in competition for example. I use 6 o'clock for military rifles etc. too, but I want the bullets to hit at 6 o'clock for military guns.

[@cooper10182]

Well when I was learning to shoot for hunting deer with iron sights, it was 6 o'clock hold cause it factors the recoil into you hits with the 30 Cal plus rounds.

[@calska140]

How does recoil effect your shot? Recoil hits you after the bullet is long gone.

[@maximilianmustermann5763]

@@calska140 Yeah if recoil affects your shot placement, you're doing something wrong. It means you're flinching while pulling the trigger *in anticipation* of the recoil. You should never try and "correct" your flinching by offsetting your sights. You should rather do tons of dry-fire training to get rid of that flinching.

[@gnarshread]

I genuinely appreciate this. And what did Bloke say he was going to feed?

[@doctorcaptainalex]

I have settled on zeroing my ars and aks at 25, and at 100 just aim at the belt buckle. The max range I shoot at is 100 yards, however. One day I will shoot at a longer range and be able to experiment further.

[@bryansmith1920]

I seem to remember a Y sight Front and a round sight rear with a slide and on the front sight a graduated screw Am I remembering it wrong ?

[@WellDressedCaveman]

Fundamentals are everything.

[@vigunfighter]

I'm a gunfighter, not a target shooter. I'm not shooting at black dots on white/tan paper with nice, clean aiming points. I want to put the aiming point (top of front sight/red dot/scope reticle) where I want the bullets to go.

[@bryansmith1920]

in the late 1970's early 1980's the Brits FN had a very finite site So that each individual rifle was zeroed in for the user for those weather conditions Is that not so now ?

[@gullreefclub]

As a shotgun shooter I learned early on to always float my target above the front bead/rib of the barrel because you can’t hit a target you can’t see. This method of shooting does require a higher comb on the stock of your shotgun and a proper and consistent gun mount hence if you ever take any shotgun shooting lessons you will hear/be told place the gun to your face not your face to the gun.

[@5000rgb]

I believe many shotguns are biased so that the center of the pattern is slightly above the point of aim and trap guns especially so.

[@3of11]

@@5000rgb You can change the point of impact of any shotgun by simply adjusting the comb height. In shotgunning, your eye is effectively the rear sight, but you are also supposed to look at the target NOT the front bead (the exact opposite of rifle shooting). The mount is critcally important to get consistent so you dont have to think about alignment.

[@thorgunderson1998]

I learned shooting point of aim point of impact or by splitting the target with iron sights. I have tried the hold under zero and I just don't like it. Maybe if I shot past 300 there would be a need but there just is not for me.

[@LoneRanger869]

There's a yeti at 08:12.

[@coreyneal3705]

Yeti are white. That was very clearly a Sasquatch

[@onkelmicke9670]

The forest is loud

[@SnoopReddogg]

If a tree fell in that forest and no one was there to hear it, would it be heard over the noise?

[@anthonyhayes1267]

The wrath of Gun Jesus is upon them for their praise of the heretical 6 o'clock hold

[@theana86ar]

For non professional military purpose i think center mass is the best choice, zero at 150m and just aim at centermass... Should be good for 300m... for target shooting/professional , 6 o'clock might be better

[@theolang3566]

what's your opinion on using a full buck horn shape as a front sight? i'm making front sights to mount on my target air rifle and i really like the full buck horn style sight i recently made! i aim that the POI is exactly in between the horns

[@BlokeontheRange]

Since a full buckhorn sight is a rearsight, I don't quite understand why you'd want to try using it as a frontsight?

[@rslover65]

I also shot NRA High-power, Camp Perry nationals etc, and tried both 6 o'clock holds and center. Personally center hold worked better for me.

[@wenderia7990]

I'm with Ian on this one

[@fsmoura]

Post a _behind the scenes_ with the black metal bands! \m/

[@robmeglaughlin325]

Fast combat vs slow target ?

[@dbmail545]

"When in doubt, send it out!" With targets that shoot back, quickness often counts for more than accuracy. Shoot first, make them keep their heads down is often a winning tactic.

[@yearzero974]

Nice mullet Karl, that's a good look for you.

[@twolf1693]

8:10 - sasquatch walks through background

[@daiprout323]

I've got a 4 O'clock hold on my air gun glass, aka knackered parallax....*buys irons

[@dbmail545]

Are you using an airgun quality scope? I had a cheap-ish .22 rimfire scope that had to be re-zeroed every 10 shots or less on my Beeman.

[@daiprout323]

@@dbmail545 is a friend's scope he asked me to try, I can get it to zero with about two foot of eye relied

[@dunxy]

Springers are the hardest of all "guns" on glass,magnums can be hard to even stop the mounts walking back of the dovetail let alone holding zero! I have a half dozen pins on my Diana 50 to keep mounts stable.If hes shooting a modern PCP no problamo as they basically recoiless,takes the fun out of air gunning IMHO but they have their place.

[@daiprout323]

@@dunxy Weihrauch .177 hw95 k keeps the rats off the chickens ok. Tbf, doesn't even need sights for that purpose. .38 steel shot and a Barnett catapult work too(I'm well practiced), but the risk of ricochet is greater.

[@shawnmm709]

Navy hold; Center of Mass.

[@crabyman3555]

Iron sights is one of those things that we probably won't have in future with standard issue infantry rifle, since teaching a brand new rifleman all of these things Karl and Bloke were disucssing here, when you could just spend little bit more money and buy him a red-dot optic from the get-go instead and avoid all the hassle of it for few hundred dollars cost (or less if you buy bulk as a big army would). Save training time, save personal costs, I think thats how its going to go.

[@BlokeontheRange]

And when the red dot karks it? There's good reasons why back up iron sights are a thing :)

[@crabyman3555]

@@BlokeontheRange Yes, true. But they are bound to get more reliable as time goes on and technology improves. We also no longer issue old fashioned hand crank starters for truck and car motors ''just in case regular engine starter might break'' like we did in the 20th century, because we got to a point when that wasn't necessary anymore.

[@BlokeontheRange]

I, for one, look forward to red dot sights that are immune from getting water and mud on the lenses :)

[@marcogram1216]

Run red dots or any optic in ANY ultra humid jungle environment. Let everyone know how that works out.

[@retrogunroom]

If you're trying to make something dead, Ian's is correct.

[@tjroelsma]

Agreed, this seems to be the difference between competition shooting and real-world war shooting. With competition shooting I get you'd want to see the whole target, so ideally the zero would be just below the target. In war though, you'd want the zero to be in the middle of the torso of the target, giving you the best chance of actually hitting the target.

[@peterthepeter7523]

So if you want to hit a target then you want to obscure half of it? How is that supposed to help?

[@tjroelsma]

@@peterthepeter7523 In a combat situation targets are mostly moving and there's no time to take careful aim and hit the target where you want. It's basically emergency shooting where the goal is to hit the target, so you shoot at the largest part of the body: the torso. So it makes sense to quickly look over the sights and fire whenever the sights are over (obscuring) the target. In situations where you have the time to carefullly aim for a precision shot the 6 o'clock position makes way more sense, because then you see much more of the target and can hit the target exactly where you want to. Ian looks at it from the view of a combat soldier, while Mike and Karl are looking at it from the view of a marksman.

[@peterthepeter7523]

​@@tjroelsma so knowing exactly where you hit and not seeing half of the target is fast and not precise. But guessing how low you should aim (and that depends on how you zeroed the gun and how far away the target is) while seeing target clearly is somehow precise and fast? What kind of logic allows you to say that? I see it the other way around. I've heard that Russian soldiers just use 400 meter setting and aim at feet. Why? Because when your sights don't obscure the target you aim quicker and a rifleman should just make a hit before the target disappears, the point of impact is not important. Some military rifles had lowest adjustments of 300 meters obviously requiring you to aim lower at closer distances. Carcano had fixed iron sight set for 200 meters.

[@tjroelsma]

@@peterthepeter7523 I'm using the following logic: say you're in a combat situation. and your sights have been zeroed to cover the target. There's bullets flying everywhere and your opponents are advancing. Now you point your gun in the direction of opponents and generally look over the sights. As soon as you see an enemy pop up, you move the barrel of your gun to that target and as soon as your sights cover the target you pull the trigger. As your sight has been set up to cover the target, that's the best chance of hitting the target. Now let's go the other way and say your sights have been zeroed to not obscure the target. Same situation, you aim your gun in the direction of the opponents, see a movement and align the sights with the target. But now you have to remember that you have to aim low to hit the target, so you'll have to correct. The Russian situation you're referring to has to do with sighting for a specified distance and then calculating how high or how low you have to aim at a target at a different distance. So if you've set up your sights to not obscure the target, you'll have to aim even higher or lower, depending on the distance, to actually hit the target. Like I said, not obscuring the target with your sights works when you're a marksman and you have the time to carefully aim before you fire, not in panic situations. I've been a police-officer here in the Netherlands and I was taught 2 different ways of shooting. The first is carefully aimed target shooting, the second is non-aimed self-defence shooting. Combat shooting for me falls into the second category: non-aimed self-defence shooting. You bring up your gun with your line of sight, have the sights cover the torso, as that is the largest target, and fire.

[@yunggolem4687]

How do you even adjust elevation on something like carry pistol irons other than busting out the file?

[@BlokeontheRange]

If it's from a quality manufacturer they should provide front sights in several heights on request.

[@3of11]

@@BlokeontheRange It would sadden you to know many pistols in the usa are setup to hit POI = center of the dot (glowing or paint) on the front sight.. ie BELOW YOUR POA!

[@rickoshea8138]

Sasquatch moves between tree above left-hand guy's head at 2:25

[@grahamking2239]

At long range l like to frame the target , with a equal amount of white at the side and top

[@ShinobiHOG]

I've seen videos of tactical instructors saying that he's noticed his students shooting low in the shoot house in CQB conditions. That is basically the same thing you're talking about so legit tactical training instructors back up this discussion.....

[@Nuke-China]

They shoot low in CQB because of bore offset at close range

[@ryanpeck3377]

@Adam Also shooting early...pulling trigger while raising the rifle from low ready etc.

[@LUR1FAX]

Are iron sights still iron sights if they're made of brass, gold or even polymer? 🤔

[@Sk0lzky]

I-what sights? Are they produced by apple? If they run without replaceable batteries do they have built-in charging system like solar panels?

[@vincedibona4687]

I'm with #TeamIan on this one. POA=POI for me. 6 o'clock just seems... wrong.

[@dbooker3182]

Ran into this shooting ak-style sights at a match. Headshots at 100, the post totally obscured my target. Set it to 200 and ran chin holds and was able to go 5 for 7 (above average for irons that day). Sold me on the 6oclock hold.

[@calska140]

Once you go 6 o'clock. You never go back to that POI/POA plebian method. Better visibility of target is just better.

[@dr.threatening8622]

I was raised on center mass from the Marine Corps... You may have convinced me

[@knutdergroe9757]

As a MARINE(Third generation, my sevice dates 1982-1986, 1989-1993). Been shooting M16/AR15(both a1 and a2 after 1989) since I was 10. It is a 6 o'clock hold at 200 yards and center mass at 300 yards.

[@dr.threatening8622]

In 00-05 I can verify that we were doing the elevation setting for range (holding center mass). Using 8/3 for field/gas mask shooting. Ooh Rah, my brother

[@USAACbrat]

If your target has rings, a target without rings, like hunting center of mass save the shot in unknown distances a hold over hides the target. Note: i have lost more shots at with game with a scope than open sights. Targets are target shooters.

[@alexmartin9177]

strange creatures afoot

[@fsmoura]

It's the black metal bandsmen! \m/

[@3of11]

My iron sight rifle shooting improved immensely when I started doing 6 o clock holds. Im a POI=POA to 6 o clock convert (for rifles). I still like to get an idea of where on the iron sight dial the "POA=POI" is for a given range (helps to have repeatable adjustable irons, that you know the click values of!). So I shoot on paper and note which setting gets my group at the tip of the bottom of the circle with a bottom of circle hold (POA=POI but 6-o-clock hold) . From there I can click up how many MOA/inches I want given the range and target size I'm shooting at because I frequently then shoot on steel of varying height after paper. the issue us POI=POAers see/saw with 6 o clock hold is the idea that the 6 o clock hold is dependent on the size of the target, and thus "imprecise". The issue is the few inches up or down you might be off, because you zeroed a 6 o clock hold on a 12" dot and are shooting at a 18" gong today, say, is NOT AS IMPORTANT as the need to have a consistent, unambiguous and repeatable sight picture (which will put you off a lot more if you don't have). It is exceeding hard to be accurate with medium to long distance iron sight shooting trying to slice tiny/fuzzy targets in half (especially if your target is smaller in 'angular width' than your post) with your front sight post (especially if the post and target are not contrasting colors).

[@noahcount7132]

BIGFOOT sighting, crossing right to left, from 8:07 to 8:30. Who knew there were BIGFOOTs in Finland? Beside the Finns, of course.

[@MatoVuc]

U nptch sights cut offthe lower half of your sight picture, but on the other hand, apperature sights give you a clear(er) sight pictire of the target, but obscure everything else. It's why I never quite got around to liking aperature sights. I feel like i'm looking at the world through a straw. (it don't help that they increasingly suck as the lighting conditions go down)

[@4991Ares]

I grew up with Olympic style diopter and globe shooting, never understood this holdover nonsense untill I had to fire rifles and pistols with practical iron sights. If you're target shooting, globe fronts really are the best, period. None of that holdover nonsense, just center everything properly and, assuming you've zeroed for that distance, just hit it.

[@maximilianmustermann5763]

In the olympic pistol competitions, most shooters will use a 6 o'clock offset for the precision targets (today only shot in the women's competition in the olympics, but widely shot by everybody in the lower leagues). for rapid fire and duel, most will use a very small offset where the point of impact aligns with the top of the sights. Precision targets are light with a 10cm black circle (10cm offset is perfect), the duel and rapid fire targets are just black with two small white lines indicating the middle (lining up your sights to this line is perfect)

[@SnoopReddogg]

Thousands of rabbits I've meet say aim small, miss small with iron sights!!!

[@damiangrouse4564]

Was that Bigfoot that walked by in the background?! 8:18 or so.

[@ghalmarraz8706]

Oh Karl

[@Sk0lzky]

Also >covering the target with tip of ironsight Confirmed - Ian is an alien.