A few weeks ago, a friend sent me a Facebook post by a well-known firearm and self-defense personality. In this post, the gentleman shared a strong opinion about iron sight proficiency in a world increasingly dominated by red dot pistol optics. Here’s an abridged version of his argument:
“For a private citizen or cop who carries a gun equipped with a pistol-mounted optic, iron sight proficiency is about as necessary as being able to use a paper map in a world of smartphones and 5G data. Just not necessary and kind of anachronistic. This assumes they’re using a reliable optic, though.
For the end user, techniques like ‘meat in window’ or ‘back plate’ are sufficient backup sighting systems. Time spent worrying about backup iron sights (BUIS) is probably better spent elsewhere.
Teaching irons before optics to a new shooter who intends to use an optic-equipped pistol is as silly as forcing a teen to master paper maps before they can use Siri for navigation. It’s just a waste of time.”
I disagree with this.
Why Iron Sight Proficiency Still Matters
Before I continue, let me offer a caveat: my opinion is based on my knowledge, education, and experience. In the words of the late Paul Harrell, “Your experience may vary.” That said, I see great value in being proficient with iron sights, whether or not you use a red dot optic.
Iron sights are simple, reliable, and effective. They don’t require batteries, and while they can break, it’s highly unlikely. Most handguns still come equipped with iron sights as standard, and learning to operate a pistol in its most basic configuration is, in my opinion, an essential step in mastering combative handgunnery. How competent you are with a “bare-bones” pistol is often a good indicator of your overall skill level.
Take Eli Dicken, for example. He stopped a potential mass shooter at 40 yards using a stock Glock 19 equipped with the factory-standard plastic sights that many criticise. Yet, on that day and in his hands, they were more than adequate.
The Argument Against “Never”
Some argue that if they only plan to use a red dot optic, there’s no point in learning iron sights. But “never” is an awfully long time, and life has a way of defying our plans—especially over the long term.
Moreover, I don’t believe time spent mastering any aiming system is wasted. All my pistols are iron-sight-only, yet I’ve had no trouble acquiring a red dot on borrowed pistols during courses of fire. Would I benefit from dedicated red dot training? Certainly. But skill development isn’t a zero-sum game. My proficiency with iron sights hasn’t hindered my ability to adapt to red dots—and I’ve seen the same principle apply to rifles.
Ultimately, what matters most is a foundation of strong fundamentals. Fundamental skills transfer between systems, making it easier to adapt, even if individual experiences vary.
Red Dots Can Fail
While modern red dot optics are far more reliable than their predecessors, they’re not infallible. Batteries die, circuitry malfunctions, glass breaks, and emitters fail. These failures can occur without warning. In my limited experience on training courses, I’ve seen this happen often enough to take it seriously.
I’m not saying red dot failures are common or that optics are unreliable. I’m in the process of acquiring a red dot-equipped pistol for everyday carry, which shows my confidence in the technology. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the possibility of failure and prepare accordingly. How you choose to address this reality—whether by using backup iron sights or other techniques—depends on your circumstances.
Why “Old” Skills Still Matter
Where I strongly disagree with the original post is the assertion that modern technology makes proficiency with older systems obsolete. This mindset is short-sighted. Mastering older systems builds resilience and enhances understanding.
Consider aviation. Most modern airliners feature advanced digital cockpits, yet pilots who trained on analog instruments understand the value of that education. This training anchors their skills and prepares them for situations where advanced systems might fail. While total electrical failures in modern aircraft are statistically rare, pilots are regularly tested on how to handle such scenarios during simulator checks.
The same principle applies to navigation. While GPS is incredibly reliable, it’s not infallible. Maps don’t depend on batteries or networks, and knowing how to use them can prevent disaster if technology fails. Suggesting that basic map reading is obsolete contradicts the principles of emergency preparedness—and the same is true for iron sights.
Conclusion
Mastering older, less ergonomic systems like iron sights can be challenging, but it builds valuable skills that carry over into new technologies. It makes you more adaptable, enhances your understanding, and prepares you for unexpected challenges. Whether it’s a red dot failing, a GPS losing signal, or an aircraft experiencing an electrical issue, knowing how to operate “outdated” systems is a tool you’ll be glad to have in your back pocket.
At the end of the day, the most important thing is a solid foundation in the fundamentals. These skills transfer between systems and make you a more well-rounded and prepared shooter. After all, life rarely goes as planned.
Written by Gideon Joubert.
Gideon is the owner and editor of Paratus.
