Why aren't electronic/magnified sights standard on guns?

[Fremmer]

Is the next evolution in firearms consist of electronic and/or magnified sighting systems being standard on all guns? I realize that iron sights work and are reliable, but perhaps an electronic system would work better for the human eye (one focal plane I think is the correct term) and result in better accuracy for most.

What do you think?

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Not everyone would want them.

 

[mrvco]

Standard? Exisisting scopes and red dot optics aren't even standard. Heck, my AR didnt even come with BUIS standard.

 

[GBExpat]

Why aren't electronic/magnified sights standard on guns?

Cost ... and that is still (and has always been) an area of personal preference.

 

[Telekinesis]

Probably the best answer is price. If every new gun you bought cost $500 (or more) over what it does now just because it comes with a built in optic, I don't think a lot of people would be very happy.

You also have to deal with the fact that what one person loves as far as optics go, another might hate. For example I don't really like eotech sights. Nothing wrong with them, but they just don't work for me. If thats what a gun manufacturer wants to sell with the rifle, im not going to buy it regardless of how much I like the weapon. I'm not going to want to pay extra for a sight that I'm just going to take off and throw away. And that's not even getting into the myriad of different scopes and reticles for long range rifles. This is one area of firearms where the end user is definitely the right person to be deciding what to to specifically use on his gun.

Also gun owners are not necessarily well known for being early adopters. For every guy who is planning on picking up a brand new type of gun/package, there's probably 10 others muttering something about "back in my day...steel and wood...new fangled...tupperware...etc".

 

[RussB]

Is the next evolution in firearms consist of electronic and/or magnified sighting systems being standard on all guns? I realize that iron sights work and are reliable, but perhaps an electronic system would work better for the human eye (one focal plane I think is the correct term) and result in better accuracy for most.

What do you think?

highlighted...

 

[desidog]

Irons work in all weather conditions and temperatures, without batteries. If they've been in the attic for years it doesn't matter.

Can your electronic sight do that?

 

[Potatohead]

Also gun owners are not necessarily well known for being early adopters. For every guy who is planning on picking up a brand new type of gun/package, there's probably 10 others muttering something about "back in my day...steel and wood...new fangled...tupperware...etc"

Thanks! I needed a good chuckle today!

 

[Sam1911]

In a way, they are. By which I mean NOT that they literally come with the gun, but that a huge number of guns now come set up to be used primarily -- and in many cases, ONLY -- with optics of some kind. How many ARs now come with rail top receivers instead of the carry handle? Most. How many bolt-action rifles are sold without even a set of iron sights mounted? Most, again.

Handguns are the real hold-out, and that's because of how people use them. Most handgun use -- or intended use anyway (not simply range-plinking) -- largely precludes having an optic mounted. But folks are even experimenting with that. Carry guns with very low-profile red-dot sights low-set into specially milled slides, that don't even have iron sights at all. Whether that really takes off, or is proved to be simply not worth the effort and cost, is hard to predict.

But few, if any, shooters really WANT the manufacturer of their firearm to sell them a scope or red-dot sight, too. Too much variety and possibility there to be stuck with whatever the manufacturer locked themselves into.

 

[Warp]

Is the next evolution in firearms consist of electronic and/or magnified sighting systems being standard on all guns? I realize that iron sights work and are reliable, but perhaps an electronic system would work better for the human eye (one focal plane I think is the correct term) and result in better accuracy for most.

What do you think?

Iron sights work and are by far and away the most reliable, durable, rugged, longest lasting option there is.

They are going to be the dominant option that most factory firearms are equipped with for that reason, as well as cost.

 

[gunsablazin]

I have red dot scopes on my three favorite range/SD rifles, they make hitting stuff at high speed very easy. I also have very good BUIS on these guns as well, for serious use no rifle should be without a set of irons.

 

[Rembrandt]

I could fill a couple ammo boxes with electronic sights that are now antiques due to evolving technology. Spendy at the time.....now relegated to the electronic heap along with Pac Man and B&W TV sets.

 

[Mauserguy]

In addition to the reasons mentioned above, I would also be concerned with damage resulting from shock.
Mauserguy

 

[hso]

Price
Reliability
Price

 

[Cee Zee]

No one has mentioned the real reason to choose iron sights. You can pick up a moving target far, far easier with iron sights. There's no need to have your eye in the correct spot for being able to see through a glass scope. There's a far wider field of vision than with electronic sights and not only that but the view you see is not magnified and is therefore what you have been used to using since you were born. I stopped squirrel hunting with a scope for the most part because I can hit a moving squirrel far better with iron sights. I took the scope off my 30.06 because I converted it to use for bear defense. I don't expect to have to use that but you just never know even with black bears. That rifle has a scout type setup for the iron sights. They were an aftermarket product. My SKS's also have mid-rifle rear sights for fast target acquisition. There are very good reasons to use iron sights.

There's a place in the world for both setups. I'd be very disappointed if it became impossible to get iron sights. VERY disappointed.

 

[dodo bird]

DEmp? Solar flare?? You never know

 

[vamo]

I don't own a gun that a top of the line optic wouldn't cost more than the gun itself. Not to mention I like having ironsites standard just incase the optic fails I'll have the option to remove it and still have a functioning weapon.

 

[Warp]

No one has mentioned the real reason to choose iron sights. You can pick up a moving target far, far easier with iron sights. There's no need to have your eye in the correct spot for being able to see through a glass scope. There's a far wider field of vision than with electronic sights and not only that but the view you see is not magnified and is therefore what you have been used to using since you were born. I stopped squirrel hunting with a scope for the most part because I can hit a moving squirrel far better with iron sights. I took the scope off my 30.06 because I converted it to use for bear defense. I don't expect to have to use that but you just never know even with black bears. That rifle has a scout type setup for the iron sights. They were an aftermarket product. My SKS's also have mid-rifle rear sights for fast target acquisition. There are very good reasons to use iron sights.

There's a place in the world for both setups. I'd be very disappointed if it became impossible to get iron sights. VERY disappointed.

Actually a red dot sight is far, far easier to pick up quickly and far, far more forgiving on eye placement than iron sights

 

[Fremmer]

Isn't the single focal plane offered by an electronic or scope make them faster than aligning sights and trying to hit a fuzzy target?

 

[Nickel Plated]

A good set of optics that would be worth having a gun set up for as standard are expensive. I don't think most people would be too happy paying an extra $500-$700 for a gun just because of a set of optics they might not even like.

I think the best thing for optics manufacturers to do instead of trying to force you to buy their scopes as a standard feature on a gun you might want is to simply continue to work on reducing the cost and price of good optics that way it's not a big deal for someone to just buy a set they like along with the gun they're buying.

 

[Warp]

Isn't the single focal plane offered by an electronic or scope make them faster than aligning sights and trying to hit a fuzzy target?

Magnification makes things slower.

And the target should appear fuzzy with a scope or irons as you can only focus on one plane at a time. Be that the front sight or the optic reticle, that's where your focus is, not on the target.

UNLESS you have an unmagnified optic, such as a red dot sight or holographic sight, or even a 'true 1x' on the bottom end of a variable scope, with an illuminated reticle, and you aim using the BAC (bindon aiming concept) where you keep both eyes open, focus on the target, and the illuminated reticle/dot super imposes over the target.

 

[denton]

For an explanation, I think you need look no farther than the Remington Etronx system. A lot of people don't want something that turns into a paperweight if the batteries are dead, or that ceases to function if switch or battery contacts have formed a non-conducting film through non-use. That's really inconvenient when the nearest store is a four mile hike and a 30 minute drive.

 

[Sam1911]

No one has mentioned the real reason to choose iron sights. You can pick up a moving target far, far easier with iron sights. There's no need to have your eye in the correct spot for being able to see through a glass scope.

Yeah, that's pretty much the old 20th century paradigm on "scope" use. However, so much has changed with sighting systems in the last 10 years or so that it is no longer -- even a little bit -- true.

(See Warp's comments to get the rest of that story.)

Batteries? Yeah, could be an issue, but even that's falling by the wayside. Some optics have sights that can be left ON for YEARS and before they run down.

Some, don't even use batteries.

Heck, I have an early generation Russian red-dot scope I bought about 10 years ago that has been on several rifles in that time. I just checked it a week ago and the batteries are still GREAT. I can hardly believe that myself, but it is true.

 

[Warp]

RE: No batteries. My primary rifle wears a Trijicon Accupoint TR24G. 1-4x variable, 'true 1x' bottom end that works well with both eyes open, illuminated reticle, no batteries or electronics. Instead, fiber optics (like an ACOG) + Tritium lamp (like handgun night sights) = you can always see the reticle, no matter what the lighting conditions are. (it can be black in rare circumstances, instead of lit up green, but even in those circumstances is stands out very well and is very easy to see)

 

[pretzelxx]

I still like my iron sights over say a red dot scope on an m4. If it was an eotech, I would prefer the by a thousand!