Fiber Optic vs. Iron Sights

[DeepEastKilla]

I'm currently saving to get myself a browning buckmark. i still haven't fully decided what model i want but one of the major decision hurdles i have to overcome is the choice between "standard" iron sights or fiber optic sights. the fiber optic is only in the front and the rear is the same on both. there are obvious pros and cons to each but I'm having troubles weighing them.


Iron Sights-
Pros: durability, less obstructive, more precise, could be painted for visibility
Cons: Hard to find, not as fast

Fiber Optic-
Pros: easy to see, fast acquisition, good for darker environments
Cons: fairly obstructive, less durable, confusion(see below)


I do like fiber optic sights but iv had some troubles with them in the past. in one case on an air rifle it had a very large front sight and made it so that you covered the entire target with the sight, which made accurate shooting hard. on my savage mk II the front fiber optic tube actually fell out. luckily it happened at home and i super glued it back in without issue but im now a bit paranoid about them. id rather not loose my front sight at the range or in the woods. the confusion issue is basically all me. im not exactly sure on how to use a fiber optic sight on a handgun. with my rifle, for the short time i used the fiber optic sights, it was easy being that the front tube was small and didnt obscure much, but with a pistol being that the sights are usually bigger and closer to your eye it may become an issue. with iron sights you put the target on the top of the front post, but do you do that with a fiber optic sight or do you cover the target? the sights are adjustable so i could move the poi easily but id rather use it properly.

any opinions are helpful, and if any buckmark owners also want to comment on which model they like best it would be great. im still not sure if i want the standard or the urx grips. the standard gripped model comes with iron sights and the urx model comes with the fiber optic.

 

[EdInk]

I like good old iron sights.

 

[HunterGuy]

All comes down to personal preferance.

 

[pilpens]

+1 Iron sights.
FO front sight only if smaller than browning buckmarks FOS-- maybe.
I had a hunter with FOS, It was too big and very bright in daylight. IF diameter was only half the size, OK.

Buckmark Model: +1 on bullseye - adjustable sear spring, adjustbale trigger. I have two, both were good out of the box. Accurate.
I had a hunter. trigger was ok with spring flip. just as accurate as the bullseye.

5.5 barrel balances better than 7 and just as accurate. 7s sometimes feel front heavy but after a few rounds, heaviness is not noticeable.

 

[gatopardo]

iron sights

iron sights

 

[DeepEastKilla]

thanks for all the comments. im still undecided but im looking more heavily at the iron sights now.


opinions still welcome as im unsure.

 

[Pahoo]

HunterGuy All comes down to personal preferance.

It really does and if you can still work with the standard iron sights, painted or un-painted then do so. My eyes need a bit more help that the fiber optics provide. They came suppied with my MK-III hunter and since then, have installed them on a MK-II Target model. I personally like them but some folk may not. I think I would look at both and see what works best for you.



Be Safe !!!

 

[DeepEastKilla]

well i defiantly like having something you can instantly see. ive been practicing with a co2 bb pistol for a while now just to get some sort of jump on learning to shoot pistols. im more of a shotgun/rifle guy but ive wanted to get into pistols for a long time.

im the kind of person that goes back and forth for a year trying to make a decision before i buy.

 

[stevieboy]

I have a bunch of handguns with iron sights and two, my CZ 75B and my S & W 625, with fiber optic front sights (plain rear).

I love the fiber optics. In the right light it's almost as if you have a laser on the target. My group sizes decreased by 50% when I started shooting my 625 with them.

 

[sakeneko]

I replaced the front iron sight on my S&W M60 .357 carry revolver with a HiViz fiber optic sight after I tried one out on my similar sized M317 .22 range revolver. For people with poor vision or who have difficulty seeing the iron sights, the fiber optic sights are wonderful. Oddly, this sight works best for me in bright light, when the CT laser dot is completely useless.

But this is definitely a matter of taste. I'd suggest trying the gun with both, and going with whatever works best for you.

 

[blume357]

I'd look around and see if I could find some fiberoptics

for both front and back.

I put a set on my Ruger MKIII target and love them. I guess in a way I'm a hypocrite... I don't really like optics on either my rifles or pistols and believe in learning to shoot with standard iron sights.... but these fireber optic high vis. sights are pretty dern good... just a slight step above iron.

 

[lmccrock]

For me, plain sights are more precise, fiber is faster. No question there. Depends on the application. Wanna shoot Steel Challenge? Use fiber. Speed, not much precision required.

Bullseye? More precision than speed.

Fun/range/plinking? Tossup. Go for whatever sounds "fun".

I bought a meter of fiber material somewhere for when the fiber breaks. Just clip off a bit and burn the ends, and ready to go. Only having to replace it once every other year or so is pretty good, considering that is on a USPSA/3gun pistol.

Lee

 

[chris in va]

I have a red dot on my CZ Kadet. Makes a world of difference in the fun factor. Both eyes open, everything is in focus, plant the dot on the target and plink away.

 

[DeepEastKilla]

im leaning more towards the fiber optic with the urx grips being that its only like 40$ more than the regular stainless.

 

[K96771]

I have the Buck Mark of which you speak and was initially attracted by the FO sight. The results were not what I expected. I found that the FO actually blotted out the target or "bled into it" and I couldn't get a consistent sight picture. I saw the standard replacement blade sight at Midway and thought I'd give it a try...it was cheap...around $5. I'll never go back. My groups shrank and I've been much happier and more consistent.

 

[orionengnr]

I have had two Ruger MkIIs with plain black sights. I bought a MkII Hunter with the fiber optic front sight--didn't work for me at all. Ended up selling it--still have a MkII.

YMMV. In general, I wouldn't get too worked up about the configuration of a range .22. Concentrate on the basics. Breath control, trigger control, sight picture.

When you have put 5 or 10 thousand rounds of .22LR downrange, have the basics mastered, have spent significant money on a carry gun, and are spending lots of money on training and ammo, then worry about gimmicks such as fiber optics, night sights, lasers, etc.

 

[mavracer]

It truely depends on the gun,the intended use and the size type of fiber.
I don't generally like them on dedicated target guns I prefer good old black on black and even back cut the front sight. I prefer Night sights and Crimson traces on my dedicated carry guns. But for IDPA/IPSC type shooting and for woods carry/hunting guns I love Fiber optic.
Don't have a Buckmark but none of my 22s wear FO sights.

 

[DeepEastKilla]

i should probably show a picture of them both for comparison. i honestly like the look of the "regular" model better.

 

[orionengnr]

Pros: easy to see, fast acquisition, good for darker environments

In my limited experience (two revolvers and one pistol) "darker environments" is a weak point for the fiber optic front sight. It needs some direct (preferably overhead) light for the fiber optic to capture and concentrate. That said, in a darker environment, it's not necessarily any worse than an iron sight...although the FO sight will likely not have the square profile of an iron sight.