Ya screwed up there 
I know you meant when the target āISā
You already know this but the rest may not. Tereza (15 yr at the time) shot a 6920 at the CMP match last year.
http://www.odcmp.com/Photos/09/EJrHPClinic/cimg1273.htm
I had to do an emergency buy from Gotm4ās store of the 6920. I ended up trading the 6721 for a RRA NM4A for Perry.
600 yrds is her sweet zoneā¦especially when the paper canāt shoot back.
I shot Expert in the Corps (84-88). It was 500 Meters on the Left Coast and 500 Yards on the Right Coast from the prone. So I know how to shoot irons and know that they can be deadly accurate. But at 44 with bad eyesight, a good RDS is a Godsend. My eyes havenāt deteriorated to the point where I canāt get minute of man out to 200 with military irons (without prescription shooting glasses), but I can do it a hell of a lot faster with a dot. So Iāll leave the irons to you 20somethings. 
I agree with āglocktogoā except mine was the Army from 73-80. I am 11 years older than he. I too am much faster with a RDS. Also, I believe, the amount of ammo and training required to become proficient with an optic is much less than iron sights.
In your example video they were exceptional shooters with āNMā rifles (weighted butt stocks, NM sights, free float handguards, tuned triggersā¦,) shooting jackets, slingsā¦ That is not the average grunt.
I agree that a person can become extremely accurate with iron sights, but the amount of training to first learn and then the amount of āmaintenance shootingā to retain that precision is more than the average grunt, cop or civilian will get.
Not to mention the rifle I was shooting with in the Corps was a beat up old piece of crap compared to anything I own today.
Expert last time on the KD course with a score of 56. The range week high.
I donāt know why itās faster to train someone with optics than irons. How hard is it? front aperture inside rear, bang.
Some people have an issue the consistently aligning the front sight in the rear aperture and that is more difficult to learn than place the dot on the target. Also many seem to have difficulty with a consistent cheek weld which is more crucial with irons than a RDS. I am not saying they should have these issues, but many cops are not firearms enthusiasts and I have seen more issues training them to use their iron sights with the same level of accuracy they use their RDS.
The other issue is maintaining focus on the front sight. It takes discipline to keep from focusing on the target instead. That dot grabs your eye though and you can still focus on the target.
Itās not just young guys that can hit with irons and not always with match grade rifles.
Case in point: Back in '91, I was in my mid-20s and had been in the Highpower game a couple years when an older gentleman showed up at a match - looked to be in his '70s at least. He did not have a rifle of his own, so he picked an M1 off the rack (one of the club guns), looked her over and with a simple āthisāll doā, he set up in the position next to me. As the match started, he commented to me that it had been many years since heād fired an M1, and hoped heād do ok in the match.
Since we were next to each other, we ended up scoring each otherās targets. Much to my amazement, the guy posted a high expert score. I was giving him a little crap about his earlier comments and he responded (quite graciously, I might add) āson, you didnāt have to learn to shoot like I didā. Turned out he was in the Pacific with the Marines during WWII. He told me, āwe had to make our shots count and them bastards was shootinā back at usā. I was truly humbled that day.
So, itās not the tool, itās knowing how to use it that counts.
Good story and all but who said āitās just young guys?ā
That iron sights can be used with great precision under ideal circumstances has never been an open question. That they can be used with relatively good speed under ideal conditions has similarly never been a point of controversy. The problem is that serious social interactions with rifles do not seem to occur under ideal range conditions terribly often. So while the iron sights may work very well on a nice bright range day with a target courteous enough to stand still and to be colored in such a manner to provide the best possible sight picture, it doesnāt necessarily follow that the irons will have the same utility in low light on a moving target who is rude enough to move and shoot back.
Personally I cannot fathom why this issue seems to be so confused. Nobody with any sense that Iām aware of has ever said that iron sights are useless or impossible to use well. Under ideal conditions they can be used with excellent precision and accuracy. The reasons behind the endorsement of RDS by knowledgeable people has everything to do with the dynamic nature of gunfights.
I think someone had an axe to grind and didnāt understand the nature of this site, JW7777.
Agreed with this and your initial post.
To the OP:
I have never read anything on this site nay saying the use of iron sights. Iāve used Iron sights since the age of 13, for many years, on various Army teams competitively using match grade .22s, M1As, M16s, to include Camp Perry, with several Infantry Trophy, Presidentās Hundred, and several other matches out to 1000 meters. So I have no illusions about what raw iron sights can do as far as precision is concerned.
Here, itās all about efficiency. Especially when compared to the āaverageā shooter. Red Dot Sights and powered optics are simply āmoreā efficient in getting accurate hitās faster in a tactical environment or carbine class, than Irons, for both experienced and novice shooters.
What I see with a lot of newer AR shooters or shooters without military training is that many canāt shoot iron sighted rifles very well at all.
By newer AR shooters Iām meaning shooting ARs for less than 5yrs. Most can shoot scopes and RDSs pretty well but couldnāt hit a whiff if shooting for shit with iron sights. 99% of AR shooters with more than a few years of military training can shoot irons pretty damn well.
My gripe is against those who are against training out to 600. SDM school takes training out to 600, solidifies the fundamentals with iron sights, THEN goes to optics.
The 0.5k report bitches about the lack of training. The story of the 70yr old is a great example of ingrained fundamentals.
Some think the only option for dealing with engagements past 300m is crew served weapons, etc ā¦ā¦ anything but better rifle training and I totally disagree.
A trainee learns the basics and the HSLD skills fall into place much quicker and stay with the shooter much longer.
I canāt argue with much of that. However, more attention needs to be paid to getting off the square range and dynamic gunfighting rather than engaging with the service rifle at 500 and beyond.
What application are we talking about here? Are you saying that the military is not properly training itās people and that they need to step it up? What about your experience in the service leads you to this conclusion? What I hear, over and over again, from guys that come back from Iraq and come out to shoot with us is āman, this in the kind of training we needed before we went overseas. that long-range shit they taught us did me no good standing in a mud hutā (or words to that effect).
Personally, I am a non-LE civilian firearms enthusiast with an interest in self-defense application of guns. While I have enjoyed my experiences shooting at distance, other than marksmanship training I find them to be all but useless. Unless Iām preparing for the barfcom fantasy, me shooting someone at 600 yards is not only highly unlikely, but is going to present a big challenge in court IMHO. So I can use long-distance shooting as a way to work on my marksmanship skills, to stress the fundamentals, but beyond thatā¦
And then thereās the issue of just how great my marksmanship skills with a carbine need to be at non-LE civilian distances. In my experience with our matches when it comes to the long gun manipulations and confidence with the platform make up for lack of marksmanship skills in almost every case. We just had a ālong rangeā match and several of our shooters that often excel at CQB did horribly simply trying to shoot at egg at 75 yards, or a 4" steel plate at 50 (myself included).
So what, then, is the point in all of this? You seem to take issue with the .5k thread (or whatever itās being called now) but Iām not sure WHY you take issue or what the issue is exactly. Can someone, with proper training and practice (and often, proper tools) make hits on a man-sized target out to 600 yards with iron sights? Of course. Personally, I donāt know why Iād want to.
This cuts right through the BS:
Spot on and applies to the military as well.
I have hit my share of targets with a standard M14 at 500 yards with iron sights. That was then & this is now. There is no legit military need to spend the huge amount of training and practice resources required to bring people that level of iron sight skill anymore. Red dots are the way to go for regular grunts . Some swing-out magnifiers ( etc ) for some of the guys can be good ā but wieght is always a consideration.
Almost looks like another troll thread to me.
Sure, I agree with that. It can be done after Basic. Get the fundamentals and the rest is easy.
How would you compare/contrast Army basic marksmanship training with USMC? (serious question, youāre one of the few who has done both and Iām curious)
<raises hand> This is probably me. Iāve only been shooting AR-15 type firearms for 3 years now - and I started on an indoor range with a 9mm. Despite growing up shooting a lot of iron sights on āadultā airguns and .22s, the ergonomics and the sight picture of the AR-15 did take a little getting used to.
I would guess that lack of trigger time is the reason most non-military new AR owners suck at irons. That, and the absence of any formal or even semi-formal training on the platform.
As far as RDSs and other optics go, new shooters are attracted to them because they make hitting the target easier. Plus, optics are cool. So many times I see a first time AR-15 owner decking out his rifle with some sort of optic before ever firing a shot. Is this worng? No. Itās his/her rifle, and he/she can do whatever he/she wants. But i think it illustrates a growing trend among new AR-15 shooters of skipping over basic fundamentals to obtain instant gratification.
The 0.5k Report would never have happened if Army marksmanship training were adequate. Where is the USMC equivalent report?
I agree with the Major that Basic RM needs serious improvement. The Army certainly realizes this or the SDM āpositionā within the squad wouldnāt even exist.
====================
[i]7-29. MISSION OF THE SQUAD DESIGNATED MARKSMAN
The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with his squad and performs all the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fires.
Iām a lot like you; HSLD and Precision classes and then competitions. The fundamentals in competition translate perfectly to the classes.
A recent Precision class I attended included an Army E-5 Silver Star back from Afghanistan. His comment was that he wished he had this long range training before going over there.
Based on what you hear, what I hear, and the report ā¦ both are needed.
In my armchair opinion thatās fundamentals in Basic and advanced afterward.
and you never know if a barfcom fantasy may come true 
.
I actually see nothing wrong with starting a new shooter out on an RDS, and think in many cases itās a good idea. Especially when weāre talking about adult shooters.
The majority of people get into shooting first because itās fun, with ādefenseā as a concept in the back of their mind. Fun is hitting the target, and having an RDS increases the likelihood of new shooters hitting the target. Splitting an atom, or hitting at 600? no. But hitting the target at 25-50 yards using an RDS is just so much simpler to pick up.
If someone is interested in preparing for the post-battery (or post-emp) world they can ALWAYS go back and learn the irons. I hear people say all the time āyeah, but they wonāt!ā In which case I say āfuck 'em, they werenāt serious about their end-use anywayā.
This may or may not differ from the military model. Having never served Iām not qualified to talk about what they do, other than to share anecdotal stories from those who have served. Given my bias it is entirely possible that I only remember the stories that jibe with my opinion. 